Debates of March 20th, 2019

Interim Estimates

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The interpretation was not working. I understand that it was from the time the member first wanted to propose the motion. I would ask all members to listen to the motion so they can make an informed decision in being able to respond.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I just said, the Liberals have said that they are tired, that they want to conclude the votes and move on to something else. What we want is for them to be held to account for the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

I am therefore proposing a solution via the following motion: That we bundle all the votes into one single vote to allow us to complete all of the voting before 3 p.m. All we are asking for in exchange is that all the players involved in the SNC-Lavalin scandal be called to testify in the coming weeks, under oath, without any restrictions, as part of the investigation of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

If we combine those two things, the government will be held to account and the Liberals will be able to go get some sleep and take a break from debate.

I am therefore seeking the unanimous consent of the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened with great interest to the motion that was just defeated, but again, the member for Carleton does not sit on the ethics committee. The issue of putting people under oath would have to be brought before the ethics committee to do this right. However, we have had people under oath at the ethics committee, and we would be more than willing to look at the issue. I just do not think it is appropriate for someone who is not on the committee to tell us what we should do before we go. However, when we do have the member for Markham—Stouffville and the member for Vancouver Granville appear, we will be awarding all the time and respect they deserve to tell their stories. The others, for example Mr. Chin—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have a point of order to move a motion? This sounds like debate to me.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to move a motion that we would be willing to support the Conservatives bundling all the votes, but we are not in a position yet to say we would put people under oath.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Members require unanimous consent to move a motion, but I do not feel that it was a motion.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want this to be very clear, because we have to do things properly. We are bringing forward a motion that the New Democratic Party is willing to support bundling all the votes into one so that the Liberals can go home, granted that the Liberals no longer obstruct the work of parliamentarians, particularly the work coming at the ethics committee, and that we would not be in a position to put anyone under oath until it was brought before the Chair to make that decision.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I realize that the House is notoriously punctilious and therefore there is some hair splitting. The reason why there might have been some disagreement is because the member thought I was appointing myself to the ethics committee. I see he is nodding. I reassure him that I am not doing that. I am simply pointing out that the ethics committee is a creature of the House of Commons and can be directed.

Therefore, I have the following motion: That all members will agree to bundle the remaining votes associated with these estimates on the sole condition, and only after the condition is met, that the government agrees to a comprehensive list of witnesses at the ethics committee that includes all the players who have been implicated in the SNC-Lavalin scandal and that all of them be allowed to testify without any encumbrances imposed on them by the Prime Minister.

Now that I have clarified the committee membership and composition, I got the NDP's support, which would leave us with unanimous consent.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will ask the member for Timmins—James Bay to quickly get to his point of order. If it is related to the one we just heard, which we basically voted on three times, it will be ruled out of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have enormous respect for you, however, I do have enormous respect for the rights of the ethics committee.

The New Democratic Party has not had a chance to talk about that, but I think if we had been asked, we would have supported it. My colleague was speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party and I was concerned—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

That is a debate issue, so there is no point of order there.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Immigration and Refugee Board

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved:

That Vote 1, in the amount of $37,146,035, under Immigration and Refugee Board — Program expenditures, in the Interim Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020, be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on Motion No. 112. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

[The Acting Speaker, Carol Hughes]

And five or more members having risen: