Evidence of meeting #23 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.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Yes, Chair, this is just to make sure that any investigations by Elections Canada are reported, so that we indeed have a transparent process and procedure.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay.
I'm going to move rule it inadmissible. NDP-4.1 proposes an amendment to the Canada Elections Act relating to reporting provisions. House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 654 that “an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is being specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”
Since paragraph 534(1)(b) of the Canada Elections Act is not being amended by Bill C-2, it's inadmissible to propose such an amendment. Therefore, NDP-4.1 is inadmissible.
(On clause 65)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'd like to make a brief statement. Clause 65 amends the Lobbyists Registration Act. There are a series of other clauses related to this particular clause. We've done this several times before, so I propose that we deal with all amendments that pertain to the subject matter of clause 65 before I put the question on clause 65. Therefore, we will first deal with the amendments to clauses 67, 68, 69, 72, 75, 77, 78, 83, 88, and 89.
Once that is done, I will put the question on clause 65, and its results will be applied to all the consequential clauses, namely, clauses 66 to 98.
Therefore, I will stand clause 65 to call for the first amendment, BQ-10, which relates to clause 67.
(Clause 65 allowed to stand)
(On clause 67)
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
I wish to introduce our BQ-10 amendment, on page 54. I simply wish to explain that the present text states that lobbyists cannot communicate, and we wish to add a definition for the word “communicate“ which would read as follows:“communicate“ includes to communicate by electronic means.
More and more, people are communicating not only by cell phone, but also by BlackBerry, and we would like electronic communication means to be included.
Do the experts have anything to say in this regard?
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
I'm Michèle Hurteau, counsel, legal services.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Faces are starting to change here at a rapid pace and I'm having trouble.
Joe Wild Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
It's just because we've moved on to a new part of the bill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
That's fine. Don't misunderstand me. I just want to know who we're talking to.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
Mr. Sauvageau, if you look at subsection 5(1) and at paragraph 7(1)a) of the current act, you will see that the term “communicate“ is used. Indeed this is how the current act reads:
5.(1) An individual shall file with the registrar, in the prescribed form and manner, a return setting out the information referred to in subsection (2) if the individual, for payment, on behalf of any person or organization (in this section referred to as the “client“), undertakes to:
(a) communicate with a public office holder in respect of
The term “communicate“ is used in a very broad and comprehensive fashion. If we decided to define the various means of communication...
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
No, all we are saying is “includes to communicate by...“. The word “includes“ covers all of that.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
It covers all of that, and this can also be accomplished by way of regulations. As you so rightly have said, there are means of communication that we are not yet too familiar with, for example the voice over Internet protocol. This type of system would be covered by the regulations.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
It has been suggested to me that I ask for a clarification. As we speak here today, electronic means of communication are not covered under Bill C-2.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
They are covered. The word “communicate“ as it is used here has a very broad meaning.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
Perfect. They are covered. Would it be redundant or pleonastic to say the following?“communicate” includes to communicate by electronic means.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
If that were added, there would be a risk of excluding some other means of communication that we would not want to see excluded.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
I do not know if you have convinced my friends, but you have convinced me. Thank you. There is therefore no need for this amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Are you going to withdraw that? Fine.
Then we'll move on to the next amendment, which is similar. It's Monsieur Sauvageau's, on page 55.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
Is it the same question here, and would you respond in the same way? The amendment reads as follows:“written” includes in any electronic form.
Could Bill C-2, in its present form, lend itself to interpretation?
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
Forgive me, but I do not understand your question.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
In the minds of our specialists, it was not clear that electronic means of communication were covered and that written communication included communication in any electronic form. Are these things clearly established in Bill C-2, in case of some challenge down the road, or could this be interpreted differently by someone? If electronic written communication and electronic means of communication are not clearly set out in Bill C-2, could that lead to challenges?