Evidence of meeting #46 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.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
I'm not trying to close debate here; I simply have a question of process.
Given the fact that we have a time allocation on the clause and a time allocation on amendments to that clause, if Ms. Duncan has just moved an amendment, do we now shift to...? I don't know how we can have.... We're putting the cart before the horse if we finish and close debate on the main clause before we finish and close debate and deal with a particular amendment.
My question is, if the amendment passes, then the clause changes, and then are we back to the amount of time we had before? It seems to me we're doing things a little bit out of order here. We have to have some process and mechanism of moving an amendment. I'm just wondering how that would work, Mr. Chair.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
This is Ms. Duncan's first opportunity to have the floor—she's used up two minutes and 20 seconds—and she has not indicated fully.... I'm not sure if we're talking page 15 or page 16 where she wants to move this amendment. There are only 25 seconds left on the main clause for the Conservatives, and this is time taken away from the NDP on the main clause. I have to stick to the rules we've brought into play. However, with the amendment, the clock starts over.
I'm going to suggest that you move the amendment. Let's get to the amendment. Exactly where do you want to place this--what page and what line?
10 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, I wish to table an amendment to subclause 25(1) on page 15 to strike out line 6 and replace it with:
Board or the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner alleging that an employer or person
So what I am doing is adding in the words “or the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner”.
10 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
As I mentioned, Mr. Chair, I believe that other members of the committee may....
10 a.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
I'm sorry, Linda, I just didn't follow. Are you striking anything out, or are you simply inserting words?
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
The way you properly stage an amendment is that the entire line is removed and then rewritten. Essentially what she's doing is after “board”, Ms. Duncan is inserting the words “or the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner alleging” and then it continues on from there.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Okay, so it's an insertion of words.
Sorry, Linda, I didn't mean to interrupt.
10 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
There may have been a problem with the interpretation. I want to know whether we are keeping the words “Canada Industrial Relations Board” and adding “or the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner”.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Yes.
I may have to rule on this.
Based upon the rules in chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”, and we are governed by the rules, I'm going to have to rule that amendment out of order, since you're talking about the Public Service Integrity Commissioner, which was not mentioned in the bill previously and it's not in the interpretation clauses. Based on that, on principle and scope, I'll just read from chapter 16, page 766:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill. (This rule does not apply to a bill referred to a committee before second reading, since the principle of the bill has not yet been agreed to by the House.) Similarly, an amendment which is equivalent to a simple negation of the bill or which reverses the principle of the bill as agreed to at second reading is out of order.
Because this amendment goes beyond the scope that was in the original draft of the bill that was tabled in the House and was brought to us after second reading, and the House has already voted on it at second reading, and Public Sector Integrity Commissioner was never mentioned, I'm going to rule that amendment out of order.
10 a.m.
Duncan
Can I speak to that?
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
No. A rule of the chair is final. You can challenge the chair; that's up to you. But I have made a ruling and it's rules-based.
10 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
What does challenging the chair mean? I don't want to challenge your ability to make a ruling.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
You can if you want. The question would be on shall the ruling of the chair be sustained, and then you would vote against that.
10 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I don't want to challenge you. I just want to challenge your ruling.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Essentially, I've ruled the amendment out of order, and we're back to the original clause.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay. It's a dilatory non-debatable motion. The question is: shall the chair's ruling be sustained? If you want my ruling to be sustained, you vote in favour. If you wish it to be overturned, you vote against.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: yeas 6; nays 5)
Based on that vote, my ruling's been overturned.
10:05 a.m.
An hon. member
What?
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
10:05 a.m.
An hon. member
Yes, we are. We are supporting you.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
So you vote positive because you want to sustain my ruling.
Do you guys want to do that one more time?
Do you understand? I know we haven't done this very often. Actually, this is only the second time since I've been in the chair that I've been challenged, because I do make rules-based decisions.
Do you understand? If you want my ruling to be sustained, you vote in the positive. If you—