Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 12th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

This is the Legislative Committee on Bill C-2, meeting 22. The orders of the day, which are televised, are Bill C-2, an act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing, and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight, and accountability.

We are into the process of clause-by-clause consideration. You may recall when we adjourned the last meeting it appeared we had finished most of the amendments to clause 2 and all of the clauses consequential to it, which were clauses 3, 28, and 38. However, over the weekend, more amendments have been received, and those amendments should be debated and voted on before we actually take a vote on clause 2.

The remaining amendments all involve clause 28. They are: BQ-8.1, which is on page 42.1; G-23; G-23.1, on page 42.2; and NDP-1.2.1, on page 42.3. As I said, all of those are on clause 28.

(On clause 28)

Accordingly, we will move to the first amendment we received, which was the Bloc Québécois', which is found on page 42.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I'm moving this amendment, but I don't think it will require any lengthy debate. Simply put, it proposes to correct the French version. The English version notes that the Governor in Council is responsible for deciding who may serve as Commissioner, whereas in the French version, the person responsible is the “commissaire”. Therefore, we're asking that “gouverneur en conseil” be substituted for the word “commissaire” in the French version.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Poilievre.

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

I'd like to invite our technical experts to share any thoughts they might have on that.

[Joe Wild, Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice]

With respect to that particular motion, it's technical, to change a mistake in the drafting from a reference to the commissioner to the Governor in Council.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Another comment over here, Mr. Lukiwski?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Put the question.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It has been drawn to my attention that the next amendment, which is found on page 42.2, G-23.1, is the same as the one we just voted on.

What do we do now? Mr. Martin isn't here. I guess we move on. Mr. Martin isn't in the room. Has anyone seen him? We have to keep this going. I want to be courteous to members. Let's wait a couple of seconds.

Mr. Martin, we have reached you. We are on page 42.3, which is a New Democratic amendment, NDP-1.2.1.

Mr. Martin, please move that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

As soon as I find it, sir, I would be happy to move NDP motion—

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Just before you continue, Pat, we have not been given a copy of these new amendments here. Can we get those circulated?

Do you have a set of the new amendments now? I don't have one in front of me.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It was my understanding that all members had received it, but hopefully we have some extra ones.

Mr. Martin, could you just hold on for a minute? I want to make sure all members have a copy of this amendment.

Mr. Martin, everyone seems to have a copy of the amendment. Could you move that motion, please?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd be happy to move NDP amendment 1.2.1. on page 42.3 of our working book. The motivation for the NDP putting this motion forward is that rather than preclude the possibility of the current Senate ethics officer and the current ethics commissioner...they would be in fact be at least considered, were their qualifications satisfactory, for the newly created position.

That explains the intent of the NDP motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

In debate, we'll hear Ms. Jennings, then Mr. Poilievre.

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

I think Mr. Martin's amendment is quite interesting, and it does on the face of it respond positively to some of the concerns and preoccupations some members around this committee expressed last week, myself included.

I would just like to ask our legal expert sitting at the table whether or not the intent Mr. Martin has said he wishes his amendment NDP-1.2.1. to achieve does in fact achieve it.

[Joe Wild]

What the amendment does is add, to the class of candidates who can be considered for the position, a former Senate ethics officer or former ethics commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre.

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

Given that this is not really a grandfathering clause, which is what was spoken of last week....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

There appears to be a question for you, Mr. Wild.

[Joe Wild]

Is it a grandfathering clause? In the sense that it does not preserve any of the current ethics commissioners in their positions or put them into the position of the new conflict of interest and ethics commissioner, it merely reflects an additional class of people who would be qualified to be appointed to the position.

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

Ultimately, Parliament would have to choose, even if these two additional criteria were added to the list of qualifications required of a conflict of interest commissioner. As a Parliament, we would still have to choose between the Senate ethics officer and the former ethics commissioner. Neither one of them would be automatically grandfathered into the new, combined position; they would just both be eligible to apply to be considered.

[Joe Wild]

Yes, that's how I read it. I'm assuming, of course, that between paragraphs (b) and (c) there is an “or”. It's not clear from the drafting of the amendment that there is an “or” following paragraph (b), but assuming there is an “or”, then we are talking about three different classes, in that either former ethics officers of the Senate or the ethics commissioner would be eligible to be appointed.

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

It is the position of Conservative members of the committee that, given that we have laid out very specific knowledge-based criteria here in the bill and that someone who's going to occupy this new and entirely different position will have to interpret laws codified in statute, this person should have qualifications that are already laid out here in the act, and that we needn't make special amendments to qualify one, or in this case two, additional people who otherwise may or may not be qualified.

If the existing Senate ethics officer or the existing parliamentary ethics commissioner meets the qualifications laid out already in the Accountability Act, then I believe they should be considered, but if they do not, then we should not put in place a separate section designed especially for two specific individuals who otherwise would not live up to the qualifications required of the job.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have Mr. Murphy and then Mr. Owen.

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I was just going to bring up that at line 20 there has to be a semi-colon and an “or”, and it has to be formally done.

I couldn't disagree more with my friend here. This is a proper amendment. It is what was discussed, and we're very much in support of it. It takes away the element of witch hunt that surrounded the new qualifications that were presented by the government. We support the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Owen, and then Mr. Martin.