No--
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.
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
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
The fourth is still relevant. It's housekeeping to bring the bill in line in other sections with the amendments that were just passed. It's simply housekeeping, but there's a.... It's a fourth one.
Conservative
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
I don't know if committee wants it to be read, but essentially this is a housekeeping motion that would bring the bill in line with the amendments just passed. There are other portions of the bill that would have to be amended to reflect the changes that were just adopted in amendment. The wording in this new amendment would also have to reflect the subamendment that was passed and adopted as well.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
I'll move my own amendment, but I'll move it with the wording to be amended to reflect the motion that was just adopted.
Conservative
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
If you'd like, Mr. Chair, the wording in total is: that Bill C-17, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 12 through 18 on page 9 with the following: “(1.2) The committee referred to in subsection (1.1) shall, within a year after a review is undertaken under that subsection or within any further time that may be authorized by the Senate and the House of Commons”--
Is that the right one?
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
--“be submitted their report on the review to Parliament, including its”.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. So right after the words “by the Senate and the House of Commons or a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament”, that's where that would be.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
The French version needs a lot of tweaking. It doesn't make much sense.
In its current form, it is not at all clear. I do not see how it could be understood. So it needs some work.
Conservative
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
If we agree that it could be undertaken by a joint committee, we need to replace “chacun des comités visés au paragraphe” with “le ou les comités visés au paragraphe”.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
It needs to be consistent with the previous amendment. It talks about committees of the House of Commons and the Senate. We replaced “chacun des comités” with “le ou les comités”.
