Justice Committee on Dec. 6th, 2012

[Christine Lafrance]

It states: “Under the Standing Order, the Speaker has the power to select or group motions in amendment to be proposed at report stage.” Therefore, all decisions are the Speaker's.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm sorry, your mike is.... I can't hear you. I'm sorry.

[Christine Lafrance]

Page 783 of O'Brien and Bosc says, “Under the Standing Order, the Speaker has the power to select or group motions in amendment to be proposed at report stage.” We cannot say more than the power resides in the Speaker's hands.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I understand that, but could you read out the previous two sentences in O'Brien and Bosc, in particular, where you were?

I'm not getting the whole context. That's what I'm saying. There's additional information that I'm not being provided.

[Christine Lafrance]

It's just the beginning of the paragraph, so if I go back, I go back in 1985.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Okay. Are you on...? I apologize for this. This might not make sense to anybody else, but if you look online, we can find O'Brien and Bosc, which I have in front of me. Could you just tell me the footnote number? That will tell me where I am in the report, and I can find where you are.

[Christine Lafrance]

It's number 435.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you.

Could I have a minute, Mr. Chair? I don't know if anybody else has anything to say.

That doesn't make sense to me....

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I have Mr. Rathgeber on the list.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I don't remember what I wanted to say, but speaking to the amendment—

[A voice]

And you are a lawyer?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Speaking to the amendment, I understand, in response to Ms. Boivin's query, that with respect to Bill C-273, this committee never had any opportunity to vet it clause by clause. In that situation I think it was automatic, or certainly more appropriate, that the committee vote and the House concur with the committee that there be an extension of time, because the committee had no opportunity to do clause-by-clause consideration of that important amendment to the Criminal Code.

We have a different situation here. We have a situation where the committee has met. Perhaps not as many minutes and hours have been dedicated to the clause-by-clause consideration as some would like, and certainly not enough to get through the bill, it would appear. However, that may be indicative of a problem: that is, this committee is going to be unable to adequately deal with what are certainly some controversial issues and some unclear definitions with respect to this bill.

Although this is not really speaking to the amendment, but more to the motion, I think we're almost in a situation of—in law—a hung jury, where the committee has perhaps reached a point where it's having difficulty proceeding in a particular meaningful way. As a result, although I know I'm still speaking to the amendment, which I still think is based on a factually incorrect statement, I will be voting against the motion, because I think these are issues that only the House will be able to deal with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate that a lot has gone on in this particular committee, but Madame Boivin mentioned earlier the question of why one bill was reported back to the House without due cause or adequate reasoning—and there was some struggle on that—and why we're requiring this amendment to the original motion by Mr. Garrison. I think part of the answer lies in what Mr. Anderson brought up earlier. As a new member of Parliament, elected last year, I didn't know that there needs to be adequate cause, so I just want to thank my colleague for bringing that forward.

In regard to the issue, though, of the multiple amendments that were put aside because of the first one being adopted, I just think, from my perspective, that they weren't given full consideration. I think that's probably going to have more to do with the Speaker's decision, because I think every member of Parliament should have the right to bring forward an amendment and to have that amendment discussed, particularly if it is some consequence.

In summing up, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the situation that Mr. Rathgeber described earlier, and I certainly look forward to, at some point, a resolution by this body.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I have Mr. Goguen.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I'm just wondering if you could read out exactly what we're voting on, since we've....

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Yes. I'll give you the motion first, and then I'll give you the amendment.

The motion reads:

Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), the Committee requests an extension of 30 sitting days for the consideration of Bill C-279, An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression) to allow its members to hold deliberations beyond the present deadline of Monday, December 10, 2012, and that the Chair present the report to the House.

The amendment reads, “because two sessions were interrupted by votes in the House and the committee was unable to complete the deliberations on this bill.”

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

The motivation is the amendment. Is that correct? Is that my understanding?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

That's the grounds for asking for the....

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

The rules provide that you have to provide some sort of a motivation. Those are the ground rules.

Did we actually interrupt two sessions? Did we miss one and a part...? Do we know that? Does the clerk keep records of that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

What the clerk is suggesting is it's how you defined it last week. On Tuesday we did not have a meeting. This week we did not have a meeting on Tuesday because of votes in the House. That's why the meeting was cancelled. The week previous, I think everybody agrees that the witnesses were present, and we cancelled that meeting a week and something ago. I don't know the dates.

It's by debate how you calculate it, but....

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I just wonder if the amendment has to be grounded in fact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

On November 22, the sitting was suspended at 3:29. We came back at 4:22. We adjourned at 4:23.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

We spent how much time on the one that was interrupted? Was it exactly one hour?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

It was one minute. That's from when we came back.