SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of the Board of Internal Economy Chief opposition whip Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of the Board of Internal Economy Chief opposition whip Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
  • Conservative
  • South Surrey—White Rock
  • British Columbia
  • Voting Attendance: 65%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $130,172.43

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 216 - Jun/19/23
Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay
  • Jun/19/23 12:42:53 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I did go into some history, but right now I am talking about the current state of the committees. I am talking about right now, including Friday, so I will continue for a bit. While the deadline for the other committees to report would be today, the third sitting day prior to the final allotted day, or else they shall be deemed to have reported, I would urge the Chair to adopt the same approach as I laid out for the main estimates, which have been deemed reported back to the House. Third, that leaves us with the estimates that were reported back from committee. When it comes to the report stage of legislation, Bosc and Gagnon observe, at page 787: For the purpose of debate, the Speaker will also group motions that have the same intent and are interrelated. In so doing, the Speaker will consider whether individual Members will be able to express their concerns during the debate on another motion. The concerns of Parks Canada are wildly different from those of the Communications Security Establishment, which in turn are quite different from the concerns of the Invest in Canada hub. To lump these disparate organizations together for a single vote would, I believe, do a great disservice to parliamentary scrutiny and control over appropriations. However, since I know you would not wish to see the House speak in vain, clause (c)(i)(B) of the November 15 special order must be interpreted to mean something. In this case, it would be appropriate to group, for voting purposes, the items in the estimates that have actually been reported back from a committee on the basis of each institution that is proposed to receive an appropriation. I believe this balances the need to group only interrelated items, while keeping in line with the principles and practices enunciated by the Speaker's predecessor in a November 29, 2012 ruling, at page 12611 of the Debates. I will spare the House the quotation on that one. I have referred to the place to find it. Moreover, it would track with the approach customarily taken with clause deletion motions at the report stage of budget implementation bills, whereby they would typically be grouped according to the divisions of the bill; for example, clauses pertaining to the Excise Tax Act would be treated separately from those that might amend the Employment Insurance Act, or another provision. Before the government might urge you to group these confidence motions based on the fact that the Liberals are being propped up in a parliamentary coalition by the New Democrats, through what they are calling a supply and confidence agreement, I would call to your attention the ruling of your predecessor on December 12, 2012, at page 13223 of the Debates, which reads, “Let me be clear: the Speaker does not make decisions based on who is in control of the House. Report stage motions are not, and never have been, selected for debate—”
502 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border