Evidence of meeting #35 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
I see no further debate on BQ-16.1.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
This is about alignment. The lack of adequate Canadian regulations results in a legal vacuum. That said, if I understand correctly, the previous amendment wasn't adopted, so since this and the next amendment seek to achieve consistency, I'm prepared not to move them.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
It is the same with BQ-16.3.
(On clause 36)
Before I call CPC-6, we have until 1:10 p.m., at which point we will adjourn. We don't have resources beyond that point.
Go ahead on CPC-6, please.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
I wanted to pull up the section of the bill before I speak to the amendment.
This relates to the privacy policies that political parties are required to file with Elections Canada.
Under the bill, proposed paragraph 36(1)(j) provides that political parties are prohibited, “as well as any person or entity acting on the party's behalf, including the party's candidates, electoral district associations, officers, agents, employees, volunteers and representatives, from”—and this is where the amendment would be—“(1) providing false or misleading information to individuals about the purposes for which the party collects personal information”.
This simply adds the word “knowingly”, which recognizes that political parties often operate on a volunteer basis and that false or misleading information could be inadvertently or unintentionally provided to someone. This would simply provide that it would apply where such false information is knowingly given.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you.
We did hear from the commissioner during testimony that adding “knowingly” would make it really hard to enforce, and it would unduly complicate it, so we're opposed.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Similarly, as I understand it, adding “knowingly” makes clear that the person commencing the proceedings would have to prove that the violation was deliberate. This adds to the burden of proof. I don't see it as a defence, and in any case, if the entity that commences proceedings relating to the provision of false or misleading information realized that the person did it by mistake, not deliberately, the entity could opt not to pursue the matter. I think this adds to the burden of proof on the prosecuting party unnecessarily.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Before I go on—and this isn't directed at you, Madame Normandin—we've received a notification. Could the members be careful as we're all flipping through pages? Flipping pages near the mic is very loud.
Mr. Calkins, I believe, is next.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I don't think this burden of proof is that difficult. I think it protects people who might not knowingly or willingly.... We have lots of volunteers, lots of people who are simply doing their best and acting in good faith.
I think the real intent here is to go after somebody who is knowingly violating the elections legislation or the regulations.
That is a very typical burden of proof everywhere else in Canadian statutory law. I don't know what the problem would be in at least considering it. I think intent matters, and if we're going to move away from that philosophical doctrine, I worry about that.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Quickly, I'll add that if, for instance, someone accused of providing misleading information was trying to defend themselves, all they would have to argue is that they did not do it on purpose. The prosecuting party would then have to prove that it was done deliberately. If, however, the prosecuting party determined that a volunteer simply made a mistake, they could drop the proceedings against that person. Volunteers are protected against this kind of thing.
To my mind, this unnecessarily adds to the burden of proof the prosecuting party has to satisfy, making it more difficult to prosecute someone who knowingly provides false information.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Seeing no further debate, I'll call the vote on CPC-6.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])