Evidence of meeting #18 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I guess it is at such time as you give us the opportunity to vote on your motion.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
These are interesting rules.
So this committee just continues to sit as long as the government says—with your support—and we just have no say in it, even though we all agreed that this meeting was supposed to be over at one o'clock and there are other, legitimate ways to extend the meeting, none of which has been done.
Sir, my rights are being denied. You are extending a meeting inappropriately. There is no authority to continue this meeting past one o'clock. There is no motion passed by a clear majority and there is no unanimous consent. This meeting should be over. There are no legitimate means to keep this meeting going.
This is hugely precedent-setting, Chair. If this rule stands, the government can expect blowback. You will regret this, if you use this method.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Chair, I would like to speak on a point of order.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Well, obviously it's a point of order. Mr. Lamoureux was next and you're after him, but if you'd like, I could read some of the fine information that will tell you what we're doing.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
All right. As stated in O'Brien and Bosc on page 1087:
A committee... is normally adjourned by the adoption of a motion to that effect. However, most meetings are adjourned more informally, when the Chair receives the implied consent of members to adjourn. The committee Chair cannot adjourn the meeting without the consent of a majority of the members, unless the Chair decides that a case of disorder or misconduct is so serious
that he adjourns for that reason.
So the chair needs the consent of a majority to adjourn.
I'll hear Mr. Lamoureux on the same topic, and we need to get back to the reason we're here.
March 4th, 2014 / 1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Absolutely.
Mr. Chair, I had the opportunity to serve on the citizenship and immigration committee as a vice-chair and it became somewhat of a controversial issue for us.
Mr. Tilson was our committee chair and he was over in Europe at the time and we were having some issues, some members actually might recall, I know Mr. Shory was a part of it. The chair was in Europe and we had a situation where the chair, herself, in this case, made the decision to adjourn the meeting. I think if I reflect back on much of the dialogue that had taken place.... You have the rules, the procedural rules, and then you have traditions, or customs, or conventions, however one might want to look at it. When I reflect back on what took place there, and I want to summarize because I realize time is of essence here, the way I would summarize it is that the chair does have fairly wide scope in terms of ability to adjourn a meeting.
My experience, somewhat limited, has been that when you go into a committee, like we have today, it's for a defined period of time. That's done for a reason. Primarily it's because you have many members who are actually on the committee and those members quite often have a wide variety of other agenda items that they have to get to. For example, normally today, if it wasn't for a motion inside the House, we would actually be in the House doing SO31s. I'm sure you, as the chair, wouldn't want to disrupt SO31s or even potentially take this thing through question period. Not only would it be questionable in terms of behaviour, but we might find our whips, from all political parties, getting fairly upset.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Lamoureux, I understand. I'm already in the middle of a very long dissertation from Mr. Christopherson on his motion.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I don't think I need one this long on the point of order. I think I've explained my point and why I've made the ruling.
Mr. Lukiwski, you have one last shot on the point of order.
We'll get back to Mr. Christopherson on his motion.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I don't think I need to go on. As I said earlier, David's procedural people would have been on the ball. I would have known exactly what I said was in order, and we'll continue.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
I can appreciate that, Mr. Chairperson.
I guess it's more a question of—
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Yes. It's a question on a point of order, in terms of procedure.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
That's okay, you can toy with me. I don't have a problem with that.
Having said that, the issue for me then is that if you're assuming the responsibility of allowing the committee to sit indefinitely, as an opposition member—I shouldn't even say an opposition member—as a member of the committee, am I now responsible to ensure that I am virtually on call and I shouldn't be making any arrangements? How do I know that there is not special consideration being given to some MPs because I have to literally be on call 24/7?
I don't have any sense in terms of when the committee is going to be sitting.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Enough.
Thank you.
I understand your point of order, but it's not one. The answer to your question lies to your right in Mr. Christopherson. He has the floor.
We're not moving from that until he is done with it.
Mr. Christopherson, on your motion, please....
1:10 p.m.
Liberal