Finance Committee on Nov. 13th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay.

What the clerk is saying is that when you're travelling there have been occasions when it's only one language that has been allowed at this committee. So I don't know if you do that through unanimous consent or what you do with it, but that shows good will. Hopefully, we'll respect the witnesses enough.

This is always about communication. We can fight the language war in another place.

Go ahead.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I just feel that the witnesses who appear work hard, but a lot of times they appear before the committee and don't realize that translation is available to them. A lot of times it's the witnesses' fault because at the last minute they make changes, but it doesn't make our job any easier when we don't have access to the witnesses.

I'm not asking for any amendment. I just want to make sure the witnesses are aware that they have translation services available. A lot of times witnesses have appeared and have not been made aware that those services are available.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Are we okay with this? As long as we show some discretion on this one, is that fair?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay, it's moved.

Number seven, we have a motion on working meals.

[An hon. member]

So moved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

(Motion agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Moving on to number eight, in camera meeting transcripts, we need a motion for this.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

So moved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

All in favour?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Number nine concerns notice of substantive motions. This is the 48 hours.

[An hon. member]

So moved.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Just to clarify, Mr. Chair, what do we mean by 48 hours? Does that mean 48 hours or does that mean two working days or...? We seem to have a problem with this, and I just want to clear it up.

So today the committee will convene at 5:30. Will we be able to present a motion for discussion for Thursday at 3:30?

I just want to make it clear, that's all. I'm open to whatever the committee agrees on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Rick.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I think that's a fair point. One way to help might be to look at how other committees decide when the time starts. I'm on a couple of committees where once the motion gets submitted to the clerk, the clock starts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Paul, and then John.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I would like for us to find a solution that would allow us to debate, on Thursday, a motion drafted following a meeting on the previous Tuesday. If we debate on Tuesday afternoon and draft a motion on Wednesday morning, it will not be debated until a week later. That is too long. We have to find a way for the number of hours...Let's be practical. We work from 3:30 to 5:00 p.m. If we drafted something before 7:00 p.m. so that we could work on it the following Thursday, we would need 36 hours, or 30 hours, which would give us enough time. The ideal time would be 24 hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I think what the clerk is saying is that “two sleeps” is the general term. But it depends on how long you sleep, I guess.

John, go ahead.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I don't need that many sleeps. I would just go for the one sleep. I would support the notion that it be 24 hours. I've never quite understood why it takes—

Most motions can be written on the back of a napkin, and frequently are. I see no real reason why we need 48 hours to study a motion that's frequently less than a paragraph in length.

So I would propose that 24 hours deals with the problem that Mr. Crête just raised. In practice there is really no good reason why you need 48 hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I think the history of committees has been 48 hours. I think the original concern was that at 46 hours, and you're going to stop it—Generally it's the two-sleep rule, two days.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

But if you have 24, you avoid all that problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Not really, because you'll have the same problem: is it exactly 24, is it two hours out, is it two minutes out? It depends on where you want to draw the line. That's why I think we went with the two sleeps.

Go ahead, Massimo.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I think the problem with this is technology—the fact that we can send in a motion by e-mail and accept the reply right away. I think we should be flexible enough to be aware that we do have an electronic mechanism in place. I don't want to be a slave to my BlackBerry and have to wake up in the middle of the night to see if there have been any notices of motion sent in the last 24 hours.

So I'm okay with the 36-hour kind of thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Yes, so it's two sleeps, that sort of thing.

I don't know who's first here.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I was just going to say that what happens is exactly what Massimo just described. You end up with somebody saying, “I didn't get the motion, it came to me last night, I didn't see it.” The extra time really is what that's about.

I mean, you guys drew up the Kelowna accord on the back of a napkin, I understand, so certainly a motion happening here at finance committee could be worked through.