Evidence of meeting #1 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I think both your points, Mr. Fragiskatos and Mr. Julian, are not real points of order.
I'll go back to Mr. Gerretsen and continue the debate.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I offended Mr. Julian I want to take the opportunity to say I can understand how he would be offended by that. There's probably a little bit of truth to what I'm saying that's getting to him and he feels the need to lash out against that. I understand that, but Mr. Julian perhaps should have consulted a little bit more and thought about this a little bit, or, when it was his turn to speak to it, he could have actually taken the time to tell us why he thought it was procedurally incorrect. He didn't. All he did was tell us why the motion was so important to pass.
That's why I started this off with my introductory comment by saying that you did an incredible job as a chair of not only ruling it out of order.... You could have just left it there, but you provided a path and an avenue to make this motion in order. Rather than take you up on that offer, which would have been extremely easy to do, the opposition members of this committee chose to instead use it as an opportunity to overturn your ruling.
In my opinion, that shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the importance of the chair's position and what the chair is supposed to do. Much like the Speaker, they're getting their information and they're making a ruling based on where, procedurally, things are deemed to be correct and incorrect. Ms. Blaney was able to see that in the PROC committee. She did take a lot of heat for that in the media. I imagine that Mr. Julian was concerned about the same thing. He was worried that even if it was procedurally correct, if he went down this road he'd end up looking like he was trying to support a cover-up or something like that. I understand politically why he did it. It makes perfect sense.
It's extremely disappointing to see that not just Mr. Julian—I know I'm picking on him a little bit now and I don't want to hurt his feelings as I clearly did a few minutes ago—but all members of opposing parties here would use the opportunity to challenge the chair to advance a political objective. That's exactly what they did and it's extremely discouraging to see that.
As most members know, I've only been a member of Parliament for about six years now. Before that I was involved with our city council here in Kingston. I was a city councillor and I was the mayor. At times I was in the position of having to vote on a challenge of the chair and on the receiving end of being challenged. I can honestly say that I cannot remember a time when there was a challenge that was successful. At the end of the day most members understood that the chair's job is to use the information and the advice that they receive from their clerks in order to make the best decision on behalf of the committee.
What we see today is that all members of the opposition, despite the fact that the chair laid out the reasons very clearly and the chair provided an avenue and a path to make it procedurally correct, still voted to dismiss the chair's ruling because they're motivated purely from a political agenda.
I don't know if we're going to see more of this, quite frankly. I don't know if it is indicative of parliamentary process that this happens quite a bit. This is my first time being in a minority Parliament situation, where I'm actually getting to see this unfold, but I can say that in all my years of being involved in politics and sitting around not-for-profit boards, committees and council tables, I've never seen people use a challenge of the chair in such a politically motivated way, especially when you have a chair who takes the opportunity to not only explain in detail but also provide avenues and paths to get out of this later on.
Like I said at the outset—and I have a lot more to say on this—there's a great deal to be discussed in this. I will definitely come back to it.
At this time I really want to address this point. I really find it discouraging to see members do this, especially after being on the PROC committee. There I witnessed the NDP standing up for parliamentary procedure the way that chairs are supposed to engage and the way that procedure is supposed to be interpreted, not using procedure for political motives.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Mr. Gerretsen.
Mr. Kelly, the floor is yours, followed by Mr. Fragiskatos.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There were some interesting comments from both of the last two speakers. The curious part here is that Mr. Fraser pointed out the urgency of getting on to the business of Ms. Dzerowicz's motion. Nobody denies the fundamental role of this committee on pre-budget consultations, so we do wish to get to that. It's curious that in the last meeting we listened to lengthy filibuster speeches from the other side, which had the effect of delaying getting to this other business. It really was a bit rich coming from the governing party members on the committee to suggest that it's the opposition that doesn't want to move on to those pieces. It's important business that we need to get to.
I noticed in Mr. Gerretsen's speech he said that to support the motion of the chair might have made one look like they were participating in a “cover-up”—his words to describe what's at play here.
To the point, and your ruling on this, Mr. Chair, I am prepared now to fulfill the remedy that you had proposed to us. I will move an amendment to Mr. Poilievre's motion that the motion be amended by adding, after the word “That”, where it first appears, the following: “the evidence heard and papers received by the committee during its study on government spending, WE and the Canada Student Service Grant, during the first session of the 43rd Parliament, be taken into consideration by the committee during the current session and, accordingly”.
If we make that change, that would bring us into order per your ruling. I move that amendment. I understand that the clerk likely has that from us.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The amendment is in order, Mr. Kelly.
We have a point of order from Mr. Fragiskatos.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Could Mr. Kelly clarify? He said beginning with the word “that”. Which paragraph is he talking about? Could he be more specific about where he's looking?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
I'm sorry. I might need a moment to put these together. I'm looking at different screens right now.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
It's where it first appears. The amendment would be added after the first “that” in the motion.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
With all due respect, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Chair, it's a long motion and therefore—
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to know, if we're on an amendment now, are you going to set the existing speakers list aside and then start a new list? How does that work?
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
No, I will work from a new list on the amendments and then come back.
Mr. Gerretsen, is your hand up a second time?
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
If people can take their hands down and then put them back up, I will need a new list for the amendment.
Mr. Kelly is this in the first line that starts, “That the Chair be instructed to present the following report to the House forthwith, provided that”? Does the amendment go in there?
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I have a point of order.
I'm looking for certainty as to whether or not a French text has been provided.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'll have to ask the clerk about that.
Madam Clerk, I think Mr. Poilievre's office is sending you the amendment in both official languages. Do we have that yet?
11:55 a.m.
The Clerk
Yes, we received it in English and I'm just turning it into French.
