Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 106 - 120 of 150000
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
The amendments were not moved, though.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
First of all, we can't raise our voices. I need to move on. We've just addressed now, three times, the particular problems that you have about this. We have to move on.
Folks, I'm asking the question—
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order and I would like to be heard on my point of order.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Genuis, is there something new to bring to this?
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Yes, Mr. Chair, insofar as it responds to what Mr. Méla has said.
What happened at the last meeting was that you made a ruling that the amendments had not been moved. Therefore, the House order obliged you not to allow them to be moved after the fact. That was your ruling. That ruling was challenged and overturned.
Now you are making a ruling again that is substantively the same as your last ruling, which is that the House order does not allow further amendment. Those earlier amendments had not been moved, and it's clear in the way you're talking about this. Every time an amendment is moved, you're saying, “This amendment has now been moved.”
In fact, you said earlier in the meeting to Mr. Rayes that an amendment can be withdrawn before it is moved, but it is deemed moved once you read it.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Okay. I get your new argument.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
You can't not allow a challenge when you allowed a challenge before on this same point.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Okay, Mr. Genuis. I'm going to allow Mr. Méla to deal with your point.
Mr. Méla, go ahead.
Philippe Méla
View Philippe Méla Profile
Philippe Méla
2021-06-11 13:44
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not sure I can add more than what I explained earlier. The motion of the House, as I indicated earlier, is silent when it comes to the amendments that were in the package. At the end of the day, the committee decided to be able to consider all the amendments that were in the package before the committee at that point, because the motion of the House was silent on that particular point.
When it comes to amendments and subamendments, at this point now, the motion of the House is clear and indicates that there cannot be any further debate, amendments or subamendments. I think there is a slight difference between the two rulings that were made by the chair: one for precision on something that was maybe missing in the House order, and one now that is clear from the House order.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Méla, I have one question for you.
You've said that they were—
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Genuis, hold on. You can't talk unless I recognize you, please.
I'm assuming that you want a point of clarification on what was just said.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Then may I humbly ask that you be very quick about it?
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Méla, you said that in your view there is a difference between those two rulings. Is there any basis on which a ruling of the chair cannot be challenged?
You called his second ruling a ruling, which it is, and if it's a ruling, then it might be the correct ruling and it might not be, but my understanding of the powers of members of committees is that they have the power to challenge any ruling of the chair. Is that correct?
Philippe Méla
View Philippe Méla Profile
Philippe Méla
2021-06-11 13:46
Generally speaking, I would say yes to that, but here—
Results: 106 - 120 of 150000 | Page: 8 of 10000

|<
<
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data