Evidence of meeting #41 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th 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.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Okay, so we're all good with the subamendment to NDP-2?
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Shall amendment NDP-2 carry, as amended?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Similarly, shall the subamendment to amendment NDP-3 carry?
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
As for amendment NDP-4, I have a ruling on that.
Bill C-9 amends the Judges Act by replacing the process through which the conduct of federally appointed judges is reviewed by the Canadian Judicial Council. The amendment seeks to add the Federal Court of Appeal as an additional level in the process of appealing decisions on the removal from office of a federally appointed judge. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770 the following:
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 inclusion of the Federal Court of Appeal in the appeals process constitutes a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill, and therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Mr. Moore.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I don't think your rulings are debatable. I know we recently saw a ruling at the public safety committee, when a new amendment was added, which I was shocked to be ruled in order.
I am really surprised. I think, even reading your ruling, that this is 100% within the mandate of the bill and that it doesn't bring in any new expansion of the scope of the legislation. I think it's completely in line with the streamlining of the process. So, with all due respect, I would have to challenge your ruling on inadmissibility, Mr. Chair.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
I let you speak, but it's not a debatable thing. You challenged the ruling, so we will have a vote on the ruling of the chair.
All those in favour of the chair's ruling being sustained?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Just on a point of order, to the clerk, if we're voting yes on this, it means we accept the ruling of the chair, right?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Yes.
(Ruling of the chair sustained)
Also, the vote on amendment NDP-4 applies to amendment NDP-5 since they are consequential.
Also, if amendment NDP-4 is moved, amendment CPC-1 and its consequential amendment, CPC-2, cannot be moved as they are identical to amendments NDP-4 and NDP-5. I am just letting the members know that.
Amendment NDP-4 is out now, right?
Shall clause 12 as amended carry?
(Clause 12 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clauses 13 to 16 inclusive agreed to)
Shall the title carry?
4:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?
4:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
We will now suspend for a few minutes to go in camera for a second review of the draft report on the government's obligations to the victims of crime.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
