Evidence of meeting #10 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Colleagues, let's bring our meeting to order.
Before we get started on the meeting, I have a request from Monsieur Paquette to make a very brief presentation.
Monsieur Paquette.
11:10 a.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will be very brief. Yesterday there was a meeting of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure and we felt that Bill C-482 was not votable. That bill is...
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
I'm sorry, Mr. Paquette, but the clerk has reminded me that before we do this, we have to—
11:10 a.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
The report would have to be tabled. yes, Mr. Chair. We beat our shadow to the punch, in the Bloc.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
That's why I wanted to wait until the end, because this is taking up too much time.
Mr. Preston, do you want to present your report first?
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I will do that, Chair.
I present the first report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business for the committee's approval.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you very much, Mr. Preston.
The committee having accepted that report, Mr. Paquette, would you like to make a statement, please?
11:10 a.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Yes. As I was saying, the subcommittee met yesterday, and the members of the federalist parties thought that Bill C-482 was not votable because it was unconstitutional.
For the benefit of my colleagues on the committee, I would note that the purpose of that bill, introduced by Ms. Picard, is to have Bill 101 apply to undertakings in Quebec that are under federal jurisdiction.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
I was going to call my own point of order.
This is not debate, Mr. Paquette. If you want to appeal—
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
That's not my point of order. Maybe my point is a point of clarification, but aren't those subcommittee meetings supposed to be in camera?
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Bloc
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Bloc
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you. That's what I was looking for; that's all that was required. The chair accepts the appeal process on the private members' report.
11:10 a.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
The suggestion was for Thursday next week. I assume that means we would be doing this even if the House were not sitting. Or just to finish the thought, if I might, Mr. Chair, given that the report has to be submitted within five sitting days, it would be possible and in order, even if the House were not sitting, to present the appeal when the House returns.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you.
The clerk has clarified the rule for Mr. Reid. It is indeed next Thursday that will be the fifth day, as required by the Standing Orders. However, if the House should adjourn prior to that, then the first day back would be considered the fifth day, technically speaking. So that clarifies it. The committee will hear the appeal within five sitting days.
Mr. Lukiwski, please.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Chair, on another point of order, and just to complete the original point of order I was trying to make, with all due respect to Monsieur Paquette—and I appreciate the fact that he's done the right thing by appealing—if the subcommittee were to be an in camera meeting, I would note that he referred in his opening comments, before he made mention of an appeal, to the three federalist parties voting for this. Saying that is in contravention of an in camera discussion, which I do not believe is appropriate. I'm not sure what we need to do about this, but it's clearly a violation of the in camera discussions that were held, because no one is supposed to know how anyone voted. No one should know anything about the content of the discussion, other than the fact that the result was an appeal from Mr. Paquette.
11:10 a.m.
An hon. member
But he was not present.