header image
The world according to David Graham

Topics

acva bili chpc columns committee conferences elections environment essays ethi faae foreign foss guelph hansard highways history indu internet leadership legal military money musings newsletter oggo pacp parlchmbr parlcmte politics presentations proc qp radio reform regs rnnr satire secu smem statements tran transit tributes tv unity

Recent entries

  1. Trump will win in 2020 (and keep an eye on 2024)
  2. January 17th, 2020
  3. January 16th, 2020
  4. January 15th, 2020
  5. January 14th, 2020
  6. January 13th, 2020
  7. January 12th, 2020
  8. January 11th, 2020
  9. January 10th, 2020
  10. January 9th, 2020
  11. January 8th, 2020
  12. January 7th, 2020
  13. January 6th, 2020
  14. January 5th, 2020
  15. January 4th, 2020
  16. January 3rd, 2020
  17. January 2nd, 2020
  18. January 1st, 2020
  19. December 31st, 2019
  20. December 30th, 2019
  21. December 29th, 2019
  22. December 28th, 2019
  23. December 27th, 2019
  24. December 26th, 2019
  25. December 24th, 2019
  26. December 6th, 2019
  27. A podcast with Michael Geist on technology and politics
  28. Next steps
  29. On what electoral reform reforms
  30. 2019 Fall campaign newsletter / infolettre campagne d'automne 2019
  31. older entries...

2016-10-06 12:14 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Amendments and subamendments, Debate on the Standing Orders and Procedure, Parliamentary reform, Sponsoring, Standing Orders of the House of Commons

Débats exploratoires, Parrainer, Projets de loi émanant des députés, Réforme parlementaire, Règlement de la Chambre des communes

Mr. Speaker, the conversation about private member's bills earlier on gave me a new idea, which is to allow amendments by a bill's sponsor, with the consent of the seconder, between the first and second hour of debate, based on the content of debate in the first hour. The sponsor would have to justify it based on what was said. They could not just introduce some new ideas. This would fix somewhat broken but savable bills before they even get to committee and make the whole process easier and saner.

Does my colleague have any comments on that?

Monsieur le Président, l'échange de tout à l'heure sur les projets de loi d'initiative parlementaire m'a donné une nouvelle idée: nous devrions autoriser le parrain d'un projet de loi à y apporter des amendements, pourvu qu'il ait le consentement de son comotionnaire, entre la première et la deuxième heure du débat, après avoir entendu ce qui s'est dit pendant la première heure. Le parrain serait tenu de justifier l'amendement à partir de ce qui a été dit pendant la première heure. Il ne pourrait pas ajouter de nouvelles idées au projet de loi. Ainsi, un projet de loi qui pose problème, mais qui est néanmoins récupérable, pourrait être amendé avant d'être renvoyé à un comité, ce qui nous faciliterait la tâche et nous permettrait de travailler de manière plus rationnelle.

Ma collègue aurait-elle une observation à faire à propos de cette idée?

Watch | HansardEcoutez | Hansard

Posted at 15:26 on October 06, 2016

This entry has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.

2016-10-06 11:29 House intervention / intervention en chambre | hansard parlchmbr tv |

2016-10-06 12:24 House intervention / intervention en chambre

(RSS) Website generating code and content © 2001-2020 David Graham <david@davidgraham.ca>, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. Comments are © their respective authors.