Evidence of meeting #36 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 clauses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
I have a quick question regarding clause 55 of Bill C‑25, actually. I would like to take this opportunity to ask the officials here what they mean by “foreign entity”.
Director, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office
A foreign entity is defined in the act as “an individual who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act”. It can be “a corporation or entity incorporated, formed or otherwise organized outside Canada if it does not carry on business in Canada”. It could be “a trade union that does not hold bargaining rights for employees in Canada”. It could also be a foreign political party, a foreign government, or an agent or a mandatory of one.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you.
(Clauses 55 to 59 agreed to)
(On clause 60)
Go ahead, Madam Kayabaga.
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Would you like me to read the full amendment that we're bringing in or just the rationale?
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
This is a technical amendment that harmonizes a prohibition with the associated offence related to the new ban on accepting a contribution that is in the form of a crypto asset, money order or payment product.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Is there any further debate?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 60 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 61)
We have NDP-4. If NDP-4 is adopted, BQ-17.01 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
It is deemed moved, but no one is here to speak to it.
Is there any debate on NDP-4?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Sure. No problem.
We'll suspend.
Welcome back.
We're on NDP-4.
Is there any support for NDP-4?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Seeing no debate, let's call the vote on NDP-4.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will move to BQ-17.01.
Madame DeBellefeuille.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Mr. Chair, I gather that, if amendment BQ‑15.01 wasn't adopted, then amendment BQ‑17.01 is not in order. As a result, I won't be moving it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
You choose not to move it. Excellent. They are independent, technically speaking, but if they're connected, I appreciate the withdrawal.
(Clauses 61 and 62 agreed to)
(On clause 63)
We have G-4.
Ms. Fancy.
Liberal
Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I'd like to just quickly speak with regard to this clause.
We want to amend clause 63 by replacing line 17 on page 30 with the following:
(h.001) being a nomination contestant, a leadership contestant or the financial agent of a nomination contestant or leadership
In terms of what we're hoping that does, the Canada Elections Act currently includes additional punishments for any offence designated as a “corrupt practice”. As the name suggests, a corrupt practice is a serious offence that warrants extra scrutiny, especially when knowingly committed by somebody who should be deemed trustworthy.
Within the bill, it will also make it a corrupt practice for a nomination contestant or a leadership contestant to knowingly offer a bribe to influence whether, or how, someone votes at a nomination or leadership contest. As well, financial agents in this should likewise be held to what we feel is a higher standard if found guilty of a serious offence, given the importance of their role. This aligns with such prohibited behaviour and how it's treated elsewhere in this act as well. Therefore, this motion would make it a corrupt practice for the financial agent of contestants to knowingly offer a bribe.
Finally, we hope this motion is modelled after the existing punishments for candidates and their official agents who are found guilty of offering a bribe with respect to whether or not they vote at the election.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you, Ms. Fancy.
I see no further debate. Is there agreement?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 63 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 64 to 69 agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Let's try this. Between clause 70 and clause 83 there are no amendments. Is there consent to carry those clauses?
(Clauses 70 to 83 agreed to)
That's excellent. I appreciate the spirit of collaboration.
For potential new clause 83.1, we have amendment G-5.
Ms. Fancy.
Liberal
Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We're suggesting that Bill C-25 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 39 the following:
83.1 Subsection 541(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
541(1) All documents referred to in section 359, 432, 437, 475.4, 476.75, 477.59 or 478.8, all other reports or statements, other than election documents received from election officers and reports provided under [the different subsections], all instructions issued by the Chief Electoral Officer under this Act and all decisions by the Chief Electoral Officer on points arising under this Act are public records and may be inspected by any person on request during business hours.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The people keeping up with our work may not have fully understood the spirit of amendment G‑5. I can see that the reports will no longer be made public. I don't really understand this amendment. It removes transparency. The government isn't keen on making fundraising reports available to the public.
Could Ms. Fancy further explain this amendment so that I understand its intent?
Liberal
Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Within our rationale, what we're hoping is that Bill C-25 includes a requirement that Elections Canada redact the exact location of a regulated fundraising event, only publishing the municipality and province or territory where the event took place, to address these safety concerns.
However, Elections Canada also has a general obligation to allow public inspection of all reports in its possession upon request, unless otherwise exempted. Consequently, we're hoping an additional amendment is needed to exempt the RFE reports that I mentioned before, received by Elections Canada in their original unredacted form, from public inspection.
Lastly, for the regulated fundraising event, or RFE, after-event reports are published online by Elections Canada. They're identical to the documents that the public may inspect at an RO's office, and we're proposing that Bill C-25 keep this requirement for the CEO to publish these reports, minus the precise address.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to hear the officials' opinion.
By amending the legislation in order to prevent the identical publication and public release of the reports, doesn't this amendment undermine transparency and accountability and doesn't it remove important information for the public?
Director, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office
The regulated fundraising event reports will still be made public. They will still be published online, minus the specific location and address of the event, which is consistent.
This is a consequential amendment to that. If someone were to go to a returning office and ask to see the document, they could see it unredacted. This is just exempting the specific details in that report. They wouldn't be provided, but they are provided online. The same information is currently provided online.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand that the intention is nonetheless to avoid transparency regarding the location of the fundraising activity. I think that this important information should be available to the public.
I'll be voting against this amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Is there any further debate?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)
(Clause 84 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 85 and 86 agreed to)
(On clause 87)
On clause 87, we have G-6.
Go ahead, Ms. Brière.
