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

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Does Mr. Nater have any further comments before we vote?

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, we shall vote on CPC-170, which reduces the flexibility in determining the fine, which is now one dollar to $1,500, and puts a minimum on it of $1,000 to $1,500.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll go on to CPC-170.1

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

Maybe I'll take this one, Chair.

This basically makes it that the maximum penalty that could be imposed by a public servant, by a bureaucrat, would not be higher than it would be in a similar situation where a judge would be imposing the penalty.

Under the way Bill C-76 would operate at this point, a fine issued through an AMP, a monetary penalty, could be higher than that which would be imposed in a similar situation with a judge. This is aligning the two in terms of the maximum penalty.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do the officials have any comments on this?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

No. It would further restrict the flexibility afforded to the commissioner, but at the same time I think that we should trust the commissioner's good judgment in applying the new AMPs regime.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Nater.

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

I'm just curious. To our officials, would the administrative monetary penalties process have the same legal safeguards that would exist in a court situation or in a situation where a summary conviction would be sought?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

The context of the AMPs regime is different. The AMPs regime is an administrative process, while the prosecution of offences falls into the criminal set of rules. Yes, there are many safeguards included in the AMPs regime, including an administrative review of the penalty and of the file from the Chief Electoral Officer, and of course, the Chief Electoral Officer's review decision could be reviewed by the Federal Court. The process is different. It's an administrative process rather than a criminal process, but yes, there are a lot of safeguards in place.

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

But not as many as in a court situation....

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Given the different burden of proof in a criminal process versus in an administrative process, of course, the rules are different.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Sampson wanted to come in.

[Robert Sampson]

I'm open to being corrected by my colleague on this, but it may be useful to note that the amounts set for summary conviction are already higher than the maximum allowable under an AMP. Currently, under an AMP, the decision-maker could not exceed the amount that is the maximum for a non-summary conviction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That would make this amendment moot.

Mr. Nater, would it be safe to say that this amendment is being soft on crime, by reducing the potential penalty?

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

We are the party that really likes to see judicial protections for those under the law. We're the party of the charter—let's put it that way.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Yes, we believe this is a lower burden of proof for a greater penalty, similar to another issue we're seeing in the House right now, which rhymes with “Gorman”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Given that Mr. Sampson said it wouldn't be a higher penalty....

[Robert Sampson]

I should correct myself there. In the AMPs provision, there is an additional ability to impose a fine of double the amount of the contribution that is illegal, so above and beyond the normal fine, which can only meet $1,500. My colleague points out, and I do apologize, that in the case of a contribution that is illegal, in fact the fine is not set out in the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Graham.

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

I believe we're ready to vote on this one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Bittle, you have a worried look on your face.

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

I always have a worried look on my face.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, I will call the vote on CPC-170.1.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 350 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 351 agreed to on division)

(On clause 352)

Clause 352 is a little complicated. The vote on CPC-171 applies to CPC-185, which is on page 344, and CPC-193.1, which is on page 363. Also, if CPC-171 is adopted, CPC-173 cannot be moved as they amend the same line.

Stephanie, do you want to present CPC-171?

[Stephanie Kusie]

This maintains the Commissioner of Canada Elections within the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Graham.