Evidence of meeting #3 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I have a point of order.
I just want clarification. When you asked, “Is there consent?”, I was interpreting that to mean unanimous consent, but I understand that it's an actual vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
In the absence of there being consensus, a majority vote could bring it back on the floor. If the committee agreed to just bring it back, then we would just be bringing it back, but it seemed like heads were nodding in different directions. Therefore, we need a formal vote to be taken.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
It's been moved that we bring it back.
Is everyone back from recess and prepared to vote on it?
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
It has been agreed, by consensus actually, so we're back on Ms. Blaney's motion.
We have Mr. Brassard first on the list, and second is Ms. Blaney.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I have point of order, Madam Chair.
This is just for clarification. As I recall, when we were last on this issue, we were actually debating an amendment that I had proposed. Would that be where we would resume, on the amendment?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Yes, it is on Mr. Richards' amendment of Ms. Blaney's motion.
Mr. Brassard.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I think someone asked for it to be read, if you don't mind.
The Clerk
Mr. Richards' amendment reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by adding the following:
That a Vice-Chair eligible for more than one additional salary under sections 62.1 to 62.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act shall only receive one of the additional salaries for which he or she is eligible.
The Clerk
I can also read it in French.
Que la motion soit modifiée en ajoutant ce qui suit :
Qu'un vice-président admissible à plus d'un poste supplémentaire en vertu des sections 62.1 à 62.3 de la Loi sur le Parlement du Canada ne reçoive qu'un seul des salaires supplémentaires auxquels il est admissible.
Bloc
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
It's the amendment.
I want to know whether I should formally withdraw from the discussion. I'll explain the specific case that involves me.
I'm a House leader and a vice-chair here.
According to the wording, as a vice-chair, I won't be paid because I already have a paid position elsewhere?
My question is simple. It involves me personally, and I want to know whether I should withdraw from the discussion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Mr. Therrien, in terms of the conflict, I don't know if I can answer that for you. However, in terms of the statute, currently in your situation, and I believe even after this motion is passed—if I understand the motion correctly—you would still be provided the leader's salary and the second vice-chair salary because according to the statute that is what you receive currently and that is what you would continue to receive.
You can correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Richards, but this applies only to the third vice-chair, or the deputy vice-chair.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I understand the amendment would just indicate that anyone would only be eligible for one additional salary as a vice-chair.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
As indicated here, we were told that a distinction can't be made because the other amendment wasn't accepted and there was no way of making a distinction between the positions. In my mind it would apply to any vice-chair.