Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 29th, 2011

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Very good. Thank you, sir.

I would just like to point out that with this rule here, this fifth rule, we are actually achieving exactly the same proportions that are being achieved—

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, it's not debatable.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

I'm not debating it. I'm just making an observation that the proportions—

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

It sure sounds like debate.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

You don't have to respond to it, Mr. Chair. I would like to make the point that the same proportion is achieved through this formula, keeping the total number of seats at 308, as with Bill C-20, which increases the number of seats by thirty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

As is pointed out, it's not debatable. If you'd like to challenge the chair's ruling, that of course is your only method for this.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

I will challenge it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I wish you better luck than I had.

[An hon. member]

But with respect, though.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

With respect always. And I don't think I need too much of a crystal ball to predict the outcome, but I would like to do it for the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The question is, is the chair's ruling sustained? And we'll record the votes.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

On a point of clarification, is the text you just read identical to what was read to rule the...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

No, that one was beyond the scope. This is contrary to the principle of the....

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

I'm going to be obtuse and ask you to read it again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The whole thing or the opinion of the chair part?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

I like to know what I'm voting on, so yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Bill C-20 amends the Constitution Act of 1867. It amends the rules for adjusting the number of members in the House of Commons. This amendment proposes to amend those rules so as to keep the numbers of members at the current level.

The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, maintaining the current numbers of members of the House of Commons is contrary to the principle of Bill C-20, so it is therefore inadmissible.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

I vote with the chair, yes.

Someday it might.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

I vote no, but may I ask, Mr. Chair, how it is contrary to the principle?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I guess the simplest answer is that the principle of Bill C-20 is to adjust the membership of the House and this amendment seeks to keep it the same. That would be quite contrary to the principle.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Am I to assume that if you keep the number at the same level you are going against the principle, when we achieve the same results as with Bill C-20? If you look at the numbers themselves, I mean, how could this be contrary?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's not debatable. We've just had the vote to overrule it, and the result of that is that it was—

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

But you have not explained to me how it is contrary, with respect, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's just that it's leaving it where it is now rather than making a change. The principle of the bill is to change it.