Evidence of meeting #53 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
But you refer to an extension of the term. There is no reference at all there to extension of the term. Are you suggesting that in the French text there is?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
I just want to repeat the decision for everyone to be sure. The amendment attempts to amend clause 77 to allow for the extension of the terms of appointment of members of that commission. So in the opinion of the chair, the introduction of the term “extension” is a new concept that is beyond the scope of clause 77, and is therefore inadmissible.
5:05 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Chair, I think the confusion is.... I think what Jack's trying to do is add that in front of the section on the French version, etc. Clause 77 right now starts with “Subsection 250.1(11)...”. If you look at Jack's amendment, that's at the bottom.
I think you're adding the first part there. That's what you're intending to do. Is that correct?
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Yes. I guess what we're saying is that section of the bill is being amended, so we're adding an additional subsection following that, the clause having been opened up. Yes, I mean, I would agree.... I don't think it's an extension of the term, but I think it's a legal means of allowing someone to finish a decision. If someone has interpreted it as an extension of the term, well, that's fine, but I think the availability to make the motion is valid.
Now you're making your ruling, and I'm making an argument against the ruling, and presumably an argument that should have been made when someone raised an objection. No one has raised.... I have a little problem with this procedure. As a guy who practised law for 30 years, I'm not used to hearing rulings and then arguing about them. I'm used to someone raising an objection and having an opportunity to argue about the rules.
Mr. Dryden, I'm not sure I know how much you actually practised in the trenches....
But that's the normal way things happen, Mr. Chair, so I guess the only choice I have is either to--
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
--appeal or accept it. So in the normal manner that we discovered the other day, I would move that the ruling of the chair be sustained.
5:10 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Okay, so you're challenging, and I'll give the floor to the clerk for that.
March 9th, 2011 / 5:10 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Jean-François Lafleur
Thank you.
I don't think you need an explanation, so I will just put the motion as usual.
Shall the chair's decision be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained)
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Okay. Shall clause 77 carry?
(Clause 77 agreed to)
We're at clauses 78 to 100. We don't have any amendments. Shall clauses 78 to 100 inclusive carry?
(Clauses 78 to 100 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 101)
We have G-1, an amendment for clause 101. Oh, 101...I like that number. It brings back old memories.
5:10 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
It's really simple. It's just to alleviate some of the concerns that were expressed before about not having the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal under the review process. This just adds the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal to the review process.
Do you want me to say that again, Jack?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
There were some earlier concerns about the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal not being part of the review process, not being reviewed, and this just adds that, so that the CFPM is being reviewed with the same regularity and so on. It's in response to concerns that were expressed before.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I just have a question about that. I guess it will come up somewhere else.
The concern raised by the MPCC was also a concern with respect to attempting to ensure that the review that's taking place, or that should be taking place as a result of the previous legislation, is in fact going to take place, not just by the good graces of the Department of National Defence, but done in the statutory manner.... I think maybe that's dealt with in another amendment—
5:10 p.m.
A voice
Mr. Bachand--
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Yes, that is Mr. Bachand's amendment.
Now we're dealing with amendment G-1. I will ask for the vote on that.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 101 as amended agreed to)
Now we have clauses 102 to 134.
There are no amendments for clauses 102 to 134.
(Clauses 102 to 134 inclusive agreed to)
Thank you.
(On clause 135)
We now move on to clause 135, for which we have amendment BQ-14.
Mr. Bachand, you have the floor.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Do I have unanimous consent for the withdrawal of amendment BQ-14? Wait, I am told that this is not necessary.
Okay.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Before withdrawing it, it might be preferable for me to provide a bit of an explanation.