No, unfortunately.
Evidence of meeting #94 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #94 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
May 30th, 2023 / 5:45 p.m.
Conservative
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Thanks.
I'm new to this committee, but I've had many occasions to deal with the PBO and—
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
—I just wondered why he wouldn't be eligible to be here.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
It's not a point of order, but thank you.
Members, shall clause 579 carry?
(Clause 579 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I have a point of order.
I'm not quite the communicator that, say, our leader is or other individuals, so maybe I just wasn't clear. We would agree to grouping the clauses if the Liberals would agree to a UC to have the PBO here by the end of June.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We're going on.
Shall clause 580 carry?
(Clause 580 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
I was just wondering. You called the vote there and I wasn't sure whether it was to have the PBO here or not.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Members, we just reviewed the video where there was some confusion around clause 572. Clause 572 was missed, so we are putting the question now on clause 572.
Shall clause 572 carry?
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Mr. Chair, I wasn't quite quick enough to intercede on a point of order prior to your calling the vote again. Would you be kind enough just to explain to us what happened?
I guess we just went from clause 571 to clause 573. Is that what happened?
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I'll explain what happened.
We were going through the sequence of votes and we did vote all those times. What happened, though—and I did confer and look at the sheets that the clerks had—when I came to clause 572, I said “571” again, so we said “571” twice—we thought it was clause 572.
We recorded it on the sheet as 572, but when we reviewed the record, it said 571 twice. We did clause 571 twice. Now we have gone back to take care of clause 572.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Well, on that note, I think there is a lot of scientific evidence of the impact of exhaustion on people, so I am wondering if we should suspend now and pick this up tomorrow morning.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
No, I think we're good.
I do like my coffee. That will help. I think I need to perk up on that.
On a point of order, go ahead, MP Maguire.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
I was like my colleague, Mr. Lawrence. That's why I called a point of order before, but I guess I just missed it. The vote had already been called.
Were both votes on clause 571 the same? Are you able to just scrap one? How does that work?
