Madam Chair, can I just—
Evidence of meeting #54 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #54 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Seeing no hands coming up, I think everyone is in agreement.
Mr. Méla, go ahead.
November 18th, 2022 / 1:15 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
I'm not sure I understood what Mr. Julian wants to do, but I think it would require unanimous consent to do that. It would—
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I just asked if anyone opposed it and no one did. It sounds like we have unanimous consent, unless somebody—
1:15 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Madam Chair, on a point of order.
There is no interpretation into French.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Mr. Champoux.
Do you want us to suspend until we fix that interpretation problem?
1:15 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
The French channel is not working, Madam Chair.
Can someone please say something so that the interpreters can check if they are on the right channel?
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
In an effort to assist Mr. Champoux to see if there is translation, it's Chris Bittle here.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
We can move ahead. I had heard no objection to Mr. Julian's suggestion. Mr. Julian wants us to read out the amendments, or look at the amendments as they come through, to see if we all agree with them before we vote on them.
Is that what you're suggesting, Peter?
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I'm sorry, Madam Chair. It was to go through the amendments rather than adopting clause by clause as set out in the agenda, where you read through clause 2, you do the amendments, and then you ask if clause 2 should carry.
I would ask that we set aside “Shall the clause carry?” until after we've completed consideration of all the amendments.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
All right. That may be so, Mr. Julian, but you know that if a certain amendment is accepted, it may negate another clause. In other words, if we accept a particular amendment, it means that the other amendments pertaining to that thing may be moot or inadmissible. Those are some of the things we need to consider.
Yes, Madam Clerk.
1:20 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Shields has his hand up in the room.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
In my understanding of procedure, and we've been through this before, when we do exactly what you said—we find a clause, adopt it, and it has consequences on other clauses—those clauses are then removed from further debate. Then you approve them, because they have been dealt with, and we're not going back afterwards and doing that.
When we go through this process, we do exactly what my colleague from the NDP is suggesting. When we go through this process, it does that, as we normally would.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I understand that. I just wanted everyone to know that this happens and that this would be part of the process. There may be new people in the room who've never gone through a clause-by-clause before.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Well, my colleague from the NDP has done this many times.
I would respect the legislative clerk saying that's what we do when we go through it, as we have done, rather than what my colleague from the NDP is suggesting.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I think the legislative clerk only responded to say that I needed unanimous consent, which I had, for Mr. Julian's suggestion.
Moving forward, starting with clause 2, we have amendment CPC-01.
Does anyone feel they have a problem with that?
I'll put it this way: It would be more efficient for us to say “Shall it carry?”, because if no one has an objection, it carries. To do this in two separate stages makes it very difficult—
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Yes, Anthony. I'll recognize you. I'll just finish my sentence.
It would seem to me that to do this without saying “Shall it carry?”, if everybody is in agreement, would mean that we would be going back and reinventing that wheel.
You wanted to say something, Anthony.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Yes, Madam Chair.
I think perhaps you're misinterpreting what Mr. Julian proposed. He's proposing that we debate and vote on each amendment. What he's saying, though, is that when we finish all the amendments on clause 1, for example, we don't vote on clause 1. We move to the amendments on clause 2. Then we come back and vote on the clauses.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
That was not clear. Thank you for clarifying it for Mr. Julian, Anthony.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative