It's on advice from the clerk.
Evidence of meeting #142 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was budget.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #142 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was budget.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
2:40 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
It's advice from the clerk, but it's your ruling, though. We're not listening to a ruling from the clerk. The clerk gives advice. It's your ruling, Mr. Chair.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
That's fair enough, but I did get advice from the clerk on that.
I mean, I don't have unanimous consent. I see Mr. Turnbull is shaking his head. He doesn't want to hear from the clerk.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
Mr. Turnbull, I'll just ask that you ask to be recognized before you speak.
I will go to the clerk to take a recorded vote.
2:40 p.m.
The Clerk
Ms. Kayabaga—
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
I'm sorry, Clerk. Can you repeat what we're voting on? There's too much chatter.
2:40 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes. The question is this: Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
Just like earlier, if you agree with the chair's decision, you vote yes. If you do not agree with the chair's decision, you vote no.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Because voting on a ruling of the chair is dilatory, I didn't have a chance to interject, of course, but we just voted against the chair enforcing the rules that are written in Bosc and Gagnon. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but that can't be a good thing, guys, so....
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On the issue of the Minister of Finance appearing at committee, I think I've made my position clear vis-à-vis the importance of discussing the important issue of money laundering, in particular given the fact that she actually wrote a letter to the committee asking for the five-year review. We've not met our statutory obligations with respect to that review, and that definitely needs to happen.
Despite Mr. Chambers' efforts today, that is still not happening, which is unfortunate. I'm not sure why the Liberals and the NDP on this committee are so against dealing with the scourge of money laundering in this country. It's really shameful. I'm not going to question the ethics of Mr. Turnbull and why he's opposed to that. I'll leave that for viewers to decide.
Having said that, I think I'm going to conclude my remarks by moving a dilatory motion to move to consideration of our Standing Order 106(4) request.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
My understanding is that Mr. Morantz already did that and that it has already been voted on. That matter has been dealt with. It cannot be repeated by the same member who has not given up the floor.
That's a very well-known procedural rule. I know from my time on the procedure and House affairs committee that this is not proper procedure.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
On that point of order, Mr. Chair—
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
I'll go to you in a moment, Mr. Morantz.
Mr. Turnbull, the last intervention by Mr. Morantz to bring this dilatory with a condition motion forward was overruled by you. You brought the motion forward to overrule the chair, so we technically didn't get to this dilatory motion with a condition. Technically, it is the first time it's being brought forward.
I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Morantz, if it's on that same point of order.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
The motion is different, Mr. Chair. The last motion had a condition attached to it. This is just a straight-up dilatory motion. It's different.
May 17th, 2024 / 2:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
Before I go to you, Mr. Turnbull, I will make a clarification.
Mr. Morantz, on the way you put it forward—with advice from the clerk—it is a dilatory motion, but it has a condition on it still, which means it is open for debate. The dilatory portion is curtailing the debate, but there is a condition to continue on with the Standing Order 106(4), so it is open for debate now.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
We're debating my motion to adjourn debate on the subamendments to continue a new debate on the 106(4).
Well, that being the case, the money laundering—
2:40 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, this is Orwellian. Mr. Morantz just did exactly what he did before: He introduced a dilatory motion with a condition. Whether he was able to do that or not was challenged. You ruled that it was in order. That ruling was challenged and the committee overruled that. That issue has been dealt with.
Mr. Morantz has just done the identical thing, Mr. Chair. With great respect, for you to say that he could do it again because the first one wasn't dealt with is absolutely wrong, with respect. You did deal with it. You ruled, but your ruling was overruled by the committee. The committee is the master of its own procedure and ultimately has the power to make the decision. The decision has been ruled on. The issue has been dealt with. Mr. Morantz is not permitted to then move the exactly identical motion that he just moved. You ruled on it. It was overruled by the committee.
We could do this ad infinitum. Mr. Turnbull is absolutely correct that the same member cannot introduce the same motion right after it's been defeated. If your ruling is that Mr. Morantz can proceed with this, I will challenge your ruling again.
