Evidence of meeting #1 for Natural Resources in the 39th 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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I think it says exactly the same in the new one. Am I missing something?
Oh, I understand. Yes, in the one that was before the committee last time it said “unless the substantive motion relates directly to the business then under consideration”.
Mr. Anderson, do you see the difference there?
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Well, I'm willing to make that amendment as well, or have someone do that, but it sounds to me like the motion is going to be defeated as it is, from what I've heard. If someone wants to make that amendment, we'd be willing to support it. But if they're planning on voting against the motion, and it sounds like the Liberals were and Madam DeBellefeuille did not seem to be supporting it, so....
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Can we add that in as a friendly amendment? I haven't heard any negative reaction to that. Could we just add in, as a friendly amendment, after “committee”, on the third line after the comma, “unless this substantive motion relates directly to the business then under consideration”? I'm sure that was the intent.
Now, do I have a list?
Madame DeBellefeuille.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Perhaps with some clarification, I could support a 48-hour notice. During the last session, 48 hours meant two sleeps for us. The 48 hours must not become four sleeps.
If I can be assured that 48 hours represents two sleeps, I would be ready to support the 48-hour motion. Do you understand? It is all about time management.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Just for clarity, the explanation the clerk gave was for the 48 hours—two sleeps. I don't think there is any misunderstanding on that. All right?
With the friendly amendment in there, can we go to a vote on this motion now?
Mr. Boshcoff, you indicated before that you wanted to speak. My apologies.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Yes.
With all these friendly amendments and all that, I believe we've actually complicated what we had before us on this page, with the exception of going from 24 to 48 hours. So I'm going to support the original motion as presented to us, or that wasn't presented to us, at 48 hours. I will not be supporting the wordy, complicated thing here, because I just believe it's going to create a minefield later on. I'd go for the simpler wording we had.
Thank you.
Conservative
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
I still won't be able to support the motion, even with the amendments, because I'm not happy with the calculation of the 48 hours. I could support 48 hours and the substantive motion part, but not the calculation of hours. So, for me, it would be to defeat that motion and reintroduce the original one we had, with 48 hours instead of 24, if that's what's acceptable to people.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Given that we had tabled friendly amendments, I do not agree that the 48 hours' notice leaves room for interpretation. We leave the interpretation of that to the clerk, which is fine, but if we change clerks, the interpretation may change. Why not clearly state that the motion must go over two nights? Everyone agrees on that, it is clear and simple. But a 48-hour notice leaves room for interpretation, which means that at some point in time, it could become three or four nights.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Actually, Monsieur Ouellet, it seems to me that there certainly wasn't clarity in terms of the timing, the clock, in the motion the committee had last time, either. So what we're looking for I think is clarity.
Mr. Anderson, could you clarify what you meant by that motion?
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I just wanted to point out that the reason we brought in the calculation was so that the lack of clarity was taken out of there, so that when we receive the motion, the 48 hours start. You're right that the clerks may have a difference in how quickly it takes them to get the motion out, but everyone will be treated fairly on the committee then, because the motion will come out and we'll have 48 hours' consideration. I would think that supporting this would actually take out some of the concerns you have about different clerks treating the time schedule differently.
We're trying to be fair here. I thought this would actually be more fair to Ms. Bell, for example, because I'm sure she has more work to do than some of the rest of us because of the load she has. It would give everyone the same amount of time to consider motions, rather than they come out, you don't know when it started, you have to get the things organized and then come to committee meetings.
I don't want to belabour it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay, let's go to the question.
The question is on the motion that Mr. Anderson brought forth, with the friendly amendment, which added in “unless a substantive motion relates directly to the business then under consideration”. We'll read the whole motion, just to be sure that everyone's on the same page here.
The Clerk
The motion reads:
That forty-eight (48) hours notice shall 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 period of notice be calculated from the time the motion has been distributed to the members of the committee by the Clerk of the Committee; And that the motion shall be distributed to members in both official languages; And that all motions received by the Clerk shall be placed upon the agenda of the first committee meeting following the period of notice.
Conservative
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Chairman, with all respect, I'd like to propose the notice of motion as it appears in the distributed material, with the change to 48 hours.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay. You've all heard the motion. You have it in front of you, just with that one change.
Any discussion? Okay, I'll go to the vote.
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Now, unless there are other motions.... It is up to the committee entirely what motions it wants to deal with here.
Mr. Trost.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Since we're already working here with motions and so forth, I'd like to move a motion about motions deemed abandoned, and then also make sure we always get to move through all motions so that everyone gets to deal with them. Here's the motion I'm proposing on the motions deemed abandoned:
All motions shall be moved by their sponsor 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.
Essentially, the idea behind the motion is that if we're going to move a motion, we should deal with the motion.
I have a French version of it too, but I'm pretty sure that translation took care of that fairly well.
So that's the motion I'm moving.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Trost, please, would you read it again, so we get the translation again.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Yes.
All motions shall be moved by their sponsor 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.
This doesn't block off anyone from bringing back the same motion later on. You can do it again. Give another—what did we agree on just two seconds ago?—48 hours' notice, and do it over again.