Evidence of meeting #50 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.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I'm just wondering, if they're smart on crime now, what that makes the platform. Is it something less than smart, or more than smart, or—?
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
You're cheap. You're being very cheap, comme on dit en français.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Clauses 18 to 24 are defeated. We are now on clause 25.
Mr. Moore.
(On clause 25)
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Chair, I'm advised that clause 25 should be stood down for the same reason the previous one was stood down, because we haven't voted on clause 9 yet.
Conservative
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Well, maybe we can do it on a clause-by-clause basis.
There is clause 28 also, Chair.
(Clause 25 allowed to stand)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
We are on clause 26. We have Liberal amendment L-19.
(On clause 26)
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Chair, just before we go to that, with respect to the recent conversation by Mr. Moore, we would be happy to replace our amendments to increase mandatory minimums, which the opposition says are tougher on crime, if they would like to support the proposals we put forward to increase minimums.
Conservative
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
We proposed earlier to increase the mandatory minimums on first offence—to double them, in fact—and the Conservatives at the time, because they didn't know what was going to happen to these other amendments, defeated them. But now, in light of the fact that the others have been defeated, they have an opportunity to be tougher on crime to increase minimums by supporting those amendments that we put forward.
Conservative
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
No, they're talking about the non-use offences. I think you already ruled those out of order.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
They're talking about what was in their platform, saying they would double the mandatory minimum for serious firearms offences—
An hon. member
You should have voted to overrule the chair, if you wanted to be tough on crime. That's the story.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Chair, the offer Mr. Moore made is out of order, according to the ruling you made on the Liberal amendments, which sought to double minimum mandatory penalties.
Mr. Moore is making an offer to double—actually, almost to triple in some cases—minimum mandatory sentences, but with no escalator. Therefore, his proposal is out of order, according to your previous ruling.
However, if Mr. Moore were prepared to challenge the chair's ruling on the Liberal amendments doubling minimum mandatory and to support those Liberal amendments, we would be more than happy to bring forth our amendments again and see Mr. Moore and his Conservative members on this committee challenge the chair's ruling.
We would certainly support the challenge of that ruling, because we already challenged it. But Mr. Moore and his colleagues sustained your ruling, Chair.
If Mr. Moore is now prepared to challenge your ruling, we would be prepared to propose our amendments to double the minimum mandatory sentences once again.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
There is no need for the chair to be challenged. All I would need is unanimous consent.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Well, then, I seek unanimous consent to bring forth the Liberal amendments that doubled minimum mandatory sentences from one year to two years, and in other cases the other provisions.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chairman, setting aside the one-upmanship we are seeing here between Mr. Moore, taking pleasure in provoking Ms. Jennings, and Ms. Jennings not wanting to give in, I should like to point out that the rule here is that we introduce amendments which you then rule admissible or inadmissible. This morning, we are not discussing electoral platforms.
You decided some amendments were in order and others not. We voted on the amendments in accordance with our political views. I cannot understand why we would want to get back to amendments which were defeated so as to rediscuss them.
I suggest we continue our work. We should all take responsibility for tabling amendments which we consider to be in keeping with our ideological leanings. Any comments which would have us stray from that seem superfluous to me.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Thank you, Mr. Ménard. I take that as meaning one member of the committee, at least, is not offering unanimous consent.
Mr. Moore, I think you had something you wanted to add.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thanks, Chair.
I'm not going to challenge your ruling. It's just to make clear the distinction that the Liberals' amendments deal with gutting this bill and turning it into their old Bill C-82. The amendments I'm talking about were not introduced by the Liberals, but I'm basing them on their platform, which was quite different from their position at committee.
But I'm not going to be giving my consent to introduce Bill C-82 into this bill, which is a good bill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Thank you, Mr. Moore.
Let's move on to clause 26, Liberal amendment 19.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Chair, in light of your previous ruling, we would simply have to vote against and defeat clause 26. So I will withdraw Liberal-19.