Evidence of meeting #32 for National Defence in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was accused.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
You can propose it. We have a copy in front of us.
If you want to propose this motion saying “two years”, you're welcome to do that. It's not an amendment. It's just part of the new motion.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Chairman, I want to remind you of your promise. You told me I could introduce my provision, but I thought that, if I introduced it, committee members could reject it because they wouldn't accept it as it stands.
I didn't want the matter to be resolved that way. In fact, I would like to illustrate what I mean when I talk about the belt and suspenders. Mr. Wilfert provided the belt, and I want to provide the suspenders. I think that's feasible provided I'm not told it's impossible. I'm a bit embarrassed, and that's why I sounded things out on your side. You only told me that I could introduce my provision, but I'm being told it isn't acceptable because there is a review.
I'm going to introduce it, but stating two years. All right?
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
What do you think?
I'll get beaten anyway.
It's two years. The amendment reads as follows:
The amendments made by this Act cease to have effect on the day that is two years after the day on which this Act comes into force or, if Parliament is not then in session, on the day that is 90 days after the commencement of the next ensuing session.
Some people said that, in the event of elections, we'll have to start everything over again. But that's not the case. The provision states that, if there is another Parliament, it will be 90 days after the next session starts.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
I'd just like to read back the amendment--wait, it's not an amendment. Yes, it is an amendment, and it's proposed by Mr. Bachand to be clause 31.1.
Go ahead, please.
Procedural Clerk
The amendment would read as follows:
The amendments made by this Act cease to have effect on the day that is two years after the day on which this Act comes into force or, if Parliament is not then in session, on the day that is 90 days after the commencement of the next ensuing session.
Conservative
NDP
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
I'm just having a little bit of trouble getting my head around the business of legislation that would have a mandatory review at the end of two years and also a sunset clause at the end of two years.
We've already approved the two-year review. If we're going to have both of these, should we not make it a three-year for the sunset? How can you have a review, not receive the review, and have the sunset clause kick in?
Thank you.
NDP
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
I'm wondering if the Bloc is amenable to an amendment of three years, which I would propose as an amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
You want a subamendment to the amendment to take out “two years” and put in “three years”.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Okay. Does everybody understand that?
Debate?
I'll call the question on the subamendment.
Conservative
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Three years was defeated while I was talking to the nice lady here. I didn't hear you call the vote.