Evidence of meeting #42 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Because that was the item that was being debated. But you cannot accept a new motion to stand something, can you, if it's not the motion that's on the table?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay. I've made a decision here. We've stood the entire clause. I believe I am in order on this. You guys can raise a point of order. If you want to challenge the chair, challenge the chair. I've made a decision.
We can't deal with the main question until we deal with the amendment and the subamendment. So we can't go back to the question where we stood the...and I did specifically say that the entire clause, the amendment, and the subamendment will stand. That's the question I called; that's what you voted on. So we are standing this, and we will come back to it at a later date, hopefully not too far in the future.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
For clarification, Chair, a person can make a motion to stand at any time, and it's a valid, acceptable motion, a motion that is in order?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
It's not a motion. I just asked if you wanted to stand it, carry it, amend it, or--
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
--or carry it on division.
Okay. Let's not split hairs.
(On clause 7--Binding on Her Majesty)
It reads:
This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada.
Does anyone wish to speak to that?
Ms. Duncan.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should explain my proposed amendment, my tabled amendment.
4:05 p.m.
An hon. member
We don't have an amendment.
4:05 p.m.
An hon. member
No, there's nothing.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Does anybody else want to talk to the Queen?
Okay. We'll line that up for you, Mr. Woodworth. I'll put the call into Buckingham Palace.
There you go, Mr. Woodworth. You have the floor.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
All I really want to say is that the act is sufficiently flawed, in my opinion, that even though I don't find anything exceptional in this paragraph, I'm not going to support it, just as I won't support any other clauses in the bill. I don't want my failure to support this clause to be seen as completely arbitrary; it's just because the bill is so flawed generally that likely I'll be voting against every provision.
December 13th, 2010 / 4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
It's just a question with regard to this. “This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada.” This is the typical line that we would see in most legislation. Is that right?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Okay.
Given the fact that our sovereign has been the sovereign for the last 50-plus years, and the next sovereign won't be a “her”, to the best of my knowledge--we don't know which “him” it might be--I'm just wondering about the ramifications of this. Do we even need this legislation? If we pass legislation in Parliament, it's given royal assent. What's the point of a clause like this? What does this actually do? Can you answer that for me?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We have a question here that I'll direct to our analyst.
Ms. Courtney.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Committee Researcher
I'm not really sure. It's common. That's all I can say about that.
I can look into that more, if you like.