Evidence of meeting #1 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 40th 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.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
My problem is that I don't think it's the same in French and in English, and I read it first in French. That could happen.
In French, it reads: “[...] que le Comité soit saisi d'une motion de fond qui ne porte pas directement sur l'affaire [...]“, whereas in English, it says
“unless the substantive motion relates directly”.
February 2nd, 2009 / 4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
My understanding is that the motion needs 48 hours and that's it, and it cannot be discussed within 48 hours unless it comes to the main committee and they get unanimous consent from the main committee. That's it. That's what I understand. This is the way it should be done.
Conservative
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
We should say that 48 hours' notice should be observed before any substantive motion should be brought up to the main committee. That's it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. That's exactly what Mr. Lunney suggested, and which is what the French version says.
I have Mr. Crête and then Mr. Dewar.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
We have to make sure that this housekeeping motion makes it clear that the motion does not relate directly to the business that the committee is considering. We must make sure that it is not a way of blocking motions that do relate to the matter under discussion. It is very important for that to remain in the motion. I understood that the amendment was removing it. If we remove it, we are going to open up the same debate every time a motion on the question under discussion comes up.
The French text seem very well written to me. It makes it clear that we are talking about substantive motions that do not relate directly to the business that the committee is considering at the time. That absolutely must stay so that we do not have to be constantly debating whether a motion is in order or not.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I'd like to go back to what Mr. Lunney was saying. For substantive motions, this is where the chair has had to rule in the past--when somebody brings a motion to committee and the chair says this motion is not part of what we're studying here; it needs 48 hours. That's when we say that. But I think that clause is in there because—Mr. Crête may be right, and Mr. Patry can correct me if I'm wrong—if we are in a study and coming out of that study we want a motion for the next meeting, or a motion specific to what we're studying, which we have done many a time.... In fact governments may bring a motion forward that says, considering what we've heard today, can we move this? And I'll say yes because it is in line with what we are discussing. So that might remove the ability to do that.
The clerk.
The Clerk
It would mean that every substantive motion would have to have 48 hours' notice. So it could be a limiting factor on the committee's ability to work.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
If a motion were put in place to change the direction or to move away...then I could say, listen, you have to resubmit that and give it 48 hours.
We've always done that. That's the chair's position on that. I see what you're saying.
Mr. Dewar.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I just want to ask the clerk, through you, what the standard practice of committees is regarding this.
The Clerk
There is a standard motion. We have a list of motions here that are slightly different from the ones that this committee adopts. It is exactly like this one. The only thing that's different is they leave a blank for the number of hours of notice. Each committee can decide whether it's 48 or 72 hours. But it is exactly like this unless a substantive motion relates directly to the business.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I give the example of RADARSAT-2 in the last Parliament. We had hearings, a study, and then there was a motion put forward supported by everyone. I think it should remain for reasons aforementioned. That's at the chair's discretion.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Mr. Chair, hearing what appears to be a measure of consensus coming from around the table here, perhaps we do need to fix this so that the French matches the English. Then perhaps we need to change that to make sure the French includes the “unless” clause so that they're the same. Currently they're not compatible.
Conservative
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I am going to vote against any amendment to the text as it presently stands. I want us to pass the existing motion. I want to tell you this right now so that we do get into any useless debate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you.
We will now vote on Mr. Lunney's amendment, or did you want to withdraw it?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
The next one, colleagues, is that for motions requiring 48 hours’ notice, the chair be authorized to defer consideration until 15 minutes prior to the adjournment time for the meeting as indicated in the notice of the meeting.
Again, this was put in place to keep that 15 minutes so that motions got dealt with.
Mr. Dewar, are you moving it?
Conservative