Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 15th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Reid, you have the floor. We'll continue with the debate.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

He has five minutes, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Not quite.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Earlier, I had suggested the idea that we ought to be willing to look at in camera evidence if we took the whole committee in camera, and there were a number of objections, but I think they're mistaken. I think you can do this. The privilege of going in camera, it seems to me, for the subcommittee derives from the larger committee, and for the Committee of the Whole it's from Parliament. So I can't see why we couldn't do this.

There have been some suggestions that discussions in camera were of a nature that would have made a profound difference to Mr. Silva's ability to make his case before this committee. I can't reveal exactly what happened in the committee, but we know certain things. We know it was relating specifically to the issue of his item being substantially the same or dealing with substantially the same subject matter as a previous piece of legislation, Bill C-257, I think. It was not about the other things. Nobody's suggesting it violates the Constitution. Nobody's suggesting it's an item outside of federal jurisdiction. So we already know a fair bit about this.

I have to be honest and say I don't think there have been tremendous procedural difficulties either with going in camera or, frankly, that there's any suggestion that any particular discussion has occurred that makes this particular hearing in some respect in violation of the normal rules that would allow him to have an open and fair hearing of what he's saying.

We could have the option of going in camera, and I still think that would work, notwithstanding the concerns that one or two of my colleagues have. But I don't see, given the nature of the discussion, how this is damaging to Mr. Silva's interest in making his presentation.

Perhaps I'll just leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Monsieur Plamondon.

[An hon. member]

I think I was next on the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We are still in the round of questions to the witness--

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

--so I'm going in the order of the parties.

You are next when your time comes up.

Monsieur Plamondon, please.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to make the following motion: that we now proceed to adopt the second report of the subcommittee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

You're putting a motion that we move directly to the vote?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

A vote on le deuxième rapport du sous-comité.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm going to take a moment to determine whether that's in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, after checking with our analysts and the clerk, I have concluded that the motion put forward is out of order. We are still in the rounds of questioning of the witness. To move from that to a vote is out of order.

You could put a motion on the floor, if you so choose, to move to that section where we're finished questioning the witness. Then the motion is on the floor and that motion would be debatable. The witness can stay, if he wants, but technically witnesses are at that point dismissed.

So the motion to move from here to a vote is out of order.

Monsieur Plamondon, you still have the floor.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Point of order, Mr. Chair. I challenge your decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

You're entitled to do that.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I will, and this is the reason.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm waiting for a reason. If I don't have a reason, my ruling will be the same.

Go ahead.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chair, I feel that the motion made by my colleague Mr. Plamondon is perfectly acceptable. I think that we should move to the vote, and then deal with the report democratically. The motion asks that we move to the vote now. I am pointing out to you that the word “now” is important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm not convinced by that.

Is there another point of order, or the same point of order, please?

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the same point of order, with the greatest of respect for Monsieur Guimond's appeal, he didn't put forward any reference to any applicable standing order.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Point of order.

Excuse me, Jay.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Are we going to get into the business of interrupting each other now?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

No. It's a point of order, because I think when we put the question, it's not a debatable motion. I will ask the clerk to verify that we don't have to go to a debate when we put this question—excuse me, Jay—this question of interpretation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

My rulings are obviously open to the committee to appeal, and you can vote on my ruling. But I didn't hear anything compelling in your argument to change my ruling. So now I guess we either allow somebody else to argue or we go to a vote on my ruling.