Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 11th, 2014

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Well, this is the problem. In the event that it's still possible to do it by riding, and it may be the preferred system for some parties, as a practical matter it's impossible to do it a month after a Parliament, such as the current Parliament, has been convened, because we have no idea what the ridings are in fact going to be under the redistribution. That's an issue.

I would suggest that while I appreciate the intention here, I think this particular subamendment is problematic. Based on that, I will be voting against it.

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

I think that much about the Elections Act or the Parliament of Canada Act will take into account the norm of a riding association's continuity. When redistribution comes in, that then can be attended to if it causes any consequential problems.

The principle here is the important one. Let's put it this way. Implicitly, for those riding associations that continue to exist, as they will after an election, this is what they have to do. At a minimum, then, everybody knows that when it comes to riding redistribution, where these two side-by-side ridings have been assigned the role, when redistribution happens, something has to happen to combine them. I actually don't see it as a barrier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right.

Mr. Simms.

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

I'll ask for a quick clarification. What you're doing here then, the substance of it, which is to say that you can nominate any person or persons, is not going to change under your subamendment. What you're doing is that you're doing it in advance of the convening of a Parliament. To do that well in advance, obviously, it will be well before 25 days.

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

Yes, after a new Parliament has commenced, so you know the position. Is it the president of the riding association? Is it the national director of the party?

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

I see. Okay. I was worried that for any particular individual who gets appointed, then the circumstances may change.

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

That's the whole point. It's an institutional position.

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

Right. Got it: by title.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

If there's no further debate, I'll put the question on NDP subamendment 1.

Would you like that to be recorded?

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

Yes, if there's going to be any split. I guess he was going back to the Scott Reid principle....

(Subamendment negatived: nays, 5; yeas, 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That brings us back to amendment G-1, which has been moved by Mr. Lukiwski. I'll call the question on it.

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

Mr. Chair, did you say it applies for amendments G-1 and G-5?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Amendment G-1 is consequential to amendments G-2 and G-5. The vote on amendment G-1 applies to amendments G-2 and G-5.

Is there any debate at all on amendment G-1? I believe Mr. Lukiwski is preparing for his debate. There's no debate on G-1?

That carries unanimously.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 5)

Shall clause 5 carry?

Carried.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Could you back up for just a moment?

I haven't had a chance to consider clause 5 yet. I was still turning the page. Could you just hold on?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Sure.

I have a feeling you'll come to a good conclusion on it. I'm not going to fight it until we actually have to.

At this moment, we'll let him read it.

Are we okay on clause 5, or shall we talk about it?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I'd like us to revisit that if we could, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's have a conversation.

Go ahead.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I think we should oppose this clause. I have some concerns with it. I'd like to ask for a new vote on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski, go ahead on that one.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

On the whole issue of nomination officers, after pretty extensive consultation with Mr. Chong, everyone agreed to replace it. The government will be voting against clause 5.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right.

Is there any conversation? You understood where we are on it?

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

All this stuff has to fit together.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Your chair was trying to be very efficient today, and apparently it's not going to work.

Let's return to clause 5.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

It's not because you didn't have a tie.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's part of it. It's way too laid back here today.