Evidence of meeting #74 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 event.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Olivier Champagne  Legislative Clerk, House of Commons
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Andrew Lauzon
Madeleine Dupuis  Policy Advisor, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office

11 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, and welcome to the 74th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This meeting is being held in public.

I'm going to give a bit longer preamble today because we're doing clause by clause.

Today we're proceeding with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act in relation to political financing. We have officials from the Privy Council Office, who are here to provide any assistance we need. We have Riri Shen, director of operations, democratic institutions, and Madeleine Dupuis, policy adviser, democratic institutions.

Thank you both for being here if we have any questions.

Before we begin, I'd like to provide members who haven't done this before with some information about how committees generally proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill.

The committee will consider each of the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. Once I have called a clause, it is subject to debate and vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I'll recognize the member proposing the amendment, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package each member receives from the clerk. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other, they will be voted on together.

In addition, to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill, both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading, or if they offend the financial prerogative of the crown.

If you wish to eliminate a clause in the bill altogether, the proper course of action is to vote against the clause when the time comes, not to propose an amendment to delete it.

During the process, if the committee decides not to vote on a clause, that clause can be put aside by the committee so that we can revisit it later in the process.

Amendments have been given a number in the top right-hand corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once an amendment is moved, unanimous consent is required to withdraw it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title of the bill itself, and an order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report only contains the text of any adopted amendments, as well as indication of any deleted clauses.

I thank the members for their attention. We will now proceed with clause-by-clause consideration.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Mr. Chair—

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

I think I have Mr. Christopherson first.

11:05 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Thank you very much.

Thanks for going through that. For some members, it's the first time they've done this. I've got to tell you that I sit on this and on the public accounts committee. Tyler and I were talking about how it's probably been about four or five years since I've done one too, so this is probably going to go a little bit less than smoothly as we work our way through it.

That's a nice cover or way for me to say, with very little elegance, I shall not be moving NDP-2, NDP-3, or NDP-4, Chair.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Go ahead, Mr. Reid.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have two questions with relation to the very helpful introduction you read to us. Thank you for that. I'll ask both questions and you can answer them.

Number one, I was going to ask if it is the case that any of the proposed amendments would, if adopted, have the effect of causing any of the other proposed amendments to be outside our consideration. If so, it would be helpful to know those in advance.

Number two, I'd like to know whether any of the amendments have, in your view, fallen outside of what is allowable, and if so I'd appreciate knowing that in advance as well, rather than waiting until we get to the individual items.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

I'll try to answer both of those questions, but we're delighted to have a legislative clerk here today. Should I give the wrong answer, I'm sure he will correct me.

The first question is, yes, I will let you know when one precludes another.

Second, they all appear admissible.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Okay, thank you.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Okay, are we ready to roll?

There are no amendments on clause 1, so shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to on division)

(On clause 2)

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

We have LIB-2. If it's adopted, amendment NDP-1 cannot be moved because of a line conflict.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

NDP-1 was not withdrawn, correct?

11:05 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Correct.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

We have amendment LIB-1. Maybe you could present it, David.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

This is to address the loophole that I brought up during questioning with the minister and her staff. If a minister of one party or a leader of another party shows up at somebody else's event, as the law is worded right now, that would make their event illegal. This would get rid of that loophole very simply.

11:05 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Say that again, Dave.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Let's say the leader of the NDP shows up at my fundraiser—

11:05 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Which happens all the time....

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Well, Tom grew up in my riding, so I know him. Let's say that happened. My event would then become illegal, because I had a regulated person show up my event, and making it somebody from the same party solves that problem.

11:05 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

I was thinking about it, and I can think of a practical application that would cause me to want to support it. Notwithstanding our partisan differences, most of us get along quite well in Hamilton. In my view, Filomena is on the brink of having her shot at cabinet, so it could very well be that she could find herself being a cabinet minister and it wouldn't exactly be a headline for one of us to drop into another's event just on a collegial basis. It does happen. If I'm understanding what you're suggesting, because they're someone who shouldn't be there under the rules, the whole thing then is in some legal question and in trouble.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

It's because she is there, correct?

11:05 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Right.

I guess what I would ask is whether there are any other unintended consequences. From that perspective, I think it makes sense, and I could see myself supporting it. Are there any unintended consequences to it, though?

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Only if somebody crosses the floor at the event.

11:05 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

That ain't going to happen, so there you go.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

In all fairness, it's highly unlikely the minister would cross the floor at the event. Remember, he can go to Filomena's event without it triggering any problems, unless he gets appointed to cabinet, in which case it's a different story.

11:10 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Then we'd get you to write a headline.

It ain't going to happen, so let's just shut that down.

My biggest problem is that adopting this would negate mine, I'm told. Can you help me understand exactly why that is, Mr. Legislative Clerk?