Evidence of meeting #36 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was shall.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I was just about to suggest that. Thank you very much.
Shall we suspend while we have a health break, please?
10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much. We're resuming.
I would like to apologize to everyone. It's one of the things about virtual. A lot of my stuff is coming through on a printer and two pages were stuck together and the page that continued from where we were with NDP-11 and NDP-12 got stuck to another page and I moved on to the next page, which missed a whole page. Thank you. My apologies to everyone. It becomes quite difficult when you're sitting in one spot trying to do this. I know that you will all bear with me on it.
Shall NDP-12 carry?
Have we done that already, Clerk?
10 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
I have a point of order, Madam Chair. I don't believe we're at the right spot from where we left off, but perhaps we could have the clerks confirm?
10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
That's what I asked the clerks. I don't know who spoke up but I asked a clerk just before you spoke up. We're waiting for the clerk to tell me.
10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
We're on NDP-13. NDP-12 was voted on. Thank you very much.
We're on NDP-13. Before we get to NDP-13, I wanted to let everyone know that the LIB-6 is no longer being considered because it was already voted on and adopted with the LIB-1 motion.
We now go to NDP-13. Shall NDP-13 carry?
10:05 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Nancy Vohl
It looks like consensus in the room, Madam Chair.
10:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
On division.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
10:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I withdrew it earlier, Madam Chair. NDP-14 was withdrawn.
10:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
That's right. NDP-14 was withdrawn earlier. Thank you. Now we've finished with all the withdrawn NDP amendments.
The next one, therefore, would be Liberal-7, which was adopted with Liberal-1, so we won't be voting on that.
The next one is CPC-15. Shall CPC-15 carry?
10:05 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Madam Chair, I think you have unanimity in the room to support CPC-15.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
10:05 p.m.
Liberal
10:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
No, but it's negated, Madam Chair, with the passage of the CPC amendment. Mr. Nater wrote a better amendment.
10:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you. My goodness, we're getting places.
The NDP amendment has been removed, so shall CPC-15.1 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on NDP-15.
NDP-12 was not adopted, was it?
10:05 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
This is pursuant to Standing Order 65:
Motions to be in writing and seconded. Read in both languages.
All motions shall be in writing, and seconded, before being debated or put from the chair. When a motion is seconded, it shall be read in English and in French by the Speaker, if he or she be familiar with both languages; if not, the Speaker shall read the motion in one language and direct the clerk of the table to read it in the other, before debate.
While I'm aware that this is a standing order of the House and not that of committee, it is a general understanding that the House rules supersede those of committee. I believe there would be space for clarification to have these amendments read prior to voting on them, as Standing Order 65 states in the House, very clearly.
10:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much.
I just want to say that I have already read from the orders of the House, under motion 16 in the House, which states:
(v) if the committee has not completed its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 9:00 p.m. on June 14, 2022, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, and the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate, on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill....
The House orders under motion 16 have decided what we will do, and we're following those House orders.
Thank you very much.
10:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
I appreciate your reading out motion 16. Motion 16 doesn't say that the mover cannot explain what the purpose of the motion is. I think we're missing that, in terms of this. It only prohibits debate.
I would ask the committee to have the mover explain their amendment.
10:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I will ask Mr. Méla to please interpret.
I think what I read was pretty clear that we just go successively with no intervention at all, deem that all of those have been moved, and ask the question.
10:10 p.m.
Conservative
10:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
It's on the same subject. I would just point out that, in the House of Commons, which is where our procedure comes from, when a time allocation order is applied in the House, and the Speaker must put forth all the questions necessary to dispose of that set stage, and often there are multiple amendments at that point, the Speaker of the House still reads out each amendment for each motion.
There's the option to dispense, but it's a similar terminology, without “debate or amendment”. It's the same thing in these orders, that it's without “debate or amendment”. The interpretation that's been followed in the House of Commons on a time allocation motion, for example, or closure, is that the Speaker still puts the question. The Speaker still puts the wording of the motion.
I would offer that in assistance to you in interpreting this motion before us.
