Oh, oh!
Evidence of meeting #37 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was move.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #37 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was move.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I might remind you that the chair has given you just about everything you asked for during this study.
We'll carry on now. I think amendment G-23 is where we are.
Mr. Lukiwski.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I move that amendment.
This is a motion that would increase the spending limits applicable to third parties in cases where the election period is longer than the minimum 37 days, for an election year.
As you know, the spending limit of all other electoral parties in elections going beyond 37 days goes up exponentially. We're just saying that the same rule should apply to third parties.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Okay, are we clear on the amendment? We are voting on amendment G-23.
If I were just to say C-23, we'd do the whole thing, isn't that right?
4:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Thank you, sir.
The changes have some unintended consequences. Foreign corporations, groups, and individuals are now permitted to spend to the limit without registering, and the offences are, first, overspending for not registering.
What I'm hoping to do is fix a related offence or add a new one so that—this is the important part—non-Canadian third parties who cannot register because of a lack of ties to Canada are still not allowed to spend more than $500.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
I forgot to state that amendment PV-52 is identical, so it is caught in this—
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
You move it, which gets us to that point.
So, on amendments LIB-34 and PV-52—
Mr. Scott.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Let me note that I believe this was one of the provisions that had been picked up by the Chief Electoral Officer and which I thought the minister had indicated he had no problems fixing, so I'm glad that the Liberals and the Greens have picked it up. We had it to bring forward, but we won't need to now.
So thank you.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
The vote is on amendments LIB-34 and PV-52.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Where am I?
On NDP-47, Mr. Scott, what is your intention on proceeding with this?
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
It seems to accomplish the same thing as the government amendment—more eloquently, of course—
4:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
That gives us clause 78 as amended.
(Clause 78 as amended agreed to on division)
Amendment G-24 has now been dealt with.
We're on amendment G-25.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
This is strictly consequential to amendment G-24.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I'll call the question on G-25.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 79 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 80)
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will move amendment NDP-48.
Amendment NDP-48 refers to the fact that Bill C-23 has increased the maximum contribution by individuals to $1,500 from $1,200, which represents a 25% increase. This is one of the provisions that we express concern about, because although to some it may feel like a small amount, it is 25%, $300 more.
We had testimony from a professor from UNB who indicated that in fact wealthier Canadians make up the vast majority of those making donations above $200. Being able to give an extra $300 on top of $1,200 is actually something that will disproportionately favour wealthier Canadians for whom that extra bit is not a big deal. It probably will be enhanced by the fact that there do not appear to be any consequential tax amendments, so there are no extra tax credits available. Anybody giving that extra money would be doing it strictly out of their own pocket.
We do feel that this actually belies the government's claim, at least the minister's claim, that somehow this bill gets rid of big money. There are attempts—I will give him credit for that—in the banking section. We feel their attempts went wrong. They actually won't accomplish the goal, but that was an attempt. Here it's absolutely contrary to the purpose, as is the big provision that would have exempted fundraising expenses for previous donors, which I know the government is now intending to remove. We'll only get to that after five o'clock. Nonetheless, issues of big money and money politics were created by Bill C-23, and this indeed is one of them.
We are moving that the $1,500 individual donation across four different categories be returned to what it currently is, which is $1,200.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on amendment NDP-48?
A recorded vote has been asked for.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That also negates amendment BQ-5, by the way. That brings us to amendment PV-53—