Natural Resources Committee on March 8th, 2021

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you.

My next concern with this has actually just been demonstrated. We just had a substantive amendment. It was friendly and it was agreed upon. Again, the way I'm reading this—maybe Mr. Simard can correct me if this isn't the intention—that would no longer be possible and we would have to stop. Mr. Lloyd would have to submit his motion. Somehow it would be translated quickly. Normally, we are able to do that through the translation that is provided on these calls.

I just want to be very clear that, again, we're not seeing an unintended consequence here and all of a sudden the committee's grinding to a halt every time we have a motion. Motions, of course, are part of our privilege as members. I'm just concerned that if there's a motion, a substantive motion, based on something that is being discussed in that particular meeting, we as members have the right to move that motion in real time. There is no 48-hour rule in that regard. I'm a little concerned that this would butt up against the rules of the House, which of course we follow here in committee.

If I'm misinterpreting this, please forgive me. When I read this, that jumped out at me as a concern. I don't know how we could word it to allow for motions coming from the floor and their being interpreted through the translation services that we have on these calls, which has been the practice up until now.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. May, is it possible that your comments are more aptly directed to the other motion, which we're not discussing?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

That may very well be. I'm sorry. Am I getting ahead of myself?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

You're ahead of us all, as usual.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

You have my apologies.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay. We'll leave that there.

I gather that Mr. Lefebvre was going to make the same point.

Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to tell my colleague that his comment actually applies to the motion regarding substantive motions.

I also want to point out that it isn't mandatory to translate texts that don't come from a department, although it's common practice to do so. However, the motion would make this a requirement. There have been examples, such as in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, where the meaning of the texts submitted was completely different from the meaning of the original wording.

In fact, the motion seeks to ensure respect for the meaning of the documents submitted, whether the documents are in English or French, so that we can deliberate with a clear understanding of the texts before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Are there any further comments on the motion as amended?

Do we need a recorded vote? Okay.

Madam Clerk, we can deem the motion passed as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

Can we move back to our witnesses?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

There's also the second motion, which concerns technical tests.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Perhaps I should let our witnesses go for the day, Mr. Simard. I don't want to take up any of their time unnecessarily if we're not going to get back to them, and it doesn't look like we will. You have this motion and one more, if I'm not mistaken.

To our witnesses, let me just say thank you on behalf of all the committee. As one of our colleagues said earlier, this was a very interesting discussion and very informative. I apologize that your time was cut short a bit, but sometimes we need to deal with matters that prevent us from finishing the meeting and finishing the rounds of questions.

Again, thank you for taking the time to join us. We appreciate it and are very grateful. You are now free to go while we carry on with the rest of our business at this meeting.

Thank you.

[Dr. Nigel Steward]

Thank you. It was a pleasure to be with you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Simard, we will go back to you.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Do you want me to read the second motion, which concerns technical tests for witnesses?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Yes, if you don't mind, because I'm not sure people know which is the first motion, which is the second and which is the third.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Okay. The motion reads as follows:

That the clerk inform each witness who is to appear before the committee that the House Administration support team must conduct technical tests to check the connectivity and the equipment used to ensure the best possible sound quality; and that the Chair advises the committee, at the start of each meeting, of any witness who did not perform the required technical tests.

I just want to point out that this motion has been passed in every other committee where it was introduced.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Mr. May.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will simply say that I believe this is in fact the practice, and to simply formalize it, I think we'd be in favour of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

It's the practice as I understand it too.

Mr. Lloyd.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I think you'll find no trouble with us on this one. I would just move that we move to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Let's do that.

Madam Clerk, do we need a recorded vote on this one? No. Okay.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Simard, I think that brings us back to you. Now we know what the third motion is.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

The motion reads as follows:

That the text of any substantive motion or any motion in amendment of a substantive motion be distributed in writing in both official languages to all committee members before the committee begins debate on such a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

Mr. May, you have your hand up. I have a hunch that I know what you're going to say.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, I trumped myself a bit there in terms of this one. Again, I think I have to reiterate that it's a priority for all of us—I hope it's a priority for all of us—to ensure that we can all be understood. We want to strengthen our ability to be understood at all times. Where I run into an issue with this particular motion is, again, that the nature of committees is often on the fly. There are amendments to substantive motions that happen during these conversations and these debates.

I can only imagine what it would be like to follow this while doing a report where there are amendments upon amendments and where, based on how certain things are amended, there could be additional amendments.

I'd just be very concerned that if this were adopted as is we'd really be grinding to a halt and also, potentially, breaching privilege. I'm open to a discussion on this one, if it can be amended in some way or clarified. Maybe Mr. Simard could speak to maybe my misinterpretation of what is being said.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks.

Mr. Lloyd.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to echo Mr. May's comments, but to add something novel, even if we were to amend something on this, if this were to be passed we wouldn't be able to amend anything on the fly. I also think it does potentially infringe on our parliamentary privilege. I would just say that, generally, unless Mr. Simard has some sort of substantive amendment to his own motion that can address these issues.... For example, because you have to present the translated amendment before the committee even begins, that would negate any ability for the committee to deal with this in real time. I'll leave it at that.

Thanks.