Evidence of meeting #94 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Genuis, you cannot move a motion on a point of order. That's what you did—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'm not moving a motion. I'm challenging the chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
You did move a motion on that point of order about reading sections into the record.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I didn't move a motion at all. Mr. Lawrence asked you to read the sections as part of the vote, which is standing procedure.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
As a matter of order, he believes, as do I, that you should read the sections, and then I challenged the chair.
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
You cannot move a substantive motion on a point of order, but you can raise a matter of order on a point of order. That's what a point of order is for.
The Clerk
If something needs to be done in committee, it has to be done by a motion. Asking to do something would be done through a motion, and one cannot move a motion on a point of order.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
With respect, because it was my point of order, it was not a motion; it was an interpretation—
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Yes, it was a point of order that I had a different interpretation. There was no motion. It was an interpretation.
The chair believes it's too much work for him to say 1.16, and I believe it's appropriate that he should say that so that we can make sure that—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Just on the point of order, Chair, it is not correct to say that you need a motion to ask someone to follow the rules. You need a motion to do something that is different from the existing rules. If I'm asking the chair to sing a song before each clause, that would require a motion, but asking the chair to read the numbers of the item being voted on is simply asking the chair to follow standing procedure. If the chair is deviating from that or has a different understanding of what standing procedure is, the chair can make a ruling that's different from that. Then it's up to the committee to ultimately decide, if there's a challenge to the chair, whether the chair's interpretation of the rules is correct.
It was not done on a motion. There was no motion that was read or that was moved. A point was made about what the rules should be. That's what a point of order is for.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
The legislative clerk has looked in the book, and he will tell us what it says. MP Genuis, you can understand what it says in the book so that it will be clear for you.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is on page 766 of the book:
Each clause of the bill is a distinct question requiring separate consideration. The committee Chair calls each clause successively by number and, after discussion, puts the question on the clause if no amendment is proposed.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
If I can just respond and ask a follow-up question to the clerk, what that says is that the chair should ask “Shall clause 7 carry?” or “Shall clause 8 carry?”, which the chair has not been doing. Actually, that's explicitly what you read, is it not? The chair has not been doing that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Genuis, what you're concerned about, then, is that you would like me to ask “Shall clause 12 carry?”. Is that correct?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
The appropriate procedure is to identify the clause we're on and to ask “Shall the clause carry?”, and then we would proceed to consider the clause. My colleague was asking that you read the section numbers as well, and I do think the book will confirm that regardless of the chair's interpretation, the committee does have the right to challenge the chair's interpretation. The committee can then make its own determinations, and it can defer to your advice or to anyone else's advice.
I think there are two issues: One, the chair should actually read the question being asked; two, I agree with my colleague that the sections should be read. If the sections are not going to be read, then I would challenge the chair, we can have quick vote on that challenge, and the committee can come to a conclusion.
Respectfully, I think we're spending more time discussing whether or not the challenge should be considered than it would take to actually consider the challenge, but it's up to you, Chair, how you want to use that time. I think it's an important principle that the chair cannot decide to reject a challenge. The purpose of a challenge to the chair is to give the committee recourse if members believe the chair is not correct.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
All right. Based on what I heard from the legislative clerk, what was read from the book and what I heard from MP Genuis, we're going to go into.... Is this what you're looking for? Shall clause 12 carry?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
That is my understanding of what's in the book. Are you using that as an example, or are you actually asking the question?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I'm asking the question. Is this what you were looking for?
Shall clause 12 carry?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
That is the correct formula for posing the question to the committee, and then we proceed to do it on division or have a recorded vote or something else.