House of Commons Hansard #106 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.
Kevin Sorenson Canadian Alliance Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Chair, Canadians are telling us that the gun registry is not working. The gun registry has been a colossal waste of money. It will cost close to $1 billion. That is $1 billion which is much needed in other places. I move:
That Vote 1 for the Department of Justice in the amount of $308,238,000 be reduced by $100 million to $208,238,000.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Chair
Given the limitations on the proceedings this evening I am prepared to continue the intervention by the hon. chief whip for the official opposition while I take the matter under advisement.
Dale Johnston Canadian Alliance Wetaskiwin, AB
Mr. Chair, I would like some clarification. The role of this committee with respect to the main estimates is to examine them with the authority to reduce. Nowhere is it written that the examination of the main estimates in committee of the whole precludes the moving of a motion to reduce the estimates.
If you examine the modernization committee report that recommends this new rule, you will not find any reference to such restrictions. In fact, the report confirms that the consideration of the estimates in committee of the whole replaces the consideration of estimates by a standing committee. The report says:
The regular rules regarding Committee of the Whole would apply. Such a procedure would permit a meaningful examination of certain Estimates; it would facilitate the participation of Members who are interested in the department or agency whose Estimate were being considered; and by being conducted in the chamber, and televised, it would confirm the financial oversight role of the House of Commons.
I would like to know how removing a committee's right to vote down or reduce the estimates would be a confirmation of the financial oversight of the House of Commons? If you read the Standing Orders, Mr. Chair, you will discover that nowhere does it say that motions cannot be moved. If you read the report, you will also fail to find any reference to restrictions regarding the movement of motions.
The Standing Orders provide that “when the committee rises the estimates shall be deemed reported”. It does not say “deemed reported without amendment”. If the committee changes the estimates, these changes will be deemed reported.
When a Standing Order intends something to be deemed reported without amendment, it says so. For example, I draw the Chair's attention to Standing Order 97(1) in reference to a private member's bill being reported. It is specifically deemed reported without amendment. Obviously, if the intent were to have something deemed reported without amendment, the Standing Order would say so. Standing Order 81(4)(a) simply says “deemed reported”.
It is clear that the consideration of the estimates by the committee of the whole is a replacement of the standing committee's consideration of the estimates. Paragraph(a) of Standing Order 81(4) states:
...the said estimates shall be deemed withdrawn from the standing committee to which they were referred...consideration of the main estimates of the said department or agency shall be taken up by a Committee of the Whole...
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Chair
I hope members on either side would understand that the Chair will have to consult and come back with an appropriate decision on this matter. Therefore I suspend the sitting to the call of the Chair.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 9:05 p.m.)
The House resumed at 9:42 p.m.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Chair
I am ready to rule. Obviously, the fact that this motion has been moved has caught the Chair by surprise. I wish to thank members for their patience. I have carefully considered what jurisprudence is available and all the circumstances under which this debate is being held. For the information of members, the relevant Standing Order 81(4)(a) reads:
At the conclusion of the time provided for the consideration of the business pursuant to this section, the Committee shall rise, the estimates shall be deemed reported and the House shall immediately adjourn to the next sitting day.
As present chair of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons and as the chair of the previous incarnation of that same committee, I have grave doubts that the present motion is in the spirit of the kind of debate that that committee originally intended.
That being said, as I indicated earlier, the subject of these debates will again be discussed in our committee. As such, I am prepared to accept this amendment at this time and allow it to go forward with the reservations I have expressed. It is my firm view that I cannot accept it as a precedent in the circumstances. The debate will resume on the motion.
The hon. member for Crowfoot moved the motion, but his time has lapsed, so I will now go to the government for debate.
Dale Johnston Canadian Alliance Wetaskiwin, AB
Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. My understanding was that the time that was taken for the Chair to consider this would be taken out of the overall debate and that it would not affect this party's time. It is obvious that the member for Crowfoot has only used about 6 or 7 minutes of the 20 minutes allotted to him. I think the Chair is in error and I think the member for Crowfoot still has at least 13 minutes left in his time.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Chair
I do not dispute that as far as the clock is concerned the hon. member for Crowfoot had approximately 12 and a half minutes remaining in his 20 minute block. Having moved the motion, it ends that block. We will now continue the debate. The hon. whip of the official opposition.
Dale Johnston Canadian Alliance Wetaskiwin, AB
Mr. Chair, why are we not moving to vote on the duly put motion? I move that we go to the vote.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Chair
It is a debatable motion. We will resume the debate on the most recent motion, that being the one put forward by the member for Crowfoot. The next slot is for debate under the rules that were agreed to by all parties within the framework of the five hours of debate. I now go to the government for debate.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. My colleagues on the opposite side are looking for a vote here. I suggest that nowhere in the procedures set out in Standing Order 81(4) is there a procedure for voting. In fact, if we look at the first part of Standing Order 81(4), it states:
Each such committee shall consider and shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the same back to the House...
That is quite different from the latter part of Standing Order 81(4)(a), which states:
--the Committee shall rise, the estimates shall be deemed reported...
It does not say that the committee shall report or shall be deemed to have reported and it does not give the option of the committee actually reporting. Nor is there anything here that provides that all motions necessary to dispose of the item shall be put. There is no process whatsoever in Standing Order 81(4)(a) for voting on motions.
Clearly, the intention of the modernization committee was to have a process whereby there could be debate, the minister could be questioned on the estimates, and there could be discussion of the estimates during the evening. However, there is no process whatsoever for motions as part of this process and certainly not for voting.
Dale Johnston Canadian Alliance Wetaskiwin, AB
Mr. Chair, I submit that it is also well within the rules that the motion be deemed put with amendment and I do not see any reason why it cannot be amended. We have moved a motion to amend it and I would like to proceed with a vote to amend the motion.
Mr. Chair, if it is in order I would like to put a motion that the question be now put.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Chair
Order. I can appreciate that some members might think somehow or other that we should have a vote on this, but there is no mechanism for a vote. It is a motion that is debatable. I concurred with that party and its members with regard to the motion, so now we debate the motion.
I turn to the government for someone to speak to the motion.
Yolande Thibeault Liberal Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Chair, I am against the motion brought forward by the member opposite, because it would jeopardize one of the programs proposed by the Department of Justice, namely the National Crime Prevention Strategy, a very significant initiative for the people of Canada.
To preface my remarks, I would like to quote a document which was prepared last year by the Research and Statistics Division of the Department of Justice. It is quite an interesting paper because it puts in context the—
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Chair
The hon. member for Delta—South Richmond on a point of order.
John M. Cummins Canadian Alliance Delta—South Richmond, BC
Mr. Chair, the whip of the official opposition called for a vote and you did not respond to that call.
This is a committee hearing, Mr. Chair, and in any committee hearing there can be a call for a vote. If the Chair is not prepared or wants to challenge that, then it is the right of the members to give the Chair direction. There has been a call for a vote and if the Chair does not wish to call for that vote, then I as a member of the committee am going to ask you, Mr. Chair, to seek the consent of those who are here to continue. Otherwise, it is appropriate and fitting that the Chair at this point ask for a vote of the members assembled here.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Chair
Let me refer members to House of Commons Procedure and Practice , commonly known as Marleau and Montpetit, at page 786 under the heading “Prohibition Against--
John M. Cummins Canadian Alliance Delta—South Richmond, BC
Mr. Chair,the whip of the official opposition asked for a vote and you to this point have denied that vote. In standing here, Mr. Chair, I am challenging you and asking you to put that motion to a vote in this House now. That is not a matter of debate. It is a matter of my right as a member of this place to ask you to put that vote and to do it now.
I am challenging you, Mr. Chair, to put that motion to a vote to this committee now, please.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chair, clearly you are entitled to give your reasons for a decision and give your decision on these matters, but I want to point out that in the provision provided for committees to consider the estimates, in the provision in section 81--
SupplyGovernment Orders
An hon. member
Now. There is no debate on this. It is not a debatable motion.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Chair
Again colleagues, respectfully, to the hon. member who has just risen with regard to his intervention the Chair has ruled that the motion is in order, it is debatable and now we continue the debate. Before we make a decision we get to debate it.
John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Mr. Chair, many times in committee of the whole and in committees, the opposition, and the government many times in public accounts, challenges a ruling of the Chair. My party challenges the ruling of the Chair and we would like a vote on that.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chair, clearly if my hon. colleagues across the way can stand on points of order, then surely the government side should be able to do so also.
Mr. Chair, in the process provided under the estimates in committees, it provides that the committee shall consider and shall report. In order to have votes in this place on matters and report, there has to be a provision providing for this committee to report. There is no provision.