Justice Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2009

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Basically, my colleague Mr. Lemay is saying that he is fine with the present wording. I am too. But Mr. Moore's proposal is an amendment. He wants to remove the words “unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration“.

Is that the intent of Mr. Moore's amendment?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Absolutely, that's correct. For the reasons already set out, I think when we bring in departmental experts, their job is to try to tell us what the implication of an amendment or a motion would be for the Criminal Code. To table-drop that creates a situation where perhaps we're not all getting the best possible advice we could get if someone had time to consider it. All the legislation we deal with is pretty significant and technical, and I think 48 hours' notice...if we're dealing with a bill, it just means that motions impacting on that bill, or other motions, would have to be in 48 hours before.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I just want to understand. One thing worries me. We are studying a bill, witnesses have talked to us, and, all of a sudden, during clause-by-clause study, we want to make a friendly amendment. If we were to pass your amendment, it seems to me that it would no longer be possible to do that. I can see why the government would want to avoid that. Nor do I want to be in a position of making substantive decisions without having consulted the office of my whip, my leader or my chief. I think that everyone feels the same. I do not want to find myself tied to a mechanism that is so rigid that we cannot look closely into things when we are studying a bill or an amendment and considering a matter that we have already been able to think about.

Would that be the effect of your amendment; is it, in a sense, an elegant way of cutting off debate? If we wanted to introduce a quick amendment on Bill C-2 because of the direction that our work had been taking, could we do so? As I understand it, we could not, and, Mr. Chair, I do not think that that makes very much sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Can I make a comment, Mr. Chair, just to put at rest the mind of our future mayor of Montreal, Mr. Réal Ménard?

Really, this does not prevent friendly amendments, as Mr. Ménard mentioned. This is about substantive motions. Mr. Ménard was talking about amendments. Say a witness were to present something to us and we noticed that a word or a comma was in the wrong place. We are here precisely to serve Canadians on criminal justice matters, and so on. We can do that immediately; it is not a substantive motion.

Mr. Moore was talking about substantive motions. That is what we need. Substantive motions. Mr. Réal Ménard is an expert on amendments because he introduces them regularly. We have always accepted them and it has always worked well.

The 48 hours' notice becomes important for substantive motions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

...withdrawing the substantive motion would be on all...

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

He is not withdrawing it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Murphy, and then Mr. Lemay.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I don't want to beat this to death, but a friendly motion can be a substantive one or a procedural one, so I think that sort of misses the point.

What I'm looking at, as a practical example we dealt with, is mandatory minimums, and we've dealt with three years, five years, and seven years. Yes, if you change something from seven to five, I believe it's substantive. But I don't think the people from DOJ at the table have discharged their duty by the time we're deciding whether we're going to put three, five, or seven years on a certain section. So we have to have that flexibility, because a lot of the good work that has happened here is a bit of a consensus, and this would preclude that, but for 48 hours' notice.

So I think it has worked okay in the past. Let's put it this way: that sentence interposed there was certainly not any part of any of our problems, if we had any, in the last session.

So even though he nominated me for vice-chair and I do owe him something--a cup of coffee maybe--I'm not going to support Mr. Moore's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right. Perhaps we could bring this to conclusion.

Monsieur Lemay, did you have another comment?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I have practised criminal law for 30 years and I have still not grasped Mr. Moore's meaning. Let me go back to the example of Bill C-2, which is over and done with so we do not have to deal with it again. If we were studying Bill C-2 and we realized that an amendment was necessary, since we were discussing something directly related to what the committee is studying, 48 hours' notice would not be necessary.

However, if some other urgent motion needed to be debated, the appointment of a judge, for example, this would not be a substantive motion directly relating to business under consideration. So 48 hours' notice would be necessary. I am absolutely not prepared to accept that. It stops important issues coming to us at the last minute, in the middle of a meeting, or a few hours before a meeting. That is what the 48 hours prevents.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Chair, there appears to be a consensus developing that we don't agree on my motion, so why don't we just move on with it? Can we put it to a vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Well, if you'd like to make the motion. I'm not sure the motion--

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

My motion would remove these words: “unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You're removing that from the motion as it appears before us, right?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Right, so it would require 48 hours' notice for any substantive motion to be put before the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right. Do you want to vote on that--

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

--or are you acknowledging that there's no consensus and that we should just move on to the motion as written?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

A point of order. Could we hear the motion, please? Can we have the motion read in its entirety and, if a recorded vote is necessary, we can have one.

Mr. Rob Moore, our parliamentary secretary, should be saying: that 48 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, and that the notice of motion be filed with the Clerk of the Committee and distributed to members in both official languages. That is the motion. That is the text before us and that is clearly what we should be voting on.

With your permission, Mr. Chair, I will submit that text so that my colleagues can at least read it and see that it is a valid motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

As long as everybody understands, the motion that is on the table, which Mr. Moore made, removes that portion.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

A point of order, Mr. Chairperson. Shouldn't somebody move the motion as it's written here, and then it would be an amendment to remove that particular clause?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Ms. Davies, they're suggested motions. They're not actually motions that are in any way standard.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay, but somebody should probably move it as a motion, and then—

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I believe Mr. Moore has.