Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the arguments put forward by the learned government House leader and to respond most directly to his arguments. I suggest the words “recommit” in this instance and “referred back” can be construed much the same.
More important, I think the intent of the word here is to refer back or recommit to a stage of the proceedings as opposed to the inference that it is a reference back to the actual committee.
In any event, we are suggesting that the original ruling is in order, a ruling made by Mr. Speaker. You are essentially being asked by the government House leader to sit in judgment of yourself or to overrule yourself. We all know that you are very able and no one is questioning your ability. You are being asked to be a court of appeal for your own ruling.
The more important instance here is that this intent is to go back to a stage as opposed to sending it back to the finance committee. The intention here is that it is to go back to committee of the whole. The reference in Beauchesne's 737(1) is:
A bill may be recommitted to a committee of the whole or to a committee by a member moving an amendment to the third reading motion.
I suggest this is very much in order and that Mr. Speaker's original ruling was the correct one. Therefore I want to also indicate this is not a dilatory motion. It is not the intent of the mover of the motion or the party of the mover of the motion that this be dilatory or that this hold up the bill. That is not our intent. We want the provinces to get their money.
We want this equalization bill to pass through the House. I suggest further that, as a result, this will not add time to the mix. This would be voted on at the same time as the main motion.
Mr. Speaker, your original ruling I suggest was the correct one. In your wisdom, I think you ruled correctly on the original occasion when this was before the House. I encourage you to re-embrace that original ruling.