House of Commons Hansard #64 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was police.

Topics

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Gordon Kirkby Liberal Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the indulgence of the Chair to consult.

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman

If there are no other discussions, I am prepared to rule on the amendment by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert. I thank both her and the parliamentary secretary for their interventions.

I would submit to the committee that the arguments, while they were of a legal and constitutional nature, my ruling is based on procedural matters and that in fact the amendment is in order. It does not go beyond the scope of the bill and it does not add any charge. Therefore, the amendment is acceptable and I will accept debate on the amendment.

I am sorry, but I cannot recognize the hon. member on debate, as she is he one who introduced the amendment.

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Gordon Kirkby Liberal Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK

Mr. Chairman, I will make my point with respect to the amendment very quickly. The government will not be supporting the amendment. As I indicated before, the amendment is, in the government's view, unconstitutional.

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB

Mr. Chairman, it seems, in looking at the merits of this amendment, that it does fly in the face of section 98 of the Constitution. Also, if the argument is that notaries are being discriminated against because they cannot be elevated to the bar, it seems one could make the same argument that engineers, nurses or housekeepers are being discriminated against because they cannot be named to the bench. This seems to be carrying discrimination to rather far-fetched extremes.

In view of the clear wording of section 98, I believe it would be in order to reject this amendment.

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think that, in introducing this kind of amendment, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert was trying to make it very clear that there is currently some discrimination, and the comparison made by the previous speaker between a nursing program and a medicine program is not valid, since, in one case, the program does not necessarily lead to university degree.

As for law, I think all the hon. members must realize that a bachelor's degree is required and that future lawyers all undergo the same training for three years. This means that, if each of us here picked at random and visited any law faculty, whether at l'Université de Montréal or at any other university in Quebec, we would find future notaries attending classes alongside future lawyers. The hon. member for Outremont should know, since he is himself a lawyer. The core curriculum, including securities theory and constitutional law, is the same for all three years.

I think it would be interesting if those who oppose the official opposition's amendment told us why a person with legal training, training identical to that of notaries except for the last year of the bar, should be authorized to deliver judgment from the bench or to practice law by joining the judicial branch.

I think that the hon. member for Saint-Hubert is right and I know she is sensitive to any form of discrimination. We must fight side by side. I think that the hon. member for Saint-Hubert is right to say that the government would fail miserably if it had to pass the discrimination test under the Charter, as it intends to perpetuate discrimination by rejecting this amendment.

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Hamilton West Ontario

Liberal

Stan Keyes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I am confused by the arguments being presented by the Bloc members opposite.

The reason I am confused about the hon. member's amendment is that the request that is being made is for the appointment of a judge to a tax court. Where we have to draw from the pool and the pool has to be drawn from the pool of lawyers, constitutionally it says that judges of the courts of Quebec shall be selected from the bar of that province. It behoves me to understand where the Bloc would not be siding on a rule of law that is stated in the Constitution and a rule of law that is stated in the province of Quebec where it says the judges of the courts of Quebec shall be selected from the bar of that province. Notaries are not members of the bar.

The Bloc opposition is trying to mix apples and oranges. We are not talking about a constitutional correction. We are talking about where the pool is being drawn from. The pool is being drawn from the bar of the province and notaries are not members of that bar.

Why hold us to something that is law in Quebec?

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman

While committee of the whole procedures are a little different, I wonder if the member for St. Hubert wishes to respond to the member for Hamilton West. Shall I drop the matter? I would require unanimous consent.

Is the House ready for the question?

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman

It will be a voice vote. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman

All those opposed will please say nay.

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman

In my opinion the nays have it. Therefore the amendment is defeated.

(Clause 1 agreed to.)

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman

Shall Clause 2 carry?

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

An hon. member

On division.

(Clause 2 agreed to.)

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman

Shall Clause 3 carry?

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

An hon. member

On division.

(Clause 3 agreed to.)

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman

Shall clause 4 carry?

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

An hon. member

On division.

(Clause 4 agreed to.)

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman

Shall the title carry?

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Title agreed to.)

Federal Court ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman

Shall I rise and report the bill?