When Mr. Walsh made a statement to the committee and answered questions about his concerns that certain provisions of Bill C-2 violated the constitutional autonomy of the House and of MPs, he pointed out that the right of MPs to participate in debate and to vote was part of the process of constitutional autonomy and of the constitutional workings of Parliament.
Lines 27 to 33 of clause 40 on page 55, which amends subsection 96.6(2) of the Canada Elections Act, stipulates the following:
(2) An elected candidate who fails, within the required period, to provide a statement as required by subsection 92.2(3) or to make a correction as authorized by subsection 92.3(1) or 92.4(1) shall not continue to sit or vote as a member until it is provided or made, as the case may be.
Mr. Walsh made it very clear that this provision violated the constitutional autonomy of the House to draft and adopt rules governing the conduct of members, rules such as who is entitled to vote, who can participate in debates, and so forth.
By deleting lines 27 to 33, as I propose in my amendment, the House would continue to have authority over such matters. However, it would still be free to amend the Standing Orders to include the wording of this subsection, if it deemed such action advisable.
So this ultimately touches on the rights of members of Parliament to vote and debate in the House and on the constitutional autonomy of the House to determine who has the right to vote and debate.
If we delete lines 27 to 33, it means the House continues to have that constitutional authority and can, if it wishes, in its good judgment, decide if an elected candidate who omits to file the statement as laid out in Bill C-2, or to correct it, as authorized under Bill C-2, has the right to sit or not. It's the same, once an election happens, as our not being allowed to sit and not having access to a member's operating budget, etc., until there's a certificate from the Chief Electoral Officer, under the House orders, certifying that we are in fact the candidate who won in the particular federal riding in which we ran. At that point, we have to swear an oath, and then we benefit from all the rights and privileges of a member of Parliament and we can begin to draw our salary. It goes retroactively to the election date, but until that certificate comes to the House of Commons through the proper channels, we're not allowed to sit. So if a certificate takes six months and the House is recalled after an election, that elected candidate may not sit, may not debate, and may not take part in votes.
So in the same way, I think it should remain the constitutional authority and autonomy of the House to make that decision.