Evidence of meeting #50 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th 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.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Given that the bill itself amends section 117, if I'm not mistaken, then any of the subsequent paragraphs or points under section 117—Am I completely in—?
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
We're dealing with two completely different sections: section 117.01, which is in the bill, and your amendment deals with section 117.07, which is not noted in the bill at all, so it's not even part of the process. As a result, it's inadmissible.
That would apply to some others too. That's on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
On that, just so I understand, anything that by amendment becomes a new clause you're going to be ruling as not within the scope of the bill.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Section 117 is comprised of section 117, section 117.01—It's viewed as a completely separate clause.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Fine, thank you.
I still challenge.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Every day is a victory.
The clause is inadmissible.
New clause 14.2: Ms. Jennings.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I will move clause 14.2. It's the same argument and the same ruling, I presume.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Perhaps to accelerate things, may I ask if that would be the same ruling on Liberal amendments L-8 and L-9?
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
So why don't I move all three at the same time, you rule that three of them are inadmissible, I challenge, we vote to sustain or not to sustain your ruling?
February 20th, 2007 / 9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I understand how you operate and that you made a ruling which applies to all of the Liberal amendments, etc.
I think the decision is up to Ms. Jennings. From the start, we've been voting either in favour or opposed, but she has not said under which procedure it was admissible or inadmissible, if only for our purposes. I did not understand why.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
But you, you did not. I'd like it to be said, so I can understand.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
The chair explained that pursuant to procedures governing this committee, we cannot introduce amendments which would affect a section not already affected by the bill.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
All right. And you are challenging this decision?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Is there consent among committee members to proceed as Ms. Jennings outlined? We'll deal with these three amendments.
There is consent, and the chair's ruling is challenged.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Liberal amendments L-6, L-7, L-8, and L-9 are inadmissible.
On to clause 15. There is a Liberal amendment to clause 15. This amendment is actually noted as clause 15 in the bill.
Mr. Moore.