Mr. Speaker, when we first raised this issue in the House, the government House leader said that the suspension was too harsh in this case. However, he forgets that the said suspension was what the House of Commons wanted when it passed the provision of the Elections Canada Act. It is Parliament that passed the act, not Elections Canada.
Suspension is designed to pressure the MP in question into obeying the order of the Chief Electoral Officer, who has no other way of making a candidate provide the information required by the act.
Suspension is not a sentence to be appealed to a higher court, as the government House leader has suggested. It is a way of saying that member is suspended until he or she provides the corrected information ordered.
The two MPs should have gone to court earlier to settle their disagreement with Elections Canada.
Further, it seems we are currently treating this matter as if the MPs have been charged with an offence and the Chair has to wait until their appeals are exhausted before dealing with them in the House. They have not been charged with any offence. They are being pushed to provide the correct documentation as demanded by law and should suffer the appropriate consequences as outlined in the law that was passed by Parliament.
Also, I would argue that these members have been sitting and voting in the House for several days now without the right. Indeed, they should have been prevented from doing so the moment the House received notification from Elections Canada of their infractions. This then requires for not only their immediate suspension, but that their names should be struck from the record of all votes in the House since the time of notification. That includes 47 votes so far.
I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Bourinot, fourth edition, page 390, which states:
If it should be decided that a member has no right to sit or vote in the House, the votes he may have given during that period of his disqualification will be struck off the journals.
The argument put forward by the government House leader for avoiding immediate suspension is that the members have appealed to the Federal Court. I would like to respond to that specific argument.
The decision of Speaker Lamoureux in 1966 dealt specifically with this issue. He quickly put this argument to rest, referencing page 60 of the May 17th edition, stating that one of the privileges of parliament is for “each House to be the sole judge of the lawfulness” or the legality, “of its own proceedings” and “This holds even where the procedure of a House or the right of its members or officers to take part in its proceedings dependent on statute”.
Speaker Lamoureaux went on to reference a ruling by Justice Stephen in the Bradlaugh case, which defined the relation between the jurisdiction of the courts and that of the House of Commons. Justice Stephen's ruling stated:
I think that the House of Commons is not subject to the control of Her Majesty's Court in its administration of that part of the statute-law which has relation to its own internal proceedings....It seems to follow that the House of Commons has the exclusive power of interpreting the statute, so far as the regulation of its own proceedings within its own walls is concerned...
It continues:
—for the purpose of determining on the right to be exercised within the House itself, and in particular the right of sitting and voting, the House and the House only could interpret the statute...
With this, I look forward to your ruling. It is further requested that, if it is possible, to ask for a copy of the letters that were referenced in the previous statements from members.