Evidence of meeting #119 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was hear.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
No one wants to be here until three in the morning, whether it's doing clause-by-clause or whether it's hearing me pontificate or hearing the—
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
A wet handshake agreement? I'm not sure I've heard that phrase.
12:20 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
No, no, no. When you wash your hands and you're embarrassed to shake, but you have to shake.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
It would be a good motion. It may be appropriate to go in camera at this point.
12:20 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
No. It's like I have to shake their hand, but I just washed my hands, and I'm so embarrassed. That happens to me.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
You know, if you were just in the washroom and it's not a wet handshake, that's even more alarming.
12:20 p.m.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
Well, you wouldn't have liked the last Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
If you see me in the entrance of the bathroom going like this, you know what I'm doing. I'm trying to dry my hands.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Those things aren't very good. The new ones from Dyson are great, but they don't have those here.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I think that when we start is very much an element of where we go behind the scenes. Certainly, we hope that perhaps by the conclusion of today's meeting we could have that clarity going forward. We may be able at that point to agree to the motion as written.
We'll put our cards on the table. If the discussions elsewhere go well, and if we can have some clarity, some definitive word from those elements who aren't in this room, I think we could very much go with what's written on this piece of paper, with the original motion. Provided that we hear from the CEO for Ontario on Tuesday, I see no reason why we wouldn't be able to, if there is clarity provided from those who are not in this room right now.
I look forward to hearing that. I haven't seen anyone rushing in with a sealed envelope, from upstairs or elsewhere, providing that certainty. I'll keep my eye on the door as we go through. Going on this motion from an opposition standpoint, at this point we are not comfortable with all of the provisions of the bill as they stand. I would like to see us—
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Take it up with clause-by-clause. Let's get to clause-by-clause.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
We are not willing to do that if it's simply going to be an element of where all clauses presented by the New Democratic Party or the Conservative Party are dealt with out of hand without appropriate discussion or debate.
I would love to be able to conclude my comments and simply go to a vote on this with some reassurance from our friends upstairs, but that's simply not advisable at this point in time. We're not ready to get to that point yet, not until we've fully discussed the important motion that is before us as we speak.
Perhaps I should ask for clarity from the chair or the clerk. In terms of parties not represented on the committee, they are entitled to submit amendments. I believe some have been submitted. Under a guillotine motion such as this, where each party is provided five minutes per clause, are those parties that are represented in the House of Commons but do not have official party status or representatives on this committee permitted to participate in that five minutes? Perhaps I could have some clarity from the chair.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
The question is, do the parties that are not represented use five minutes?
12:25 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Andrew Lauzon
For the members of Parliament who don't belong to recognized parties, for amendments they've submitted, during clause-by-clause they would be given a short period of time at the discretion of the chair to present their amendments, but for the amendments presented by members belonging to a recognized caucus, they would not be able to participate in the debate, necessarily.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
That's an interesting element of this as well. I guess that goes with the territory of not having party status, but at the same time, they are permitted to introduce their amendments, which is the right of any parliamentarian within this place. I do appreciate that.
Chair, I know there are other people on the speaking list. I would like to take a brief pause from my comments and allow others to speak. Something may yet come to my mind, so I wouldn't mind being put back on the speaking list in case.
