Evidence of meeting #26 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ruling.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
To carry that to a conclusion, you said that giving a plant is trafficking, so if this guy is growing a plant to give to his sister, he would be in jail for six months. There is no judicial discretion.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
If it can be proven that he intended to do that, yes, that's correct.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
All right. We have amendment NDP-11 before us.
All those in favour of the amendment? All those opposed?
It's a tie, so it fails, doesn't it? I'll be voting with the government.
(Amendment negatived)
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Out of respect for our colleagues, would you not have liked Ms. Jennings to be able to use her vote, given her position within this Committee? I think you should reconsider the vote.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Monsieur Ménard, I didn't know whether Ms. Jennings would be coming back right away, or whatever. She was out of the room, I called the question, and the amendment failed.
I'm going to go on to NDP amendment 12.
Mr. Bagnell.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm challenging your ruling that we cannot retake the vote.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
You're entitled to do that.
Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
The ruling of the chair is overturned. That means we have to call the question again on NDP amendment 11.
Mr. Moore.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Chair, I don't see that as a ruling that you would do. It's not like a ruling on admissibility. The vote has been taken. Now, because of a change, we're seeking to redo what has already been done?
I'd like some advice from someone at the head table on whether that's an appropriate challenge. I recognize that a challenge on admissibility is certainly within our rights. We've had several of those today. But what are they challenging here? They're challenging the results. The vote has already been taken. So I don't see where there's any discretion whatsoever being exercised on your part that can be challenged. We've taken a vote. Now we've moved on to the next amendment. There's nothing to challenge.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
If you maintain your ruling, one parliamentarian, and not the least, who has served in the House of Common for a number of years now and is known for her tremendous ability to remain calm, would be deprived of her right to vote. That would be a direct violation of one of her prerogatives as a parliamentarian.
I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that this is a matter of interpretation, but I believe that the ruling you should make would be helpful in future, insofar as we all recognize that our purpose in being here is, first and foremost, to cast our vote.
I realize that this is a matter of interpretation, but should we not show some courtesy and kindness and rely instead on our ability to work together? That is really what is at stake.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Monsieur Ménard, it's not a matter of courtesy. If a member of this committee leaves during deliberations, it is not for me to determine when they will return. I had no idea when Ms. Jennings would return. I called the vote in good faith. You all voted on it. To suggest that somehow that was an act of bad faith.... I would object to that.
The only issue right now is whether the vote that was taken is subject to being challenged as a ruling of the chair. We have opinions on both sides of that. I'm just having the clerk check into it.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
No one is questioning your good faith. It is true that you could legitimately have believed that Ms. Jennings had left, but is the role of parliamentarians not to vote? Would this not be a gesture of friendship and courtesy that would serve us in future? We are not questioning your good faith.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Monsieur Ménard, if someone left the table and said, “Listen, I'm going to be back, I just have to go to the washroom”, I would extend that courtesy. Ms. Jennings left. She took a phone call. I didn't know whether she would be gone for one minute or for fifteen minutes.
We have a tight schedule, as you know. We've committed to finishing this today. I called the vote. No one objected to the vote at the time.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
May I speak on a point of order, Mr. Chair, while you're getting your answer?
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Nobody meant to cause any trouble here. Madam Jennings had an urgent matter. It just came up. This is the way it happened.
The ridiculousness of one plant putting a person away for six months just hit us here. I apologize for that. The 200, 300, 400, 500 numbers--those are arbitrary numbers. Maybe the government can come up with some sort of number that makes some sense, such as 50 plants or 100 plants, but surely the government didn't intend that you go away for one plant.
On the point of order--this is rather unique--I propose that if you don't get an answer right away on whether the previous vote stands, we go on with the amendments.
If you do get a quick answer, just forget what I said.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I simply wish to apologize to this committee. I'm not a regular member of this committee; I'm replacing someone. I certainly didn't mean for my absence to cause this debate and discussion.
I don't usually reveal personal information. That call was from the insurance company for my home for an insurance claim, so I simply stepped out to say, “I can't take your call right now”, and came back in. I apologize to the committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
We understand. We didn't know that, so as a chair I have to move the matter forward.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes, and I do understand. I also understand that you called the vote, quite rightly so. There was no objection to it. But the vote now has been challenged, so we'll wait to see what, if any, decision there is and whether or not that challenge can in fact take place.