Evidence of meeting #22 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.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
So this has never been a problem to date. Similar provisions that already exist in the Canada Elections Act have never been misused to deny someone their parliamentary privilege. Is that right?
4:15 p.m.
Counsel, Democratic Renewal Secretariat, Privy Council Office
I'm not aware of such a case.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Wild, do you have any examples of where the clause that Ms. Jennings seeks to amend might apply?
4:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
As Mr. Chénier explained, I think where that particular clause might apply would be if someone were wilfully attempting to contravene the provisions that are in the Canada Elections Act. As my colleague, Mr. Chénier, also pointed out, there are other requirements in the Canada Elections Act covering a similar type of scenario involving extensions being provided through the Chief Electoral Officer or a judge, with the ultimate repercussion being a wilful intent to get around the provisions of the act that could result in disqualification to sit in the House.
Just to finish on that point, it's certainly open to Parliament to legislate in this area if it so chooses. The government has put a proposal forward in Bill C-2 and it's open to Parliament as to whether it wishes to adopt this proposal or not.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I'll conclude on this point by saying that someone's election to a seat in the House of Commons is dependent not only on the number of votes they get but whether or not they follow the rules to get those votes. There is a rationale under certain rare instances where if someone deliberately breaks the rules and is trying to conceal the fact that they broke those rules by not filing, they should be prohibited from sitting in the House of Commons.
That is what the clause aims to deal with. Thank you.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
The only point I wish to make is that none of the examples Mr. Poilievre raised...I did not raise any of those examples.
Secondly, I would like to point out that Mr. Wild has said, in his capacity of not providing legal advice but simply technical advice, that should it be the will of this committee to carry this amendment, the House of Commons would still, under our Constitution, have the authority to adopt rules that would achieve the same objective that the government's proposed section is attempting to deal with. The difference is that if it's done by the House, the constitutional autonomy of the House and its members are untouched. However, if my amendment is defeated and it remains in the statute, then there has been un empiètement--I don't know the word in English--of the constitutional autonomy of the House and its members.
I would put the question, if Madam Guay is fine with that.
(Motion agreed to)
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We now move to a vote on clause 39, and that vote applies to clauses 40, 56, and 58.
(Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to)
(Clause 56 agreed to)
(Clause 58 agreed to)
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We now move to new clause 40.1, which is on page 46.
Ms. Jennings or Mr. Owen, do you want to speak?
On a point of order, Mr. Lukiwski.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Just prior to Mr. Owen getting into this, I would argue, Mr. Chair, that in my opinion, at least, this is outside the scope of this bill.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you.
It's not that I see anything wrong with what Mr. Owen is saying about floor crossing. I just think this is outside the scope of this bill. I do not think it fits within the scope of this bill. This is a conflict of interest omnibus bill; we all know that. We've been going over it clause by clause, but I just don't think this particular area that Mr. Owen wishes to pursue fits within the confines of this legislation. I would argue that it is out of scope.
I'd like the clerk perhaps and the chair to respond to that.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
I'm certainly very interested in hearing the clerk's and the chair's reasoning on this, but we are talking about an accountability act, and this goes to the heart of our electoral and therefore our democratic process in that it speaks to the will of the electors of a particular riding to have the right to choose their member.
I can't think of anything more fundamental to the accountability of a government or members of Parliament than keeping faith with the electorate. I do point out that what it gives the member who has left the party to join another party is a fair opportunity for that member to go back before his own constituents and make his case. Perhaps if there was some good reason why he left the party and joined another one, he could make that case to the electorate.
4:20 p.m.
An hon. member
A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
4:20 p.m.
An hon. member
No, we're on debate of the motion.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We're on a point of order raised by one of your colleagues, and I'm going to rule this as inadmissible.
L-2 proposes a procedure for recalling a member of Parliament. The Canada Elections Act is extensively amended by this bill, but those amendments are concerned with contributions, returning officers, and so on. Crossing the floor and the recall of a member are not mentioned.
The House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, on page 654:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
Mr. Owen, I therefore rule that L-2 is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-2 and is consequently inadmissible.
Mr. Owen.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you.
I would simply ask, Mr. Chair, that you seek unanimous consent to overrule that opinion.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Owen, the procedure, as I understand it, is that you move that the ruling of the chair be sustained and there would then be a majority vote. So asking for unanimous consent is not the procedure.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I could follow on that suggestion, I would like to appeal the decision.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay.
Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained? All those in favour of the ruling being sustained?
You know what? Hands are going up and down like a yo-yo here. I'm going to ask for that vote again, please.
Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?