Evidence of meeting #110 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was political.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Amendments would be submitted Tuesday and clause-by-clause started on Wednesday.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Mr. Cullen, was the amendment to change the time from 24 hours? I'm sorry. I just—
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, and of course I worried about this, because the proposal now gets into the proposal that I suspect—but I don't know—committee members might want to talk about, which is actually now a proposal to finish the study of the bill.
Now what you're proposing is not just the Twitter, Facebook, and minister thing. It's the whole kit and caboodle.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
The 24-hour thing would be voluntary and not subpoenaed, right?
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Is it in order for....? I don't know the answer to this question. That's why I'm asking.
We're talking about something and Mr. Cullen is talking about inviting and/or potentially compelling some witnesses. The amendment is to talk about the length of the study, to talk about when amendments would be.... To me, it doesn't seem like it's in the context of.... It doesn't seem like an amendment to that. It's a totally different subject matter.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I wouldn't see that as an acceptable amendment to that motion. Therefore, we should probably just look at Mr. Cullen's situation and then the other thing. If the government chooses to make a motion of some other nature, then that's their right, I suppose.
However, I will also point out at this point in time—while I'm on a point of order, I'll make a second point of order—that we are past the time of the meeting. If we were dealing with something where we could deal with it quickly...but we're starting to talk now about when amendments would be due, witnesses, and all these other things. That's probably a lot longer conversation. Would that be something we'd be better off to schedule to have...I don't know when. However, the point is first of all, that I don't think the amendments are actually in order, and second, what are the thoughts on timing here?
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Would the committee be okay if we just dealt with this particular motion on these two witnesses separately?
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
No. I believe the issue was brought up of timing and how we can organize. It's difficult to figure that out if we don't have some kind of timing in mind, so I think that—
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
It's a point of order and I'm asking the chair to make a ruling.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
It's an amendment I want to bring, so I don't want to take it off the table.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Well, I'm pointing out that I believe the amendment is out of order and I'm asking the chair to make a ruling.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
[Inaudible—Editor] communicate with each other, because everything we say is not going to affect it.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I feel the amendments—if you add all the schedule and everything—are outside the scope of the original motion. You can alter the time, but the others should be dealt with separately.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Okay, so I could bring a separate motion. Can I ask you this? Within this motion, can there be a final date as to when witnesses are called, which should be Monday because we're bringing this witness in on the end of the witness list?