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.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you.
Further to what my Conservative colleagues said, I just want to point out that this is about striking the right balance between transparency and safety in relation to fundraising events, by keeping the date and time of the regulated fundraising event, without mentioning the location.
This would ensure that information on a fundraising event was available without jeopardizing the safety of those holding the event.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
I think this is a good example of why we look at our election laws and strengthen them on a regular basis. It's why Canada is looked at as a country that has a democracy that other countries emulate.
The rules have changed. The world has changed, so I believe that if this amendment passes, it would be a bit of a security risk. It's the world we live in now. Elected officials and others can be targets, and I think this would be encroaching upon that. I think there are other things in the bill that still let people know what is happening with fundraisers. I think this one goes a bit too far.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much, Mr. Louis.
All those in favour of NDP-1?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 28 agreed to)
(On clause 29)
Is there any debate on NDP-2? All those in favour of NDP-2?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 29 agreed to)
(On clause 30)
Now we go to NDP-3. If NDP-3 is adopted, BQ-15.1 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Madame Normandin, go ahead.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I think I need some clarification on that. Since the wording is the same, is it possible to align the two or combine them in a single amendment? NDP‑3 applies to the reporting of information five days prior to the event and the online publication of information on a regulated fundraising event.
The Bloc Québécois's amendment would ensure that the information was published 30 days after the event, but the desire is the same. Both amendments are complementary. For procedural reasons, one supersedes the other. I was wondering, then, whether it was possible to deal with sections 384.2 and 384.3 in a single amendment, so that the two amendments aren't in competition.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
You can move a subamendment to include those lines. For how it will be impacted, you're free to ask officials how that would happen.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I therefore propose a subamendment to NDP‑3, so that, in addition to section 384.2, it refers to section 384.3.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Welcome back, everyone. The subamendment is in order.
Do you wish to add anything further, Madame Normandin?
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
As I understand it, I can speak to the subamendment and amendment at the same time. That's great.
This will ensure that a party holding a fundraising event that does not comply with the rules—be it publishing the information on its website five days prior to the event or providing the report 30 days after the event—cannot keep the funds raised during the event. It would have to return the contributions to donors.
On Tuesday, a witness said that the fine for failing to properly comply with that obligation tends to be lower than the amount raised during the fundraising event. The party can therefore use the money it raised to pay the fine and keep the rest. This lets parties break the rules at no cost to them, even allowing them to profit from it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Is there some clarification on the subamendment? Is there some confusion?
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
I don't know if there's confusion. I just want to make sure I clearly understand what I'm voting for. It is simply that if there is non-compliance with the reporting requirements under the act, the candidate or party who had the fundraising event would have to return the money to donors. Because the penalties under the act are actually not all that significant, arguably, you could actually end up with.... By paying the penalty, there would be some incentive to break the law.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
With or without the subamendment, I think this goes against the purpose of the bill. Bill C-25 would treat all of these as a violation. Anything that goes against the regulated fundraising event is a violation, which is consistent with how other similar things in the act are treated.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Is there any further debate?
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
We are on the amendment. Does anyone wish to speak?
Madame Normandin.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
At the risk of repeating myself, I will say that rejecting this amendment allows a non-compliant party to fundraise and use the money raised to pay the fine instead of giving donors back the money. That is utterly absurd, as far as I'm concerned.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
We will call the vote on amendment NDP-3.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Because NDP-3 did not pass, BQ-15.1 can be moved, if you wish to move it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you very much.
(Clauses 30 to 35 agreed to)
This brings us to amendment BQ-16, which would introduce new clause 35.1.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I've already presented my arguments on public financing, so I won't repeat myself.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Okay.
Bill C-25 seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act to prohibit the use of certain contributions by political entities and third parties and to provide for new requirements related to the protection of personal information by political parties, amongst other things. The amendment attempts to amend the computation of the allowance fund, for a quarter, for registered political parties.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states the following in section 16.77:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme that would impose an additional charge on the public treasury. I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Bloc
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
We heard from witnesses, in particular Eve Gaumond, about the importance of protecting citizens' personal information. As drafted, the legislation exempts federal parties from complying with provincial privacy laws. The purpose of this provision is simply to subject federal political parties to existing provincial rules on the protection of personal information.