I've got it.
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.
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.
Conservative
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I'm going to challenge it, but yes, I get it, thank you.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Aimée Belmore
The question is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Now we are on CPC-7. There is a chair's ruling on this one, on CPC-7.
The chair's ruling is that Bill C-47 amends several acts, including the Excise Act, 2001, to add inflationary adjustment clauses. The amendment seeks to establish new amounts of fines related to certain more serious alcohol offences.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to 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.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
There's a challenge of the chair.
Go ahead, Clerk.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
It's been sustained.
Members, now we are at amendment CPC-8.
I do have a ruling. The ruling is that Bill C-47 amends several acts, including the Excise Act, 2001 to add inflationary adjustment clauses. The amendment seeks to establish a new amount of fine related to the supply of bulk wine offences.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 770:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to 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.
Conservative
The Clerk
Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6 ; nays 5)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We are now, members, at amendment CPC-9.
I do have a chair's ruling.
MP Lawrence, I have a ruling here I have to read. Bill C-47 amends several acts, including the Excise Act, 2001, to add inflationary adjustment clauses. The amendment seeks to establish new amounts of fines for alcohol offences in relation to sections 73, 74 and 90 of the act.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 770:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to 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.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Can I ask for a quick clarification? Is it the calculation in the new bill that's the problem?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
There's a challenge. Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
Clerk, we will have a vote.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5 )
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I have a quick point of order, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I don't mean this in any disrespectful way. I think I work quite well with Mr. MacDonald, but I have noticed several times that he hasn't said “yes”. He just used his thumbs-up, which I guess we do on an acceptance basis. I was just wondering if there was a technical problem.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
You can use your thumbs-up or thumbs-down, if you want, for voting. That's all we're doing here; we're voting.
If that is what MP MacDonald would like to do, that's what he can do. Other members can do that also if you want to use your thumbs-up or thumbs-down.
