Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 5th, 2006

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I fail to see the added value of having the minister appear. Frankly, I think this is an attempt to further politicize what we're doing here. The minister has given his opinion. The advice he got from his own department, as everyone on that side knows, is that there is privilege attached to that.

The law clerk delivered a document to us. We looked at his opinion, we analyzed it, and now we've had him as a witness. There's an openness now, and there's an opportunity to look at the amendments the law clerk is proposing.

So I guess I would be voting against this motion because I see no compelling reason to ask the minister to come. There's no point in getting into some debate over the law clerk's advice. He's given his advice. If members want to ask for a specific amendment from the law clerk and his team of lawyers, then they can do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I was interested in this motion when the notice was first served. But we've just learned from the law clerk that there is no duty or obligation on the part of the Minister of Justice to make sure that a piece of legislation is in compliance with the Constitution. There is a reference to making sure that it doesn't offend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but no one has made the case that this bill offends the charter in any way. I no longer see the purpose for bringing in the Minister of Justice, so I'll be voting against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I agree with what has just been said. The thing that troubles me is that we are in a Parliament where you're entitled to ask a question of a minister. The minister said two things. I wanted to know the answer to the simple question of whether he felt it was constitutional. His first answer was, well, we can override it anyway, and his second answer was that it is constitutional. I'd just like to know. Maybe the minister could help his members over there to propose which amendment they want to do. Do you want to take away the privileges of Parliament or not? Then we can deal with one of the two amendments.

I'd like some direction from the government. It's unclear to me. Given what the minister and the parliamentary secretary said here today, it would seem to me that they're leaning toward taking away parliamentary privileges. If Mr. Moore would assist in telling us which direction they're going in, maybe we can avoid Mr. Toews' appearance.

That's my two bits.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madam Guay.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I think that we have said all there is to be said on the matter. I would ask you to call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will proceed. All those in favour?

There is a tie, so the chair votes against the motion.

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned until Wednesday at 3:30.