Evidence of meeting #68 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 point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay.
We are voting on the question of whether the ruling of the chair should be sustained.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4)
Now we'll call the vote.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
On the motion that the debate be now adjourned.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I have a point of order.
Is it appropriate for a member to vote on a motion that names that member as one of the potential witnesses? Is this something that is appropriate?
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Well, we had a vote to adjourn the debate on the motion, so it does relate to the motion.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
11:30 a.m.
An hon. member
Huh. Isn't that interesting?
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
We obviously had a vote on a motion to adjourn debate on a motion that did call for one of the members who voted on that motion to appear as a witness. Is that appropriate? Is there not a conflict of interest in that, potentially? Is it appropriate for that member to vote on that motion?
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
We're back in session.
We looked at the conflict of interest code for members. It doesn't appear that this particular vote abrogated that, so I rule that the vote stands.
Mr. Richards.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I have a point of order, Chair.
First, thank you for the clarification on that. I wasn't sure of the correctness of that, or the incorrectness.
Although I do note that Mr. Spengemann has been subbed out of the committee now, he is still present. I wonder if he could confirm for us—because this may change the ruling, I don't know—whether or not there's any legal action currently under way that he would be a party to, related to this. Would that then change the ruling?
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Mr. Chair, he's just doing his motion. We just voted not to do exactly what he's doing.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I'm just trying to clarify whether we're....
Maybe Mr. Spengemann could begin by clarifying for us whether there is any legal action.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
But obviously that may in fact change the ruling. I don't know; that's why I asked if we could get some clarification on that, and if you could then clarify whether that would in fact cause any change to the ruling. That would obviously make a difference in what would be in the code or anything else. Is that correct? That's why I asked for the ruling.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
We voted on adjournment, sir.
We vote on adjournment, not on what he's talking about, and therefore his point of order has to go toward the point of adjournment, not to the matter he brought up in his earlier motion.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
It's a point of order about whether or not the rules were followed correctly.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you for that point of order, Mr. Richards, but at this point that doesn't affect my decision. Thank you.
Yes, Mr. Christopherson.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
On a point of order, Chair, I seek some clarification from the government in terms of proceeding.
The current lead for the government is Mr. Bittle. He is the deputy House leader, which is a pretty strong tie to the government agenda. I was a former House leader in another place, so I know the role. What I'm taking note of is the government's new rule, where they broke their promise about parliamentary secretaries on committees. They go out of their way to make a big deal of the fact that their new parliamentary secretaries and their role here is not that big: it's not that big a role; they don't have the right to vote; they don't have the right to play the full role that a member does. And yet, I want to note, one of those non-voting parliamentary secretaries is sitting right next to Mr. Bittle, who is in the lead position for the government.
Isn't it interesting that the main reason we want to keep parliamentary secretaries—
