Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a challenge to the chair, so we'll go to a vote to sustain the chair's ruling.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

Shall CPC-81 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We are on amendment CPC-82, which is inadmissible.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I challenge your ruling, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

There is a challenge to the chair's ruling. To sustain the chair's ruling, we will go to a vote.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

Shall amendment NDP-11 carry?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Colleagues, amendments BQ-25, CPC-83, CPC-84, BQ-26, BQ-27, CPC-85, CPC-86 and CPC-87 are inadmissible. Do we have unanimous consent to group them together?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Absolutely not. There is no consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

We want to treat them individually, and we challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We will start with amendment BQ-25, which is inadmissible.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'd be willing to combine all the Bloc Québécois amendments for a single vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

On BQ-25, BQ-26 and BQ-27, do we have unanimous consent to group them together?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

It's a no. Okay. We will start with the first one.

BQ-25 is inadmissible.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a challenge of the chair. We will go to a vote to sustain the chair's ruling.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

Amendment CPC-83 is inadmissible.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I challenge.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a challenge of the chair. We will proceed to a vote to challenge the chair's ruling.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

We will go to amendment CPC-84. It is also inadmissible.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I challenge the chair.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Chair, can we have a reason for why it's inadmissible? It's unusual for the chair to not give a reason.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

The reason is the same as provided earlier on with all the amendments. CPC-84 is inadmissible because the amendment seeks to make a substantive modification by adding new elements to the preamble. Since no amendment has been adopted to warrant the addition of these new elements, I declare the amendment inadmissible.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Can you explain that a little bit more? I don't understand the ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We're in a vote, and the chair has been challenged.

[An hon. member]

I've been here for 18 years. This is a very unusual process.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

It's not debatable. The chair has been challenged.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

Now we have BQ-26. It could only be moved if BQ-16 were adopted. That did not happen, so I declare the amendment inadmissible.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I challenge the chair.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

BQ-27 is inadmissible.