Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 6th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Clearly the chair doesn't have to explain his decisions, but in essence I don't mind telling you that I felt that removing that particular Sunday from this bill, especially considering that all polls would be open on that Sunday and a number of other issues, is beyond the principle of what this bill offered at second reading. Having said that, I won't continue with my own issues; I have made my ruling.

Madam Redman, did you still want to comment, or can we call the question?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I do, and thank you very much. I hope you don't deem this irrelevant, because I hope it is along the spirit of what Mr. Lukiwski was covering off.

I think rural voters are a key issue. I know we are coming into the time period when conventions and rules will force the Prime Minister to call some byelections, and we may not be here. At an appropriate time--and clearly it isn't right now, Mr. Chair--I would be happy to look at the rural voter piece of legislation; there is a motion on the table....

You'll have to forgive opposition members for feeling that this is a filibuster, because it sometimes feels like that's the default mode of the government members. I would be willing to reverse the motion I had before the committee if we were to deal with rural voters expeditiously; we're not going to get to that piece of legislation until we deal with this one.

I understand the government members aren't happy with this, but I would hope that in the effort of getting the government legislation dealt with, as Mr. Lukiwski says, our priority is that we could at least move forward to the votes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I certainly don't want to rule on the irrelevance of something that appears to be moving forward on other issues, but I would desperately encourage the whips and leaders to get together and have that discussion.

The option to me right now is potentially to suspend this meeting until that happens, but we can't continue that discussion during this meeting. I'm going to look around the table and see if there's a willingness to suspend this meeting or call the question.

We'll call the question on this clause. Are there any more speakers? I want to be fair.

Colleagues, we're at clause 3 and the amendment put forward by the Bloc, amendment BQ-2. As you know, it is the same as LIB-1. A recorded vote has been requested.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 )

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'll give members a chance to get to clause 4. I'm going to call the question, because we have no amendments.

Go ahead, Mr. Lukiwski.

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

I'm not sure if I'm in order even asking this, but I'm wondering, from Monsieur Paquette, the reasons.

There are no amendments, so it would appear to me that there were no serious problems with the clause. I'm just very curious as to why you'd be voting against clause 4.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

We just came back and said there was a problem with clause 4.

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

Okay, then I'd just like to know why. That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We'll have a debate on this issue of clause 4, starting with Mr. Paquette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

If I understand correctly, Mr. Chair, the purpose of clause 4 is to provide for operational modalities arising out of the addition of an advance polling day on the Sunday preceding polling day. Because the will of the majority is not to accept that proposal, it seems to me, therefore, that we should not be providing for the modalities for that day, in any event for the people who have already said that it is inappropriate to add an advance polling day on the Sunday preceding polling day. We therefore oppose it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

It's an interesting dilemma, because some of the other clauses are definitely related. There are consequential issues with respect to this. I'm going to ask the clerks for an opinion on what we should do.

Colleagues, I have sought advice on this issue. We will stay on track and in order. So we are on clause 4.

I think Mr. Paquette has spoken to this issue. All members have heard the argument. I did have Madame Redman down on the same issue.

Mr. Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, may we have the opinion of the experts? I don't want to repeat what Mr. Paquette was explaining, but we voted against having an advance poll on the day before voting day, and clause 4 relates to such an advance polling day on the Sunday prior to the voting day. So there have to be corrections. It might not be completely deleted, but there have to be changes. There have to be corrections, for sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I would ask our experts to comment on that. And if I may, in the efficiency of time, I would ask too, regarding this clause that we just voted on, was it more pertaining to lists; and how will that affect clause 4?

Mr. McDougall, please.

[Dan McDougall]

I think there wouldn't be a problem, given the fact that you've deleted the—

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

On a point of order, did I hear “would” or “would not”?

[Dan McDougall]

There would not be a problem in particular with deleting this, given that you've deleted or intend to delete the vote in advance of the day before the formal voting day. There may potentially be some issues with respect to the pilot project should that amendment be carried, but those potentially could be dealt with in other ways as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Paquette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I simply want to be sure that if we reject clause 4, section 140 will remain as it is. The modalities that are provided for polling day will therefore stay the same.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Perhaps I can just summarize. And please, if it's possible, speak to the chair. I know I'm talking up here as well, but I'm trying to listen to everything.

The argument centres around this term, “the last day of advance polling”. I think there may be some opportunity to keep this in there, but again, I don't see how it changes, because ultimately the reference to the last day of advance polling simply refers to the Sunday before, then. Since we've eliminated the Sunday before the actual election day, it's the Sunday of the week before. Am I not correct that this clause then makes just as much sense? Please look at it that way and offer me an opinion.

Mr. Chénier.

[Marc Chénier]

Mr. Chair, I'd just like to point out that the ballot boxes that are used on the last day of advance polling, being the week before polling day, are not the same ballot boxes as would be used on polling day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Merci.

Are there further questions or discussions, or can we call the question?

Mr. Proulx, please.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'm back to my original point. Would the experts give us advice on how to modify this, because there's no sense in keeping the wording for a ballot box that does not exist. It has to be deleted or corrected, for sure.

[Dan McDougall]

Mr. Chair, we believe the current wording in the Election Act would apply appropriately without amendment. The Election Act wording, section.... Non, 140 s'applique.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Therefore, what I understand is that we delete clause 4 because section 140 already exists in the Election Act, which covers all the procedure. Right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Merci.

Thank you for that clarity.