Evidence of meeting #34 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Yes, that would help. If we know what it affects, then that will tell us whether or not we should be a bit more fulsome in our arguments on the amendment.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I suppose that's the case.
It's NDP-4, PV-5, LIB-3, NDP-7, PV-11, LIB-4, and PV-12.
I was doing bingo calling on Saturday night and this was very reminiscent of that.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
So if we adopt G-2 as it presently stands, none of those will be proceeded with.
We are voting on amendment G-2.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
It passes and all of those others will now drop out of the lineup.
You're going to have to tell me when I get to any of those.
Next will be amendment PV-4 on clause 5.
Ms. May.
12:10 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, this is related to, but sufficiently different that it wasn't captured in the passage of government amendment G-2. It deals with the same issue that has been raised by the current Chief Electoral Officer, that when coming up with an interpretation decision, he needs to be able to consider information that's relevant and take into account what the Chief Electoral Officer himself believes is relevant.
You have before you my amendment to clause 5. It's amending line 7 on page 6. For the aid of committee members, let me read how amended clause 5 would read with my amendment included. It would now say, and this is on page 6, at proposed subsection (4):
The Chief Electoral Officer shall, in preparing the guideline or interpretation note, take into consideration any comments received under subsection (3)—
This is the part that this amendment would add:
and any other information that, in the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer, is necessary to its preparation.
Again, we're dealing with someone who is expert in the field, who may want to reach out to other sources of information. We don't want to shackle the Chief Electoral Officer such that he or she is unable to pursue other relevant information that will assist in the preparation of a guideline or interpretation note. I'm hoping that this is one that's sufficiently non-controversial. Of course, it comes from Mr. Mayrand as a request, but I'm hoping the government members might see their way to approve this.
To reinforce for government members, it doesn't change any timelines; it just allows the preparation of the interpretation note or guideline to have full access to other significant, relevant information that the Chief Electoral Officer believes is necessary to the preparation of the note.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I got the impression that this power was available anyway and I thought he was being.... While I appreciate his concerns, there was nothing I saw that could have been reasonably interpreted as limiting his ability to seek out information necessary to the preparation of his ruling.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Okay.
Is there further conversation? We'll go to Mr. Scott and then I'll go to you, Ms. May.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Yes, both what Ms. May and Mr. Reid said I think has great validity. I would not like the fact that if we've moved this—we have one that's not so dissimilar later—or if it gets voted down it would mean that the Chief Electoral Officer does not already have this.
I appreciate Mr. Reid's intervention to say he can take into account information as is available to him anyway. It's a judicial notice kind of thing if you are going to compare it to what judges can do. As long as we all can agree, or we're all on the same page that this is not necessary, but it's more for the sake of certainty, even though that language is not used in Ms. May's amendment, then I'd be much more comfortable and I'd like it to be there for the sake of certainty. I don't think there's any harm in it, but it's important to be on record that Mr. Reid's interpretation also seems to be correct.
12:15 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I think it's a matter of statutory interpretation. I'd agree with Mr. Reid that it's possible to interpret it both ways. I am concerned, though, that under proposed subsection 3 that it's the collection of advice from members of the advisory committee of political parties, but the language “shall” being mandatory language: the Chief Elector Officer under Bill C-23 shall take into account information that is received and advice and comments from the advisory panel of political parties.
It is true that it is not exclusive to only that advice, but it is open to interpretation if that was the intent. I think it's very important and that it be preferable to accept this amendment so it's very clear. If that's what you believe to be status quo, then there's no harm and greater certainty in passing this amendment. If not, it would be helpful to have on the record from Conservative Party members of this committee for any future court interpretation that the statutory intent of this is not to so shackle the Chief Electoral Officer that he can only take into account that advice referenced in proposed subsection (3).
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
In line with that thinking, I want to be absolutely clear—and my colleagues are free to disagree with me, but I don't think they will—that what is emphatically not being said here is that the Chief Elector Officer is effectively like an arbitrator in final binding arbitration, who has to choose between the Green Party interpretation, the Conservative Party interpretation, and the New Democratic Party interpretation. That would be the very narrow and completely incorrect reading of this section.
To me the correct reading would be that he or she has to look at those things but may also engage in any wider consultation that's appropriate, similar, as Professor Scott said, to taking judicial notice of external information.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
It's a very helpful exchange. My own view is that Ms. May is correct that there's absolutely no harm in clarifying in the way she's suggesting in the amendment. There's no statutory drafting reason not to make it clear. At the same time, if the vote goes against it, in my view, for sake of certainty, it's not necessary.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I agree with what was said. I think there's no fear in providing this in the act just so that we get what I consider to be a little too prescriptive and obviously too restrictive, really. If you leave it as it is right now, I certainly think this leaves it to better interpretation and a more effective way of gathering information.
Originally I thought you had the right intent, but after listening to Ms. May, I realize that this may be more necessary than we think.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I have a question more than anything for the government.
What would the harm be? There doesn't seem to be too much disagreement, but it's sort of belt versus suspenders. If this creates less public money being spent in the courts because we can be that much clearer here, it seems that would be an improvement to the bill.
I would ask the government, what is the potential downside of putting in this extra wording to ensure that we don't end up in court and go through a whole thing when every one of us seems to be onside? I would just ask the government if there is some particular reason or some harm done that we are not aware of if we go ahead and put the wording in.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
My goal is not to suggest there be harm in putting the wording in, only to suggest there would be no harm in leaving it out, if you follow the distinction there.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
If I may, Chair, isn't that the whole concern and part of Ms. May's...?
I'm not a lawyer so some of you have an advantage on these kinds of things when it comes to the courts and their roles at one time. It was suggested by a learned colleague that this could give rise to a question that ultimately would need to go to the courts. That would be my response, if there's that potential and none of us want that to happen and it's clear what we would hope as the drafters of the legislation would be the outcome of that court case, should there be one, why not pre-empt and preclude anybody from having to go through all of that when we seem to be of one mind and putting in the language would seem to not harm anything else?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Mr. Chair, my understanding of how the courts deal with something when they cannot find an answer within what they refer to as the four corners of the act, meaning the words themselves are somewhat ambiguous in the minds of the court, they try to start with the words, of course, but when they can't do that, they then look to what was discussed during the debates over the issues. Presumably they would look to the debate we've had. It would be clear from what I've said, from the fact that my colleagues on the government side have not intervened to suggest that I was mistaken, and from the fact that, Professor Scott, on your side also, clarified this point that the intention was that the CEO is not required to rely only on what the parties have offered, but may also seek additional information elsewhere.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative