Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 16th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

[Inaudible—Editor] establishing money as speech, thank goodness. I don't follow that. Are you saying they're additive, that if we have a pre-election restriction on what a third party can say and spend, and if we then restrict the spending too much, those two things together make for a stronger charter challenge? I assume that's where you're saying the challenge is coming from.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Yes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I don't know.... Neither of us is a constitutional lawyer, but I disagree. I think if we're trying to level the playing field and have equal voices represented in the conversation. As Elizabeth said, the amount of money you have to spend to get your message out now, with the tools that are available now, is less than it was, ironically. The price of entry has dropped—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

—in terms of influence, because you can target the voters you want rather than just having blanket ads through radio, television, or newspapers. I'm strongly supportive of this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there any further discussion?

We will vote on PV-5.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I'd like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We're still on clause 223. We're good to go on to CPC-85. If CPC-85 is adopted, CPC-86 and PV-7 cannot be moved because they amend the same line.

Would someone introduce CPC-85.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

This is similar to the last one in that it is for third parties capturing, as a pre-election expense, any opinion poll prior to the pre-election period that is used to shape pre-election activities. This is just taking our previous amendment and attempting to apply it to third parties as well. I think we've had a theme of consistency for all players and all stakeholders, and I think that this amendment follows suit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

To ensure that we can still vote on those other amendments, I propose a subamendment, that amendment CPC-85 be amended by deleting paragraphs (b) to (d).

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

There's a subamendment to eliminate paragraphs (b), (c) and (d).

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Which would then allow us to vote on—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Then it wouldn't be on the same line as the other ones, so it would allow us to then consider CPC-86.

(Subamendment agreed to)

The subamendment has passed. Now, we're on what's left of the amendment, which is everything except paragraphs (b), (c) and (d).

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I think we've discussed this elsewhere.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We already discussed this.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I object for the same reasons that I did the previous ones.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Let's go for a vote on CPC-85 as amended.

(Amendment as amended negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll go to PV-6, which was consequential to PV-3, so we don't have to discuss that.

Then we'll go to CPC-86, which we can discuss now because of the amendment to CPC-85.

Would someone introduce the amendment.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Essentially, this is just calling for tougher anti-collusion definitions.

I think that this is a theme we've seen from us as the opposition within the bill. While we certainly agree with the spirit of many of the components of the bill, we don't always feel confident in the—I would say, up to this point—the mechanisms but here, specifically, in the definitions. We would like to see the definition of anti-collusion established more clearly to allow for more clarity and therefore, hopefully, better enforcement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there further discussion on CPC-86?

Do the officials have any comments?

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm just trying to understand this amendment. My understanding was that it was trying to restrict third parties from sharing surveys and whatnot with other third parties and political parties. Have I got that right or wrong?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Nathan, can you repeat that?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes. I understood that this amendment, CPC-86, was trying to restrict the sharing of surveys and other information between third parties and also from third parties to political parties.