Evidence of meeting #21 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Yours is a point of order, sir? Okay. We allowed Ms. Jennings, so why not you?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
It's a point of clarification.
I think that interpretation is wrong. I can see that on section 404.5, but when you go to section 404.6, it says:
404.6.(1) Every candidate or member shall disclose to the Chief Electoral Officer every trust known to the candidate or member from which he or she could, currently or in the future, either directly or indirectly, derive a benefit or income.
That does not refer to a trust set up by reason of their being a candidate.
When we read on, it says that if it's legally possible the trust should be terminated. So to me, that contemplates the scenario raised by the expert that a friend has died and in the will a trust has been left to you. If you want to be a candidate, that trust has to be terminated. That's a pretty big hoop to jump through if you want to be a candidate. It's every trust, not just political ones.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is about accountability. However, I believe this clause has been included out of a concern for transparency. It makes it possible to ensure even more that people who may be in possession of trusts do not wind up in situations of conflict of interest at the time of an election.
As Marlene said, people who are in possession of trusts are not legion. Whatever the case may be, declaring to the Chief Electoral Officer at the outset that there is or is not a trust would ensure that candidates who run are clean beyond any doubt. That would prevent the Ethics Commissioner from one day discovering that elected representatives have benefited from trusts and that, consequently, by-elections must be held, which would be tiresome. So, Mr. Chairman, I believe we should examine this question.
I also want to emphasize that the NDP's amendment 1.1 is the same in all respects as that of the Liberal Party. We should ensure it is withdrawn.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
So withdraw them. It's the same.
I'm going to allow Mr. Moore....
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
This is just to quickly say that Madam Guay said a declaration. This goes beyond a declaration; it means a termination of that trust.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay. Everybody is asking for questions, so we're going to....
Do you have a point of order?
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I have a point of clarification, but if you want me to call it a point of order....
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
The point I want to make is that I understand the concerns that are being expressed by my colleagues on the other side, that the term “trust” may not have been sufficiently defined in order to ensure that it is perfectly clear that only those trusts that have been established by reason of the candidate or member's position, the person's position as a candidate or member, would be captured in any of the sections proposed under L-2.2, and that the issue of subsection (6)....
I would be prepared to stand this down until the next sitting of this committee, in order to see whether or not these concerns could be properly addressed to the satisfaction....
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
There doesn't appear to be unanimous consent, so unless someone else is going to say something, we're going to vote on it.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We have a couple of minutes left. We'll give it a try.
We have not finished clause 38. On page 44 there is a government amendment, G-24.
Mr. Poilievre.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
It is so moved.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I think we've run out of time, folks, unless you want to try something.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Chair, I trust you'll have unanimous consent for us to sit this evening as well, to make up some of the time we've lost.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Do we have unanimous consent to sit this evening? There doesn't appear to be unanimous consent, so I'm going to adjourn the meeting until--
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I just want to table a motion, Mr. Chair.
I'm serving notice of a motion that the committee extend its sitting hours until clause-by-clause study of Bill C-2 is finished and has been reported back to the House. We add Thursdays from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 9:50 p.m., Fridays 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 9 p.m., and Mondays from 8 a.m. to noon.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
I'd like this question to be put to a vote immediately. I request unanimous consent for that purpose.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
There's been a request for unanimous consent to vote on that now. Do we have unanimous consent?
