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.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
To our witnesses, if we start passing some of these amendments and make it 57 days and we refuse other ones, what happens?
Liberal
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Yes, I'm going to get used to this for tomorrow, let me tell you.
I'm having a hard time seeing what the difference is between this and CPC-15, because it refers to a 57-day maximum writ period and a writ issued between November 11 and 30. I feel we defeated this already, essentially.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Again, this clause is only for elections that have been rescheduled based on a death or a natural disaster.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay, so it's the same Christmas period, but on rescheduled elections.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is CPC-19.
October 15th, 2018 / 6:45 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Again, I see this as being similar to CPC-16, increasing it to the 57-day maximum for other arrangements, such as Groundhog Day, I guess.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
There doesn't seem to be any appetite for these extensions, so can we have a vote?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP-5 is lost because it's consequential to NDP-1.
(Clause 48 agreed to on division)
There are no amendments on clauses 49 to 51, unless we have a new one there.
(Clauses 49 to 51 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 52)
On CPC-20, go ahead, Ms. Kusie.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
This prohibits responsible officers of third parties that fail to file expense reports from being candidates, mirroring the current rules for candidates and official agents.
It makes sense to me that if an officer of a third party failed to file an expense report, then they would have essentially broken the rule and requirement in an effort to be a candidate or official agent. It makes sense to me also because of the government's efforts to provide transparency and accountability for third parties.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Section 65 of the Canada Elections Act currently provides ineligibility criteria for candidates, and paragraph 65(i) says that a person who was a candidate or an official agent and basically failed to provide his or her returns is then ineligible to be a candidate again in a future election.
However, paragraph 65(i) applies only to former candidates; it doesn't apply, for example, to the official agent of any other registered entity under the act.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
No, I'm just saying that the amendment would create the situation that, for example, the financial agent of the party who did not file on behalf of the party would be able to run as a candidate, but the financial agent of a third party, which is more remote from the election process, would be ineligible to file as candidate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
That doesn't make any sense, does it? That doesn't make any sense; it's an inequity, right?
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Mr. Chair, I think it's just a fairness issue. If I as a candidate fail to file reports, I can't run as a candidate. I think it would be the same for a third party's responsible person. If he or she fails to file reports, he or she should also suffer similar consequences and be unable to run as a candidate as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I think the Elections Canada person was saying that the official agents of parties one and two are not prohibited, so this would just prohibit party three and put the third party at a disadvantage, but not the first two parties.
