Evidence of meeting #32 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I heard Mrs. Freeman say that she wanted a change, but I did not hear her move a subamendment.
I'm not questioning you; I'm simply saying that I heard something else. I didn't hear the expression, “I move the following subamendment,” for example. I never heard that. Perhaps I didn't hear correctly, but that's what I perceived. That's the problem.
You actually have to move an amendment. You can't simply say “I wish there were an amendment” or “I would like to see an amendment”; you actually have to say “I propose the following amendment”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
We can approach this in many ways, and in fact everybody's ideas and amendments can be moved at any time. After we have disposed of everything on the table, they could come back again. So if we know we have the tools to be able to make all amendments that people can possibly think of, eventually we'll deal with each and every one of them.
In this case here, the member has made a representation. I did not recall hearing—although I must admit I am trying to do some administration and things and I may have missed it.... The member indicates that she made a subamendment and I'm going to take her at her word. We have the presumption of honesty of members. I am going to stand down Mr. Poilievre's subamendment, so that I can deal with this one first. Then once we dispose of that subamendment then another subamendment could be proposed.
That is my decision.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I have a point of order on that, Chair.
I just want to say that I disagree with your decision, but in the interests of making the committee work, we'd be prepared to go along with it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay. So what we could do to expedite this is, as I think everybody understands that this is not new information, this is just a three-part amendment or a two-part amendment.... That's ultimately where we're going.
I want to deal with the question of Madam Freeman's subamendment, which effectively modifies the original motion that she put: that after the words “partisan use” would be added the words “and attribution”, and after the words “members of Parliament” would be added the words “who are public office holders.” There are two elements in one motion.
Is that correct, Madame? Okay.
I'm going to put the question.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
That's not true, though. That's not what it actually does.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
What she is actually doing is taking something out of Mr. Siksay's amendment. She's not putting something into the original—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No. In her words she said she agreed with Mr. Siksay except for the last point, so she wanted to make an amendment that makes the first two changes but not the last one.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
On a point of order, you can't amend an amendment that hasn't been adopted—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I understand that, and that's why I explained at the very beginning of this and before we even got involved. I said that when you have a subamendment, the subamendment is to the main motion, not the main motion as amended by a proposed amendment. It's the piece of paper you have, clean and pristine, and Madame Freeman's subamendment is trying to change that, so that her—
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Can I make a suggestion that might help us out of this mess? Could we deal with my amendment ad seriatim, each of the three pieces of it? That way we can deal with Madam Freeman's two suggestions and then we can deal with the third part and vote on that, and in that way we'd deal with all the content of the original and we'd deal with Madam Freeman's concerns as well. Rather than dealing with it as a group, as you suggested, if we deal with those three parts ad seriatim, then we can move on to the Conservatives' amendment.
Bloc
Luc Desnoyers Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
I would like to clarify what Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Siksay said. When we have a main motion, you move an amendment by saying that you want to be at church at six o'clock for the meeting, and we have a subamendment that states that it's eight o'clock instead of six o'clock. So we discuss the amendment to determine whether everybody accepts the change. If it's accepted, we move on to the next subamendment and to the amendment. I don't know whether you understand what I mean. That's the procedure.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
The member is saying that the subamendment should be dealt with as a proposal to amend the amendment, not the main motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay. In trying to make it a little easier, I've probably made it a little more complicated.
We have a subamendment proposed, which is to amend the proposed amendment of Mr. Siksay. Basically it is to drop the proviso at the end, which is to wait until the commissioner has reported her findings. This is very clear. I don't think we need a lot of debate on the explanation of the subamendment. It's basically not to wait until the commissioner has reported.
Does anybody really want to debate that? Does everyone understand it? Everyone does? Then I'll put the question.
Madam Freeman's subamendment would delete the reference to the last addition in regard to “waiting until such time as the commissioner has reported”. That would be deleted from the amendment.
I want a recorded division, please.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)
We now move back to the amendment by Mr. Siksay.
