Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Sept. 21st, 2017

[The Clerk]

That's correct.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Richards, would you like to speak?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Yes. Have we finished with the questioning on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

If you recall at our meeting on November 17, I had given notice of a motion. I would like to bring it forward for discussion at this point, Mr. Chair.

The motion was

That the Committee invite Paul Szabo, Sven Spengemann, Veena Bhullar, Jamie Kippen, and a representative from the Parkhill Group to appear to answer all questions related to the correspondence sent to the Chair of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee on October 28, 2016, regarding alleged breaches of the Canada Elections Act in Mississauga—Lakeshore.

Given that one of the members listed there was available here at the committee today, I thought it might be a good opportunity to see if we can clarify some of these alleged breaches of the Canada Elections Act, and bring forward this motion for some discussion, and see if we can make some progress with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

A motion has been moved. It's open for debate. We're distributing copies of the motion.

Mr. Graham.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to move to adjourn debate at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Graham moved to adjourn the meeting.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

The debate, not the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The debate.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Can you at least wait until the documents are circulated before we shut things down?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I saw the documents were being distributed. I had certainly intended to make some remarks. I would assume other colleagues may wish to have some discussion. I think it's out of order for someone to move debate before people have even had the document circulated to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

In terms of making things in order, if we're going to debate this motion, and it relates to correspondence sent October 28, 2016, I as one member of this committee will need that document in front of me before I can comment on whether or not we act on that document.

I make that as a point of order that until I have that document in front of me, further discussion on this, Chair, I'm contending is out of order because I don't have all the information as one member of the committee. I don't know if other members have a copy of that letter right in front of them. I don't.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The motion is non-debatable, so I have to put the question.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

The motion you're talking about, I assume, is Mr. Graham's motion. Is that correct, the motion to adjourn?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Point of order, Mr. Chair, just to clarify.

I had indicated in a point of order that I felt it was out of order to move that while people were still having the documents distributed to them so that they would be able to determine whether they wanted to comment.

I can understand the government's reluctance to want to have a debate on the motion, but I would assume it might be out of order for them to even be able to procedurally take some kind of approach like that prior to people even having had a chance to look at the motion. I would think people may have wanted to have debate.

I'm asking for you to rule on whether it is, in fact, in order for them to move that.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

At the risk of getting too far in the weeds, it looks we're going to, I'm afraid.

I would also make the case that Mr. Richards is entitled to have his first comment. It's his motion. He asked that it be brought forward. It's normally—I don't know if courtesy, and I would seek from the clerk whether it's an absolute rule—a courtesy and the culture of this place that, if somebody moves a motion, they're at least given the respect to be given an opportunity to say something about it, particularly before a member of the government majority slams the whole thing shut.

I would seek some further clarification, Chair, on the appropriateness of moving on a motion that makes reference to a piece of correspondence that we do not have in front of us. I would ask you, Chair, to rule on that, and my point of order is that we are not in order to deal with this motion without a copy of the correspondence that's referenced in the motion.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

[Inaudible—Editor] in front of you. That's not debatable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Related to the letter, it has been distributed to everyone, but—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Not today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

No, not today.