Evidence of meeting #10 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON
We decided we would begin clause-by-clause consideration at this meeting.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I understand that we need to finish this. We need to find the best way of accomplishing that, and many of us have many other commitments tonight and tomorrow. In fact, I wasn't planning to come back Monday, but if we want to finish it and we want to do it starting Monday morning, even at eight o'clock, and go through nine o'clock--
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
That's all right. If we don't want to do that, then we'll have problems. We need to find alternative times that are acceptable to all of us, and if some of us can't make it, then maybe we can have substitute members. I don't know any other way. I mean, we've got to deal with it.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Maybe we can go at the end of the meeting, before we go to the votes. Maybe we can just huddle and find some time to do that, rather than going at each other in this fashion.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Gord Brown Conservative Leeds—Grenville, ON
Mr. Chairman, I agree, but why don't we get moving here? We should continue instead of arguing about this, and then at about 5:10 we'll decide.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
We have two minutes to order; if we don't order in two minutes....
Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I agree. Let's carry on. It may well be that all the other amendments--I mean, this one is contentious, let's face it. Maybe if we can deal with this one, we'd find it would flow better.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
It just appeared that there was a problem developing, and if we let it go, it'll get worse.
We'll go to the vote.
(Amendment negatived)
That was five to three.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
You should really have called for it before we did it. Does the committee want to go back for a second?
Okay, the committee doesn't want to go back. We'll continue here.
Next we have amendment BQ-3, and I will tell you right off the bat that it is inadmissible, so that one is easy to take care of.
Did everybody hear my ruling? Amendment BQ-3 is inadmissible because it does not--
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
We counted four votes in favour, and you said there were three. There was Penny, Ms. Brown, Ève-Mary and myself. Ms. Thi Lac is listening to the interpretation, and there is always a delay.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Ms. Thi, did you raise your hand? Did she raise her hand? Okay. The clerk has corrected me; it's four. Maybe it takes some time for the translation to come through, so people didn't raise their hands in time. That's fine. It'll be four in favour, five opposed.
Do you still wish to propose amendment BQ-3, Monsieur Ménard?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
He can propose it, and then I'll rule it out of order. If he wishes to propose it and take time, then I'll rule it out of order. That's fine, but he has the right to propose it.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I have already sent my motion to amend clause 4. I will take less time.
Take a breath. I know you are all intelligent and you can apply the arguments I have already made, but this is a different problem. The amendment is longer, so I will make the argument...
I move that Bill C-3, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 35 to 41 on page 3...
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Let me interrupt you. It will be part of the record; you don't actually have to go through the length of the whole thing if you don't wish to.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Everyone has read the amendment, I imagine.
Essentially, the purpose of this amendment is to provide an ability, before the Federal Court of Appeal, that is similar to what any criminal accused has, and not only on a question of law, as is proposed. What is proposed is a question of law that is stated by the person whose decision is the subject of an appeal.
We have a good enough relationship that I do not have to repeat the essential points in the arguments I have already made, but which are [Editor's Note: Inaudible]. In my opinion, we must have just as many guarantees, because of the consequences that attach to the decision that is made.
I do have an additional argument, however. I find it extremely difficult, myself, to accept the possibility that a person could be sentenced to an indefinite term based on the opinion of a single person. There should be a broader appeal.
As well, this is the person who made the decision that it is sought to appeal. I do not believe that this will inspire great confidence in the person concerned. I remember that there could be appeals from summary convictions when I was...
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I think I understand what Mr. Ménard is saying here, but this is outside the scope of where we are, and I'm not sure it makes sense that he continues to discuss the amendment.
