Evidence of meeting #20 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Joe Wild  Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
James Stringham  Legal Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council, Privy Council Office
Patrick Hill  Acting Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Warren Newman  General Counsel, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Department of Justice
Susan Cartwright  Assistant Secretary, Accountability in Government, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC

I want to vote.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

You want to vote.

All those in favour—

Mr. Murphy.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Yes, it's a quick draw here, Mr. Chair.

There's a change from 120 days down to 30 days. Why?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

We felt that the timeframe could be set at 30 days, and that was a very reasonable position to be in. We see no reason why that 30-day requirement cannot be met.

So I would offer the floor to the technical experts to share any of their wisdom on the subject, but we stand by our amendment.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Mr. Wild, Mr. Stringham. Go ahead.

4:15 p.m.

Legal Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council, Privy Council Office

James Stringham

Mr. Chairman, you'll note that for all of the provisions with respect to public declarations, there are timelines for filing, for making the public declarations, save for 25(1). We neglected to put one in, so we're adding the 30-day deadline because there was no deadline provided in 25(1).

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

It's 25(1) of the draft act, right?

4:15 p.m.

Legal Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council, Privy Council Office

James Stringham

t's proposed subsection 25(1) on page 14; I'm speaking of proposed sections of the act.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Chair.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Are you okay, Mr. Murphy? Thank you. We'll call a vote.

Yes, Ms. Jennings.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

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

I wonder if the conservative members would be in agreement to change the 30 days to 60 days, because 30 days is very short.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

In support of that, Mr. Chairman, I could refer to proposed section 22, which—

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

I think we would accept changing that number to 60 days as a friendly amendment.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Yes, that seems to be in order.

Questions?

Mr. Martin.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Are you open for debate on the subamendment?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Sure. Thirty to sixty, Mr. Martin. Yes.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

May I raise a point of order?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Point of order, Mr. Poilievre.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

I don't mean to cut off Mr. Martin. I just want to understand the context of this.

With a friendly amendment, is it automatically accepted? If it's accepted by the mover, is it automatically accepted into the amendment, given that it is a friendly amendment?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

I'm told that if it is unanimous, we can do anything in here.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

So is it?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Before Mr. Martin speaks, is this amendment unanimous?

The subamendment is not unanimous.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

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

You just asked on the amendment, you did not ask on the subamendment. Mr. Martin wishes to speak on the subamendment, then he may have a decision on it. And the subamendment may be unanimous.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

I just want to keep everybody happy.

Mr. Martin, go ahead.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Thanks.

I would speak against changing this from 30 days to 60 days. From the public's point of view, it's more advantageous to have a shorter timeframe, because going from 30 to 60 days gives the reporting public officer a longer period of time before which that person has to tell the public that he or she finds himself or herself in a conflict and wants to make a public declaration of recusal. I think it's in the public's interest to have as short a period of time as possible.

So I would speak against any effort to change 30 days to 60.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

We're going to vote on the 60 days, the subamendment.

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])