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. PMO Staff Run Government; Ministers Represent It
  2. On A Mostly Harmless Birthday
  3. The Trouble With Political Communications
  4. Politics: War By Other Means
  5. On the function of Social media
  6. C-18 is an existential threat, not a benefit, to democracy
  7. On Missing A Little More Than A Sub
  8. The Realpolitik Of Open Nomination
  9. What Is An Open Nomination, Really?
  10. Alberta election about identity, not policy
  11. The Trouble With Electoral Reform
  12. Mr. Bains Goes to Rogers
  13. Question Period
  14. Why do lockdowns and pandemic restrictions continue to exist?
  15. Parliamentary privilege: an arcane concept that can prevent coups
  16. It's not over yet
  17. Trump will win in 2020 (and keep an eye on 2024)
  18. A podcast with Michael Geist on technology and politics
  19. Next steps
  20. On what electoral reform reforms
  21. 2019 Fall campaign newsletter / infolettre campagne d'automne 2019
  22. 2019 Summer newsletter / infolettre été 2019
  23. 2019-07-15 SECU 171
  24. 2019-06-20 RNNR 140
  25. 2019-06-17 14:14 House intervention / intervention en chambre
  26. 2019-06-17 SECU 169
  27. 2019-06-13 PROC 162
  28. 2019-06-10 SECU 167
  29. 2019-06-06 PROC 160
  30. 2019-06-06 INDU 167
  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 13:26 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.