Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 61 - 75 of 2083
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Because I believe that all of the amendments by all of the parties should indeed be considered and voted on, I challenge the ruling.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you for that, Mr. Housefather. I thought I saw him.
There he is.
Mr. Champoux, it's good to see you back.
Let me describe this one more time so that we're all on the same page.
The second ruling I made was that any motion that's not been moved cannot be voted upon. Mr. Housefather has challenged the ruling, so the vote will be on whether the chair's ruling should stand. In other words, if you agree with me that we shouldn't deal with these amendments, then you vote yes. If you think I'm wrong in my judgment, or by the standing orders, then you vote no and the amendments go back into play. They will be voted on again.
There's one more thing I'd like to point out, though. If the ruling is overturned, the amendments go back in—all that are there. If you wish to remove one, you can do it at any time, until I say, for example, now we're doing this G-12. Once I say that, G-12 has been moved and, therefore, you would need unanimous consent to withdraw it.
Is that clear?
Monsieur Rayes.
Philippe Méla
View Philippe Méla Profile
Philippe Méla
2021-06-10 17:03
Mr. Aitchison, the motion of the House is silent as to what to take into consideration. We have the package that's here, and the motion says, “every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.”
Basically, the interpretation that's being given by the chair is that there are the amendments from the Parti vert that are deemed moved, according to the motion that was passed by the committee, so those are going to be voted upon. The others—that's the interpretation of the motion by the chair of the committee—will not, because there is no motion adopted by the committee that designates them as deemed moved.
Since this is an interpretation by the chair of the motion by the House, it is up to the committee to decide if the committee agrees with this interpretation or not. We have had a few examples of that happening in the past.
It's an interpretation that the chair is giving on the motion by the House, and after that, it's up to the committee to decide if it agrees or disagrees with the ruling of the chair.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
That being said, I see Mr. Rayes's hand up, but, folks, the other thing I'm supposed to be doing right now is going directly to a vote on the challenge. Let's just say I've been stepping all over that particular rule and I really don't want to do that anymore.
I see everyone's hand down, so we're going to the vote. Once again this is to sustain or to agree with my ruling.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 4)
The Chair: There you have it. You don't have to worry about my being offended—trust me.
Now that the rulings have been made, we're now going to dive into it.
Let me just say this before we go any further. It means that all of the amendments you've handed in, which are in our huge package—or, as I like to call it, the hymn book—are now back. We will vote not only on the Parti vert ones, the PV amendments, but also on the CPC ones.
For the people watching us at home, I understand that you are not able to see these particular amendments or hear about them. I'm sure someone who's watching this closely may find that frustrating. This is my own opinion, dare I say it, but maybe at some time in the future we can talk to procedure and House affairs, since people watch online, on computer, and we can have some type of split-screen whereby they can actually see the amendments. That's just my opinion. I'm putting it out there, colleagues, for the sake of people who are watching. A lot of people are watching this right now, and we welcome them.
As we go through the clauses, we're going to do the amendments. When I say “CPC” that's an amendment put forward by the Conservative Party. When I say “LIB”, that is one put forward by the Liberal Party. When I say “BQ” that's one put forward by the Bloc. NDP and the number means one put forward by the New Democrats. “PV” will be Parti vert, the Green Party; and, finally, “G” means an amendment by the government.
That being said, because all of these amendments are back in, I still have the ability and should make rulings on each of these amendments. Some may be inadmissible. Primarily, usually, that's because they're beyond the principle and scope of the bill. If I do rule that an amendment is inadmissible, I will explain why. You still have the option of challenging that ruling, but it's a straight vote; it's not a debate. I will call for that. I will explain my ruling, and then you have the choice of either challenging it or not, and then we move on to the next one, but there is no debate.
Again I remind everyone that there is no debate and no amendment or subamendment in this exercise.
All that being said, we left off on—
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I'm afraid not, Mr. Aitchison. I feel for the process. I feel for you—I do—but no. That's part of the debate as well, the normal course of debate. This is strictly now getting to each of the clauses and amendments that we've reinstated.
We left off with CPC-9.5 That's from the Conservative Party, amendment CPC-9.5.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Before I go to the next one, when we do the voting, folks, I just want to be clear that when I call “shall it carry”, there are a couple of options that we've worked out. You can say “no”; however, if you agree with it, you don't have to say anything.
If nobody says anything, I'm going to let it carry. If you say “no”, I will go to a vote. If you wish to suggest that it carry on division or be defeated on division, you can make that suggestion at the same time. I can go back to the committee to find out if that is the way you wish to proceed.
Okay? If you agree with it, you don't have to say anything.
This brings us to CPC-9.6, and I have something a little different.
In reviewing CPC-9.6, it says it would add, in proposed section 9.2, in clause 7, after line 19 on page 8: “The Auditor General of Canada shall annually audit all the orders, conditions, regulations and decisions of the Commission”—meaning the CRTC—“with respect to the discoverability of programs”.
I don't need to proceed any further.
The reason I say that is that, if you look to page 770 in the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it talks about “beyond the scope and principle of the bill”. In second reading, the House passed the bill, which means we accepted it in principle and scope, or at least the House did. I understand that not all of you do, but the majority of the House accepts the principle of it.
If we propose things that go beyond the scope of the bill, then it's my responsibility, as chair, to deem it inadmissible. What is going on here is that this particular amendment, CPC-9.6, calls on the Auditor General to do the work, but nowhere in Bill C-10 does it call on the Auditor General to do that. Not only that, it doesn't even require in the Broadcasting Act for the Auditor General to do that.
I'm not ruling on the intent of the amendment. In other words, I'm not saying I don't like the Auditor General. I'm saying that because Bill C-10 does not specify any function for the Auditor General to be involved, I have to rule it to be inadmissible. That's the ruling.
Mr. Rayes.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I have news for you. We're actually done with clause 7. How about that? We have to check to see if that's the longest clause in our history of Parliament. Probably not, but I digress.
We are finished with clause 7, which brings us to the vote.
(Clause 7 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
We're back and out of suspension.
Mr. Rayes, I feel for you on this one. Like I said earlier, I would love it for people watching. It probably would be a nice marker to look at. However, technically, our rules state that once I start reading the amendment, it becomes officially a part of debate. The instructions from the House say we cannot engage in debate, so technically I can't even read it.
The only consolation I have for you is that, when the minutes are printed, when this is done, they will include all the amendments and the wording of them. Whether they're defeated or accepted, they will be in the minutes, so that people can see exactly what was voted on, the language of it and the whole thing, but as of right now, I'm afraid that, no, I cannot read it. I can only give you a title of what we are voting on. In this case, that would be amendment BQ-26(N).
I appreciate your weighing in on that, because that's clarification for all of us.
Okay, folks, back we go. The question is on amendment BQ-26(N).
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We now go to amendment PV-22. We're still on clause 8.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9: yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we go to amendment G-12.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I knew that would happen. That is correct and I sincerely apologize. I was ahead of myself.
Mr. Champoux, that's no reflection on the value of what you're proposing.
Shall BQ-27 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: I did mention that, because of the ruling on CPC-9, CPC-10 is no longer in.
We'll now go to G-13(N).
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Shields, we can always depend on you.
We will have a vote on the motion to adjourn.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)
The Chair: We will see you tomorrow.
Results: 61 - 75 of 2083 | Page: 5 of 139

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data