Evidence of meeting #34 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Okay. So you are on NDP-7.1.
Mr. Simms, you are on the list for this.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I also want to give a form of notice, so I don't forget my own plan, that I do have a 7.2 that I neglected to submit, another one that I'd like to add after, Chair.
As for this one, I hope that everybody will see this for being as crucial as it is. It basically says that the Chief Electoral Officer may consult with the commissioner, and communication channels specific to that may be set up including a collaboration structure. It may well be that the Chief Electoral Officer in discussions with the commissioner.... Because the commissioner has to work with the compliance and enforcement so much in this act, it should be a much more collaborative process on some of these interpretations, or especially opinions.
The Commissioner of Canada Elections, Mr. Côté, specifically drew attention to this issue in an entire half a page almost. He talks about how these interpretation guidelines and especially opinions would affect him, and that therefore, if only because of his independence in the overall structure, there should be some element of his not having opinions imposed upon him. That's why some collaboration structure would be useful.
The last thing I would say is I just said the last thing I would say.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Very briefly, I would like to add to that. In regard to the communication structure that currently stands, I'm highly suspicious from the outset about this, about the isolation, as I deem it, of the commissioner in this particular situation. I think something should be formalized and structured. I congratulate the author of this for explicitly pointing out the relationship between the two and how they collaboratively will come to a better decision, whether it's writing opinions or not or some other decision material.
I implore all of us to have a look at this and to formalize the relationship between the two as it should be despite the fact that we feel that the language isolates the commissioner in many respects.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
My point is I don't think this is necessary. I think this has already been captured to a large extent in government amendment G-2, which we've already passed. It will be further enhanced by an amendment that we are bringing forward, which we'll get to in a few moments, government amendment G-3, which states that the Chief Electoral Officer may disclose any document or information that the Chief Electoral Officer has obtained under the act and that the CEO considers to be important, germane, and useful to the commissioner.
I'm not saying that the intent of this is poor, Craig, whatsoever. I'm saying that we've already captured part of this.
If you want to go back to amendment G-2, line 16, I think you'll find that we have already captured some of this and if you take a look at what is coming up in G-3, I believe you will find that you have everything you want.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
On amendments G-2 and G-3, G-2 is a good start because it references the fact that the commissioner, like the ACPP, would be asked for his feedback.
This goes a bit further though, because it basically talks about consulting even before that and that the collaborative structure recognizes the very specific institutional stake the commissioner has in the interpretation of a vast chunk of the Canada Elections Act and that it should not be left to him to have to react in a feedback way in the way that the parties have to. So there is a difference there.
For the second thing, there is nothing wrong with G-3. We have a later one that we put in the commissioner's section. I think it's NDP-71—
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
—that might add a bit more to that. That's fine, but that's still more about information flow which I think is intended to be much more along the lines of what the commissioner needs for compliance and enforcement. It's much more after the fact. I really would plead with and implore the government to consider this amendment, because it came up specifically as a very crucial thing for the commissioner, given his position having to work with interpretations and opinions on the act.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Quickly, G-3 is about investigations only—let's make sure we have clarity on this—and G-2 is about interpretations only. I think that between the two of them, we have everything covered that was expressed as a concern when we heard testimony.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I'd like to have a recorded vote.
I would just add that, with great respect to Tom, I think it meets the commissioner's need to an extent, but the after the fact consultation, once the Chief Electoral Officer has already prepared the interpretation of guideline, is quite different from what he was looking for. We need something much more up front and collaborative.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
So we're on NDP-7.1 and it's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Scott, you said something about an NDP-7.2. Does it fit right in this spot?
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I believe it does, except that I think in order of precedence, it probably comes after the government's.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We will go to PV-13 first, and watching your clocks, we have a couple of minutes for this before we break from this session.
12:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, this is going into new territory. I don't think it's duplicated or even close to any other party's amendment. It is based on the testimony before this committee of Professor Emeritus Paul Thomas. It's based on a U.K. precedent as well.
Given the fundamental importance of the Canada Elections Act, before any minister attempts to amend it, this is...and we can see the problems. I don't know that all of us around the table will agree that Bill C-23's course might have been easier had the minister consulted in advance with the Chief Electoral Officer, but in any event, I think that the general opinion of many Canadians is that Bill C-23 would have been much improved had the minister of the day consulted in advance with the Chief Electoral Officer. This would create a mandatory obligation on the minister, obviously for all time, that extensive consultations with the Chief Electoral Officer with respect to any proposed amendments to this act and its regulations would have to be conducted before amending the act.
I think it speaks for itself. I'll just add that it would avoid a lot of difficulty in the future. I think it's the kind of thing Canadians would have expected, in that no one would amend the Canada Elections Act without extensive consultations with the officer of Parliament who is the most knowledgeable on the subject. This would create an affirmative obligation, and there's no harm done by requiring those consultations. It doesn't bind the hands of a future minister to disagree with the Chief Electoral Officer, to even disagree in the most vociferous manner and to put forward amendments that are contrary to the advice, but one would want to see any minister consult with the Chief Electoral Officer before putting forward amendments.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
If it's okay with the committee, I'm going to thank Ms. May for that, and we'll start right back at that when we come back.
12:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Maybe I'll have to speak to it again to refresh your memory.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
You may refresh it slightly when we return, at which point we would then go back to NDP-1, as we had unanimous consent for. That's what we will do.
I have one more thing. The agendas you're following and crossing off are your copies. Please bring them. We won't be giving you updated ones each time. You know where you are, so that's a better thing to do.
On a point of order, Mr. Christopherson.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Chair, it's just a minor matter, but it's important. We're going to pick it up with Ms. May, but there was a speakers list. I want to make sure that the speakers list will also transfer to seven o'clock.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I believe it's Messrs. Simms, Scott, and Reid, then me.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative