Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 24th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Dewar, if I may just interrupt, I have an issue with this, and I would like you to take some time to explain this amendment to the committee.

Please, Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

During our deliberations, and on hearing from witnesses and having had some time to discuss this as members of Parliament, and certainly when people read this, one of the concerns that was brought forward was that this is really not in fact fixed election dates; it's flexible fixed dates. I think there's a consensus on that, and certainly that was supported by those we heard as expert witnesses.

This amendment is simply to strengthen this bill. The intent of this amendment is to make sure it's explicit, notwithstanding the first part of the bill, which states clearly in 56.1(1), “Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.”

It simply puts in.... The amendment I've put forward is:

If the House of Commons adopts a motion of non-confidence in the government and the Prime Minister does not resign despite the adoption of that motion, the Prime Minister shall advise the Governor General to dissolve the House of Commons on the day the motion is adopted and to command that a general election be held on a Monday selected by the Prime Minister that is not later than 180 days following the day on which the motion is adopted.

If I may, the last part of the amendment is simply convention and the rules we go by in terms of setting an election date. The first part, however, is an instructive piece, and that is simply to make sure that, as I said before, it's explicit that when you are in a minority Parliament, particularly, obviously, and there are times when confidence is lost, there is a process that is explicit in terms of making sure the Prime Minister follows the direction of the House and that everything else follows in accordance.

The reason for this, if I may, is that it's the flexible clause of the bill, and that's what I wanted to put forward. Notwithstanding that convention--and I'm sure our expert panel will help us with this--that would be the case, anyhow, because of the nature of section 56.1 and the nature, if you will, of the convention of our model. This simply makes it explicit instead of just implicit. So that's the first part.

The second part--and I know that I had been fairly thorough in my questions with our expert panel on dealing with motions of confidence--simply lists what a motion of confidence might include. And not to worry, I did listen carefully. If you look at the list, it is exhaustive. One might ask why it is necessary. We certainly captured in our amendment the fact that it pretty much covers everything. It does cover the fact that, as was mentioned by the panel, you need to leave open that the government is able to suggest that a motion is a confidence motion. And I heard that clearly, and that's why it's in the amendment. It also mentions, of course, that the House has the option of moving non-confidence in the government.

So if you look at this list, I think it's exhaustive. Again, this is not to change the bill; it's to strengthen and buttress the bill and be explicit, so that when someone reads this bill, they indeed understand the intent. There are not just some clauses one would have to drill into to understand it. It is laid out in the bill. It's to better articulate the intent of what flexible fixed election dates should be.

And I would just finally state, Chair, that if people have problems with this amendment, I urge them not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. What I mean by that is that they should please entertain, please choose, to keep proposed subsection (3)--my proposed amendment. If they have a problem--and I can't see why they'd have a problem--with the list of purposes of describing non-confidence, we keep subsection (3), as proposed as an amendment, simply to make it more explicit to ensure that we follow convention and that for anyone who is wanting to understand this bill, it's laid out in the bill.

I think all citizens would appreciate that from their Parliament: actually being able to understand a bill's intent and being sure that it's laid out so that there aren't question marks abounding. This is so very important. It is a good step in changing and dealing with the democratic deficit, so I would look for members' support on this. This is to strengthen, to buttress, the bill we have supported.

I'll wrap up there, Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dewar.

I'm going to rule on this amendment. Mr. Dewar, I want to give a preamble to my ruling. I looked at this in great detail last night. It's clear you've done a great job on this, but I do rule that this motion is inadmissible. It deals with powers of dissolution. It deals with process. It deals with matters of the Prime Minister's actions, and I think it's way beyond--despite the validity and the argument that you've put forward--the scope of this particular bill. So I'm ruling this particular amendment inadmissible.

We move onto NDP-2.

Mr. Dewar, would you like to speak to this one as well, please?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

This will be quick. Notwithstanding that it's mentioned later in the bill--I'm in slight disagreement, perhaps, on the previous opinion of the amendment--this one, again, in the spirit of being explicit, asks that we look at the fact that if there is--and this was brought up in committee numerous times and I think the government acknowledged it later in the bill--a holiday on the third Monday of October, the election would be held on the following Tuesday. That's just for time allowances, Chair. It is to make sure that we honour the fact that there is going to be, at some point, intersection between the fixed election date and holidays. Simply stated, it would be giving allowance for the election to be held on the following Tuesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

Are there any comments?

I will pose the question to the committee again. We'll do yeas and nays by hands.

It is moved that Bill C-16 in clause 1 be amended....

I'm sorry, did you want to speak? Perhaps I went too fast. My apologies.

Yes, Mr. Reid, speaking to the amendment?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have just the following problem with this one. The way the act is written, it provides for the date of the election to be moved in the event there's a problem. Subsection 56.2(1) goes on to talk about a variety of different reasons--cultural or religious significance, provincial or municipal elections, and so on. It's only in the case of holidays that it can be moved under this particular amendment. I was just going to ask why it's only when the Monday is a holiday, as opposed to being for other reasons that the Chief Electoral Officer might choose once he's given this power. Perhaps the member could comment and explain that. There may be a good reason for it, but I don't know what that reason is.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

The main premise, that the conflict would be on a Monday, had been raised, so it's simply to be in accordance with that.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Why is it only holidays as opposed to days of religious or other significance?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

It was a catch-all; it wasn't anything other than that. It's common terminology in terms to capture when Mondays are holidays. It was with the idea of Thanksgiving, certainly. There might be other issues, but that's the one that was presented to this committee, so it was simply to address that variable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Madam Jennings.

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

The amendment proposed by the NDP is troublesome to me especially because, in Bill C-16, proposed sub-paragraphs 1 through 5 of Section 56.2 are, I believe, sufficiently explicit with regard to the procedure to follow and to the criteria to take into consideration when changing the day an election may be held. That includes the possibility that a Monday may not be suitable “[…] by reason of its being in conflict with a day of cultural or religious significance or a provincial or municipal election […]“.

Given that the Committee, in its wisdom, has decided to reject the Bloc’s amendment to change the date, the day or the month for holding a general election, I prefer that the Bill be maintained as is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Madam Jennings.

Mr. Hill is next, and then Monsieur Guimond.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just in the interest of further understanding what, if any, consequential amendments might be necessary if we were to agree to this amendment to Bill C-16, I wonder if our witnesses could be asked their opinion on this. What ramifications might it have for other parts of the bill?

[Warren Newman]

It could create some uncertainty, because as has been explained, proposed section 56.2 provides a fairly explicit and elaborate process. It reposes the Chief Electoral Officer to decide if the polling date should change, whereas the clause that would be added to proposed section 56.1 would simply state, as a rule of law and with no discretion left to the Chief Electoral Officer, that the date would change if the election were to fall on a holiday. Of course, a holiday is defined or is even more explicit in the French version as un jour férié, so it is really a statutory holiday that we're talking about.

So placing that in the midst of proposed section 56.1 may create some uncertainty as to when the Chief Electoral Officer would exercise his discretion when it would overlap with this same situation, because the Chief Electoral Officer looks to holidays, but also to days that are not officially statutory holidays but might have other religious or cultural significance, election dates, and so on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Newman.

Are there any other comments? Mr. Hill, are you satisfied?

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Just so I fully understand that this would not replace that section, there's some concern that it might potentially be in conflict. Do I fully understand?

[Warren Newman]

It's not necessarily in conflict; it would just oblige the Chief Electoral Officer to work things through. Now it will no longer be part of the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer, it will be simply a rule of law that, through the affliction of time and the operation of the legislation, should the electoral date fall on a Monday that is a holiday, then it shall automatically be moved to the following Tuesday. So I imagine it will carve that out, if you will, of the interpretation of proposed section 56.2.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Just as a final comment, then, as I understand it, it would take away that discretion that would allow, for perhaps other reasons we can't perhaps imagine at this particular point in time, the Chief Electoral Officer, given that set of circumstances, to decide to move it ahead to the following Monday as opposed to the Tuesday. That's the concern.

[Warren Newman]

Yes, I think so, because it would be a rule of law.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Next, please, Monsieur Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I believe that Mr. Newman has answered my question. To confirm my understanding, Section 2 of the proposed Bill, paragraph 57(4), is even more explicit. It says that: “[…] if, in the week in which the election is to be held, the Monday is a holiday, polling day shall be held on the Tuesday of that week […].” That would apply in the case where a general election is not held on a fixed day.

So, in what case would it apply?

[Warren Newman]

The change simply establishes a rule of law, as a legislative rule, that if the third Monday of October is a holiday…

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

That would be for a new holiday because there is none at this time. That could happen, for example, if the government decided to establish a new statutory holiday.

[Warren Newman]

That’s exactly it. In such a case, the rule would also apply to that new holiday, whether it is statutory holiday or other recognized holiday.