Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 18th, 2018

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

But they would be forced out of the House.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

It would also be a further incentive for a candidate not to collude with a third party.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is it just a third party or a foreign third party?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I mean a foreign third party. It's a fairly strong incentive not to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there any further debate? Do the Liberals have any comment?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Taking away the right to seek office from the rights of a citizen is a fairly serious penalty for anything, as it should be. I think the act already has some pretty severe penalties within it. I don't know if this is the best one. The commissioner has the tools to catch the lawbreakers as it is. If somebody is put in jail under a separate thing, that already takes care of it under the Parliament of Canada Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

If someone colludes with a third party, is there a way to catch that right now in the act?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

If somebody commits a crime and is in jail, then they aren't there anyway.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Yes. As I said earlier, the consequences would be either jail time or a fine, or both.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

But without this amendment, if someone colludes with a third party, can that be caught?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

There is an offence for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

There is.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Of course. This is an additional consequence to being found guilty of the offence itself.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 347 agreed to on division)

(Clause 348 agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Clause 349 had one amendment, Liberal-59. It's consequential to Liberal-26, which passed, so Liberal-59 passes.

(Clause 349 as amended agreed to on division)

There's a new clause proposed, 349.1, by CPC-167.

Stephanie.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Again, this introduces legislation similar to that seen in Ontario as well as the United States in regard to coordination, collusion standards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there discussion?

Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

My question to the officials is on the enforceability of this. Does the amendment make it more difficult to enforce the act?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

It is very precise. It also seems very broad, so it would certainly distract from the case law that already exists in the context of collusion. We cannot predict the exact effects of legislating a concept that already has a lot of legal meaning associated with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You said very precise and very broad at the same time.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

No, it goes into great detail in describing what is and isn't collusion, while the act currently only talks about the general concept of collusion and leaves it to the report to determine the precedent using case law.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

These provisions are based on those adopted by the Ontario Liberal government of Kathleen Wynne in 2014. I suspected our friends across the way would appreciate that in supporting....

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That's a great argument for the amendment.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I thought my friends across the way would appreciate that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

No, not even a little.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there any further debate on this amendment?