Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue No. 47 - Evidence - June 13, 2018
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 13, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), met this day at 3:19 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Serge Joyal (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: It is my pleasure to welcome you this afternoon, especially the Minister of Democratic Institutions, the Honourable Karina Gould, accompanied by Mr. Jean-François Morin and Ms. Riri Shen from the Privy Council Office. We had the opportunity last week to list listen to the testimony of a representative of the Privy Council.
Madam minister, we are happy that you have been able to make yourself available for the hearing this afternoon.
[Translation]
You know the procedure well. I invite you to make your opening statement, and then the honourable senators will have the opportunity to ask you questions.
Hon. Karina Gould, P.C., M.P., Minister of Democratic Institutions: Thank you very much for inviting me today, Mr. Chair. I am glad to be here and to know that you had the opportunity to talk with my senior officials last week. I would also ask you —
[English]
I apologize because there were votes in the other place last time. To avoid that happening again this time I asked for permission to be here. Hopefully we won’t be interrupted and will have the full hour.
I thank you, honourable senators, for undertaking this study on Bill C-50, An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), and for allowing me the opportunity to address the committee on this important piece of legislation.
[Translation]
I am accompanied today by two representatives of the Privy Council Office’s Democratic Institutions Secretariat: Riri Shen, Director of Operations, and Jean-François Morin, Senior Policy Advisor. I believe you know them already.
[English]
The Government of Canada is committed to strengthening Canada’s democratic institutions and restoring Canadians’ trust and participation in our democratic process.
In addition to Bill C-50, which I will discuss momentarily, Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, is aimed at ensuring that our electoral process is transparent, accessible, reflective of modern best practices, secure and defended against undue influence. While this bill is currently being studied by the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, I would be happy to soon be invited by your committee to discuss its content.
The Prime Minister gave me a mandate to strengthen the openness and fairness of Canada’s public institutions and specifically to enhance transparency in Canada’s political fundraising system. Bill C-50 would amend the Canada Elections Act to create an unprecedented level of openness and transparency surrounding political fundraisers.
Canadians and the Supreme Court believe that political parties are a way for citizens to engage politically. Political parties provide opportunities for Canadians to get involved in our democracy and engage with the issues that matter to them.
Some individuals may choose to participate by volunteering, while others seek elected office in order to represent their constituents in the House of Commons. While some may choose to go to a rally or knock on doors, others choose to exercise their Charter rights, sections 2(b) and 3, to support political parties financially.
Registered parties do benefit from public subsidies through an after-the-fact reimbursement of a portion of their election expenses, but political parties remain highly dependent on Canadians’ financial support to fund their activities.
Political contributions are strictly regulated under existing law, and only Canadian citizens and permanent residents, not corporations, third parties or other entities, may contribute to political parties at the federal level.
To ensure the most well-resourced voices do not drown out all others, there is a limit to what Canadians and permanent residents can donate. In 2018, individuals may contribute a maximum of $1,575 each to a registered party, all the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a registered party, a leadership contestant and an independent candidate in an election.
Honourable senators, you will notice in this legislation that the framework for leadership and nomination contestants’ expenditures would now be harmonized with the candidate expenditures. This is important to ensure a fair and level playing field in our political system.
To guarantee transparency in our political financing system, and to ensure this fair and level playing field, contributions are reported to Elections Canada, and the name and partial address of those who contribute more than $200 are published online.
Bill C-50 builds on and strengthens this existing regime.
[Translation]
Bill C-50 would apply to all registered parties in the House of Commons, and seeks to give Canadians more information on political fundraising activities, before and after they are held. In order to prevent fundraising activities from being held in secret and from being reserved for only a select few, Bill C-50 would first require the parties to announce their fundraising activities at least five days in advance, when the contribution or ticket price to attend the activity exceeds $200, and when Cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister, party leaders and leadership contestants are present.
[English]
Canadians would know about a fundraiser before the event takes place, giving them an opportunity to enquire about a ticket if they so choose.
Bill C-50 ensures greater transparency in political fundraising by requiring political parties to file reports with Elections Canada within 30 days of each event with a ticket price or required contribution above $200. Then, much like with the system that already exists for political contributions, the name and partial address of each attendee would be published online.
To protect their privacy, young people under 18 years of age, volunteers, event staff, media and support staff for the minister or party leader in attendance will be exempt from this disclosure requirement.
This legislation would also make it easier for journalists to report on fundraisers, as events could no longer be held behind closed doors. At the same time, political parties will retain the flexibility to set their own rules for providing media access and accreditation.
[Translation]
Furthermore, Bill C-50 would provide new compliance mechanisms, and would require the money raised during an activity to be reimbursed, if the rules for disclosing and reporting are not followed. It would also provide new infractions for registered parties that do not comply with the rules, including an infraction with a maximum fine of $1,000 on summary conviction.
[English]
We go one step further in Bill C-76. With this legislation, the Government of Canada is proposing to increase the Commissioner of Canada Elections’ investigative powers and to create a new Administrative Monetary Penalties regime aimed at furthering compliance with the Canada Elections Act.
Under this strengthened regime, we seek to provide the commissioner with the ability to lay monetary penalties for political financing and minor voting offences. Additionally, we will restore the commissioner’s power to lay charges and to compel testimony in order to address more serious violations of elections law.
Mr. Chair, honourable senators, the trust of Canadians in their democratic institutions can never be taken for granted. The Government of Canada is putting several initiatives forward to ensure that our democratic institutions continue to be modern, transparent, accessible and secure.
With that, I look forward to your questions and the conversations.
[Translation]
The Chair: It is my pleasure to give the first questions to Senator Dupuis, the deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Dupuis: Minister, good afternoon, and welcome to the committee. I would like to ask you some quite specific questions on what seems to have been excluded from the enforcement of the legislation. We understand that a certain number of activities are regulated by Bill C-50, but I notice that the events and activities that take place during conventions and that are held to pay tribute or to recognize the people who donated to the parties, the appreciation events, have been excluded. Also, if I understand the proposed new section 384.1 of the Canada Elections Act correctly, it would exclude donations of less than $200, as well as events occurring during election periods. I would like to understand why these three elements have been excluded.
Ms. Gould: Thank you, senator. I will go over the three elements, one by one. I do not know if you have ever attended a party convention, but it is hard to figure out where the ministers and party leaders are. That is why this element was excluded for party conventions. It is extremely hard to figure out where they are at that time.
For events with attendance fees of less than $200, it is because there is already an expectation and a precedent in the elections legislation that says that contributions of $200 and more must be published publicly. We continued with this tradition that is already established in the elections legislation.
For election periods, it is also a question of logistics and practicality. During election periods, which can last 37 days, we know that it can be hard for leaders and ministers to know where they will be five days in advance. To avoid giving all parties carte blanche, we have taken measures to make public the activities that take place during the election period. These exclusions were really added for practical reasons.
With appreciation events, it depends. Are there costs to participate? For example, if it is an activity reserved for people who make a donation of $100 or more, it will be covered by the bill. However, activities that honour volunteers of political parties do not require donations. This policy also calls for practical decisions to be made. In my case, for example, I organize events to honour the volunteers who work for my election campaign. I am a minister, but this is a free activity where people do not need to make a donation. It depends on the circumstances of each activity.
Senator Boisvenu: Minister, Mr. Morin and Ms. Shen, welcome. Last year, The Globe and Mail published some rather alarming information about ties between Mr. Bin, a Chinese dignitary of the Communist Party of China, and Liberal Party dignitaries. In fact, I believe the Ethics Commissioner investigated that activity. At the time, one of the Chinese millionaires, who did not have Canadian citizenship, participated in the activity in question, which was headed by the Prime Minister. It was a Liberal Party fundraising activity. If, today, this bill were in effect, would this person be able to participate in a similar activity?
Ms. Gould: Thank you for the question, senator. The bill ensures greater transparency for activities and participants. That is already part of the elections legislation. People who do not have Canadian citizenship cannot donate to political parties. That is already in the legislation. However, if a political party organizes an activity where political actors are covered by the bill, all the participants’ names will be made public. Both the Canadian public and the media will be aware, and will be able to ask questions.
Senator Boisvenu: If I understand correctly, with or without the legislation, participants such as Mr. Bin should not have taken part in last year’s Liberal Party fundraising activity. This guy, a rich Chinese millionaire, did not have Canadian citizenship. Whether the legislation was passed or not, that individual was not authorized to participate in this activity. Is that it?
Ms. Gould: No. I said that it is always possible to invite this sort of person, as long as no donations are made to political parties.
Senator Boisvenu: How will you screen ―
Ms. Gould: It is a question of association ―
Senator Boisvenu: For fundraising activities, how will the government screen participants to determine whether or not they have Canadian citizenship?
Ms. Gould: First of all, all people have the right to belong to an association. However, it is illegal for people without Canadian citizenship to donate to political parties. Under this legislation, the information will be made public, and Canadians will be able to ask questions and make decisions in light of the information they have. The bill provides greater transparency from the participants’ point of view. Everyone will be made aware of these activities.
Senator Boisvenu: Can we deduce that the bill, which was tabled in the Senate, largely targets fundraising activities like the one that was featured in The Globe and Mail last year, during which people, who do not have Canadian citizenship, participated in an activity organized by the Liberal Party of Canada?
Ms. Gould: I am of the opinion that the Canada Elections Act can always be improved over the years. Liberal and Conservative governments have amended this law over the last 40 years, which has contributed to improving the legislation. We amended sections that needed to be improved. When the Conservatives were in power, for example, they set the limit at $1,500 for political contributions made by Canadian citizens. I believe this was an excellent initiative. Canadians regained trust in our political fundraising system because of it.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, Madam Minister, for being here today. Have you considered implementing the Ontario model at the federal level? As you know, Ontario passed political financing legislation that, among other things, prohibits the premier, cabinet ministers and other ministers of the provincial legislature, candidates, the premier’s office staff or ministerial chiefs of staff from attending fundraising events. I note that under Bill C-50 parliamentary secretariats are excluded. Can I have your thoughts on that, please?
Ms. Gould: Certainly, and thank you for the question.
Every jurisdiction is going to make their own laws as to how they choose to govern themselves. We certainly looked across the country when building into Bill C-50.
I have significant reservations with the number of individuals that have been restricted under the Ontario legislation. I also think that it is better to do things in public and for people to be able to see what’s happening than to limit those conversations or understand who people are meeting with. For me, I think it was more important to say that these events are part of individuals’ legitimate political participation.
Many people decide to participate in politics by making a donation to a political party. I think that the — now it’s $1,575 — limit per individual is quite reasonable. I think it’s a way for Canadians to express themselves politically if they don’t want to go knock on doors or don’t want to put themselves forward as a candidate.
Many of you have probably been to a party fundraiser in the past. My experience has always been that it’s a group of like-minded individuals who get together because they care about a shared vision of the country. So I don’t think that we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater on that one.
What was the second part of your question?
Senator McIntyre: Why are parliamentary secretaries excluded?
Ms. Gould: In crafting this legislation, I also tried to focus on those who are accountable and who are in power. While parliamentary secretaries certainly play an important role within the parliamentary process, at the end of the day, as the minister, I’m the one who ultimately is accountable. I’m the one whose signature is ultimately on the decisions that are being made. It’s not the parliamentary secretary. It’s not my chief of staff. I think it’s important to focus on those and their proximity to power in terms of who is being part of this.
Also, with regard to leadership contestants, they are included because this is the moment when they’re actually defining their plans and their projects and building their objectives and their vision for the future. That’s a time when they could be subject to influence. I think it’s important for that to be made clear as well.
Senator McIntyre: Madam Minister, do you foresee any costs for the implementation of this bill? For example, do you anticipate that the offices of the Chief Electoral Officer or the Commissioner of Canada Elections will require additional funds or resources to be able to see the new requirements regarding the advertising and reporting of fundraising events?
Ms. Gould: My understanding from both the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner is that it will be quite minimal. I believe the Chief Electoral Officer mentioned in his prior appearance a slight cost in terms of ensuring that the website is up-to-date, but it’s not something that would be too onerous for them.
Senator Wetston: I want to ask you a question about these new offences you have under Part 18. There’s no shortage of offences, it seems to me. What research or facts do you have in your work developing the bill to support the kinds of offences that you have listed here? They seem lengthy. They also seem to be very specific. I’m wondering how you came to the come collusion that you would have all these new offences added to the act, although I have no issue with summary conviction and strict liability offences.
As well, what is the relationship, in your mind, between these new offences and any potential issues associated with ethical issues and/or conflict of interest matters? Obviously there may be some relationship, particularly with those who may have violated these provisions.
Ms. Gould: Thank you very much for your question. It’s quite an important one in that a lot of thinking went into the consequences and the offences that are in this bill, particularly because we wanted it to focus on intent. Many people who have been to a political fundraiser will know that often they’re run by volunteers. We didn’t want some completely unwitting volunteer who simply made a mistake to be the target of an offence. That’s why a lot of it rests on the party apparatus as opposed to an individual volunteer. It’s hard enough to get volunteers as it is, let alone something that’s even scarier in terms of accidentally making a mistake.
As a Young Liberal at one point, trying to keep track of who is at an event, I had someone saying, “Well, I know the candidate. Don’t you dare write me down. How dare you don’t know who I am.” We didn’t want that onus to be placed on someone who is doing things with good intentions.
We also wanted to ensure that this was taken seriously. That’s why the first offence is with regard to whether a list has been incorrectly sent, and the organizers would have to return the funds received at the event. It is to ensure that that due diligence and that list-keeping is done well. As a candidate, or as the individual doing fundraising, if you’re saying, “I’ve raised $2,000 at this event and I have to give it back because we didn’t report correctly,” you’ll be sure to report quickly and correctly. That’s how we got to where we are.
The Chair: And the second question? I am as interested as you are regarding the second question. I will let Senator Wetston ask the second question or I could rephrase it myself.
Senator Wetston: I was following the government’s thinking on this bill. As you move from sanctions — and I understand the due diligence issues and the intent issue — how does this play into any ethical issues that might arise in the circumstances and/or any conflict of interest issues? Does your work on this lead you to the possibility of saying that this is a sanction but there are also ethical breaches or conflict of interest breaches? How does that fit into the legislative scheme you have here? It may not. I’m just wondering.
Ms. Gould: I would say that that’s probably beyond the scope of this legislation. I think that would come under a different office than the electoral office.
Senator Wetston: I wasn’t suggesting that it was your responsibility. I was simply suggesting that you might keep some of that in mind because this may be the same individuals who might be involved in that. So you would have one course of action and then another possible course of action. But I certainly understand your point of view, and thank you for your comment.
Ms. Gould: The hope is always that people will act as ethically as they can.
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: My question is about disclosing postal codes. Does your analysis show that Canadians willingly accept giving up their privacy and disclosing their postal codes, which is, after all, a very precise piece of information about their residence? And what happens with guests participating in this kind of event, who might not be Canadian citizens? They have no postal code in Canada, after all.
Ms. Gould: Thank you. This bill was based on the idea that those participating in these kinds of events are Canadian citizens or permanent residents. As for including postal codes, that is a practice already used by Elections Canada for people making donations of more than $200. It’s a matter of transparency.
As for the second part of your question, feel free to send me any ideas that you might have.
Senator Dupuis: I have another very specific little question. Clause 11 of the bill sets the maximum fine at $1,000. If the maximum fine in the current act is $2,000, why are we choosing a maximum penalty that is less for the new infractions created in section 497.01?
Ms. Gould: It could be somebody who made a mistake; in that case, the political party would only have to pay $1,000 as a penalty.
Having to return all the donations collected during the event is a harsher penalty, but we also need to make sure that there is some personal responsibility.
Senator Dupuis: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister.
Mr. Morin, could you point out to us the specific section in the Canada Elections Act that requires postal codes to be made public in the registry of donors?
[English]
You certainly have that at hand. You read the election act more often than I might do myself at this stage of my life.
[Translation]
Jean-François Morin, Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office: Yes, of course. I will give you a present and tell you about three sections in the Canada Elections Act.
This is only one example and there are others, of course. I will use registered political parties as an example. Paragraph 432(2)(c) deals with a party’s financial transactions return and specifies that a political party must set out names and addresses in that return. It does not mention postal codes specifically, or provinces, but it requires the name and address of each donor making a contribution of more than $200.
I do not have the section right at hand, but, in addition, paragraph 382(2)(a) specifies that the Chief Electoral Officer shall publish, in the manner he or she considers appropriate, the financial transactions returns of registered parties and the donors’ lists. At one time, the Chief Electoral Officer published addresses in full, but, because of the increasing popularity of the Internet, he removed the addresses and kept only the town or city, the postal code and the province. There are also examples of Canadians abroad who have made donations and, in the parties’ financial transactions returns, they therefore appear with an address outside Canada.
Finally, section 541 of the Canada Elections Act indicates that the Chief Electoral Officer’s correspondence and the documents he receives, including the financial reports, are public documents that can be inspected by anyone on request. Transparency, therefore, really is an important feature of the Canada Elections Act in terms of political party finances.
Senator Boisvenu: Madam Minister, what is the purpose of placing restrictions on expenses during a political party’s nomination races? I am no longer sure which clause that is, but it seems that expenses in nomination races are specifically included, the expenses incurred, the financial contributions, and so on. What was the government’s objective in restricting expenses during a political party’s nomination races?
Ms. Gould: This was a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer in his last report. Since nomination races were not defined in the same way as a political party’s leadership races and its candidates, the goal was to harmonize those three different components.
Senator Boisvenu: Why did you not leave it up to the political parties to oversee themselves, rather than have the government investing in that purpose? Historically, political parties, provincial and federal, have always established the rules of the game for themselves.
Ms. Gould: I feel it is very important to move towards harmonization.
Senator Boisvenu: Why?
Ms. Gould: A lot of money is at stake in a nomination race process and, up to now, the rules in effect have not been the same. It is important to establish a transparent process so that we know where that money is coming from, because limits are in effect. If we want the public to have trust in the political process and in political financing, we have to include those rules.
Senator Boisvenu: There already were limits. For example, in the last nomination race for the Conservative Party, you could not give one candidate more than the limit set for an annual donation to a political party. If that amount is $1,500, a limit is already in effect, is it not?
Ms. Gould: It is important to understand that Bill C-50 does not set out to regulate leadership races. Leadership races have already been regulated for many years. Bill C-50 simply sets out to amend the definition of “leadership campaign expense” and “nomination campaign expense.” There was a discrepancy between the definition that applied to candidates during an election and the definitions that applied to leadership campaign expenses and nomination campaign expenses. This is only about the harmonization that Elections Canada recommended; it changes nothing in the process that applies to leadership races.
Moreover, with leadership races, a maximum contribution is provided for in the act. It is the same, $1,575. That maximum has been in the act for quite some time.
As for leadership races, the Canada Elections Act regulates only the receipt of donations and the expense report. The act has no rules on advertising, since that is left to the political parties.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: If I may, Madam Minister, bring the discussion into a more legal context, what is the reasoning of the government to justify the invasion of privacy rights — because everybody is entitled not to disclose on the Internet where he or she lives — in relation to a donation of $200? What is the proportional reasoning to, in fact, invade the privacy rights of a person and justify it under a reasonableness test of the Charter, section 1 — what is acceptable in a free and democratic society — for somebody to know, in front of 35 million Canadians, that I have donated $200 to X political party and I live at X address? How do you manage the legal reasoning to justify that?
Ms. Gould: The first part of my answer will be that the $200 limit was set before I became minister. So I can’t tell you the initial conversation that happened, when that occurred.
Within this piece of legislation, I personally felt that maintaining that already established $200 limit, as opposed to decreasing or increasing it, and maintaining that harmony within the system was important.
I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t speak perfect legalese, but I can give you my personal opinion on this, whether or not that meets the bar of legality. There is a certain understanding that a donation under $200 is more reasonably attainable by more Canadians than something over $200. The level over $200 is something that a number of Canadians would find difficult to donate. Therefore, it provides a higher bar in terms of their ability to make that donation.
I don’t know if Mr. Morin would like to add something to that.
[Translation]
Mr. Morin: I have nothing to add. I think the minister’s explanation says it all.
[English]
The Chair: But don’t you think that the overall societal objective of establishing a transparent electoral process, whereby everybody has an equal chance to influence the government by his or her vote and not by his or her money, is the value or objective that is generally supported by a wide majority of Canadians? Don’t you think this is a criterion that is more accepted as being the norm than to say you forego your privacy rights of keeping your address private, and what you do legitimately within your Charter rights, sections 2(b) and 3? You mentioned that yourself in your opening. To forego your Charter privacy rights — there is a wider objective that maintains the credibility of the electoral process and the democratic nature of the electoral process.
Ms. Gould: I think so. I would agree with you that most Canadians would see that the most important part of their participation in the electoral process and the truly equalizing ability is the vote that we all cast and the single vote that we have.
Where the $200 limit is important is that it enables people to provide a reasonable donation to a political party, while still maintaining that privacy. If, for example, you are a public servant who wants to donate to a political party, you can donate $199 without worry that your name and partial address — it’s not your full address — will be available for Canadians to see. I think that’s an important right that we need to keep. Therefore, I would argue against lowering that limit in general because — I think perhaps where you’re going, and maybe not — what I believe fundamentally, and I know our government does too, is that you also have the right to participate without it coming back on you either.
We know that there unfortunately have been times in recent history in Canada when people have felt uncomfortable making political donations for fear that they would be targeted for their beliefs, even though that should not be the case and they have Charter rights that protect against that. We still believe that that is an important right to maintain, which is where the $200 threshold also comes into play. So you can make a reasonable contribution while still maintaining that privacy. However, if you go over that $200 threshold, then we have collectively agreed, as was already the case — and I didn’t think there was a need to change it in this instance — that that is a threshold under which those rights come up against each other.
The Chair: As you understand, the section 3 Charter right invites every Canadian to participate in the electoral process. In fact, the regime is conceived to support and favour participation.
On the other hand, at the same time, if you participate at another step, which is to contribute, which is totally legitimate and also an invitation of participation in or commitment to the electoral process, then you have to forego your privacy rights.
That is what I’m trying to understand about how we conceive the Charter rights of participating in the electoral process in Canada.
Ms. Gould: I would say that I don’t disagree with you but that we decided, at some point, that the $200 level is a sufficient contribution, and that if you are going to make a donation at that level or above, your name will be published so as to ensure that there aren’t those backdoor channels of undue influence.
The Chair: Not only your name but what you think, because, when you come under a political party, everybody can associate you with certain ideas.
Ms. Gould: That’s exactly it.
The Chair: Not only are you identified as a person, but what you think is also identified, which is another step into foregoing one’s privacy rights.
I hear the bells, honourable senators.
Senator Wetston, very quickly.
Senator Wetston: I just wanted to quickly follow up on your question. Who has control of this information that is now disclosed publicly when you make that donation?
Ms. Gould: I guess there are two places that have control. The first one would be the political party that is receiving the information. They have an obligation to report that to Elections Canada, so Elections Canada holds that information. So there are two parts of that.
Senator Wetston: The reason I am asking is this: Does it come under the privacy legislation that is administered by the Privacy Commissioner? That is really my question.
Mr. Morin: The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer is subject to the Privacy Act, so any information that is in the electoral records is covered by the Privacy Act.
Senator Wetston: Thank you.
Ms. Gould: If I could just add.
The Chair: Yes, in conclusion, because, according to the rules, I will have to adjourn this meeting because there is a vote in the chamber at 4:21.
Ms. Gould: I see. I love democracy.
In conclusion, very quickly on your last point, it’s also a personal choice to make a donation and to choose which limit. You knowing the $200 limit is something that should be factored in.
In conclusion, thank you very much for inviting me here today. Thank you for your very thoughtful questions. I really appreciate it. Of course, I’m always available to come back and hope to be able to come back soon to deal with another piece of legislation.
The Chair: We appreciate very much your availability.
The meeting is suspended, honourable senators. We will resume after the vote to further consider Bill C-50. Thank you.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we can now begin the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-50.
[English]
I need a motion from someone among you, honourable senators, to move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-50.
An Hon. Senator: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I suggest, honourable senators, that we call the clauses of the bill one by one. If any honourable senator has an amendment when I call a clause, the honourable senator will call my attention to it so that we can proceed with the study and debate of the amendment.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Senator Mercer: Senators, I have an amendment to clause 2. It’s available here in both official languages.
By way of brief explanation, this is a technical amendment that is quite simple. In the other place, at joint committee study of the bill, they amended the bill at clause-by-clause consideration by separating the obligation to file a report from the timeline for doing so. They put the timelines in separate new subsections, 384.3(6.1) and (8.1). This was suggested by the Chief Electoral Officer to harmonize the drafting with the rest of the Canada Elections Act.
The committee, however, omitted to make two consequential amendments to proposed subsections 384.6(1) and (2) of the bill, which allows the Chief Electoral Officer to extend the time provided to fill a report.
In proposed subsections 384.6(1) and (2), the references to 384.3(1), (6) and (8) are now inappropriate and should be references to 384.3(6.1) and (8.1). The amendment does not change the intent of the section. It only provides clarification by correcting a small error. I so move.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Can you tell us which report we are talking about?
[English]
Senator Mercer: The bill.
The Chair: Are we on page 9, proposed subsection 384.6(1), line 18 on the English side and the same line on the French side? Are we all on the same page?
Senator Dupuis: I believe the first one would be on page 7 at line 10, which would be 384.3(6.1.)
Senator Mercer: Page 7.
Senator Dupuis: Line 10.
The Chair: I have the amendment in front of me. I am sorry to interrupt you, senator. I am trying to help you find your way because I understand that there are two references here that are overlapping.
You propose:
That Bill C-50 be amended in clause 2, on page 9,
(a) by replacing line 22 with the following:
Line 22 is the same on both sides of the page. I understand that it would be the line that starts: “in subsection 384.3(6.1) or (8.1) unless he or she is satis-.” That is the line that you propose to change, isn’t it?
Senator Mercer: Yes.
The Chair: Your argument is that this is a consequential amendment following an amendment that has been made in the other place and that they have not taken proper care to reprint the bill accordingly.
Senator Mercer: Yes.
The Chair: I would ask the representatives of the Privy Council, Mr. Morin and Ms. Shen, to come to the table.
You were not at the table when the amendment was introduced by Senator Mercer. Were you able to follow it? Do you have a copy of the amendment with you, Mr. Morin?
Mr. Morin: I only have a copy of the French version of the amendment.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Morin, we are all ears.
[English]
Mr. Morin: Originally, Bill C-50 provided for correction delays in the paragraphs listed on page 9 at lines 22 and 27. The time frame for the request was set out in proposed subsections (1), (6) and (8). In the other place, they were moved, on page 7, at proposed subsections (6.1) and (8.1). Yes, this amendment would correct this mistake in the drafting of the bill. It is consequential to the amendment.
The Chair: So you confirm that this is a consequential amendment to a change that has been brought by the House of Commons?
Mr. Morin: Correct.
The Chair: Thank you.
Are there any other questions, honourable senators? I wanted to make sure that we understood what it was all about.
Senator Carignan, any questions?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: No, that’s fine.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dupuis: Mr. Morin, in the bill before us, there are three subsections: 1, 6 and 8. That means that “1” is no longer covered by —
Mr. Morin: Actually, if you look at page 7, on line 8, new subsection 6.1 reads: “the reports referred to in subsections (1) and (6).” So that covers —
Senator Dupuis: That covers both. Thank you.
The Chair: It covers subsections (1) and (6.1). Very good.
[English]
Are there any other comments before I seek the concurrence of honourable senators to that proposal?
The full amendment reads:
That Bill C-50 be amended in clause 2, on page 9,
(a) by replacing line 22 with the following:
“in subsection 384.3(6.1) or (8.1) unless he or she is satis-”; and
(b) by replacing line 27 with the following:
“ferred to in subsection 384.3(6.1) or (8.1) or within two”.
Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 2, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 3 carry? Clause 3 starts on page 11. I want to identify the page so that honourable senators know where we are in the bill.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 4, on page 12, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 5, on page 13, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 6, on page 13, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 7, at page 13, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 8, on page 14, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 9, on page 14, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 10, on page 16, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 11, on page 16, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 12, on page 16, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 13, on page 16, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 14, on page 17, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 15, on page 17, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? I hear dead silence.
[Translation]
Sorry. Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: Silence is golden. It’s fine.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Is it agreed that the bill, as amended, be reported to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators, for your swift consideration of the Bill C-50.
We would have suggested at steering to start the consideration of Bill C-51. Unfortunately we were unable to get witnesses to complete the hour that was allocated to us by the rules of the chamber.
So we will start Bill C-51 tomorrow morning with witnesses. I can give you the names, if you want to keep them in mind. We will have, from the Centre for Free Expression, Jamie Cameron, Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School — I’m sure some of you know her; Lisa Taylor, Assistant Professor of Journalism at Ryerson; and James Turk, Director, Centre for Free Expression also at Ryerson; and, as an individual Elaine Craig, Associate Professor, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University. That will be the first group of witnesses.
Then we will have the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, Karen Segal, by video conference; and, as an individual, Steve Coughlan, professor at the Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University; and representing the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter, Hilla Kerner, by video conference.
I remind you, honourable senators, that with regard to the amendments to the Criminal Code, there are sections that have been identified by the steering committee as being of prime importance. That will start our consideration of Bill C-50.
We are making representations to hear the Minister of Justice, because it’s an important amendment to the Criminal Code. The Minister of Justice has suggested Friday. I mentioned that I would have to seek the authorization of the chamber to sit on Friday. After consideration, I think that our invitation was postponed to next Wednesday.
So that’s the upcoming subject of consideration by this committee.
If senators have other witnesses to suggest, the steering committee will of course consider them openly.
If there is no other business, I need a motion to adjourn the committee.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I so move.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morin and Ms. Shen.
[English]
We might have the opportunity to see you on some further legislation later on. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)