Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 22nd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes, we will find some spelling and grammatical errors on this motion as we move through, and I accept that we will cross out certain things and do that type of thing.

Mr. McKay, we were on your motion. I had made certain comments, and you were about to--

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

And I was about to--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

--tell me what a bad person I am.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Exactly, yes. I wouldn't want to castigate the honour of the chair.

Just as a point of facilitation, and because I'm such a heck of a reasonable guy, I think we can delete paragraphs 8 and 12, because my judgment there is that they are argumentative rather than factual. However, the rest of the commentary you made is substantiated by both the record of Parliament itself with respect to paragraph 2 and paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 with respect to the evidence introduced by Mary Corkery, the president of Kairos. So I think all of that is in order and on the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to apologize. You're maybe being reasonable, and I am not, but the ruling has to be for the whole thing, not picking and choosing. So if you have some things in here that make your motion non-compliant in my case, then I have to rule the whole thing out of order. So that's what I've done at the moment.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you.

Again, since we have a lot of difficulty, certainly from the government side, and since the chair seems to have difficulties on the propriety of some of the points in the motion, and in an effort to try to make this committee work to our timetable as best as possible, which as we all know is Friday, I would propose an amendment to this. I will read it. We do have copies in both official languages, but I'll read the amendment to the motion first.

Everything after the word “That” in Mr. McKay's motion would be replaced with “the analysis draft that the analysts”--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Which “that”?

[An hon. member]

The first “that”.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Is that the paragraph 1, “That”?

[An hon. member]

No, before paragraph 1.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

The preamble to paragraph 1, where it says “That the draft report contain the conclusions of the committee”.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

How can we start into amendments when we have challenged your decision, Mr. Chair, and a challenge of your--

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

How can you challenge it? We're discussing it.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

No, we're challenging a decision. I'm still on the point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Still on the point of order.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

You ruled this out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Right.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

We have challenged the chair's decision. There is supposed to be no debate on a challenge.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let Mr. Proulx finish his, and then--

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Gladly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Therefore, my impression was that we were to vote on that challenge to see if this was on the table or not. Am I right or am I wrong?