Evidence of meeting #59 for Foreign Affairs and International Development 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.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I don't think we need to suspend. The question is if this is relevant to the discussion. I think it's relevant to the discussion of whether or not we pass....
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Okay, perfect.
My intention is, first of all, that the concern was raised that line 15 says, “advising the committee whether or not the order or regulation is to be made”. Ms. Bendayan had pointed out, and I agreed with her reasoning, that it was important not to foreshadow sanctions that are coming or not coming. I will propose to replace that with “whether or not the order or regulation has been made and”. It will continue setting out the reasons for the decision. We're not asking the government to say that we're thinking about applying this sanction in this case. Rather, we're asking the government to say that we did sanction this person and here's why, or we didn't sanction this person and here's why. I think that addresses an important concern that was raised during the discussion on it.
The other issue is the proposed 40-day time parameter has been flagged as a concern by members of the government. We certainly want to be reasonable around that. The change I'm proposing is to just eliminate the reference to 40 days. It would be revised to read, “The response must be tabled in the Senate or the House or in both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, within the time limit specified by the committee.”
Obviously, any time a committee does anything, some degree of consensus is required in the process, or usually there is. We're talking about a case of a committee passing a motion that makes this recommendation. My amendment preserves the fact that that information needs to be provided with reasons that a decision was made one way or the other, and with the requirement that that information be provided in the event of prorogation or dissolution. These are elements that the Standing Orders don't cover, and in the case of prorogation or dissolution, that the Standing Orders could not cover. A parliamentary trigger like this could only be created through legislation. It could not be created by amending the Standing Orders, because it seeks to require information from the government in a case where they do not apply.
My amendment seeks to solve the concerns that were raised in good faith by some members of the committee, but not to use those concerns as the basis for throwing out the parliamentary trigger mechanism entirely.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I feel like this is coming to a close, but because there are Canadians and perhaps Venezuelans watching, I just want to make sure that people are aware that Magnitsky sanctions have been used by the Government of Canada. We can provide a list to the members of the committee at some point in the future. I think that's important to know. Thank you.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I have a bit of a problem. The problem is that I don't think either of the suggestions meets the needs of this legislation.
I think my recommendation would be to suspend for five minutes, if possible, so that I can ask for some clarity from one of the parties. I'm sorry to do this.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
I call the meeting back to order.
We now return to G-1.1.
Are we ready to vote?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Maybe before we vote, Mr. Bergeron's.... I want to make sure that we are....
Let me offer some further commentary here. I was thinking that....
Actually, I'm done. Thank you.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
We're returning to G-1.1.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
We now go to CPC-4.
Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'm going to move CPC-4.1, which is different from CPC-4 in your package.
Following discussion among the parties, I propose the following amendment. It would be, first of all, to replace line 15 on page 2 with “whether or not the order or regulation has been made and”. That is part (a) of the original CPC-4.
I am then proposing.... I think the cleanest way to do this is to read what the full revised section would be. This is replacing subsections (2) and (3) of section 5.1 with the following: “The response must be tabled in the Senate or the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, within the timeline specified in the Standing Orders or rules of the Senate for responses to committee reports, and must be posted in a prominent location on the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development on the day after it is tabled.”
This would be the new proposed subsection (3): “If Parliament is prorogued before the response is tabled, the Minister must post the response in a prominent location on the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development within the time limit referred to in subsection (2) regarding the tabling of the response. If Parliament is prorogued or dissolved before the response is tabled, the response must be tabled as soon as feasible after the commencement of the next session of Parliament.”
Those are the revised sections. The text substantively replaces the previous timelines, which were 40 days or another timeline specified by the committee, with the incorporation by reference of the timelines that are used by the House or the Senate. It eliminates the requirement to post the government response during dissolution, and it instead says that the response would be tabled “as soon as feasible after the commencement of the next session of Parliament” in the event of a dissolution.
I think that compromise effectively achieves, more or less, what we more or less want.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I'm generally in favour. However, as it was read, I have one question with respect to the last lines, which would be the current lines 29, 30 and 31.
You said that if the Parliament is prorogued or dissolved, the response must be tabled as soon after the commencement.... I think that's what you said.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Yes, that last sentence would read “If Parliament is prorogued or dissolved before the response is tabled, the response must be tabled as soon as feasible after the commencement of the next session of Parliament.”
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
My question is, which government would respond? Would it be the previous government?
When you say, “the response”.... A response is prepared by one government. There's an election. Potentially after two or three more elections, there's a new government, which—
11:55 a.m.
NDP
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Yes. It says, “the response”, but the problem is there have been....
We'd have had two governments, and they could have very different responses. Is it a new response that would be tabled by a new government, or does the old response last until...?
You're saying that dissolution doesn't matter in this sentence. That's my problem. I think I would prefer just “prorogation” in that second line.
Noon
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
If everyone is amenable, we could just say “a response must be tabled”, instead of “the response”. We can retrospectively revise what my amendment was, provided it solves the problem. I don't think it's a huge problem.
Noon
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I would like to get help from the legal officials, because when Parliament is dissolved, Parliament is over. People get to speak. They get a new government, a new Parliament, new committees and new everything. I think it's trying to dictate from the grave, as I would say. The problem is that you shouldn't dictate what is going to happen next from the grave.
That committee report, if it happens in another committee.... It's not necessarily this report. If this becomes a standard, that report could actually trigger an election, possibly. You never know what committee could follow this same process. A committee gets a report and it triggers an election because of what it says. The new government is supposed to report on it, yet the new government might say, “We don't even want to go near there, because we're a different government.” The new Parliament might not want to.
I would prefer to say “dissolution” the first part and then say “prorogation” in the second part. That, to me, is different from dissolution. I have a little trouble with it.
April 20th, 2023 / noon
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
“Governments” don't correspond to “Parliaments”. You can have a change in government within a Parliament. Many of our rules require a government response. Government doesn't have to correspond to a Parliament, and it doesn't often correspond to a Parliament.
Noon
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
My amendment is on the floor as it was proposed.