Yes.
Evidence of meeting #50 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 fraud.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #50 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 fraud.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
I anticipated you might.
All right. The ruling of the chair has been challenged.
Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
A recorded vote has been asked for.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)
Thank you, Mr. Comartin. Your challenge to the chair has been successful.
I think the next step now is for you to place on the table the report that you have suggested be made to the House.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
It actually is on the table, Mr. Chair. It's been here since the last meeting.
I would just reiterate that I want to move that motion in the terms that I set out before--it's now in the record--which is a motion to, in effect, recite the facts of what happened and get that report to the House as quickly as possible.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I know I just came in, but having been here for a few years, I would like to congratulate you on a very in-depth and thorough ruling. I've seen many of these. I've never seen a chair take so much time and so much due diligence in his ruling. I just want to congratulate you on the excellent work that you showed and demonstrated in this situation.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
Is there any debate on the motion that is before us, which is to submit the report in the form that Mr. Comartin presented it at our last meeting?
Seeing none, I'll call the question.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
A recorded vote is called for.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The motion carries.
Shall the chair present the report to the House?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Before we move on to the witnesses, I just want to clarify something.
There appeared to be some confusion at the end of our last meeting as to whether the chair can adjourn at 5:30 on his own. Apparently the can't. House of Commons Procedure and Practice doesn't make any provision for that; the standing orders don't make any provisions for that. It would really require a motion to adjourn, which is in fact what occurred at our last meeting.
Really, the committee has full charge of when a meeting actually ends. Typically, the chair will recognize that he's at the end of the agenda, and there being no objection, and no implied objection, he will adjourn. But there's no automatic right to adjourn at 5:30.
This is just for clarification so everyone knows in the future.
Monsieur Lemay.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I will be brief, Mr. Chair, because I have to go to the House to speak to Bill C-58. I was very surprised to see that the agenda provided for us to sit until 6:30. But I will tell you, if you didn't already know, that there is going to be a vote at 5:30; there will be three vote, two of them by standing vote.
We will certainly not finish before 6:00. To avoid any ambiguity, can we now ask that the committee meeting end at 5:30 or 5:35, so we can go and vote, and have the other witnesses come back on Monday? I am making a motion to that effect, Mr. Chair.
November 25th, 2009 / 4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
The agenda says we're going until 6:30 p.m. I don't presume to know exactly when the votes will end. I do know that this is the second time we have scheduled the witnesses from the law enforcement community.
This is the second time they will be here and I would like to think that we would provide them with, perhaps, an additional 15 minutes after 6:30 p.m. and go to 6:45 p.m. to get them in, because it's very important. We need to get input from a wide variety of witnesses.
But I'm open to hearing from other members of the committee, because I am in your hands.
Mr. Comartin.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I'm in full agreement with Mr. Lemay. When I saw this list... Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I don't know where you felt you had the authority to extend today's hearings by an hour. We have a steering committee. For an issue like that, past practice has always been to raise it there.
Then to set... I think there are 11 witnesses. Knowing that the motion also was going to be here and that there would be at least some time spent on that, I'll go back to some of the comments made earlier by Mr. Lemay about just trying to force stuff through without giving us a reasonable opportunity to fulfill our job here, which is to do appropriate oversight on legislation. I'm fully supportive of the motion that, if we can, we'll try to stop the witnesses who are coming in the latter part of the meeting, but end the meeting at 5:30 p.m. and continue it next Wednesday.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Mr. Comartin, I don't believe there's a motion on the floor right now.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
All right. We've heard from Mr. Comartin.
Is there anybody else?
Ms. Jennings, I believe you wanted to speak to this.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes, Mr. Chair, very briefly. I do understand that under the rules and procedures there's nothing that states the meeting automatically adjourns at 5:30 p.m., and it actually takes a motion to do so.
But I believe all members will recognize that the tradition has been that meetings are scheduled in the afternoon from 3:30 to 5:30, and that when there has been a necessity to extend, it has been decided by the committee beforehand, so no one's taken by surprise coming in the morning and seeing that there's a notice on their... I mean, I didn't even look at it. It's only now that I suddenly realize that right at the bottom of the page it says 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. I looked at the top of the page and finished at Madam Joncas, not realizing that there was someone else behind her.
Anyway, I would just suggest that in future there be a go-round to all of the members when the chair believes it's necessary to go beyond 5:30 p.m., if it hasn't been decided at a committee meeting, to see if everyone's okay with that. That's all I'm suggesting. I don't see any reason for anyone's back to get up. I'm suggesting that in the future it would definitely make relations in the committee a lot more conciliatory. It's a suggestion.
