Evidence of meeting #40 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Just to clarify, does that mean I can move it later, to the regular amendment, and then it would be in order--to the regular motion? Would it be in order at that point?
11 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
We'll have to deal with it when we get there. We'll have to deal with the amendment first and then see where we are.
11 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I'd like to make a different subamendment. This one would read--
11 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I recognize that.
I'm just looking at this. It may or may not be in order, but I'll let the clerks decide. It reads:
...but not until the civil suit between the Conservative Party of Canada and Elections Canada, in which Elections Canada is the defendant, is resolved.
The point here is that we would give the--
11 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I want to be able to read it.
Mr. Hiebert, the motion is out of order because it simply makes no sense whatsoever.
11 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
There's a comma after the amendment.
11 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
There's a comma after the amendment, so after Mr. Van Kesteren's amendment, it's “...but not until the civil suit between...has been resolved”.
The amendment says, “...and should the committee find in their investigation similar...the committee will broaden their investigations and make recommendations...”.
11 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
It would be, “...and make recommendations, but not until...”.
11 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
But the civil suit.... So this again is to set a timeframe that would relate only to the activities of the amendment, but not with regard to the main motion.
11 p.m.
Conservative
11 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
It's out of order for the same reason that your other amendment is out of order.
11 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
You didn't understand what it said.
11 p.m.
Liberal
11 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I deserve an explanation. I'm trying to delay the timing of the recommendations until after the civil suit is resolved--
11 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, Mr. Hiebert, you proposed an amendment. I considered it. I reviewed it with the two clerks. It is the same attempt to put a time horizon on--
11:05 p.m.
Conservative
11:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
On the amendment, but not.... It all fits together. I mean, when you pass it all together, you cannot incorporate the subamendment on the amendment and then have that apply to the main motion.
11:05 p.m.
Conservative
11:05 p.m.
Liberal
11:05 p.m.
Conservative
11:05 p.m.
Conservative
