Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 14th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Is accepting a sub-amendment tantamount to declaring an amendment in order? In accepting a sub-amendment, have you just ruled the amendment to be in order?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good point. I appreciate all your help, Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

It's my pleasure, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I hate to say this after going to all this trouble, Mr. Dewar, but I'm going to rule this inadmissible.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Could I have your reason?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Indeed, you will. NDP-23 proposes a process for the appointment of members to the National Capital Commission. Specifically, proposed subsection (2) creates a committee of the House of Commons.

The House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

The creation of a committee of the House is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-2, and NDP-23 is consequently inadmissible.

Mr. Dewar, I'm sorry, they were letting you go on for that.

Sorry, yes, a point of order.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Could I have instruction on steps to challenge the chair on this issue?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Sure, you can challenge it. There's a majority vote and it's non-debatable. The vote is to sustain the chair.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Can I put forward the rationale or not?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

There's no debate. Do we sustain the vote of the chair?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm afraid it's gone.

Mr. Dewar, I didn't catch that, and I'm sorry to go for all that. I should have, before you passed all that around.

We therefore go to the vote on an amendment under clause 288, which is a government amendment at page 181.1. It's G-53.2.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I have a problem here. I'm afraid it didn't appear in the briefing book.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You don't have that?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I didn't, no.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Chair, if you wish, I'll move that, but I'll ask our technical panel to make comment, please.

[Joe Wild]

Mr. Chairman, it's with some sheepishness that I admit this is simply a drafting error. The reference to the board is being changed to a reference to the commission, which is the appropriate name of the actual governing body of the National Capital Commission.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Don't worry about errors, Mr. Wild. You can see we make errors all the time here. We try to do our best. But thank you, sir.

We go back to clause 285. As I indicated, the vote on 285 will apply to clauses 286 to 291.

(Clauses 285 to 291 inclusive agreed to)

We will go to clause 292, the Pilotage Act. It is consequential to clauses 293 to 296.

(Clauses 292 to 296 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 298 agreed to)

(Clauses 300 and 301 agreed to)

(On clause 302)

We have an amendment, which is on page 182. It is a government proposed amendment, G-54.

Would you move that, sir?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It is inadmissible. G-54 proposes to delete clause 302.

The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, on page 656, states: “An amendment is out of order if it simply attempts to delete a clause, since in that case all that needs to be done is to vote against the adoption of the clause in question.”

Therefore, G-54 is inadmissible.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I wish to speak on the main clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Owen, debate on clause 302.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I would like to hear from the government side as to the reason for wanting to delete it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The debate is on clause 302, not on an amendment that was ruled inadmissible.