Transport Committee on June 13th, 2006

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the motion doesn't exactly cover new ground, and it's not out of order. It merely seeks to extend a motion that, without getting into specifics, has already been unanimously endorsed by the committee. We're once again tabling the same motion. There's nothing new here. Perhaps some of you haven't read it in advance, but its purpose is merely to extend the motion so that it could be adopted during this Parliament, instead of our having to refer to a motion passed by the previous Parliament. It merely seeks to extend what was already unanimously agreed to.

I fail to see the problem mentioned by Mr. Jean. If we agree to examine the motion and to vote on it today, in my view, this would be easier than resuming our discussions next Thursday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

My only comment is that this is new to me as chair and I personally did not receive the notification.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm asking for a ruling from the chair. It's not proper notice, and I'm not consenting to allow it in as a single member here. I didn't have notice of it, and I think something as important as this should be....

With all due respect to Monsieur Carrier, the reality is I didn't receive the notice paper and nobody else here did, including the chair. That's deficient notice. We got notice today, so I can actually do some work on it. I think all the committee members realize that we do homework on this side of the House, and I need to do some homework to ascertain the significance of this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry but the committee must follow certain procedures. The clerk must distribute the motion. If he says that he distributed copies and you say you didn't get one, then it's a moot point. A committee staff member is responsible for receiving and providing members with copies of the motion. If you neglected to take a copy of it, then that's not my problem. However, our rules stipulate that the notice of motion must be tabled to the committee within a prescribed time frame. As I see it, I complied with the rules. If members failed to pick up a copy of the motion and we decide not to consider it at this time, then this type of thing could happen again. There will always be someone who claims that because he hasn't read the motion, it should be taken up only at a later meeting. That's not the way the system works. The clerk is responsible for tabling any motions he may receive. If subsequently members neglect to take copies, then that's their business. All they need to do is oppose the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It does seem ironic that all members on this side wouldn't have picked it up or received it. I think that's a fair comment. I don't think we're irresponsible enough to leave a document that was intended for us, but I put that out.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Laframboise is correct. He did circulate this motion at the last meeting, because I know I have it on file. The problem is that it wasn't formalized. Until I got to this meeting I didn't know it was going to be on the agenda for today.

I've been encouraged by the work of this committee, quite frankly, simply because I don't see some of the pettiness here that I've seen at my other committee. In the interest of preserving that good will, give us an opportunity to consult with the minister before we address this here at the table. We may be able to concur with this motion, and it would strengthen Mr. Carrier's cause.

Just as a side point, is it typically appropriate to underline words in motions? I just want clarification for my edification in the future. Would it be underlined in a report to the House? I'm not trying to be nitpicky; I'm just not sure that's appropriate.

Mr. Laframboise is correct. That motion was circulated at the last meeting, so it's not as if he is doing something underhanded. It was in my file, but we never got the formal notice of it, just for the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

It isn't unusual. In fact, it's probably more often the case that once the notice is given, the member who gave the notice can act on it at any time.

The issue is to give everybody proper time to prepare. Once you're given that proper time--and I've sat on notices myself for weeks--it's in the system, notice has been given, and obligations have been met on giving colleagues notice. But the reality is that because he gave it, there's no formalization, as Mr. Fast has referred to it; there's no process to formalize the fact that it's going to be on the agenda today.

It was given in due process, and he can act on that notice any time. He can act on it next Thursday; he can act on it in September. It's in the system, it's been given, and you know it's coming. The obligation is on the part of colleagues to be prepared for whenever that happens. The point I'm making is that it's not going to be any more formal than that in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, my response would be this. We have evidence that other members of the committee never saw this until this morning. If Mr. Laframboise circulated the motion, I certainly have a copy on my file, but I'm not aware that it was formally delivered to the clerk.

Mr. Carrier may confirm that it was delivered to the clerk at that time.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Even the chair didn't receive it. I mean, it seems very obvious.

I'm sorry that I'm speaking out of order, Mr. Chair. I'll let Mr. Julian have the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, we had Mr. Carrier distribute it in two ways. He distributed it to the clerk. It was also distributed last Thursday, and my colleague passed on the motion to me. Very clearly a member of this committee, in good form, deposited a motion five days ago.

It's time to debate, discuss, and adopt or reject that motion. I don't think we should have any further procedural delays. This member tried through two methods to get it to all members. I think he's done honest due diligence and no delays should be brought. We should move to vote on the motion itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any other comments?

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I don't think the obligation is on the member proposing the motion. If I remember the rules to warrant that the clerk's staff may or may not have distributed it, I think the obligation is on the member of the committee to actually present the motion to the clerk. Once that is done, it constitutes sufficient notice. Is that not correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm advised that is correct, but the members need to have a copy. I would again advise the committee that I have no record of that document at all, electronically or on paper.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm simply asking for 48 hours. We meet in two days, or do we meet in five days?

I'm asking for two days. Mr. Julian, of course, received the same kind of consideration on another notice of motion that was put forward in a similar manner, but we are asking for two days.

With respect, I think this is a serious precedent that we are trying to set here today. If nothing else, don't you think that as members you'd want to have a full understanding of what's going to take place before you make a motion like this? Don't you think there's a possibility that we might have something? We know that delaying for two days is not going to cost anything.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Chairman, you're being asked to set a totally unreasonable precedent. I submitted the motion to the clerk last Wednesday for distribution at last Thursday's meeting. A certain amount of time has passed since the motion was tabled. Everything was done according to the rules. Moreover, Mr. Fast admitted that the motion was placed in his files last Thursday. I think that proves most of you received it. I don't see why we should wait another two days to consider a motion that was tabled in accordance with the rules of procedure of this committee and that is by no means revolutionary in scope. I don't see why we would agree to a further postponement, since everything was done by the book. Therefore, I ask that we vote today, perhaps even right away, in fact, on whether or not the motion is in order, so that we can proceed with our discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Well, there are no other comments from committee members.

Pardon me?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Fast was asking a question.

The ruling that I asked for is the first thing that we have to deal with, of course.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, the suggestion has been made that we delay it for two days.

I will ask the committee if they will consider bringing it back here on Thursday and that it be the first order of business for Thursday. I would have to ask for a show of hands. I presume that's the route I have to go.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I would defer to the presenter. He's done everything here. The request would be from him, and my sense is that he feels he's done everything he's supposed to do. We'd therefore like to proceed.

I would defer to Mr. Carrier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.