Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 8th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Are there any comments or questions?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Chairman, once again, could we get an assessment from our technical experts on the impact of this change?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Stringham.

[James Stringham]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The provision would add the amended phrase to the end of subsection (5) in section 86 of the Parliament of Canada Act and to subsection 87(5) of the Parliament of Canada Act.

Both of these provisions are “for greater certainty” clauses. They're a guide to the person who's interpreting all of section 86 and all of section 87. Just in case there's any doubt in the person's mind, they're saying that when you're applying section 86 and section 87, you are not limiting any of the privileges or rights of the Senate with respect to section 86 or the House in section 87.

When you add the words “except ministers”, the inference to be drawn, I would suggest, is that you are in fact affecting the privileges of ministers. Is that the intention of the amendment?

[Patrick Hill]

If I may follow on that point, I can remind members that Liberal amendment 0.1 expressly provided that nothing in the Conflict of Interest Act derogated from or limited in any way the privileges of any members.

I would say that there seems to be an inconsistency, insofar as Mr. Stringham has said that the effect of this amendment--if I understand it correctly--would be to say that under the House code or the Senate code, the privileges of members who are ministers are to be limited by those two committees, while we have expressly said in respect of the Conflict of Interest Act that they are not to be limited. I think there is an inconsistency there.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Next we have Mr. Moore and then Ms. Jennings.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thanks for that interpretation.

There is that inconsistency. We heard testimony, which I thought was well received by the members opposite, that we did not want to impact on members' rights and privileges and their parliamentary privileges. This amendment would do exactly that: it would impact negatively on the privileges of ministers and parliamentary secretaries.

I'm wondering why the amendment was put forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to go to Ms. Jennings and then Mr. Martin, unless you have something startling to reveal, Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I would say simply that we are faithfully following the recommendation of the senior law clerk of the House of Commons when we asked him to do everything he could to make sure this bill in no way steps on or derogates from parliamentary privilege. He put forward a serious suite of recommendations to accommodate us in that regard. There seem to be some competing views on what this language would in fact do.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Jennings is next.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I may be mistaken, and you may wish to ask Mr. Walsh or a member of his staff to come and provide additional clarity.

My understanding—and as I said, I could be wrong—is that ministers of the Crown, ministers of state, and parliamentary secretaries, when acting in their capacity as ministers of the Crown, ministers of state, or parliamentary secretaries, do not have the benefit of parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege is incumbent on a member of Parliament, because you can have a minister of the Crown who is not a member of Parliament.

Historically, when one looks at the Canadian Parliament, from all of the parties that have governed to date, except for this new Conservative Party, the prime ministers in place have appointed individuals as ministers, as members of cabinet. Then they ran in a by-election or a general election within 12 to 18 months of their appointment. Therefore, they did not benefit from the parliamentary privilege that is given to members of Parliament or to senators.

My understanding is that this is in order to ensure that parliamentary privilege remains with a member of Parliament, either as a member of the House of Commons or the Senate. My point is that it does not diminish or affect parliamentary privilege, as has been in existence for several hundred years now.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Jennings, before we continue with the list—

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

But I could be wrong. Hey, it's possible, but unlikely.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Before we proceed with the list, I'm going to ask Ms. Mortenson, who is from Mr. Walsh's office, to comment on what has just been said.

[Melanie Mortenson, Legal Services, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel]

Thank you, Chair.

This NDP-1.6 was prepared in the event that there should be a need to clarify the role of members and their privileges as compared to the role of ministers. However, notwithstanding that, I believe Patrick Hill gave the testimony about the Liberal motion that passed in the Conflict of Interest Act, which serves to protect the privileges of the members.

In our view, this would no longer be necessary to sufficiently clarify the distinction. I hope that clarifies this.

I think what she's trying to say is absolutely right, in the sense of the privileges and so on. But the effect of this may no longer be necessary in light of the fact that there was the earlier motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Order, please.

We have a list, but I'm going to let Mr. Martin jump ahead on the list.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

I'd like to withdraw the amendment, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

Thank you, Ms. Mortenson.

We're moving along to page 43.13, which is the Liberal amendment L-1.7, which is the same as NDP-1.9. Are we ready?

On a point of order, Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'd like to be sure I understand what's going on. What are you doing about pages 43.12 and 43.13, that is to say amendments NDP-1.8 and L-1.7?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

As I understand it, Mr. Sauvageau, NDP-1.8 was agreed to.

Thank you.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

What about amendment L-1.7?

That's fine; everything's perfect.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's where we're at.

Are you okay? We're now waiting for Ms. Jennings to make that motion.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Before I make the motion, I would like a point of clarification.

Given that we adopted my amendment that was on page 5.1, would our experts be in accordance that in fact amendment L-1.7 would no longer be necessary because the amendment on page 5.1 basically covered it?

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

Mr. Chair, we would be of the view that this is no longer necessary, given that this committee has adopted a blanket provision in the Conflict of Interest Act relating to the privileges and immunities of both Houses. So to put this provision in, which says “except as otherwise provided in that Act”, would add confusion. Had your other motion proceeded, they would have gone in tandem.

For that reason, it would no longer be appropriate, in our view, to proceed with this one.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Jennings.