Evidence of meeting #1 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was motions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
It would be the same as in the last session. So we would start with the official opposition, followed by the Bloc Québécois, the party in power and then the NDP. On the second round, we would alternate. It would be like the last session.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
I don't know what happened in the last session. What Mr. Moore said is that we're going Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative; Liberal, Bloc, Conservative; Liberal, Conservative. If there's time left, because we have one extra Conservative who hasn't spoken, he would then get a chance, and then we would start it all over again.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Can I just clarify? The way it's written here, there's the first round, which is seven minutes, done by party, and then it alternates between the government and opposition parties. I didn't hear him say the NDP--
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Mr. Chair, I believe the NDP moved a motion. I believe we called for the vote and I believe you started the process of voting, at which time we have to vote on it.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Yes. I'm hoping we're going to be collegial. If something is confusing, I want to make sure it's clear for everyone who votes on the motion.
Are you satisfied, Ms. Davies?
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
I just want to make sure that is understood, because the way it's written here is that it alternates back and forth on the second round between the government and the opposition parties; it's plural. The way your member read it out, it didn't sound quite like that.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
We actually have sort of a schematic of how this will look, and we can show that to you.
If we follow the approach that we just discussed, which Mr. Moore tried to clarify, we start with Liberal, we go to Bloc, we go to NDP, and then we go to Conservative. So that's one Conservative, yes. Then we get another Liberal, another Bloc, and then Conservative, so that's two Conservatives. Then we go Liberal, Conservative, and that's three Conservatives. We have two more Conservatives left, and I believe the understanding has been in the past that everyone gets to speak once before someone gets to speak a second time. Is that correct? Then there would have to be two more Conservatives speaking at the end, if there is time.
Is that your understanding?
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
I'd like a clarification, because my understanding was that on the second round when it goes back and forth, at some point it does come back to the NDP, noting that it goes back to a government member each time.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
But then we would be violating the principle that everyone gets to speak once before there's a second turn for anyone else. I believe that's a principle that's going--
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
As long as we have an understanding of what's involved. Everybody speaks once, and then we go and start the process again. Is that right?
Mr. Dosanjh.
February 2nd, 2009 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I understand these turns and these alternations. It is among parties, not individuals. You could have just one Conservative speaking during all of the turns that you have, so I think that this is--
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
You're absolutely correct.
Do we have an understanding of what the motion is? All right, I call the question.
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Now, I believe there were some additional motions. Is that correct?
Mr. Moore.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Yes.
Again, I don't want to belabour this, but the motion I would have is that when we have a bill or a private member's bill before our committee, it would take precedence over any other studies the committee is undertaking at that time. So if we have a piece of government legislation or a private member's bill, it would take precedence over a study, and we would deal with that before resuming the study.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
My motion would be that the consideration and examination of any government or private member's bill that falls within the express mandate of the committee shall take precedence over any study or non-legislative examination, other than questions of privilege. In such circumstances the non-legislative study shall be deferred until such time as the bill is reported back to the House.
That's my motion.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
All right.
Discussion on the motion: Ms. Davies and then Monsieur Ménard.
