Evidence of meeting #1 for National Defence in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Okay.
What other scenarios do you see where this would be applicable?
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I'm just looking at it, and, again, it's obviously all hypothetical, but we talk about a lot of things in the subcommittee, and if things are going to be seriously dealt with in a timely manner, then we need to get on with things in a timely manner. If we can't, then push it to the back, and get on with things that we can now.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
From what I understand of some of the other committees and some of the shenanigans that go on—filibustering, and the things that happen—is that what you're...?
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
We have not had that situation in this committee to the largest extent. So....
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
No, we have not. And we're not expecting it in the future, either.
It's a pretty good motion, I think.
11:30 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
In terms of the committee, my understanding is that the committee itself is the master of all these decisions, so I don't see the point in writing in all these motions that really, in some ways, would restrict the direction the committee wants to present in the future. So I'm opposed to it.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
There are often rules, both written and unwritten, but I think that writing them down is a good idea, because sometimes they turn out to be very useful in practice. Take the example of a common rule that is not relevant, giving 48 hours notice before tabling a motion. In the House, we can table a motion within 48 hours. Practically speaking, if there is a meeting on Thursday, we can table the notice of motion on Tuesday before 6:00 p.m., and it is considered acceptable.
So, in some cases, it can be very interesting to write down and clarify internal procedures. This motion is about efficiency, it seems to me. It does not matter which side of the House motions come from, it is the will of the committee to deal with them quickly. So, once again, I congratulate the parliamentary secretary for his initiative.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
A motion of congratulations, Mr. Chair, and he did it with a straight face. Extraordinary. I move congratulations to my colleague Steven. He said all that with a straight face this morning. Great job.
Can we vote?
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I would actually move to congratulate the Prime Minister because I find his parliamentary secretary here to be excellent.
On the other hand, the Prime Minister must understand that he has no say with the opposition. This is a minority government. So the opposition normally makes the decisions. We cannot be bound by motions that force us to conform to this, that or the other. Whether the government is in a majority or a minority situation, committees always determine their own destiny. That is why we are a little reluctant to accept things that restrict us.
So I am not terribly supportive of this motion.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I would just point out that business can of course be reintroduced at the subcommittee level and brought forward again. So it's not in fact that it's gone forever, but it's a point of reconsideration. So we can't get to it; let's deem it abandoned. If it comes back up in the subcommittee as business, then that's fine, but it gives people a chance to reflect on that and ask, “Is this really a priority or not?”
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Not referring to your motion but referring to the motions you're referring to....
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
In reply to the new vice-chair—my congratulations indeed—the idea is not to impose restrictions but for us to be guided by rules that we all know and share, since they apply to all committee members. The value in putting them into words is that then our work rests on a solid foundation, and there is no uproar or friction because we have no clear interpretation of the rules. This is why the motion seems to me to be helpful in the sense that it provides the solid foundation. The only motivation behind it is for the committee to be efficient.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Thank you for that.
Anthony, did you have something you wanted to say?
November 13th, 2007 / 11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
I was just going to say I've served on this committee before, and I'm back. I don't see that much of a change in the faces. There has been goodwill in the past, and I think just chaining us down is not going to help things ahead any better. It will probably just make things worse, if anything.
I think just putting the extra restraints is not going to help things proceed. It will just cause more resentment, if nothing else.
That's my two cents, for what it's worth.
11:35 a.m.
An hon. member
Wisdom. C'est la sagesse.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I have one more that I believe might have been missing from the list we got, and that was minority reports. Again, I can be corrected if that is just a standard procedure in terms of each party having the right to attach as an annex a dissenting opinion in a report, submitted to the clerk within 72 hours of the passing of the report.
Is that already covered off in the Standing Orders?