Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 14th, 2006

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

Yes, please. May I explain why that creates a bit of confusion?

In any clause-by-clause consideration that I've participated in during my nine years here, when an amendment comes in, and subsequent amendments come in that touch on the same clause, and there are line conflicts, we deal with the first amendment that came in. I've never heard of debating all of them at the same time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, we'll try to give you an explanation.

[Susan Baldwin, Procedural Clerk]

It would certainly be correct that the first vote will take place on your amendment, but I think that it's also entirely proper, and probably a good thing, if the chair is willing to group together amendments that are in line conflict or that are very similar. Because most of these are very small variations, it would give the committee the very best opportunity to discuss and decide on precisely which variation it would prefer.

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

Oh, that's different. In that case, I have no objection whatsoever to the chair's request that we consider all of the amendments at the same time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre.

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

I'd like to get some commentary from the panel on these amendments.

[Joe Wild]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the place to start is with line 7 on page 174, where the amendment proposed by the member would change the statement, which is now, “Within the framework of the appropriate minister's responsibilities and his or her accountability to Parliament”, to say, “accountability to the House of Commons”.

I think the issue is that this is not a reference to a committee; this is a specific reference to the institution of Parliament, in that ministers have accountabilities that are exercised not just through the House of Commons but also through the Senate. Ministers appear before Senate committees and answer questions before Senate committees. The amendment to go to just the House of Commons suggests a bit of a half measure, although certainly the accountability of a minister is more than half, given the fact that it is the House that holds or determines whether or not a government has confidence and is able to govern.

The simple point I would make in terms of the reason Bill C-2 says “accountability to Parliament” is that Parliament is a recognized institution and is recognized as being both Houses--the Senate and the House--and the framework of minister's responsibilities and accountabilities operate vis-à-vis both of those institutions.

When we get down to the next set of amendments on line 12, we're actually talking about, then, appearing before the appropriate committee of Parliament. Certainly this was the point that I thought Mr. Walsh was making--that Parliament itself doesn't have committees. From a technical perspective, we talk about committees of the House and committees of the Senate. It is for that reason that the government amendment, which comes a little later in this package, would actually have changed that line to speak to the appropriate committees of the Senate and the House of Commons, again recognizing that in this framework we're now talking about an accounting officer--in other words, a deputy of a department--and they certainly appear before both committees of the House and the Senate, and are answering questions with respect to the administration of their department before both.

The amendment proposed by the member would only speak to the appropriate “committee of that House”. Given the reference earlier in the paragraph to the “House of Commons”, I suspect that's going to be interpreted as limiting it to the House of Commons. The government amendment was to change the committee reference to make it clear that we are talking about committees of both the House and the Senate, and the government amendment does not change that first reference about the context of the minister's accountability being one of “to Parliament”.

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

On a point of order, given Mr. Wild's explanation, I'm prepared to withdraw my amendments, L-27.1 and L-27.2, because both are found within the government amendment, G-53.1.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is L-27.3 still there?

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

No, that is withdrawn too, because the government amendment, G-53.1 deals with line 7 on page 175.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin, the chairman has a question of you. The Liberal caucus has withdrawn three amendments. They have withdrawn L-27.1. NDP-22.1 is identical to that. They have withdrawn L-27.3. NDP-22.2 is identical to that. The question is whether you're going to proceed with those and leave for debate G-53.1, or whether you are going to proceed with those two amendments.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It was my intention, Mr. Chairman, to go ahead with NDP-22.1, yes. Is that your question?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You've answered it. I guess we turn to that one.

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

Given that I still have the floor, Mr. Chair...?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, you have the floor for something that's been withdrawn.

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

No, we're discussing a whole series of amendments together.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, you're right. I did say that. You're absolutely right, sir. I'm glad you're awake.

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

I wonder if Ms. Jennings withdrew it just to get me to stop talking. You never know. She knew I would.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Let's stop the chit chat and proceed.

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

Since there are two amendments with line conflicts remaining before us, I'd like to get the viewpoint on each of them from our expert panel.

[Joe Wild]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment NDP-22.1 is obviously the same as the Liberal amendment that was just withdrawn. I'm not sure if the member was present when I made my earlier comments--I don't necessarily want to go through them all again--but it's just to point out that the government amendment G-53.1 addresses certainly the issue with respect to part (b) of NDP-22.1, which is the notion of, instead of saying “committee of Parliament”, saying “committees of the Senate and the House of Commons”. The reason for the government amendment saying that is that accounting officers, as we were talking about them, appear and answer questions before both House committees and Senate committees.

With respect to the first part of the amendment, in terms of saying “accountability to the House of Commons”, that again is in the context of a description of a minister's accountability. The Bill C-2 proposed section talks about that accountability as being “to Parliament” because ministers are accountable to the institution as a whole, in the sense that they're appearing before committees of both the House of Commons and the Senate and they're answering questions before both. And in that case, the use of “Parliament”--at least in the government's perspective--was appropriate.

Certainly my understanding of Mr. Walsh's opinion is that really he was talking about the statement of a committee of Parliament, and that would be inappropriate. It is more appropriate to express it as “committees of the Senate and the House of Commons” when we are speaking of both, which is what the government amendment attempts to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Are you finished, sir?

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Having heard that explanation and now that I've seen G-53, G-53.1, and G-53.2, I'll withdraw my amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're back to one amendment, which is a government amendment on page 178.2.1, and it is called G-53.1.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

I so move.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 261 as amended agreed to on division)