Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 30th, 2014

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes. It's not really a philosophical issue; it's more a matter of practicality. I think we're all in agreement that when the leaders go in, those photo ops are needed. The only thing we were wondering is, are we setting ourselves.... That does throw people a little. That's why we have a prohibition against it happening.

This makes an exception for the leader plus the candidates. The leader we accept, but if we get into the candidates, though, some ridings end up with eight to ten candidates, and that could be fairly disruptive. If you're just thinking about the incumbent or one or two, it may not be that big a deal, but if you extend the right, it has to be for everybody on that ballot. That means you could have, theoretically, eight to a dozen sort of bits of circus happening during that time. What are your thoughts on that?

We're wondering whether that's really in the best interests of the stability of the office. We'll make the one exception, but should we maybe just hold it there?

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

I see your point, clearly. The practicality of it may throw some challenges into this, there is no doubt. My assumption is that the poll supervisors are able to manage it in such a way that they do not interfere with people voting or lining up to register or whatever it may be. I think if you are going to move ahead and allow media access to the leader, it should be extended to anyone who puts themselves on the ballot.

The practicality of it, as you point out, I take that, clearly, but I think that the poll clerks and the supervisors have enough experience such that they can manage it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

If I may, Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You can have the floor.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I've been a candidate 11 times, and every time I've done anything like that, when there was interest, we would just do it outside the polling station. They'd get the shot they wanted, a quick little clip of me walking down the street, and I never at any time thought “Gee, I wish I had gotten a clip of me inside” because it really didn't matter.

I'm not against it, personally. I'm not yet convinced that's an improvement, given that candidates—I've been very successful when the media wants to do that with me. I meet them outside; they talk to me before or after I go in, and we do a little cutaway of me walking down the street. I don't know. It seems to work.

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

Mr. Christopherson, my problem is that it would be your call to do that outside. If a particular member of the media would rather have you captured voting as opposed to talking, I think that's their call and they should have the freedom to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll go to Mr. MacKenzie.

Mr. Simms, go ahead.

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

I have one final point. If you're going to extend it to the leader, I understand. That person is the leader, but he or she is also just a name on the ballot like everybody else. It shows a bias.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would be opposed to it, and I recognize that Ms. May will likely vote on election day and she will get her picture there. For perhaps 1,000 candidates across Canada, they may very well vote in the advance poll, and I can't think of a better opportunity to get advance publicity than by calling the press and saying that the candidate is going to be at the advance poll two weeks before election day.

I don't think it's a good idea, Scott.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I might add something else, Mr. Simms, that may help you with your thought here before we go on.

The chair doesn't do this very often, but as Mr. Christopherson said, it may involve eight to ten people, depending on the riding, but that would be eight to ten different polling stations across a riding. They don’t all vote at the same one. You're suggesting that poll supervisors could do it, but now we'd have to train 12 of them if they're all at different—

If I'm in the same riding as the leader, he and I may not share the same polling station.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have one last point. This is an enjoyable discussion. Too bad we didn't do the whole bill this way. When I've done international election observing missions, one of the key things to look for is the atmosphere in the voting station. Is it stable? Are outside interferences creating distractions? One of the things to look for from beginning to close is as much stability as possible.

I remain unconvinced that this is necessarily an improvement, given that as a candidate, I have found my ability...my media has never said, “Gee, Dave, this really sucks because we couldn't do it inside.”

With respect, I'm going to be voting against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Madam Latendresse.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I'd like to address my colleagues who have been on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for at least three years: Mr. Chair, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lukiwski and Mr. Christopherson. I know we discussed a similar proposal when we studied the Chief Electoral Officer's report.

Personally, I have some problems with this amendment, one in particular. Having cameras all over the polling station might deter some people from voting. If I'm someone who wants to vote in relative privacy to keep my vote confidential, I might be intimidated by tons of cameras there to film a party leader or candidate.

I think the measure is reasonable when you're talking about party leaders but shouldn't be extended to every riding in the country. I have some trouble allowing media all over the place as it could put some voters off.

So I won't be supporting this amendment either.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That is super.

We're at the voting stage for amendment LIB-16. I have a feeling where it's going.

Mr. Simms.

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

I see your point. I wasn't going to say anything, but she does bring up a good point, it's valid. But what I'm saying is that you've extended this to several candidates, and not them all, and I think that's probably the problem here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay.

We're voting on LIB-16.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 46 agreed to on division)

(Clause 47 agreed to on division)

(On clause 48)

We have amendment BQ-3.

Mr. Bellavance, you get a few minutes to tell us why you think this is the greatest clause on earth.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Chair, can we discuss amendments BQ-3 and BQ-4 together? I know they pertain to two different clauses, but they both talk about exactly the same thing, prohibiting people from voting with their face covered. Amendment BQ-4 applies to clause 53.

I'm not sure whether that's standard practice here, but if we considered both amendments at the same time, it would save the committee having to listen to the same arguments over again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay. We'll remember how you presented it when we get to it, all right?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I have to be there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right, let's vote on BQ-3—

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

No, no, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Oh, you want to speak further on it. I thought that was your short time.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

No, Mr. Chair. I was just asking one question. I want to make sure you understand what I mean.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Go ahead.