Evidence of meeting #25 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Interpretation is different from acceptance. We're dealing with the English version. If the interpretation is not satisfactory to Ms. Boivin, later it can be dealt with.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I think we should fix it now. We're at clause-by-clause study for a reason. If we don't have an adequate understanding at this stage, then we have to deal with it here. We've seen some unhappy experiences in the last short while regarding amendments at report stage.
March 8th, 2012 / 12:15 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Alternatively, we could attempt to make contact with our drafters now, if this is stood down, and see if we could get a reply shortly.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
—francophone group here. Mr. Seeback's suggestion as to how “any relationship” might be interpreted and Mr. Jean's comments that the word “rapports” is a little broader than the way “relationship” might be understood lead to the conclusion that in fact the wording is acceptable.
12:15 p.m.
An hon. member
Perfect.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chairman, listening to the discussion about wanting to keep the word “relationship” and hearing some of the other comments, I was going to say that one might want to consider a new paragraph, which would read, “any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident”.
That way you would keep what you have now, with respect to “relationship” in proposed paragraph 34(2)(f), and you would just add a new proposed subparagraph, 34(2)(g)(i), which would provide a broadening element for that which one might want to include.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Can we take that as an amendment to the amendment, Chair? Is that possible?
12:20 p.m.
A voice
You'd have to withdraw—
12:20 p.m.
NDP
12:20 p.m.
An hon. member
I would consent.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Just a minute. Whoa. Let's do this through the chair.
The legislative clerk tells me that, properly, if you wish to withdraw it, we can have consent to withdraw it. Then you need to move a new amendment.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
It has to be, yes. You can't do what you're trying to do.
If you wish to withdraw it, we'll ask for consent to withdraw it, and then—
12:20 p.m.
An hon. member
We consent.
12:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
