Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2017

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you.

I just want to bring to the committee's attention that the notification to go clause-by-clause came to us at 12:06 this afternoon. I don't sit on this committee, but it's my understanding that on May 3, 2016, the committee voted to allow for 48 hours' notice whenever clause-by-clause consideration was going to be initiated. It does require unanimous consent to break this committee rule as per the motion.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I'm wondering why we just had notice at 12 o'clock. How did that come to be?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Pierre Nantel]

Thank you for your question.

I am going to check with the clerk on that, because I don't know what to tell you.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Andrew Bartholomew Chaplin]

I received instructions from the chair's office this morning to make arrangements for clause-by-clause consideration. It took until noon for all the arrangements to be put in place and to get out a changed notice to the members. I don't think at this point I can comment much about the 48 hours' notice. As I understand it, it is in relation to those members of parties who have no representation on the committee. They received notice approximately two minutes after I issued the changed notice of meeting.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

That's right. It was at 12:06 p.m.

[The Clerk]

Yes, it would have been around 12:06 p.m., sir.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you.

Through you, Mr. Chair, is my interpretation of the motion that was passed by this committee on May 3, 2016, correct? I would ask the clerk that.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Pierre Nantel]

I'm going to give the clerk time to check those communications. It won't be long.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you.

Can I ask as well if the committee is technically in violation of this rule that was passed?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Pierre Nantel]

I will check that with the staff.

That said, Mr. Brassard, I am perfectly comfortable telling you that, overall, normally anyways, the atmosphere in this committee is very collegial and so we don't have issues like these arising very often. Nevertheless, you certainly have the right to raise the matter, and I will ask the experts to provide a clear answer to your question.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

If I may, Mr. Chair, I'm certainly not trying to cause any grievance here. There are rules in place. They are intended to be followed. The committee did unanimously, as far as I understand, pass this motion, so I think clarification is needed.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Pierre Nantel]

Absolutely.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you.

[The Clerk]

If I may, I will read from the appendix that was circulated to the independent members. It is an extract of the minutes of Tuesday, May 3, 2016. It reads:

That, in relation to Orders of Reference from the House respecting Bills,

(a) the Clerk of the Committee shall, upon the Committee receiving such an Order of Reference, write to each Member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the Committee to invite those Members to file with the Clerk of the Committee, in both official languages, any amendments to the Bill, which is the subject of the said Order, which they would suggest that the Committee consider;

(b) suggested amendments filed, pursuant to paragraph (a), at least 48 hours prior to the start of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill to which the amendments relate shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration, provided that the Committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given Bill; and

(c) during the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a Member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.

It makes no reference to the members of the committee, only to those members who are members of parties not represented on the committee.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Can I ask another question, then? Have the amendments been given in writing? Have you received any?

[The Clerk]

I have one.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Pierre Nantel]

Just to make sure we have the same thing, you're referring to the amendment I have for clause 1.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

I'm asking in general if any amendments have been received?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Pierre Nantel]

One has been submitted.

Go ahead, Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'm not normally a member of this committee, but this is unusual. I guess we're asking the chair if he can assure us that the members who are not part of the committee have had this opportunity. The reason to give 48 hours is so that people do have that opportunity to respond. Can you assure us that they have had the opportunity? If they haven't been notified, how would anyone know, on a Thursday afternoon, that if they have an interest in this matter, they have the opportunity to participate?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Pierre Nantel]

You are absolutely right. My understanding is that the other members who are not here did not receive 48 hours' notice. Therefore, if I heard correctly, the government members would like to postpone the clause-by-clause study to a future meeting. That way, we would be in compliance with the rule. If you are of the same mind, then that is good for you.

I don't have any experience in this kind of situation, but I am inclined to consider and grant the request of the party in power.

May I make that decision? I am asking the legislative clerk.

According to the sage advice I have received, I'm going to ask Mr. Brassard, Mr. Waugh, or Mr. Anderson to move the motion that the clause-by-clause study be postponed, a motion the government members will, I'm sure, support.

Mr. Picard has a question.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Before the motion is moved, I would like to know whether it is even necessary to move a motion in light of the procedural problem. How can anyone oppose a motion provided for in the standing orders?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Pierre Nantel]

That's an excellent question.

Mr. Brassard, did you have something to add?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

I missed the interpretation of Mr. Picard's comments.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I'll do it in both languages. How can we oppose a motion that was already stated in the procedures? Do we need a motion to do that?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Pierre Nantel]

Do we need a motion to do that?

Go ahead, Madame Dabrusin.