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

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Stringham.

[James Stringham]

Mr. Chairman, this goes back to the earlier explanation I was giving with respect to proposed sections 86, 87, and 88. Just as a factual matter I'd point out that the amendment being proposed here would be to proposed subsection 87(4), which is with respect to the general direction of the committee being given to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with respect to his role involving the House.

Now, earlier we had an amendment proposed--I believe it was L-1.3--that would have added the identical language to proposed subsection 86(4), but I believe the proponent decided to drop that proposal. So you would now have the situation where in subsection 86(4) you would not have that language added, but you will have it added to subsection 87(4.

The effect, if you will, though, is to change the nature of the greater certainty that's added here. The greater certainty added here is to say to the committee that is giving direction to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in his or her capacity with respect to the House members, just in case there's any confusion here, this committee is not going to be giving you direction with respect to the Conflict of Interest Act when you're applying it to ministers, parliamentary secretaries, and ministers of state.

The current wording would have that effect. Adding on the qualifier would suggest that it would have that effect only when they are acting in their capacity as ministers of the Crown, ministers of state, or parliamentary secretaries. The concern that might arise is that the interpreter, again faced with the differing language in proposed subsections 86(4) and 87(4), would say, so I suppose the committee must then have something to say to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with respect to the Conflict of Interest Act and its application to ministers and parliamentary secretaries when they are not acting in their capacity.

And if I may, it's quite possible that under the act, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner would be making determinations with respect to ministers and parliamentary secretaries when they're not exactly acting in their capacity. For example, with respect to travel, the obligations with respect to travel don't apply just when they're acting in their capacity as such; they apply at all times.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Moore, are you finished?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Yes. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're prepared to vote on amendment NDP-1.8.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do you have a point of order, Madame Guay?

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

I'd simply like to have some information, Mr. Chairman. What are we doing about amendments NDP-1.5 and NDP-1.6, which we were to consider before amendment NDP-1.8? They haven't been withdrawn, as far as I know.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I think it was decided not to proceed with those. Have I misunderstood that?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I've never withdrawn them. These are part of the suite of recommendations put forward by Mr. Walsh, and they're systematically outlined so that we don't have slip-ups like what was just pointed out to us. The Liberal amendment should have introduced similar language to proposed subsection 86(4). The idea was that everywhere that situation occurs, these qualifying additions would be put into effect.

I don't know how this happened, but it has something to do with the order in which we're dealing with things.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Just give us a moment, please.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, we have arrived at...unless you're in the processing of arriving at the same conclusion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, Mr. Martin, I'm going to try to understand what's happening. As I understand it, you were not proceeding with NDP-1.4.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Right.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madam Guay, I thank you for your assistance.

We have overlooked NDP-1.5 and NDP-1.6. Is that correct? That's on page 43.6. If you could turn to that, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr. Martin, if you could move that--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Would you like me to move that now?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I would, sir, yes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

All right. I'd be happy to move NDP-1.5. It is found on page 43.6 of our work book, but it's actually found on page 46 of Bill C-2.

I'm going to say that it's dealing with clause 28, but everyone seems to be confused about the numbering here. We're dealing with proposed subsection 86(4), which was made reference to earlier.

While I have the floor, could I ask for clarification? Is proposed section 86, which we're dealing with, of the Parliament of Canada Act? I see, then, we're seeking to amend proposed subsection 86(4) of the Parliament of Canada Act in exactly the same way as we have just dealt with proposed subsection 87(4) of the Parliament of Canada Act. That would resolve the inconsistency that was just pointed out.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I think you have moved NDP-1.5. Is that what you have done?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That sort of sums it up, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to vote on that.

Page 43.6, NDP-1.5, is where we are. That's been moved, and I'm looking for debate, questions, or comments.

Sir.

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

I'd like to get some clarification from our panel of experts on the ramifications of the clause.

[James Stringham]

Yes, Mr. Chairman, it would make consistent the scheme with respect to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's role with respect to the Senate, make it consistent with the House scheme by making proposed subsections 86(4) and 87(4) track the same language.

But again, perhaps it adds an element of uncertainty that isn't in the present provision with respect to the role of the committee--this would be the Senate committee--giving direction to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with respect to his or her role vis-à-vis the Senate, to say, with respect to your administration of the Conflict of Interest Act, Commissioner, we're not going to give you any direction--although maybe they will.

That's the confusion that arises, potentially, from this amendment, as it did from the previous one.

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

That's all for me.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We move on to amendment NDP-1.6, which is page 43.8.

Mr. Martin, you'll have to move that, please.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'll move amendment NDP-1.6.

What we're seeking to achieve on pages 46 and 47 of Bill C-2 and amending subsections 86 and 87 of the Parliament of Canada Act is, first, to replace line 33 with the following:

the Senate or its members, except ministers of the Crown, ministers of state or parliamentary secretaries.

and then use the same language on page 47 to replace line 15.