Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 8th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

This is the Legislative Committee on Bill C-2, meeting 21. The orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, April 27, 2006, Bill C-2, An Act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability.

When we left off yesterday, we had completed page 27. So we're now on page 27.1, which is a Liberal amendment that's the same as the New Democratic Party's amendment on page 27.2.

We will start with Ms. Jennings, if you could move the motion.

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

I move the motion.

I simply want to explain that this adds a new proposed subsection, which is proposed subsection (8.1), that provides the commissioner with the discretionary authority to refer to the Speaker, whichever Speaker is involved, in a case where the commissioner believes or thinks that a parliamentarian may have violated proposed subsection (8), which is the proposed confidentiality subsection.

This amendment flows directly from Mr. Walsh's recommendations.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Discussion? All those in favour?

I'm sorry, I jumped the gun.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

I'm wondering if the panel of legal experts would have anything to add on this.

[Patrick Hill, Acting Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office]

The only point I would make is that under the members' own code, the commissioner's function, upon making a finding or report, is to report that matter to the House of Commons itself. In other words, under the House regime, there is no provision for referring any matter to the Speaker of the House. So I would state that it's not apparent to me—presumably it would be a matter for the Speaker to determine—what he would do with the information once it's referred, as set out in the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Jennings.

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

This may have been an oversight in the existing code, because normally in order to table something in the House, you have to do it through the Speaker. So this is simply correcting an error that already existed.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We move to the Bloc, which is—

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

Mr. Chairman, when a motion or an amendment becomes moot, please tell us.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Sorry, I didn't hear that. You'll have to—

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

When a motion...

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have to let me finish. When I start a sentence, I have to finish the sentence, then you can interject. It may be because I'm a slow talker, I don't know.

We're now on page 28, which is a Bloc amendment that is identical to the government's amendment on page 29.

Madame Guay, could you please make the motion?

A point of order, Mr. Poilievre.

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

I'm sorry, I must have missed something here. We have NDP-1.2. Is it the same as the previous?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It is.

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

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin, are you okay with that? We skipped it because it was identical.

I want the motion to be made.

You have a point of order? Okay, Ms. Jennings.

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

The point of order is that even from your instructions, when an amendment has been proposed, and a subsequent amendment is proposed that is either identical or would automatically be deleted or rejected because the first amendment is adopted, we would like you to clearly state that for the transcripts.

So for instance, we just adopted a Liberal motion for an amendment. There was a subsequent NDP amendment that was identical. Madame Guay is simply requesting that before you move on to another amendment, you clearly state for the record that the NDP amendment falls because of the adoption of the previous one. That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madame Guay.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'll do my best. I did explain at the outset, but I'll try to do it at both occasions, if that's what you wish. That's fine.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Whatever the committee wishes I will do.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

As the government suggests in its amendment on page 9, this is a correction to the English and French texts.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All those in favour?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Page 29, which is the government amendment G-17, is identical to the Bloc amendment BQ-5.

So we now move to page 30, which is a government motion.

Mr. Poilievre.