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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Do I have the floor?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Apparently.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, that's nice. Okay.

I do have a subamendment. First of all, I share the concern raised by Mr. Owen and by the Bloc, but I don't want to be a part of any lynch mob to execute the current Ethics Commissioner. That's not what this committee should be seen as. If that's the reality or the perception, I think we have to nip that in the bud right at the get-go.

I do have what I think is a subamendment that would satisfy everyone, and it's very simple. In line 14, remove the words “has demonstrated” and replace them with the words “or a person who has demonstrated.” Let me explain what I'm seeking to achieve. That way you could have the qualification that a person must be (a) a former judge, or—as the current language—a former member of X, Y, Z, and now further, “or a person who has demonstrated expertise in one or more of the following,” and as it reads, “conflict of interest”, etc.

So by simply adding the words “or a person who has demonstrated expertise”, we will be putting strict qualification rules in place, and there is still the option of having a judge, or a former judge, if that's the most qualified person. I believe it satisfies everybody's concerns. That's the subamendment I would seek to move with some possible codicil here.

I'm not quite finished that subamendment. I would like to add another simple qualifier in paragraph (b): “a current or former member of a federal provincial board”, etc. to open the door even further. Would you like me to summarize?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I want to make sure we understand what you're doing.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

All right. Perhaps I could summarize, then.

The changes I am proposing as a subamendment are to add the word “current” in line 11--“a current or former member of a federal”, etc.--and replace the word “has” in line 13 with “or” and add “a person who has demonstrated expertise”, etc.

Is that clear?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It is clear, I think.

If the committee can bear with me for a moment. I just want to....

Mr. Martin, I understand what you're trying to do. It's quite clear, and you've said what you're trying to do in translation and in words. The problem the chair has is the same problem as the chairman had with Mr. Owen's proposed amendment, in that it's a completely different amendment, and because of that, it's not a subamendment, and because it's a new amendment, you would have to give 24 hours' notice. In other words, the same ruling I gave with respect to Mr. Owen, I do with you.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

What options or what avenue of recourse does a member have if I disagree with your statement?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Unanimous consent. It's very simple. With unanimous consent we can do anything in this place.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Without going that far, sir, I would like to say that I don't see how this could be viewed as a whole new concept.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry, that's my ruling.

Because of my ruling, you only have one option, and that's to give 24 hours' notice.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, I have another option, which is to challenge the chair, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You do indeed, sir.

On a point of order, Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

A point of order might assist in us achieving unanimous consent, and that is that the condition of current or former should also apply to the judge in (a), because we don't want to have the only people who are qualified for this job to be over 75, which is the retirement age. A person could come straight from the bench, and often is appointed straight from the bench, to these positions, which is even more appropriate. So if we were to change both, perhaps we could get unanimous consent for that.

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Go ahead on a point of order, Ms. Jennings.

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

If Mr. Martin were to give 24-hour notice of an entirely new amendment, which he wishes to bring, which would touch on the very section of clause 2 we're dealing with now, would that mean that we would put aside all our dealings with that and move on to a completely different section?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, Mr. Martin

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Am I to understand that if I serve 24 hours' notice for the amendment as stated, this clause will be tabled until such time as we can deal with my proposed amendment?

I can't believe that this is the rule. That would be advantageous to me, but I am concerned that the rest of dealing with this bill is going to be chaos, because every time anybody is not satisfied with the way it's going to go, they're going to start using this practice, and we'll never get a clause completed.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, we set some rulings. The committee agreed to the 24-hour rule. I'm saying that it's not a subamendment; it's an amendment. I'm only following the rules the committee gave me to direct. That's what I'm trying to do.

I have ruled that it's not a subamendment. It is an amendment. So you're right, you have four choices: you could not proceed with it, you could ask for unanimous consent, you could give 24 hours' notice, and finally, you could challenge the chair.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

In order of that sequence, I would seek unanimous consent for the subamendment, which you deemed to be an amendment, sir, as I put it forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre.

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

Do we have debate on that?

[An hon. member]

Yes.