Evidence of meeting #55 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 section.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
How much time do we have left?
If you wish, we could continue for 10 minutes.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
No, no, I understand that, but how long...? Because we have more votes later, correct?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Yes, we have to go. We have a vote. Are we coming back? What's happening with our witnesses?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Do we not have more votes later? The votes being held now are on a concurrence motion by the Liberals. We also have more votes scheduled.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
No, no. The vote here is a vote by the government, according to my note here--
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Okay. Sorry about that.
Members, we have votes. That's the most important thing. We have to be there. I don't mind who's voting--
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Realistically, we're not going to have time for these guys.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Okay. We're going to ask our witnesses to leave. We won't be able to see them tonight. The question is, do we continue our work for another 10 or 15 minutes, or just suspend right now and come back after the vote?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Chairman, if there's a way to get consensus, adopt this clause, and allow the JAG and others to go on...if we can adopt this bill and arrive at a consensus, I'd try to do that quickly, before we have to leave for a vote.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
So there's no consensus.
Is there consensus to continue to discuss that clause for another ten minutes?
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I don't mind hearing...for another few minutes, because there are a number of sections that I've specifically pointed out. I'm seeing a problem here with things like malingering. They don't meet the colonel's suggested way of dealing with this, but they might be acceptable if we change a few other things.
I mean, there may be a solution to this, but I've listed a number of things here. I've identified two already. Although they may objectively be difficult ones to deal with because they have longer maximums, there is a way of dealing with the subjective nature of them by dealing with the punishment threshold.
So there may be a resolution to this, but I don't think we should rush things--
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
My question, though, is do we have unanimous consent to continue for another ten minutes?
Mr. Hawn.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
NDP
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Okay.
I have to suspend the work.
Do we have consensus to come back after the vote?
4:30 p.m.
An hon. member
Sure.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
We are back to work. This is meeting 55 of the Standing Committee on National Defence.
We are considering Bill C-41, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
We have an amendment by....
Yes, Mr. Hawn.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Chair, I would like to call the question.
I know that not everybody is going to be happy with this. This may not be perfect, but we've come this far and so close. This is a heck of a lot better than what is out there now, which is nothing.
Legislation can always be revisited, but if we don't get this out of here now, in the next few minutes, we're not going to be able to hear from the Libya folks, which is important to people, and we will lose this legislation completely.
I would like to call the vote on this now.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Chair, this is an abuse of the process of this committee. We have incorrect information, and the numbering....
I mean, it's been brought to my attention that what we were first handed out here in terms of what 99 was supposed to be, malingering, etc., is not the offence under section 99; we're dealing with 98. So this is a process that is defective.
I'm not sure you can bring a question of privilege in a committee. I don't know if you can bring a question of privilege to the House about something going on in the committee, but there has to be some way of dealing with the question that my privileges as a member, my ability to act as a member and to deal properly with legislation before the committee, is being damaged by this process, damaged by the suggestion that we can call the question on something that has hardly been explained, let alone debated, something that we haven't had an opportunity to study and to change.
I think that's an abuse of process, and I would like a ruling from you, sir, on that point.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you, Mr. Harris.
I want to remind members of the procedure of the committee. I have no authority to call the question on this amendment at this time. I have to go first through the list of members who want to discuss this amendment. Once no one else wants to speak to the amendment, I will have to call the question.
Donc, this is the rule from the committee that I must follow. I cannot put it to a vote right now, because I still have some members who want to discuss it. Once no one else wants to speak to the amendment, I can go on with it.
Monsieur Bachand.