Public Safety Committee on Dec. 6th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We should have had you move the amendment, and then he would have had the discussion.

But you have moved this amendment, have you, Mr. MacKenzie?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You had some discussion.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I would like to ask the officials how that changes the original document, if instead of just leaving it as provided with adequate “administrative support”, it is changed to say adequate “resources and administrative support”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Have you had time to look at this? Are you prepared to comment?

Mr. Dunbar, your microphone is on.

[David Dunbar]

First of all, I'm sorting out which particularities we're talking about. We're going to talk first of all about “ensure that special advocates are provided with adequate administrative support and resources”.

The comment I would make simply is that it was the intention to do exactly this without the legislative authority, to provide adequate resources. It's not necessary just to say such in legislation, but we are in the hands of the committee if--

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

We want to. Yes, let's just do it, and then let's go.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a subamendment. I am sure that there will be agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Just a minute. G-2 is before the committee.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I believe that Mr. Dosanjh supports the subamendment. In his proposed amendment, he refers to the "défenseur". So the word "défenseur" would have to be replaced by "avocat spécial".

That is the subamendment I am proposing.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Agreed.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

We went a little too fast. You are starting at line 21, but the word "défenseur" also appears in line 20.

If I can get unanimous agreement, we could maybe amend line 20, because the amendments have to be submitted one by one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes, point made. We will note that always. The vote at the beginning...it was understood that that will be made every time.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

We've already moved the amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You've moved the amendment.

One amendment, that's G-2.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Is that what we need? Okay. Can we vote on it?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

We need to vote on the subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

There's no more discussion.

Oh, Ms. Priddy.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

I did miss part of the conversation; for that, I apologize. How did people describe “adequate”, or did you have a whole conversation about this and if I had listened I'd know?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, may I respond to my colleague?

I think it would be too difficult and inappropriate to be more prescriptive than simply saying “adequate”. I don't think we should be going into thousands of millions.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

I didn't, either. It's that I'm always leery of the word “adequate”: it sometimes fails to be so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Are we ready to vote? No, I see we're not ready to vote.

Ms. Barnes.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Chair, we're voting on the subamendment of adding “and resources”, though, is that right?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I think we're going back to the first one, aren't we?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

You have to do the subamendment before you can do the whole thing.