Evidence of meeting #39 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Only that Mr. Warawa had the floor and he was being interrupted by Ms. Duncan.
December 1st, 2010 / 4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, would it be in order for me to move a motion that clause 3 be deferred until we have heard from additional witnesses? Would that motion be in order?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Just hang on.
I'm going to have to rule that motion out of order because it changes the intent of clause 3, which is how clause 3 carries.... Let me just find this. I'm going to quote for you guys. I was looking at this in the House. It's at page 998 in chapter 20:
When a committee studies a bill, the Standing Orders state that consideration of the preamble of the bill, if any, is postponed to the very end of the process, as is consideration of the first clause if it contains only the short title. The rest of the clauses will be considered one by one in the order they appear in the bill. Some clauses may be “stood”, which means that the committee has decided, for specific reasons, to postpone consideration of these clauses until later in the process. Clause-by-clause consideration of the bill is carried out in the following order: clauses; clauses allowed to stand (if any); schedules; clause 1 (short title, if any); preamble (if any); and title of the bill. Amendments to the bill, if they are moved and deemed admissible by the Chair of the committee, are studied in the order of the lines of the bill they are to modify. They may be submitted in either official language, and must be submitted in writing. The committee may only consider one amendment at a time. Each amendment is debated and voted on by the committee. The committee then votes on the clause be it as amended, or not. It then moves on to the next clause and to the amendments that have been moved to it until all of the clauses of the bill have been considered. Subamendments, subject to debate, may be moved to the amendments. The committee may only consider one subamendment at a time and that subamendment cannot be amended in turn. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is put to a vote first. Another subamendment may then be moved, or the committee may debate the main amendment and vote on it. Moreover, a committee may decide to group a certain number of clauses and vote on them together, such as those that were not the subject of any amendments. ...If the committee so decides, they may also be asked to appear during clause-by-clause consideration of a private Member’s bill to provide, insofar as possible, the same type of technical expertise as in the case of government bills. For private Members’ bills, some committees find it useful to request the presence of the bill’s sponsor as an additional witness during clause-by-clause consideration.
And of course the author of the bill is here.
So it's fairly clear that you can move amendments and subamendments, but we wanted the amendments in writing. That doesn't preclude.... So we are on clause 3.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
On a point of order, Chair, I think I still have the floor. Do I not?
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Okay. You've answered that, no, it would not be.
I have one more question, Chair, and actually maybe more than one. For a motion that it be stood, do you need unanimous consent to do that, or is that at the discretion of the chair?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We can postpone the consideration of a clause until later in the process, as I just did with clause 2.
Point of order.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'd just like an explanation of why we're passing over clause 2.
Wayne Cole Procedural Clerk
Clause 2 is the interpretation clause of the bill. There are only limited circumstances in which amendments to the interpretation clause are admissible.
One of those conditions is that changes have been made to the bill that require amendment of the interpretation clause. We can't consider those amendments until we've been through the bill to see whether or not the committee has chosen to adopt amendments that may require amendment to the interpretation clause.
NDP
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Is it also the case that you cannot amend the interpretation section of the bill, even to make it consistent with other current law? If you can't, that's fine. I'm just asking. It was suggested to me by the legislative drafters that that's appropriate
Procedural Clerk
Amendments to the interpretation clause are ordinarily only admissible as a result of changes made to the bill or to clarify the interpretation clause, but not with respect to other legislation.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It could fall in that category, but that will come up later anyway.