Evidence of meeting #33 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you.
It changes the word “National” to “Federal”, which would clear up other parts of the bill and make it consistent.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Is there any discussion? I suspect there shouldn't be too much discussion on this.
(Amendment agreed to)
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
I think we're ready for clause 12.
Is there debate on clause 12 as amended?
Shall clause 12 carry as amended?
You've done it to me again, haven't you? It's a tie. But this time, as I indicated already, since the clause itself is already in the bill, I will have to vote in favour of the clause carrying.
(Clause 12 agreed to)
(On clause 13--Appointment)
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Now, we have a situation here. The question is whether you wish to proceed with amendment L-19, which is on page 38.
Mr. Jean.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I have a point of order. I didn't really understand the reasoning of the chair. I just want clarification. Of course, there's no legislation now, so the status quo is that there is not that clause in the act. I understand it's in the proposed act, but it's not the status quo.
Could the clerk or the chair confirm that this is indeed the case?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
I'm acting on the advice of the clerks, and it's not news to me, actually, but because the House passed this at second reading and sent it to us, therefore now we're dealing with the question of whether or not clause 12 in general, even though it's been amended, should carry. So on the question of whether or not this clause should carry--where the clause is existing in the bill that has been passed at second reading in the House and sent to us--the procedure is that in a tie, the chair votes yes. I think you'll see the clerks nodding to indicate that this is the case.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
I don't think it has to be the same form.
Are you nodding to indicate I've expressed myself appropriately?
May 26th, 2008 / 5:15 p.m.
Joann Garbig Legislative Clerk, Committees Directorate, House of Commons
Yes.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
I have a question on the same point of order. I need to understand, because it's pretty important in directing it this way. Are we saying this is in the very same order it was when it came from the House, because that would be maintaining the status quo, but if we've made changes already, we're not...?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
The status quo is that there is a clause 12, and that's the point. When we come to the point of whether the clause as it now exists should carry, then the main principle is the fact that the clause already existed. That's the advice I've received.
The bad news is, if there's a challenge to the chair, I'm going to win that one.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Yes, I know. Anyway, that still doesn't answer my question. I'm saying I understand your attempt at the logic or reasoning there, and that's what I'm asking you, and I guess I'm asking the clerk by that same token. If this is in fact not in the same form as it came from the House, then all we're dealing with are proposals. The status quo...we haven't even approved that into this place. That's what I'm saying.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
As I understand it, the procedure contemplates that you are going to have a process of amending the bill, and when it comes to voting on amendments to particular clauses, you saw what happened.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Then why would you not support the previous one, because that was proposed in the very same...?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
As I explained, when I first voted no to the amendment, that was because that would change the existing thing, which is not voting for the status quo in this sense. If you were to defeat the whole clause, when the clause was sent here, even if it had been amended, that would not be in accordance with the status quo; that would be a different direction. That's the advice I have, and that's my understanding from previous experience.
When you're finished, Mr. Vellacott, Mr. Jean will be next.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
That's right. I'm almost coming to the impression that one could use that kind of logic to go any which way you want on this kind of thing, because of the nature of it.
I'm not challenging, Mr. Chair, believe me. I think you could win on this one.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
When I spoke at the beginning, before voting on the amendment, I expressed what I had heard. I'm following the advice of the legislative clerk, and it is my understanding as well that this advice is correct. If you want to raise the matter with the table, in the House, with the Speaker, that's up to you, obviously.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do defer to your greater wisdom, and also to the clerk's, but it seems bizarre in a way. I'm just wondering if there has been precedent in this particular case with legislation that's been put forward before, because I haven't seen it. But the status quo, in my mind, is the same as Mr. Vellacott has suggested, which is that there is no legislation now; there is no clause now. That would be the status quo.
I'm just wondering, with the legislative clerk...I understand the status quo has to be maintained, but from my perspective, the status quo is zero right now.
Has this particular issue been raised in other legislative initiatives before?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
“I'm sure it has” isn't confident; I'm sure it hasn't.
