Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Now we go to NDP-3 on clause 5.

Mr. Scott.

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

I'd like to move, as found in the reference document that you have, to make effectively two insertions. They would be subclauses (2.1) and (2.2) in clause 16.1.

They are responsive to both the specific suggestions made by the Chief Electoral Officer on some of the comparative practice around this kind of thing, guidelines or interpretations in other areas that give a degree of discretion to the officer asked to issue the guideline or interpretation

Collectively, this amendment would insert two provisions. First, it would say that the Chief Electoral Officer may decline to issue a guideline or interpretation note when the matter is being considered by the commissioner or by the courts—that's one reason—or when in the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer, the matter is inappropriate. Second, before issuing a guideline or interpretation note, the Chief Electoral Officer may take into consideration any information that he or she believes is necessary to prepare it.

Again, these are responsive to comparative practice and what the Chief Electoral Officer brought to us. He also indicated that there is a need for some kind of a mechanism throughout these new sections 16.1 to 16.4 to collectively prevent a huge logjam, a huge amount of extra work for Elections Canada on the simple basis that guidelines and interpretations can be asked for.

One of the mechanisms for dealing with this is that if the matter is inappropriate, the Chief Electoral Officer does not have to go through the motions of issuing a guideline or interpretation.

There will be other ones I'm going to be tabling which go more closely to the issue of efficiency, but we'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Ms. May, you also have an amendment that's exactly the same, so I think I should allow you to speak to this one also.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that, and given that it is exactly the same, I'll only make the following points.

The Chief Electoral Officer in testimony to this committee pointed out that Bill C-23 would create some rather operationally difficult hurdles: timelines, the ability to consult—in some of my amendments I'll go into some of the details around the consultation that's required with his advisory committee—the nature of the bilingualism that's required.... Under this amendment, we're just trying to ensure, as Mr. Scott has said, that the guidelines and interpretations that the Chief Electoral Officer is asked to provide are in effect practical for him to accomplish.

Obviously, the reason these are so close is that we've taken on board in the Green Party, as has the official opposition, the recommendations made by Mr. Mayrand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Does anyone else want to speak to this amendment?

We will vote on the amendment.

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

Could we have a recorded vote on that, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Certainly.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That is defeated. Amendment PV-3 then is also dealt with.

We're still on clause 5. We move to G-2.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

I'll move that motion, Chair.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I know we voted on NDP-3. Did we vote on PV-3?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

When they're identical, one vote suffices for both.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you for the procedural help.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're discussing G-2.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

It basically allows more time for the CEO to issue guidelines and interpretations, from 45 days to 60 days. If the commissioner is going to be bound by a ruling, he should be able to have the opportunity to provide his opinion. We're just suggesting that this make some sense, in that it gives a little more time to consider the issues before making a ruling and issuing a ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Madame Latendresse.

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

Again, I'd like a small clarification on the French and English versions of amendment G-2, at point (c).

Mr. Lukiwski, the English version refers to 15 days, but the French version says 60 days.

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

I'm sorry. I haven't seen the text en français.

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

It's the amendment.

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

No, I understand that. Are we talking about a different wording between the English and the French texts?

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

I'm referring to point (c) of your amendment.

In English it's “15” days, so I just want to know which one is right.

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

Those are the sorts of questions the courts really don't enjoy dealing with.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

If it means that the French will have more time, I don't have a problem with that.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Chénier.

[Marc Chénier]

In this instance, the paragraphs are not meant to be read as (c) with (c), because sometimes there are additional changes that are required in one language version as opposed to the other. Paragraph (b), I believe....