Evidence of meeting #1 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was motions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
There you are; it's the first nine motions, sorry.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Do you want to include the eleventh one as well, on the time for questioning witnesses?
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I think Mr. Moore indicated that he had problems with that.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Just for clarification, I don't see on here.... Did we not in the past have a routine motion on speaking order? Or is that in here?
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
It is the last one.
We'll debate the last two motions separately; that's what I was intending to do by this, if there's agreement.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I just want to make sure that, for private members' bills, we agree that the committee will keep all of its discretion in determining the order in which private members' bills will be considered, and that there will be no predetermined order at all. We understand that the motion simply states that the sponsor will be invited, but this does not mean predetermining the way in which we organize our work.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
I believe Mr. Moore is going to make a motion about that later. We'll have a discussion on that.
I think we have agreement that the first nine are non-contentious. Is there any further discussion on that? Could we have a motion?
Is that a motion, Mr. Murphy?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Is there any further discussion?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
So we have those nine done.
Moving on to motion ten, does someone wish to move it, or to move a different motion?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
I don't believe so.
Mr. Murphy, did you imply that you had moved motion 10?
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
My previous motion is now carried. I withdrew motions 10 and 11.
February 2nd, 2009 / 3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
On motion 10, Mr. Ménard has already commented on it. I think the challenge is that the legislation we're dealing with is often extremely technical. We do take a great deal of time to debate it. Any changes to it often require a great deal of work that may not be contemplated. Table-dropping, as it were, some substantive changes to legislation can create some challenges. As a committee we may not be able to do—pardon the pun—justice to a piece of legislation if we're not given proper time to analyze the motion.
That's simply the reason I'd like to take out that one line: “unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration”.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Joe Comartin is our regular member, but he couldn't be here today, so I'm sitting in.
I would point out that in the previous committee it has been the standard motion that's used by many committees in terms of how to deal with the 48 hours' notice. I've been on a number of committees. When you are going through a bill clause by clause, yes, you do try to get in your amendments in advance, especially the ones that are substantive. But I've found that often during debate there may be some sort of minor adjustment that flows from an amendment you have; it's a subamendment. It's not necessarily routine, but it might be routine, and we'd really be precluding that.
I do have a concern that by moving it as you have you will be frustrating members' ability to deal with what are really very legitimate motions when you're debating a bill. Or you might be dealing with an item of business and you want to have someone else come forward or ask for a report pertaining to the witnesses you've heard. I do have concerns about that.
What I would ask in terms of your rationale for putting it forward is could you give an example of where it was a problem? The way it's been worded on the paper is what it was in the previous committee. Maybe there are some examples of why it didn't work or what the problem was. I don't think we've really heard that.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Yes, I can certainly do that. We don't need to have a prolonged debate on it, unless someone else has a comment. I'll just make my comment.
For the members who were on the previous committee, on some of the government legislation that we had been discussing we sometimes saw a flurry of last-minute amendments. They could be amendments from government and they could be opposition amendments. I think it doesn't do justice to anyone to try to digest a very complicated Criminal Code amendment--for example, when we're dealing with Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act-- if we have to try to piece this together on the spot and put our expert witnesses on the spot.
I will differentiate this committee a bit from some other committees. Some of the legislation we're dealing with is extremely technical in nature and everyone should have the opportunity to digest any amendments or motions that are coming forward.
That's why I put this forward. Maybe we can see what the will of the members is. I don't want to belabour it.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I am going to try to be very clear. I do not understand Mr. Moore's position requiring 48 hours' notice to be given before the committee can consider a substantive motion that does not directly deal with the matter that the committee is studying at the time. If we are discussing Bill C-2, for example, and an amendment has to be discussed, I do not feel that 48 hours' notice are required.
The intent of this paragraph is that 48 hours' notice is to be given in both official languages for a substantive motion that deals with something else.
Here is another example. If we were studying Bill C-2 and a legal crisis broke out over the appointment of a judge to the Supreme Court, that would be a completely different matter. So 48 hours' notice would be required. That is what I understand from the text before us and this is why I agree with the text. I do not understand what you want to change.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
As a rookie to this committee, I don't necessarily know how it operated in the past, but we're discussing routine motions here, and the idea of routine motions is to supplement any of the Standing Orders that aren't currently codified under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. This is codified very clearly. To me, you don't need to have this in here, simply because, as Mr. Lemay tried to say, you can't move a substantive motion to a piece of legislation that would change the intent of the legislation. That's under the Standing Orders. So I don't know why we have to have it repeated here. What is in here is already in the Standing Orders in the House right now.