No--hear me.
Evidence of meeting #2 for Official Languages in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #2 for Official Languages in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
You heard Monsieur Godin. His rationale for flipping around number four I thought was a good one: so that you don't have two of the same party questioning one after the other. I would propose that same amendment that Monsieur Godin was proposing, that the fourth round essentially read New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Okay. I'll allow this to be put to the floor, to be consistent.
We're on the proposed subamendment by Monsieur Bélanger. Is there any debate on this subamendment?
Are you clear...?
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Yes, I'm okay. To add one more.
It involves giving the Conservatives another turn in the fourth round.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
It's simply a question for clarification. Unless I'm mistaken, this means that the third round would end with the Conservatives and that the fourth round would begin with the Conservatives. Is that right?
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
No. The third round would begin with the Conservatives, then it would be the New Democrats, and it would end with the Conservatives. The fourth round would begin with a member from the NDP, then it would be a member from the Conservatives, then a member from the Liberals, and lastly a member from the Conservatives.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chair, unless I'm mistaken, with this kind of amendment, the Conservatives would have six opportunities to speak, for a total of 32 minutes; the New Democrats would have four turns, for a total of 22 minutes; and the Liberals would speak three times, for a total of 17 minutes.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
I would like to thank Mr. Bélanger for being open to the idea of giving the Conservatives one more turn in the four rounds. If you've got an unequal round, I would prefer to establish everything in the first period of seven minutes. In the first round, four members of the committee could speak, while we could alternate for the three other rounds.
I think there is good open-mindedness here, but we are going to vote against Mr. Bélanger's subamendment. But perhaps we can consider his approach later. So as not to confuse things, we are going to resolve this part. But I am taking note of the open-mindedness of Mr. Bélanger, who is suggesting a round table where four committee members would speak.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
If you are open to this, why aren't you discussing it right away? The first round would be as follows: New Democratic Party, Conservative Party, Liberal Party and New Democratic Party. We could put it right at the top of the list.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
If Mr. Bélanger wants to talk about it, I don't want to get in his way.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
9:10 a.m.
NDP
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
If we can reach this agreement, we scrap everything, we make a new proposal, and it will be done.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
It will be confusing if we create a new amendment.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
At the risk of starting something again, maybe we could take a five- or ten-minute recess to discuss this and to come to a resolution, come back here, appropriately defeat things, and then propose something new that we're all already in agreement with.