Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 1st, 2007

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the motion reads as follows:

That one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the Committee Clerk's office for consultation by members of the Committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'll call the question.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I need a mover for the last motion.

Monsieur Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the Clerk explained to me earlier that these were routine motions adopted by virtually every committee. I would remind you that in the case of this committee, no notice of motion is required, among other things, because of the urgent nature of business before the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, pursuant to the authority vested in it by our Standing Orders.

I ask that we dispense with the motion entitled “Notice of Motions”. No notice of motion is required here. Motions are moved on the spot. Instead, there should be a motion respecting the striking of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business. However, I don't see it in the handout.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, I'll just remind members that we are dealing with motions, not amendments, during the legislative study. This is on notice of motions.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Therefore, I would move the following motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Zero hours. Is that correct, Monsieur Guimond?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

There would be no required notice.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

All right. Do we need to pass that motion or just leave it out? Just leave it out.

All in favour of just leaving it out?

Mr. Epp, then Mr. Reid, and then Monsieur Guimond.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I believe it would be more reasonable, in order to protect all members of the committee from situations where they are sort of taken by surprise, that there be a 24-hour notice required. Then of course if the committee agrees, they can always, by unanimous consent, go ahead anyway with the motion if it's deemed necessary by everyone present. That is my opinion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Epp.

Mr. Reid, and then Monsieur Guimond.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

That's okay, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Guimond, then Mr. Proulx, and then Mr. Godin.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

As a member of this standing committee since 2000, that is for the past seven years, I can say that this is how we proceed and it works well. When a motion is unexpectedly tabled to the committee and the majority of members are opposed to it, it is rejected immediately. That's what we call democracy. I submit that there should be no required notice. Besides, I don't think a motion is necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

You have the floor, Mr. Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the same vein, I see absolutely no need for a required notice of motion within a specific timeframe. As I see it, people should simply be allowed to move a motion. Period.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Like Mr. Guimond, I too have been a member of this committee since 2000. We've never required advance notice because this committee reports directly to the House of Commons. We deal with procedure and with House affairs. We can therefore hold urgent debates. Requiring 24 hours' notice can impede the business of the House. This committee attends to all House affairs, hence its name, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

For that reason, I cannot support a motion that would require giving notice. We discuss this very matter each time we resume our meetings. Ultimately, everyone agrees that we need to move forward in order for the House to conduct business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Are there any further comments on the subject? I'm sensing that the consensus will be that the motion be left out. Is there any argument against that? We could hold a vote. We could read the motion in and it could fail.

What are members advising the chair to do? I'm seeing that the motion should be left out. Zero hours, no motion...?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

No motion here, but we need a motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Yes, okay. I need a mover to read this motion. Mr. Guimond brought up the zero hours. I'll call on Mr. Guimond to read the motion in, with “zero” notice, and then we'll call the question.

Monsieur Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I'd like to table a motion to ensure that the purpose of the notice of motion is not lost. Off the top of my head, the motion could read like this: That there be no notice required before any motion can be brought before the committee for its consideration.

Notice of motion should be required for substantive motions that do not relate directly to business under consideration by the committee. If there is no mention of required notice, do we then still have the right to move a motion that does not relate directly to business then under consideration? Without going so far as to say “zero hours”, we should at least give committee members the right to move...

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Either we say “That no notice be required for any motion to be considered by the Committee [...] or we leave “zero hours”.