Mr. Speaker, we have a few minutes before the bells ring for a vote.
I rise on a point of order regarding Motions Nos. 230 and 231 which have been twinned for the purposes of voting. Mr. Speaker, I submit to you for consideration that the twinning of these two motions is completely out of order and should be reviewed. The vote should be split on the two motions. On looking at clauses 342 and 343 of the bill you will see that Motions Nos. 230 and 231 have two completely different purposes and have nothing to do with each other.
Motion No. 230, which refers to clause 342 of the bill, brings in a technical change. The clause says “the minister shall as soon as possible after the end of the fiscal year prepare and cause to be laid before parliament a report” et cetera. All the motion does is to say “before each House of Parliament” instead of “parliament”. It is purely a technical change.
Motion No. 231 brings in a very important substantive change which I suggest might even be a precedent before parliament. I cannot be 100% sure. It adds the notion that the review to be conducted by the House can be by the committee of the House of Commons or both houses of parliament. It has introduced a new notion under Motion No. 231 that it could be the committee of the House of Commons, or of the Senate. The review could be carried out either by the committee of the House of Commons or the committee of the Senate. It would be a great irony that a law of the Parliament of Canada could be sent for review to the committee of the Senate without being sent to the committee of the House of Commons.
Therefore I suggest that the two motions have nothing to do one with the other. We should not twin the vote because voting in the affirmative on Motion No. 230 which many members agree with 100%, and I would say the whole House would probably agree with it, there is nothing wrong with it, then negates the vote on Motion No. 231 which refers to a very substantive change in the clause as it is written in the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I would like you to take this into consideration. Please split the two votes and take them separately.