Justice committee  Simply and briefly put, because I know that time is running out, I agree with the statement made by my colleague, Mr. Dodek. The minister is asked to solemnly state that he believes the provision to be valid. Afterwards, he asks a question as though he doubted its validity. I th

Justice committee  I don't think—

Justice committee  Exactly.

Justice committee  With all due respect, it is the interpretation that considers the provisions in isolation. I'll tell you why. Section 5 is a minimum condition. Section 6 adds requirements for representatives from Quebec; just the requirements need to be added. Section 5 requires that a judge be

Justice committee  I disagree with my colleagues' interpretation. Any legislation that establishes an objective standard will provide somewhat curious results in the fringes. Stephen Hawking, one of the world's most brilliant men, did not have the right to vote until he was 18, like everyone else.

Justice committee  Thank you. The minister's comments make me think that he intends to make these provisions declaratory provisions. I don't think the text is clear enough in that regard. In this context, the Supreme Court might have to interpret the very nature of these provisions. It might have

Justice committee  Thank you, honourable members. My presentation will basically cover two types of issues. First, I will look at the interpretive issues. I will look at the meaning of the act before the bill being discussed is passed, as well as the possible meaning of the act should the bill be

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Okay. I'll express myself in English because I just want to make sure this will be correctly understood by everyone. I fully trust the translators, but maybe this time I'll just say it directly in my own words. I do believe that you understood correctly what I suggested. In rece

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I can answer that. First of all, it is important to understand that the Constitution uses minimal wording. It represents the bones, and the constitutional conventions flesh it out. For example, the actual position of Prime Minister is not mentioned in the Constitution Act, 1867.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  There was something crunchy.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I will quickly comment on those two points. With respect to the last point, I said that it was necessary to limit the discretionary powers of the Governor General. Faced with a Prime Minister who had the confidence of the members, the Governor General had no choice but to prorog

Procedure and House Affairs committee  In my view, a motion of that nature would help to clearly establish whether the government in power had the confidence of Parliament or not. Once the suspensive condition were met, the Prime Minister would be deemed to have lost the confidence of Parliament, and that information

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Not exactly, because the question that would be put to the House would ask whether Parliament should be prorogued or not. It would not be a confidence vote. A confidence vote could always be added, but the idea is that, before the Prime Minister could go to the Governor General,

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Exactly, and if a Standing Order were adopted to that effect and he did not do so, he would be deemed to have lost the confidence of Parliament. That concept is not completely new in constitutional law. England had such a rule about 500 years ago, when the king had to obtain Parl

Procedure and House Affairs committee  With a majority government, that approval is guaranteed because the government controls the vote. Given the strong tendency in Canada to toe the party line, it would not be a problem. In a minority government, it would spark a debate that would have to yield a general consent.