Oh yes, we talked about doing it verbally.
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.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Right. We do have additional copies. I had been advised earlier that the best way to do it is to explain it verbally and then hand out copies. I don't know whether we can make additional copies, but Chair, I'll ask your direction on this. Even though proposed new section 351.2, the one I'm going to be introducing, is consequential in many respects to amendments G-22 and G-24, did you want to deal with G-22 first?
I'll tell you what it's about. Let me explain it; it might help.
We could probably deal with amendments G-22 and G-24 at the same time. These are dealing with third parties. Concerning amendment G-24 specifically, you may recall that in his 2010 report the Chief Electoral Officer recommended that amendments be made to the Canada Elections Act to ensure that third parties have a connection to Canada. This bill requires third parties to certify that they have a connection to Canada. To ensure that illegitimate third parties cannot skirt the rules, it's important to have a clear prohibition in the act. Amendment G-22 is consequential to G-24.
So that's what we're dealing with in the case of those two.
Now, the additional amendment, which I'm going to read to you and then hand out.... It's proposed new section 351.2, and I want to ask the officials of the Privy Council their opinion. We say:
For greater certainty for the purposes of subsections 350(1), (4), and section 351.1, if election advertising is transmitted during an election period, it shall be considered advertising expenses, regardless of when it was incurred.
In other words, we're saying that third parties should have a cap of $500 during an election period, but if any ads were produced prior to an election itself—say, for example, if a television ad was produced six months prior to a writ and cost $10,000 but only aired during the election—the production costs should be considered an election expense.
It would be the same thing if—I don't know whether you can actually do this—someone wanted to prepay election ads before the election. Clearly it's an election expense, at least in our....
That is what this amendment introducing a new section 351.2 is about. I don't know whether we can get the staff to make copies and hand it out, but that's what it's—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We have to be in the right spot first, Mr. Lukiwski. I think we are, but....
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
But now we're on amendment G-22. Frankly, amendments G-22 and G-24 are interconnected.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
But they're amending two different clauses, so I'm going to make you deal with them in each clause, because there are other amendments too.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Sure. David has a question. Maybe I would....
4:35 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Again we have two different subjects, and now we're bouncing back to the first subject, about the third party having to be a Canadian entity.
I don't want to belabour the point, but again, in the case of a bankruptcy we'd still be in the same situation. Or in the case of somebody who is just being difficult, recalcitrant, or won't cooperate, none of those problems change. They are still there with this. All this does is mandate that there has to be a Canadian connection to the work.
4:35 p.m.
A voice
This is for advertising.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Here we are. An affirmative vote on amendment G-22, which was just moved, would then also be an affirmative vote on the one you were just given or are about to be given, which has the proposed new section 351.2—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Are they making copies? We should have it in a couple of moments.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
—as well as on amendment G-24.
So the three of them are consequential to each other.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Do we have a chance to ask a quick question while we are waiting?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
It's because this is starting to deal with advertising.
Clause 78's changes begin:
350 (1) A third party shall not incur election advertising expenses of a total amount of more than $150,000 in relation to a general election.
The kind of scenarios Tom was just describing are exactly the scenarios that I understood this to be dealing with. Is that correct?
May 1st, 2014 / 4:35 p.m.
Senior Officer and Counsel, Privy Council Office
That is correct. There is a current drafting deficiency in the act, because it only makes subject to the limit those expenses that were incurred during the election period. The bill proposes to remove that language and to provide that any expense in relation to an election is covered.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
That means that if you spend money on the production of an ad and then that ad is aired during the election period, you have to account for the “pre” thing. You can't just load up before.
4:40 p.m.
Senior Officer and Counsel, Privy Council Office
That's correct, because the definition of election advertising expense in the act includes the production costs.