Agriculture Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Technically you withdrew it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think it's questionable whether it was withdrawn. I'd have to go back to the--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

The quandary I find myself in, Wayne, is under the rules of the House, when a motion has been tabled and rejected for whatever reason, then it has to be substantively changed before it can be tabled again.

I'm just asking the will of the committee. Was it tabled the first time, or did you withdraw it? I haven't gone back to the blues; I don't know.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'd have to go back to the blues and look, but, Mr. Chair, I believe when you said that from your point of view it would be out of order, I said “I will withdraw and reconsider”, and you gave me the legal opinion. I looked at the legal opinion, and contrary to what you thought from the legal opinion, I think the legal opinion makes my point, not yours. So I believe the motion is legitimately on the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

All right. It was withdrawn at that point, and now it's legitimately tabled.

We have discussion on the motion.

Mr. Atamanenko had his hand up, and then Mr. Anderson.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

I was just going to say that was my understanding. If I remember correctly, that's the procedure that took place, so I think it's legitimately on the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Okay.

Mr. Anderson.

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

I guess that is the question. Is it legitimately on table? You said if he's withdrawn it, he cannot resubmit it unless it has changed substantively. It has not changed at all, so I would suggest we adjourn the meeting and go on our way here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

The point that is being made is that it was not tabled the first time around. That's Wayne's submission, that he withdrew it.

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

Well, what do you call it, then? It came to us and we had to deal with it. It came to the committee, and it was at committee that he withdrew it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

But he's claiming that he withdrew it before there was any substantive debate or anything like that. That's the quandary I find myself in. Was it...? That's why we're discussing it.

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

The motion was put forward; the motion was withdrawn. The rules are that if that happens, you can't bring back the same motion, unless you change it. So the rules are....

We just can't accept it. It hasn't been changed. It doesn't matter whether it's Wayne's motion or mine or anybody else's; it can't be resubmitted the same way, once it was withdrawn, and that's what makes it out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

I think that's the point. The motion was on the table; it was brought up. Wayne withdrew it, but it had been tabled. So it was here—it wasn't voted on, but it was on the table—and there's no use in bringing it forward at this point in time. It has to be changed substantively.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Mr. Thibault.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a member brings a motion and the chair rules the motion out of order, then the member at that point has the right to challenge the chair. Nobody likes to do that, so sometimes a member might say, “Well, let me think about it. I'm going to have a look at it. I'm going to consider the evidence that you're giving and then bring it back.”

I think Wayne is at that point. He's at that point now, where he would still have the right to challenge the chair on that decision. I don't think there's an expiry of time, that there's an amount of time after the ruling of the chair during which you can challenge.

So we can have two ways of bringing this on the table: either accepting it as the motion, after he has had his chance, or Wayne can challenge the decision of the chair. Then the committee decides to uphold or not to uphold the decision of the chair. If the decision of the chair is not upheld, then the motion will be votable. That is my understanding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

As I understand it, and the clerk can correct me if I'm wrong, that's true. That's the way it is, yes.

Is there any further discussion at this point?

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

So what's the situation we find ourselves in?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

I'm just looking for discussion, Mr. Anderson.

As your chairman, I would still have to rule this out of order, Mr. Easter, looking at the legal opinions I've seen and this bit of a conflict as to whether it was or was not tabled. Now, you certainly have your rights.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Okay, Mr. Chair. I would challenge the chair in that ruling. For all the arguments I've already outlined, I believe the motion is in order. I believe it's backed up by the request from the minister himself for advice. I believe it to be backed up by the paper by the Library of Parliament. Therefore, I would challenge the chair in that ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Okay. I need a motion from the floor to....

Mr. Bellavance, is there discussion?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I'd simply like to clarify something, if that can resolve the impasse. I wasn't here during the discussion, but my assistant had the blues. Mr. Easter said at one point that, if committee members were in agreement, he would withdraw his motion and draft another after examining the legal opinion. He therefore withdrew his motion. That's what he said. So the motion he has just put before you was a new motion. If the other was inadmissible, the discussion we're having today is pointless. So the new motion should be able to be heard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Technically, André, to be ruled out of order, it had to have been tabled, and it's fine that Mr. Easter withdrew it. He has now resubmitted it. The rules of the House say that in order to resubmit a bill, it has to be substantively changed. Again, under the rules of the House, he can bring forward the same bill—or motion—and make his appeal and challenge the chair, which is the point we're at, at this point.

So in order to challenge the chair, I need a motion from the floor—a mover and a seconder—that the chair's ruling be sustained.

It is moved by Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, not that the chair's ruling be sustained.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Well, that's how it's done, and you vote against its being sustained to defeat it. That's the protocol. It's a negative option billing thing, Wayne.

I'm sure glad you guys did your homework.

I need a motion from the floor, in the wording “that the chair's ruling be sustained”. Okay, it is moved by Mr. Hubbard and seconded by Mr. Boshcoff.

Those who want to see the chair's ruling changed will vote against this motion.

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])