Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 15th, 2007

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Chairman, the operating procedure we had worked very well. I would suggest that we change the motion to 48 hours, in keeping with the spirit of what has been presented. But I would ask the committee to stay with the direction that's given, which worked very well for the committee. The clerk was able to determine and inform the committee with respect to the motions that were given, and it worked very well. So I would simply say, “Let's go with the 48 hours but leave the procedure as in the motion here”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes. That would be an amendment to Mr. Anderson's motion. Mr. Anderson's motion does specifically say that it's from the time the clerk sends it to the members.

I'm reading the motion from the last committee:

That 24 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the Clerk of the Committee and distributed to members in both official languages.

It really isn't clear in that motion when the clock starts ticking. If that's what you're asking for, Mr. Tonks, we're looking for something that isn't really very clear. To me it isn't clear, certainly, but I won't--

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I thought that's what the clerk had said.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Can I make a suggestion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I do have a list here. Could we come back to you, Mr. Anderson?

Go ahead, Madame DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chairman, what I understood from the Clerk's explanation on the current rule and the one we worked with during the last session... First of all, I have to tell you that there was never really any problem during the last session. Many motions were tabled, and no one, neither from the opposition nor the government's side, complained about the fact that the rule was not really clear. There were no hitches. Things worked rather well, and if memory serves me well, we even sometimes found that it took quite a long time before our motion was tabled, because of the 24 hours rule.

I understand better now, thanks to the clerk's explanation. The interpreter said it was two sleeps depending on whether 14 or 18 hours were involved. I find that time period normal because when we want to table motions, time is often an issue, both on the government and the opposition sides. Contrary to my liberal colleagues, I rather agree with keeping the rule as it stands.

Perhaps we could debate your suggestion and clarify the hours for tabling, as the Clerk said earlier. However, I feel that the 24-hours period is sufficient, we experienced that. Moreover, the clarifications on the management of those 24-hours as the Clerk currently does suit me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I haven't heard disagreement on the 48 hours we were looking at, but I understand you are saying 24.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

I am talking about Mr. Anderson's amendment which I oppose. After we have debated it...

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

There is no amendment; that's the only motion on the floor, just for clarity.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

All right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Now we have Ms. Bell.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

For clarification, the motion that Mr. Anderson put forward is 48 hours. If I put in a notice on a Friday and we meet on Tuesday, there's a weekend in between. I'm unclear; I didn't quite hear everything about when the clock starts ticking and how that works.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That's what we are trying to clarify here. Mr. Anderson is saying in his motion that the clock starts ticking once the motion has been distributed to the members. Is that correct, Mr. Anderson? That can be quite a different time from the time the clerk receives it.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

That's the piece I didn't quite get.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That seems to be the only area I hear disagreement on.

Go ahead, Ms. Bell.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

There's the calculation of the 48 hours, and then there was another piece; there didn't seem to be anything that resembled the original motion we had in the last session.

I have a problem, because it didn't sound to me like we could bring up any motion that related to the business of the committee. We would have to give 48 hours' notice for every motion. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It would be for every substantive motion, but it certainly wouldn't include motions dealing with business before the committee. That can be done at any committee meeting at virtually any time. It wouldn't interfere in any way with that, just for clarity.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

It's difficult, when I haven't seen the motion in writing, to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes. We have a written copy here, actually.

Mr. Anderson, can you read it one more time?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Well, I can. I'm also willing to make some adjustments here if it will speed this up. If this problem about the period of notice is a concern to the opposition—and it seems to be to Liberals in particular—we would really like the 48 hours. To me, that seems to be reasonable. It gives enough time: if you bring something in Tuesday, you have two days to consider it, and it can come up at the Thursday meeting.

So the period of notice is a good idea, I think, because it's fair to everybody. But if people don't want to support that, that's okay. But I would like to see the 48 hours' notice because I think in most of the committees it is that, and that gives us enough time in this busy schedule to see motions and study them a little bit before we come to committee with them.

I would suggest that if we vote on this and it's defeated, we would be willing to support 48 hours' notice on the original motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay.

Madam Bell.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Yes, I do have a problem—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

She actually has the floor, Mr. Anderson.

So I was asking you to fill the time there, just for clarity.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Oh, sorry. Yes.

Now that I've seen the actual wording of it, I do have a bigger problem, and that is with the way it's worded. It does not say “unless the substantive motion relates directly to the business under consideration”, and that would mean it's at the discretion of the chair or in the interpretation of the chair of this motion, which could be anybody's, I guess. The way it's written, it really doesn't say that the substantive motion relates directly to the business, so that would mean we would have to give 48 hours' notice for every motion, even for business of the committee that we're dealing with. So I would have a problem with that, and I wouldn't be supporting it.

I don't have too much problem with 48 hours' notice. I do have a problem with the calculation of it, but if instead of 24 it said 48 and then the rest of the language we're already using, I'm fine with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Just on “any substantive motion”, that's exactly what was in the motion the committee had last time.