Evidence of meeting #94 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
That's my understanding of the motion as adopted by the committee.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I do have a point of order on that, Mr. Chair, and as you know, no one respects you and your position and your history in this place more than I, and I understand you're bound by the rules. But on that point of order, Mr. Chair, I would ask you to consider the motion adopted by the committee on October 31 as allowing us to vote on every amendment to Bill C-45 that has been put on notice.
I can tell you our intention—I know through discussions on the government side—was to maximize study and deliberations on this bill while keeping to a reasonable working plan, so that of course we could get things done. By asking 10 other committees to study portions of this bill as part of it, and, if they saw fit, to suggest amendments, which would be considered here, and by confirming that members of this committee were not going to be blocked at any stage from tabling their own amendments either, according to the rules, we wanted to give the fullest possible airing for all of the important measures set out in our budget implementation bill, and that, of course, includes the opportunity to vote and voting itself.
The motion says at 11:59 p.m. the chair is to put “each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill”.
Now, Mr. Chair, to limit it to just the clauses is not, in my mind, reasonable. Today's notice of motion said we were to give the bill clause-by-clause consideration, yet we will be dealing with amendments up until midnight. How is it that those words take on a different meaning at midnight and after than before?
I believe the words “each and every question” includes every one of the amendments filed by every party in this place, which have been duly filed with the committee clerk.
When the House adopts a time allocation motion, it uses the same phrases about, and I quote again, “every question necessary for the disposal of the stage” being “put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment”.
When the time allocated period ends, the speaker still puts every selected stage motion to the House. Taking Bill C-38, for instance, 15 motions had been moved when report stage debate was interrupted, yet the House voted on all of the selected report stage motions, not just 15.
The same logic that happens in the House should apply to the same wording here, Mr. Chairman, in my respectful submission.
While I will admit, of course, that committees are somewhat different from the House, in which ways are they really different? For example, motions here do not need seconders, the previous questions cannot be moved here, and unless a committee orders, there are no limits on the length or number of speeches a member can make.
Now, Mr. Chair, all of those things have in common a view to expand participation by the committee members and all parties, not to limit it.
My position, I think, supports fairness, due process, and the rule of law, and certainly the ability to speak your constituents' voice. So I do not think it would be logical to interpret our motion of October 31 in a way that is even more restrictive than how the same words would be interpreted in the House, particularly, Mr. Chair, as the spirit of the committee rules is to allow for more participation.
If it is your ruling, Mr. Chair, that we cannot vote on the amendments, which were duly filed with the committee clerk, then I must challenge the chair.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I appreciate that. That's actually a substantive point of order, one of the few we've had at this committee, I must admit.
5:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I will say, though, that it is still my view, and it's the view based on advice from our clerks, that the section you quote, paragraph (f), says: “...the Chair shall put...without further debate or amendment, each and every question necessary to dispose of....” It says “without further debate or amendment”. That is my view, and that's how I....
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I understand, Mr. Chair.
With respect to you and your position, I would still challenge your ruling.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I have bells, so I need consent to keep the committee going.
Do I have consent to keep the committee going?
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I do not have consent.
Okay. We'll return, and we'll return to this as soon as we come back after the votes.
Thank you.
The meeting is suspended.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I call back to order this 94th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. We're resuming our study of Bill C-45.
Colleagues, I want to run through exactly what's going to happen here.
I outlined at the beginning issues with respect to time allocation, end of debate, and the amendment from Dr. Fry.
Mr. Jean asked me as the chair for clarification; I presented the clarification, the interpretation that I had. He presented an alternative interpretation with respect to the “end of debate” section. I have ruled that his interpretation is incorrect. Therefore, Mr. Jean challenged the ruling of the chair with respect to my interpretation.
I'll read from chapter 20 of O'Brien and Bosc:
Decisions by the Chair are not debatable. They can, however, be appealed to the full committee. To appeal a decision by a Chair, a Member must inform the committee of his or her intent immediately after the decision is announced. The Chair then asks the committee to vote on the following motion: “That the decision of the Chair be sustained”.
And I will ask for that motion.
I'll just finish up here.
If my ruling is sustained, we will proceed as I previously explained. If my ruling is overturned, then Mr. Jean's interpretation will stand.
As the chair, I will give any member the opportunity to withdraw any motions in the package that they do not wish to proceed with, if we go with Mr. Jean's motion, because if we go with Mr. Jean's interpretation, what it means is that we consider all amendments deemed to be moved.
That's as full an explanation as I can give. Therefore, I will put the following motion to the committee—
6:55 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
I just need clarification before I vote.
Are you saying that if this motion goes through, all of our amendments are deemed moved, so that we do not need to move them even now, prior to midnight? Or is this after midnight?
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
They're deemed moved now. If you wish not to move them, then indicate that to me as the chair.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
That is the clarification; those are the implications of the decision.
So the committee has to make a decision whether what I've told the committee is correct or whether Mr. Jean's interpretation is correct. Therefore, the committee has to vote on the following motion: that the decision of the chair be sustained.
If you agree with my interpretation, you vote yes to this motion. If you do not agree, you vote no.
All those in favour that the decision of the chair be sustained—
6:55 p.m.
An hon. member
He's calling the vote.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Chair, if the committee votes to agree with Mr. Jean's position to challenge the chair, that doesn't mean that the committee agrees with Mr. Jean's full interpretation. It means that the committee doesn't agree with your interpretation; it does not mean the committee agrees with Mr. Jean's interpretation. It's a complete non sequitur to say that because the committee votes to reject your interpretation, it embraces his.