Evidence of meeting #49 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
I'd like to call the meeting to order.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming forward. We have a couple of witnesses with regard to a private member's bill.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Yes, on the orders of the day; it's mainly out of courtesy to all members on the committee.
I see that under committee business we have notices of motion from Mr. Wallace and Mr. Del Mastro. I have no problem with our discussing the motion from Mr. Wallace. It's pertinent to the items on the orders of the day. But with regard to the item from Mr. Del Mastro, I'm wondering if the committee would like to debate it after we do clause-by-clause. It's on a separate subject matter.
So perhaps we could just deal with the bill and then go on to Mr. Del Mastro's item.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Actually, Mr. Chair, I was looking to propose that we deal with the motions prior to dealing with the witnesses today. My motion was received in order, with due notice, and I'd like the committee to deal with it forthwith.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
My problem as chair is that we have an accelerated timeframe here. We're starting a little bit late because of votes in the House. I don't necessarily have a problem dealing with both of the motions. What I had intended to do was to hear the witnesses and then go to the motions, because that relates directly to whether we need to do questioning and how much questioning.
So if that's okay with the committee, we'll just hear the witnesses, then we'll take both motions, and then we'll proceed to questions and answers.
Is that fair?
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
We will hear the two witnesses, but before we go to questions we will do both motions.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
The first motion directly relates to the amount of questioning.
June 12th, 2008 / 11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
But out of respect for time--if need be, Mr. Chairman, I'll challenge you--I think it makes more sense that we deal with Mr. Wallace's motion, and then deal with Mr. Del Mastro's motion after we deal with everything on Bill C-219. That would avoid our having to carry on with Bill C-219 next week.
I mean no disrespect toward Mr. Del Mastro's motion--I mean, it just came out of nowhere--but perhaps we could deal with one subject matter at least, and then deal with Mr. Del Mastro's motion. If we expedite how we deal with Bill C-219, then I have no problem, but let's just deal with Bill C-219.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
If the committee doesn't have a problem with it, we could deal with both motions right off the bat and then move on. We can certainly do that, if that's the wish--
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
That is not the wish of the committee. That is why I'm asking this.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Well, Mr. Pacetti, I'm going to respect the motion that has been asked for by the committee. I will be taking that motion today.
Mr. Crête.
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
My comment is not about the motion, Mr. Chair, but about the fact that Mr. Wallace's motion is pertinent to the bill we are about to debate. I have no objection to dealing with Mr. Wallace's motion, but Mr. Del Mastro's motion is about something completely different. I feel that it should go in the agenda after we have done the clause-by-clause study.
I support my colleague on that. Mr. Del Mastro's motion should be studied after we have finished the clause-by-clause study. Right afterwards, we could discuss Mr. Wallace's motion, which is relevant in that it deals with the bill we are studying.
I do not know if Mr. Pacetti has made a formal proposal, but, if possible, I would move that the agenda be amended accordingly.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
My only concern there is that if we don't get enough time to complete it, then we've refused Mr. Del Mastro the opportunity to have a debate and vote on his motion. So I think out of respect--he has given us proper notice--we need to leave the appropriate time for his motion in this meeting, and I'm prepared to do that.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I'd like to make a friendly motion, if you'd like, a formal motion, that the notice of motion from Dean Del Mastro appear at the bottom of the orders of the day.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
On a point of order, if they wish to challenge the chair's ruling, they should do so.
Are you challenging the chair? Because that's what it sounds like to me. The chair has already ruled on it. I'm prepared to accept the chair's ruling. Notwithstanding that, I would move the motion now. Otherwise, what you're proposing is a challenge to the chair.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
I think we're sort of splitting hairs here. The point is I've always respected motions for which proper notice is given. I've never had a problem with that. We can take both notices of motion in this meeting, either now or after the witnesses. I'm certainly open to either.
Mr. Wallace.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Mr. Chair, to make things more concurrent with what we're going to be doing next, I would stand my motion and put Dean's first. We can deal with Mr. Del Mastro's motion first and get it done with, and then we'll deal with my motion on the issue that we're going to be talking about.