Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 66090
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
We are back in business, folks.
We have the motion by Mr. Lukiwski.
Mr. Cullen, you have the floor. Did you—
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Scott would like to be on the speaking list. We'll get him on there.
Mr. Lamoureux, you're next.
View Scott Reid Profile
CPC (ON)
Just on relevance, I appreciate that Mr. Lamoureux would be fully within his rights to introduce a motion or, indeed, several motions. I don't think there's a notice requirement under our committee's rules, but we are actually in the midst of discussing not merely another motion—and everything discussed must be germane to that motion—but an amendment to that motion. I would think that these remarks would be more appropriate when we've dealt essentially with this.
Let's deal with Mr. Cullen's amendment to Mr. Lukiwski's motion first.
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Reid. I was about to get there as Mr. Lamoureux was rounding the corner into new motions.
We are still on Mr. Lukiwski's notice of motion of today. Unless you are trying to move these as amendments to that, I don't see a way forward until after that discussion is complete. I'd be happy to come back to it at that time.
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
Let's see how we get there.
We'll allow a little latitude today.
Mr. Lukiwski, go ahead on a point of order.
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
Well, I think this committee would like to usually move in that step, where we'll study before we come to the conclusion as to what we'll put in our final report.
I have Mr. Scott, Mr. Cullen, and then Mr. Lukiwski, but I'm trying not to get out of sync here as to where we are.
Mr. Lamoureux, as Mr. Lukiwski has pointed out, the subject matter you're talking about is already in the motion that founded the reason for our meeting. Belt and suspenders I understand, but I just don't understand why we need to go that deep at this moment, further—
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
If you'll allow me, let's leave it. If at the end you don't believe that the subject matter you're looking for is going to be covered, I might even give you some leeway to bring it back, but at this moment I think we're already discussing the topic that you're trying to put on the floor, either as an amendment to Mr. Lukiwski's motion or as another motion.
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
Well, we're instructed by the motion itself to have that dialogue before December 2, so I'm guessing that we will have it.
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Lukiwski, we were still at your motion.
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
I have him on my list.
So we'll let him do it at the end or...?
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Lukiwski, thank you for that recap, but I'm wondering if you wanted to read your motion into the record, because it was done while we were in camera.
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
Super—as soon as we possibly can. But unless the people who are on the speaking list accept coming off it and voting, I don't see that....
Mr. Scott.
View Craig Scott Profile
NDP (ON)
Great, thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think what I have to offer will actually assist in one respect: it will clarify to an extent a small concern about the extent to which we are committing in advance to move forward in the fall on the exact same motion adopted in the House on June 18. I think that's absolutely in the spirit of everything I've heard from Tom. I want to suggest an amendment that makes it even clearer.
In suggesting this amendment I think I'm probably helping on the point by Mr. Lamoureux as well, because my amendment makes it exceptionally clear that in the motion of June 18, the provision “examine the subject-matter of the motions, standing in the name of the Member for Papineau, placed on the Order Paper on June 10, 2013” will be part of the study. This will be made even clearer by my amendment.
What I'd like to do now is just to read the amendment. Tom's motion would stand exactly as is, and then I would suggest simply adding these words:
and that the Committee further show respect for the will of the House by instructing the Chair of the Committee to write to the Government House Leader to request that he, on the first day of the return of the House, seek unanimous consent from the House to bring back the House order of June 18 2013, in the exact form adopted on that day.
I think this is a good idea procedurally, because we are going to have prorogation—it's almost certain—between now and when we'll be able to really study this. In that case I think it's really a good idea to have the exact same motion back before this committee, and the mechanism I'm suggesting here would accomplish that.
At the same time, it absolutely makes clear something that is possibly just a little bit too general in the first three lines of Mr. Lukiwski's motion. The first three lines talk about holding meetings pursuant to the House order regarding transparency and accountability, but then it says, “and that the Committee show respect for the will of the House”, and it only specifies paragraph (h). The idea of showing respect for the will of the House with respect to including a non-recognized party member is really important, but it's isolating one element of the motion, whereas the first three lines are quite general. All I am doing, I think, is crossing the t’s and dotting the i's with what we've exactly heard already from Tom, that the government is in support of the motion as adopted.
I would like to add the extra procedural boost by asking you, the chair, to write to the House leader to ask him to seek unanimous consent when we return.
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
Results: 1 - 15 of 66090 | Page: 1 of 4406

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data