Okay. Thank you.
Evidence of meeting #92 for Status of Women in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #92 for Status of Women in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu
There are no more interventions. Is everything clear on G-9? Okay.
Shall G-9 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are heading to G-10, which is already moved, and now we are resuming debate on that. In order to be coherent throughout the bill, members should keep in mind the decision made on amendment G-3 while considering amendment G-10, since they are related.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
That's what I said, Madam Chair. Earlier, you referred to amendment G‑9 and said that we should refer to amendment G‑3. I didn't dream it. That was my request. I wanted us to study amendment G‑9 in keeping with amendment G‑3. I wanted to get back up to speed on G‑3.
You just did exactly the same thing.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu
This is in my notes. I will ask the clerk to explain that so we are clear on that.
12:40 p.m.
Dancella Boyi Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Madam Chair.
For us, there was a procedural connection between amendment G‑3 and these amendments.
Paragraph (j) of amendment G‑3 proposes to amend Bill S‑205 by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 4 with the following:
(10) A provincial court judge may, on application of the Attorney General, the informant, the person on whose behalf the information is laid or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in
That's how our procedural note ended up in the chair's notes.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
This is just a technical question.
Are we on (b), with “replacing line 37”? It reads:
that the judge considers necessary (section 810.03
Or is that section 801.03? Is that a transposition?
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
Yes. If we look at line 37, it reads:
that the judge considers necessary (section 801.03
Should that be 810.03? Is that a transposition? It looks like it might be a transposition. I could be wrong, but I'm wondering if you could clear that up.
12:40 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
If we're looking at line 37, it's just clarifying that it's for that specific....
Is your question whether section 810.03 is right? Is that what the question is?
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's 810. It's a correction.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
That's a transposition. It's been corrected to 810. Is that correct?
12:40 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
In G-10, it should be 810, yes, because section 810.03 outlines the rules for taking a sample of a bodily substance.
12:40 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No. That was a typo.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
That was just a transposition. That was my question.
Thank you.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Sonia Sidhu
If that's all clear, can we call the question?
Shall G-10 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we are on G-11.
I'll ask a member to move it.
Lisa, go ahead.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Once again, Chair, this is a consequential amendment of a previous amendment, G-6, that we passed.
I'll ask members to refer to the officials if they have any further questions, but really, it just standardizes our language.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
