Evidence of meeting #27 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prorogation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you, Mr. Nater.
Just give me a moment, please.
Did somebody want to debate that point? Maybe I could then take it all back to the clerk.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Madam Chair, I believe my motion is a dilatory motion that would move immediately to a vote, if I'm not mistaken.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you.
I'll be right back if you could give me a minute.
Mr. Turnbull, can I ask you to email, if you have it in both official languages, a copy of that motion to the clerk and me?
At this point, having heard what you have said and what Mr. Nater has said, I view it as not being a debate on the actual motion, and that if the committee were to vote to move to a different order of business for the day, then you would move the actual substantive motion.
At this point, a vote to move to another subject matter is deemed as a dilatory motion that is not debatable, and we would just be moving to see if we are going to move to another order, but the substantive motion would not be moved until the committee agreed to move to that.
Mr. Therrien.
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
I find it somewhat surprising that someone wants to introduce one motion while we're debating another. I have two motions that have been on notice for a long time, and I'm waiting patiently. I had three motions to introduce but withdrew one. My two motions on notice would follow this one, but we're discussing another motion.
I have considerable respect for the work the committee is doing. Until we finish debating Ms. Vecchio's motion and Mr. Turnbull's amendment, I'll wait patiently out of respect for the committee's work. I don't know why the Liberals don't do the same.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I hear your point.
Yes, you have three motions that have been properly put on notice—
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Yes, that's correct.
Pardon me, but I meant to say I would withdraw one when the time came. That's why I say I have two motions.
You're absolutely right. You're doing an excellent job, Madam Chair. I commend you for that, among other things.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I've heard of that happening in other committees, and that is how I would interpret things if we got to that point, but you have properly put on notice three motions.
There are many other motions that the members have. There are approximately 10 motions on notice at this committee that could be moved to and, at any point, I believe, anybody could move a dilatory motion to move to those if they wished to, to move to another order of the day if they wished to. I think the committee would then be able to debate which order of business they'd like to move to.
At that point there would be a vote on whether you would like to move to another order, and at that point only Mr. Turnbull would have the opportunity to move his motion.
We have a couple of hands up. Ms. Vecchio and then Mr. Blaikie.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I'm sorry about that. I was trying to lower my hand. I wish to not be on.
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Chair, I'm just trying to get a better appreciation of what exactly is going on. There seems to me to be at least two ways in which this motion is out of order.
In the first case, typically if you're proposing a new study or you have any kind of substantive motion—this is part of the routine motions we passed at the beginning of the committee—you have to give 48 hours' notice. I don't believe notice has been given. It's my sense that the motion is out of order, in that sense.
The second sense in which I think it may be out of order is that I don't see how it's a dilatory motion. There are a few kinds of typical dilatory motions which are outlined in House procedure. One is that the committee do now adjourn. Another is that the debate be now adjourned. The third is that the committee proceed to another order of business.
There is no order of business that's been given any notice for, so it doesn't seem to me that a dilatory motion can be used as a way to shoehorn in a new order of business that there's been no due notice given for. Otherwise, we could do this all day. We could just all bring whatever we want to talk about to the floor in the form of a dilatory motion, which I think would really undermine the routine motion that was passed in terms of at least giving notice. I think you'd find, with the number of motions on the table, that members may decide that being able to raise any potential issue of study in the form of a dilatory motion would become a way of doing business.
I would just offer that word of caution. I think the ruling here about whether this motion as it's being presented is in order can have a considerable amount of significance for this committee in this session of Parliament. Also, because the procedure and House affairs committee is the committee that other committees look to for guidance on how to conduct their business, this is the kind of ruling that could have a considerable ripple effect on the way in which all committees of the House conduct their business. I understand that this is not the only committee experiencing a filibuster.
I think your ruling is important in this regard. I think it's important to get it right. I would urge you not to rush. I don't think anybody can accuse the committee of rushing to anything recently, so I don't see any value, in this case, in departing from the culture that's been set. I would encourage you to take the time to reflect on the nature of this motion and the consequences of having us deal with it in the way that Mr. Turnbull is proposing.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Mr. Blaikie, you raise some really good points. Actually, you definitely have me thinking.
On moving to another order of business while we're in committee business, the notice requirement is not when we are generally in committee business. You can bring forward other motions without the notice requirement that's generally needed when we are in committee business, and since that's what we are in, it would be in order, but only if the dilatory motion were to be passed. I don't know; I don't foresee which way that would go at this point, anyway, but to move to another order of the day would be seen as a dilatory order....
Perhaps I'll have the clerk supplement what I'm saying or add to what I'm saying. Obviously, he can state it in a slightly different way, which might make more sense to all the members.
Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.
11:15 a.m.
The Clerk
Madam Chair, I don't necessarily have a lot more to add other than to reiterate the point about committee business.
Generally, when a committee is meeting under committee business—and currently for meeting 27 the item of business that the committee has been engaged in is committee business, even though the committee has been debating Ms. Vecchio's motion and Mr. Turnbull's amendment—that would suggest that other possible proposals for the committee to work on, such as the notices of motion that we already have, including now this new suggestion by Mr. Turnbull, would not need to meet the notice requirement.
The means that Mr. Turnbull is suggesting with his current motion would be to move to essentially another order of the day. That would, if successful, drop the committee back into committee business, which would open the floor for his new suggestion for a motion. The way in which he has proposed it would essentially replace the item that is currently under debate with his new suggestion that he has brought forward at this point. The first step, however, of course, is for the committee to decide, in fact, if they want to move to a new order of business.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
11:15 a.m.
The Clerk
Madam Chair, the question would be on moving to a new order of business.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
On a point of order, Madam Chair, I'm wondering about a couple of things.
Could we not go to a vote on this motion now? If the Liberals are saying they want to move forward, that they want to get off this, can we not move forward now?
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I can definitely survey the committee and see if the committee would like to move to a vote on the amendment.
Would the committee like to move to a vote on the amendment?
Is there a consensus to move towards the vote?
11:15 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed
No.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay.
We still have a speakers list on the amendment. Since it's a debatable motion, we'll continue with the speakers list. Perhaps there will be a point where a speaker on the list will want to see a vote.
Ms. Vecchio.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I'm just going to ask a question on a point of order.
After a vote, does the floor go to the next speaker or does it remain with the speaker who called the vote? I just know a lot [Technical difficulty—Editor] more now. It's just a question on this.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
That is awesome. I just wasn't sure. Perfect.
Thank you.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
If there was a vote on the amendment, we would drop our current speakers list on the amendment and move to the main motion.