Evidence of meeting #39 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Currently we are debating the amendment. There is no mention of that period of time in the amendment, so you are trying to amend the motion. We have to deal with the amendment first.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
The amendment to the motion does not mention the time frame. Therefore, you are trying to amend the motion, not the amendment. We are currently on the amendment.
Do you want to change that? Do you know what I am saying?
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Perhaps in an effort to move things along, I could offer a subamendment to the amendment.
What I would propose as a subamendment is that everything from paragraphs (g) through (k) be deleted. That would have the effect of removing from the main motion the prioritization part of paragraph (b). We would remove the additional witnesses in paragraphs (g) through (k) but would keep the production of documents in there.
You can't sub-subamend something. You would have to deal with the amendments. However, perhaps if people are willing to keep the subamendment that I just proposed, we could look at a way to change the timeline to 14 days or as soon as possible. Effectively, what I'm proposing is that we compromise on the first part. We would take out the prioritization one and take out the additional witnesses but keep the production of papers and documents as is, with the understanding that when we get to the point that we can amend that, we can change the timelines.
That's what I offer as a hopeful compromise and solution that maybe our colleagues would be willing to accept.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Madam Chair, mine is just a procedural issue for the clerk.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Clerk, but with respect to what was just proposed, you can't provide a subamendment that is exactly like the amendment that's already been proposed. Eliminating paragraphs (b) and (g) through (k) was in Mr. Fergus's amendment.
Can we get clarity on what's being proposed? If the Conservatives want to amend his amendment, then we need to be very clear on what we're voting on. They just moved, as a subamendment, the exact amendment that was already moved.
Can we just get clear on what we're actually voting on?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
The subamendment that Mr. Nater is proposing is to remove paragraph (b), as Mr. Fergus mentioned, to remove paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k), and to keep paragraph (l).
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Basically, I'm proposing to amend Mr. Fergus's amendment by dropping the second part of it.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I think the hardest part of it is following what we're doing.
I am calling the question for the subamendment proposed by Mr. Nater.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I am now calling the question on Mr. Fergus's amendment.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I will now call the question on the main motion.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
No. There has to be debate. We're back to the debate on the main motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I just called the question.
I didn't have a speaking list. You see the pace we're travelling at.
November 14th, 2022 / 1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I don't have to. If there's a speaking list, I will respect the speaking list.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
I saw him asking for the floor before you asked the clerk the question.
Liberal
