Evidence of meeting #2 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I have just a point of clarification.
Mr. Chair, there was some discussion from my Conservative colleagues that they were unhappy with the term “illegally diverted”. Have they formally decided to change that form, or are we just sticking with what Ms. Dancho read into the record?
Before we have a vote, I just want to be clear on what we're voting on.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Yes. Again, I think that had I been given more time, I could have been a bit more eloquent, but in the interest of time, I just went for our clarification in the terminology, which the minister himself and others have used, including “smuggling across the U.S. border” and “domestic diversion”.
Actually, now that I think about it, the Liberal members have said that they have an issue with the redundancy, but again, their own paragraph (i) has its own redundancy within that argument, with “illegally diverted, including domestic diversion”, which arguably could be included in the definition of “illegally diverted”.
Again, to Mr. MacGregor's point, it would just simply say “including smuggling over the U.S. border and domestic diversion”. Again, it's trying to work with the original amendment but just making it more clear with the language, as my colleague Mr. Van Popta said.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I understand Mr. MacGregor's concern, but that's not what was moved as a subamendment. We really can't amend a subamendment, so we are left with the subamendment as originally moved by Ms. Dancho. Is that correct?
Okay. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Are members of the committee clear on what's about to be put to a vote? Are there any points of clarification that need to be reinforced or are we ready for the division?
Clerk, go ahead with a recorded division, please.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you. That is an historic moment. It was our first vote as a committee.
Ms. Damoff, we go back to you. Are there other amendments that you wish to propose?
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Maybe I have two. I don't know if the committee realizes that the date of the original motion has the wrong date for the minister's appearance. He's actually coming on the 16th, not the 15th, but I'll leave it to somebody else to change if they want.
The last—
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
On a point of order, Chair, we still have to vote on the motion. We voted on the subamendments and the amendment. We're back to the motion, which was Ms. Damoff's amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Let's go back to the motion to see if we have unanimous consent for it.
I see two hands up. I don't know who they are. Could somebody tell me who it is?
Liberal
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I feel like I'm in The Wizard of Oz, Mr. Chair. Pay no attention to the man on the screen, I guess.
I wanted to move another subamendment. Please don't hate me for this, but it is related to the earlier point I made. Is it just me or is the wording kind of confusing, even with “programs that prevent recruitment and retention and diversion”?
I would like to move a subamendment to clarify that we are looking at programs that prevent recruitment and retention and programs that promote diversion. That would be just one quick line that could clarify that wording, so that it doesn't look like we are trying to prevent diversion.
I will move the subamendment. I hope I can get unanimous consent that we change that one line to read “programs that prevent recruitment and retention and programs that promote diversion”.
It is just three words: “programs that promote” diversion.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
That's an excellent amendment. I would be happy to vote in favour of that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Are there others, keeping in mind that I cannot see hands?
Go ahead, Mr. Van Popta.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Thank you to Ms. Damoff for that clarification.
I agree that's a good amendment. Thank you for that.
Just as a point of clarification, I'm not quite sure what we are voting on now, other than my colleague Mr. Lloyd's subamendment. The original motion was to delete subparagraphs (ii) and (iii). Have we voted on that already?
We are down to just (i) and the new (iv), which is now number (ii), with Mr. Lloyd's small amendment. Is that what we're voting on?
Liberal
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
The original motion as made by Ms. Damoff was amended by Mr. MacGregor to drop off paragraphs numbered with Roman numerals (ii) and (iii), and was subsequently modified by Ms. Dancho to modify the language in paragraphs (i) and (iv), I believe, although I'm not sure about (iv).
At any rate, that change was made. That passed. It is now being further modified by Mr. Lloyd to add some clarification to former paragraph (iv). That last amendment, to modify the language of subparagraph Roman numeral (iv), is what we're voting on right now.