Evidence of meeting #32 for Veterans Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to make sure we're following the right process. Ms. Blaney asked for a vote, so we should vote.
I'm being interrupted, but I'm not done.
Mr. Richards, I haven't told him yet what my argument is, so I don't know how you can say it's not true.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
[Inaudible—Editor] discussion, please.
Mr. Samson, go ahead, please.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Basically, Ms. Blaney called for a vote, but Mr. Richards had a point of order. His comment wasn't a point of order; it was a point of debate.
Once Mr. Richards was done, I think we should have proceeded with the vote. That is the point I'm trying to make.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
All right.
I understand all that, but as has been pointed out, what matters to the committee is working on behalf of veterans. We want to come to an agreement amongst ourselves.
I want to make clear that some members are in favour of deleting the last two paragraphs and most members are in favour of the 45‑day deadline. Yes, we could go ahead and vote on the amendment, as proposed. What that would mean, though, is that, if the amendment were defeated, the committee could not then vote on the 45‑day deadline or the removal of the last two paragraphs.
Go ahead, Mr. Richards.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I have a point of clarification, Mr. Chair.
If I understand correctly, your ruling is that we're going to hold a vote on the two elements separately, the 45 days and then the removal of the last two paragraphs. If that's the case, I'm comfortable with moving the vote. If not, I will have more to say.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
First of all, Mr. Desilets has the floor. He has to propose that and have unanimous consent to go on that.
What do you plan to do, Mr. Desilets?
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
I don't want to drag out the debate, Mr. Chair, but I want to stick with the 45‑day deadline. I've given it a lot of thought, and that's what I want to do. That's the purpose of my amendment.
That said, I'm willing to keep discussing the deadline. Someone mentioned 40 days earlier. Is it really necessary to consider a 40‑day deadline? Do we really want to give the department less time? If so and if that's what everyone wants, I understand that I can split my amendment in two.
If not, my personal preference is to keep the amendment as is. The deadline is important, but it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if my amendment were defeated.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
If I understand correctly, Mr. Desilets, you want to change the first paragraph by removing the parts you mentioned and changing the deadline to 45 days. You would like the committee to vote on your amendment as proposed.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
It's not a major issue, Mr. Chair.
If that will get everyone on board and make everyone happy, I'm a fellow who strives for consensus whenever possible.
I would like to ask Mr. Richards, though, whether he's okay with the 45 days.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
My only concern is having to vote on both parts together, because I think there is some agreement. I was still comfortable with 30, but I'm comfortable with 45 as well.
My suggestion would be that we split the vote. I think you can make that suggestion, so we can have one vote on the 45-day portion—I would be comfortable supporting that—and one vote, a separate vote, on the removal of the last two paragraphs, which I wouldn't support.
That would allow committee members to have a vote on the two elements separately, so that if someone wants to support one, they can support it.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Here's where I stand. I don't have a problem with that.
We can vote on the amendment as received. We can delete the third and fourth paragraphs from the motion, and we can talk about the deadline after.
I am therefore calling for the vote. After that, we'll have an amendment and we can vote on the 30‑day deadline. Is that right?
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
No, Mr. Desilets. With the committee members' consent, the first vote will be on changing the first two paragraphs by replacing “30 days” with “45 days” and removing the parts you wanted to remove. The second vote will be on removing the last two paragraphs from the motion.
I will now call the vote on the first part of Mr. Desilets's amendment, which deals with the first two paragraphs. The words “30 days” would be replaced with “45 days”, and the segments “or sent to” and “regarding Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), including related to the internal investigation into the matter,” would be removed.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
No, they are being removed.
The first two paragraphs would refer to 45 days, instead of 30, and the segments “or sent to” and “regarding Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), including related to the internal investigation into the matter,” would be removed from the first paragraph.
I have called the vote. Does anyone object to the amendment as proposed?
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
My understanding was we were simply going to have a vote on 45 days, and then we were going to have a separate vote on removing the last two paragraphs. I didn't know there was some new substance being added.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Mr. Desilets has a paragraph on the first item. He said we should remove....
the segments “or sent to” and “regarding Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), including related to the internal investigation into the matter,”.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Chair, I believe it was “including related to the internal investigation into the matter”.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
I've checked, and the committee is voting only on whether to replace “30 days” with “45 days” in the first two paragraphs.
Go ahead, Mr. Richards.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I still want to be clear. I was hearing among the committee members a desire to increase the deadline to 45 days. I didn't hear anyone arguing that they necessarily wanted to keep the deletion of the internal investigation, so my understanding is we were going to vote just on the 45-day portion—
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Exactly. We're going to vote only on the 45 days.
Does anyone object to adopting Mr. Desilets's amendment, which would replace “30 days” with “45 days”?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Mr. Desilets is now moving another amendment, to remove the last two paragraphs from the motion.
I will put the question on the amendment in the affirmative. Do the committee members wish to keep the last two paragraphs of the amendment?
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
I will repeat it. We have an amendment on the floor to remove the last two paragraphs from the motion.
Do the committee members wish to remove the last two paragraphs from the motion?