Yes, I think so.
Evidence of meeting #123 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 clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #123 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 clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Okay, well, I think it's obvious in here: “future elector means a Canadian citizen who is 16 years”.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Just to clarify, this would amend the definition of “future elector”. Instead of age 14 to 18, it would be from 16 years of age to 18, so it narrows the age group and moves the lower end up to 16 for that requirement. It just provides a slight increase in the age.
I'll leave it at that, Chair.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay. Everyone understands that. Is there any further comment? Are you ready for a vote?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I have one quick comment. How old do you have to be to be a member of the Conservative Party?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Chair, do you mind if I do this one? It's 14, which I have always thought was way too low; and I have tried for years to raise the age to 16 instead of 14.
My own experience in dealing with youth activists is that there's a greater maturity difference between a 14-year-old to 16-year-old than there is between a 16-year-old and, say, a 20-year-old. It's just one of those things that seems to me, based on plenty of party experience, to justify the age of 16 instead of 14. There you are.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Anyway, right now it's consistent, and this is a future elector, not a current elector.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
It's absolutely consistent, but speaking for myself, I would like to see both of these be 16; and if I can get around to changing our party constitution, I'd like to see that be 16 as well.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Now we're going to go to what was originally CPC-1. The reference number, which you already have, is 9985169, just for clarity.
October 15th, 2018 / 5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Yes, it has CPC-1 on it, and the reference is at the top left-hand corner so that you don't mix it up with the other CPC-1s.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Sure. It is in coordination with my question to the minister during her appearance here today about the government at present enjoying specific advantages in regard to being the government. What this attempts to do is level the playing field for the other registered parties in terms of restricting partisan advertising specifically, and in relation to other acts.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Pardon me; before we go to the vote, is this what she committed to within the discussion just now, when I asked her, “Will you commit to not...”, in your opinion?
So, no.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm wondering if this is attempting to have cabinet ministers—including the Prime Minister, of course—list all expenses in the pre-election period and then include that as partisan. Is it attempting to make those expenses part of the partisan advertising limits and/or ban?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Chair, just to clarify, we're still in clause 2, which includes definitions. This is again basically a pre-coordinating amendment for later on. It is, as Mr. Cullen noted, to align those periods.
