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.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Just to make it consistent with the preceding amendment. It is for housekeeping purposes.
Lyne Casavant Committee Researcher
Mr. Holland's first amendment seemed to provide for the possibility of two committees dealing with the issue. The second amendment put forward by the Liberals says “chacun des comités”, which implied that at least two committees would deal with the issue. Now that the wording says that a joint committee could address the matter, the French version needs to indicate that only one committee, in other words, the joint committee, could deal with the matter. So Ms. Mendes was absolutely right to suggest changing the wording to read “le ou les comités visés au paragraphe (1.1)”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. So do we have something...? We will change that.
Where are we here? I know that we'll be asked for a recorded vote for this one as well. I don't have any speakers list on this. It is a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 2.1.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)
All right. The amendment is carried.
Is that it? All right.
Shall clause 4 as amended carry? It is a recorded vote. We are on the clause.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. So that carries on division.
(Clause 4 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 5)
Shall clause 5 carry?
Yes?
A recorded vote, Roger.
Mr. Lunney, we're doing a recorded vote, so please take your chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Yes. I've already made mention of that.
(Clause 5 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3)
That's carried on division.
(On clause 6)
Shall clause 6 carry?
A recorded vote, please.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Chairman, I just have one point of debate I want to mention. I just wanted to correct something for the record. There are two things. I erroneously said before that it doesn't matter what happens in committee, or that if this committee voted against it, it would not come back for a third reading vote. I was mistaken about that and I want to correct that.
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Holland mentioned that he didn't hear the New Democrats opposing this bill in 2001. In the actual voting on the Anti-terrorism Act in 2001, on Bill C-36, all 10 NDP MPs voted against; all 30 Bloc MPs voted against; the Progressive Conservatives split 11 for and 1 against; the Canadian Alliance was 44 for and 4 against; and the Liberals were 134 for and 2 against. I just want to correct the record so that Canadians know what happened in 2001.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Chair, if that's the case, I was misinformed, and I apologize.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. Thank you, Mr. Holland.
(Clause 6 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3)
All right. Clause 6 carries on division. We'll go back to clause 1.
Shall clause 1 carry?
(Clause 1 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. That carries on division.
Shall the title carry?
(Title agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
All right. That carries on division.
Shall the bill carry as amended?
(Bill as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3)
That carries on division.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Do you want that recorded vote?
