Well done.
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.
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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Welcome to the club.
This motion proposes that a minister or parliamentary secretary cannot offer membership in his or her party to a member of the opposition or accept membership in an opposition party.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, at page 654: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” I therefore rule, Mr. Martin, that this motion is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-2 and is consequently inadmissible.
So we will proceed to page 11. This is a government amendment.
Who's taking over here? Mr. Poilievre.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Is there any discussion?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I move, on behalf of the citizens of Nepean--Carleton, amendment G-8.
Conservative
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
I don't know why Mr. Poilievre is holding up the process. We could do things a little more quickly.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We'll now go to the government amendment on page 13.
Mr. Poilievre.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
On behalf of all that is good and righteous and just, I move amendment G-9.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Page 14 was the French version of amendment G-9. We're now on page 15.
Mr. Sauvageau.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chairman, we'd be inclined to vote against amendment G-10. Perhaps someone could give us an explanation because, for the moment, we feel that adding the word “personnellement” makes it possible to do indirectly what can't be done directly, that is to ask the staff to solicit for oneself. We wouldn't want to open the door to that kind of possibility. That said, perhaps I'm mistaken.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Maybe we could have some commentary on that from some of the legal experts.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
Okay. Mr. Stringham will speak to it.
Legal Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council, Privy Council Office
Thank you.
The amendment is to make the French and the English text accord with each other. So the introduction of personnellement is to accord with the English phrase “shall personally”, in the first sentence.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
What's the difference, then, between “personally solicit” and “solicit”, between “No public office holder shall solicit” and “No public office holder shall personally solicit”?
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
You could solicit on behalf of another person...a person soliciting for your own purposes.
Conservative
