I want to vote.
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
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?
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.
Legal Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council, Privy Council Office
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).
Liberal
Legal Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council, Privy Council Office
t's proposed subsection 25(1) on page 14; I'm speaking of proposed sections of the act.
I beg your pardon, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Are you okay, Mr. Murphy? Thank you. We'll call a vote.
Yes, Ms. Jennings.
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.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
In support of that, Mr. Chairman, I could refer to proposed section 22, which—
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I think we would accept changing that number to 60 days as a friendly amendment.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
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?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Before Mr. Martin speaks, is this amendment unanimous?
The subamendment is not unanimous.
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.
Conservative
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.
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])