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.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
No, I understand that. Yes.
The only tricky thing with that is sometimes polls that happen, especially on very specific issues, can happen a year or months before, and you're asking the third party to know.... I guess it's a decision they make then if they have any old survey that they bring out. How long back does it go?
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You see, that's the worry.
If any third party publishes the survey during an election or a pre-writ period without a backstop, if it's a survey they published or conducted in 2016 and in 2019 they say Canadians like the flag, that's an election expense all of a sudden. Do you see what I mean?
I understand the intention of certainly someone trying to get out of the loophole and spend the polling money just before an election obviously it's going in. But without a time limitation on it, then for any third party who uses any poll ever, essentially it's going to have to be an election expense.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
But even going backwards?
Okay, excuse me then. Pardon me. I'm repeating a conversation I wasn't a part of.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Did we have the same point? Really? But I made it much better, right? Isn't that what you're thinking?
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We'll see how it works out.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
Stephanie Kusie Calgary Midnapore, CPC
What we are proposing here is that we take the spending limits that are in place; however, should the campaign be extended for a longer period of time, the spending limits would be pro-rated to the amount of time for the longer campaign.
Essentially it is maintaining the same spending limits as they were for the existing campaign period, but for longer campaigns pro-rating these rates to the extended amount of time.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
This just reflects the way things were. In the last campaign, there was a pro-rating that went on, so we're just trying to make sure that—
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
This is a change included in the Fair Elections Act that we opposed fairly strenuously at the time and continue to oppose. It was intended to give the government of the day an advantage by controlling how much money everybody could spend by stretching the campaign. I think it's not a very good system. Spending should be predictable in advance.
I'll be opposing this amendment, absolutely.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
If there is no further discussion, we'll vote on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 224 carry?
3:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
On division.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
(Clause 224 agreed to on division)
Just for the record, and so people have all their records straight, I want to confirm that when we defeated amendment CPC-98, it also defeated amendments CPC-101, CPC-103, CPC-105, CPC-106, and CPC-107.
(On clause 225)
On clause 225, there was amendment PV-9, but it was consequentially lost with PV-3.
We're now going to CPC-100. If we adopt this amendment, CPC-101 cannot be moved as they amend the same line.
Could the Conservatives introduce CPC-100, please.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
This has to do with collusion and it extends where collusion applies. As part of this extension, it also includes collusion between third parties as well, so it extends the definition and makes it tougher for third parties and for registered parties to collude on the basis of doing so to avoid spending limits.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I have a question for the officials.
Does Bill C-76 imagine this form of collusion right now between third parties and their efforts to coordinate?
3:40 p.m.
Lieutenant-Commander Jean-François Morin Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office
I think we had a long discussion yesterday regarding a similar amendment during the pre-election period. This one would apply to the election period.
I don't think it would only apply to collusion between third parties. Wouldn't it also apply to collusion between a registered party and a third party, and the opposite as well?