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
Mr. Chair, I'm advised that clause 15 should be stood down because clause 9 has not been voted on yet.
Julie Besner Counsel, Criminal Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes. Clause 9 of the bill seeks to create the two new offences, the first being “break and enter to steal a firearm”, the second being “robbery to steal a firearm”. That clause has not been voted on yet, clause 9, to create the two new offences.
Clause 15 here references those two new offences in another part of the Criminal Code. So presumably the vote should take place first on clause 9, before the consequential amendment, so to speak, in clause 15, is voted on.
Counsel, Criminal Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, under the new offences which would be created.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
We'll stand clause 15 down for now.
(Clause 15 allowed to stand)
Clause 15.1 is a new clause and it reflects the NDP amendment.
Mr. Comartin.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Clause 16, the government amendment G-7 on page 11 in your package.
As noted earlier, this amendment is inadmissible simply because it is intended to delete a clause.
(Clause 16 negatived)
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
On clause 17, we have three amendments.
Mr. Petit, did you have a question?
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I received the Liberal package this morning, and it is numbered in the same way as what I received a week ago. Just so I can follow, I would like to know whether you are referring to clause 16 of this morning or clause 16 from last week.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Last week, but clause 16.1 is a new clause. It was initially an NDP amendment, but it's considered to be a new clause that was withdrawn.
On clause 17, there's a Liberal, an NDP, and a government amendment.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
If a proposed amendment that simply deletes the clause in the government bill or in the bill that we're currently examining is inadmissable, I would say that we simply have to vote against or defeat the original clause that the amendment seeks to delete. I would withdraw L-11.
Conservative
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Chair, we're going to run into this for the next number of clauses, from clauses 17 through 24, where my amendments and those of the government are very similar. Actually, I like the government's wording more than mine. On each one of those, clauses 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, it occurs. In each case the wording is slightly different, but the government wording I think is more concise. In my own defence, that's what I thought I had told the drafter to do initially, but that aside, in those cases I would withdraw mine and support the government.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
NDP-3 is withdrawn.
We go to G-8, on page 15 of your package.
Yes, Ms. Jennings.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I have a question on procedure.
It was my understanding that we dealt with amendments by the order in which they were tabled before the committee. It struck me that in the list we've been given, and subsequently, Liberal amendments dealing with clause 18—You have an NDP amendment dealing with clause 18 and a government amendment dealing with clause 18, but the Liberal amendments, which were tabled last, are being brought forth by the numbering here prior to the amendments by the NDP, which were tabled first, and prior to the amendments by the government, which were tabled second. The Liberal amendments came last.
May I ask why these amendments have been numbered and placed in the order where Liberal amendments are being dealt with first on each clause, when normally they would be dealt with last?
February 20th, 2007 / 9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
We went through the process. Your amendment would have eliminated the clause and there would be no need to deal with the other amendments, and vice versa. Why deal with the other amendments and then end up withdrawing the clause? You're defeating the clause.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
No. The explanation given was that if there's an amendment that seeks to delete a clause in the bill, it's superfluous because one only has to vote against the actual clause. However, prior to the Liberal amendments there were amendments tabled that seek to amend the original clauses. Therefore I suggest we deal with the Liberal amendment subsequent to dealing with the government and NDP amendments. We may decide to proceed with our amendment, depending on what the results of the votes are on the other amendments.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
The issue really is that if your amendment dealing with the clause defeats that clause, it's finished and there's no need to walk through the rest of the amendments. There's no hard and fast rule on the location of your amendment. I don't see how that's going to affect what we're doing here this morning.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Then I am confused, because you made a ruling of inadmissibility based on the fact that the amendment simply sought to delete a clause, and one only had to defeat the actual clause to see it deleted.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
To move this matter along this morning, we'll put your amendment at the end.
