Evidence of meeting #23 for Justice and Human Rights 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.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I'd like to speak to that Mr. Chairman, if I may.
Colleagues, you'll recall that one of the reasons the chairman felt the first amendment that was moved here today was out of order was that there was an element of discretion added to the bill. So I'd like to argue slightly tongue-in-cheek that this amendment also invokes discretion, the discretion being that of royal assent and the timing of the royal assent.
In fact, one wonders these days whether or not the government will enact and give royal assent. There's been a question raised about that too. I'm wondering whether, with that element of discretion now being shoehorned into the bill, this amendment might be out of order.
Okay, I'm going to withdraw that. I think I don't want to give the chair a hard time here, so I'll stand down on that issue.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
I'm not going to challenge your ruling, Mr. Chair. I'll put that on the record. But I would like to hear from the legislative clerk how this amendment is in order--other than the chair's ruling.
4:50 p.m.
Joanne Garbig Procedural Clerk
Every amendment is in order unless there is a procedural reason to suggest that it is not in order. We do see amendments to coming into force provisions of bills. These, in most cases, we don't see as harming the principle of the bill, as going outside the scope of the bill, as implying expenditures that might require a royal recommendation. The amendment appears to be complete, coherent. I don't see any procedural reason to suggest that the amendment is not admissible.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
I have a follow-up question, Mr. Chair, to the clerk.
You stand by your prior advice to me that the only way to amend the substance of the bill was either raising the years or doing the categories, is that correct? All I'm trying to get on the record is that I've said that--
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
I've said a couple of times that I was told there were two ways to amend the substance of the bill and that were in order. This is in a whole different area. I just want to make sure that the advice has not changed in the last couple of minutes.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I know, but you've asked probably four times the same question, whether the advice is correct.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Sure it is. It's a point of order because there's already been a ruling on that. We've already heard evidence, and I can't believe that anyone would draw an analogy between an amendment to the substance of the bill and the coming into force. The coming into force provisions of the bill are amended all the time.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I'm going to listen to Mr. Murphy now, and if somebody wants to challenge this particular ruling, they may do so.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I would like to ask about the six-month thing--specifically, why it is required. I'll tell you why I'm asking. Every committee that Mr. Petit and I get appointed to has extended hours, and we spend a lot of time together because there's a big workload. This has been no exception. There has been a lot of work in justice.
I'm a little ticked off, frankly, that senior members of the government, including the Prime Minister, would make public statements that if they can get the committee working and get the opposition members to put these bills into power, then everybody will be safe in their beds at night. That ticked me off, frankly, because I didn't think we were slacking off here.
The point is, if the Prime Minister is in a hurry, if your party is in a hurry, why is it absolutely necessary for the six months? Do you not have the tenders ready for the new prisons you need for your justice program, or what?
I'm just suggesting an answer. What is the answer?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
The reason is that we had a very productive federal, provincial, and territorial meeting in Newfoundland, and we're bringing in this legislation. It's going to have an impact. We're giving six months. We could have said five and a half months, or we could have said 4.2 months, but it's six months. It's fairly standard for the coming into force of the legislation. It gives crown attorneys and provincial officials time to study the impact of the bill on their own particular jurisdiction and to get ready to implement the bill.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
If I may, as chair, make a comment in reference to that, I know of other legislation that has come down and hit jurisdictions and it has created chaos for a period of time. So it gives them a little leeway to plan. I think that's the basis behind the amendment.
Mr. Petit.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I would like to point out that Mr. Murphy is quite right with respect to the amendment on the issue of the six months. We sit on committees all the time, including the one that reviewed Bill C-2, and I can tell you that to all intents and purposes, the six-month period is theoretical, because until the Senate sends back the bill to us, it means nothing.
At the moment, the Senate is controlling Parliament. So even if we were to pass the bill today and call for immediate enforcement, since the Senate has all the power, it makes the decision. So, to all intents and purposes, the six-month period is theoretical. So I would ask you to accept this, because at the moment, the Senate is controlling everything.