Evidence of meeting #58 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th 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.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not sure what the question is. Is it if G-1 is admissible? Is that the question?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Okay. Does G-1 carry?
Can we have a recorded vote, please, starting from Mr. Sarai, I believe?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
Thank you.
We now move to NDP amendment 1.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we all know what we're trying to incorporate into G-1 to make that fit. This is basically an attempt to protect people from being on the list if that is a situation that would cause danger to anyone. We did hear from Mr. Lawrence. We spoke to many families who wanted to have their loved ones on that list, but we also spoke to experts who said that it was dangerous. We heard from our experts today, who have said that there are situations in which quiet diplomacy is a much stronger approach to take to get help for individuals.
This is a way for us to still get the information that we require but that allows the government to have some anonymity for that. Really, this is two things. This is allowing us to get the information that we want but it is ensuring that there is accountability for the families and for civil society who are working so hard on behalf of detained individuals.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Could I ask for the legislative clerk to advise us with respect to whether or not this amendment is in scope of the bill or outside the scope of the bill?
Then could I have a chair's ruling on that, please?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Clause 2 of Bill C-281 amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to add an obligation to publish a report that lists the names and circumstances of prisoners of conscience detained worldwide for whose release the Government of Canada is actively working.
The amendment seeks to expand that list to all prisoners who are detained or experiencing other treatments in contravention of international human rights standards. Also, the amendment provides more accountability to the families of the detained and to civil society. These are new concepts not envisioned in the bill when it was originally adopted by the House at second reading.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”
In the opinion of the chair, and for the above-stated reason, the amendment is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Go ahead, Ms. McPherson.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't agree with this ruling, with all due respect. One thing that I think has been missed here is that the “prisoners of conscience” description is being seen as something that I don't think it is. This was something that Alex Neve suggested made very good sense. It was within how we were working within the definitions.
From my perspective, it does not change the scope of the bill. I do really think that we need to have the ability to listen to the experts who came before us. We need the ability to change the language insofar as the “prisoner of conscience” phrasing is in place.
I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but I'm going to challenge the chair on this ruling.
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have a point of order. I just want to understand a procedural issue.
This is very important. If the committee overturns the chair's ruling, it is still possible for the Speaker to rule the amendment out of scope when this bill goes to the House. If that happens, then are we automatically back to the original version of the section or is it possible for us to have an alternative amendment in the event that the Speaker rules it out of order?
I agree with Ms. McPherson's interpretation, but my concern is if we overturn the chair's ruling and then the Speaker overturns that, then we are in a position where we can't move further amendments to the section.
What does it revert to? Maybe we could get some guidance on that.
Philippe Méla Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, Mr. Genuis, you are quite right. If the decision is overturned today, once the bill goes back to the House at report stage, any member could raise a point of order in the House to challenge the fact that one or some amendments were ruled inadmissible. Even though they made their way to the reports, if the Speaker chooses to do so, he could rule the amendments also inadmissible. At that point, he may remove them from the reports and ask for a new reprint of the bill. We would go back to what the bill is now, unless there were other amendments adopted.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
For some additional clarity, if that were the case, we would be able to bring amendments forward at that point. Is that correct?
Philippe Méla Legislative Clerk
It's hard to answer that question.
Usually at report stage, only amendments that are further amending amendments that were adopted in committee are permissible, to some extent. The note to Standing Order 75 basically says that what can be done in committee should be done in committee.
It's hard to answer your question on that issue.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
If it is the will of the committee to overthrow the....
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I would never dream....
If it is the will of the committee to overturn the decision of the chair, would that not be the will of the committee? It seems like that's contradictory. On the one hand, you can't change things that have happened in committee because the committee must do what can be done at committee, yet overturning the decision of committee doesn't allow committee to do what can be done in committee.
That's just the way it is.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
On the point of order, just to follow up on the procedural question, if this amendment is passed by this committee, that would preclude other amendments from being moved. Then if we revert back to the original in the House, members may be able to make the argument that they weren't able to move amendments at committee and therefore they should be able to move them in the House, but we're into procedurally uncharted territory without precedent there.
Is that fair to say? Are there precedents of maybe the Speaker allowing report stage amendments to the original, given that those amendments couldn't have been moved at committee because other amendments were moved that were....
Maybe the answer is that we don't know. Are there precedents that can guide us here or not?
Philippe Méla Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Being a legislator for quite a number of years, I don't have any examples for the question you are asking. However, the amendment that is before the committee right now was ruled inadmissible by the chair, so there would be an opportunity to move other amendments, unless the decision is overturned.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
On that point of order, it would seem to me that an understanding of the rules would be that if the House has adopted the bill at second reading and the committee does its work, amendments at report stage are generally, in my experience, restricted to amending the amendments that were made at committee, as opposed to that.
There are other avenues, I would think, that could be done.
My sense is that if the chair were overruled and this was put in order, we may find a way in this committee to pull it back into scope and have it stand.
Am I being a little cryptic? I'm trying not to be cryptic.
