Evidence of meeting #59 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
And that would capture the nomination of contestants and leadership.
We're coming close, people.
Can I get any comments from other members, and in particular from our witnesses?
Mr. Chénier, do you have anything to offer on this?
11:55 a.m.
Counsel, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
We want to avoid the general here. It would be preferable to have the exact trigger event that allows for the deemed contribution rule to apply.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Counsel, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
So it would be something like three years after polling day for the election, the selection of the nomination contestants, the day of the leadership contest, or the term negotiated by the entities.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
In your wording, Mr. Chénier, we have captured the registered associations, which aren't important; registered parties are not important. Leadership, candidates, nomination contestants—we've captured all three.
Mr. McDougall.
11:55 a.m.
Director of Operations, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
To comment along the lines of the question I was asked earlier, as to whether I was actually recommending something, in this case I'd like to be clear that we're just trying to clarify the language.
I would also point out that we're dealing with the second half of this particular amendment. I would suggest that the first part of it, the three years, is in fact the big policy issue for the committee members themselves to decide.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Of course. We are dealing with two separate issues here. However, if I can get the wording of this subamendment down, and the committee can agree on that, then we can go back to the amendment itself.
Mr. Lukiwski.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Chair, I don't want to muddy the waters any more than they are, but I have no problem with what the subamendment is contextually to include--nomination races and leadership races. The question is more whether it should be extended from 18 months to three years. I have a problem with that. I would vote against this amendment because I think 18 months is appropriate.
I agree with the subamendment that includes nomination races and leadership races, but I think it should still be under the 18-month timeline rather than the three years. But I assume that would require yet another amendment, which is why I say I don't really want to muddy the waters.
I'll be voting against this subamendment just because I don't believe the three years should replace 18 months.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Order, please.
We have some concerns here at the front table that if we're ultimately going to go back to 18 months, there's no need for an amendment at all. That's what we're dealing with right now.
Noon
An hon. member
We're moving to 36 months.
Noon
An hon. member
We haven't voted on that.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
I appreciate that, but I'm just telling colleagues that's where we're going to end up going so you can see the ramifications of what we're doing.
My thinking is that we should deal with the subamendment—the wording—and either vote it in or vote it out, and then go back to the amendment, which we'll vote in or vote out. We can add an amendment to it to change it to three years, if that is what the committee means, but the order of business is to deal with this subamendment right now.
I think we've nailed down the wording on the subamendment. If we could have that read to the committee, then we will know what we're voting on.
Could you please read what you just said, Mr. Chénier?
Noon
Counsel, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
It's three years after polling day, in the case of a candidate; the selection day in the case of a nomination contestant; the day of the leadership contest in the case of a leadership contestant; and in the case of a registered party and registered association, the day that the amount is due, according to the terms of the contract for the loan.
Noon
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I'd like a point of clarification just so I'm quite sure. If we vote in favour of the subamendment, then we can go back to the amendment, and if we change that—if it remains at 18 months rather than three years—then that will have the consequential effect on the subamendment as well, right?
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
That's correct.
If we vote in the subamendment, the committee still has to debate and vote in the amendment. So you'll have two opportunities to vote. Right now we're at the subamendment level. We need to vote that up or down. We have the wording. Everybody is clear on the wording? I'm seeing most heads nod.
Did anybody else want to speak to this subamendment?
We're ready for the question.
(Subamendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Colleagues, we're going down to the amendment level, which is pretty much what you just heard. We have a new amendment that is worded differently. Everybody remembers the wording. This one includes the three years.
Are we ready for the question or is there debate on this?
Mr. Dewar.
Noon
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
There is debate. I wanted to clarify whether the subamendment helps. If it's a question of timing—and I'm looking for a response here from members—we'll change the timing if it's a problem.
What we're trying to do is clarify. In other words, if three years isn't going to work here, what would you suggest? Is it 18 months or nothing?
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
We're debating it right now. It's 18 months or....
Mr. Lukiwski.
Noon
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I'll be voting against this amendment, because I think the 18 months is appropriate. We've heard some of the commentary from our officials, reflecting the wishes, I believe also, or some of the challenges it might pose for Elections Canada. I will vote against the amendment only because it extends it to three years.
I would like to see it remain at 18 months.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Are there any other comments on this amendment by the NDP?
Mr. Dewar, please.
Noon
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Clarifying that the language with the subamendment is an improvement and captures things, the only concern is the timing.
All right.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
That's exactly where we are.
I'm ready for the question. My job is just to keep the thing moving.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Of course, colleagues, we will keep it in mind, and I'll bring it to your attention for NDP-8, NDP-9, NDP-10, NDP-12, NDP-13 and NDP-14.
However, next we will be dealing with NDP-4--again staying with clause 5--on page 11 of your booklets. I will ask Mr. Dewar to comment on this as well.
