Debates of March 18th, 2024

Sitting Resumed

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am new in this place, but my colleague mentioned that the NDP member consented to the amendment, as if that had any kind of relevancy. It is the same member who on multiple occasions has said that a private member's accepting an amendment that has been ruled out of order is irrelevant in that circumstance. He will have to tell me how it makes sense in that case and not in this one.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I wish it were within my power to hold the vote tomorrow, because I do recognize that it is a substantive change to the motion. However, it is not within my power, because there has been a motion in the House, so I am ordered to have the vote immediately unless someone wants to ask for unanimous consent to have a vote tomorrow at a specific time.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, given what you have just said, and after having some discussion among members of various parties, I am sure there will be agreement to allow members to do their due diligence.

If we are going to take this seriously, if we are going to show Canadians and the world that foreign policy is not done on the back of a napkin with two negotiators and without any kind of consultation, I ask for unanimous consent to defer the vote until tomorrow.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We will go to Chapter 12. This has been quoted a number of times already today:

An amendment must be relevant to the motion it seeks to amend. It must not stray from the main motion but must aim to refine its meaning and intent. An amendment should take the form of a motion to: leave out certain words in order to add other words; leave out certain words; or insert or add other words to the main motion.

An amendment should be so framed that, if agreed to, it will leave the main motion intelligible and internally consistent.

An amendment is out of order, procedurally, if: it is irrelevant to the main motion...; it raises a question substantially the same as one which the House has decided in the same session or conflicts with an amendment already agreed to; [or] it is completely contrary to the main motion and would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion.

I do not have a lot of procedure to go with on this one.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, you just literally referenced the point that my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and I made about when the amendment is so different. The original motion would call for a unilateral recognition; the revised motion would call for a negotiated one. Those are two diametrically opposed aspects of the motion. This is not a question of refining the main motion; this is a massively substantive change to the original motion that would rise to the level of defeating the main motion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Let me quote a little more: “...any part of the amendment is out of order, or it originates with the mover of the main motion.”

The challenge we had here tonight is that we had a motion that was substantial, one that was agreed to by the mover of the motion, so I am not left with a lot of leeway to rule it out of order.

Unfortunately, it being 8:28 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the amendment. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

[Chair read text of amendment to House]

If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division, please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #657

Business of Supply

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the amendment carried.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The next question is on the main motion, as amended.

May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

[Chair read text of motion as amended to House]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion, as amended, be adopted or adopted on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for this historic vote, we would like a recorded vote, please.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #658

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion, as amended, carried.

The House resumed from January 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑59.

The question is on the amendment. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

[Chair read text of amendment to House]

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #659

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

Pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, the question is on clauses 1 to 136, 138 to 143, 168 to 196, 209 to 216 and 278 to 317 regarding measures appearing in the 2023 budget.