Evidence of meeting #35 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was justice.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, if I could just follow that up.
I believe what the Conservatives have done is a dilatory motion.
We should proceed right to the vote.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's what I'm trying to figure out.
I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes because I need to verify something.
I apologize. We'll be right back.
[Technical difficulty—Editor] whether I should be supported in the decision I made or not.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I decided that BQ-4 is out of order because BQ-4 is a change to the preamble, but nothing justifies the change to the preamble because amendments that could have justified a change to the preamble were defeated.
Madam Pauzé takes issue with that. I know it's not personal, but she takes issue with that, so we have to vote on whether she's right or I'm right.
We will ask the clerk to proceed to a roll call vote on whether the decision is sustained.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you.
We go now to BQ-5.
1:55 p.m.
Bloc
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
For our part, we want to expand the scope of the bill.
It will be the same, Mr. Chair.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Before you rule the amendment out of order, I would like to clarify that we are keeping the word “collaboration” but adding a principle. It is not quite the same as the previous amendment. It seems to me that this one should be in order.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
So you are introducing your amendment, but you do not wish to explain it further.
1:55 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
The other amendments proposed adding words. This amendment should be in order, as it adds a principle to the word “collaboration”, which was not the case for the rest.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
All right. I'll read you my decision, which is more or less the same.
Since amendment BQ‑3 was defeated, amendment BQ‑5 is out of order, as we have not adopted any amendment to the bill that would justify changing the preamble.
I will read from the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 774:
In the case of a bill that has been referred to a committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when the purpose is to clarify it or make the English and French uniform.
The chair is of the opinion that the proposed amendment is a substantive amendment and is thus out of order.
1:55 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
In our view, it does not deal with substance; it adds a principle.
I challenge your decision, Mr. Chair.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Very well.
The chair sees the addition to the idea of collaboration as a substantive change.
2 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chair, we should reread properly what is in the bill. What we have done is more of a rewording of the French version.
After the words “whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that collaboration”, we strike out “and a coordinated national strategy” and part of the wording that follows. The proposed wording would read “whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that provincial governments are primarily responsible for protecting their lands”, and so on.
This is a principle that we are adding, but you say it goes to the substance.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
If you add a principle, it is necessarily a substantive issue.
2 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I'm giving up, but I'm challenging your decision of inadmissibility.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You are still against the chair's decision, so we will proceed to the vote.
(The chair's decision is upheld: yeas 6; nays 5)
2 p.m.
Liberal
2 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Chair, I've had my hand up for the last [Inaudible—Editor].
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Excuse me, I forgot to ask if the committee wishes to adopt the preamble.
Yes, Mr. McLean.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
We were going through it clause by clause, and I had my hand up prior to your ruling.
I know the ruling against Madam Pauzé's intervention, but I had a substantive question from the floor. Can I raise it?
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Theoretically you can't, because a decision of the chair is non-debatable. You go straight to the vote.
I'd rather not get into a new discussion, if that's okay.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
It relates to the preamble itself, and I think it is substantive.