Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2014

[An hon. member]

I'd like a recorded vote on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You'd like a recorded vote on NDP-6. You didn't move it.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I move it, and I move that we no longer need to debate and we go straight to the vote and we have a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're on NDP-6 and we'll have a recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are now at PV-9.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, just to surprise members of the committee, given that this amendment is substantially the same as the one that was just defeated, I won't take the committee's time to argue the point that we need to empower the Chief Electoral Officer to be able to decline to issue an opinion in certain circumstances.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right.

It has already been deemed moved. Is it defeated?

I'm seeing nods. Fine.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Just apply the last vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Apply a vote? We haven't done that, ever.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

There you go.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're on PV-10. Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Amendment PV-10 takes us all the way to page 7.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Hang on, I have to put on my seat belt. We just went too fast there.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

We're moving a little fast here.

On page 7, line 1, there's the insertion to allow that in addition to considering the material facts included in an application, in preparing the opinion, the Chief Electoral Officer may take into consideration any other information that he or she believes necessary.

I think the ground has been tread here; we know that the Chief Electoral Officer is, in giving these opinions, guidelines, orders, and interpretations.... Again, this is for greater certainty, to ensure that the Chief Electoral Officer under Bill C-23 is not restricted in the access to information, opinions, and additional information that will inform the decision that is requested within clause 5.

Again, this insertion of proposed subsection 16.2(1.1) would be for greater certainty. I think the arguments are much the same, but I would hope the members of committee would give it new consideration and fresh consideration. There's no harm done in this. They've already made the point that they believe this is already the case, and those same arguments apply. For greater certainty, why not ensure that the Chief Electoral Officer can have access to all of the information they find relevant?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

My intent was to implore those who voted against this with the same thrust in the last time we debated this issue, to reconsider in this case. It's not done in an irresponsible manner. We've heard from the testimony that the Chief Electoral Officer would certainly like to have more flexibility, and we trust that person to do as such. I think this goes a long way to providing something that's not overly prescriptive but that is certainly allowing him the confidence to do his or her job.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Scott.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Chair, although Mr. Reid has had to step out, I think it's important to link to what he said earlier. He actually used the example of an arbiter. In his view, the analogy should not be to an arbiter who has to choose between the arguments and the facts presented by two sides and can't go outside the four corners of these. I think, or I hope, that same analogy applies as it did before. I also see this as a “for greater certainty” clause, even though the language isn't used.

We will be voting for it. We think it's important to clarify. At the same time, I don't think there should be legal harm, because I think this could be done anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay, we'll vote on PV-10.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You see? I was delaying, waiting for it.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll have a recorded vote on PV-10.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on NDP-7.1.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Chair, what about PV-12?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It was dealt with because of something else we already did.

There was a line conflict and we've already dealt with that line and we can't deal with it again.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Just so I know for in the future then, just as a point of clarification, if it turns out that it wasn't clear from the bill whether the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner are already bound, that's not the issue; the issue is simply if it's exactly the same line that's been dealt with.