Evidence of meeting #44 for Canadian Heritage in the 43rd 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.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I would like to know if it is possible to withdraw amendment CPC‑11, so that it will not be voted on. It is an amendment that I had tabled. I do not want to move a subamendment; I just want to know if I can withdraw it. I may need unanimous consent to do that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes. I just declared what it was, so it is now deemed moved. Therefore, you'll have to have unanimous consent to withdraw it.
Does Mr. Rayes have unanimous consent to withdraw CPC-11? I don't hear any noes.
(Amendment withdrawn)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
You're welcome.
I forgot to mention this at the beginning, but I want to remind everyone that if there are amendments later on in the package of amendments that you wish to withdraw, you can do that at any time. If you've put them forward, just let the clerk know that you wish to withdraw a particular amendment.
I say that because they haven't been deemed moved yet. Once I move it, it then it requires unanimous consent. In that particular example, I had declared that we were on CPC-11, so it was deemed moved. That's why we needed unanimous consent. However, if there is an amendment further along that you don't want to put forward, I suggest that you contact the clerk to have it withdrawn. You don't need unanimous consent.
That brings us to CPC-11.1.
Mr. Méla, I'm assuming we're going ahead to CPC-11.1.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you.
We are now going to CPC-11.1.
In CPC-11.1, we had a great deal of conversation about it. It does amend the Broadcasting Act in many ways. The amendment proposes to amend part of the act related to licences. In this particular case they were talking about amendments to licences [Technical difficulty—Editor] they rendered necessary by other adopted amendments. I just want to read you something that is on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. It says:
…an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.
What we're doing here is talking about the parent act in the case of the Broadcasting Act, but in C-10 it doesn't discuss this particular way of amending. Therefore, I have to rule it inadmissible as it goes beyond the principle and scope of the bill that we agreed to on Bill C-10, which was accepted in the House at second reading.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Chair, I would like to challenge your ruling.
If I correctly understand the rules, they don't allow me to make arguments for that challenge.
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
My challenge is no reflection on yours, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you very much, sir.
I just want everyone to understand how this vote goes. The clerk actually has a better way of explaining it than I do. She's very good at it.
Go ahead, Madam Clerk. No pressure.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Aimée Belmore
The question is this: Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
If you vote yea, you agree with the chair and the ruling will be sustained. The amendment would be, I believe, outside the scope or inadmissible. It would sustain the chair's ruling.
If you vote nay, then you'll be able to vote on this amendment.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
I have a point of order.
Madam Clerk, can you just elaborate on that explanation? I just want to understand fully, because it's important.
Thank you.
The Clerk
Of course.
Shall the chair's decision be sustained? If you agree, you say yes, and there will be no vote on this amendment. If the question is “Shall the chair's decision be sustained?” and you vote nay, then we'll proceed with a vote on this amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Remember what I said earlier. If the decision is mostly nays and my decision is not sustained, we just go straight in the opposite direction, which is that we will consider the amendment.
The question again is whether my decision should be sustained.
Go ahead, Madam Clerk.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
No. Yes, in fact, we did understand well, but I want to vote against it.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
The ruling is not sustained, and off we go to CPC-11.1.
Does everybody understand where we are now? I don't want to move on with anybody misunderstanding what's happening. These things happen fast. We're charting new territory. Do not be afraid to jump in if you have a quick question.
Okay. We are now going to CPC-11.1, as the ruling was not sustained. Therefore, we go to a vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
With the advice of the legislative clerk, I am moving to CPC-11.2. Is that correct, sir?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you very much.
We are on amendment CPC-11.2. This may sound eerily familiar. It proposes to amend the part of the act related to licences yet again. In the House of Commons Procedure and Practice—it's the third edition I'm speaking of, from page 771—it says:
...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause in the bill.
I mentioned this was eerily familiar because it is the same as before. However, since it is before us, I am compelled to do it.
Since the part is related to licences, we're talking about section 22 of the Broadcasting Act, which is not being amended by C-10. As I mentioned earlier with the same genuine understanding, it was not touched upon in C-10. We voted that on principle. Therefore, the committee would be exceeding the scope of the bill if we amended something in the act that was not addressed by C-10, and here we are doing an amendment that wasn't.
I really hope that was clear enough for everybody. I'm not sure it was but nevertheless—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
It was clear, but not convincing. I'm challenging the chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
All right. I accept that. That's fine.
Without even pausing, apparently there's a challenge to the ruling.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 11; yeas 0)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
We have 11 nays against the ruling. Okay. Table for one for this chair—I'm kidding.
We will move on shall we. Shall CPC-11.2 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])