Evidence of meeting #126 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 agreed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Yes. I'm just getting back to my notes.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 266 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 267 agreed to)
(On clause 268)
We have two amendments. No, we have more than two amendments, but we'll start with CPC-126.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Effectively what CPC-126 does is delay the implementation of the pre-election spending limits until after the 2019 election, so it would be for the 2023 election if there's a majority government when prime minister Scheer.... I had to add that.
6:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
It delays it until the next election. The effect would be to give more time to implement it and to give knowability, so we propose that it be delayed until the election following the 2019 election.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I don't think we have to say that we're going to oppose that.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
We oppose that.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
It removes pre-election spending limits on parties.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I think Mr. Graham voted twice. It sets a bad example—
6:10 p.m.
An hon. member
That's exactly what we're trying to avoid with proper ID requirements.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Garnett, you can't speak. You don't have your 10 binders here tonight.
6:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have to say, was it really Mr. Graham who voted the second time or was it somebody else?
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay. Let's go to LIB-38.
Now, this has some ramifications. If you vote for LIB-38, it applies to LIB-53 on page 299, LIB-55 on page 305, LIB-57 on page 309, and LIB-60 on page 328. Also, if LIB-38 is adopted, CPC-163 on page 310 cannot be moved, as it amends the same line as LIB-57, which is consequential to LIB-38.
Do you want me to read this again?
October 17th, 2018 / 6:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
On a point of order, Chair, I ask that you rule amendment LIB-55 out of order for offending the so-called “parent act rule”. Page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, Bosc and Gagnon, states:
In the case of a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.
The latter point traces back to citation 698(8)(b) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, the editor of which, Mr. John Holtby, is perhaps well known to many of us around this place.
Bosc and Gagnon offer, among several precedents, the November 20, 2007, meeting of the legislative committee on Bill C-2, a meeting at which I understand you, Mr. Chair, were in attendance, where the committee chair ruled several amendments out of order for offending this very rule.
In the present case, amendment LIB-55 proposes to add a new clause 344.1 for the purpose of making an amendment to section 498 of the Canada Elections Act.
Bill C-76 as introduced would amend both sections 497.5 and 499 of the Canada Elections Act, the two sections that bookend 498, but not section 498 itself. Therefore, Chair, I think the government's amendment is quite clearly out of order.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Would it work if we discussed everything except LIB-55?
Okay, so what we'll do is we'll go on with LIB-38. It will have the ramifications to all those other amendments except LIB-55. We'll come back to LIB-55.
We need someone from the Liberals to move and describe LIB-38.
Mr. Bittle.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
The proposed amendment will give the commissioner of Canada elections the authority to request from political parties documents to evidence expenses reported in their financial return. Political parties are already required to provide the CEO with audited financial reports. The blanket authority currently found in Bill C-76 could create an unnecessary heavy burden on political parties. Giving a similar authority to the commissioner in the context of investigation provides for a balanced approach and facilitates obtaining these documents, but delineates the circumstances in which it can be used.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I read this differently, and I'm curious. Because it deletes the passage from line 39 on page 156 to line 5 on page 157, we read it differently, that it's removing that power of the CEO to request documents. Can you clarify?
6:10 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Yes. Motion LIB-38 would be removing the lines 1 to 5 in the English version at page 157 and the equivalent in French, so that would remove the power of the Chief Electoral Officer to require the chief agent of a party to provide specified documents in support of the party's—