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

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

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there any discussion?

Ms. Jennings.

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

Could it be explained? I have not had time to--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Sure.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

I would defer to the technical experts.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Stringham.

[James Stringham, Legal Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council, Privy Council Office]

Mr. Chairman, these are simply technical amendments to correct errors in the text.

Concerning the reference in the present text to the Ethics Officer, there was no such person. It was intended to refer to the ethics counsellor, the predecessor to the current commissioner.

Likewise, “person or obligation” is intended to replace the word “conduct” to more accurately capture what we're trying to deal with in that transitional provision.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We move to page 36, amendment G-21.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

I so move.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will now go to clause 28, the amendment for which is on page 39 in the book, I believe.

So we do new clause 3.1 later.

[Susan Baldwin, Procedural Clerk]

Yes, because it's a clause and not an amendment. It's proposing a new clause. The way it works out is that whether we adopt clauses 3 and 3.1 is dependent on what we do with clause 2 after we have all the amendments sorted out.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You'll have to repeat that.

Madame Guay, did you have a point of order?

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

No. We'll get back to it later, once we've completed the study of clause 28.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes.

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

It's only to get a clear understanding, Mr. Chairman.

[Susan Baldwin]

It's very complicated.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do you think?

We're now into an even more complicated time. We're on page 39 in the book, amendment G-23.

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

I so move.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Now we're on page 40. We're starting with clause 28, and there are a number of duplicate amendments, starting on page 40 in your binder of amendments. So we're not going to consider L-1.1 or NDP-1.3, because they're both identical to BQ-9, which was received first.

We're also not going to consider NDP-1.4, NDP-1.5, or NDP-1.6, because they're the same as L-1.2, L-1.3, and L-1.4.

Why don't we stop here before we get completely confused? Do you want us to go the rest of the way?

I'm going to continue. Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen.

There are line conflicts between L-1, BQ-9, L-1.2, L-1.3, and L-1.4. So the committee must choose between these amendments, as follows: L-1 or BQ-9; L-1.2 or L-1.3; L-1 or L-1.4. BQ-8 lies between L-1 and BQ-9, but has no line conflicts with any--

[An hon. member]

Just pick a number.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, I know. This is a jigsaw puzzle.

I'd like to start up here. This is going to drive everybody crazy. I'm going to try to explain this.

If you look at L-1, which is on page 40, we have to deal with that or with BQ-9. If that carries, it excludes L-1.2, or L-1.3, and L-1.4. Clear as mud? Any questions?

Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

It might be helpful to us all as we work our way through this to reflect on what we're trying to achieve with these amendments. It is to prevent the Ethics Officer from being combined with the Ethics Commissioner on the basis that it would be....

It flows from a couple of directions. First, the Senate, both Conservative and Liberal members, worked for about a year on ensuring that they had their own Ethics Officer so that the two houses did not seem to conflict, or that one did not have authority over the other, or even worse--and I think this is Mr. Walsh's concern--that the executive did not infringe upon Parliament.

So this is simply to preserve the Ethics Officer in the Senate's own system.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

And I appreciate your trying to translate all this. The difficulty is, as chair, I have to point out these line conflicts.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

No, no, I appreciate that too.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's what I'm trying to do, and it's difficult to explain. We're going to have to move slowly on it.

Mr. Martin, do you have some suggestion for the quagmire that we seem to be in?