Evidence of meeting #1 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, do we have the count on that? Is it a tie? I heard Ms. Dzerowicz say it was a tie. I was just going to see if you wanted any advice on your tie-breaking vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Is there any further discussion?
We're on the motion. We'll call the vote. The vote is on the main motion, as amended.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Pardon me, Chair. On a point of order before the vote starts, my impression was that we had just voted on a Conservative subamendment to my original amendment, which would mean that we would have a vote on the amendment before having a vote on the main motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Clerk, could you just drill down on that? We just voted on the amendment for the minister to appear for four hours.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
No, my amendment was to add “in person” following the word “attend”, and then there was a Conservative subamendment to my amendment. We haven't yet had a vote on the amendment.
The Clerk
If I can just clarify, Mr. Chair, the amendment from Mr. Blaikie was ruled out of order by the chair, so it wasn't an amendment. Therefore the amendment—
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
It wasn't clear to me that the amendment was ruled out of order. Those are magic words that we need to hear. I would have gladly challenged the chair on that had I known that it was the appropriate time to do so—
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
—but I thought that the question had been superseded by the Conservative subamendment and that it was being left until now, which is why I raise the issue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I did confer with the clerk. That's how I saw it—that it was out of order.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I would take this moment to respectfully challenge the chair. Notwithstanding the content of the motion and this committee's powers to supersede that, or lack thereof, I do think that the committee ought to be able to express its preferences, that it's not out of order for the committee to express a preference, and that it's important for the government to hear that preference. There may well be future negotiations or modifications to the nature of the hybrid Parliament. My desire for this committee would be that it would reinforce the idea that, going forward, when ministers are called to testify at committee, we would see them appear in person whenever possible. This is an opportunity to begin that work of making that impression on the government. It's in that spirit, Mr. Chair, that I challenge your ruling.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
It's a fair point. Your remarks were captured, but the House has ruled that witnesses would not appear before the committee in person.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Shall we have a vote on the challenge to the chair, then? It is within my prerogative to do that as a member.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, just as a question of clarification, the question on the main motion had been called and was proceeding. Then this point of order was interjected as the question was already being called. I just pass it over to you whether these points of order are in order or if we're supposed to complete the question and then move on to business.
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
My understanding, and what I thought members understood, was that the question had been called at the time.
Mr. Blaikie, we've captured your sentiment on record, but I feel that it had been called.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
A point of order, Mr. Chair. I challenge your ruling. That was not my understanding. I thought we were on my colleague Mr. Blaikie's amendment and that was the subject of the next vote. As I said earlier, I would like to make an amendment to the main motion to invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the committee. So I was waiting for my colleague's amendment to be voted on before I moved my amendment. It was not clear to me that we were voting on the main motion. Therefore, I challenge your ruling.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I'm going to confer with the clerk again.
We are going to let the vote go forward on the challenge. This will allow for the House to clarify its rules.
Call the vote.
Liberal
