Evidence of meeting #21 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I've always been willing to cooperate and help people out. If Mr. Laframboise is asking the committee to adjourn so that he can negotiate discussions on clause 8 with Mr. Bevington on his subamendment, then I'd be prepared to entertain a motion to suspend or adjourn, whichever is more convenient, while he conducts that negotiation. Otherwise, there isn't another amendment to talk about.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
In relation to this point of order, I would certainly not object to taking the current clause and suspending that vote until such time as we vote on the next clause, if that would make Mr. Volpe happy. Then we could vote on clause 8 and go back to clause 7. The amendment that Mr. Laframboise is proposing and Mr. Bevington is interested in could then be dealt with. And then we could vote on clause 7. There's nothing that precludes this committee from doing that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
It's been proposed that we would stand clause 7, with the idea of having amendments introduced in clause 8 that may satisfy Mr. Bevington's concerns. To do that, we would need unanimous consent.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, you have unanimous consent from the members on the government side.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm sensing that there isn't unanimous consent. We can debate Mr. Bevington's subamendment and then we will move to a vote on the subamendment and the amendment.
It's on the floor that we change the word from “cover” to “support”. The floor is open for debate on that issue.
Mr. Volpe.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I didn't mean to interrupt Mr. Laframboise. I was just trying to be helpful.
He was talking about an approach that would help him to digest Mr. Bevington's subamendment a little bit more clearly. I thought he meant that he wanted to suspend the sitting until such time as they clarified with each other where they were going. I wondered whether he was actually asking to do that, to which request I would have given consent. I think my colleagues on the Liberal side would have agreed with me, strange as that might appear. But I'm not sure whether Mr. Laframboise is doing this. So perhaps if he answers that question first, then we can go on with what you're suggesting.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I have no objection to suspending the meeting for five minutes, so I can discuss it with Mr. Bevington. I could also speak to Mr. Volpe. Five minutes would do the trick, but I would like unanimous consent on it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Mr. Laframboise is asking for five minutes, with unanimous consent, to discuss his amendment.
Is there is unanimous consent at the table?
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'd like clarification that within a certain amount of time we will reconvene and continue.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We're back again. Apparently we're going to take one more minute.
Thank you, and we're back.
When we left, Mr. Bevington had proposed a subamendment to the motion. I know there were discussions. I guess I would ask the committee if they're prepared to move forward on the subamendment.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Chair, we're prepared to hear what the proposed subamendment is.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I read it into the record. He actually changed the word from “cover” to “support”.
