Evidence of meeting #59 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.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I would then offer a subamendment, striking the words “and dissolution” from that final sentence. That would be a subamendment.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have a point of order. It would be “or dissolved”. Those would be the words you want to strike.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
That's fair enough.
Do we want to vote on Mr. Oliphant's subamendment? Is there unanimous consent for the subamendment?
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
As the subamendment was defeated, we now go to the amendment.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Next, we have to determine whether clause 3 as amended shall carry. Do I have unanimous consent?
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to: yeas 11, nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 4)
We now go to clause 4. We have G-2.
Go ahead, Mr. Zuberi.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to move amendment G-2. It's on the Broadcasting Act. We believe this amendment will make the bill better.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to get a word on the scope, first off, if you can.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Clause 4 of Bill C-281 amends the Broadcasting Act to add restrictions in relation to broadcasting licences to broadcasting undertakings subject to influence by a foreign national or entity that has committed acts or omissions that the Senate or the House of Commons has recognized as genocide or that is the subject of an order or regulation made under section 4 of the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act or section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act.
The amendment provides for new understanding of what the term genocide is as a foreign state, or a national of, or a person in a foreign state that has been found to have committed genocide by a court or tribunal as specified in the amendment. The amendment also provides for mechanisms for the commission to determine what influence it is. These are new concepts not envisioned in the bill when it was adopted by the House at second reading.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following 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 introduces new concepts that are beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Could I ask for a...? To simply state that it is “beyond the scope” raises the question of exactly how and where it's beyond the scope. I would like a comment from the clerk with respect to exactly where it is. Word by word, I'd like to understand this a little bit better.
It's actually confusing for me. I listened to the reason, and I don't think it's really clear where the problem is.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
I'm advised by the clerk that because a decision has already been made, the only way you can vary that is if you challenge it.
If you like, I can read it one more time.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I'm not asking the decision to even be challenged yet. I'd like to understand—
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
—because I read it and, to me, it's clarifying the language. It's not overturning it. It's not reversing it. It's not undermining it. It's actually extending it and making it more specific, which I think is the purpose of an amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
I think it's pretty clear. It says that it provides a new understanding of what the term “genocide” is.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
We don't change anything about genocide. We say “genocide” and we've added:
by a court or tribunal in Canada, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court or a court or tribunal established under the authority of an international organization of states
It has done that. I understand that. That is the world's accepted understanding of how genocide is determined.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Can we hear the clerks' view from them directly?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
I've been advised by the clerk that this is precisely the problem. Previously, it would just be taken as fact that genocide has occurred, and now we're adding these new bodies that would determine if the genocide has occurred.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. Can we hear from the clerks, themselves, on where they stand?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Yes, I did try that, but now I see some leniency. He says if you like, yes, he will speak to it.
Philippe Méla Lesgislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the bill, there is one way of recognizing genocide. It's specified in the bill that a foreign national or an entity
has committed acts or omissions that the Senate or the House of Commons has recognized as genocide;
It's basically that Parliament, the Canadian Parliament, has recognized that either a person or an entity has committed genocide. It's not necessarily based on a decision of the courts or the amendment basing the definition of genocide on a court finding someone guilty of genocide. That's how it goes beyond the scope of the bill.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you for that explanation.
I'd like to move an amendment to clause 4 with relation to the Broadcasting Act and to amend subsection 22(1)—