Evidence of meeting #21 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
In view of the expert opinion, I will not be moving amendment L-1.7.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We're going to page 43.15, amendment L-1.8 on clause 38. Who is going to take that?
Ms. Jennings.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
The objective of my amendment L-1.8 is to see that clause 38 no longer exists. There are two ways of going about it, or potentially three. We can vote on my amendment, in which case clause 38 is simply deleted; or my amendment is voted on and defeated, and then clause 38 is voted on, and if it's defeated it's gone; or I simply do not move amendment L-1.8, and then again, you have a vote on the substantive clause itself and it's either carried or defeated.
Given the experience I had in withdrawing two of my amendments that were in line conflict with an amendment proposed by one of my colleagues, Mr. Owen, and the discussion we'd had around this table that led me, obviously wrongly, to believe Mr. Owen's amendment would in fact be carried, and it was not, and then I had no way to move forward with my proposed amendments, I'm not going to withdraw this. I'm going to ask that we vote on it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, at page 656, “An amendment is out of order if it simply attempts to delete a clause, since in that case all that needs to be done is to vote against the adoption of the clause in question.” Therefore, Ms. Jennings, I am ruling it out of order.
Madame Guay.
Bloc
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I'd like some clarification. Could you give us a legal opinion on the deletion of this entire clause? What will that involve?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Of the clause as it stands? Normally I would say let's wait until we vote on the clause, but since we're here, why don't you ask your question?
Mr. Stringham.
Legal Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council, Privy Council Office
Mr. Chairman, if I understood correctly, the question is, what is the effect of removing this coordinating amendment in clause 38?
Clause 38 would supercede what we would otherwise have in clause 5. The importance of clause 38 is with respect to proposed sections 41.1 and 41.2 of the Parliament of Canada Act, which set out the new regime with respect to trusts that apply to MPs. The effect of this provision is to remove from the scrutiny of the court the Ethics Commissioner's role when he's looking at MPs' trusts.
It's again protecting your privileges. You want it there to protect your privileges. You want to have the scrutiny of proposed sections 41.1, 41.2, and 41.3 ultimately, perhaps, in light of another amendment that might come about. You want that protection to preserve your privileges.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
It's my understanding that there are amendments that follow in other sections that deal with the question of trusts that some parliamentarians may hold and move it into the Elections Canada Act, thereby giving all of the authority to deal with that to the Chief Electoral Officer.
Am I correct? Have you seen all of the amendments?
Legal Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council, Privy Council Office
That being the case, even if it's in the hands of the Chief Electoral Officer, I'm making a presumption that members might wish to ensure that the Chief Electoral Officer exercising that role would not be subject to judicial review for the same reasons, with respect to MPs at any rate.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Okay. So if clause 38 carries as it is now written, and further on in the deliberations of this committee we come to an amendment that takes the issue of trust out of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's section and moves it into the Elections Canada Act, will clause 38 then have to be changed in any way in order to make it consequential with?
Legal Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council, Privy Council Office
I would answer yes.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
So is it your expert opinion that rather than dealing with clause 38 at this point, we should possibly move to the clauses that deal with the trusts, deal with them, and once we know the will of this committee through all of the votes, then determine if clause 38 requires any changes?
Legal Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council, Privy Council Office
I don't think it's my role to suggest that to the committee. This is a procedural matter.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I may have been looking in the wrong direction.
I am asking the question to you, Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay, that's another can of worms opened up, Ms. Jennings. Thank you very much.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
The chair has a question, if I'm allowed to make one.
Are there any other trust clauses? You mentioned one. We'll have to deal with amendment L-2.2, which is on page 48.3, before we deal with clause 38. So the question is, carrying along the lines of Ms. Jennings, if we accept all that process--and you're recommending we do--are there any other trust clauses that should be dealt with as well?
Do you want to take a break?
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
Amendment L-2.2 on page 48.3, and NDP-1.11 on page 48.6 both deal with trusts. I haven't checked to make sure if they're identical, but I suspect--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We will reconvene the meeting.
Ms. Jennings is right yet again. I'm going to ask our assistant to explain what we need to do with clause 38, before we go back to Ms. Jennings.
Go ahead.
Procedural Clerk
Clause 38 is a transitional clause, so it affects three or four other clauses and it is consequential in some ways to all of them, which makes it very difficult to deal with. It is consequential to the adoption of amendment L-2.2, which Ms. Jennings was referring to, which is on page 48.3.
So if amendment L-2.2 is negatived, there's no problem. If we adopt amendment L-2.2, then we cannot put clause 38 to the committee in its current form. So what would happen is that the government would need some time to amend clause 38 to avoid the problems with amendment L-2.2, but keep at least three other transitional provisions that are in that bill that they need for other parts of the bill. In other words, we're very tangled this time.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay. I don't know where we're going to go. I guess the ball's been thrown over to Mr. Poilievre.
