Evidence of meeting #12 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was debate.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

1:05 p.m.

A voice

Come on over!

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

No, thank you.

As I was saying, I have in my hands some 30 scholarly articles written by experts in criminology and sociology who are opposed to the provisions that this bill is designed to implement. I think it's interesting because all these articles are opposed to minimum punishments. I am certain that, if all these people were here with us, today...

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Dave MacKenzie

Ms. Borg, to the motion. That's to the bill.

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

I'm talking about the motion, Mr. Chairman.

November 17th, 2011 / 1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Merv Tweed Brandon—Souris, MB

Well, watch it.

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

If these people were here today, they would say that it's important to suggest some amendments. I am talking about the importance of suggesting amendments to this bill. As it now stands, this bill proposes provisions to which the majority of people are opposed.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Dave MacKenzie

That's still about amending the bill. What we're talking about is the motion.

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Yes, but the motion, in its essence, is trying to limit the amount of amendments. Am I wrong?

1:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Dave MacKenzie

No.

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

If you're putting a time restriction on the amendments, then by logical deduction you're limiting the amount of amendments you can bring, or the discussion of the amendments.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Dave MacKenzie

Through the chair, please.

Ms. Findlay, on a point of order.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Delta—Richmond East, BC

The motion is to have a time allocated to discuss clause-by-clause. In other words, we want to get to the merits of the legislation. We're waiting to get to the merits of the legislation. We want to go through it clause by clause. As long as we continue to debate this motion, we cannot get to that discussion. We are not limiting that discussion.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Dave MacKenzie

That's clear to me.

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

By limiting discussions in the clause-by-clause consideration, we're limiting debate about the amendments. It's clear, to my mind, and I don't understand your argument. If we have only five minutes to discuss each clause, we will have less time to discuss any amendments we'd like to make to each clause. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your reasoning. Though I'm certain I understand the essence of the motion. If you want to clarify things, you can do so, but otherwise, that's what I understand.