Evidence of meeting #13 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, just to save them playing musical chairs, maybe we should ask them if they wish to sit there.
4:40 p.m.
A voice
They'd get a better view.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Yes.
It would just save some time. Why don't we just have them sit there and they can respond? It makes sense, if the witnesses don't mind.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
They're already on the record as witnesses now, and so if a question is called, they can come up immediately and deal with it.
We will now go to a vote on these. Of course, we have three sections within this reference. I will ask for a vote on clause 1, clause 2, and clause 3 that have been brought forward.
No?
Oh, it is one vote only on all three?
Fine, thank you very much. That simplifies things a bit.
We have an amendment put forward by Ms. James that is before you and is numbered 6437840.
Are we on division?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
It is on division. Thank you very much.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now go to amendment G-2.
Excuse me, the chair has been reminded again that this was of course an amendment to clause 2.
Shall clause 2 carry?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
It is a recorded vote.
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now go to amendment G-2. It is number 6437851 in the amendments that have been put before you. It is on page 2 of the amendments package.
Ms. James, you have the floor.
(On clause 3)
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, once again.
I move that Bill C-479 in clause 3 be amended by replacing lines 32 to 34, on page 2, with the text that is here on the page in front of you.
This is simply a technical amendment to ensure conformity with current drafting norms. It's not necessarily changing any content; it's just a technical amendment.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Is there further discussion?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we have amendment G-3, on page 9 of the bill. It is number 6437852.
Ms. James.
(On clause 4)
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is similar to the last amendment. We're proposing that Bill C-479 be amended in clause 4 by replacing line 1, on page 3, with the text that we have before us.
Again, it's basically to ensure conformity with the current drafting norms.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
There are really two parts here. You've only done the first part, so maybe we can discuss the first part, and then I'll let you explain the second part.
Again, I'm just trying to make sure that I understand what we're doing here, because it's quite a technical bill. Is what we're saying here simply a correction of the language to make sure that there is no misunderstanding of when these take place, or is there a substantive impact to this amendment? I can't see a substantive impact, but I'm not sure.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
The amendment, as referenced, is to ensure consistency between the new review periods. That is essentially what it's doing. It's basically to clarify it and bring it into norms consistent with the rest of the section.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Again, I will say that we feel a bit rushed by the process here, but I'm trying to do my best to make—
4:45 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible—Editor]
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Today is the rush....
Again, we've had less than 24 hours to go through these, and they are quite technical. We have two different reviews that are possible here, reviews conducted for full parole, and then section 129, in my understanding, is dealing with those things that are short of full parole. Is that correct?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Under section 123, those are first reviews for full parole, and I believe, as best as I can sort out here, that under sections 129 or 130 those would be reviews for the purposes of something less than full parole. Is that correct?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Basically, the change that we're making right now is one line. We're replacing a portion of subsection 140(4) with it to expand to include the sections that you see before you. We're talking about point (b), which is the first review for full parole under subsection 123(1) and subsequent reviews. Then, also, we're adding point (c), a review conducted under section 129. It's basically, again, to ensure conformity consistent with norms throughout the legislation.
