Yes.
Evidence of meeting #26 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #26 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
So Mr. Allen is moving his motion....
I'll get it straight here. For clarification purposes, we can only deal with one motion at a time. Are you looking to amend the existing motion?
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Okay.
It's been moved by Mr. Allen that the motion be deferred--
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
--until after a decision by cabinet has been taken.
We're getting there.
It's been moved by Mr. Allen that this motion be deferred until the decision by cabinet has been taken.
On the motion for deferral, Mr. Donnelly.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
I think I'll call a point of order at this point. We now have two motions?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Yes. This motion takes precedence over your motion that was tabled.
On the point of order of Mr. Donnelly, the clerk and I have had a discussion.
Mr. Allen, I need to ask you if you would withdraw your motion at this point in time until we deal with the motion that's on the floor, the motion of Mr. Donnelly. The clerk is telling me that we need to deal with the motion that's on the floor first. Or you can amend the motion of Mr. Donnelly.
Is that clear?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
I'm not sure I agree, but that's clear. I have grown to understand you, Mr. Chair. I don't like it, but I understand it.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
The whole principle behind a motion to defer is to be able to not deal with the motion--that's the whole principle behind it--until a given time. And it's my understanding that committees certainly have that ability to do that if they think the motion that's moved would be better dealt with when there is more information and so on.
So it seems somewhat counter-productive to then have to.... There is no such thing as a motion to defer if you have to deal with the motion that you're trying to defer first. That's the whole point of the motion to defer. My understanding is that it's in order.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
That is not where I have a problem.
I don't have a problem with the clerk and the chair discussing matters between themselves, but I do have a problem with the chair and the Conservative spokesperson engaging in discussions. No thank you.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
I understand, and I certainly was not having a discussion. The member pointed out part of the rules and there is a bit of confusion here. The clerk wants to call in another colleague for discussion on this situation. That's all we're talking about here right now.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Perhaps I can help you. In my humble opinion, perhaps Mr. Allen's motion is a little premature. We are simply having a discussion. Mr. Donnelly will certainly wish to comment on this matter. Then there will be a vote to decide whether or not to defer the motion. If the motion is deferred, that will put an end to the discussion. However, if we vote not to defer the motion, then we are back to discussing the main motion. We could amend it again, if necessary, to set aside the idea of a study or something else. We could have a discussion. As I see it, while Mr. Allen did move a motion, we're merely at the discussion stage. It doesn't preclude us from taking further action and it's not a problem.
Once we've discussed this together and once various points have been made, then we can vote with a clear conscience on whether or not to defer the motion. To my mind, it's not overly complicated and it doesn't adversely affect the motion per se. If I decide that I don't want to defer the motion, I will vote nay. And if that's the will of the majority, then we'll go back to discussing the original motion. If I decide to vote yea...
My decision will depend on lot on what Mr. Donnelly has to say. I think it could work. I don't have a problem with discussing whether or not we should defer the motion in question. That's quite acceptable. Otherwise, it would mean that any motion to defer a motion could not be passed until such time as a vote has been taken on the main motion. If that were the case, we could never move a motion to defer another motion. That's my understanding of things.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
I will call the meeting back to order.
Mr. Allen has moved that the motion be deferred until the decision by cabinet has been taken. That motion is a dilatory motion. It is non-debatable and that motion has to be put to a vote at this point in time.
(Motion negatived)
The motion is defeated.
We will now go back to the original motion, which was moved by Mr. Donnelly.
Mr. Donnelly, you're next on the list.
Thank you for you patience.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to our clerk for going the extra mile there and figuring out our way forward here.
I just wanted to clarify a few things that have been said in terms of my intent with this motion.
Going to Monsieur Blais' comment or suggestion, I think it is a good suggestion. That is essentially the intent of what I was hoping with this motion. I think the word “study” may be confusing, but essentially what I'm hoping is to have DFO officials come and clarify the situation as to perhaps process.
I was approached on this by first nations. They wanted to speak to this committee on the issue and they're very concerned about the proposal. Regardless of cabinet's decision, they did want to speak to this committee. They impressed upon me the importance of that. I'm quite fine if this committee has other parties it would like to include in this discussion. What I'm hoping to have is a hearing, a limited hearing--one committee meeting, ideally--where we hear from the parties involved. In this case, I would like to propose that there are several local first nations groups that are very concerned about this.
In terms of the process that was raised earlier, I just want to refer to earlier in the year where we had two motions that were not on the work plan, that were not dealt with at subcommittee, that were in fact dealt with exactly like this and ended up becoming our work plan.
One was on the snow crab issue and the other was actually on the aquaculture issue, both of which we're studying right now. I just want to remind the committee, and being a new committee member, that's what I'm used to.... I'm certainly open to amending the process, learning how we do things and how we operate, and changing accordingly. I'm very open to that.
Secondly, I think the word “study” in the motion may have caused confusion, but I think Monsieur Blais has mentioned what he feels would be a good way forward, which is what I was hoping and intending with this motion, which is to have an initial hearing of the concerned--in this case, the concerned party being the first nations.
I think I will leave it at that.