CC2 Committee Meeting

The Legislative Committee on Bill C-2 met in a televised session at 3:31 p.m. this day, in Room 253-D, Centre Block, the Chair, David Tilson, presiding.

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

The witnesses answered questions.

On Clause 28,

“provincial qui, de l'avis du gouverneur en conseil, a”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Benoît Sauvageau and it was agreed to.

“(c) a former Senate Ethics Officer or former Ethics Commissioner.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pat Martin and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 2, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 4.

Accordingly, Clause 3 as amended, Clauses 4 to 27 inclusively, Clause 28, as amended, Clauses 29 to 37 inclusively and Clause 38 as amended carried.

On new Clause 3.1,

“3.1 (1) In this section, the “other Act” means, before the day on which section 66 of this Act comes into force, the Lobbyists Registration Act and, from that day, the Lobbying Act.

(2) If, on the day on which section 27 of this Act comes into force, section 10.11 of the other Act, as enacted by section 75 of this Act, is not yet in force, persons who would otherwise be bound by section 29 of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders by virtue of their office and who cease to hold that office on or after that day but before the day on which that section 10.11 comes into force, are subject to the obligations established by section 29 of that Code, despite the coming into force of section 27 of this Act.

(3) The registrar referred to in section 8 of the other Act has, with respect to the persons and obligations referred to in subsection (2), the same powers, duties and functions that the Ethics Commissioner would have in relation to those persons and obligations if section 27 of this Act were not in force.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Poilievre and it was agreed to.

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The next Clause, Clause 39, relates to the subject matter of gifts to candidates. There are a series of other clauses that are related to this particular Clause.

I am suggesting that we follow the same procedure we did with Clause 2 and that we deal with all of the amendments that pertain to the subject matter of Clause 39 before I put the question on Clause 39.

In other words, we'll do the same process for Clause 39 as we did for Clause 2.

We are going to deal with the amendments to Clause 40. Once this is done, we will put the question on Clause 39. Its results will be applied to all the consequential clauses—Clause 40, Clause 56, and Clause 58.

The Chair called Clause 40.

On Clause 40,

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Marlene Jennings and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 5.

Clause 39 carried.

Accordingly Clause 40, as amended, and Clauses 56 and 58 carried.

On new Clause 40.1,

“40.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 318:

PART 15.1

RECALL PROCEDURE

318.1 (1) A person may apply to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issuance of a petition to recall a member of the House of Commons if

(a) within thirty days before the application, the member became a member of a registered party that did not endorse the member in the last election; and

(b) the person was included in the final list of electors for the electoral district of the member in the last election of the member.

(2) The application shall include $5,000 and the following information in writing:

(a) the name, telephone number and civic and mailing addresses of the applicant;

(b) the name of the member; and

(c) a statement of 200 words or less setting out why, in the opinion of the person, the member should be recalled.

(3) If the Chief Electoral Officer is satisfied that the conditions set out in subsections(1) and (2) have been met, the Chief Electoral Officer shall

(a) submit a copy of the application to the member and to the Speaker of the House of Commons and inform them in writing that a petition for the recall of the member will be issued in seven days; and

(b) issue the prescribed petition to the applicant seven days after the member and the Speaker have received the information referred to in paragraph (a).

318.2 The provisions of Parts 16 to 18 of the Canada Elections Act apply with respect to the recall procedure described in this Act, with any modifications that the circumstances require.

318.3 (1) The member ceases to hold office and the seat of the member becomes vacant if the petition for the recall of the member

(a) is returned to the Chief Electoral Officer within 60 days after it is issued;

(b) contains the signature and civic address of more than 50% of electors who voted in the electoral district of the member for the last election of the member; and

(c) contains the name and civic address of a witness to each signature.

(2) The Chief Electoral Officer shall, within 40 days after receiving the petition from the applicant, inform the applicant, the member and the Speaker of the House of Commons whether the petition meets the requirements set out in subsection (1).

(3) If the petition meets the requirements set out in subsection (1), the Chief Electoral Officer shall, within seven days after informing the applicant, the member and the Speaker of the House of Commons under subsection (2),

(a) issue a writ for the election of a member to fill the vacancy; and

(b) reimburse $5,000 to the applicant.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

This amendment proposes a procedure for recalling a member of Parliament. The Canada Elections Act is extensively amended by this bill, but those amendments are concerned with contributions, returning officers, and so on. Crossing the floor and the recall of a member are not mentioned. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, on page 654: An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill. I therefore rule that this amendment is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-2 and is consequently inadmissible.

Whereupon, Stephen Owen appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 4.

STATEMENT BY THE CHAIR

The next clause that we will deal with is Clause 41 which relates to the subject matter of contributions from corporations, unions and associations. There are a series of other clauses which are related to this particular clause. As we did previously, I propose that we deal with all the amendments that pertain to the subject matter of Clause 41 before I put the question on Clause 41.

Therefore, we will first deal with the amendments to Clause 43. Once this is done, I will put the question on Clause 41 and its results will be applied to all the consequential clauses – namely Clauses 43, 52, 54, and 60 to 64.

On Clause 43,

“43. Section 404.1 of the Act is replaced by the following:

404.1 If a member who was endorsed as a candidate by a registered party in the last election leaves that party to join the caucus of another registered party, the registered association of the first registered party or the official agent of the candidate shall, on request, repay to an individual any contribution made by the individual to the candidate in respect of that election.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

This amendment proposes a repayment of contributions in cases where a member ceases to be a caucus member of the party from which they were elected. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 654: An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill. The chair rules that it is. Therefore, I must rule that this amendment is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-2 and is consequently inadmissible.

Clause 41 carried.

Accordingly, Clauses 43, 52, 54 and Clauses 60 to 64 carry.

On Clause 42,

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The vote on Clause 42 will apply to Clauses 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, and 57.

Clause 42 carried.

Accordingly, Clauses 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55 and 57 carried.

On New Clause 42.1,

“42.1 Subsection 404(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

404. (1) No person or entity other than an individual who is a citizen or permanent resident as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and who is at least 18 years of age shall make a contribution to a registered party, a registered association, a candidate, a leadership contestant or a nomination contestant.”

Debate arose thereon.

Pierre Poilievre moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the words “the following new clause:” and substituting the following:

“42.1 Section 404 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

(1.1) In addition, no individual shall make a contribution to a leadership contestant or to a nomination contestant unless the individual is 18 years of age or older.”

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Pierre Poilievre and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 7.

The question was put on Clause 42.1 and the result of the vote was announced: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 6.

Whereupon, the Chair voted in the negative.

Accordingly, Clause 42.1 was negatived.

Clause 44 carried.

STATEMENT BY THE CHAIR

Clause 46 is consequential to 47, so the chairman is proposing that we do the amendments to clause 46.

On Clause 46,

(a) by replacing line 3 on page 58 with the following:

“(a) $2,000 in total in any calendar year to a”

(b) by replacing line 5 on page 58 with the following:

“(a.1) $2,000 in total in any calendar year to”

(c) by replacing line 9 on page 58 with the following:

“(b) $2,000 in total to a candidate for a”

(d) by replacing line 12 on page 58 with the following:

“(c) $2,000 in total to the leadership contest-”

(e) by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 58 with the following:

“(a) contributions that do not exceed in total the sum of $2,000 and convention delegate fees by a nomination contestant or”

(f) by replacing line 33 on page 58 with the following:

“(b) contributions that do not exceed $2,000”

(g) by replacing line 38 on page 58 with the following:

“(c) contributions that do not exceed the sum of $2,000 and convention delegate fees by a leadership contestant in a”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and the result of the vote was announced: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 6.

Whereupon, the Chair voted in the negative.

Accordingly, the amendment was negatived.

“(1.1) No individual shall make a contribution to a candidate by means of a loan of money to the candidate unless the loan is made through a bank, credit union or other financial institution.”

The question was put on the amendment of Pat Martin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 11.

“(1.1) Any loan of money that is made to a candidate by an individual is considered to be, for the purposes of subsection (1), a contribution made by that individual.”

The question was put on the amendment of Pat Martin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 11.

“(1.1) Any contribution made to a candidate by a minor is considered to be made by the parent of the minor designated for that purpose by the parents or guardian of the minor.”

At 5:34 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.