Evidence of meeting #131 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was liberal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you for that, Mr. Housefather.
I believe I did clarify my position on this, which was that we did not have any witnesses, so I used my discretion within the Standing Orders and the rules of the House to put this motion back on the agenda to resume debate.
I think I made myself very clear on that, sir.
Thank you.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm asking you to confirm that you will do the same thing in a future event when the same situation reproduces itself. That's what I asked.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
It's a hypothetical, Mr. Housefather, that I can't answer. I just dealt with the situation that was in front of us, and that is, as I mentioned on Tuesday, that we had no witnesses for today. There were no witnesses who were going to appear for today's meeting, so I made the decision to put this motion back on the agenda.
I'm not going to speak to a hypothetical, and I'm not going to answer a hypothetical question. I'm only dealing with what's in front of me today, sir.
Thank you.
Mr. Barrett, go ahead on your point of order, please.
Then I have Mr. Bains on a point of order.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Just quickly, in response to your ruling in response to Mrs. Shanahan's question for a new motion to be put on the floor, the motion in front of the committee has to be disposed of. Is that correct?
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Thank you. I appreciate it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I think I'm pretty clear on it. I just want to make sure other members are clear on it.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
I need to get clear, so thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Let me try to clarify this right from the book.
If a member decides they want to move another motion, then that motion could be considered a dilatory motion. If I read from the book on dilatory motions:
...a motion designed to dispose of the original question before the committee, either for the time being or permanently. Dilatory motions do not require notice, nor can they be amended or debated. They are therefore put to a vote immediately.
If a dilatory motion is accompanied by a condition, it becomes a substantive motion. It is then subject to the rules on the admissibility of such motions. It also becomes debatable and amendable.
The main dilatory motions admissible in committee include:
“That the Committee do now adjourn”:
If the motion is carried, the committee adjourns immediately to the call of the Chair.
We've done that before. It continues:
If the motion is defeated, the committee meeting [resumes].
“That the debate be now adjourned”:
A member who moves “That the debate be now adjourned” wishes to temporarily suspend debate under way on a motion or study. If the motion is carried, debate on the motion or study ceases and the committee moves on to other business.
That the Committee proceed to [another order of business]”:
[The] motion results in the matter then under consideration by the committee being replaced by the order of business proposed in the motion. If the motion is carried, the committee immediately proceeds to the “order” referred to in the motion.
Motion for the Previous Question
The motion “That this question now be put” is known as the previous question. In committee, motions for the previous question are inadmissible.
Those are the type of motions that can be moved by a member when they have the floor.
Right now, as it stands, my decision is that we are continuing with the meeting that was on notice, including resuming debate on the motion as amended, and Mr. Caputo has the floor.
Does that clarify it for you, Mr. Barrett?
Conservative
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Mr. Chair, in response to your stating that we didn't have a witness, my understanding is that we did have a witness. I just wanted some clarification from Madam Clerk if the witness was approached at all.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Madam Clerk is shaking her head no, as I am, Mr. Bains. We did not—
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
We have an email response from her stating that she received a witness that was submitted.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Hang on.
Mr. Bains, am I to understand that you sent a witness name in yesterday to the clerk? Is that what you're referring to? We had no witnesses scheduled for today. Are you suggesting to me that yesterday you sent a witness name to the clerk to be a witness at this committee? Is that what you're saying?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay.
You understand the difficulty of getting a witness within 24 hours. You do understand that.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Yes, but my understanding was that it was submitted earlier. I just wanted to clarify when the—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
We will do our best to get your witness on the list for next week. I can tell you that we do have witnesses for two meetings next week, for both scheduled meetings. When the meeting notice is published, you'll see who those witnesses are.
I sure hope members can appreciate the difficulty in sending in a name a day before a meeting is scheduled and trying to arrange having that witness appear. I sure hope people can appreciate that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'm telling you, there was nobody available so....
That ends the points of order. I have a list, and on it I have Mr. Caputo and then Ms. Khalid. Those are the two I have on the list so far.
Then I have Mrs. Shanahan—yes, you did put your hand up—and Mr. Barrett and Mr. Cooper.
I'm putting the book away. Nobody needs this book anymore, I hope. The book is going away.
We are resuming debate on the amendment as proposed by Mr. Caputo.
Mr. Caputo, you have the floor. Go ahead, please.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've aged a little bit, and maybe grown a bit of a beard, since we started this meeting.
You know, as common-sense Conservatives, we're always wanting to get at the truth. We're always prepared to have people come to committee, whether they be advisers within our own party or people who, like Mark Carney, are advising the Liberal government. At the end of the day, we have to remember that this is somebody who not only is advising the Prime Minister but wants to be the Prime Minister. It's a bit disingenuous for the Liberals to compare apples to oranges and say, well, we want this person, we want this person and they should all come here. That's not Conservative logic. Conservatives have no problem with bringing people who have something to say and something to offer to the debate.
At the end of the day, it's my view that people like Mr. Carney should be here. He wants to become Prime Minister someday. That's his prerogative. He wants to advise the Liberal government, to be the de facto finance minister. That's his prerogative, but at the end of the day, it's my view that he is in multiple conflicts of interest, not even apparent conflicts of interest. He's in multiple conflicts of interest. Let's bring him here to the committee. We have nothing to hide as Conservatives.
Liberal
