Evidence of meeting #63 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was definition.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We all have to do our best.
Meanwhile, let us go to Madam Damoff.
Do you wish to carry on?
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
It was just the question of whether we should continue on with the amendment that I put on the floor, if there's no challenge to the chair's decision. If there is a challenge to the chair, then it's non-debatable and we'll just vote on it.
I haven't heard that there has been, so let's just carry on with the amendment.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Madam Michaud, you were next, followed by Mr. Motz.
You have the floor, Ms. Michaud.
May 2nd, 2023 / 6:05 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I just wanted to add a clarification regarding Mr. Motz's and Mr. Julian's remarks that it was premature to think about how the Speaker of the House will rule once Bill C‑21 is at report stage in the House.
I find it a little peculiar to be hearing this at this point, because just before the government withdrew its amendments G‑4 and G‑46, the NDP was about to introduce a motion calling on the Speaker of the House to rule on the scope of Bill C‑21.
As Ms. Damoff says, if your ruling is being challenged, Mr. Chair, perhaps we should go to a vote now. Otherwise, I would be willing to go back to debating the amendment.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To add some clarity to my motion, I'll put it this way.
I move that the committee report the following to the House: that notwithstanding the usual practices of the House, the committee requests for the Speaker to provide a ruling as soon as possible—
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
—on the admissibility of amendment G.32 in relation to the scope of Bill C-21.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We have a motion on the floor. We can't move another motion at this time.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Your motion is not on the floor. Ms. Damoff's motion is on the floor.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
My motion is still on the floor.
I said “I move” to determine whether this is in scope.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
You can't move a motion while there's a motion in progress.
If you wish to challenge the decision of the chair, that's different. I think it's privileged, and it would proceed without further debate.
You cannot move another motion at this time.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
We will wait until Ms. Dancho is back online.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay.
We will wait for Ms. Dancho. We'll suspend until she comes back online.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Ms. Dancho, welcome back.
In your absence, Mr. Motz challenged the chair. The question is therefore as follows: Shall the decision of the chair that this amendment is in scope be sustained?
I will ask for a recorded vote.
6:10 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair. Before we take it to a vote, I have a question for the legislative clerk, if we have time.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is it a question on the vote itself? We'll pause for a minute for the question, if you like, but no debate. This is not debatable.
6:10 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
No, it's only one question.
Mr. Legislative Clerk, if the government wanted to introduce a motion to expand the scope of the bill, at what point could it do so? Should it do so before introducing new amendments that would be out of scope with the bill, such as an assault weapons amendment, or could it do so at any time until the bill returns to the House once clause-by-clause consideration has been completed?
6:15 p.m.
Philippe Méla Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's hard to answer your question, Ms. Michaud, because I don't have the text of the motion in question, but there are two options.
Under option one, the committee could introduce a motion to expand the subject matter of the bill and report it to the House. Once the House adopts the report, it could issue a House order allowing the committee to actually consider amendments that initially would have been out of scope with the bill.
Option two is that the government, or anyone, really, could introduce a motion to the House proposing the same thing. This would be debated during Routine Proceedings. It's one or the other.
6:15 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Can it be done at any time until clause-by-clause consideration has been completed, or does it have to be done before such motions are introduced?
6:15 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Again, it depends on the text of the motion and what it includes. I don't have the actual motion in front of me, so it's hard for me to answer you.
Generally, this type of motion comes before the introduction of amendments, so that the subject matter of the bill can be expanded immediately and the amendments considered after the fact. If I understand correctly, in this case you're talking about a retroactive motion. The extent to which that would work depends on the wording of the motion. So it's a little difficult for me to definitively answer your question.