Evidence of meeting #67 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Next we have Mr. Housefather.
Before we do that, if CPC-4 is adopted, then BQ-5 and G-4.2 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Mr. Housefather.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I support the recommendation, and I support Ms. Kusie's amendment.
I want to propose what I think will be a friendly subamendment, which is to add the word “nonfinancial” after the word “prescribed”.
The whole point of this is to avoid a royal recommendation. We want to ensure that there is no confusion that there is some financial involvement here that would require a royal recommendation.
By defining it the way Ms. Kusie has and adding the word “nonfinancial” before the word “support”, I think that would resolve the problem of the royal recommendation.
Hopefully that would be considered a friendly amendment, especially since I believe the Bloc amendment coming afterwards, which is trying to do that, wouldn't be receivable given the line conflict.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thanks, Mr. Housefather.
If you don't mind, I am going to ask our legislative clerks whether they think that is needed.
Ms. Sauvé.
5 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My understanding of the ruling made by the Speaker in the House of Commons was that the heart of the issue for the royal recommendation with Bill C-290, as it was originally written, was with the definition of “public servant” and not necessarily with the notion of supports.
If the committee wants to be more precise and make sure...then this would appear to be admissible, yes.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
It's always a good idea to be more specific. I don't like the idea that we could face problems in future because we were not specific enough.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
That's wonderful.
Mr. Housefather, do you want to...? I think we just want to reconfirm the wording you proposed.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Sure. It would be to add the word “nonfinancial” after the word “prescribed” and before the word “support”.
In French, we would add the words “non financier”. It would therefore read “soutien non financier”.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
I've been asked—for clarification, perhaps, in English—that we act with precision now just for fear in the future that, if we were to move the bill along, there would be some type of reason...this reason for which it did not meet the standard for a royal recommendation, so that it could not advance.
It's better to be more precise now, I think, just not to have the risk.
Thank you.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
The subamendment proposed by my colleague is interesting, but the proposed wording is already included in BQ-5. If need be, we could set aside CPC-4 and adopt BQ-5, which already contains the term “non-financial,” in addition to listing examples of non-financial support that may be provided. We used the word “including” to indicate that the list is not exhaustive and that these are not the only possible examples.
In that case, we could set aside CPC-4 and adopt our amendment, which is already comprehensive.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Ms. Kusie, we would have to vote on the subamendment before we can get to withdrawing. I'm sorry.
Mr. Fergus, go ahead.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Let's vote on the subamendment, and then we'll go from there. I apologize.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We're voting on Mr. Housefather's subamendment.
(Subamendment agreed to on division)
Do you want to say something now, Mr. Fergus?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
We have some choices among us here.
Thank you very much, Ms. Kusie and committee members, for supporting the subamendment.
Now the choice is.... I think Madame Vignola wanted to us to take a look at BQ-5. I'm going to ask you to think about another one, and that would be G-4.2, which is very similar.
The reason I would go with Ms. Kusie's, right off the top, is that it's very clear. It's “nonfinancial support”.
The reason I wouldn't vote for BQ-5 is that it says, “provide non-financial support”—excellent—“including assistance, advice, referrals to appropriate resources and information sharing, to a public servant who has made”, and it goes on.
The reason I'm uncomfortable with the word “referrals” is that it identifies the.... It's not at the request of the public servant. Therefore, it would identify the public servant. We want this to be a confidential process.
If the idea is to vote down CPC-4, then I would say the better option would be G-4.2. However, if we vote for CPC-4, then we'll withdraw G-4.2.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
I just think CPC-4 provides the greatest flexibility possible, so I feel the other options are too prescriptive. We would prefer CPC-4.
I share your concern regarding the “referrals”. I do share that.
Our order of preference would be CPC-4, then G-4.2 and then BQ-5.... I really would not prefer BQ-5.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Because I try, whenever possible, to search for consensus, I feel G-4.2 is a good compromise between CPC-4 and BQ-5. Rather than refusing to budge, let's just go straight to G-4.2, which is halfway between our amendment and the Conservatives' amendment. This represents a compromise bringing the various positions together. In my humble opinion, it would provide flexibility as well as some clarity.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
That's wonderful.
(Amendment withdrawn [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall CPC-4 carry as amended?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'm sorry. I'll go back to you, Ms. Vignola. I thought you said we agreed on consensus to CPC-4 as amended.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Okay, I apologize: CPC-4 is gone, so on BQ-5, are you withdrawing BQ-5, then?