Evidence of meeting #79 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 complaint.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Ms. Gibb's explanations are quite clear. I don't know why we're seeking more clarification on what NDP‑34 seeks to do. Like me, other people may want to speak to their party's position on this amendment.
I hope that the latest explanations have enabled Mr. Genuis to fully understand the amendment. I think we could move on.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I'm happy to cede the floor and come back on this if others want to speak on it, so I'll cede the floor. Could you add me to the end of the list, so that I can hear what others have to say on it?
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
BQ‑13, which comes right after amendment NDP‑34, is very similar. Its purpose is to give the commission a little more discretion to refuse to examine a complaint. So, instead of the wording “The Commission must refuse”, as set out in Bill C‑20, NDP‑34 proposes, “The Commission may refuse…”.
However, it's my opinion that NDP‑34 goes a little further than BQ‑13, which changes the wording a little. In addition, I think it is more beneficial to stick more closely to what is provided for in the bill. I would not go so far as to add, “… if dealing with the complaint would seriously compromise an ongoing investigation”. I think the current wording of the bill is fine the way it is.
I would therefore suggest that my colleagues vote against NDP‑34 and vote in favour of BQ‑13. It's a small change, but it can have an impact.
I would also like to take this opportunity to say that what we're seeing and what we'll be seeing for the next hour is very unfortunate. It's quite clear that we experienced a filibuster by the Conservatives when they wanted to pass their motion on the Paul Bernardo study.
For whatever reason, they want to delay or slow down the study of Bill C‑20, and the permanent members of this committee don't even have the courage to do it themselves. They get subbed in to do that. That's too bad.
I too had something else scheduled for this next hour, but I feel that the study of Bill C‑20 is a priority. It's normal for us to work overtime to study this bill, since the Conservatives filibustered for so many hours before we could begin this study.
I'll just take this opportunity to say that I find this very unfortunate. I invite my colleagues to vote on amendment NDP‑34 if they have no further questions.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have a point of order, Chair.
Substantively—and maybe my notes are out of date—I have the NDP amendment that says to delete lines 1 to 3 on page 35. The Bloc amendment 12.3 says exactly the same thing.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thanks very much, Chair.
It is good to be back at the public safety committee. In the second session of the 43rd Parliament, I had the honour of sitting on this committee.
I think that they are all new faces here, other than Ms. Michaud's. It's good to be back.
Certainly, Bill C-20 is an interesting bill.
I'll note, like Mr. Genuis did, that I believe that at the conclusion of the previous meeting, consent was sought to extend the meeting. It was not granted, yet here we are anyway. It's unfortunate, because for those of us who care a lot about this issue and this bill, we have to dig into some of these things. I think it's very important.
Specifically related to NDP-34, the idea around giving discretion is something that seems to me, from what Ms. Michaud said and in light of the next four amendments as well, that we have a great deal of agreement on.
I always find that one of the challenges when amending legislation is that, when there are similar amendments that are brought forward that deal with substantively the same concern, to deal with one simply because it was submitted first versus taking the time to ensure that we are, in fact, passing the best legislation and the best...what in this case would be changes, to ensure the commission is given the necessary discretion to ensure, as our officials....
I would just thank the officials for coming here as well.
I know that it is important work that we do before these committees.
Ms. Gibb, you mentioned that changing it from a “must” to a “may” would give that necessary discretion. I would, however, like to ask for your opinion.
In BQ-13, the language is a bit different. The reason I ask is to make sure we are doing justice to each amendment, although we can deal with them only sequentially. It allows us to deal with them to make sure we get the right thing passed.
BQ-13, which would be dealt with next, has slightly different language.
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, on a point of order, I'm sorry, but when I made my earlier point, I was referring to the wrong pages. However, I am still failing to see the textual difference. They're written differently, because BQ-13 amends a line—
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I'm sorry, but this isn't a point of order. It's going back to debate.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
The point is that I am trying to understand what the difference is between the two amendments. I don't know if that's....
October 30th, 2023 / 1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
You just ruled that if NDP-34 is adopted, BQ-13 could not be moved. Are they substantially the same amendment incidentally, or are they different?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
As was stated to the committee at the outset of moving this motion, if new NDP-34 is adopted, PV-4 cannot be proceeded with, as they are identical. Also, if NDP-34 is adopted, BQ-13 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
That's just how things work.
Carry on, Mr. Kurek.
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, because there are a number of us who want to speak, could you please tell us the speaking order?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Absolutely.
On my list, I have Mr. Julian, Mr. Genuis and Ms. O'Connell at this time, following Mr. Kurek.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Through you, Mr. Chair, to our new colleagues around the table, our practice here at committee is to speak briefly and then allow others to speak as well. I would hope that the new members of the committee who are substituting in would respect that.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you.
To Mr. Julian, as I stated in my opening comments, I had the honour of serving on this committee in the second session of the 43rd Parliament, and certainly I would hope that he, or anyone, wouldn't want anything but the best legislation to result from our discussions here.
In light of that, Chair, my point is to what you had quite succinctly articulated.
Ms. Gibb, specifically I'd like to ask you the question.
With regard to the substantive similarities between NDP-34 and BQ-13, one is slightly longer than the other, with slightly different language. If we end up passing NDP-34, BQ-13 is not able to be moved. However, the reverse of that is also true. If we do not pass 34 but can pass 13, is that in fact the better option?
Ms. Gibb, or other officials who would be able to weigh in, could you outline specifically, if this were to pass versus some of the other wording, what some of the differences might be and the interpretation of that in the commission's work?