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.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Perhaps I may start by raising a point of order. I respect the fact that Mr. Therrien raised it in a justful way, but the reality of the situation is that this motion was properly moved by a member of the committee. The Conservatives had a lot of time to look at this. They knew, obviously, because they ran out of the gate with their amendment to it. Why didn't they put it in writing in both official languages so that it could be distributed around the table?
It's not as though this is one of those ones like last time where we were looking to change a word or something here or there and you could do it on the floor. You knew you were going to do this. Why not put it in writing? I saw that you then provided it to Mr. Therrien a few seconds ago.
He did the exact same thing that he did last time, Madam Chair, which is to distribute one thing to one member and not to all the members around the table. As a point of order I think we need to wrap our heads around getting that done properly.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
This is completely within order. When a motion is moved it is entirely within order, I know that, to move an amendment verbally. That is not an irregular thing. It's quite commonly done. In terms of the idea of why I didn't write this down ahead of time, I expected we were going to be dealing with the motion that we were dealing with in the last meeting. I was clear about that when you brought this forward at the beginning of the meeting, Chair.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
If anyone is having difficulty understanding the amendment, I do apologize, but it's not complicated. It's not complex. I'm simply indicating here that we invite the minister to come for a two-hour meeting. I don't know what is so confusing to people here, but I do apologize. It is completely within order to bring forward an amendment verbally.
Why did I give it to one member? Well, we were all speaking in English and his first language is French—
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
So the fact that we're speaking in English somehow dictates how we should be distributing—
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
If you would like me to write it down for you in English I could do that as well, but I believe you understood it.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Mr. Richards, I think I've had the opportunity to hear both points of view. Although I appreciate obviously what Mr. Gerretsen is saying, it is always helpful when it's in writing, but it's completely within order to do so from the floor verbally. That is why, as stated previously, we have translation provided to us in order to help with that. We can of course read the amendment out once again if further clarification is needed.
We do have a general speaking list and we will carry on with that.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
As a point of order, I'm not finished so I just want to make sure that I'm on the list.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
You're on the general list. That was just considered a point of order.
Mr. Gerretsen.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I'm glad we're discussing the motion and the amendment to the motion that was set out in our agenda, which was sent out to us in advance so that we all knew exactly what we were dealing with when we got here. I'm really glad to see that we're doing that.
To Mr. Therrien's point, what I got from his interjection a few moments ago was that we might be setting up the amendment in such a way that says we're inviting you for two hours and if you don't come for two hours then we're not interested. Is there a way to change the wording a bit so that the minister, through the invitation, can also interpret this to mean that if you can come for a shorter amount of time we will take you for a shorter amount of time too?
All I was going to suggest was that we amend the motion to say “up to two hours”. We invite the minister to come for up to two hours, so if the minister says I can only come for one hour then we still get that one hour and we're not shutting the door just because she's not available for two hours.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Mr. Richards, would you be willing to entertain that suggestion, or would you like Mr. Gerretsen, if he wishes, to move a separate amendment?
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
If the mover does not accept that as friendly amendment, I'd be happy to move it.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I'll move that we insert the word “up to” in front of “two hours”.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
This is the subamendment.
Is there debate on the subamendment to the amendment?
Monsieur Therrien.
11:20 a.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Words are important. The verb “to invite” is used here. If a minister is invited, can he say that he won't come? Is he invited or summoned? Do you understand the difference? Is the goal to invite the minister, who can then say that he doesn't want to come, or to summon him, which leaves him no choice but to come?