Evidence of meeting #98 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 42nd 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.
Legislative Clerk
There could be unanimous consent by the committee to withdraw Ms. Harder's amendment.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
It is because it's a different subsection. It's proposed subsection 88.01(1). I'm happy to share this with you if you want to take a look at it.
Conservative
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
The intent is definitely to remove the minister from any decisions that involve political staff. I think all parties are on the same page.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Could I make a quick suggestion here? We will suspend for five minutes. We will share this document to see if we can come up with an agreement.
We're going to suspend for two minutes.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Part of it is a procedural question—and I think I already know the answer because I went through this at the public safety committee. In order to introduce this, we either have to have the Conservative amendment withdrawn or defeated. Is that correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Correct. There are two options here. We can either more forward and vote on CPC-7, and then from the floor you would introduce your amendment; or we could get unanimous consent to withdraw CPC-7, and then again you would move your motion.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
It's up to the Conservatives how they want to proceed.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Chair, I would recommend one of two things.
One, I would agree to table my amendment temporarily to bring it back onto the table for consideration after we have considered the Liberals have brought forward. The other recommendation would be to take what has been put forward by the party opposite and to use it to amend the recommendation I brought forward in CPC-7.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
The clerk has instructed me that amending it is not necessarily possible. The two options that are before us are to go ahead and vote on CPC-7 or to ask for consent to withdraw CPC-7.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mr. Chair, is there a third option, to suspend the amendment and go to this amendment beforehand and later on to see...?
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Understood.
It's not the norm, but we could ask for unanimous consent to table CPC-7. That would then open the floor to allow MP Damoff to bring forward her amendment. The reason we can't shelve it is that once we carry clause 21, it would be closed and we wouldn't be able to go back.
The other issue with shelving it, if in fact we unanimously consent to put aside CPC-7 and bring forward MP Damoff's amendment, and then in theory it is voted in favour of, is that we wouldn't be able to go back to CPC-7 because it would be redundant. In either scenario we wouldn't actually be dealing with CPC-7. Either it's withdrawn or it becomes redundant with the adoption of the amendment from the floor.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
When Ms. Damoff's amendment is tabled, nothing prevents us from bringing other amendments to the table, but they would be deemed non-receivable if they touch on the same issue. Is that correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
The other technicality is that it's a different line in the bill, and it comes after the line that is in your amendment. It's out of order. We'd be moving to the next line in the bill where MP Damoff wishes her amendment to exist, so then going back would not be possible.
MP Damoff.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Your remarks have made me change what I was going to say.
If I introduce this by unanimous consent and it doesn't pass, could CPC-7 still be dealt with? You're saying that because it's later in the bill, it can't be dealt with.
I think that other than for a couple of words, we're in agreement on what we want to do.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Instead of trying to be the intermediary here, I'm going to ask the clerk to explain it little better than I could.
Legislative Clerk
I will try to simplify things.
The amendment CPC-7 is before the committee. We have to do something with it right now. If we decide by unanimous consent to withdraw it, after LIB-16 is adopted or defeated, another amendment—the same one, if it's still in order, which it would not be—could be moved. The clause would still be open for other amendments provided they are consistent with any other amendments adopted, for instance LIB-16.
It's kind of a matter of semantics. Whether you say “withdrawn” or “tabled”, it's deciding not to consider this amendment any more for now. If LIB-16 is adopted, then I don't think the chair will rule CPC-7 in order.