Natural Resources Committee on April 8th, 2024

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

She gave up the floor.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

She hasn't completely asked the question of adjourning the debate. She indicated she was going to, but she kept on talking, so she hasn't asked for it. That's why we're still debating.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Falk.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

She still has the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you. I appreciate your providing extra clarification on what's happening today at committee.

Ms. Jones, go ahead.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was clewing up my comments, as you know, and I do move to adjourn debate on the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We will call the roll.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 220)

Debate is adjourned. We will now go to clause 220 and amendment G-24.

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

This is one of the amendments for consistency, dealing with coming into force dates. I propose that we support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We will call the vote.

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

(Clause 220 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 221)

We are on new G-25.

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I will not be moving this one.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay.

We will call the vote on clause 221.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

On a point of order, I'm confused, because you jumped to it, but there's already an amendment. I was trying to figure out.... There's G-25.1, which has not been called. Sorry. That's why I'm having a moment.

I withdrew G-25, but there's a G-25.1.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We will suspend for a moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, there was an error. Ms. Dabrusin would like to move that amendment.

Is there consent to allow Ms. Dabrusin to move her amendment?

There was an error in her package, I believe, in terms of what she thought the clause was or wasn't, so I'm asking colleagues—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I believe it would be helpful if Ms. Dabrusin explained what happened and what is now going on here.

I think she can ask for unanimous consent through you—not you doing it for her.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Sure.

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

Ms. Dabrusin, I will turn it over to you.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

In short, the former G-25, which was the one I thought to withdraw, was missing a word in it. There has been new wording, which is what I have as G-25.1, but it appears as “new G-25”. It includes that one word. It's a one-word discrepancy between the two. My thought on withdrawing it was that I was allowing space for the new one to be moved, G-25.1. Instead, there is a discrepancy: In the package, it's called “new G-25”. If that's as clear as mud....

Basically, one had the word “not” and one didn't have the word “not”. It needs the word “not”. There's just a discrepancy between them. I'm seeking consent to move “new G-25”, or what I have as G-25.1, which has the word “not”.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

I'll go to you, Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Going back to what you indicated earlier, Mr. Chair, you said that if there are any subamendments—whether or not it's a one-word situation—they have to be in writing. We would have to see that and, of course, we would need to have this in both official languages.

Are you prepared, in a situation like this, to allow subamendments to be presented on an amendment that comes from the floor? Technically, it is coming from the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen, for asking for clarification. I'll clarify.

No, the rules still stand and apply as they were stated earlier. What Ms. Dabrusin stated was that she had an error in her amendment. It was written in the package as “new G-25” and she had it as “G-25.1”.

She's not moving a subamendment; she's moving an amendment. What she asked for was consent to move the amendment that was presented in the package.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I wasn't suggesting that she was doing a subamendment. I was trying to get clarification based on what you said earlier in the day: If there is to be a subamendment to an amendment, it has to be in writing. It makes it very difficult for anyone—whether or not it's this amendment—to come up with a subamendment when it is presented in this fashion.

I want to know, if there happens to be another amendment that comes up, whether or not we would be restricted as far as applying a subamendment is concerned, based on what you said earlier.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

What I said earlier stands. This was an amendment that was put in writing, which is here.

I believe, from what Ms. Dabrusin said, that there was a miscommunication with the numbering of this. The amendment is the same. Her numbering and the numbering that was presented were different. She misinterpreted.

I don't want to speak on Ms. Dabrusin's behalf, but I hope that clarifies what her intent was. She wants to move the amendment that was provided. It's not a new amendment. It's not a subamendment. It's the same amendment. She just had an error that she overlooked on the numbering of it. That's what it was. It was a technical issue on her end.

Once again, I'm sorry, Ms. Dabrusin. I think that's what your intent was, and I hope that clarifies things.

Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.

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

What I heard Ms. Dabrusin say was that there was the word “not” included in the original package that was sent out, which she wanted to have either removed or added. I think that's where part of the uncertainty comes from. That's why Mr. Dreeshen is saying it would be a subamendment to the amendment that was given to us here. It's changing a word in it. She mentioned that she had G-25.1, but it was the difference of a word that was or wasn't in there.

Now, if you're seeking unanimous consent to move the amendment, I'm sure we'd be fine to have you do that. You said you weren't going to move it. I think we'd be fine to have you move that amendment.

If there's a difference in the wording, I would like to see that, because I don't have it, but if it's just a numbering thing that was causing the confusion, if that's all it was.... It's just that I heard you say the word “not” was not there, but maybe that was something else.