Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 31st, 2006

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have a point of order.

A point of order is a point of order. I don't think you can decide not to hear a point of order, sir. I have a point of order, and as a matter of process, I believe it is a legitimate point of order.

We've heard Mr. Sauvageau insult us all a couple of times now by saying that this committee is implying that the chief law clerk is biased. No one at this table said that at any time tonight or that the law clerk submitted this document to sway the debate. No one said that at this table, and I resent it being implied or the association with it.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You misunderstand, I'm asking for unanimous consent to have the witnesses appear before the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin is speaking.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I was referring to what Mr. Petit said. I was not speaking about you, Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It's my opinion that no one insulted the law clerk. I would uphold and defend the reputation of Mr. Walsh, anytime. If he brought something to our attention, it's for the most honourable of reasons--nothing dishonourable.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I think there must have been a problem with the interpretation. I wasn't the one who said that. I said that Mr. Petit said that the law clerk had tried to sway the committee. I never said that the clerk had tried...

Perhaps you misunderstood, Mr. Martin.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do we have any more debate on the amendment?

When I said the amendment, I meant Mr. Martin's amendment.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I have something.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I have a proposed amendment to Mr. Martin's amendment. I know that it will get unanimous support and probably won't even need any debate because there will be such overwhelming support for it.

I move an amendment that we call the law clerk and parliamentary counsel and any other officials he chooses to bring with him on Monday evening.

All in favour of that amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Wait a minute, I'm the chair, and don't forget it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Well get on with it, then. We're waiting for you.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there debate on the subamendment?

I see a hand here.

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

On a point of clarification, would you put a date to that Monday? The date includes the day, the month, the year. Am I correct in assuming that you would be in agreement to say you're talking about Monday, June 5, 2006?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Yes. I was hoping it could be last Monday, but we don't have a time machine here.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All those in favour of Mr. Poilievre's subamendment.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

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

Point of order.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Is the sub-amendment in order, Mr. Chairman?

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

It is out of order, Mr. Chairman.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Before we vote, I want to know whether it is in order to make a sub-amendment of this nature to an amendment.

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

It is out of order. It is inconsistent with the intent of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Sauvageau is correct. So we will vote on Mr. Martin's amendment.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

And then on my motion.