Evidence of meeting #20 for Canadian Heritage in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was carmichael.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

12:20 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair Pierre Nantel

Now we move to the vote on clause 2, as amended. Those in favour of the clause?

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

It's on division.

12:20 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair Pierre Nantel

So it is

on division.

Bilingualism is a wonderful thing.

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to on division)

We now move to the amendment to clause 3.

Can Mr. Benskin read us the amendment to clause 3 that he is proposing?

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Quite simply, it's an amendment to strike the enforcement portion of the bill, which is the most contentious portion. The bill itself was meant to be an encouragement of Canadians, even in its original form, but one can not encourage people by threatening to throw them into prison. In my response to Mr. Carmichael's very eloquent speech, I said that patriotism cannot be legislated, but that is what this section of the bill, in my opinion and in our opinion, seeks to do.

For that reason, I'm looking to amend Bill C-288 by striking clause 3 in its entirety.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair Pierre Nantel

You have all read the amendments to clause 3 proposed by both sides. My wise counsel are suggesting that I remind you of a passage from House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

It says that an amendment that attempts to delete an entire clause is out of order, since voting against the adoption of the clause in question would have the same effect. So the amendment you are proposing, according to that document, would be inadmissible. Just voting against clause 3 is the same thing.

I feel that Mr. Calandra's amendment is similar, because it deals with removing the title and the heading, which is also the same as voting against clause 3.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

Presumably we can deal with it the same way. We can reject both of our amendments and just vote the clause down, right?

Okay, we'll do it that way. That's fine.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair Pierre Nantel

Since the amendment is withdrawn for the same reasons, we are going to move to the vote.

Those in favour of clause 3 as written in the bill?

(Clause 3 negatived unanimously)

12:25 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair Pierre Nantel

We now go back to the title. Shall the short title now carry? Does anyone want to comment on that?

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

The title refers to an act respecting the national flag of Canada.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

It's on division.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

When I read that, it still seems to carry the weight of a law demanding that people respect the flag.

February 2nd, 2012 / 12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Terence Young Oakville, ON

Excuse me; on a point of order, you're referring to what's written under “Bill C-288” at the top.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

It's “An Act respecting the National Flag of Canada”. Is that the title we're referring to?

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Terence Young Oakville, ON

No; if you go down to clause 1, the short title is listed there. I think it's acceptable to you.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Are you talking about the summary?