Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 7th, 2006

[Warren Newman, General Counsel, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Department of Justice]

I'm going to keep this brief, then.

You have just voted an amendment to the bill. It contains a blanket clause in relation to a privilege and, on its face, preserves all the privileges and immunities of parliamentarians in relation to the operation of this act. That's a policy decision entirely, and it was put forward, clearly, with the best of motives on the basis of the discussion that occurred before the committee the other day.

It's entirely within the purview of Parliament, acting under section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, to determine, and in so determining, limit the scope of parliamentary privilege in relation to any of the activities of members of Parliament or, in this case, ministers of the Crown, parliamentary secretaries, other public office holders. You've had a series of amendments and you've chosen to go one route in this regard.

You already have in the Parliament of Canada Act a provision dealing with perjury in relation to the examination of witnesses, so it's not unheard of to have that in these types of provisions. But by and large, it's hard to see how you would go behind the standard rule, which is set out here, the standard words of reasonable grounds, and come to some conclusion that would be beyond the purview of this act and would reach into the Criminal Code and apply it in these circumstances.

But Parliament can make itself as clear as it wants in relation to the extent to which these privileges and immunities apply to members.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Right.

To finish this point then, thank you for reminding us of the clause that we approved earlier, because it seems to me that nullifies the impact of attestation. It's like having people attest in question period that all of the statements being made are true, or you have reasonable grounds to believe so, but if you didn't, you wouldn't be liable in any event under the privilege. It seems to me that Mr. Martin's amendment simply follows naturally from the earlier amendment that we passed. Why attest to something if your false attestation can't be acted on?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Cartwright.

[Susan Cartwright, Assistant Secretary, Accountability in Government, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat]

I need to point out with respect to the attestation provision that you would also lose the other subsections that are covered by the amendment.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Right. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is that it, Mr. Owen?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have about five minutes, Mr. Martin. If you want a vote on that, we'll have to make sure we--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes. I won't go beyond that.

I just want to reinforce, in case there is any misunderstanding, that we are not only changing the language around reasonable grounds--although with Mr. Owen's subamendment we've put it back to reasonable grounds; we've come full circle on that--but it also seeks to delete the next three subsections. Proposed subsection 44(5), dealing with reasonable grounds, will no longer be in effect under this amendment. The act will be silent on the duty to refer, because currently the language is quite binding in Bill C-2, that “the member shall draw that information to the attention of the Commissioner”. It's not optional: “the member shall”. And the attestation, as Mr. Owen pointed out, would be deleted. There will be no reference to the attestation any longer.

I think this is in keeping with the theme of the suite of amendments that Mr. Walsh introduced when he was talking about the fish not seeing the water that they swim in, etc. That's the elusive, esoteric thing that we're trying to shield and protect here, that in our zeal to make this act better we don't want to inadvertently or subsequently affect this greater atmosphere in which we operate.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to vote on the amendment as amended.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're now moving along.

I don't know whether we have time.... Is there much discussion on G-16? Give me a hint. Otherwise we're going to adjourn.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Moved. Call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, no, I just want some hint. I'm not trying to slow it down or speed it up. I don't want to get into this and then find out we have to adjourn in the middle of a discussion.

G-16 is moved.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to adjourn.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, would it be possible for us to sit in camera for just 30 seconds?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, we can.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Could I ask what hours we're sitting tomorrow? When will you reconvene?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to get to that.

Tomorrow we are sitting from 8 o'clock in the morning until 12 o'clock in this room. We're going to adjourn now to in camera proceedings.

I will ask the public to vacate so we can have a brief business meeting.

This meeting is adjourned.