Evidence of meeting #127 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 elections.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
If any individual person has been charged or fined an AMP, in this current situation it would be reviewed by the CEO. Now that the commissioner and the CEO are in the same entity we think it should be an external.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
It's still not enough. We'd like to see an external review.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
If someone charged the Liberals with an election offence from the last election, do you think the Attorney General, who is responsible for the chief prosecutor and is inside that government that's being charged, should be the one adjudicating?
Isn't that a good question?
October 18th, 2018 / 11:20 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
In fact, it allows me to once again highlight the great work done with the Federal Accountability Act, which gave the director of public prosecutions independence from the Attorney General of Canada. It's another good reason to thank the former government.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I think that's a good preamble to a vote.
We will vote on CPC-175, which has ramifications on CPC-179, CPC-180, CPC-181, CPC-182, CPC-183 and CPC-191. The vote is applied to all of those amendments as well.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Also defeated are CPC-179, CPC-180, CPC-181, CPC-182, CPC-183 and CPC-191, because they are linked together by the director of public prosecutions.
(Clause 358 agreed to on division)
(Clause 359 agreed to)
Clause 360 had one amendment, CPC-176, which was consequential to CPC-172 so it was defeated.
(Clause 360 agreed to on division)
(Clause 361 agreed to on division)
(Clause 362 agreed to)
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Clause 363 had one amendment, which was CPC-177, but that was defeated consequential to CPC-172.
(Clause 363 agreed to on division)
Clause 364 had one amendment, which was CPC-178, but that was defeated consequential to CPC-172.
(Clause 364 agreed to on division)
Clause 365 has five amendments. The first one was CPC-179, which is defeated consequential to CPC-175. CPC-180 is defeated consequential to CPC-175. CPC-181 is defeated consequential to CPC-175. CPC-182 is defeated consequential to CPC-175. CPC-183 is defeated consequential to CPC-175.
(Clause 365 agreed to on division)
(Clause 366 agreed to)
Now there's a new clause proposed, 365.1. It's one of the new CPC amendments, reference number 10018294.
Do you want to present that, Stephanie?
11:25 a.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Sure.
This, as the chair indicated, is a new clause that requires our committee to review the rules related to pre-election spending, third parties and foreign influence after the next election. In a similar way, there were evaluations of the—
Pardon me. I'm on CPC-184. I'm jumping ahead, Chair.
Non-resident electors require separate reporting of results of special ballots cast.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
11:25 a.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Yes, I feel as though we have had this conversation already, but—
11:25 a.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Let me take a moment to see if there are any points I want to raise again.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
11:25 a.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
I have to see if I have to get anything on the record.
I think it's just in consideration of the huge number of additional non-resident electors we are going to see, for many reasons. We think it's important to have special and distinct reporting of the special ballots cast.
That's all I will add, but it's true, we did have a large discussion in regard to this yesterday, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
11:25 a.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
My apologies. This is what I was starting on before.
It requires our committee to review rules related to pre-election spending, third parties and foreign influence after the next election, similar to the evaluations we would see in Ontario after the election. I think it's good practice, no matter what, to do an evaluation, a lessons learned. Having been in the public service for 15 years, I can say that this is a fundamental part of Canadian government. We believe it should apply to this legislation as well.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
After the election the CEO issues us a nice long report, which gives us an opportunity to discuss all the things he has discovered, and it comes to this committee to discuss.
Although I appreciate what you want to do, it happens anyway so I think this amendment is redundant.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This is a similar point. I would be careful not to assume too much, but given all these new changes we've made to the clause governing third parties, which I think is the central concern that Stephanie's raising, the CEO would report back. It's impossible for me to imagine that his report on the next election will not include lessons learned, as we've talked about, particularly with these aspects, so I feel pretty confident, given the track record of Elections Canada, that we'll get a decent report. This is the committee it always comes to, I believe, by mandate.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I thought I would point out that this recommendation mirrors a similar provision related to political financing that was introduced in 2003 in the Chrétien government's Bill C-24. We're reflecting the good work that Mr. Chrétien undertook in 2003.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I can appreciate that, sir, your having served with the prime minister.