Evidence of meeting #87 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ministers.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I have a point of order on that.
I think there's some confusion. My point was simply, to start, that you take consideration. Let's have Mr. Lawrence read it in the context of the amendment that he's amending, section (b), so that we all understand that, because it was verbal.
I'm hoping that he can do that for us right now.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
—because the subamendment was to come at the end of the amendment put forward by MP Blaikie.
You've not added to that amendment, Mr. Lawrence. You've changed it. Is this a subamendment and are you adding to MP Blaikie's amendment?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Maybe, Mr. Chair, I could ask for some clarity. My apologies to the committee for causing any confusion. It certainly was not my intent to do so.
If I am amending the legislation in a different place than the subamendment, that would be out of order. Am I correct in understanding that?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
The only way for it to be in order would be to propose that we eliminate MP Blaikie's language, his amendment at the end of the motion, and then bring forward what you are looking to do.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
On this point of order, Mr. Chair, if I may, my understanding is that if an amendment or a subamendment would require the deletion of the entire thing it's trying to amend, the appropriate thing to do is proceed to a vote and then have a new amendment presented. I don't think an amendment can completely wipe out the entire content of a motion—in this case an amendment itself—that it's trying to amend.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you for that, MP Blaikie, and yes, I just spoke with the clerk, and you are correct on that. It would have to go to a vote.
Members, we'll now go to a vote on MP Blaikie's—
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I'm sorry, but on a point of order, can I continue with my—
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Mr. Chair, on the point you just made, we are happy to go to a vote on a motion to invite the minister to appear at the committee for two hours as an amendment, and to then go to a vote on the study to start the study of the BIA so that we can bring in those witnesses ASAP and get to work instead of wasting time.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, PS Beech and MP Lawrence.
What you are doing in terms of eliminating.... You'd have to eliminate the amendment from MP Blaikie, and that is not possible. We'd first have to go to a vote on MP Blaikie's amendment.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you very much for adding a bit of clarity.
I would ask for indulgence to change my subamendment. The subamendment would add on, after—
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Lawrence, you need unanimous consent for that.
Unless members give unanimous consent, would we have to go to a vote, Clerk?
You would need unanimous consent to do what you're trying to do.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Can I withdraw my subamendment and enter a new one?
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Chair, I guess the question is whether you've ruled that the subamendment is in order. If the subamendment is out of order and you've ruled it as such, it's not before the committee, so you wouldn't need unanimous consent to withdraw it, because it effectively was never moved because it was never in order to move it. I'm not sure that we would require unanimous consent if the subamendment is out of order, which I believe it is. In that case, whoever had the floor would be free to present a new subamendment.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Lawrence, it could be ruled out of order, but then we would have to go back again to MP Blaikie's amendment.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Exactly. I'd like, at that point, the floor, which I have, to move an additional subamendment that will hopefully be found in order.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
This is a different one. That one never existed. It was out of order.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We've ruled the other one out of order. This is your subamendment to MP Blaikie's amendment.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Yes.
I'll read in the subamendment to Mr. Blaikie's.... I'll read in his amendment first, and then I'll put in my subamendment so that we have clarity.
His amendment reads, “(h) That the Minister of Finance be invited to appear for two hours on or before May 18, 2023.” I would add, “and clause-by-clause shall not begin until the Minister of Finance has appeared for no less than two hours.”
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Mr. Blaikie's amendment is “That the Minister of Finance be invited to appear for two hours on or before May 18, 2023.” I'll add “and clause-by-clause shall not begin until the Minister of Finance has appeared before the finance committee for no less than two hours.”
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Okay. Members, you've heard the amendment and the subamendment.
Is there any discussion on that?
