Finance Committee on Nov. 27th, 2013

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thanks, Chair.

In my closing remarks I want to reiterate, in addition to what I already said, that the purpose of passing these declaratory provisions now is so that the Supreme Court will have the benefit of Parliament's declared intent of sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act, when it renders its advisory opinion on the reference questions that have been put to it.

Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada will advance legal arguments before the court that these declaratory provisions allow for Parliament to remove any doubts surrounding its intent. To delay the coming into force of these provisions until after oral arguments in the reference would potentially deprive the court of Parliament's considered view of its intention with respect to sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act.

Furthermore, January 16 is after the hearing date of January 15, but will likely be before the Supreme Court's decision is rendered. The court might well want to see if the legislation is passed.

For these reasons, we are opposed to the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll now move to the vote on amendment L-8.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 471 agreed to on division)(On clause 472)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have amendment L-9.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

All those in favour of clause 472?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

There's another amendment.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Liberal-10, that's the same clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It's a new clause.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

No, we have it in the same clause. In Liberal-10 we have 472.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

No, it's a new clause.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I still want to speak on 472.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Okay, we want to speak on 472.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Clause 472? Okay.

Monsieur Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Even if Mr. Saxton says that this is a declaratory aspect, in the sense that Parliament's intention is declared, I think it is completely useless and insulting. The government made its decision when it made the appointment and, as Mr. Brison said, I don't think it entails judging Mr. Nadon's experience as a newly appointed Supreme Court justice. The problem has more to do with the process and the government's lack of rigour. The government failed to ensure that the appointment would not cause any particular problems for Quebec or that the measure would not lead to the kind of recourse we're seeing now. The government was completely negligent in this situation.

Using a budget bill to try to hastily address a gross error involving one of the government's greatest responsibilities, namely, the appointment of Supreme Court justices, is something I can only condemn and deplore. We voted against Mr. Brison's amendments, and not entirely because of their relevance. It was more because we would not want to be complicit in an action that flies in the face of a good governmental process.

I sincerely believe that the government made a mistake. It was a mistake to include this measure in a budget bill and not consult Quebec in any way when objections were raised. I think the government will soon see that this measure will in no way affect the current process and that the problems in the appointment and the problems that ensued will continue to haunt the government.

With that in mind, we will continue to vote no, while reiterating our concern about the steps the government has taken in this matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Fine. Thank you, Mr. Caron.

I'll call the vote then on clause 472.

(Clause 472 agreed to)

New clause 473, which is Liberal amendment 10.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall the schedule carry?

(Schedule agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Shall the short title carry?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

No, I want to speak to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You want to speak to the short title?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I want to speak to the title, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The title or the short title?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

The title includes “A second act to implement certain provisions”. I don't want to speak to that part. I want to speak to the title. The short title is “Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2”.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, the short title is what we're on right now.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

No, I don't want to speak to the short title. I want to speak to the title.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Shall the short title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.