Evidence of meeting #94 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Yes, it is a point of order, because we owe each other respect. We owe each other respect, and I don't want you to be yelling. At least try to get that. Have a little bit of fun, but not this type of discussion. I'm the only woman here and I want respect.
That is my right, and I want respect for the chair, so don't talk like this, like you do. That's not acceptable.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Chatel's point of order is speaking to respect and decorum here at committee. That is something we would all want and we are asking for.
Again, on the ruling, you heard the ruling: It was a blanket ruling for all amendments and subamendments.
I have MP Lawrence on a point of order.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
On that point of order, with respect to that, no disrespect was intended, but I will say to everyone that it was disrespectful of the chair to say to one of the honourable members of this committee that the member liked to hear himself talk. That was an obvious insult and bullying and not appropriate, so I'll give the chair an opportunity to apologize to Mr. Genuis.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I will take that back for any member. I should not have said that.
We will now move forward, members.
Shall Bloc-2 carry?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Go ahead, Clerk.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 118 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)
Liberal
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Could we have recorded divisions of each individual one, as it's written—as you have reminded me so many times?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
(Clauses 119 to 123 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We're now on part 3, “Amendments to the Excise Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Air Travellers Security Charge Act” and “Division 1, Excise Act and Excise Act, 2001 (Alcohol Products)”.
On clause 124, shall CPC‑1 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 124 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
We're going to suspend for one minute.
We're back.
I do have a note here. CPC‑2 can only be moved if CPC‑1 had been adopted since CPC‑2 removes the reference to clause 170.2 after its deletion by CPC‑1.
MP Lawrence.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I'd like to challenge your ruling.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Members, just to refocus everybody, we are on CPC‑2.
A note to the chair here from the legislative clerk says that CPC‑2 can only be moved if CPC‑1 had been adopted since CPC‑2 removes the reference to clause 170.2 after its deletion by CPC‑1. Because of that, it cannot be moved, but there's been a challenge to the chair, just so everybody is aware.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
The ruling has been sustained.
Shall CPC-3 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 125)
Shall CPC-4 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 125 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We now go to new clause 125.1, which is BQ-3. I do have a chair's ruling here.
Bill C-47 amends several acts, including the Excise Act, 2001 to add inflationary adjustment clauses. The amendment seeks to add a new category of exempted product, bulk wines made in Canada from agricultural or plant product grown in Canada, to the exclusion of grapes.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 770:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, this addition is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Ste-Marie, I know. It's tough.
We are now on BQ-4. I do have a chair's ruling on BQ-4.
Bill C-47 amends several acts, including the Excise Act, 2001 to add inflationary adjustment clauses. The amendment seeks to add a new category of exempted product, wines produced in Canada for personal use and by small producers made from agricultural or plant product grown in Canada, to the exclusion of grapes.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 770:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair this addition is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading and therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.
(On clause 126)
We are at now at clause 126.
Shall CPC-5 carry?
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Let's have a recorded division on that one.
Conservative
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
First, I have a point of clarification on the previous vote. Was it on clause 125 or was it on an amendment?
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Then I voted in error. The vote ought to be recorded as a no.
