Evidence of meeting #10 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
So in the future there will no longer be 24 hours' notice needed on motions?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
No, this is a subamendment to this amendment; it's not a motion. I'm sorry, the terminology is pretty strict.
Order, please. Are we ready for the question, or do we need debate on this?
12:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Monsieur Paquette moves that amendment NDP-1 be amended by removing the words “(b) by deleting lines 23 to 25 on page 3”.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Colleagues, we're on the clause as amended.
You will note that amendment NDP-1, amendment BQ-3, and amendment L-2 are in fact the same. So I refer colleagues to amendment BQ-4, which is on your page 7.
Madame Picard, would you like to introduce your amendment?
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Yes, Mr. Chair.
That Bill C-16, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 33 on page 3 with the following:
established by the returning officer, (ii) the address of each advance polling station, (iii) the place where the deputy returning officer for each advance polling station is to count the number of votes cast at the advance polling station, and (iv) the fact that the counting of the votes
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Simply for our procedures and records, this removes this entire Sunday before the actual election day, complete with all of its polls open across the country, so I'm ruling this beyond the scope of second reading and beyond the principle of the original intent of the bill. It's out of order.
12:30 p.m.
An hon. member
I have a point of order.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
I think I have a challenge already. Please don't fight to challenge the chair.
12:30 p.m.
An hon. member
Why not?
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Yes. Madam Redman is challenging the chair. I'll have the clerk read out the challenge and take the vote.
12:30 p.m.
The Clerk
Shall the chair's ruling that the amendment is out of order be sustained?
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
We are now into debate on the amendment to clause 5.
Are there any speakers? Shall I call the question?
I do want to mention to folks, too, that this is the same as Liberal amendment 3. I apologize for mentioning that. We'll call the question now.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Colleagues, there is a new clause being presented, new clause 5.1, which I believe you'll find in your booklets on page 9. This is BQ-5, presented under the name of Madame Picard.
Ms. Picard, perhaps you wouldn't mind putting this on the table, please.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
The amendment reads as follows. That Bill C-16 be amended by adding before line 39 on page 3 the following new clause:
5.1 Section 168 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.1) The returning officer shall establish an advance polling station in the student residences of every post-secondary educational institution in his or her electoral district.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you very much, Madame Picard.
You probably won't be too surprised by this; however, I'm not ruling this one out of order. I do want members around the table to know, as I've read this a couple of times, my concern centres around the words “every post-secondary educational institution”. My concern is that it may require royal recommendation, as it does potentially cause financial initiation of the crown.
I'm not ruling it out of order. It's in order. I want people to consider that as we debate this amendment now.
Mr. Lukiwski.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thanks, Chair. I'll be quick.
We disagree, but that's okay. I believe it would be beyond the scope of the bill; however, I don't know how feasible it would be to have a statutory requirement for the ROs to open up an office on a property over which they have no control. That's why I think it's outside the scope of the bill, frankly.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I think it's an excellent idea and I think it's very much in keeping with what we heard about getting greater voter turnout. I'm wondering, however, if this is really another bill that we need to look at, because we don't know the feasibility of every location. I'm certainly not wanting to be seen putting an X against an initiative that is clearly positive, but we don't have any information on how practical it is.
I'm worried about putting laws in place for which we can't practically guarantee an outcome, but I'm certainly more than willing to be swayed at this point.
