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.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I already indicated that it will be ruled out of order, but being the chair that I am, I allow for discussion, and I don't want to shut it off. I'm juggling the fact that we have to get done.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON
On a point of order, the chair does have the right to rule something out of order, explain to the mover, and then the mover doesn't discuss the amendment. I too am curious as to why you are ruling it out of order.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Because it goes beyond the scope of the bill, according to Marleau and Montpetit.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
If you go back and read Marleau and Montpetit--and I don't have it in front of me--on page 654, it goes way beyond what the scope of the bill has intended. I can ask some of our legal experts--
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON
I've been a chair, Mr. Chairman, and I usually explain to the mover how the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill.
My understanding of the bill is that this government introduced the notion of appeal, for which I am very grateful, and Mr. Ménard has expanded with a little detail about how that appeal would work. But appeal, the subject of this amendment, is in the bill. How is this beyond the scope?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Ms. Brown has asked for a legal opinion. Would anybody like to give a comment on this?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
No, the legal opinion is from your legislative clerk, not the officials.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON
No, it's the legislative clerk who made that decision, so she should tell us why.
4:35 p.m.
Procedural Clerk
This is in the nature of advice offered to the chair. Our rules and practices provide that an amendment is not procedurally admissible if it goes beyond the scope of the bill as it was adopted by the House at second reading.
The bill provides in proposed section 79 an appeal “only if the judge certifies that a serious question of general importance is involved”. The amendment proposes a right of appeal, firstly, on any ground of appeal that involves a question of law, on any ground of appeal that involves a question of fact or a question of mixed law, on any ground of appeal not mentioned above or that appears to be sufficient grounds. And then we return to the original terms of the bill.
In my view, this went beyond the scope of the bill as it was adopted by the House at second reading, and this is why I offered that advice to the chair.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I challenge that decision, with respect, because I believe the opposite to be true. Section 79 provides for a right of appeal in certain circumstances.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Mr. Chair, as I understand it, you have ruled that something is out of order. That's non-debatable. The only thing you can do is challenge the chair. If my colleague wishes to challenge the chair we get rid of that, but we do not have a debate after you've ruled, unless it's a challenge.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Certainly, I am challenging that decision. Can I not explain why?
I don't understand why she could explain her position and I am not give the right to do the same thing.
