Evidence of meeting #59 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th 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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
We did agree to amendment NDP-10 with respect to clause 12. The amendment carried.
(Clause 12 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 13 agreed to)
(On clause 14)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Colleagues, we are now at amendment NDP-11.
I shall inform you that there is a line conflict with CPC-4.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
The NDP amendment is withdrawn, which means that CPC-4, which we originally agreed to, is now on the table. I'm assuming that colleagues will agree to CPC-4.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 15 agreed to)
(On clause 16)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Colleagues, we did have NDP-12, which was carried earlier, on page 24 of your booklets with respect to clause 16. There is, however, a line conflict with L-6. Since NDP-12 carried, L-6 on page 25 of your booklet cannot be proceeded with. Does everyone understand that?
We have one amendment, therefore, to clause 16.
(Clause 16 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 17)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Colleagues, you'll recall that NDP-13 carried earlier. There are no other amendments to clause 17.
(Clause 17 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 18)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
NDP-14, on page 27 of your booklet, was carried earlier. There are no other amendments to clause 18.
(Clause 18 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 19 agreed to)
(On clause 20)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
There is NDP-15 on page 28 of your booklets. I will note that there is a line conflict with CPC-5 on page 29. If NDP-15 is adopted, then CPC-5 cannot be proceeded with.
I'll ask Mr. Dewar to introduce this amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Okay. Unanimous consent is not needed, but I see heads shaking. NDP-15 has been withdrawn, which puts us to CPC-5 on page 29.
I will ask Mr. Preston to introduce that amendment.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
It's the same as the rest. It accomplishes the same thing, for the third or fourth time.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 20 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 21 agreed to)
(Clauses 22 to 25 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 26)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Colleagues, in clause 26 there is NDP-16 on page 30 of your booklets. There is, however, a line conflict with CPC-6 on page 31. The NDP is indicating that they are withdrawing their amendment.
NDP-16 is withdrawn, leaving us with CPC-6.
Mr. Preston.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Call the question, please.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 26 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 27)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Colleagues, we're now down to clause 27, for which there are five amendments, beginning with L-7 on page 32 of your booklet.
I'll ask Mr. Owen to introduce that motion.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
That is very agreeable of you.
This adds the failure, in explicit terms, to repay a loan to the failure to pay expenses. This is one of the central purposes of the bill. It is likely why the Conservatives are also putting this forward.
Conservative
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I'd like the PCO officials to comment, because although there are some similarities with amendment CPC-7, I'd like to get an analysis or at least an observation from our officials.
Counsel, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
Mr. Chair, the descriptive references that appear at the end of an offence are not part of the bill. Because of this, it's Department of Justice policy not to amend them when there is no other change in the provision. That's why they were not amended in the bill as introduced.
Conservative
Director of Operations, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
Mr. Chair, if I may, my colleague is speaking to the subsequent ones, where the government amendments are being made to change the parenthetical expressions. The rationale for why they weren't is as he said. I would note that in the proposed amendment here the parenthetical expression is not being changed, as I recall, which is why the government version is trying to achieve the same goal, but it's drafted in a slightly different way in order to put that parenthetical expression back in, in a manner that is consistent with the subsequent ones.
