Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2014

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

Yes.

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

Okay, thank you.

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

Well, as electoral reform for the purpose of achieving fairness.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay.

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

It appeals to the title of the act as nothing else would.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Seeing no one else, we'll vote on PV-19.

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

I think we have a new amendment, LIB-8.1.

Would you like to read that in, Mr. Simms?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Yes, I would.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our clerks as well.

This is amendment LIB-8.1, and it reads, and it may sound eerily familiar:

(1.1) The Chief Electoral Officer may appoint, to the Advisory Committee of Political Parties, up to two independent members who shall have the same rights as other committee members except that they not be eligible for any remuneration or expenses and their participation would be cost-neutral.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay. For secondary members but not.... That's perfectly fine. I cannot rule that out.

Would you like to speak to it at all?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

No, I think the thrust is generally the same, that the independent members deserve a place on this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

On LIB-8.1, seeing no speakers, we'll go to the vote. It's a recorded vote. That hesitation is working well for me.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

Shall clause 11 carry?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Sorry, I apologize.

Are we voting on clause 10 or just the amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have clause 11.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Clause 11, the whole thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The whole thing.

Are we fine with clause 11?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, I'm good with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Was that a yes, or are you voting no?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's a yes.

(Clause 11 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's try the same thing for clause 12.

(Clause 12 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 13)

We're on to NDP-16. It is all by itself.

Mr. Scott.

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

I would like to, for the sake of the chair and formalities and everything else, move NDP-16.

On page 11 in the bill, there is a new provision, proposed section 23.1, which states:

An election officer shall not communicate with the public by the use of calls, as defined in section 348.01, that are unsolicited.

The problem is that section 348.01 refers to two kinds of calls, automated and live voice calls. I understand the rationale probably for this is trying not to set things up so that people think Elections Canada can engage in automatic calls, but Elections Canada engages in unsolicited calls when they're trying to recruit officers. It's not always a matter of people coming to them and they already have lists. Any direct call to somebody to say, "We've heard via this process and that process" is an unsolicited call to recruit. The amendment would simply be:

(2) Despite subsection (1), an election officer may communicate with the public by the use of calls, as defined in section 348.01, that are unsolicited in order to recruit persons to work on polling day.

I'm hoping that if the government votes this down, this will be the kind of thing that the courts and everybody else will just ignore as an issue because technically, it could create a problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Is there any discussion on amendment NDP-16?

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I have to be honest. I'm just trying to kind of catch up to the section here as well, so bear with me as I kind of talk and read at the same time here, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to make sure I understand fully what my colleague on the other side is proposing.

My understanding is that you think this would prohibit the elections officer from recruiting potential poll workers. Obviously, there are a number of suggestions that are made by the parties, etc.

Is that your concern, though, that you feel this would prohibit someone from recruiting poll workers?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Do you mean if someone came up and said, “Do you want a job?”

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

Yes, absolutely.