Evidence of meeting #74 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 event.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:10 a.m.
Olivier Champagne Legislative Clerk, House of Commons
The rule is that the committee can only amend the same line once. Basically that's the very simple rule. The Liberal amendment touches lines 3 to 5 and NDP-1 replaces lines 4 and 5, so that's why. It's a technical reason.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Okay, thanks.
Chair, perhaps I could, through you, ask Mr. Graham whether it's his intention to support my amendment. If it is, then maybe we could find a way to have one motion that gets us around this technicality. Otherwise, it looks as though we're going to have a bit of a clash.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Could I ask a question, then? It's related to that. Certainly it's technically feasible, but the question is whether it's allowable to amend LIB-1 to include the language that is in amendment NDP-1.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I believe it's technically possible, but to answer David's question, it's not my intention to support his amendment. If he'd like me to explain why, I'm happy to, but at this point it's not my intention to support it.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
It expands this to every exempt staff in every office who attends any event, and I think that goes way beyond the intent and the scope of the bill.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
11:10 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I hear you, and I posed the same question to Tyler when we were going through it. The answer is that if we simply identify it by title, all you have to do is give somebody a title that's not listed and you've gotten around the law. By just saying everybody who's in the office may... There's the the fact that it might feel like a bit of an overreach, but if we do it the other way, it's an underreach, because, as I say, you just create a title that's not there, and hocus-pocus, someone who normally shouldn't be there or would be covered by the law now isn't.
That was the only reason they used the language. I asked the same question: why would we say “such as”?
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I get that, but it's not my intent to support in the bill to extend it to every exempt staff in every office, which is what this does, as I understand it.
You haven't introduced it yet, but—
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Because this is going to preclude debate on the NDP amendment, and that seems inherently unfair, the way to resolve this problem is to move a subamendment to LIB-1 that includes the content of NDP-1.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I don't think we can do yours first. We'd have to withdraw LIB-1 and then do yours first.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
All right. Let's see if there's unanimous consent for it. If not, I'll—
11:10 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Can we move to NDP-1, Chair, by unanimous consent, and then return to LIB-1?
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
There are two options for proceeding, or three. Just carry on is one. Two is to propose a subamendment to LIB-1. Three is to, by unanimous consent, reverse the order, and if NDP-1 passes, then LIB-1 couldn't go ahead. If NDP-1 doesn't pass, LIB-1 could still proceed to debate.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Again, we get along fairly well here. Is it the intent of all the government members to vote against NDP-1?
11:10 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
The thing is, I have some sympathy for David's amendment, but I'm certainly sure as hell not going to vote for something that kills my motion before it even gets to the floor. It's just not going to happen.
If I can get a sense, though, that I'm spinning my wheels on mine, then that would give me a little bit of latitude to be supportive of David's.
Is that everybody saying you're not with me? Okay.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Why don't we just let you guys vote down his amendment and then go to your amendment?
11:10 a.m.
A voice
Well, if we proceed with his—
11:15 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes, but if they're not going to include mine, there's no sense doing that option. That would be nice and neat. Otherwise I'm in a leap of faith. I can do that, but the cleanest would be if we could do mine first, let me sort of have my day in court—it will take 30 seconds—and then we can move on to LIB-1 and give me the latitude to support it.
