Public Safety Committee on June 10th, 2024

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to move amendment BQ‑2, which is similar to my colleague's amendment in that it seeks to include the following, by replacing line 25 with: “of an electoral platform by a political party …”, and would add the following: “(b.1) specifying any other process for the purposes of the definition political or governmental process in section 2;”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, sir.

Go ahead, Mr. Gaheer.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

The amendment would alter the definition of a “political or governmental process” under the proposed act to allow the Governor in Council to set out additional processes in this definition through regulations.

It's unclear what will be set out through the regulation that wouldn't already be captured through the broad and non-exhaustive definition of “political or governmental”. I'd like to get the officials' word on this.

[Richard Bilodeau]

May I ask you to repeat that, if you don't mind, Chair?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

That was quite fast. I'll slow it down.

This amendment, as we know, would alter the definition of a “political or governmental process” under the proposed act to allow the Governor in Council to set out additional processes in this definition through regulations. We know that as it is drafted already, “political or governmental process” is non-exhaustive; it's intended to include any political or governmental process.

To me, as far as I can read it, it's unclear what would be set out in the regulations that are not already covered by this broad language.

[Richard Bilodeau]

Thank you, Chair, for that question, and thank you for the member for repeating it.

The list, as my colleague here mentioned, does include a non-exhaustive list and is quite broad in terms of government and political process. A commissioner would be free to interpret that in a specific context.

The intent was to create a list that was non-exhaustive. That's what's included here. It includes a lot of issues that would be captured within a governmental or political process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any further discussion on BQ-2?

Seeing none, shall BQ-2 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

This brings us to NDP-5.

Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I think this is a great segue after we just talked about the benefits of having harmony between the SOIA and part 4 of this act. Essentially, I asked the amendment drafters to take the definition of “public office holder” on pages 30 and 31 of this bill—a definition that is being added to the Security of Information Act—and include those exact same components into this new act so that it would basically be exactly in harmony with the SOIA.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Very well.

Is there any discussion?

Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I have a question about this for the officials. Why was the reference made specifically to the Lobbying Act? What benefit does it have? Specifically, are there unintended consequences of this amendment?

[Richard Bilodeau]

The reason that the reference used in the legislation is the Lobbying Act is that the registry does have some similarities to the intent of the Lobbying Act. Referencing the definitions in the Lobbying Act allows us to align with that piece of legislation, but also, if the Lobbying Act changes, then automatically the definitions of “public office holder” in FITAA would change, because it's being done by reference. It would always be up to date.

The amendment would lay out the same language, but if the Lobbying Act were to be amended, then the FITAA and the Lobbying Act would be different and could create some confusion for individuals who might have to register under both pieces of legislation.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

If the intention is just to keep the Lobbying Act language, but without having to come back in the event it changes, I'm more comfortable with leaving it as referenced to the Lobbying Act so that this bill doesn't become outdated the second the Lobbying Act changes.

I accept and appreciate the intention of the amendment to put it out there very clearly, but I do worry about the timing of one change to one piece of legislation and then a review of another. I would rather keep it to allow that it can be automatically in alignment.

I don't know if there's anything else our officials want to add on this.

[Richard Bilodeau]

If I may, part of your question was on the impact of the amendment. I would just point out that it would misalign the coming into force of the provisions in the definition, because the legislation breaks out the coming into force of different parts of the law as it applies to PTs and indigenous governments. The amendment would create confusion with that, and impediments.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you again, Chair.

I remember that specifically in this legislation there is a coming into force that is different for indigenous communities so that there is an opportunity to further consult and make sure there's an understanding of how legislation might impact them and how we can work to make sure we have proper consultation.

Are you suggesting, then, that this amendment would put all of the coming into force under one regime and not have a separate one for indigenous consultation?

[Richard Bilodeau]

No. I think what I'm suggesting is that because of the coming into force, the reason for the mismatch or the opportunity to bring into force an indigenous application later was to allow for consultation. Because of differences in governments and how the definition of “public office holder” may apply, we wanted the benefit of having those consultations so that we could align the coming into force properly and the application to indigenous partners properly.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I see. The coming into force would be part of that consultation for the indigenous piece.

[Richard Bilodeau]

Yes.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Okay.

Chair, if it's directly in line with the Lobbying Act, and as that gets updated so does this portion of the bill, I'm very comfortable with that.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. MacGregor, go ahead, please.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I have two things.

First of all, we just had a big conversation about how it was important that this new enactment lines up with definitions in the SOIA. Now we're having a completely different rationale argued by my Liberal colleague.

Second of all, if you look at the existing Lobbying Act, look at subsection 2(1), because that is what is referenced. It does not appear that there is any mention of MP staff, whereas my amendment seeks to specify that. It says in proposed paragraph (b), “members of the legislature of a province or persons on the staff of such members”.

We just had an argument regarding one of the previous amendments about how we should respect harmony with the Security of Information Act. I believe this is trying to bring the bill into that same spirit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, shall NDP-5 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That brings us to NDP-6. If NDP-6 is moved, NDP-7 and BQ-3 cannot be moved as they are identical.

Mr. MacGregor, do you wish to move NDP-6?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Yes, I do, Chair.

Thanks to our officials, because when I asked them about this during witness testimony, they said they interpreted “provincial or territorial political or governmental processes” to include municipalities. I appreciate that, but I'm always in favour of specificity when we can bring it into law. Again, this is bringing it into harmony with the Security of Information Act, which I think makes specific reference to municipal government. If you bear with me, I'll go back to the amendments.

Yes, there is a reference. If you look at the bottom of page 31 of the bill, it specifically references in the application part “municipal political or governmental processes”.

This brings part 4 into harmony with with what's going on on page 31.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Gaheer, go ahead, please.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

As I continue on my journey to become a licensed lawyer in Canada, I just recently took my constitutional law exam. If I remember my lessons correctly, municipalities are constitutionally creatures of the province itself and exercise all of their authority through provincial devolution.

Can the officials confirm that even without these amendments, the political or governmental processes of municipalities will be covered?

[Richard Bilodeau]

Yes, Chair.