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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
There was the second subamendment, and that was defeated. This is a third subamendment. The subamendment is allowed. It wouldn't be allowed if it were attempting to do the same thing as any of the subamendments that were defeated. This one is substantially different from the other subamendments that were debated, so I do see it as an order, unless the clerk sees something different here.
The floor is yours, Mr Gerretsen.
Liberal
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I beg to differ on your ruling there. A subamendment cannot significantly alter the intent of the original amendment or the original motion, and this certainly does that. It's a significant departure from what the motion and the amendment are, and I think you need to rule it out of order. I'd like to have the clerk weigh in on that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'll give my comments on that, Mr. Falk.
The intention of the subamendment is to raise the point of privilege with the Speaker. I don't want to read it, but if you go through it one by one and and the reason Mr. Poilievre believed there was a point of privilege there, you'll see that it asks for certain documents to go to the Speaker. This does not change the intent of doing that, other than basically asking for further review, to make sure the documents are all in order going forward. That's all it's doing.
Mr. Gerretsen.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Thank you.
I just want to say, I've seen this now on both the PROC committee and this committee, where—
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
—Conservative members ask the clerk to weigh in and make a decision. The clerk is not there to provide advice to the committee. The clerk is there to provide advice to the chair. The chair makes the decisions, and I don't think it's appropriate to be putting government officials in positions like this—
Conservative
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I was supplementing the point of order that was previously raised, but—
Conservative
October 15th, 2020 / 5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Mr. Chair, you know I have the greatest respect for you, but there is the opportunity for us to question the ruling of the chair. Thank you, Mr. Gerretsen, for your input, but if the majority of the members on the committee do not agree, we can vote down the decision and vote that forward as well, so that's an option. Please, no more personal attacks, thank you.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
This is not a personal attack; I'm trying to defend the independence of the public servants. Mr. Falk said he would like the clerk to weigh in on this, it is not the clerk's job to weigh in on the procedure, that is the chair's. I think that anybody—
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Unfortunately, Mr. Gerretsen, the chair asked the clerk for her opinion, so maybe it's—
Liberal
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
On exactly that matter, whether or not your subamendment was legitimate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I said unless the clerk thinks otherwise. I can talk to her offline if you want to suspend and I'll talk to the clerk. Do you want me to do that? Otherwise, we'll move ahead. I can have a five-minute chat with the clerk. I will—
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
My understanding is that because it was ruled in order and Mr. Gerretsen began, everything's completely fine. Things are in order here. If the Conservatives wish to make up, or at least reinterpret parliamentary procedure—let me be more diplomatic in my language—that's up to them. Bosc and Gagnon is very clear on these points. Again, I'd invite my colleagues to bring a copy with them to meetings, as I have it here with me.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
So we are on solid ground here. I will suspend for five minutes. It will give people a little break anyway, and I will talk to the clerk offline. I'll give you a call on the cell, Evelyn.
The meeting is suspended for five minutes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The motion is in order as it relates to the original motion. That is what we can determine, but it's out of place in terms of where we have it, because when we look at the document as a whole, we see that it will produce conflicting dates in the whole final product that's going to the Speaker.
Whether it should be moved as a subamendment to the amendment, Mr. Gerretsen, or placed elsewhere in the document so that it would flow better and work better and we wouldn't have conflicting dates in the motion as a whole that's going to the Speaker.... In a sense, it's in order but it just doesn't flow.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Chair, we could also change the dates that are in the main motion to fix this. I think the point would be entirely appropriate, if this motion were to pass, because if it does, then it automatically creates the need to change the dates in the main motion. I think that my preference would be to continue with this, because what my motion in a sense does is to say, let's get the officials here to weigh in on this and to provide their input, and then we can continue on with Mr. Poilievre's motion. Then if at that time it's determined that well, the dates in his motion are not achievable anymore because we passed some of them, they can always be changed at that time, or they can be changed when we come back to the main motion.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Mr. Easter, on a point of order, I see that the motion that Mr. Gerretsen has put forward actually amends what would be Pierre Poilievre's motion. It's not a subamendment to Pat Kelly's motion. Specifically, it is changing those dates. That's one of my concerns.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That's basically what I'm saying. I think really what you need to do is to hold the motion, get it out to members so they can read it. We deal with the amendment. Then if you were to move that as an amendment to the motion as amended, it would flow better in the whole package, and we would see where it goes then.