Evidence of meeting #44 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
If it is agreed by the committee, we can stand the motion, suspend the meeting for 10 minutes, come back, and continue to debate the motion. We'll continue with the debate on the motion at that time.
Is there agreement?
3:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Let's resume the meeting and get back to the motion before the committee.
Yes, Mr. Anderson.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I would like to table my motion for now, if that is possible, and make a suggestion as to how we may be able to continue here.
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
What I am proposing is that we do clause-by-clause through to clause 22, and in clause 22 we consider Mr. Cullen's motion number 6, and once we have considered number NDP-6, we skip over the clauses with suggested amendments and deal with the clauses we seem to be in agreement on, which are the ones without amendment. At the end, we come back to the suggested amendments to the remaining clauses.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, always.
First of all, thanks to the committee and to you, Chair, for the time.
This is a way to proceed, but there is one small thing that I'm not sure Mr. Anderson and I totally fleshed out in our conversation.
4:10 p.m.
An hon. member
Uh oh.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
No, no. It's all good.
There are two caveats to this idea of going through. One is to look at clauses of the bill that don't have amendments to them--to have the committee look at those and pass those they deem worthy of passage. That was my understanding.
The caveat is this. As folks who have been through bill review before know, sometimes if you leave a clause behind while you go ahead and pass other clauses, there are occasions where, when you go back to make an amendment earlier in the bill, the language changes. I just want the committee members to be cognizant of the fact that we may pass clauses that will then have to be looked at by the drafters for discordance of language because of an earlier passage.
The second thing is I want clarity on this. Mr. Anderson talked about moving through to clause 21, where we have an amendment. My understanding is that the idea is not to address any clauses that have amendments attached to them today.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Is there agreement from the committee to proceed in this fashion?
4:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We will then go to the next clause for which there is no amendment.
Is that an amendment by any party or just an amendment by the New Democrats?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
We wanted to go to clause 22 before that. Mr. Cullen wanted some assurance that we would pass number 6, and we want to suggest an amendment to number 6, but I think he'll find that acceptable.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We will stand clauses 18 to 21 inclusive and go to clause 22.
(On clause 22--Review by the Minister)
Is there any debate?
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It is the amendment on which I will be seeking some clarification from the government.