Finance Committee on May 29th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

On a point of order.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you.

Question period is a sacrosanct part of our democracy. We know that this government has tried to ride over democracy—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Lawrence, that is debate.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

We have seen this record over—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That's debate.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

—and over again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That's debate.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I know you'd like for us to just go away and be lap dogs to the Liberal Party, but that's not our role.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That is debate.

MP Lawrence, I'd ask for some decorum, some respect.

We are moving to—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

On a point of order, MP Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Chair Fonseca, would a motion to suspend supersede the agreement with the whips?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That is not a point of order.

Shall—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

It's a legitimate question on the function—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That is not a point of order.

Members, we're moving forward.

Shall clause—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

How can you not answer that question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

—467 carry?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I request a recorded vote.

(Clause 467 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Shall clause 468—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

On a point of order, MP Blaikie.

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

There are a couple of things that I think are worth saying in response to some of the previous points of order.

The first has to do with the conversations among the whips. There are times when various parties are on the wrong end of a decision taken at the whips' table. They do make a lot of decisions about which committees meet when, which committees are cancelled and which other committees go longer. I don't think it's helpful when one party doesn't like the outcome at the table, where they are sometimes on the winning side, for them to reflect on decisions that are taken at that table.

The reason I'm willing to sit through question period is that I would like to get through this process. If we can group clauses in order to make up for the time we won't spend voting while we're in question period, then I'm happy to break for question period, but I'm not prepared to lose the time in a process that, frankly, has been very frustrating, and I'll leave it at that.

We've been doing about 50 votes an hour. If we want to group 50 clauses now and go until two o'clock, I'd be prepared to do that.

For me, it's about the time, so if we're not going to be able to group clauses, as is often done in clause-by-clause, then we're going to sit at this table. I'm happy to make that a decision of the committee. If folks object to the whips doing that, I'm happy to vote to stay through question period. I'm happy to do that at this table. I recognize that we can't because it's out of order. That's a little problem for the chair to solve, but we could do it by UC.

In any event, this is a problem with a solution. We can be reasonable and talk about it, but that has not been a feature of this process for weeks now, so I don't have a lot of confidence in that.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I have a point of order on the point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Chatel, is your point of order on MP Blaikie's point of order?