Industry Committee on Nov. 15th, 2007

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I have one further follow-up, Mr. Chair.

On this topic of benefiting other parties, I think it would particularly behoove the third and fourth parties in the House to consider that this would be a tremendous advantage for them. They work in areas of private members' business. Private members' motions are before the House regularly, but bills are also. There are limited mechanisms for other opposition parties in the House to make sure they can get their bills through the process. This would clearly be an advantage to them in expediting that process, because the government of the day--whichever party it might be--particularly if they're in majority, would have the ability to block and delay from that point of view as well. As has been pointed out, I believe this is an advantage to parties in the House, to bring their ideas forward and to get legislation through.

These are recommendations by Parliament, not just by the government. I think this helps Parliament work. I think Canadians expect this is the kind of measure we should be taking to move this process along. I hear time and again when I'm in the riding the complaints and dismay about how things grind to a halt up here. This is a good measure, and I would encourage the third and fourth parties to support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Stanton.

I see no more speakers. We will have the question.

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Let's do “Motions”, which is in the new document, and then “Notice of Motions”, and last, “Routine Motions”.

Mr. Carrie, do you want to explain the rationale for the motions section?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

There is a clarification. If you look at the third sentence in the English form, it says:

And that the period of notice be calculated from the time the motion has been distributed to the members of the committee by the Clerk of the Committee;

Again, the idea is to clarify things. Let's say I e-mailed the clerk at 11 o'clock on a Sunday night, or something along those lines. This is so we have clear rules of what we mean by that 48-hour notice, so there are no arguments.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I think there is a concern with respect to when the clerk gets the motions as opposed to when they are sent. That might be somewhat problematic, but the more egregious concern is that it removes the question of motions that relate directly to the business under consideration of the committee. We've seen those used in the past, and they've certainly been strongly urged. I see no reason why we would want to move away from that. I would strongly urge that we retain the status quo in terms of this particular proposal by Mr. Carrie.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Ms. Nash.

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

I think it removes the flexibility of the committee, and I would support maintaining the current language on notice of motions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

No one else?

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I need someone to move “Notice of Motions”.

Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

We're not abstaining on this one.

[An hon. member]

Not today.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have, then, “Motions deemed to be abandoned”, on page 2 in the new....

Mr. Carrie, do you want to make that argument, regarding motions deemed to be abandoned?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

This is new. It's basically to allow the committee to work efficiently, so that we deal with any motions that are put forward and not just leave them sitting there ad infinitum.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I understand the rationale for putting something like this forward, but I could see a scenario wherein I don't like a motion and I begin to speak, once I have the chair's consent—he recognizes me—and I speak for two days, and the motion never gets debated. I wouldn't like to see that kind of scenario, and that's certainly what this opens us up to. We'd prefer the language to remain as it is currently crafted.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Are there any others on this?

Madame Brunelle.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

The problem we have remains the same. It seems to me that the committee must remain the master of its own destiny. This is a fundamental principle. It could come to pass that the committee, because of some weighty topical issue, might decide that a topic should be dealt with later because there is some urgency. It seems to me that the previous rules helped us have the necessary flexibility. I would not like to see the committee lose that freedom.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Are there any further comments?

Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I have a technical question, Mr. Chair.

In regard to routine motions—I'm mindful of the fact that there are Standing Orders for committees as well—in terms of precedence, are there circumstances where the Standing Orders for committees supersede routine motions? Or is it seen the other way: do routine motions essentially build and further define some of these issues? If we get to a position of conflict, which one wins out?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Committees are masters of their own domain.

Do you have an example of a standing order that would conflict with a motion?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Well, I'm just thinking here of the proposal we have in front of us. I don't have the Standing Orders in front of me, but are there specific Standing Orders that deal with this issue of how long a notice of motion stays in effect?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Right now, there's no limit on motions. This is a new motion. As I understand it, there's no motion among the old motions that deals with this topic; this is in fact a new motion.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

So there's nothing in the Standing Orders that would...?