Evidence of meeting #15 for Natural Resources in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mining.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
We need to look again at the definition of “substantive motion.” We must fully understand this here.
The motion before you, as it stands, doesn't prevent us from moving a motion on the spot. We're talking here only about substantive motions. This also doesn't prevent us from introducing amendments when we proceed to a clause-by-clause consideration of a bill.
The purpose of this motion is quite simple. Before voting, all parliamentarians must be able to make an informed decision. If we don't have guidance in our own language, it's hard for us to make an informed judgment. I urge you to focus on the definition of “substantive motion.” My understanding is that the motion doesn't prevent us from moving motions on the spot.
Thank you.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Mr. Simard, everybody agrees with the spirit of your motion. Everybody agrees that translation is essential, whether it's from French to English or English to French. The concern, which, frankly, I share, is that the way this is worded, if this motion were passed, and Mr. Lloyd or Mr. May, for example, wanted to make an amendment to this motion, they couldn't, because we'd have to stop and have it translated by translation services. Nobody's opposed to the spirit of the motion. It's a technical glitch, I think, that we're really talking about.
Mr. Lloyd, you have your hand raised.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Something, Mr. Simard, that is confusing is that you're saying that this really applies only to substantive motions. I would say that a substantive motion requires 48 hours' advance notice and translation, so that should be ample protection for your concerns about informed consent. I would say that maybe this motion of yours has already been dealt with. I'm not sure if there's any more discussion on this, but I'd be happy....
Do you think we need a vote on this? Mr. Simard, what do you think?
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
I'll simply point out that, if there's already a requirement to submit the text two days in advance, I don't see why we would vote against this motion. It just makes this measure mandatory. I don't see how this creates any issues.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Perhaps we can—
I'm sorry, Mr. May. I didn't see your hand up there. Go ahead.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with MP Lloyd, but just to clarify, you don't need to give 48 hours' notice, as per the rules of the House, as long as the motion is germane to the topic you're discussing. Again, this would be a breach of privilege. You would be taking away a member's privilege to move a motion based on the debate that we're seeing in front of us, and I think that is a dangerous precedent.
I don't think that's what's intended. I really don't. I think the intent of this motion is to ensure that we are understood and that we respect the bilingual nature of this country, but in doing so, we wouldn't be able to hear something in a committee, for example, and be able to move a motion based on that, which, of course, is a privilege we have right now.
I won't be voting in favour of this on those grounds unless it's amended because the actual motion, from what I understand, doesn't say just substantive motions. It says the text of any substantive motion or any motion in amendment of that substantive motion. You would have to know, even before we debate these issues, what your amendment would be or what your thought process would be, which I think really disregards the process of the debate in and of itself.
Thank you.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thanks, Mr. May.
Mr. Simard, perhaps we could hear from the clerk. I think we all agree that what we're talking about is amendments on the fly during the course of a debate on a motion. To Mr. May's point and to Mr. Lloyd's point, which I share, the concern is that there would be a breach of our privilege if we had to stop and we couldn't amend a motion during the course of a meeting. Perhaps it might be helpful if the clerk could just confirm, in fact, that is the correct interpretation, and then I will give what appears to be the last word to Mr. Simard.
1 p.m.
The Clerk
What Mr. May recently outlined is in fact correct. Committee members can move substantive motions without notice if they pertain to the topic at hand. The committee would need to decide whether or not what Mr. Simard is proposing goes against that.
1 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In my opinion, there's also a breach of privilege when I must vote on a motion that I don't understand because it hasn't been translated into my own language. There's also a breach of privilege. How do you expect a person to vote on a motion if they don't understand it?
The text before you addresses this shortcoming. Sometimes, for francophones, things become difficult when a motion is tabled without being translated. The same would be true for anglophones if a motion were tabled only in French. It becomes difficult to make a decision at that point.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Mr. Simard, again, I don't think anybody disagrees with anything you just said. It's the technical requirement to have it in writing and for it go through translation services before it can be considered by the committee. That prevents amendments being put forward during the course of a debate.
That's the challenge we face. Nobody disagrees with you, but the amendment would result in a technical breach resulting in a violation of members' privilege.
Mr. Lefebvre, I—
1 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
Mr. Simard, the interpreters play a key role in this area. This has always been the usual practice when we receive and discuss these amendments. Sometimes, we discuss several subamendments that come one after the other. If we need to have all this in writing, it will make the committee's work almost impossible.
I completely understand what you're saying. However, I think that we should rely on the expertise of the interpreters for support in this area.
1 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
I understand. However, in certain cases, members have been forced to vote when they hadn't had any interpretation. This has happened to members of my party. They were forced to vote blindly on motions tabled in committee.
The interpretation is fine. However, in the current pandemic situation, when certain technological tools don't always work, I feel that the shortcoming is quite significant and that it may infringe on our privilege to receive information in our mother tongue.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay. I don't see any other hands. The motion is on the table.
Madam Clerk, it looks like we're going to have to have a vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)
Thank you, Madam Clerk.
Our witnesses have been released. That's all our business for today.
I will adjourn the meeting, and I look forward to seeing everybody on Friday. Thank you, all.