All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Citizen Voting Act
An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act
This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2015.
This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2015.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative
In committee (House), as of May 4, 2015
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to
(a) eliminate the international register of electors and incorporate all of the information contained in it into the Register of Electors;
(b) require electors who are resident outside Canada to make an application for registration and special ballot after the issue of the writs at each election;
(c) stipulate that electors who are resident outside Canada may only receive a special ballot for the address at which they last resided in Canada;
(d) require that electors who are applying for a special ballot under Division 3 or 4 of Part 11 include in their application for registration and special ballot proof of identity and residence and, if they apply from outside Canada, proof of Canadian citizenship;
(e) require that an external auditor perform an audit and report on election workers’ compliance with special ballot voting procedures and requirements for every election;
(f) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information for the purpose of assisting the Chief Electoral Officer to, among other things, delete from the Register of Electors the names of persons who are not Canadian citizens; and
(g) add the offence of voting or attempting to vote by special ballot under Division 3 or 4 of Part 11 while knowing that one is not qualified as an elector and add offences under those Divisions of attesting to the residence of more than one elector and of acting as an attestor when one’s own residence has already been attested to.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 4, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will the consent of the House to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.
Citizen Voting ActGovernment Orders
May 1st, 2015 / 1:15 p.m.
See
context
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
There is no consent.
Before I go to the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth on a point of order, if it relates to what just happened, I want to remind all hon. members that there is a requirement for unanimous consent to see the clock. If the member has a point of order, I would encourage him to promptly make reference to the rule or Standing Order to which he is referring in that case.
The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, the reason I am raising this point of order is that the failure of government MPs to give unanimous consent to seeing the clock at 1:30 p.m. compromises the integrity of the Thursday statement and of the organization of House business that relies on it.
Let us look at pages 488 and 489 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, by O'Brien and Bosc, which I will refer to for the rest of the intervention. Mr. Speaker, it is very important that I indicate what it says about the Thursday statement in order for you to understand the point of order. With regard to the Thursday statement, it states:
Each Thursday, after Oral Question, the Speaker recognizes the House Leader of the Official Opposition, or his or her representative, to ask the Government House Leader, or his or her representative, about the government orders to be considered by the House in the succeeding days or week. The Government House Leader then proceeds to outline for the House what business the government intends to bring forward. This practice is commonly known as the “Business Statement” or the “Thursday Statement”. The Weekly Business Statement is not referred to in the Standing Orders but is permitted subject to the discretion of the Chair....
A bit further along, it says:
The Weekly Business Statement was inaugurated on September 23, 1968, when the then President of the Privy Council, in announcing the business the government intended to call the following day, stated that a new practice would begin whereby on every Thursday the government would outline its intentions for the forthcoming week and then respond to questions. Prior to this, it had been the custom of the Government House Leader to announce, at the close of each sitting day, the business to be considered the next day.
Finally, in O'Brien and Bosc:
The Speaker has stressed on many occasions that the time provided for this Statement should not be used by Members as an opportunity to engage in negotiations or debate. The Speaker has also not been inclined to consider the question of House business at any time other than on a Thursday during a week of regularly scheduled sittings. On occasion, the Government House Leader has used this period to request the unanimous consent of the House to propose, without notice, motions related to the business of the House.
With that rule, effectively that practice, in mind, it is important to note what the House leader said yesterday in the Thursday statement. It is very key to know what he said, because it is completely contradictory to what is happening right now in the House. He said:
After this statement, we will—
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
Order, please. What is happening right now in the House is that a request for unanimous consent to see the clock has been denied. I think we are all in agreement that unanimous consent is required for that.
I presume the member is presuming what will happen next, as opposed to what is already happening. An order has not been called. There is no government order before the House at this point. The Chair had not had the opportunity to call orders of the day yet. For clarification for the member, there is no business before the House right now because an order has not been called. He is presuming what is about to be called, I presume.
If the member could be clearer in his reference and could come to a conclusion, that would be appreciated.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to be as clear as I can on this. When I say “the business before the House”, I do mean the giving of unanimous consent in a way that is contrary to the rules of the House. I am trying to make the point that in fact—
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
You are trying to filibuster. That is what you are trying to do.
Citizen Voting ActGovernment Orders
May 1st, 2015 / 1:20 p.m.
See
context
An hon. member
It is nonsense.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is not nonsense.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that I am asking you to rule that unanimous consent cannot be given in these circumstances. That is the matter before the House. In order for—