Evidence of meeting #21 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.
10 a.m.
Liberal
10 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
My understanding is that you laid out a number of options for Mr. Martin. The first was unanimous consent. If that was refused, then I believe he had the option of giving a 24-hour notice. If he gives the 24-hour notice, then all debate on this issue ceases until we come back.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Martin hasn't jumped in at this stage. If he wants to jump in, he's quite free, but we're having a debate on the amendment.
Mr. Martin.
10 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I thought you had a speaking list. I certainly would have intervened, but--
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I have a long list, Mr. Martin, on the debate on BQ-8. Ms. Jennings is right, to a point. You asked for unanimous consent, and then I do recall you kept it open that you might raise other issues. I didn't hear from you so I didn't go to you.
10 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Well, unless you would be willing to recognize me, I would follow through.
10 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
First of all, I still can't quite believe that all a person has to do is give 24 hours' notice and that's going to table the motion you're debating. Even though it's contrary to my own best interests in this case, I think we're going to have pandemonium if that's the way we go through these 317 clauses.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Give me a moment, sir, on that.
If we're going to stand this down until tomorrow, we'd have to have a majority vote on that. We won't be here tomorrow, so until Monday. Ms. Jennings has corrected me, again.
Mr. Martin, you still have the floor.
10 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you, sir. I think what we were all trying to get at was this. This might not even be the right clause, but there should be some transitional provisions when these rules come into effect, as it affects the existing office holder. We will have that with the newly--
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Martin, I understand what you and Mr. Owen are trying to do. I'm given these rules by the House and by the committee, and that's all I'm trying to do.
10 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
All right, so perhaps you could accept what I tried to move as a subamendment as a proposed amendment instead, and with due notice, I'd like to table that as a proposed amendment, to be dealt with at a later date.
Is that clear?
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I need approval from the committee on whether we can stand down these.... I have no problem with your doing that, Mr. Martin, but I need approval from the committee by way of a vote as to whether we can stand down BQ-8 and its clause.
In other words, we would have to stand down your proposal and BQ-8. You could give me notice, but to stand it down I need approval from the committee, with a majority vote.
Is that what you wish, sir?
June 8th, 2006 / 10:05 a.m.
Conservative
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
It might assuage the concerns.
It seems to me that Mr. Shapiro is protected under proposed paragraph 81(2)(b) where it says, or “a former member of a federal or provincial board, commission or tribunal”. Isn't he already covered as one of those in his current position? Isn't he then protected from the automatic lynching you're concerned about?
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We have some people here at the end of the table. Why don't we ask that question of Mr. Wild and his legal people?
10:05 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
The Federal Courts Act specifically states that:
the expression “federal board, commission or other tribunal”...does not include the Senate, the House of Commons, any committee or member of either House, the Senate Ethics Officer or the Ethics Commissioner.
So the current commissioner is not a member of a federal board, commission, or tribunal.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Nice try.
We've got to have a vote.
Excuse me, you have a point of order, Monsieur Sauvageau.
10:05 a.m.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
First, I'd like us to correct the French version because, in French, proposed paragraph 81(2)(b) on page 44 of the bill refers to an opinion of the Commissioner demonstrating that he has expertise in the field, whereas, in English, it states...
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
10:05 a.m.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
In English, it states that the Governor in Council must give his opinion on the Commissioner's experience, whereas, in French, it states that it's the Commissioner that must give his opinion on his experience. In my opinion, we should replace the word “commissaire” in French with “gouverneur en conseil”.
