Evidence of meeting #51 for Public Accounts in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
It happened. Mr. Chair, it happened, and you know it happened.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I can make the same accusation as you. Make the point, but don't make an accusation.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
It was allowed to happen, so I would like to read my motion of February 11, 2011.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
It was:
That, with respect to the study of the Report of the Auditor General of Canada on the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, the Public Accounts Committee invite the Privacy Commissioner--
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I call the meeting to order.
Mr. Saxton, just a moment. Nobody has said that your motion is not acceptable. You haven't moved it. Your motion is there. Any time you want to move it, you can bring it up. You haven't brought it up. That doesn't prevent--
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Mr. Saxton, you did not bring it up today. Mr. D'Amours has brought forward a motion. It doesn't mean that his motion is out of order just because you have a motion on the table that you haven't presented.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
The normal practice of this committee is that anything that's put forward is put forward 48 hours in advance. We have always stood by that. We've always followed those rules. You yourself have followed those rules in the past, so we must follow proper parliamentary process and give 48 hours' notice to motions of this kind.
That's what I'm saying, and I have a motion that I would like to be heard. It was put on the table on February 11. I would like to read that motion now.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
On a point of order, if Mr. Saxton wants to bring his motion, let's deal with the motion we're dealing with. To all of a sudden circumvent that debate and bring your motion--you're more than entitled to move your motion, but right now my colleague Mr. D'Amours brought in his motion, because we're dealing with committee business. This has to do with the committee's agenda. That's why he brought forward his motion. If it doesn't receive unanimous consent, that's a separate issue, but it's in order unless it has to do with other items of committee work.
We are dealing with committee business, so the chair's ruling made sense.
I don't see, Chair, right now how you could even entertain a second motion until we deal with Mr. D'Amours' motion.
I would humbly request that Mr. D'Amours'--
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
As I was saying, Chair, my point of order is that we deal with Mr. D'Amours' motion first, and then of course I have no hesitation to deal with Mr. Saxton's motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I've already ruled on this. You can keep challenging if you want to, but there is already a motion on the table that's being debated. I have consulted with our clerk on two occasions during the course of this discussion about whether that motion is in order, and the clerk--I'm giving her a moment or two here to bring that forward so we can read it for you specifically.
Madam.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Joann Garbig
For information, if I could first refer to page 1,051 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, this is a section that has to do with the decision-making process in committee:
The Standing Orders do not require that notice be given before moving a motion in committee. However, to avoid situations where the members of a committee are forced to consider issues without warning, committees usually deem it appropriate to adopt rules on notice for substantive motions. Such notices normally require 24 or 48 hours.
This committee did adopt such a motion on March 11 with its other routine motions, and that motion reads as follows:
That 48 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration, and that the notice of motion be filed with the Clerk of the Committee and distributed to members in both official languages before consideration is given.
What the chair has said is that this rule applies in the following way to the motion of Monsieur D'Amours, which is that since the committee is currently in a discussion of committee business and the member has an item of business to bring before the committee, the notice is not required in the present circumstances.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
I totally disagree with that. That is the most biased interpretation of an opinion I've ever seen--
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Mr. Saxton, just please come to order.
As I said, you can be disruptive or everybody can have an opportunity to be involved one at a time.
Conservative
