Evidence of meeting #36 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clauses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
I'm sorry; I was not fully clear. This is a coordinating amendment. He proposed a name change. His riding is listed in schedule 3 of the Canada Elections Act. That was omitted from the bill. All this amendment does is add that name change to schedule 3 of the act.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Could the officials explain whether this constitutes a consequential amendment? Is Mr. Cooper moving a consequential amendment that makes sense? Isn't the amendment consequential to amendment G‑9? I'm wondering about this.
Director, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office
This is a technical amendment that would update schedule 3, which is in the Canada Elections Act. The part 2 names are not in the Canada Elections Act, but this is a consequential amendment for those names that are in schedule 3—electoral districts that have limited or restricted communication and transportation facilities.
It's simply the names, that path, that need to be reflected in schedule 3, because the CEO is not able to amend those himself. He can do that only within seven days after a representation order is issued following a redistribution exercise. This amendment is needed.
It is identical to G-7 and G-8. I believe in CPC-11 there's a mention of the province as well. That is already in schedule 3. I believe G-7 makes the same amendment, but without adding “Province of British Columbia”, because it's already in schedule 3. It accomplishes the same thing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Seeing no further debate, we'll call the vote on CPC-11.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll go to G-7.
Madam Vandenbeld.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Based on what we just heard from Ms. Pereira on the previous amendment with Mr. Cooper, I do believe this amendment does the exact same thing but in a cleaner way.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
I'd like to get an understanding from the officials of how this amendment is different from the one they just voted against.
Director, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office
It accomplishes the exact same thing. It's just that in the previous motion there was a reference in the amendment to British Columbia, which is already in schedule 3. All of the provinces are in schedule 3, so G-7 and G-8 just amend the name as proposed in the previous motion. It's just a drafting approach, so there's no redundancy to the province.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
That was a previous amendment—“under the heading 'Province of British Columbia'.” Can you still clarify?
Director, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office
It's just that the words—the heading, of British Columbia—are already in the schedule. It's just that the way it was drafted would suggest that the bill would need to include British Columbia as well as the name change.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Just to clarify, it says, “replacing the name 'Cariboo—Prince George' with 'Cariboo—Prince George—Omineca'”. There are quotations around it under the heading. It doesn't say to add the heading. It just recognizes that there is such a heading.
Director, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office
Perhaps you're correct. It's just simply a drafting preference, where it's read as to include the heading, because it's in the motion but does the same thing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
I don't think this is about wins and losses; I think this is just about standard drafting in a piece of legislation. That's what I'm hearing. I think we're arguing in favour of the exact same thing. Let's not get too far off. No one's winning votes when they go back to their constituents on this.
Shall G-7 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
This is on a potential new clause 88.2; it's G-8.
Mr. Lewis.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
It's the exact same thing as G-7, in the spirit of giving that responsibility for the name change of the riding to the member of Parliament from that riding. It accomplishes the same thing as CPC-11, for Mr. Doherty's sake. I just wanted that clarity.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Is there any opposition to G-8?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 89)
Before we move to clause 89, perhaps it's best that we suspend, as we're getting close to the hour.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
On this one, I think we're dealing with the same situation as with the previous amendment. I won't move CPC-12, and I think we'll support the alternative amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you.
I'm going to suspend for five minutes, just to give everyone a quick break at the top of the hour.
Liberal
Liberal
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
This technical amendment comes on the heels of what we adopted in amendments G‑7 and G‑8 to ensure that schedule 3 of the Canada Elections Act is revised to reflect new electoral district trends and that these changes come into force at the same time as the renaming of the districts.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 89 as amended agreed to)
Shall the short title carry?
