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.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I will ask for unanimous consent by a show of hands, please.
Unanimous consent has been granted to withdraw amendment G-6.1.
(Amendment withdrawn)
Mr. Jean.
11 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, I move that this committee continue to sit until clause-by-clause on this bill is finished.
11 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Mr. Jean has proposed that we sit until the bill has been dealt with. Are there comments?
11 a.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
I would provide a friendly amendment that we continue to conduct a thorough clause-by-clause analysis at our next meeting. I know many of us have other committees to get to at the present time. The time set aside for our committee meetings is the time we should be using to conduct committee business. There are other committees that are equally important that will require the time and attention of members of Parliament. I think many of us--certainly Mr. Mayes and I--have to move on to another committee. But I'm absolutely willing to go back to the clause-by-clause review at the next time allocation.
11 a.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the government has decided to withdraw this particular amendment. I don't know what its intentions are for the others, but the last time we reflected on how best to proceed on clause-by-clause, we wanted to have people from the Canadian Jewish Congress before us. We couldn't ask them when we were in the middle of debating this particular amendment, but now that we are not in the process of deliberating on amendments, perhaps we can defer further discussion on this bill or the clause-by-clause until such time that we can get the president or CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress here, so that they can address the issues that appear to have so captured the attention of the government members. By that time, we can ask the signator to that particular letter that was not tabled to appear as well, and we'll know specifically what the intentions are without attributing anything to anybody.
While I think the government member's intention to continue this debate might be laudable, it would really be fruitless unless we have the very important presence of those members here. So my recommendation, and I'm prepared to move it if it is so required, is that we not sit until they come before us as witnesses. I think it would be only fair.
11 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Unfortunately, you can't introduce a motion when we're actually debating a motion.
All those in favour of the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
The motion has been accepted that we continue debate on this until we're finished.
We will move the committee to the West Block, room 209, and I would suggest we resume in 15 minutes.
The meeting is suspended.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Welcome back, everybody. We're returning to clause-by-clause.
Mr. Jean
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's great to be back.
I see subclause 7(1) as good the way it is, but I would like to propose an amendment to subclause 7(2), and I will read it into the record.
The first thing I think would be good is to delete the two final lines of subclause 7(2). The new subclause 7(2) would read as follows:
The Council shall spearhead a fundraising campaign to cover the cost of planning, designing, constructing, installing and maintaining the Monument, and any other costs incurred by the Council.
It so happens I have that in writing, Mr. Chair, if you would like it in writing in both official languages.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The amendment has been tabled. Debate?
I'm going to ask the messenger to make a copy for everyone.
We haven't actually tabled it yet. We're waiting for Mr. Volpe to come back.
Everyone now has the new amendment in front of them.
11:35 a.m.
An hon. member
Do you mean the same amendment?
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
It's a new amendment.
As the motion is very similar to the previous one, I would have to rule it inadmissible.
Mr. Jean.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Okay. The chair's ruling has been challenged. I turn it over now to Bonnie.
June 3rd, 2010 / 11:35 a.m.
The Clerk
The question is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 4)
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The ruling of the chair has been challenged and overturned.
Mr. Volpe, on a point of order.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I'm sorry I wasn't here a moment or two ago, but if this is the amendment that the colleague opposite has re-presented, which you ruled inadmissible, it was just withdrawn before we suspended. Who's playing games? This is nonsensical in the extreme. It's exactly the same wording.
I know some of my colleagues have already made up their mind on this, and that's fine. Everybody is free to do that. But to then take us to a position where we're going to withdraw something and present it all over again...I'm not sure whether the appropriate term is respectful of the process or not, but it certainly is a devious way of trying to deal with an issue that obviously wasn't going anywhere.
Am I to understand now, Mr. Chairman, that we begin the debate entirely all over again, and that all of those words that appeared to some colleagues to be repetitive have now been washed off the beach?
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I have other people who want to speak on the point of order and then I'll make a ruling.
Mr. Bevington.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, this is simply silly gamesmanship, quite frankly, and it is unethical and beneath this government to do this. We simply wasted the past two hours in committee debating an amendment that they withdrew. Then we return 10 minutes later and they re-table the exact same amendment with a different number. It's unethical. It's bait and switch. It's trickery, chicanery, and every other word I can come up with that means the same thing, but the bottom line is that it's wrong and it shouldn't be allowed.
