This is not it.
Evidence of meeting #25 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 information.
Evidence of meeting #25 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 information.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
It reads:[...] ne peut s'autoriser du paragraphe (2) pour refuser de communiquer les documents qui contiennent des renseignements créés par lui ou pour son compte dans le cadre de toute enquête ou vérification faite par lui ou sous son autorité, une fois que l'enquête ou la vérification en toute instance afférente sont terminées.
If I have the floor at this point, I'm going to ask the expert panel to comment, and then I'm going to share the copy of my amendment with the chair.
4 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The--
4 p.m.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Perhaps I can make this shorter. Can Mr. Wild perhaps confirm that as a matter of statutory interpretation, “may not” has the same meaning as “shall not”?
4 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:05 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
I'm afraid, Mr. Chairman, I might disappoint you on this one.
The question of whether “may” becomes a “shall” and when “shall” is a “may” is a pretty interesting question for lawyers and those who study the law. I'm not sure others would necessarily be that interested in all the machinations around those possibilities. I think the point of the subamendment is certainly to clarify that it is a “shall” as opposed to a “may”. The “may not” in this instance could be read as discretionary; a “may not” does not appear to get translated into an obligation. It is possible sometimes that a “may” can be interpreted as an obligation.
I certainly think the reason for the subamendment is to ensure there is clarity, that in fact it is clear that the heads of the institutions listed in (a), (b), and (c) not have the discretion to refuse to disclose a record that contains information created by them or on their behalf in the course of an investigation, once that investigation is complete and all ancillary proceedings, if you will, are finalized.
(Subamendment agreed to)
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
If clause 161 had been defeated, we could have voted on this section, but it wasn't, so we cannot proceed on L-16.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm sorry, you're absolutely right.
So we're moving to NDP-12.
Mr. Martin.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
The chair rules that we can't put L-17 because it's consequential to 99.1, which is inadmissible.
Therefore, we will move to G-41.1 on page 127.1.
Mr. Poilievre, do you have that? You do now. Okay, because it's going to be your show here.
It's a government amendment, G-41.1, Mr. Poilievre.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Yes, Mr. Chair. I move government amendment 41.1. It seeks to amend clause 147 of the bill. It adds some wording here at the beginning of proposed section 16.3, “Subject to section 541 of the Canada Elections Act”, the very beginning. Further, after “a person who conducts”, it will add “an investigation,” and then we proceed with “examination or review”, and then it adds “in the performance of their functions under the Canada Elections Act”.
The purpose of this amendment is to properly adapt access provisions to the functions and roles of the Chief Electoral Officer. I will invite our panel of experts to further expound and clarify.
4:10 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
The primary focus of the amendment that's proposed is to clarify that the documents that are obtained or created by persons who are authorized under the Canada Elections Act to conduct investigations are included. The way it's crafted in Bill C-2, it says “examinations are reviewed”, but there are also investigations that are conducted under the Canada Elections Act. So the clarification is to ensure that the information created by those people who are conducting investigations is also protected.
The first part of it is just to note that section 541 of the Canada Elections Act is a public disclosure requirement for certain types of information. It's just noting that this in no way infringes upon that requirement of the Chief Electoral Officer to disclose certain information publicly.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
I have a short question for Mr. Wild. When? You said there were details in the Canada Elections Act. Clause 147 does not specify any time limit. Am I right?
4:10 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
Yes.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
