Evidence of meeting #19 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The third motion pertains to substantive motions introduced in the course of the committee's work. Its purpose is to require that the text of any substantive motion or any motion in amendment of a substantive motion be distributed in writing in both official languages to all committee members before the committee begins debate on such a motion.
I should point out that we recently experienced a situation like this, and adjusted to it quite well. Mr. Vaughan had brought an amendment, and we requested that the motion be translated and sent to us in writing.
The goal is not to prevent debate, but to ensure that when the time comes to vote, we have the written text in both official languages.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Ms. Chabot.
Colleagues, you have the motion before you. Are there any interventions?
Ms. Dancho, please.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have some serious doubts about this motion. In fact, I don't think that what my colleague is proposing will work very well.
For instance, earlier today, barely 10 minutes ago, I put forward an amendment to my colleague's motion. Even though she didn't have a translated version, it all went very smoothly.
Members are entitled to propose amendments or sub-amendments on the fly during a committee meeting. This is part of parliamentary privilege. That's why I don't think what my colleague is proposing in her motion will work.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Ms. Dancho, you're right to mention that we have the right to propose amendments to substantive motions during debate. However, there are rules requiring that motions be tabled 48 hours in advance.
The goal is to ensure that the wording of motions being voted upon are properly understood. When everything happens quickly, and the motion is moved only verbally and not translated, it's sometimes difficult to keep up. Fortunately, we have not encountered such situations here very often, but we need to use all means available to us so that we can do our work and vote in an informed manner, whether in committee or in the House.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This motion was rejected by the Special Committee on the Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States for precisely the reasons just mentioned by Ms. Dancho.
We've just had an instance of Ms. Dancho proposing an amendment to Ms. Chabot's motion, and we never heard anything about the clerk sending everyone an email containing the English and French versions of the amendment. And it's difficult for the clerk to translate such proposals herself.
The current process already states that motions requiring prior notice of 48 hours must be translated.
As for our committee, it's up to the chair to ensure that everyone has properly understood the motion or amendment before moving on to the vote. If a member of the committee has not clearly understood the meaning of a motion or an amendment, the member should point this out and request a translation. This process has worked well so far and I don't think it's necessary to adopt this motion.
If we begin to see problems arising as a result of motions or amendments being voted on without being properly understood, then I could see why such a proposal might be useful. However, in view of the motion's wording, I think that it would slow down our work unnecessarily.
Perhaps Ms. Chabot could have another look at the matter and decide whether the motion is really necessary. Given the current wording, I would have to vote against it, because it's too onerous.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I'd just like to echo the comments of my respected colleagues Anthony Housefather and Raquel Dancho.
I, as well, will not be voting in favour of this motion.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
I don't want to prolong the debate, but I believe it's important that motions being put to the vote be clear.
I'm prepared to propose an amendment to my own motion that would not make it applicable prior to the start of committee debate, but rather prior to the vote. The goal is not to prevent debate while awaiting the written motion in both official languages. It is rather to make sure that the motion or amendment has been properly understood when the time comes to vote on it.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Ms. Chabot, there is a minor technical problem. Well, it's not really a technical problem, but rather a procedural problem: you cannot propose an amendment to your own motion. It would have to be done some other way. For example, you could withdraw your motion and present a new one. Another member could also propose the amendment to your motion, but you can't do it yourself.
Does the clerk wish to add anything?
5:10 p.m.
The Clerk
You are correct, Mr. Chair. If someone else wishes to propose an amendment, that's possible. Ms. Chabot could also withdraw her motion and present a new one.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Can I present a second motion now, or must we deal with the current one first?
5:10 p.m.
The Clerk
If the members of the committee consent unanimously, then you could definitely withdraw your motion and propose a new one.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
The Clerk
Could you repeat that, Mr. Chair?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
For the sake of good order, given that there is a motion on the floor before us, would it not be necessary for Madam Chabot to either have the motion defeated or to withdraw it before presenting a new one?
5:15 p.m.
The Clerk
All that is required to withdraw the motion is the unanimous consent of the committee. After that, Ms. Chabot could propose a new motion that incorporates the desired changes.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Okay, I understand.
Do we have consensus to allow Ms. Chabot to withdraw this motion? All I need is unanimous consent to withdraw the motion.
(Motion withdrawn)
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
You have the floor, Ms. Chabot. You can now present another motion, if you wish.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you.
The rest of the wording remains the same, but the amended portion has not yet been translated into the other language:
That the text of any substantive motion or any motion in amendment of a substantive motion be distributed in writing in both official languages to all Committee members before the Committee begins debate on such a motion.