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.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Thank you.
Okay, we're going to get started.
Go ahead, Ms. Black.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Could we do that by giving unanimous consent, and then doing it on division?
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
You'll have to deal with that.
(Clauses 1 to 26 inclusive agreed to)
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I think has been submitted, L-27.1.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Just a second. I think the amendment you're putting forward is clause 27.1, so it will come after clause 27. Could we just deal with clause 27, and then you can make your point?
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Then we'll just slide right into it.
(Clause 27 agreed to)
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar to one we had on the anti-terrorism legislation. Would you like me to read it into the record?
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
This is new clause 27.1:
(1) Within two years of the day on which this Act receives royal assent, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act shall be undertaken by the committee of either the Senate or the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament that is designated or established by the Senate or the House of Commons or by both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, for that purpose.
(2) Within one year after the review is undertaken, or within any longer period that the Senate or the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament may authorize, the committee shall submit a report on the review to Parliament, including a statement of any changes that the committee recommends.
As I said, this is similar to the anti-terrorism legislation, in which we also had a mandatory review. I think in keeping with the comments that we heard from the JAG today, this would be appropriate.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
6:15 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Chairman, I would like my colleague to explain to me what the Senate has just done in this matter. I have often called Mr. Kenny the unelected Minister of Defence. So we could ask a committee of non-elected individuals to decide on an act passed by the House of Commons. That makes no sense, to my mind.
For my part, I would delete “[...] by the committee of either the Senate or the House of Commons or of both [...]” I think the passage of bills is a responsibility of the elected members of Parliament. If it were a matter of a re-evaluation, I wouldn't be satisfied with remaining seated while senators did our work.
I'd like to hear my colleagues' arguments on that subject.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, we do support this amendment.
This will go to the Senate, so in the interest of getting it through, because senators will be interested.... Regardless of what anybody here--me included--might think about the Senate and their role, senators have a role to play under our structure right now. If we don't put that in, they will quite likely toss it back and say it needs to be the Commons, or the Senate, or both. But I think they both need to be in there. That's the way it's been done in the past, and it's standard terminology.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
This is the reality, whether we like it or not. I could have easily left it out, but the reality is that the Senate will be dealing with it.
It was done before with both Houses there. It doesn't mean they will be dealing with it, but as a courtesy and given the current structure, I felt it was appropriate. So I would leave it the way it is.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Is there any further debate?
Ms. Black is next, and then Mr. Bachand.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
For a couple of reasons, we will not support the motion. It could go to an unelected body for review, and we don't support that. There's already a provision within the act that the National Defence Act be reviewed every five years, so I don't see the necessity of a review within two years.
6:20 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I have a procedural problem. I want to table my sunset provision and I'm prepared to enter a period of two years instead of one year after the coming into force, as is currently indicated. I wonder whether my provision and this clause are compatible. I want to draw the committee's attention to the fact that an in-depth review is not as threatening as a sunset provision. I would like the committee to know that the clause I want to introduce states that the amendments made will cease to have effect after one year—and I am prepared to go up to two years. That's very strong.
The sunset provision does not mean that there is no act after a year or two. You can come and hold discussions before the end of the sunset period, and, at that point, we can table new amendments and amend the act.
Perhaps I would need a procedural expert to tell me where my amendment, my sunset provision, stands. If we adopt this clause, am I going to be told later on that I can't move the sunset provision? That's what concerns me.