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.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
That amendment and its ramifications are approved on division.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
We've just voted on LIB-38.
(Clause 268 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clause 269 agreed to)
(On clause 270)
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
There is NDP-23, but my reading is that it's inadmissible because it's beyond the scope of the bill.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Yes, I could explain.
Bill C-76 amends the Canada Elections Act. This amendment seeks to introduce the concept of gender parity among the candidates of a registered party at a general election in relation to the reimbursement of election expenses, which is not envisioned by the bill.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment brings in a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill, and therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
October 17th, 2018 / 6:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you.
In terms of the scope of the bill, C-76, unlike C-33, is much broader in its approach. There are all sorts of things we're trying to deal with in the way that our elections are conducted.
NDP-23 talks about how it is that candidates are preferred and the reimbursement system, which is also part of our elections act, as well as the way this is managed. How does that fall outside its scope? Our surface reading of this was that C-76 was an overhaul of the Elections Act. How Elections Canada interacts with the parties, reimbursements, going after receipts—all that stuff is within this bill.
This is simply a policy amendment to encourage a policy outcome. In this case, it seeks to have the Prime Minister's self-defined feminism actually happen by having more women present themselves as candidates and hopefully get elected.
I'm trying to figure where you're interpreting that this falls outside of that scope.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
There's nothing related to gender parity in the bill, so this is a new area.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I listened to your reference to scope, but concepts? Concepts get introduced all the time. For example, we just went through a concept on privacy and data. The concept that we brought in was totally novel to where C-76 stopped, which is a policy reference on their website.
We had concepts that were new and brought in. The concept of how candidates get nominated exists within the Elections Act. That's fair. The concept of reimbursements also exist within the Elections Act. That's fair. The concept of how those reimbursements are then distributed based on policy, in this policy seeking gender equity....
I don't want to get into a philosophical debate. It's much more a technical debate. How does that concept not already exist within C-76? We're just saying we want the concept interpreted this way to have more women in Parliament.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
The privacy...there's a better relation there. There was a privacy section of the bill.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right, but C-76 affects the Elections Act as it is. In this Elections Act there are all sorts of sections on how we deal with nominations and the proper reimbursements of parties. We're just saying to do it better, if you believe in more women in Parliament. But that depends on your point of view, I guess.
How wedded are you to your ruling on this? It feels like this is open to...honestly, this is not seeking to challenge. Well, I guess it is, but in the nicest way. It feels like this limits the scope of something that is dealt with within this bill and is dealt with within the elections act itself. If we can't affect that, then I would humbly suggest there might be a great number of amendments in here dealing with issues that were not originally intended and are therefore out of scope.
I'm surprised, I guess. I'm surprised by the ruling. We didn't anticipate this one. We know that parties introduce amendments all the time that they know are going to be ruled out of scope. This one didn't feel like that.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Well, you can appeal the ruling.
If this were to go through, what would happen is, in the House, the Speaker would ask about this if it was brought up, and the Speaker would make the same ruling, and there's no appeal to that.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
He may or may not make the same ruling as precedent. I understand there's no appeal.
Let me refer this to colleagues this way. This question, which this bill, I would argue, doesn't deal with at all, gender parity within the House, is worthy of the conversation.
Support the appeal to the Chair simply because we can therefore have the conversation. No offence intended, Chair, to you and your clerks in terms of the interpretation. I think we have grounds for this. More importantly, this is a good conversation to have because we're sitting at 26% with no real prospect of getting a whole lot better in our Parliament.
That is my appeal. I don't believe it's necessarily debatable.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
No, it's not. It's not strictly on the ruling, but let's have a conversation about this topic.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
It's not really debatable, so the clerk will call the vote.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas, 5; nays, 4)
(Clause 270 agreed to on division)
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
6:30 p.m.
NDP
6:30 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay.
I think the only reason the government doesn't reintroduce the per vote subsidy, which a previous Liberal government introduced in the first round, and all the evidence.... There is no evidence supporting the opposite, that the per vote subsidy helps. It was certainly brought in—as you'll remember Chair, because we were both here for it—when big money, corporate and union money, was taken out of politics, the per vote subsidy was brought in as a way to level the playing field and also allow Canadians to express, not just a vote, but in that case, financial support for their choice.
All of the evidence around the world supports this being a good policy. The politics, I suspect, is what's stopping the government from doing it because these guys—I'm going to take shots at you—do from time to time....
Jean-Pierre Kingsley and other former chief electoral officers on policy have supported this. It seems Melanee Thomas, who appeared in front of the ERRE committee, said it's a democratic way of doing party financing. It also struck me as a way of being able to tell people, who thought their votes were wasted because they weren't necessarily voting for the winner, that their votes were contributing to something.
In effect, this would go a small measure towards helping keep the Prime Minister's promise that every vote was going to count in 2019, which he broke. This would maybe make up for it a little bit.
I wait with bated breath for your ruling, Chair, and then we can move on with the evening.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay.
I think you'll be excited that I have a different reason this time.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Bill C-76 mainly seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act. The amendment attempts to increase the quarterly amount a registered political party receives based on the result of a general election preceding that quarter.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme that imposes a charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
NDP-22 is inadmissible, so new clause 270.1 does not occur.
6:30 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It was inadmissible but a great idea. That's what I think you meant to say.