Government Operations Committee on June 20th, 2006

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Madame Ratansi.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I just want clarification then. Madame Nash said that she voted under a misperception. What are our procedures?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Unfortunately, once the motion is voted---

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

So she can now vote....

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

She can vote for this motion if she wishes, knowing full well that the other one falls aside.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

That it is now the “jobs” not the “real estate”. Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Monsieur Kramp.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I'm a little disturbed, in a way. This is an important issue for many people, and I would like to see this committee unanimously pass a motion. I really believe it's feasible and it's possible.

I don't think anyone has any difficulty with the 75-25. I don't think there's any difficulty at all. But I really believe there is some difference of opinion on a number of areas. I'd mentioned the one about crown corporations, and I think we need some discussion on that, Mr. Proulx.

In addition, by specifically stating “various bodies”, there could be an inference that the department might need to have 75-25, not only the reporting of that. To me it's not clear. It could be wrong, because one jurisdiction in one department in one location might not have the capacity to do 75-25. It might be 60-40, as long as the overall balance is there. My concern is on getting the overall balance, rather than saying “single department”.

My concern is that by listing it in this way, the inference could sway people to believe and/or have the impression that the particular department, regardless of where it is located, would have to adhere to 75%. I think it might not be your intention, but it could be interpreted that way.

We have to rethink how to propose this. I'm not willing to put this off to another day, but I am suggesting that we need to think about this. Let's try to work together, whether it's now, tomorrow, during the day, or the next day. We can present something on Thursday that we can unanimously pass and send the message that this is what the committee believes in and what we all in spirit want.

I couldn't support your motion the way it is right now. It's why I think we need to have some discussion and go along with the original intent of Madam Thibault and your intent as well. I think we all concur, but give us the latitude of a day to try to work through this so that we can be unanimous in our efforts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Madame Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I am very concerned about moving any further on this without more discussion and consultation. This affects a lot of people, and I want to be really clear on what we're moving forward with.

The problem arises right now because of an earlier lack of clarity. My view is that this is too important to be developed on the fly. I would really like a motion to reconsider what we've previously done, to have further discussion, and to bring it back. I think that would be in order.

If there's an unwillingness to do that, perhaps we can agree that we will not vote on this motion until the next meeting. I want to have further consultation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Chair, it seems to be that this amendment, as proposed by Mr. Proulx, is really a major change from what all of us in this committee meeting read 48 hours ago.

If we want to honour the spirit of what we said, that motions need 48 hours, if it's okay with the clerk, I would move that we table the motion, which has been amended, until Thursday. We can possibly discuss the new motion that we received today. We can have adequate time to study it and to do the research that Ms. Nash is concerned about doing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We're now debating Mr. Proulx's amendment. That's what we're on.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

If you table a motion, does it not override that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

What was that? I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

In terms of the rules of order, for example, when somebody has the floor and is moving to table the motion, does that not override the amendment?

[The Clerk]

When an amendment is proposed, you have to deal with the amendment. You can't deal with something else before that is done.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

We can table the amendment.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Let's call the vote and see if we can move to another day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We could table it anyway, but we have to deal with the other motion before we can do anything with your proposal.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Do we follow the actual rules of the committee?

[The Clerk]

It's the very same as in the House, if you want to reconsider the first amended motion.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

We're not talking about that, though.

[The Clerk]

No. You would need unanimous consent. But that's done with; it's over. So now it's the other amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Warkentin.