Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2014

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

I'm just making sure that page 5, line 16 is where I thought it was.

My point would be whether there is anything that came up in the testimony or in our discussions.... I would ask, in fact, what has prompted this, because it's a new limitation which basically says that the Chief Electoral Officer can serve one term only. Is that right? Is that the effect? Are there comparisons with other parliamentary officers where it is the same as this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

In the Parliament of Canada, quite frankly, I don't know. I don't believe so, but I do also believe in other jurisdictions there has been. Quite frankly, the reason for it is we feel it enhances the independence. Similar provisions apply with the Attorney General and this one doesn't apply to the current CEO. This would be on a go forward basis.

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

And the basis on which it's not applying is...?

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

Why we're not applying it to this one?

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

Yes. Is there a clause later that I missed, in the transitionals, that makes it clear this doesn't apply?

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

Yes, I would ask our experts to confirm what I have just stated that this would be on a go forward basis and does not apply to the current CEO.

[Marc Chénier, Senior Officer and Counsel, Privy Council Office]

Actually, if you look at transitional provision clause 127, it's written:

Despite section 13 of the Canada Elections Act, as enacted by section 3, the person who occupies the position of Chief Electoral Officer immediately before the day on which that section 3 comes into force may continue to hold office until he or she reaches the age of 65 years.

So there would be no transitional provision to remove the non-renewability of the CEO's term.

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

I should also clarify that I misspoke. I'm sorry. I think I said “Attorney General” instead of “Auditor General“. It's similar to the Auditor General.

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

Yes, okay. So the Auditor General has one term only.

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

The term is non-renewable, yes.

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

I guess my concern remains that the Chief Electoral Officer is appointed by resolution of the House and the record beforehand would surely be taken into account, and I'm not sure that the enhancement of independence is a reason to counterbalance what might turn out to have been, by all accounts, an excellent Chief Electoral Officer. I'm not so sure that I'd be easily convinced to vote for this for that reason.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Madame Latendresse.

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

I'd just like to say that the Chief Electoral Officer has a longer term than most other agents of Parliament for a number of reasons, but one in particular. The act doesn't prohibit the renewal of a CEO's term for one reason.

During periods with majority governments, a CEO who is in office for 10 years may have to oversee two federal elections. A new CEO would have to administer the following election. And that might be a mistake in some cases. It could be useful to have the ability to renew the term of a CEO who is doing an excellent job, if the CEO and House are both in agreement.

Therefore, I won't be supporting the amendment either.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Reid.

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

My question is actually for the officials.

When we go to the actual Canada Elections Act, there's section 16, and there's (a), (b), (c), (d). All of that is referred to in the amendment. But it's not 16(1), (a), (b), (c), (d), and here we're putting in a (2). Technically speaking, should this not say that the number (1) will be added in front of the current enumerations, and then the (2), or is that just implied? I actually don't know, but I'm just wondering if we're going to do something that's procedurally not correct here.

[Marc Chénier]

When the bill is reprinted, it will be reprinted with the subsection (1). It's done automatically by the House of Commons printing service.

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

That's just the way we do these things.

[Marc Chénier]

If it's a clause that becomes a subsection (1), if it's a section that becomes a subsection (1), it's done automatically. It doesn't have to be provided for in the bill.

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

Thanks for that clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Super.

Shall amendment G-1 carry?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

(Amendment agreed to on division)

Shall clause 3 as amended carry?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clause 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5)