Evidence of meeting #127 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was elections.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
My sense is—correct me if I'm wrong—that we would defeat this amendment but redo an amendment that had the same stuff in it, except for the part about the nomination and leadership contests. Is that the sense of the room? Do you get the sense...?
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I get that sense, but I just want people to think about it. First of all, this is a recommendation that did come from the Chief Electoral Officer. We seem to be very selective whether we think he's wonderful or not, depending on what he says. He's great when we agree with him, and we ignore him when we don't agree with him.
We're saying that if, during a leadership race, somebody—with intent or not—tries to cast doubt by hacking into it, spreading misinformation or disinformation, we're okay with the parties being able to handle it themselves and not relying on any of the potential criminal offences that could result if we included this in the Elections Act. I don't know why we wouldn't want to keep the highest integrity over all of our nomination races. I really don't see it as interference, personally. This is in the event of somebody trying, for example, in Ruby's nomination, to do all of those things to cast doubt over the results of you being the candidate—if you had a nomination race.
That's the point and the intention of this. I appreciate people wanting to keep party things party, but look at the offences we're talking about. This is people who are intentionally trying to discredit our democratic process—not just at the general election but when we pick candidates who will then be put forward as candidates in the general election. The whole thing seems integral to me. Why not have an offence on the books that says, “If you try to do this, regardless of whether it's successful, you're committing an offence”, as opposed to just letting the parties handle it?
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Everybody's views are on the table. We'll vote on the subamendment. If it's defeated, look to maybe Mr. Cullen to resubmit a smaller subamendment.
(Subamendment negatived)
If we had the amendment, Mr. Cullen, would you be willing to present that it undermines the confidence in the integrity of the election, nomination contest or leadership contest?
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Sorry, it's “undermining confidence in the integrity of an election”, just those words.
Ruby said you were okay with that part.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Does it make any difference? Looking for advice, does that language make any difference in the effect?
9:40 a.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
We are back to the original text of CPC-141. The only comment I made was with regard to the subject of the nature of “undermining confidence in the integrity of an election”. It may cause enforcement problems in the future. That being said, it would be a specific element of mens rea that could be used instead of with the intent of affecting the results of the election.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The question is that it's not additive. It's not subtractive certainly—
9:40 a.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
It's not subtractive. It would be an alternative to affecting the results of the election.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Why not consider an additive piece to what exists in other parts of the Criminal Code, which is what you referred to, Mr. Morin? There are other aspects of the Criminal Code that can be applied.
9:40 a.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
As I said, 482(1) includes two elements of mens rea. There's a more general one, fraud, which is also included in the Criminal Code, and a more specific one, the intent to affect the results of an election, which is not presented in the Criminal Code. Laying a charge under the Criminal Code without any proof of specific intent to affect the results of an election would still be possible, provided that all other elements of the offence are met, of course.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Can we have a recorded vote, Chair?
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
PV-14 can be moved because that didn't pass. Is there any further comment on PV-14, which is very similar?
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Now we move to Liberal-41.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 323 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clauses 324 and 325 agreed to)
(On clause 326)
On clause 326, there's a new CPC amendment, which is reference number 9952454.
Stephanie, would you like to present this?
9:45 a.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
For the register of future electors, this increases the penalties for the improper use of the registry data.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
9:45 a.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
If I may....
9:45 a.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Ms. Kusie, you're right that this would eventually have an effect on punishment, but this specific motion is about the offence itself.
Currently the offence associated with the prohibition found at paragraph 56 (e.1), on the unauthorized use of personal information recorded in the register of future electors, is considered to be an offence requiring intent, but on summary conviction only. This offence is found at that specific provision because it mirrors the offence associated with the unauthorized use of personal information recorded in the register of electors.
The amendment would transfer the offence related to unauthorized use of personal information found in the register of future electors to proposed subsection 485(2), which would make it a dual procedure offence. Potentially it could be prosecuted on indictment and have higher criminal consequences.
9:45 a.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Yes. Currently, it's summary only, as it is for the similar offence for the register of electors. Now the one for the register of future electors would be separated from that, and it would be dual procedure.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
This makes stricter.... There are potentially more options for the commissioner and the prosecutor to go by indictment as well as summary conviction.
