Evidence of meeting #68 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Go ahead, please, Mr. Cannan, and then I'm going to move right to Mr. Hiebert and Mr. Jean.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Mr. Lessard, I was elected as a member of Parliament for Kelowna--Lake Country in British Columbia, so I'm sitting here as a Canadian and a member of Parliament, so that gives me the mandate and the ability to make a friendly amendment. If it's not being accepted as a friendly amendment, then I'll just move on.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chair, I reiterate my question. We are in this situation where it is the government of Quebec, unanimously, in the National Assembly, that wants this condition, a traditional request by Quebec, to be honoured. My question is whether the Government of British Columbia has made the same request.
The other question is whether the people of British Columbia have been recognized as forming a nation.
I think the answers to those questions are simple. I know what the responsibility of everyone here is and that is not what my question is about. My question is twofold and clear.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
It's not being accepted in a friendly manner, so we'll just move on.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I have Mr. Hiebert and Mr. Jean. That's all I have on the list. If I don't add any other people, I'll be calling the question.
Mr. Hiebert.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I wanted to clarify for Mr. Lessard that my use of the word “entertaining” had nothing to do with the substance of the issue we're addressing. That's the implication that I got from the interpretation, and it couldn't be further from the truth. My use of the word “entertaining” referred to the process being used by this committee to overrule the conclusion of the legislative clerk. That's what I was referring to. Now that we know the legislative clerk would be providing the same advice to the Speaker—
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chair, a point of order. The decision has been made and we don't need to talk about it now. If he says today that it is an entertaining decision, Mr. Chair, he only has to appeal your decision. He doesn't need to talk about it, he just needs to appeal it. That is not what the debate is about, it is about the substance.
Do we agree on the Bloc Québécois amendment concerning clause 3.1, yes or no?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
To wrap up my thought, I was referring to the process that's been used by the committee to overrule the conclusion of the legislative clerk. As we just learned, it's the legislative clerk who will be providing the same advice to the Speaker, if the Speaker has the opportunity to consider this amendment.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chair, I am going to ask that you rule on my point of order. You have decided how we would deal with clause 3.1.
What he is questioning is the way you proceeded. He is talking about the procedure for getting there. He finds it entertaining and is arguing that point again. That is out of order and I would ask that you rule it to be such.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Mr. Hiebert has the floor, so I'm going to let him continue, and then we'll move on to Mr. Jean and Mr. Komarnicki. If I don't add any more names, then I'll be able to call the question.
Mr. Hiebert.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Perhaps, Mr. Lessard, some things are being lost in translation. I'm referring only to the comment you made about my motives for using certain terms, and I'm trying to clarify for your benefit that these terms were not used to cause offence or make light of the issue of national housing. It was simply a response to your comment about my motives for using the description that I did. I'm not sure where the point of order is coming from, but I think I've made my position clear. I'll leave it at that.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I have a question for the clerk, or maybe Monsieur Lessard could answer this question. This subclause 3.(1) has been used in other acts. Which acts, and when was it used? I know it has been, but I wasn't sure where. I thought maybe somebody could clarify that for me.
Then I have a comment after that.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
As I said before, the challenge was not based on the fact that this was a—
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
The opting-out clause. This is an opt-out clause.
