Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[An hon. member]

I request a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will go to BQ-31, which has been declared inadmissible.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Are you challenging the chair on the inadmissibility?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

No, it's a point of order, Chair.

Can you clarify why it was ruled inadmissible?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Actually, there is no ruling on this one because LIB-13 was adopted. This is inadmissible because of a line conflict.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I challenge your ruling, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

There is no challenge to the ruling because it's a line conflict. There's no ruling; it's a fact. There's no challenge.

We're on LIB-14.

[An hon. member]

I request a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to CPC-94, which is inadmissible.

The amendment seeks to make a substantive modification by adding new elements to the preamble. Since no amendment has been adopted to warrant the addition of these elements, I declare the amendment inadmissible.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I challenge the chair.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We're on amendment BQ-32. The amendment seeks to make a substantive modification by adding new elements to the preamble. Since no amendment has been adopted to warrant the addition of these elements, I declare the amendment inadmissible.

[An hon. member]

I challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

We will go to amendment CPC-95.

Shall CPC-95 carry?

[An hon. member]

I request a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to amendment LIB-15.

Shall LIB-15 carry?

[An hon. member]

I request a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll go to NDP-14.

Shall NDP-14 carry?

[An hon. member]

I request a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are on amendment CPC-96, which is inadmissible.

The amendment seeks to make a substantive modification by adding new elements to the preamble. Since no amendment has been adopted to warrant the addition of these new elements, I declare the amendment inadmissible.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I have a point of order.

I'm just curious as to why the previous preamble wasn't ruled inadmissible because it didn't have another amendment needed to make the amendment admissible, but yet every other one that has “CPC” in front of it seems to be inadmissible. Why is that?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Are you challenging the chair?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

It depends on how you answer the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

There's no debate. The ruling has been made. If you're challenging the chair on CPC-96, please proceed.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I challenge the chair.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)