Finance Committee on May 26th, 2023

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Then I won't propose my compromise amendment that would have, I think, addressed some of MP Blaikie's concerns. At this stage, I will continue with some of the witnesses who have not been able to speak on this important piece of legislation. I think I left off at the Canadian Canola Growers Association.

The next one, I know, is the Fish, Food and Allied Workers union. Now, I know I get eye rolls from the government side when we start talking about fisheries, but I have 7,000 commercial fishermen in my riding. The Fish, Food and Allied Workers union, FFAW as it's known, is part of Unifor, a very important organization, particularly representing those in Newfoundland. They have lots of things they would like to say about not only the overall economic thrust of this Bill C-47, but also the amendments that this omnibus bill makes to the ocean protection act. They represent thousands and thousands of harvesters throughout Newfoundland. You would be familiar perhaps with this if you've been reading the press lately, because they've been dealing with the issue of the crab pricing in Newfoundland.

Previous members talked about the fact that we've not heard from any first nations or indigenous groups. There is a long list of those organizations that we should be hearing from, as well as those in the hotel association, and the construction and municipal associations—many more.

I know that some of the folks around the table, the Liberals, would appreciate this. I believe, Mr. Chair, that I can make a motion to adjourn the debate, which I will make now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Mr. Perkins, you cannot adjourn your own motion, because it would be another motion. You would be debating two motions at the same time, so you cannot do that.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Just on that point of order, Mr. Chair, a motion to adjourn is a dilatory motion. It's not a substantive motion, so it's not the kind of motion that you would typically have on the floor in the same way as you would another substantive motion. I wouldn't mind a little more explanation as to why it would be in order for one member to move adjournment but not another.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

I would go if it was in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'm just going to allow the clerk to define the ruling in the book, and then we will read it into the record.

We're going to suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're back.

I'll look to the clerk to read the ruling from the book.

[The Clerk]

In House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, page 550, under the heading “Motions to Adjourn the Debate”, the second paragraph reads:

A motion to adjourn the debate is in order when moved by a Member who has been recognized by the Speaker to take part in debate on a question before the House. It may not be moved during Routine Proceedings, except during debate on motions moved under the rubric “Motions”. The mover of the motion being debated may not move to adjourn the debate since this would involve moving two motions simultaneously. In addition, the restrictions which apply to motions to adjourn the House also apply to motions to adjourn the debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, is there any discussion on that?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Can we challenge the chair so that we might have an adjournment motion for this debate?

I'll call for that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There's been a challenge.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)

Do we go back to MP Perkins?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I believe we should go directly to a vote on adjourning the debate, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes. We'll go to the vote on adjourning debate.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

It's unanimous, so we're going to adjourn the debate.

I saw PS Beech's hand up.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Thank you.

I am very happy that the entirety of the committee was able to agree on something in the last number of hours, but I think it's worth recapping what we just went through.

The Conservatives put forward a motion. It was defeated. That was Mr. Lawrence's original motion. They then brought forward a very similar motion. It wasn't defeated, but we ran out of time listening to the Conservatives discuss their own motion instead of listening to our officials and running through clause-by-clause. It was very similar to what we did when witnesses were lined up at the table and the Conservatives wouldn't let us listen to them.

Now—today—Mr. Perkins has introduced a motion that was exactly the same as the one we already defeated, except that, instead of listing 20 hours, they listed 19 hours, so it was different—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Where is that point of order coming from?

MP Perkins, go ahead on a point of order.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Yes.

I'm sorry, MP Beech.

I presume we have a new speakers list. Could you please put me on the new list?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'll let you know that I have PS Beech, MP Dzerowicz, MP Morantz and MP Perkins.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Could I get on your list after Mr. Perkins, please, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes.

It's MP Blaikie after that. Is there anybody else?

No. Okay. We'll go back to PS Beech.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I was describing the latest motion, which was introduced by Mr. Perkins, a member of Parliament, who, in most recent memory—certainly in the last 30 days—has the running record for most filibustering time, at least at this committee. It's been quite impressive actually. Mr. Perkins introduced a motion that was substantially the same as the one we defeated before, but instead of 20 hours of testimony, it was 19 hours of testimony—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Hang on, MP Beech. Somebody has their mike on. Please mute yourselves, except for the person speaking.

Thank you.

Go ahead, PS Beech.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Just before Mr. Beech gets started, I'll maybe come in with a quick point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'm concerned about the time. If there is a possibility that we might get a decision on how to proceed in a good way for Monday, I would be open to extending the time a little bit but not indefinitely. I want to do it in order to get to a decision. I don't want to do it just to hear more talking and end because we've run out of resources.

If we think there's a possibility of getting to some kind of decision—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Blaikie, I apologize. I was speaking with the clerk, and I didn't hear when you came in. PS Beech had the floor and was speaking.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Yes, I was just offering a quick point of order noticing the time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, we're getting close. Two o'clock is approaching.