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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Brison, but I consulted extensively with our clerks, and what I read is the clerks' judgment in terms of what exactly happened and what the implications are in voting in favour of my interpretation—of sustaining the chair's ruling or not sustaining the chair's ruling. I was very clear on what's going to happen.
If my ruling is sustained, we will proceed as I explained. If it's not—if my ruling is overturned—we will proceed as Mr. Jean's interpretation was outlined.
Conservative
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
I just want to make sure I understand this correctly, because there was something added there that I wasn't aware of.
Could you clarify for me, Mr. Chair? What Mr. Jean has suggested is that we proceed and go through each of the amendments. Then you added something there about withdrawal of amendments. But Mr. Jean's position was to proceed and deal with the amendments.
So I'm a little confused. Could you clarify?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
When 11:59 hits, my interpretation is that I move to clause-by-clause. I would not deal with any amendments that are left at that point. Mr. Jean's interpretation is no, that I have to deal with all of the amendments that are left at that point. His interpretation means that all the amendments are deemed moved. For instance, if—
Conservative
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
No, no. You're making a ruling. If that's your interpretation, I would challenge that ruling.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
If you want the legislative clerk to outline that...but this is.... We've consulted extensively with the clerks: this is the process that occurred here and these are the implications. If they overturn my ruling, those are the implications of overturning my ruling.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
No. That is your interpretation, and that will be challenged. That's your interpretation.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. We will vote on this.
All I do as the chair is attempt to be fair, and attempt, as much as possible, to rely on the excellent procedural advice of our clerks. That is what I have done in this case.
Therefore, I will ask for a vote on the following motion: that the decision of the chair be sustained.
(Ruling of the chair overturned)
Okay.
So the chair's ruling is overturned. All right. My Christmas card list is shorter this year.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed. Therefore, the chair calls clause 2.
(On clause 2)
Under clause 2 I have Liberal amendment 2, Liberal amendment 3, Liberal amendment 4, Liberal amendment 5, Liberal amendment 6, Liberal amendment 7, and Liberal amendment 8, and I will remind you of the five minutes maximum per party per clause.
I will recognize Mr. Brison for five minutes.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Chair, I challenge your interpretation of your decision. Effectively, your interpretation of this is that the rejection of your earlier decision by the committee means automatically that we support Mr. Jean's interpretation, and I would assert that this is not consistent with any parliamentary precedent or rule. As such, I would challenge that, so I challenge your decision.
If I may, Mr. Chair, the fact that the committee voted to repudiate its own chair does not tell us what the procedure will be. It tells us what the procedure is not.
The vote of the committee doesn't substitute the chair's view with the government's view. It merely leaves us without a procedure because the chair's obvious interpretation of the motion has been overturned.
The overturning of the chair is a blunt instrument that can't be used to selectively amend a lengthy motion through the back door. If they want to do that, they should move a motion for that purpose. It is possible to move a motion for that purpose.
If the government wants us to follow a procedure that was (a) not part of the normal practice and (b) not part of the motion we adopted to govern our work on Bill C-45, they need to move a motion to establish such a procedure. Without such a motion, we must revert to our basic procedure, which means to debate every clause, without time limits on debate.
If the government wishes to propose a new procedure, let them propose a motion for that purpose. If not, let's begin clause-by-clause under our normal rule of no time limits. It's embarrassing to see the Conservatives repudiate their own chairman to save themselves from what seems to have been bad drafting, but they rammed this motion through here in the first place. They didn't allow amendments to improve it—
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
—and when they realized that they had put themselves in a box and hoisted themselves on their own procedural petard, they were so desperate to get out of it that they were willing to embarrass the chairman and repudiate him in public.
I can say, Mr. Chair, that I respect your decision earlier, and I feel sorry for the position that you've been put into by members of your own party.
Conservative