Mr. Lawrence.
Evidence of meeting #120 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #120 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I'm sorry. In the preamble to Mr. Serré's—
Liberal
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I thought you were calling the vote. I'm sorry. That's my fault.
In Mr. Serré's preamble, he referenced charter protections. The Liberal government illegally invoked the Emergencies Act in violation of charter rights. Would there be anything in this subamendment that would provide additional protection to those Canadians who had their bank accounts frozen and their rights violated, as found by the court?
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
We observe that the reference to the charter in the proposed subamendment seems fairly neutral and factual given that the program is oriented around supporting court challenges involving certain sections of the charter. We would see it as consistent with the parameters of the program.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
It clarifies, but it doesn't provide any additional protections of charter rights for Canadians. Of course, it will allow for more court challenges, which could then mean people bringing challenges, but the subamendment does not strengthen the charter, really, in any way.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
I would see it as a fairly factual reference to the program as it is now.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I seek clarification, then. Understanding that other amendments would potentially be lost if G-1 were to be passed, would there be an opportunity to propose amendments from the floor? Assuming that G-1 is accepted—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
If G-1 is adopted, amended or not, then CPC-1, CPC-2, CPC-3, NDP-1, CPC-4 and CPC-5 cannot be moved due to a line conflict, as Mr. Méla said earlier on.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I understand that. My question was whether other amendments could then be put forward from the floor.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Do you mean amendments to G-1, which is what we're dealing with at the moment?
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Those would be subamendments. I'm asking whether amendments to clause 2 could be put forward.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Of course, yes, you can move subamendments to G-1 if you wish.
I need clarification, Mrs. Thomas. Do you mean further subamendments to G-1?
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
No, Chair, I don't. I mean if G-1 were to pass with or without the subamendment, would we be given an opportunity to move an additional amendment from the floor with regard to clause 2, with G-1 as part of it?
Legislative Clerk
For clause 2, you could not for the lines that would be amended by G-1, so lines 10 to 16 would be closed for amendments. If you wanted to add amendments after line 16, that would be an option in clause 2.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
I think I know what Mrs. Thomas was getting at if G-1 does pass. We're looking ahead to CPC-1, CPC-2, CPC-3, CPC-4 and CPC-5. I don't want to put words in Mrs. Thomas's mouth, but maybe there was something we wanted out of them. Is now the time to amend G-1 with CPC-1, CPC-2, CPC-3, CPC-4 or CPC-5 if there was a line we wanted? That's if G-1 passes and the rest is thrown out.
I'm just asking for clarification on CPC-1 to CPC-5.