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.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
It does deal with the subject at hand, if you'll allow it. It doesn't look like it's going to be a problem.
Mr. Blaney, welcome, sir.
November 13th, 2007 / 11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Congratulations on having your mandate renewed; it shows the confidence that members of the committee have in your excellent work.
I would just like to second the motion made by my colleague Mr. Hawn, the parliamentary secretary. The motion is an obvious one because, of course, a parliamentary committee's role is to study bills. I find that it is appropriate for it to appear in our routine motions. If bills are proposed by the government, we can discuss them constructively, as we have done for the matters that we needed to deal with.
Thank you.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I would like to say to Mr. Blaney that I feel that his congratulations to the chair apply equally to the two vice-chairs, since the democratic process was in full operation before you arrived.
Now, as to procedure, are we going to discuss the motion presented by our colleague in 48 hours, or are we going to discuss it now?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Because it falls in line directly with what we're dealing with, I thought we could deal with it now. But I guess I could ask for unanimous consent to do that.
Is there any objection to our dealing with it at the moment?
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I would like to finish. If I understand this correctly, it is going overboard. If it is already in the procedure, I see no point in making a committee motion to the same effect. I have always understood that if a bill is referred to a committee after second reading, studying it is always the priority. I do not see why we would handle things differently when the procedure is clear. That is all.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I just have a question.
Is that written into the Standing Orders?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
So it's not a standing order; it's just a practice that committees have traditionally taken on.
(Motion negatived)
I'm sure, Mr. Hawn, that will not deter you from moving forward in the future days.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Again, I think this is relevant to what we're talking about today, which is motions deemed to be abandoned. Again, this may be something that is in practice—I'm not sure—and I can be educated on that.
That all motions shall be dealt with by the committee within two meetings of their first being listed on the agenda as committee business, failing which the motion shall be deemed abandoned by the mover and shall be dispensed with and may no longer be subject to committee consideration.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
The rationale is to get on with business and not have things split. If things come up, let's deal with them.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
If I get the sense of these snorts across the table, I'm thinking this one is not going to go very far.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
So what you're saying is that if we pass a motion, let's say at the steering committee, where we propose something and it comes back and the motion is accepted that we do our first study on X, that has to be acted on in two days?
