Evidence of meeting #36 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
We could go to clause 3 and discuss it after, but clause 2 needs to be changed. If we don't do it now we'll do it further--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Patry. I don't want to get into debate until we understand whether we have unanimous consent to go to clause 2.
Mr. McKay, you were signifying no.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
We went over this for an hour a couple of weeks ago. The issue of whether the minister can give emergency assistance is already taken care of by clause 5. So I don't see the basis for this.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Without going into debate, Mr. Patry, we do not have unanimous consent.
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Clause 3 was stood at the last meeting. We'll come back to it later.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
How can you come back later for the definitions? You say we are going clause by clause. Where's clause 3? When are we going to adopt clause 3? Before we accept clauses 4, 5, and the other clauses, we need to know what the definitions are. I want to go to the definitions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I'm just referencing the legislative clerk. Legislatively, I've been told we go through the content of the bill first and then come back. As we go through the bill it may change the summary, or we may want to amend the interpretation clause.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I think you're doing it upside down, Mr. Chair. If we want to get the definition of a competent minister we need to do it now, not after we accept development assistance in clause 4. It's the opposite. We get the definition, and after that we go clause by clause.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
At the last meeting we stood clause 3, so we would need unanimous consent to go back to it.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I've never heard of needing unanimous consent. How can we go back to definitions at the end of the bill if we don't know what we're talking about by definitions?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We can go to clause 2. We can do the summary. As we go through these clause by clause, we ask our legislative clerks and legislative parliamentary helpers to tell us the proper way to go through a bill. They have suggested that this clause be stood until the end. Then we can deal with it. If there are any subsequent changes to the bill as it's gone through, they may change the intent.
We brought that forward at the last meeting and it was accepted. So my feeling is that you can challenge the chair and question the way we did it, but we would have to change it through unanimous consent.
Point of order.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
What my colleague is talking about is going to this bill. We made decisions on those clauses the last time, but we didn't make a decision on this clause. So when you say we are going back and we need unanimous consent, I don't think so. All we're doing is following a procedure.
I can understand the one before that, where we made decisions inside the clauses not to revisit one sentence and all that, as you stated. So why would you now say it's out of order?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
At the last meeting, we stood clause 3 until we complete the rest of the bill. Once it has been stood, that means you go through the rest of the bill and then come back and address clause 3. You're now saying we should go back to clause 3, and I'm willing to do that if there's unanimous consent to do so.
Is there unanimous consent?
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
At least we can get the bill moving forward and finally deal with what is contentious.
(On clause 3—Interpretation)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We have consent to go back to clause 3. Clause 3 is the interpretation of the bill, the definitions.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Chair, can we have the departmental officials who would help us sitting at the table, please?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
It's a private member's bill. The department isn't going to help Mr. McKay on his bill.
December 12th, 2006 / 4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Mr. McKay, you're sitting at the table alone.
For clause 3, the first amendment is NDP-2, on page 2. Madam McDonough, would you bring forward your amendment?