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.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
That's the explanation why we're voting against the clause.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
We're also happy to vote against it because it's redundant, I think, in the sense that the new amendments from the government basically say the conviction has to occur after the amendments come into force, but the conduct can occur at any time, including before the act comes into force.
This says the sections apply to “any person that is a member of the Senate or House of Commons, to conduct that occurred before June 3, 2013” which is already caught by the language.
We'll agree to vote against it because it's redundant.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Shall clause 4 carry?
(Clause 4 negatived)
Shall the alternative title carry?
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Currently, this act is cited as the “protecting taxpayers and revoking pensions of convicted politicians act”.
I suggest that the act be cited as the “revoking pensions of some convicted politicians act”.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
You are absolutely right, it's out of order. I should have caught that right away, but I love to listen.
Shall the alternative title carry?
11:45 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
11:45 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
My question is for the analysts. The original intent of the bill that came in was to capture the example of former Senator Raymond Lavigne.
In your opinion, this bill, that's about to be voted on and carried through by government majority, would it capture the issue around former Senator Lavigne?
11:45 a.m.
Committee Researcher
In the sense that the parliamentarian would resign before the act and would not be caught, I suppose would depend upon what the conviction was for. I'm not sure that what the particular senator mentioned was convicted and sentenced for is on the list.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Fair enough. But I think most of us think that it wouldn't.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
But it still leaves a huge gap.
It would have captured this one, but it wouldn't capture all as we well know. It's just hard to believe that's not by design. It's just really, really not. I understand what you are saying, but the government knows how many problems they've got in the hopper. It's not like these things weren't foreseen. Some of the key things the member came in looking to deal with and close are now not going to be.
It's hard to believe that it's not tied to the fortunes of some members of the government caucus. That really, really is unfortunate because we do try, this group as much as possible, to not be that partisan about our business. But short of an outright allegation, Chair, it really, really is very difficult from the opposition benches to believe that the government hasn't massaged and used their majority on this bill to mitigate any impact on current members of the Conservative caucus.
11:45 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
11:45 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Hang on, I get to say my piece. I get to say my piece and then you can say yours.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
That's the way this works. I talk and then you talk. You can talk when I'm done talking.