Evidence of meeting #42 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
A voice
Let him move it.
5 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. There is some progress in the committee.
I'd like to move NDP-11.
The intent of this amendment is that given that we have assigned greater responsibility and more technical responsibilities to SIRC implicitly in this bill, we should increase the expertise and the all-party agreement in the appointments to SIRC. Historically we've had a tradition that was followed, in which senior members, former cabinet ministers or public servants, were appointed to SIRC, with the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition and any other party.
What has subsequently happened is that names are sent to other party leaders, and their response is ignored. We've had some appointments to SIRC of people with questionable qualifications. Again, the purpose was to match the expansion of the powers of CSIS and the responsibilities of SIRC with an increase both in the expertise of those appointed and then the necessity to get consensus on the appointments.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
I'm sorry to interrupt, but on a point of order, Mr. Chair, if this has already been deemed to be out of scope or inadmissible—
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
I'm sorry, but the chair erred. I should have given Mr. Garrison the opportunity to make his motion first—
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Conservative
December 1st, 2014 / 5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
I thank our staff here on this issue, and I will read the ruling of the chair.
Obviously, the amendment seeks to amend section 34 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 766 and 767, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.” Since section 34 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act is not being amended by Bill C-44, the amendment is inadmissible.
That is the ruling, of course, from our clerk and analyst, who have researched this, Mr. Garrison.
5 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
May I ask a question, Chair?
Is it not the case that sometimes amendments require consequential amendments to other sections? In essence, I regard this as a consequential amendment, given the increased technical powers and responsibilities.
Is there any provision for amendments that are necessary as a consequence of amendments to other sections?
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Actually, this amendment is not up for discussion. The decision cannot be overturned.
5 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I'm not attempting to overturn your decision; I'm asking a question. Is there any provision in our rules to allow consequential amendments? In other words, the ruling you've given says that if a section is not physically there, you can't amend it. Are there no provisions in our committee rules that would allow considering consequential amendments to other sections of the bill?
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
I don't know. The chair will certainly inquire.
The chair is satisfied that the ruling stands as it is. All I can suggest is that if you wish to go down another road at another particular time on another area, that's fine, but the chair will stand by this decision. Your only option at this point would be to challenge the chair.
5 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't wish to challenge the chair today, because I have a pretty good crystal ball as to the outcome. Since the government has not chosen to include anything about increased accountability or oversight in the bill, I think I know what would happen, so I will not challenge the chair.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
This is just a procedural question, Mr. Chair, and perhaps the clerk can tell us this.
On a ruling from the chair—and I'm not concerned about this one, because I think you're right—is there any way that a committee member can appeal, other than through a challenge to the chair?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
The clerk has advised, and I do not know at this particular point if there is. I can suggest that the chair will certainly look into that, and if there is any other opportunity, at the next meeting, sir, I will bring that back to you.
Mr. Easter, I have also been further advised that you can challenge the ruling of the chair. That is the only way we're aware of at this particular point.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
I understand where you're going, but let's just leave it at that right now. Thank you very much.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
We'll never win a challenge to the chair, and I'm worried about precedent here, knowing where this government has already gone in undermining democracy. But that's another point.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Certainly, Mr. Easter, I can assure you that the chair will be diligent and will investigate this. If there is any change or any suggestions that would be helpful to both you and the committee, I will certainly bring them forward.
Yes, Madam Doré Lefebvre.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
I really don't want to challenge the chair. My question is about the procedure.
We have already added clauses sometimes when studying private members' bills. Are things different when we are considering government bills?
The purpose of my question is to put things in perspective.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
We are discussing this bill right now. If we're going to get into committee business or other discussions, that will be for another time, but right now, we are going through this bill. If you want clarification from our clerk and analyst on procedure, we will certainly deal with that.