No, you didn't.
Evidence of meeting #69 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was record.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #69 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was record.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
Yes, we did, about the nature of the charge, the nature of the offence, the two-year penalty.
Mr. Harris is repeating himself explicitly and in flagrant defiance of your ruling and of the rules.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay, Mr. Harris.
There are other speakers who want on the list as well.
Conservative
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I didn't hear that particular insult, but I think the example that I just gave shows how this could easily be within the same kind of category.
One analogy could be negligent discharge of a firearm. I know of cases where a person received a fine for that. That's something serious enough to cause loss of life, someone negligently discharging a firearm, for example. It happens—
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
—and people get fines. So if a fine can be a sentence for discharging a firearm and potentially endangering a life, then, surely something that attracts a maximum of two years for negligence or for causing a fire contrary to regulations could easily be in the same category, which is an additional argument as to why section 113 ought to be included in amendment G-2 under clause 75.
That's all I have to say for now.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
You spoke? Okay.
Seeing no one else, I'll put the question.
(Subamendment negatived)
We're back to government amendment G-2.
Are there other comments on the amendment?
Mr. Harris, please.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
We do have a number of other possible arguments to add additional sections here, but I think—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
You do have two more amendments after we deal with amendment G-2. There are amendments NDP-20 and NDP-21.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Yes, we do, and we'll get to them and fully argue them.
Briefly, I just want to say that we brought forth the amendments that we did to amendment G-2.... We're going to support passage of amendment G-2 because it makes a significant improvement to what was here. It's certainly not broad enough. We brought forth the four that we've just finished arguing because I think they do illustrate that amendment G-2 does not go far enough in terms of what it sets out to do.
What it sets out to do is eliminate the criminal record in specific offences based on a threshold. The threshold that's provided there is not adequate. In fact, there is another amendment that we want to move on amendment G-2. I'm going to have to ask someone to find it for me. It's the one that seeks to amend...is it item (iv) of amendment G-2?
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, if there's no amendment at the moment, could we proceed with the vote on the motion at hand?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
And Mr. Harris has the floor as well, and I can't put a question as long as there's anybody on the list for speaking, and Mr. Harris has the floor.
Conservative
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Yes, I'm speaking, and I'm speaking to amendment G-2. I'm proposing a subamendment to amendment G-2—
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
It's a subamendment to amendment G-2 that would have the effect of replacing lines 2 to 4 on page 49 and amend that by substituting the following fore the portion “(iii) a fine not exceeding basic pay for one month, or”, by “(iii) a fine, or”. That amendment is being distributed now.
