PROC Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs met in a televised session at 11:03 a.m. this day, in Room 253-D, Centre Block, the Chair, Joe Preston, presiding.

Tom Lukiwski gave notice of the following motion:

That, pursuant to its Order of Reference of Thursday, March 27, 2014, regarding the matter of accusations of the Official Opposition’s improper use of House of Commons resources for partisan purposes, the Committee appoint Tuesday, May 13, 2014, for the appearance of the Leader of the Official Opposition;

That, prior to that meeting, the Committee request that the following documents be produced to the Clerk of the Committee no later than Friday, May 9, 2014, in order that they may be translated and provided to all members of the Committee,

(a) from the House of Commons Administration, its employment records for all staff who have worked at the New Democratic Party operation located at 4428 boulevard Saint-Laurent, Montréal (otherwise known as the “Montréal satellite office”), with personal information redacted;

(b) from the House of Commons Administration, all correspondence with the House Officers or Research Bureau of the Official Opposition, or any of their offices, regarding satellite offices, existing or planned, including, but not limited to, (i) the Montréal satellite office, (ii) a Saskatchewan satellite office, (iii) explanations of the rules regarding satellite offices, and (iv) explanations of the rules regarding staff who are neither employed in the Parliamentary Precinct or at constituency offices;

(c) from the House of Commons Administration, all correspondence, during the past 12 months, with Elections Canada or the House Officers or Research Bureau of the Official Opposition, or any of their offices, regarding mass mailouts; and

(d) from the Official Opposition or the New Democratic Party, as the case may be, the lease agreement for the Montréal satellite office; and

That the Committee request briefing materials, to be provided prior to this meeting, from the House of Commons Administration, including the Law Clerk, setting out an explanation of the jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy to investigate the use of House resources, whether in the matter of mass mailouts or satellite offices, including potential recourse available in cases of misuse or non-compliance.

The Committee resumed consideration of the motion of Alexandrine Latendresse, — That the Committee, in conjunction with the current study of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, request that the Library of Parliament create a summary of the evidence presented to the Committee on this Bill, and that this summary not include any recommendations to the Committee on how to proceed with the legislation, and that this summary be presented to the Committee on or before Tuesday, April 29, 2014, and that this summary of the evidence be subsequently presented as a report by this Committee to the House of Commons.

David Christopherson moved, — That the motion be amended by replacing the words “April 29” with the words “May 6”.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of David Christopherson and it was agreed to.

After debate, the question was put on the motion, as amended, and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

The witnesses answered questions.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1, Short Title, was postponed.

The Chair called Clause 2.

On Clause 2,

Pursuant to order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Brent Rathgeber for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-23, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 2 with the following:

“under subsection 67(7) or 71(1) and who, or whose”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

“(5) A person, other than the person not eligible to be a candidate pursuant to section 65, may apply directly to the Chief Electoral Officer to be declared a candidate for the purposes of this Act, provided that the application complies with sections 66 and 67 and that the name of the electoral district in which the person intends to be a candidate is submitted.

(6) The Chief Electoral Officer shall receive all documents, statements and deposits that are required by candidates under Part 6 and that would be received by a returning officer if a writ had been issued.”

(7) A person who complies with subsection 67(5) shall be declared a candidate for a specified electoral district by the Chief Electoral Officer.”

“leadership contestant related to a leadership contest, including a personal expense as defined in section 478, as well as any non-monetary contribution.”

After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was allowed to stand.

By unanimous consent, Clause 2 was allowed to stand.

On Clause 3,

“(2) A person who has served as Chief Electoral Officer is not eligible for re-appointment to that office.”

The question was put on the amendment of Tom Lukiwski and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

Clause 3, as amended, carried on division.

Clause 4 carried on division.

On Clause 5,

(a) by replacing line 25 on page 5 with the following:

“16.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2.1), the Chief Electoral Officer shall, in”

(b) by replacing line 31 on page 5 with the following:

“(2) Subject to subsection (2.1), the Chief Electoral Officer shall, in”

(c) by adding after line 37 on page 5 the following:

“(2.1) The Chief Electoral Officer may decline to issue a guideline or interpretation note when the matter is being considered by the Commissioner or by the courts or when, in the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer, the matter is inappropriate.

(2.2) Before issuing a guideline or interpretation note, the Chief Electoral Officer may take into consideration any information that he or she believes is necessary to prepare it.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Craig Scott and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: David Christopherson, Alexandrine Latendresse, Craig Scott, Scott Simms — 4; NAYS: Tom Lukiwski, Dave MacKenzie, Ted Opitz, Scott Reid, Blake Richards — 5.

(a) replacing line 41 on page 5 with the following:

“interpretation note to the Commissioner and to the members of the”

(b) replacing line 43 on page 5 with the following:

“lished by subsection 21.1(1). The Commissioner and those members”

(c) replacing line 2 on page 6 with the following:

“Chief Electoral officer within 15 days after the”

(d) replacing line 16 on page 6 with the following:

“subsection (5) within 60 days after the day on”

(e) replacing line 18 on page 6 with the following:

“60-day period coincides or overlaps with the”

(f) replacing line 21 on page 6 with the following:

“60 days after polling day for that election.”

(g) replacing line 3 on page 7 with the following:

“proposed opinion to the Commissioner and to the members of the”

(h) replacing line 5 on page 7 with the following:

“lished by subsection 21.1(1). The Commissioner and those members”

(i) replacing line 7 on page 7 with the following:

“Chief Electoral Officer within 15 days after the”

(j) replacing line 12 on page 7 with the following:

“(4) Within 60 days after the day on which the”

(k) replacing line 17 on page 7 with the following:

“expiry of that period. However, if the 60-day”

(l) replacing line 20 on page 7 with the following:

“notice shall be published no later than 60 days”

(m) replacing line 31 on page 7 with the following:

“Commissioner with respect to the activity or practice of the registered party, registered association, nomination contestant, candidate or leadership contestant in question. It remains binding for as long as”

(n) replacing lines 33 to 38 on page 7 with the following:

“substantially unchanged and the activity or practice is carried out substantially as proposed.

(7) An opinion issued by the Chief Electoral Officer under this section has precedential value for the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner.

(8) The opinion remains binding in accordance with subsection (6), and has the precedential value referred to in subsection (7), for as long as a contrary interpretation has not been subsequently issued by means of an guideline or interpretation note issued under section 16.1 or an opinion issued under this section.”

(o) replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 8 with the following:

“tion note that is issued under section 16.1, every opinion that is issued under section 16.2 and all comments of the Commissioner that are provided under subsection 16.1(3) or 16.2(2).”

Scott Simms moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing, in part (c) and part (i), the word “15” with the word “30”.

The question was put on the subamendment of Scott Simms and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Tom Lukiwski and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.

Pursuant to order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-23, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 6 with the following:

“under subsection (3) and any other information that, in the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer, is necessary to its preparation.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-23, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 6 with the following:

“(8) Subject to subsection (9), the guidelines and interpretation notes”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: David Christopherson, Alexandrine Latendresse, Craig Scott, Scott Simms — 4; NAYS: Tom Lukiwski, Dave MacKenzie, Ted Opitz, Scott Reid, Blake Richards — 5.

“(9) Despite subsection (8), guidelines and interpretation notes are binding on auditors who are independent of the registered parties, registered associations, nomination contestants, candidates or leadership contestants.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Craig Scott and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: David Christopherson, Alexandrine Latendresse, Craig Scott, Scott Simms — 4; NAYS: Tom Lukiwski, Dave MacKenzie, Ted Opitz, Scott Reid, Blake Richards — 5.

Pursuant to order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-23, in Clause 5, be amended (a) by replacing line 32 on page 6 with the following:

“16.2 (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the Chief Electoral Officer shall, in”

(b) by adding after line 40 on page 6 the following:

“(1.1) The Chief Electoral Officer may decline to issue an opinion when the matter is being considered by the Commissioner or by the courts or when, in the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer, the matter is inappropriate.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“(1.1) The Chief Electoral Officer may decline to issue an opinion when the matter is being considered by the Commissioner or by the courts or when, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the matter is inappropriate.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Craig Scott and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: David Christopherson, Alexandrine Latendresse, Craig Scott — 3; NAYS: Tom Lukiwski, Dave MacKenzie, Ted Opitz, Scott Reid, Blake Richards, Scott Simms — 6.

Pursuant to order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-23, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 40 on page 6 the following:

“(1.1) The Chief Electoral Officer may decline to issue an opinion when the matter is being considered by the Commissioner or by the courts or when, in the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer, the matter is inappropriate.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived on division.

Pursuant to order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-23, in Clause 5, be amended by adding before line 1 on page 7 the following:

“(1.1) In addition to considering the material facts included in an application, in preparing the proposed opinion for the purposes of subsection (2), the Chief Electoral Officer may take into consideration any other information that he or she believes is necessary.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: David Christopherson, Alexandrine Latendresse, Craig Scott, Scott Simms — 4; NAYS: Tom Lukiwski, Dave MacKenzie, Ted Opitz, Scott Reid, Blake Richards — 5.

“16.31 For greater certainty, in preparing guidelines, interpretation notes or written opinions, the Chief Electoral Officer may, at any time and to whatever extent he or she deems fit, consult the Commissioner. To facilitate such consultation, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner may establish any communications or collaboration structure they determine to be appropriate.”

The question was put on the amendment of Craig Scott and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: David Christopherson, Alexandrine Latendresse, Craig Scott, Scott Simms — 4; NAYS: Tom Lukiwski, Dave MacKenzie, Ted Opitz, Scott Reid, Blake Richards — 5.

Pursuant to order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-23, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 8 the following:

“16.5 The Minister shall engage in extensive consultations with the Chief Electoral Officer with respect to any proposed amendments to this Act and its regulations.”

Debate arose thereon.

At 12:59 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.