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.
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.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
But the reason that wouldn't work is that what I'm addressing in the amendment relates specifically back to the documents that we're trying to bring back in through the main motion.
Liberal
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Thank you. I don't know if you want me to do a point of order or just continue.
The fact is he is making an amendment to an amendment, so it has to be deemed to the amendment. What he is talking about is the main motion. If he wants to do that, he can make an amendment to the motion, but unfortunately it cannot be heard because there is a motion already on the table. I think this is a way of circumventing that, but I think the fact is it's out of order.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Sorry, I thought you were going to make the comment, but obviously I misheard.
Mr. Chair, it's vital that we follow parliamentary procedure and practice, Bosc and Gagnon. Footnote 580 is the relevant one here:
Decisions by the Chair are not debatable. They can, however, be appealed to the committee. To appeal a decision by a Chair, a member must inform the committee of his or her intent immediately
—“immediately” being the key word—
after the decision is announced. The Chair then asks the committee the following question: “Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?”
If I remember correctly, Mr. Falk did raise his hand and make an appeal, but that came well after the fact, and that fact is that you recognized a motion to be in order, and Mr. Gerretsen was given the floor to speak. I'm afraid all of what we're now engaged in appears to be moot. That's not just my opinion; it's an opinion that aligns with the facts, the facts being based on what the record of practice that Bosc and Gagnon guides us with.
, I think we ought to continue, respectfully, Mr. Chair. Of course, it is your choice. I think we ought to continue by allowing Mr. Gerretsen to expand upon and discuss the merits of his subamendment. I know a number of other members wish to raise their perspectives as well, and I would count myself in that group.
Liberal
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What Mr. Fragiskatos just stated is not accurate. I did, in fact, raise my point of order immediately after you made your comment. It was you who suggested getting the opinion of the clerk, and I was just affirming your suggestion. Mr. Fragiskatos was completely off base with his assertion that my comment was out of order.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, it was not immediate. We can go back to the record. I know Mr. Falk is an experienced member, but he will recollect, I hope, that it was not an immediate appeal. Bosc and Gagnon is very clear that the appeal has to be immediate.
Mr. Chair, you recognized that Mr. Gerretsen's subamendment was in order. For that reason, I think we are not focused on the right thing here. We need to be talking about the subamendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
My concern is that it takes the flow out of the motion. I do believe the motion is in order, but it's misplaced. I will stand by my original decision and state that other changes are going to have to be made in the original motion to make it flow if this one carries. If this one doesn't carry, then no worries.
NDP
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I have one more point of order, Mr. Chair. It's brief.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
No one uttered the phrase “challenge the chair”. No one formally put that on the record. As I said already—and I think it's a critical point that I'm emphasizing—Mr. Gerretsen had begun speaking after you recognized his subamendment to be in order. Again, respectfully, I appreciate that Mr. Falk disagrees, but it's out of line with recognized practice.
