Clerk, can you clarify?
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.
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.
The Clerk
My understanding is that there was a question to go against what the chair had ruled. The chair said that the question was put by the comment of Mr. Beech, and Mr. Ste-Marie wanted to overturn that decision so that Mr. Blaikie could then overturn the original decision of the chair.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
In other words, I believe what we're about to vote on is a challenge to the chair's ruling that my amendment was out of order. If you agree that it's out of order, you would vote to sustain the chair's ruling. If you disagree that my amendment was out of order, you would vote to overturn the chair's ruling.
Does that sound right to you, Mr. Chair?
Liberal
The Clerk
Mr. Blaikie is correct. The question is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained? If you are in agreement with the chair's decision, you vote “yes”. If you don't agree with the chair's decision, you vote “no”.
Are we ready to vote?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We're ready to vote.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)
Okay. What do we have before us now? Is it just the...?
We will now move to the main motion.
Members, now we have the main motion before us.
Liberal
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
No. The four hours were already voted against. It's the amendment on “in person”.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
I'm sorry. Can we have the language for the preference restated?
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
The language that I moved earlier was to add the words “in person” after the word “appear” in paragraph (d).
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Then, through discussion, there was a friendly amendment: “the preference of in person”.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I'm open to that change for the committee to express its preference so that a less flexible reading of the amended paragraph wouldn't prevent the minister from appearing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Again, just as a clarification, Clerk, how does this override the House rules—or will it? What will happen now?
The Clerk
The motion that was adopted on November 25 about meetings on Zoom for committees and the House states specifically that witnesses have to appear via teleconference, so the committee would be going against the House rules at this point.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
The committee would be going against those House rules. It doesn't mean that a witness would be.
