Yes.
Evidence of meeting #127 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was elections.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #127 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was elections.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:45 a.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Yes.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Right now, there's already a prosecution option for the misuse of the register of electors. I think having it consistent for electors and future electors is the appropriate way to go, not treating them separately.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Right now, electors can just be proceeded by summary. This would have the future electors as summary or indictment, basically.
9:45 a.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Yes, and it's for the misuse of the information.
It's not typically electors who would be found liable for that, but people who are using this information on a daily basis.
9:45 a.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
We're dealing with minors here, so I think that in society, in law, whether it's in regard to offences or pornography, we have always looked at the inclusion and the involvement of those under age with specific regard.
I think that this amendment reflects that.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 326 agreed to on division)
(On clause 327)
We have two amendments here. We'll start with CPC-142.
Stephanie.
9:50 a.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
CPC-142 and CPC-143 are similar in that they maintain the element of “knowingly” to the offence of false publications.
Again, if someone were to do something.... If we remove “knowingly”, it just leaves it very subjective in terms of people reposting or redistributing information, whereas the “knowingly” adds the intention around which we've had a lot of discussion this morning.
We're advocating to maintain the element of “knowingly” in both CPC-142 and CPC-143.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
My understanding of things is that the amendment is already redundant because intent is already required in the offence related to the prohibition.
Is that correct, Mr. Morin?
9:50 a.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
The prohibition associated with both CPC-142 and CPC-143 is in proposed subsection 91(1) of the bill. This prohibition says that no person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of the election, make or publish a false statement.
Yes, the intent requirement is already reflected in the intent to affect the results of the election, and of course, the person committing the offence would also need to be aware that the information that is published is false. I think that adding in “knowingly” here would be adding some uncertainty in the level of proof that would be required to successfully convict someone under that provision.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thanks.
I'm prepared to vote on CPC-142 and CPC-143 on that basis.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
We'll vote on CPC-142.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Is CPC-143 the same thing?
9:50 a.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
It's the same thing. Just continue on.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 327 agreed to on division)
(Clause 328 agreed to)
(On clause 329)
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
On clause 329, there was CPC-144, but it was consequential to CPC-49, which I assume is defeated.
(Clause 329 agreed to on division)
(Clause 330 agreed to)
Clause 331 had two amendments, both of which have been withdrawn: CPC-145 and Liberal-42.
(Clause 331 agreed to on division)
Clause 332 had one amendment, CPC-146, which was withdrawn.
(Clause 332 agreed to on division)
Clause 333 had some amendments. It had Liberal-43. That was consequential to LIB-24, so that amendment is passed. There was a CPC-147, but that's withdrawn.
(Clause 333 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clauses 334 and 335 agreed to)
(On clause 336)
Clause 336 has about 10 amendments. Liberal-44 was passed consequentially to Liberal-26. NDP-25 was defeated consequential to NDP-17. CPC-148 has been withdrawn. Liberal-45 is passed consequential to....
Are you withdrawing this one?
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Chair, there may be an explanation that's rational, but I don't understand. You said that it was passed consequential to something else and then we say it's withdrawn. How can they withdraw if it has already been passed?
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
The indication was given prior to the date or the point at which...?
9:55 a.m.
Conservative