Evidence of meeting #55 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Oh, it's “illegal practice or a corrupt practice by the act”.
In that, there's a specific provision.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Can you start writing this for us?
I could suspend if you two want to talk about getting the wording exactly right.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
NDP
11:25 a.m.
Andre Barnes Committee Researcher
I'll check out the language in the act just to confirm.
11:34 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We'll come back to order now.
I would agree that these amendments to this clause would be acceptable from an amendment point of view. It's up to you to decide whether you like them or not.
Is there debate?
Mr. Lukiwski, I think since it's amending G-1, you should speak to it first.
11:34 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I thank Craig for bringing it forward. I know the motivation behind it and I have had some discussions with a number of people. I know this will cause some consternation on the other side but I think our position is we would like to stay with the original government amendment, G-1.
11:34 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
That is, the unamended G-1.
If the subamendment isn't there, we'll need to vote it off there.
11:34 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
On the amendment to amendment G-1, this is a recorded vote to the subamendment. That's only on the additions that Mr. Scott suggested putting in there.
11:34 a.m.
NDP
11:34 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Under (4) of amendment G-1, we would add, “and the Canada Elections Act”, which brought it in under the piece. Then we would add a paragraph (y), and it would be “any offence characterized by the Canada Elections Act as a legal practice or corrupt practice”.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:34 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
The amendment to amendment G-1 is now negatived. We're back to amendment G-1.
Mr. Scott.
11:34 a.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
To continue with a second subamendment, and I'd be prepared for it to be quickly voted on after explaining why. On page 8, amendment G-1, the second and third lines, where it says, “ceases or has ceased to be a member and who is convicted on or after the day on which this subsection comes into force”, I would propose deleting the words “on or after the day on which this subsection comes into force”. I propose this because this is new wording on top of what Mr. Williamson had, and it eliminates his planned retroactivity.
We had testimony that in this context it would not be a constitutional problem. We don't believe in this context it would be an unfairness problem from a policy perspective to allow somebody to have this apply to them, even if the conviction had occurred before the act occurred, just as the conduct...it already says the conduct can have occurred before, so it doesn't quite make sense to me why the conviction must occur after.
I would like to propose deleting that.
11:34 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Again, I think we are showing great restraint here but it stretches credulity to continue to believe that the government is not trying to customize this in some way.
Can the government give us some explanation as to why they wouldn't support this amendment?
11:34 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
If you say it stretches credulity, let me point this out. The amendments we put in were before a decision came down in the Del Mastro case. How could we possibly anticipate what was going go come down? If you, in fact, are trying to float a conspiracy theory, we put these amendments in before we knew what was going to happen in the Del Mastro case.
11:34 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Give me an argument, then, as to why we wouldn't include this. What reasonable reason would you have for not supporting this, given that it's far more consistent with what your own colleague wanted in the beginning than what you have?
11:34 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
With respect to that, David, we've bounced this off our colleague, Mr. Williamson, and he's quite comfortable with this.
11:34 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
You still didn't give me an answer.
Okay. I don't think there is an answer. You wonder where it's being said.... I hear what you're saying on the timing etc., but it's hard to avoid.
Anyway, thanks, Chair.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
An hon. member
A recorded vote.