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

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order.

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

Yes. There is an order of precedence here based on the order in which motions were received, and my motion is the first to go, unless you are arbitrarily deciding—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, you changed your mind, Mr. Poilevre. At one point—

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

It's on the list. I have not changed my mind. I'm looking at the list right now, so unless you've arbitrarily changed the order, it's the order we got.

If you're asking me to change the order....

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That was my understanding as well, Mr. Chair. We were going through them in the order in which they were presented, in the order in which they were submitted.They're not alphabetical, if you notice.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. You're absolutely right. My position was that because Ms. Jennings' motion might come before your motions.... But you're absolutely right. Your motion came first, and you may proceed, sir.

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

I am absolutely right. Thank you for confirming that.

The motion I have here is designed to get us down to work and get the job done. We have now heard every single witness and more. Every single witness whom every single party put forward has been heard, except for those who did not want to attend. We have heard all the witness testimony we need to hear, unless we are inventing people to put them on the list exclusively to extend the time. In fact, I understand that some of the witnesses who have been contacted on the remaining list are not interested at all in coming, so we really have no more witness testimony to go over.

Finally, it is probable that the House is going to decide it will not leave for the summer until this bill passes, meaning that if we want to get all members back to their ridings by the scheduled June 23 ending date, we have to get this bill to the House by the 19th or the 20th. That requires that we get down to business on clause-by-clause immediately.

So I'm proposing that we begin clause-by-clause on Tuesday, June 6, 2006, and I think we should entertain the possibility of witnesses on Monday, June 5, if members believe that would be helpful. I'm also interested in entertaining any amendment that would allow us the time to submit additional amendments throughout the clause-by-clause process. That's something all of the opposition parties have come to me and asked my opinion on. The Bloc, the Liberals, and the NDP have all suggested they would like to see that happen.

So without further ado, I move that the committee begin its clause-by-clause study of Bill C-2 on Tuesday, June 6, 2006.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'll have some discussion.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The only thing I was going to raise is that we've heard from some of our colleagues that they believe the pace is too quick. I'm sympathetic to that point of view and I'm also sympathetic to the point of view the clerk and also the other research staff and the legislative drafting assistants have put forward, that they need time to properly collate and compile and assess the amendments some of us may wish to put forward.

So I would like to put forward an amendment. Hopefully it can be taken as a friendly amendment, but it's quite detailed, and I'd ask your indulgence for a moment, sir. I've written one down. Let me give it to the clerk, and then I could read it into the record. Would that be agreeable?

Shall I read it first?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, that would be helpful.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

All right. I would like to move an amendment to Mr. Poilievre's motion. I move that the committee begin its clause-by-clause study of Bill C-2 on Wednesday, June 7, at 3:30 p.m.; and further, that committee members shall submit their proposed amendments to the legislative drafting counsel by noon, Friday, June 2; and that committee members shall submit their finished amendments to the clerk by Monday, June 5, at 5 p.m.; and further, that the hours of the committee during the clause-by-clause analysis of Bill C-2 shall be the same schedule as that of the week of May 29; and finally, that the committee members may introduce additional amendments, provided they are submitted to the clerk in finished form 24 hours before the clause in question comes before the committee.

I'd be happy to answer any questions on that, and I'll submit this to the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, could you give that to the clerk, Mr. Martin?

In debate on the amendment, I have Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you. This is really just a matter of discussion on both these points. This document has come as a surprise, I think, to all of us. It speaks in very serious terms, from a person of very high parliamentary office.

I would suggest that we do have Monday available, and if we're going to call him as a witness, if that's what's going to be given in notice, then we use that time on Monday afternoon perhaps to do that.

I'd also suggest--and this is somewhat relevant to our deciding the pace of how to go ahead--that we make sure that the Department of Justice officials who will be appearing before us tomorrow have had a chance to review this so that we can ask them questions about it. I think it would be very useful to have their opinion.

But that's really in the course of saying that I think we can deal with the challenge of this, still within a reasonable timetable, perhaps such as Mr. Martin has suggested.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madame Guay, and then Monsieur Sauvageau.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This document raises extremely serious issues and implies that the Constitution Act would have to be amended. It has been written by professionals. I do not know who requested it, but it was probably legislators. I think that we should meet with the authors of this document before voting on any motion whatsoever, so that we know exactly what has to be changed in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, it would be a bad idea to allow ourselves to be rushed into voting today on motions seeking to amend a bill that is contrary to the Canadian Constitution.

In light of the information that we have just received, I think that the motions that we have before us are premature. Before we do anything, before moving on to our clause-by-clause study of the bill, we should seek further explanation about this document in order to understand how the bill affects the constitutional act. I really think that we would have gone too far if we were to end up having to amend the constitutional act. We need to seek further explanation to make sure that we fully understand the bill. Then we can table our motions. I am ready to move ahead quickly, but this matter has to be resolved before we set a deadline for our clause-by-clause study, or indeed before we do anything else. Should we fail to do so, we will, once again, not be doing a thorough job. Once again, they are trying to steamroll us.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I shall endeavour to remain calm and respectful. I would like, through you, to make a few comments to Mr. Petit.

Mr. Walsh is not just a public servant, a pencil pusher, a little “fonfon” as your André Arthur would say. Mr. Walsh is the guardian of parliamentary tradition; he is the law clerk and an advisor to Parliament.

The House of Commons is a venerable institution, and I believe that, as members, we must show respect for the Speaker who, at his own initiative, is free to intervene in the study of a bill...

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

Whenever he sees fit.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

...which may be contrary to parliamentary immunity or the rules of the House of Commons. It is unthinkable to suggest that a member of Parliament, of any party, would have sought out the services of our law clerk and parliamentary advisor to sway the debate on Bill C-2. It is unacceptable to make such a suggestion. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the institution of the House of Commons.

Before commenting on the motion, I want to ask...

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre, on a point of order.

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

I've been extremely patient in listening to Mr. Sauvageau go wildly off topic here. We are discussing an amendment from Mr. Martin, and I would hope that we could stay on that topic. Mr. Sauvageau has spent the last five minutes debating remarks unrelated to this amendment, that occurred prior to the existence of this amendment and therefore could not possibly be germane to this amendment that is up for discussion right now. Though his speech might have some eloquence, it has no pertinence.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to allow him to continue. The reason I'm going to allow him to continue is because Mr. Petit and the amendment that's before us have to do with timetables. Monsieur Sauvageau is talking about a timetable.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Indeed I am, Mr. Chairman.

I am also going to ask for unanimous consent for something else; I will not take up much time.

Paragraph 1a) of the document provided by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel states the following:

a) Secret ballot votes — provisions contrary to constitutional position of the House of Commons and to section 49, Constitution Act, 1867.

That is serious.

And paragraph 1b) states that:

b) Debate and votes in the House —provisions contrary to the constitutional position of the House of Commons.

That is serious.

Paragraph 3:

3. Requests to the Ethics Commissioner Sections 44 and 48 of the proposed Conflict of Interest Act present potential legal problems for members and thereby compromise their constitutional privileges and, indirectly, those of the House.

That is serious.

Paragraph 4:

4. Members and trusts Sections 41.1, 41.2 and 41.3 of the proposed Conflict of Interest Act present legal and constitutional problems; courts could become involved; amendments misplaced.

That is serious.

Mr. Chairman, if we were to adopt Bill C-2 in its current form, we would have to amend legislation that dates back to 1689 and that has never been amended. I would ask for unanimous consent—assuming that nobody thinks that the authors of this document are just lowly public servants seeking to influence our decision—to hear from these witnesses as soon as is possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm not thinking that. I've never suggested that.