Evidence of meeting #19 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was parliamentary.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You're right. It's a grey area and Mr. Poilievre will have to be careful, but I think he is questioning this section on not filing returns under the Canada Elections Act.
I think it's a fair exchange between them. I'm sure that if Mr. Walsh finds it insulting, he's been around here long enough and he'll tell him.
But be careful, Mr. Poilievre.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I will be very cautious.
I will also remind Mr. Walsh that I have great respect for both him and his office. This is just a good clash of ideas.
I think what we're really talking about here are the constitutional rights of politicians. I've never had that issue come up on the doorstep of my constituency. That's not to say it's not important.
I would conclude by saying this.
Mr. Walsh, I'm glad that you brought these issues forward. If there are 15 or so amendments that we can look at and vote on over the course of roughly an hour and a half, on the route to passing the Accountability Act, then I think it might be worthwhile.
Thank you.
5:45 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am staggered by what I am hearing. I find it thoroughly unacceptable to try to downplay the importance of somebody's work.
Mr. Walsh, I have a great deal of respect for your work. I think that you are trying to warn us to proceed cautiously because the bill comprises provisions that could undermine our rights as parliamentarians. That is something that's extremely important to me. I have been a parliamentarian for more than 13 years, and if there is one thing that is important to me in the House of Commons, it is to preserve the rights that I have as a parliamentarian. It is a lot harder to rebuild a reputation than to destroy one.
If this bill contains elements that could damage the reputation of parliamentarians because it has been badly drafted, and if it could result in a lawsuit free-for-all, I think we should go back to the drawing board. The Conservative Party is trying to downplay the importance of the amendments that you are suggesting. I believe we should go through them with a fine-tooth comb. We should study them thoroughly...
5:45 p.m.
Some Hon. Members
Oh, oh!
5:45 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I am sorry, but I have the floor. You can speak when it is your turn. That is what it means to be responsible and to have some respect!
Mr. Chairman...
5:45 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I listen when others speak.
I would like you to present us with your amendments. In fact, the document you gave us contains several amendments. I think it is extremely important to study them one by one.
Mr. Walsh, we spent 41 hours studying a bill of this scope, whereas we normally should have spent at least 200 hours doing so. But we have to be realistic. My party never opposed this bill, but we want it to be well done. You have told us in so many words that we should be careful since we are on the point of affecting other legislation in a way which would curtail the rights of parliamentarians. This causes us great concern. Can you give us other examples where our rights as parliamentarians could be affected, and can you explain them to us?
5:50 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Are you referring to Bill C-2?
5:50 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I think that we found everything which could affect the privileges of parliamentarians. Going through the bill clause-by-clause would require an enormous amount of time.
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
You mentioned 15 amendments. These amendments will affect other provisions contained in the bill.
5:50 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Mr. Chairman, I must point out that this idea that there are 15 amendments is just a little off-base. In fact, it is the number of subjects which is at issue. There are 15 subjects involved. However, you cannot present a motion concerning a subject; you have to proceed clause-by-clause and study the entire bill.
Perhaps Richard can provide us with a little more detail.
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
In that case, do you think you could study the bill clause-by-clause with us to make sure that we do a good job? That way, you could warn us that, for instance, we need to amend such and such an article, in such and such a bill, because otherwise the rights of parliamentarians, which are protected by the Constitution, would be affected.
5:50 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Our legal advisors are at your service, Ms. Guay, as they are at the service of any committee member wishing to draft an amendment. All you have to do is ask our legal advisors to prepare them. We do not present amendments; it is the members who do so.
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
The chair and the committee would have to agree to receive these amendments if we are to study them and include them in the bill. The committee decided to proceed with the clause-by-clause study beginning Wednesday afternoon. Will that really solve the problem? Will this bill turn out to be a good piece of legislation which could be enforceable and which would appease your concerns based on the current wording?
June 5th, 2006 / 5:50 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Mr. Chairman, we are willing to prepare amendments for Ms. Guay and for any other member of the committee. Just tell us what you want and we will prepare the amendments.
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
For our part, we are willing to support you, Mr. Walsh and Mr. Denis.
Is there anything else you would like to say?
5:50 p.m.
Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I would simply like to add a small detail. In the course of preparing the report, when we discovered problems or points which we felt should be raised, we also thought of possible solutions and corrective measures. As we state in our report, and this holds more true for this bill than for most other situations, we are in a position to propose solutions. Of course, any final decision is up to the committee. When a problem is pinpointed, we also propose solutions. We already have a good idea of what these might be. And that is why we can respond fairly rapidly.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Walsh, for being here.
I want to make sure we're all singing from the same song sheet here. I'm not sure if anyone has actually made an official request to take you up on your offer to have you and your legal team present to us the proposed amendments you would suggest that would strengthen and clarify this bill; if not, I would make that request. I'm not sure if we've actually put it on the table.
When you say you would be willing to assist political parties or members to present amendments, I'm asking you the very same thing. Could you and your team prepare a package of amendments that would, in your opinion, clarify this bill and make it constitutionally doable?
5:50 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Mr. Chairman, I'd certainly be pleased to do that. However, please understand that we only draft in response to instructions received from members of the committee, so there has to be that event: the member has to request them. You can forward requests for amendments, but then we need to seek instructions from the member as to what he or she wishes to do.
There are two avenues one might go with this bill. Some members might say, let's make privilege prevail over the Conflict of Interest Act. Another member might say, let's not, and let's go the reverse. Or they might say, for this, yes, we should keep our privileges, but for that over there, no.
We're ready to go in any direction the members request; we are ready to provide amendments to members of this committee, according to what they want to have from us, including all private members, and private members on the government side, too. Obviously we don't prepare amendments for the government; they have their own, and the parliamentary secretary, presumably, will bring those forward. But for the members on the governing side, as well as the members on the opposition side, we need their individual instructions. That's why I asked my lawyers to be here to take their instructions in the break, or at the end of the evening, and we can get to work on them right away.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you for clarifying that point. We'll work from that premise.
Thank you.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is all very helpful and very interesting, but it's very complex too. My understanding is that it's really quite simple to fix the deal about the secret ballot vote. It's a matter of going through one by one, and where you find the reference to the conflict commissioner, you fix that clause; where you find the commissioner of lobbying, you fix that clause, simply by eliminating reference to secret ballot vote. That seems simple and straightforward.
I don't know what we would replace that process with, but the point is that the officers of Parliament should be selected by, or appointed by, Parliament--you've made that point--but also shouldn't be governed by statute. Is that a point you were making, that we as Parliament are governed by standing orders of Parliament, but officers of Parliament shouldn't be governed by the statutes that govern governments?