Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 4th, 2014

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

My only comment was that I'd like to know this, because in the future, offences occurring similar to what happened in Mr. Del Mastro's case are probably likely, given the nature of what happened, whether it was some kind of clerical error or not. I would therefore like to know that....

Actually I see that you are getting clarification, so I'll let you deal with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The information I'm getting is that because it's under the Elections Act, it's not under the terms you were asking about: “Is it by indictment?” It was not.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Well, let me move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm not a lawyer either and claim that I never will be.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I'd just like to say for the record that the NDP motion is one I would favour over amendment G-1. The list of offences is not as exhaustive as I would expect, but for that reason I think there's far more clarity, and it keeps with the spirit of the original bill put forward by Mr. Williamson.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Madame Latendresse.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I know that we can come back to G-1 later, but if NDP-3 is withdrawn, we won't be able to go back to it and G-1 will stay.

In the opinion of the experts from whom we have heard, having a list would be problematic because it would include too many offences and omit just as many. It would be very difficult to work with a list.

Everything covered under G-1 could be covered under our amendment, which is accomplishing exactly what Mr. Williamson was trying to do by introducing his bill; it is plugging this loophole.

I have a bit of trouble understanding why we cannot just pass our amendment, which covers everything that the House and the Senate will ultimately deem sufficient to revoke those people's pensions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have no one left on the speaker's list, so I'll call the question on NDP-3—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

—with the reminder that if it's adopted, NDP-4, G-1, and LIB-1 would go away.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll move to NDP-4.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Although it's available, it's the same thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

If it's not moved we can't vote on it, so we'll move to Government-1.

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

I've already spoken to it briefly before, but I'll do it again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Will you move it first?

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

Yes.

I so move, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay, then I'll let you speak to it.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Very briefly, it's that we've expanded the list of offences, and rather than go on the sentencing....

I know at one time the Liberals...or at least Mr. Lamoureux was saying that the sentencing should be part of the provisions here; it should be based on sentencing. We're suggesting it should not be because of the examples that I gave before. One could plea bargain perhaps to a charge that has less than two years, or one judge would give an individual 18 months on conviction for a similar offence where another judge would give 24 months. Sentencing shouldn't come into the equation; it should be based on the offence itself.

The offences that we have indicated here are an expanded list from what Mr. Williamson has, and our position is that if one is convicted of any one of these offences, that should trigger the provisions contained in this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

Is there anyone else on G-1?

Mr. Scott.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

If I could put myself in the hands of the Chair, if I were to propose an amendment to the amendment, when I would have to do that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

To which of the amendments are we speaking?

If it's now on the floor—

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Yes, it's on the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

—then now would be the time.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Let's put it this way. I'm thinking about an amendment on G-1, subsection 4, on page 9.

Where it says “In subsection (2) “offence” means an offence under any of the following provisions of the Criminal Code”, I would like to insert “any of the following provisions of the Criminal Code or the Canada Elections Act”. That would be after “Criminal Code”.

Then down where it says “(x)”, on page 10, the letter y. Then “(y)” would be, “any offence under the Canada Elections Act categorized as an unlawful practice or a corrupt practice by the act.”

[A voice]

It's “illegal practice”.