Evidence of meeting #114 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
After consultation with the legislative clerks, I've been advised to seek unanimous consent to withdraw my subamendment and present another subamendment in a different form that would have the same effect as the one I propose to withdraw.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Let's first withdraw the subamendment.
Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw Mr. Chong's subamendment?
5:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Yes.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Okay.
Mr. Chair, I propose the following subamendment.
These words are struck from the amendment:
9 (1) The Governor in Council is to appoint, by commission under the Great Seal, an individu—
We also strike:
(g) by replacing line 22 on page 78 with the following:
“on address of the Senate and House of Commons.”
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on Mr. Chong's subamendment?
Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I want to get clarification.
If all of part 9(1) is removed, would it mean that it's not a Governor in Council appointment?
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Mr. Chair, I can clarify that. That is not correct.
In the existing bill in front of us, on page 78, line 4, the language would remain the same.
It reads as follows:
9 (1) The Governor in Council is to appoint an individual to be known as the Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner, to be responsible for the administration and enforcement of this Act.
That would remain as it is, unamended.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
It's just the amendment we're dealing with here that is being changed, then.
Okay. Thank you.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Are we good?
Okay. Is there any further discussion?
Shall the subamendment carry?
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us back to the amendment as amended.
Is there any discussion on the amendment as amended?
Shall NDP-9 as amended carry?
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That would leave CPC-3.
CPC-3 cannot be moved and BQ-10 cannot be moved.
This brings us to BQ-11.
Mr. Villemure, you have the floor.
June 10th, 2024 / 5:55 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Amendment BQ‑11 deals with the removal of the Commissioner. We propose to involve both the House of Commons and the Senate in the removal process.
Amendment BQ‑11 proposes:That Bill C‑70, in Clause 113, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 78 with the following:“at any time on address of the Senate and House of Commons.”
We therefore propose to add the Senate and the House of Commons to the revocation process.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm sorry. I was focused on something else here.
Would you say that again?
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
We wish to amend line 22 on page 78 to read, “at any time on address of the Senate and House of Commons”. This amendment would add the Senate and the House of Commons to the revocation process.
6 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I'm just curious.
When it says, “at any time on address of the Senate and House of Commons”, I'm not sure of the word “address” there in the English part.
Does it mean “at any time on the recommendation of the Senate?” It's confusing to me. Can you explain?
6 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Yes, I can clarify what that means.
That would mean that in order for the commissioner to be removed, they would have to be removed after an address, on address of the Senate and House of Commons. It means that a resolution of the House of Commons and a resolution of the Senate would have to be adopted in order for the commissioner to be removed from office.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion?
Seeing none, shall BQ-11 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
6 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you.
This is an amendment to remove the administrative monetary penalties from the bill. It deletes from line 22 on page 81 to line 19 on page 83.
The reason for this is that Ms. Kwan believes that there were some foreign interference activities in relation to her 2019 campaign. She did file complaints with law enforcement. I think the outcome was that Elections Canada decided not to fully investigate and instead opted for an administrative penalty of, I think, $500.
She's not really interested in administrative penalties being assessed for what I think we can all agree is something quite serious, so this is removing the administrative penalties but keeping the more serious punishments in place.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Thank you, Chair.
This amendment would reduce the tools that are at the disposal of the commissioner to administer under the proposed act.
As it's currently written, the act has three levels of scalable enforcement mechanisms, from issuing notices to levying fines and then finally referring the case to law enforcement authorities. Removing this would remove that middle step. It would go from issuing notices all the way to criminal prosecutions with no intermediate step in between.
I'd like to hear what the officials have to say on this step as well.
6 p.m.
Director General, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The bill was put forward in this way so that the commissioner would have the maximum discretion on which tools to use to address specific instances of non-compliance. There's a recognition that not all non-compliance deserves criminal punishment, but also that a lot of non-compliance doesn't deserve just a notice.
Having administrative monetary penalties gives that intermediate step. Also, administrative monetary penalties, by their definition, are meant to encourage compliance and deter non-compliance, so they're an important tool in doing that.
In any given situation, if the commissioner believes, in their discretion, that a particular breach of the law requires more severe consequences, the commissioner can refer the matter to the police of jurisdiction for investigation, which could then move forward with criminal charges if they deemed that appropriate.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion?
Seeing none, shall NDP-10 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Okay. BQ-13 can't be moved because other things didn't get moved. We've come to NDP-11, with Mr. MacGregor once again.