Shall BQ-10 carry?
Evidence of meeting #80 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #80 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
December 6th, 2023 / 10:05 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I'd like a recorded vote, please
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 7 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(On clause 8)
We are on CPC-19.
The amendment seeks to increase the number of members of the council from 15 to 20, which would create additional spending. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772, “Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.”
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes new spending, which would require a royal recommendation. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Go ahead, Mrs. Stubbs, on a point of order.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Can you give the rationale for that, since, of course, one of the main problems with Bill C-50 is that there are no costs outlined for any of what these things will be.
How can there suddenly be a rationale and declaration from you that this amendment won't work? You're asserting that it's going to add costs, but there are no costs outlined in the bill in the first place. This is a key problem with it, which we could have discussed if you guys had allowed this to go through the normal process.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Madam Dabrusin, you'll know when I'm challenging the chair, because I'll say so. It was a point of clarification, exactly as I said.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes new spending, which would require a royal recommendation. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
There's no spending outlined in the bill at all, so how can you assert there's any addition?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
Liberal
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Chair, on a point of order, we'd like to know who the voting members are right now.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
—and CPC-27 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Also, if NDP-3 is adopted, then CPC-20, BQ-12, CPC-24, CPC-25 and CPC-26 become moot since the committee would already have made a decision on the composition of the members of the council.
Shall NDP-3 carry?
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
On a point of order, before I enter my vote, I need to know what the line conflict is. I want an informed vote.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
I'm sorry, Chair and Clerk, but have we suddenly disappeared into the ether or has everyone lost their hearing? Can someone acknowledge us? We do represent millions of Canadians.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
On a point of order, tell us who the voting members are—right now.
