Evidence of meeting #94 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on amendment LIB-165-155.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chair, if you would be so kind as to hold a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-155 to Bill C-45.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Go ahead.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on amendment LIB-165-156.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chair, a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-156 is requested as well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're now on amendment LIB-165-157.
Liberal
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Yes, on amendment LIB-165-157.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote on amendment LIB-165-158.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Again, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask for a recorded division on amendment LIB-165-159.
Liberal
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
A point of order, Chair.
I was just wondering if there's any answer to the clarification we asked for.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chair, with your permission, I would like a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-160.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We move to amendment LIB-165-161.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-161 to Bill C-45.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Go ahead.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Okay. I'm going to explain the process.
If I'm not here as the chair, if I choose to take a health break, and if Ms. Nash is here as the first vice-chair, she would have to take the chair. She does not have an option; she would have to take the chair. If I were not here and Ms. Nash were not here and Mr. Brison were here, then he would have to take the chair as the second vice-chair. If the three of us are not here, as happened in one meeting—I nominated someone and Mr. Van Kesteren filled in as the chair. That can certainly happen, but that happens with the consent of the committee, and as the clerk explained, there is a difference between consent and unanimous consent.
If the three of us, the chair and the two vice-chairs, are not in the room, there is a process to nominate an acting chair. There is a motion to nominate, which is non-debatable. It's proposed by a member, and to the question Mr. Bélanger asked—can this motion be proposed given the motion we adopted—yes. The clerk is going to explain that further, but the motion the committee adopted that dealt with Bill C-45 does not preclude the introduction of a motion for an acting chair.
If there is only one nomination that's proposed, members vote on that nomination. If there's more than one person, the proposition for a nomination is a secret vote, as per Standing Order 106(3).
Does that answer everyone's questions?
Mr. Bélanger.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the references given to me by you or the clerks, but preferably by you, in terms of defining consent. We're not talking about consensus here. Consensus is a different beast from consent. Consensus, for instance, is how the Board of Internal Economy functions, where the Speaker calls for a consensus.
Wherever I've heard the matter of consent being called for, it implicitly called for unanimous consent, because if a member of an assembly, whether it be a committee or the House, does not give consent when consent is being sought, it usually means that you cannot proceed.
With unanimous consent we can do anything. We know that. The history of this Parliament for well over 100 years has been built along the definition that consent means that everyone needs to consent.
So I'd like to have the references given to me where consent does not mean that every member has the right to consent or not to consent.