Evidence of meeting #103 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was monday.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
On a point of order, Chair, you correctly ruled that the motion was out of order while we were in the middle of voting on a clause-by-clause thing, but now that we've completed that task, the motion is not out of order.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Madam Chair, my motion is absolutely in order. We could decide as a committee....
Boy, there are a lot of—
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
On a point of order, Madam Chair, you've ruled on it. If the members wish to challenge your ruling, they can. Your rulings are not debatable by committee members, but they can be challenged.
I am completely confident that the committee will uphold your ruling, but we can't debate your rulings each time you make one.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
My ruling is that I cannot entertain a motion on studying.... No. We've already had the motion that we will be studying...on the date to start that. We are not prepared to do that until we've finished this clause-by-clause.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Madam Chair, if I may, you're saying we are not prepared to do that, yet I have a motion.... You're not speaking for us, because we are not prepared to do that.
My motion—
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
—is that we begin the study on Monday. I understand why the Liberals and NDP don't want to vote on my motion, because they're using the start of that study to leverage the passage of this terrible bill.
Madam Chair, my motion is 100% in order. There's no rule that says we can't adjust our schedule at any time.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
I do, because I know you're a learned member of the committee. I respect you, so that's pretty good.
I can cite for you at least three legal reasons why I am ruling you out of order. If you would like me to do that, let me suspend for a minute. I'll write them down and I'll read them.
I have reasons why I can do what I'm doing. You've not given us 48 hours' notice. This is a substantive motion. It has nothing to do with what I'm dealing with here. I can go on and on.
If you'd like me to quote sections or you'd like me to give you more facts or evidence, I'm happy to do that. I just need to collect my thoughts and consult with the team here.
Otherwise, I will say let's continue, or challenge and you can vote on it. I'm certain in my ruling.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Madam Chair, is it your ruling that this committee could not decide to study the anti-Semitism motion on Monday?
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
I think we've dealt with this. I will be moving on.
I'm moving on. Was there something else?
Mr. Maloney.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
The issue at hand is as simple as this: He's asked for something and you've ruled on it. We don't sit and debate the reasons after the fact. You don't have to justify it. You've made your decision. It's as simple as that.
We need to move on. Otherwise, we could be here all day, listening to what amounts to nothing more than griping and disagreement. We have a process. There's a procedure in place. Let's follow it.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Mr. Maloney, I'm asking if you would please move G-1, as you're the one who brought it in.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I've never heard a less enthusiastic explanation of a motion than that it's self-explanatory, as with G-1
Madam Chair, I mention this because we have a bill that the government is now acknowledging is flawed. The minister is committing to making amendments, so I would ask why one amendment, amendment G-1, was put forward and the other amendments were not. The answer is that the government feels that what's necessary to address the fallout of passing this legislation might fall outside the scope of the bill and be ruled out of order.
I think it would still be of benefit to committee members to hear about amendment G-1, but also, more importantly, to have some kind of indication of what is going to be in the government legislation that Mr. Virani has said will be necessary to address the fallout of this bill, which attacks teachers and parents.
Teachers have raised a number of concerns about this bill. Mr. Virani has, I'm told, heard some of those concerns, but this might be a good opportunity, when the government has the floor on amendment G-1, to flesh out a bit more of what's going to be in this government legislation. We're eagerly awaiting any kind of detail regarding what is in that legislation, because obviously the government feels that's necessary if this bill is to pass.
Apparently the government is asking us to pass this bill today, this NDP private member's bill, which criminalizes parents and teachers, or else we will not study our own member's anti-Semitism motion.
That's what committee members are faced with today.