Evidence of meeting #35 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was supply.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We are back, and we are discussing the motion and the amendment to the motion.
Mr. Lukiwski, you still have the floor.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was just about to say, before we went public, that I appreciate where David is coming from. He didn't want to perhaps suspend all the discussion on Judy's motion on the Standing Order changes. And I agree with that. That's an important issue and we have to come back to it.
So if I may, Mr. Chair—and hopefully this will satisfy David and other members of the committee—I will move a subamendment to the motion, which would read:
...after the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs completes its study on the matter of privilege referred to the Committee by the House on November 29, 2010....
In other words, that doesn't totally put Judy's motion away, it merely tables it—I suppose for lack of a better term—until after this committee completes its study on the breach of privilege motion.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
You can't tell the amendments without a program around here right now.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
What's the relevance to the motion?
It doesn't work. It's an indirect way of filibustering.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I would say that it's a subamendment to the amendment to that motion.
Do you want to hear all three?
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
The original motion states:
That the Committee recommend to the House of Commons that for the calendar year 2011 in the present Parliament, Standing Order 81(10)(a) be amended as follows:
“81.10(a) In 2011, seven sitting days shall be allotted to the Business of Supply in the period ending not later than March 26; eight additional days shall be allotted to the Business of Supply in the period ending not later than June 23; and seven additional days shall be allotted to the Business of Supply for the period ending not later than December 10; provided that the number of sitting days so allotted may be altered pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. These twenty-two days are to be designated as allotted days. In 2011, no more than one fifth of all the allotted days shall fall on a Wednesday and no more than one fifth thereof shall fall on a Friday.
For the period ending not later than March 26, commencing on the first sitting day of this supply period, no less than two and no more than three allotted days shall be designated in each ten sitting day period of the said supply period and for the periods ending not later than June 23 and December 10, commencing on the first sitting day of these supply periods, no less than one and no more than two allotted days shall be designated in each ten sitting day period of the said supply period, and for the period ending not later than March, except pursuant to paragraph (c) or section--
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
A point of clarification, Mr. Chair, if I could. I wonder if there was a typo in the original, because, “for the period ending not later than March” should not be there. It's not in the French version. I wonder if that's in what you have.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
In the second paragraph, “For the period ending not later than March 26”--
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Yes. That should not be there. That's a typo. If you look at the French version--
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
You're right, it's not there in the French version, but it was there in the original motion that you handed us.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
This one still says, “For the period ending not later than March 26”....
It's the bottom part of the paragraph, not the top part of the paragraph. I'm just saying that didn't change.
May I start at the second paragraph?
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Is it okay if I don't start back at the beginning? Nobody is stopping me.
For the period ending not later than March 26, commencing on the first sitting day of this supply period, no less than two and no more than three allotted days shall be designated in each ten sitting day period of the said supply period and for the periods ending not later than June 23 and December 10, commencing on the first sitting day of these supply periods, no less than one and no more than two allotted days shall be designated in each ten sitting day period of the said supply period, and for the period ending not later than March, except pursuant to paragraph (c) or section (11) of this Standing Order.”
and that the Chair report this recommendation to the House.
And then the amendment is that the motion be amended by adding after the words “Standing Order”, the following....
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Sorry, there are two places where it occurs.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
So by adding the following words: “That the Committee carry out a study of the preceding motion and determine if it wishes to make recommendations to amend Standing Order 81(10a)” and by deleting the words “and that the chair report this recommendation to the House”.
We now have a further subamendment, which states that “after the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs completes its study” on the breach of privilege motion that was sent to this committee....
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Where is that ending? Is it right after the...?
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I would suggest that it go right after.... It's just that we do all of the above stuff after the procedure and House affairs committee completes its study on the breach of privilege motion sent here yesterday.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Sorry, the exact wording was here, but it got taken up. Is it “after” or “immediately after”?
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Lukiwski, there's a question about whether you say “immediately after” or “after”.
