Evidence of meeting #57 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
No, I think the amendment is clear in that it would ensure that.... As the bill is currently worded, it would provide for one House or the other. This amendment is saying that it would be obligatory to use both Houses. If the Senate and the House made a determination that this was to be a process that was joint, then that would be their determination, but this would prescribe that both the Senate and the House be included in those processes.
I'd just simply point out that in the last round it was at the Senate committee where I think some of the most consequential amendments came in and informed the bill that's in front of us today. I think it would be an error to exclude the Senate from these proceedings.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
That would be the choice. There would be a choice for the House and the Senate for it to be joint if those so chose, but it would not allow for the Senate alone or the House alone to do this. It would either have to be the two independently or the two jointly.
9:50 a.m.
Director and General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Thank you, Chair.
I think the intent behind the provision in the bill is to provide for all those alternatives: a House of Commons committee, and/or a Senate committee, or a joint committee. There may be a concern that the bill doesn't reflect that, but that was the intent.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
If it was the intent, I think the problem was that the bill as it's currently worded would allow just the House or just the Senate. What this would ensure is that the House and the Senate would be included in a process that was either a joint meeting or two independent processes.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
The bill does include the “or”. I don't think that what the Liberal amendment does.... At first read, I thought they were trying to say there has to be a committee of the Senate and a committee of the House, but Mr. Holland's suggestion is that no, this would be or could be a joint committee, but not necessarily the duplication of two committees doing the same work.
Mr. Lunney.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Thank you, gentlemen.
As a visitor to this committee, I appreciate listening to the debate by the permanent members.
It seems to me that as I look at the language here, when it says the study would “be undertaken by a committee of the Senate and a committee of the House of Commons”, that implies a committee of each House. If the intent is to still allow a joint committee, then it probably would be appropriate to say so in the language, simply, after “a committee of the Senate and a committee of the House of Commons”, “or a joint committee of the two Houses”. That would be considered a friendly amendment. Perhaps that would clear up any misunderstanding.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. Mr. Holland has said that he would accept that as a friendly subamendment.
Mr. Gaudet.
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Breithaupt, I would like to know what the problem is with the two committees.
As usual, he is not listening: he is a public servant.
9:50 a.m.
Director and General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Thank you, Chair.
We just were pointing out that the intent of the bill was to also allow for the option of a joint committee. It's up to members to decide what they desire, but that had been contemplated, and we just had brought to your attention our view at that time, at least, that perhaps it wasn't contemplated by this amendment, but that would be dealt with by the subamendment.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Just very quickly: the point is that if the bill is left as it is, you could have just one or the other. With this amendment, it would ensure that both Houses are included and there could potentially be a joint process if that was decided to be the most effective way to move forward.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Do we have the wording down here?
So it would include “or a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament”. All in favour of that subamendment that has been brought forward?
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We'll have a recorded vote on the subamendment.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Are we ready for the question on the amendment as amended?
So it's Liberal-2, correct? A recorded vote again is requested, on amendment Liberal-2 as amended.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. That carries. We do have a third Liberal amendment that will--
Yes?
9:55 a.m.
An hon. member
On a point of order, Chair, is this “the third anniversary of the coming”? It doesn't make any sense—
9:55 a.m.
A voice
No, no--
