Evidence of meeting #1 for Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, may I verify the wording with Ms. Alleslev? I've written something down, but I want to make sure that it is correct for everybody.
The motion would read, with the amendment, “That all documents submitted for committee business that do not come from a federal department, members' offices, or that have not been translated by the Translation Bureau”, and then it continues from there.
Is that correct, Ms. Alleslev?
Conservative
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I just want to ask Ms. Alleslev a question.
Ms. Alleslev, I agree with the amendment. I think that it's fine. I just want to make sure that the purpose is to enable us to give the committee documents that have already been translated by our offices or by our House leader's office. The documents must always be in both official languages before they're sent to committee members.
What you're saying is that these documents shouldn't go back to the Translation Bureau. Is that right?
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
That's exactly what I'm saying. We can provide an opinion and submit documents that have already been translated.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I still believe that the Translation Bureau is the right resource. On several occasions, in different committees, I've seen some very bad translations. I stand by my motion.
Liberal
The Clerk
It is a vote on the amendment of Ms. Alleslev, the addition of “members' offices”.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I have nothing to add with regard to the main motion. I'm prepared to vote on the issue.
The Clerk
The vote is on the main motion as amended.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
With your permission, Mr. Chair, I'll move my other two motions. The second motion concerns technical tests for witnesses. It reads as follows:
That the clerk inform each witness who is to appear before the Committee that the House Administration support team must conduct technical tests to check the connectivity and the equipment used to ensure the best possible sound quality; and that the Chair advises the Committee, at the start of each meeting, of any witness who did not perform the required technical tests.
You have received by email the text of the motion in both languages.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Raj Saini
Do I have consent?
I believe we have consent, Madam Clerk.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Savard-Tremblay, do you have anything else to present?
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
My last motion concerns substantive motions and motions in amendment of a substantive motion in writing in both official languages. It reads as follows:
That the text of any substantive motion or any motion in amendment of a substantive motion be distributed in writing in both official languages to all Committee members before the Committee begins debate on such a motion.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl.
I just want to clarify one thing.
I don't want us to lose the ability to move motions related to the topic at hand. If we want to move significant motions, it makes sense to submit them in writing before the meeting. However, at a meeting on committee business, for example, sometimes it makes sense to move a motion related to the discussion under way.
Your motion states that amendments must also be submitted in advance. However, amendments are sometimes moved during the discussion. I don't want to limit the ability of committee members to move amendments related to the topic under discussion. This is what concerns me about the motion.
Mr. Savard-Tremblay, could you provide some clarifications that may address this concern? Is this really your intention in moving this motion?
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I totally agree that we must respond in real time.
However, if any committee member were to move an amendment on the spot, for example, nothing would stop us from taking a minute or two to put it in writing.
Of course, we must be ready to respond. I argued earlier that we don't always need notice and that we can still respond on the spot when a motion is moved. The same thing applies here. However, a substantive motion must be introduced in writing, obviously.
