Evidence of meeting #46 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Is this motion debatable? Can the Clerk confirm that?
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Oh, oh!
And you were mad at me for getting it translated! I can't believe that.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I think the committee should look at what was put in front of it, in the regular way, with the rules of order that we have in terms of who submits their motion first.
Let's put it right on the table. I have spoken to Madame Lavallée about her previous motion at the previous committee. We discussed it being withdrawn and that I would put one forward. The wording I have put in front of you is exactly what she read when she made that decision.
Let's be frank. People wanted to vote on it the other day. I could have said yes and we would have done it. But to be fair—because that's how I like to be treated at committees—I said no, let's have it printed so everybody can see it and let's have it translated so everybody can read it. I did everything by the rules to make sure everybody would understand it.
So I would like to deal with mine first. I do not support moving hers forward. And I think mine is very clear. I followed the rules. I had agreement for it. I don't think I should be penalized for being fair with the other committee members by following the rules. So I'm voting against moving the change, and I'm willing to move my motion first.
We can have a debate on what the wording is and what the wording means and what it means for timing. If mine fails, we can move to the next one, or if it passes, there'll be another discussion.
So I'm in favour of what has been presented and what everybody had a chance to read in advance, as properly translated.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It's really a question of procedure, to you, sir.
It's rather irregular and unusual for this to happen. When this type of motion is made, does it have to be by majority or does it have to be unanimous?
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
It's a majority vote, because it's a properly moved motion and it's properly debatable. And then it's decided by the majority, when the vote comes.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
And, yes, it is rather unusual. There are a number of things that have occurred in this committee over the months that are rather unusual, but that doesn't make them wrong; it makes the committee more interesting.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Sir, I'm not debating, but just asking a question, and you've answered it.
Thank you.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I just want to make sure we're discussing the same thing. The process of voting on switching the order of one motion versus another, is that what is decided by a majority vote under our Standing Orders?
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
I see no other discussion on the motion to switch. Let's vote.
(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
