Evidence of meeting #16 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lauzon.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Mr. Lauzon, I want to finish my thought first.
I am going to rule that it is in order, and if there are members who wish to object to my ruling, they can do so.
Seeing no objections, I can now go to the speakers list—
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
If I could ask you to clarify through the clerk, though, because the clerk originally told us in this same meeting—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Mr. Albas, I've made my ruling. I've explained to you that if you'd like to object, you can—
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
If we're not consistent with how we run this committee, Mr. Chair, it will eventually come and catch up with people.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Okay. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Albas.
I'll now turn it over to the speakers list. Who would like to speak to the amendments put forward by Mr. Lauzon?
I have Mr. Lauzon on the speaking list.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Obviously, our proposed changes are all different, because they involve numbers and information that change, especially when it comes to days. We changed “30 days” to “60 days”. We changed the year “2018” to “2022”. There's nothing related to this.
If Mr. Albas is referring to the portion of the amendment after the word “Canada Post” that includes the point about breakdown professionals, obviously this concerns the witness list that we need to carry with us. However, in the second part of the amendment, we negotiated with Xavier Barsalou‑Duval to include Quebec. So Quebec is in the motion.
A new component of the motion is the request “that, immediately following these meetings, the committee, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), undertake a five‑meeting study on what is needed to support, diversify, and modernize Quebec and Canada's ports”. We included this new component because of the situation in Contrecoeur, Quebec, which we really want to focus on. We feel very strongly about this issue. That's why we agreed to add this portion, which wasn't in the motion before. So it's different today.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.
I'll turn it over to Mr. Albas. Before we do that, I want to share something that was shared by the clerk, which is that we will most likely be voting for each of these individually. I just wanted to let you know that.
Mr. Albas, the floor is yours, sir.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm still in shock that we've allowed this amendment to go. I'm again raising that in the latest and fourth edition of parliamentary practice, it says, on page 894, “Furthermore, motions moved in committee must not go beyond the committee's mandate or infringe upon the...prerogative of the Crown.” That is relating to the appropriation of public revenues. As well, it says, “A motion that is the same in substance as one already...decided in the same session is inadmissible; however, a member may move a motion which, although similar, is sufficiently different as to constitute a new question.” That's on page 894.
Mr. Chair, you've ruled previously that such motions are out of order. This member, the same member, has made an almost identical study before, and we disposed of it as a committee. I ask you to reconsider that, because this is about the rules of this place, and the fourth edition clearly backs that up.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Would you be able to do me a favour, Mr. Albas, and read that last portion for the record?
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Yes: “however, a member may move a motion which, although similar, is sufficiently different as to constitute a new question.”
Mr. Chair, it's the same—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
My view is that it is not the same. There are other components that were added to it, thus creating something that is significantly different from what was proposed before.
I invite you once again, if you do not agree with me—I'm turning it over to you—to challenge the chair. These are things we can do in this committee, which you have done in the past.
If you would now like to do so—I see no other members on the speakers list—we'll go to a vote.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
No. In that case, I would put my hand up.
Liberal
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Sir, I have my hand up, and the rules are that if a member raises their hand in order to speak.... I did say that I was going to place an order and that I would be speaking on the list after.
Conservative
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
—but I said earlier.... If you want to stop and take a look at it, I said I wanted to raise a point of order, and then I would speak to it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
That wasn't a point of order. I turned the floor over to you. You made a statement—
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Mr. Chair, I would like to have my opportunity to speak.