Evidence of meeting #14 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
It's amendment NDP-35, which replaces line 15 on page 65 with the following: “three years, in the case of an offence—”
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
I have a ruling for you, sir.
Bill C-10 amends the Criminal Records Act to extend the ineligibility period for applications for a record suspension. This amendment proposes to leave the ineligibility period at three years.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, the deletion of a key element is contrary to the principle of Bill C-10 and therefore is inadmissible.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
We're not deleting it. We're changing it from five years to three years. Is it the understanding that even changing it from five years to three years is not permitted?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Yes, it is currently at three, but the bill will change it to five years.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Yes. It's already three years, so because we're changing it to what it is already, that's considered out of order...?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
The bill moves it to five years and you're trying to keep it at the current level.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Yes, at the current one. The response, then, is to speak and vote against it, I take it.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
No, to speak and vote against the change to five years, right? You don't have to—
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Yes, I guess we could vote for every section of the legislation and then we would go home. But that's not what we're here for. That's not our job.
November 22nd, 2011 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Well, I suppose we may as well move all the motions, if that's possible, and we'll see whether—
Conservative
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Amendment NDP-36 deletes lines 19 to 28. Lines 19 to 28 deal with persons who are considered ineligible for pardon. That's the three strikes and you're out provision, which we're seeking to remove.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Bill C-10 amends the Criminal Records Act to make certain offences ineligible for record suspension. This amendment proposes to delete this concept.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, the deletion of a key element is contrary to the principle of Bill C-10 and is therefore inadmissible.
That takes us to amendment NDP-37.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
We would move an amendment to clause 115 by replacing line 38 with the following: “coercion in relation to the victim”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
I don't know whether you're in order, but we have no ruling against it.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
You had no ruling prepared.
Let's see. There are two other amendments to clause 115. Since we've committed ourselves to—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Let me tell you that the Liberal amendment L-31 is between your two.
NDP
