Skip to main content Start of content

JUST Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
 
Meeting No. 26
 
Monday, October 30, 2006
 

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met, in camera, at 3:35 p.m. this day, in Room 371, West Block, the Chair, Art Hanger, presiding.

 

Members of the Committee present: Hon. Larry Bagnell, Hon. Sue Barnes, Patrick Brown, Joe Comartin, Art Hanger, Derek Lee, Réal Ménard, Rob Moore and Daniel Petit.

 

Acting Members present: Paul Crête for Carole Freeman, Hon. Dominic LeBlanc for Brian Murphy, Marc Lemay for Carole Freeman and Rick Norlock for Myron Thompson.

 

In attendance: Library of Parliament: Robin MacKay, Analyst; Nancy Holmes, Analyst.

 

Witnesses: Department of Justice: Judith Bellis, General Counsel, Courts and Tribunal Policy; Karen Cuddy, Counsel, Judicial Affairs Unit.

 
The Committee proceeded to the consideration of matters related to Committee business.
 

It was agreed, — That the following groups/individuals be invited to appear in relation to the Study of the effects of the abolition of the Law Commission of Canada:

Nathalie Des Rosiers,

Yves Le Bouthillier, Law Commission of Canada,

The Canadian Bar Association,

Iain Benson, Centre for Cultural Renewal and

John Carpay, Canadian Constitution Foundation.

 

It was agreed, — That the following groups/individuals be invited to appear in relation to the Study of the effects of the abolition of the Court Challenges Program on the development of minority rights:

Guy Matte, Court Challenges Program,

Gilles Marchildon, Egale Canada,

Women's Legal Education and Action Fund,

John Williamson, Canadian Taxpayers Federation,

Rainer Knopf, University of Calgary and

Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law.

 

It was agreed, — That the proposed budget in the amount of $6,800, for consideration of the study of Main Estimates 2006-2007, Vote 1 and Vote 5, Legal Aid and Drug Treatment Court Programs, be adopted.

 

It was agreed, — That the proposed budget in the amount of $ 12,500, for consideration of the study of the effects of the abolition to the Law Commission of Canada and of the effects of the abolition of the Court Challenges Program on the development of minority rights, be adopted.

 

At 4:03 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 4:06 p.m., the sitting resumed.

 
Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, June 20, 2006, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Judges Act and certain other Acts in relation to courts.
 

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

 

It was agreed, — That the amendments standing in the name of Joe Comartin be decided upon as a group.

 

On Clause 1,

Réal Ménard moved, — That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 1 with the following:

“1. Section 2 of the Judges Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“salary reference amount” means the total of the following

(a) the Prime Minister’s salary, as calculated in accordance with sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the Salaries Act; and

(b) the Prime Minister’s sessional allowance, as calculated in accordance with section 55 of the Parliament of Canada Act.

1.1 Sections 9 to 21 of the Act are”

Debate arose thereon.

 

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Bill C-17 deals in part with salaries of federally-appointed judges, and sets out dollar values for these salaries. This amendment, and others which are consequential to it, proposes a scheme to replace the dollar values with a formula based on the Prime Minister’s salary and sessional allowance.

The bill was referred to committee before second reading, which means that there is more latitude in the amending process. The requirement that amendments must fall within the scope of the bill does not apply to bills referred before second reading. However, other rules of admissibility continue to apply.

For example, amendments must be relevant to the subject-matter of the bill, and I find that the amendment before us is relevant.

The rule against offending the financial initiative of the Crown also continues to apply; and here I note that the bill is accompanied by a Royal Recommendation, which provides for the appropriation of public revenue “under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes” set out in the bill.

This means that in assessing admissibility I must consider not just whether the amendment would exceed the level of expenditure provided for in the bill. I must also consider whether the amendment changes the circumstances, the manner or the purposes under which public funds would be expended.

This is expressed in Marleau & Montpetit on page 655: “An amendment is therefore inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the Public Treasury, or if it exceeds the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.”

I find that the amendment infringes on the terms and conditions of the Royal Recommendation and on that basis I must rule it inadmissible. This ruling applies to all the amendments in the series.

 

The Chair ruled that the following fifty-five (55) amendments were consequential to the previous amendment and therefore they were also inadmissible:

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 1 with the following:

“(a) the Chief Justice of Canada, the salary reference amount less one dollar;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 1 with the following:

“(b) each of the eight puisne judges, the salary reference amount less $22,101.”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 1 with the following:

“Appeal, the salary reference amount less $43,901;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 1 with the following:

“(b) each of the other judges of the Federal Court of Appeal, the salary reference amount less $66,201;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 2 with the following:

“the salary reference amount less $43,901; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 2 with the following:

“(d) each of the other judges of the Federal Court, the salary reference amount less $66,201.”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 2 with the following:

“(a) the Chief Justice, the salary reference amount less $43,901;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 2 with the following:

“(b) the Associate Chief Justice, the salary reference amount less $43,901;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 2 with the following:

“(c) each of the other judges, the salary reference amount less $66,201.”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 2 with the following:

“(a) each of the Chief Justice and the Associate Chief Justice of Ontario, the salary reference amount less $43,901;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 2 with the following:

“(b) each of the 14 Justices of Appeal, the salary reference amount less $66,201;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 20 on page 2 with the following:

“(c) each of the Chief Justice and the Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice, the salary reference amount less $43,901; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 2 with the following:

“(d) each of the 192 other judges of the Superior Court of Justice, the salary reference amount less $66,201.”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 2 with the following:

“(a) the Chief Justice of Quebec, the salary reference amount less $43,901;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 2 with the following:

“(b) each of the 18 puisne judges of the Court of Appeal, the salary reference amount less $66,201;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 31 on page 2 with the following:

“(c) each of the Chief Justice, the Senior Associate Chief Justice and the Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court, the salary reference amount less $43,901; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 2 with the following:

“(d) each of the 140 puisne judges of the Superior Court, the salary reference amount less $66,201.”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 2 with the following:

“the salary reference amount less $43,901;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 3 with the following:

“each of the seven other judges of the Court of Appeal, the salary reference amount less $66,201;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 3 with the following:

“(c) each of the Chief Justice and the Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the salary reference amount less $43,901;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 3 with the following:

“(d) each of the 23 other judges of the Supreme Court, the salary reference amount less $66,201.”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 3 with the following:

“the salary reference amount less $43,901;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 3 with the following:

“(b) each of the five other judges of the Court of Appeal, the salary reference amount less $66,201;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 3 with the following:

“Bench, the salary reference amount less $43,901; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 3 with the following:

“(d) each of the 21 other judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, the salary reference amount less $66,201.”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 3 with the following:

“(a) the Chief Justice of Manitoba, the salary reference amount less $43,901;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 3 with the following:

“(b) each of the six Judges of Appeal, the salary reference amount less $66,201;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 29 on page 3 with the following:

“(c) each of the Chief Justice, the Senior Associate Chief Justice and the Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, the salary reference amount less $43,901; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 3 with the following:

“(d) each of the 30 puisne judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, the salary reference amount less $66,201.”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 3 with the following:

“the salary reference amount less $43,901;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 3 with the following:

“(b) each of the 12 Justices of Appeal, the salary reference amount less $66,201;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 3 with the following:

“(c) each of the Chief Justice and the Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the salary reference amount less $43,901;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 4 with the following:

“(d) each of the 81 other judges of the Supreme Court, the salary reference amount less $66,201.”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 4 with the following:

“Island, the salary reference amount less $43,901;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 4 with the following:

“(b) each of the two other judges of the Appeal Division, the salary reference amount less $66,201;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 4 with the following:

“the salary reference amount less $43,901; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 4 with the following:

“(d) each of the three other judges of the Trial Division, the salary reference amount less $66,201.”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 4 with the following:

“(a) the Chief Justice of Saskatchewan, the salary reference amount less $43,901;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 4 with the following:

“(b) each of the six Judges of Appeal, the salary reference amount less $66,201;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 4 with the following:

“Bench, the salary reference amount less $43,901; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 4 with the following:

“(d) each of the 29 other judges of the Court of Queen’s Bench, the salary reference amount less $66,201.”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 4 with the following:

“(a) the Chief Justice of Alberta, the salary reference amount less $43,901;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 4 with the following:

“(b) each of the 10 Justices of Appeal, the salary reference amount less $66,201;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 32 on page 4 with the following:

“(c) each of the Chief Justice and the Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench, the salary reference amount less $43,901;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 33 and 34 on page 4 with the following:

“(d) each of the 55 other Justices of the Court of Queen’s Bench, the salary reference amount less $66,201;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 5 with the following:

“Labrador, the salary reference amount less $43,901;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 5 with the following:

“(b) each of the five Judges of Appeal, the salary reference amount less $66,201;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 5 with the following:

“the salary reference amount less $43,901; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 5 with the following:

“(d) each of the 18 other judges of the Trial Division, the salary reference amount less $66,201.”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 5 with the following:

“(a) the senior judge, the salary reference amount less $43,901; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 5 with the following:

“(b) the other judge, the salary reference amount less $66,201.”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 5 with the following:

“(a) the senior judge, the salary reference amount less $43,901; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 5 with the following:

“(b) each of the two other judges, the salary reference amount less $66,201.”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 5 with the following:

“(a) the senior judge, the salary reference amount less $43,901; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 5 with the following:

“(b) each of the two other judges, the salary reference amount less $66,201.”

 
Joe Comartin moved, — That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 1 with the following:

“(a) the Chief Justice of Canada, $308,400;”

Debate arose thereon.

 

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Bill C-17 deals in part with salaries of federally-appointed judges, and sets out dollar values for these salaries. This amendment is one of several which propose to increase those amounts.

I refer to Marleau & Montpetit on page 655: “An amendment is therefore inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the Public Treasury, or if it exceeds the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.”

Since the Judges Act was adopted by Parliament, it is subject to parliamentary rule and practice. The Chair deals with questions of procedure, not constitutional matters.

It is clear that in proposing to increase the salary amounts provided for in the bill, the amendment is increasing the charge on the Public Treasury. Therefore I find that the amendment infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown and on that basis I must rule it inadmissible.

 

In accordance with the motion adopted earlier by the Committee, the following twenty-eight (28) amendments were also inadmissible:

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 1 with the following:

“(b) the eight puisne judges, $285,600 each.”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 1 with the following:

“Appeal, $263,000;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 2 with the following:

“$263,000; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 2 with the following:

“(a) the Chief Justice, $263,000;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 2 with the following:

“(b) the Associate Chief Justice, $263,000;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 2 with the following:

“Justice of Ontario, $263,000 each;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 2 with the following:

“$263,000 each; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 2 with the following:

“(a) the Chief Justice of Quebec, $263,000;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 2 with the following:

“of the Superior Court, $263,000 each; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 2 with the following:

“$263,000;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 3 with the following:

“Justice of the Supreme Court, $263,000 each;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 3 with the following:

“$263,000;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 3 with the following:

“Bench, $263,000; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 3 with the following:

“(a) the Chief Justice of Manitoba, $263,000;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 3 with the following:

“of the Court of Queen’s Bench, $263,000”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 3 with the following:

“$263,000;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 3 with the following:

“Justice of the Supreme Court, $263,000 each;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 4 with the following:

“Island, $263,000;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 4 with the following:

“$263,000; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 4 with the following:

“$263,000;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 4 with the following:

“Bench, $263,000; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 4 with the following:

“(a) the Chief Justice of Alberta, $263,000;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 4 with the following:

“$263,000 each; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 5 with the following:

“Labrador, $263,000;”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 5 with the following:

“$263,000; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 5 with the following:

“(a) the senior judge, $263,000; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 5 with the following:

“(a) the senior judge, $263,000; and”

That Bill C-17, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 5 with the following:

“(a) the senior judge, $263,000; and”

 

Whereupon, Joe Comartin appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division: YEAS: Patrick Brown, Marc Lemay, Réal Ménard, Rob Moore, Rick Norlock, Daniel Petit — 6; NAYS: Larry Bagnell, Sue Barnes, Joe Comartin, Dominic LeBlanc, Derek Lee — 5.

 

Clause 1 carried on division.

 

Clause 2 carried on division.

 

Clauses 3 and 4 carried on division severally.

 

On new Clause 4.1,

Réal Ménard moved, — That Bill C-17 be amended by adding after line 23 on page 6 the following new clause:

“4.1 Section 26 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1.1):

(1.2) Any increase in salary that is recommended by the Commission shall be equal to or less than the average percentage increase in base-rate wages for the calendar year, resulting from major settlements negotiated with bargaining units of 500 or more employees in the private sector in Canada, as published by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development within three months after the end of that calendar year.”

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Réal Ménard and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Marc Lemay, Réal Ménard — 2; NAYS: Larry Bagnell, Sue Barnes, Patrick Brown, Joe Comartin, Dominic LeBlanc, Derek Lee, Rob Moore, Rick Norlock, Daniel Petit — 9.

 

Clauses 5 to 8 inclusive carried on division severally.

 

On Clause 9,

Rob Moore moved, — That Bill C-17, in Clause 9, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 14 to 24 on page 9 with the following:

tories or the Nunavut Court of Justice who moves to a place of residence in one of the ten provinces or in another territory during the period of two years

(i) beginning two years before the judge’s date of eligibility to retire, or

(ii) if no removal allowance is paid in respect of a move made during the period described in subparagraph (i), beginning on the judge’s date of retirement or resignation from office;

(b) by replacing line 9 on page 10 with the following:

(ii) if no removal allowance is paid in respect of a move made during the period described in subparagraph (i), beginning on the judge’s date of retirement or resignation from office; and

(3) Section 40 of the Act is amended by

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rob Moore and it was agreed to on division.

 

Clause 9, as amended, carried on division.

 

Clauses 10 to 14 inclusive carried on division severally.

 

On Clause 15,

Rob Moore moved, — That Bill C-17, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 12 with the following:

“annuity benefit” means an annuity or a return of contributions payable under section 51, and includes amounts payable to a judge under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rob Moore and it was agreed to on division.

 
Rob Moore moved, — That Bill C-17, in Clause 15, be amended by

(a) replacing line 18 on page 15 with the following:

52.14 (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (3.1),

(b) replacing lines 1 to 9 on page 16 with the following:

(b) in the case of a judge who had resigned or been removed from office by reason of an infirmity, the quotient obtained by dividing

(i) the period, measured to the nearest one tenth of a year, from the beginning of the period subject to division to the earlier of the end of the period of cohabitation and the judge’s expected date of retirement if the infirmity had not occurred, determined in accordance with the regulations,

by

(ii) the judge’s number of years of service up to the judge’s expected date of retirement if the infirmity had not occurred, determined in accordance with the regulations.

(3) Subject to subsections (3.1) and (4), where the

(c) replacing lines 28 to 37 on page 16 with the following:

(3.1) Subject to subsection (4), where the Minister approves the division of the annuity benefits of a judge who had been granted an annuity by reason of an infirmity but was not otherwise eligible to be granted an annuity at the end of the period subject to division, the spouse, former spouse or former common-law partner shall be accorded a share of the annuity benefits consisting of

(a) an amount equal to 50% of the contributions that would have been made during the period described by subparagraph (2)(b)(i) if the judge had continued in office, plus 50% of any interest payable on those contributions; or

(b) if the terms of the court order or agreement on which the application for division is based provide for the payment to the spouse, former spouse or former common-law partner of a share of annuity benefits that is less than the amount determined under paragraph (a), that lesser share.

(4) A judge’s spouse, former spouse or former common-law partner who is entitled to be accorded a share of the judge’s annuity benefits under subsection (3) or (3.1) may elect in the manner prescribed by the regulations, in lieu of receiving that share, to receive — at the time the judge becomes eligible to be granted an annuity, or at the time the judge would have become eligible to be granted an annuity had the judge not resigned or been removed from office by reason of an infirmity — a share of the annuity benefits for which the judge is or would have been eligible, determined as provided in subsection (1).

(d) replacing line 46 on page 16 with the following:

under subsection (3) or (3.1).

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rob Moore and it was agreed to on division.

 
Rob Moore moved, — That Bill C-17, in Clause 15, be amended by

(a) replacing line 42 on page 20 with the following:

subsections 52.14(2) and (3.1);

(b) replacing lines 1 to 4 on page 21 with the following:

(m) prescribing the manner in which a judge’s spouse, former spouse or former common-law partner may make an election under subsection 52.14(4), and respecting the notification of a judge of such an election;

(c) replacing lines 11 to 14 on page 21 with the following:

52.14(8), including the determination of the effective date of the adjustment;

(p) generally respecting the division of the annuity benefits of a judge who resigns or is removed from office by reason of an infirmity;

(d) replacing line 45 on page 21 with the following:

and provisions of sections 52.1 to 52.21 and this section.

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rob Moore and it was agreed to on division.

 

Clause 15, as amended, carried on division.

 

Clauses 16 to 34 inclusive carried on division severally.

 

On Clause 35,

Rob Moore moved, — That Bill C-17, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 27 with the following:

35. (1) Subsections 9(1) and (2) come

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rob Moore and it was agreed to on division.

 

Clause 35, as amended, carried on division.

 

Clause 36 carried on division.

 

The Title carried on division.

 

The Bill, as amended, carried on division.

 

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

 

ORDERED, — That Bill C-17, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

 

At 5:13 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

 



Diane Diotte
Clerk of the Committee

 
 
2006/11/02 4:53 p.m.