Evidence of meeting #69 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
The motion is dated June 14, and it says, “Given the likelihood that Mr. David Brown will present his findings, as scheduled, on June 15...”. It's a hypothetical motion, and therefore I don't think it's actually in order, Mr. Chairman.
Conservative
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
The clerk just circulated the wrong motion, Mr. Williams.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
The one we're dealing with is the one that has all the signatures on it. They're very much the same kind of motion, but there's a difference in witnesses. I don't think the wording that you're raising.... Well, I guess it is in there, but I don't really think it's a point of order.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I disagree, Mr. Chairman. It's a hypothetical motion that on June 14, when it was submitted.... As far as I'm aware, we have a 48-hour rule. When did the clerk circulate this motion?
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
It's still hypothetical in the way it's written, Mr. Chairman.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
It wasn't hypothetical on June 14, because they didn't know whether the report was being made on June 15 or not.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
It said “the likelihood”. It did happen, so I don't see where it's out of order.
If you're going to make a point of order, I'd like you to refer to the Standing Orders or the rules that it violates.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Mr. Chairman, if you'd have the clerk check—
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Yes, please. I'm led to believe that under Standing Order 106(4), which is referred to here, it's appropriate to call the meeting in order to consider business, but not call a meeting to call witnesses.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
My understanding is that the purpose of this motion would be to call—
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
A future meeting, to consider these witnesses.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
That's what we're here to discuss.
If I understand the rule correctly, what we're discussing here is whether we're going to have a meeting to deal with this matter. That's really what we're dealing with. The other questions about witness lists and the dates for that would all have to be dealt with as separate motions or through the steering committee process.
Conservative
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
I thought you'd have that memorized by now, Mr. Williams.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I was away for the weekend and I kind of forgot.
Mr. Chairman, from Marleau and Montpetit, page 843, a meeting is convened at the request of four members, and “The matter under consideration at such a meeting is whether or not the committee wishes to take up the requested subject, rather than deliberations on the subject itself.”
So we are not going to be talking about the issue; we're only going to be talking about how we're going to talk about the issue.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
I think the motion is in order, and basically what we're deciding is whether we're going to have a meeting on this issue or not.
Conservative
