Senator Batters: Would Senator Dalphond take a question?

Hon. Donna Dasko: Senator Tannas, would you take another question? My question may overlap slightly with Senator Batters’ question, but I wanted to very specifically focus on this.

When Stéphane Perrault, the Chief Electoral Officer, appeared at committee, he did express frustration about changes to the Canada Elections Act appearing in this bill. You’re focusing on the privacy element. I wanted to ask you specifically: Why didn’t you just simply remove this clause related to the Canada Elections Act? Why didn’t you amend it so that it be removed from this bill if, in fact, one of the important issues here is changes to this act appearing in this bill? Why didn’t you suggest, “Let’s take this out of this bill altogether because it doesn’t belong here” instead?

Thank you.

Hon. Denise Batters: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That the motion be amended:

1.by replacing the words “the Senate do not insist on its amendments” by the following:

“the Senate:

1.insist on its amendments 1(a), 1(b)(ii), 1(f), 1(g), 1(h), 1(i), 1(j), 1(k) and 2, with which the House of Commons disagrees; and

2.do not insist on its other amendments”; and

2.by replacing the last paragraph by the following:

“That, pursuant to rule 16-3, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be charged with drawing up the reasons for the Senate’s insistence on its amendments; and

That, once the reasons for the insistence have been agreed to by the Senate, a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.”.