Mr. Scott.
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.
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.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Just so we're clear, there are amendments coming up from the NDP but also from other members and from the Green Party, I believe, where we're attempting to tackle the same issue of crunched timelines by creating a system where....
At the moment the act is written so that the consultation period gets rolled into the period at the end of which the CEO must issue the guideline or the interpretation, and that leaves him with almost no time to do so. I understand we're both trying to fix the same issue.
Our solution is to keep the consultation period of 30 days, and then on top of that say it's 45 days afterwards that the opinion must be issued.
It seems what we're getting here is the same result on the one end, I believe, 45 days once the Chief Electoral Officer has heard back from the parties or the commissioner, but only 15 days for the parties or the commissioner to be considering it.
I'm wondering, or appealing to the government, whether or not we could focus on whether this 15-day period is really too little and that the better solution would be to do 30 plus 45 and change your 15 to 30. Everything in here would be fine, I think, in accord with everything we were trying to do. Your addition of the commissioner as somebody who has to be consulted would be fine, but the 15 days just seems to be a real crunch in order to.... I understand it's an attempt to respect the CEO's limits. The CEO is now being given 45 days. That's great, but in the process—
11:55 a.m.
A voice
Correct.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
That's good, but in creating that solution, which is responsive to his concern, we're creating a slightly different issue of the parties being under the gun and maybe smaller parties being in a different position than we are in.
I would actually propose an amendment where it says 15, and there would be consequential amendments in anything else where you've referenced it. Where you say 15, make it 30. It would be great by us.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you for your suggestion.
In response, we're satisfied in that we believe this strikes the right balance. It gives a little bit of extra time for the CEO to issue guidelines and interpretations, which we believe is the most important thing, and it doesn't add time on top of that.
One of the considerations of all parties is to try to get rulings and interpretations as quickly as possible, given the fact that the CEO has to consider all aspects of suggestions, recommendations, and input from the parties. I think giving the CEO additional time is necessary, and I think that's a good thing, but without adding an additional 15 days or two weeks on to the end result, which is, I think, problematic for most parties. We thought we could certainly cut the 30-day consultation down to 15. It still should give enough time for parties to give that information and consider the information they wish to pass along.
What I'm saying, Craig, is that we're satisfied with this. I think it's appropriate.
Noon
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
So it's a futile exercise on the amendment, evidently. That's too bad.
Well, we can vote on it.
Can I propose to amend it?
Noon
Conservative
Noon
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Can I do it here, right now? All I want to do is extend it from 15 to 30 days.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We'll pause just for a minute. You have a quick conversation and we'll figure out how that's done.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
All right, Chair, I'm ready to go.
I move that the amendment be amended by replacing, in paragraph (c), the number “15” with “30”, and replacing in subparagraph (i), the number “15” with “30”.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Are we dealing with Scott's amendment here?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
The main thing that we believe is the most important element here is that when the CEO issues a ruling which would be applicable to all parties in an advanced ruling that it be done quickly, particularly if you were in a writ period. Correct?
I don't want to open up a can of political worms again, but on the in-and-out thing our position was, without trying to go back on that again, that the interpretation in the Canada Elections Act was changed and then applied retroactively. In other words, our position had always been that we had been following the rules explicitly, but the rules were changed in the Canada Elections Act and then applied retroactively to a previous election.
Without re-arguing the case, that's why we feel it's important to get an advanced ruling or a ruling out as quickly as possible that would be applicable to all parties. Time is of the essence if we're in the middle of a writ period. That's why we think this timeline gives the CEO more time to do an in-depth examination and then issue the ruling but doesn't extend the overall time between consultations within parties and the CEO's final ruling. If you add another two weeks, and in effect that's what Scott is suggesting, that might prove to be very problematic if you're getting into a writ period.
Again, we believe that the timelines presented here.... I understand the arguments and I appreciate that, but we think, based on the fact that speed is of the essence, particularly if you're on the verge of or entering into a writ period, it's important to get a ruling as quickly as possible while still giving the CEO enough time to give good consideration. That's why the suggestion of reducing one by 15 and adding another 15 days on the other so the overall timeline remains the same just gives more time for the CEO to consider the arguments.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I appreciate the argument, and the logic is good, except I think at least in two provisions that I think are the applicable ones in Bill C-23 it says that:
...if the 45-day period coincides or overlaps with the election period of a general election, they shall be published...no later than 45 days after polling day...
In fact, there is no ability.... I think the government's drafting has already taken into account that they don't want the Chief Electoral Officer having to drop things, not just during, but when it overlaps.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
That's a decent point.
If you're going into an election, and there's no overlap, and you want a ruling prior to the writ starting, or even if you're in a pre-writ campaign, any party is developing its campaign, advertising plan, get out the vote plan, or you name it, and there's an issue that comes up that may cause parties to rejig their strategic plan, I think it's incumbent upon the CEO to get that information that they're ruling on to all parties as quickly as possible. You're right, not into a writ campaign, but I consider any time you're in the lead-up to an election, whether it's pre-writ or writ, it's pretty important.
I'll go back to the in-and-out situation. That strategy was developed in the lead-up to and including the writ period. Had we had an advanced ruling prior to that, obviously our method of running that election would have changed. I think it's really, really necessary. That's why we don't want to extend the length of time unduly.
I appreciate the argument. I understand it. We believe it's appropriate. That's all I can say. We might just agree to disagree.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We've heard the argument on both sides of the amendment to the amendment. We get to vote on the amendment to the amendment first.
We are voting on Mr. Simms' change from 15 to 30, those in favour of the change from 15 to 30.
(Subamendment negatived)
Now we're voting on G-2 itself and all of the changes in it.
We just did the amendment to the amendment. Now we're going to do the amendment. I also need to let you know that this will change, as Mr. Scott has already noted, some other changes down the road. There are other amendments from other parties that this, if we vote on it, will cover.
Mr. Scott.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
We'll hear the ruling, but I'm assuming those are all the ones that deal with timelines, and that where we're adding clauses, those safeguard clauses, will those be okay?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
The answer is we can only touch one line in a clause once, so if it changes it now, you can't then change it again later, even if it is a different portion of it.
Do you want the—
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
No, I don't think that's what Craig is asking.
