Evidence of meeting #17 for Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cuban.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Another recommendation was brought forward that did not include the ICC.
1:55 p.m.
Committee Researcher
I think you suggested to cut off the sentence after....
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
No, I thought someone else. There was “to refer to”, but no reference to the ICC.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
All right, this is much weaker than what we did with regard to Sudan, which was not even a reference of genocide.
1:55 p.m.
A voice
“We” being...?
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I accept both the intention and the clarification as Madame Savoie put it before us. That does make it clearer.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Jason Kenney
Can we deal with the group of amendments together and deal with those now, given the clock?
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Mr. Chair, could we call the question on the amendment by Madame Savoie and then move to the main motion? Otherwise we're going around in circles.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Jason Kenney
I was wondering to myself if there was a need to call the question, given that Mr. Cotler has accepted them. I would rule that these are not friendly amendments, but rather substantive, in which case there should be a vote on them.
How would your amendment read? First of all, is one of the amendments to scrap every “whereas”?
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
No. I was not suggesting that. I was just suggesting that you are left at the end of the day with “it”, “be it resolved”, so we should be clarifying that.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Jason Kenney
Madame Savoie, would you then read the first and second “therefore” paragraphs with Marcus, so we can be clear on how we are amending it, or, rather, how you are proposing to amend it?
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
I'll start with number two. I said that “after a special prosecutor of the International Criminal Court”.... What was it in English?
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
That's right, “of an investigation and prosecution”. Then I suggested in both number one and number two that we clarify that we're referring to the statements by senior Iranians.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Jason Kenney
The question before the committee is the following amendment proposed by Madame Savoie. That in paragraph one, following the words “to commit genocide”, in the second last line, to insert the words ”by senior Iranian government officials”, and in paragraph two, following the words “refer the situation of the genocidal incitement”, insert the words again “by senior Iranian government officials”, and, third, following “International Criminal Court”, insert the words “in order to determine the basis of an” and delete the word “for”, to read “in order to determine the basis of an investigation and prosecution”.
Is that correct?
That is the question.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I think Mr. Cotler actually accepts that as a friendly amendment.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Jason Kenney
I'm ruling as the chair that you cannot accept it as a friendly amendment. It has substantive changes. I'm trying to play it by the book here.
All in favour of--
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
If that is not a friendly amendment and if it is a substantive amendment, I'm wondering about that that second part. I agree with all the amendments that Madame Savoie has made--inserting “by senior Iranian officials”--but that “Canada call upon the United Nations Security Council to refer the situation of the genocidal incitement to the appropriate UN body for investigation and possible prosecution”--
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Jason Kenney
That's a separate proposed amendment. I would like to deal with the one that's on the floor now, and then we can come back to your proposed amendment.
All right?
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Well, you can call the vote, but I think it is a friendly amendment.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Jason Kenney
I'm just trying to use my procedural judgment here.
All in favour of Madame Savoie's amendment, please indicate.
(Amendment agreed to)