Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 6th, 2020

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I am confused by this.

I think this is an important conversation. First of all, I think the majority of Canadians feel very strongly that prorogation is completely and directly linked to the WE scandal. I want to be really clear about that. You know, I do have some concerns about the Conservative motion. I would actually like to get to a place, at some point, where we can still call in some of that accountability that needs to happen, but I was under the understanding that you as the chair would be making a ruling today. It feels a bit backwards to vote on something that you are going to make a ruling on afterwards.

I am very confused by this process. I would like clarity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes. We would just be voting to move forward with the meeting. At that point, I would make my ruling. I am prepared to make a ruling—

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

The recorded vote that we're about to do is on the continuation of the meeting?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It is to actually have a meeting today on Ms. Vecchio's motion.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

That's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We've been called here on another motion. That has brought us here. We're disposing of that motion, the Standing Order 106(4) motion. Once that is disposed of, then we will move into consideration of Ms. Vecchio's motion.

I am prepared to bring my ruling, and then we can proceed.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, Mr. Doherty.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Who put forth the motion to discuss whether we resume or not?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

You guys did.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

My understanding was that was not a motion that was put forward. It was that we were resuming the discussion on whether we were voting on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

This meeting has been scheduled and called under the Standing Order 106(4) motion in a letter signed by four members of the Conservative Party. I believe they are the regular standing members of this committee. I think it's best that we move to a vote to resume this meeting at this time. If most members are in favour of resuming this meeting, there should be no problem, and we'll get to the ruling.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Todd, you have to know your vote before you're signing.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, my understanding is that a Standing Order 106(4) motion is debatable. Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It is debatable, and that's why I allowed debate on that motion. Perhaps I should have made that clear. This 106(4) motion is maybe the first time many of us have entertained such a motion. Therefore, I have gone over it with procedural advice from the clerk as to how this process would unfold.

The appropriate steps to take would first be to bring the motion forward and allow debate on it if members choose to debate it, and then at that point there would be consideration of that request made by the four members who have signed the letter to hold this meeting today. Then if that passes, we would resume consideration of Mrs. Vecchio's motion.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

In that case, you would start it off with your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, in that case I would start off with my ruling. I'm prepared to do that.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Chair, on a point of order, there was no motion in the letter. The purpose was to resume the debate on the motion that was put forward. Isn't that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Doherty, through that letter you invoked Standing Order 106(4). That is why we're having to go through this procedural step, but Mr. Vaive can definitely explain it to you if you think that might clarify it.

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair and members of the committee, essentially the way that Standing Order 106(4) works is that upon receipt of a request from four members, a meeting is scheduled. Today's meeting is the meeting that was scheduled. The first order of business is to discuss whether or not the committee wants, in this case, to resume consideration of Mrs. Vecchio's motion. That essentially is the first phase or step in the process. That's something the committee has been doing for the past several minutes now, and with nobody else wanting to talk, one of the options open to the committee is to now move to a decision whether or not in fact the members want to resume consideration of that motion. That's the stage we are at right now.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you for the clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Since a recorded vote was requested, we can move to that recorded vote now.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Can you read out the entire motion on what exactly we are voting on specifically, just so that we have it on the record, please?

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, the question would be, “Shall the committee resume the consideration of Mrs. Vecchio's motion?”

I will proceed now to the roll call of the members.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)