Evidence of meeting #36 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.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
My guys are hoping for a vote on amendment LIB-12 as well.
7:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
You'll get it, and it will include amendment PV-23.
Ms. May, because it is yours, would you like to comment?
7:20 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand your recognition that these are substantially similar, but they are only slightly differently worded. I think it's important to recognize that we have the opportunity before committee not to make this a pro forma exercise but to really look at each amendment. We have the opportunity here to remove partisanship from the selection of poll workers and registration officers.
The current draft of Bill C-23 solicits the names of candidates for these positions from those parties who have finished first and second in that riding. In that, we have created the perception of partisanship in poll workers. I think that's an important thing to emphasize. That's why all the opposition amendments at this point are trying to put in place the principle that was so well expressed by the evidence of Mr. Neufeld, that choosing poll workers, registration officers, and poll supervisors solely on the basis of merit will increase public confidence in our voting system.
We're running through the amendments relatively quickly at this point, and I understand that, but I want to emphasize the point of principle here, that it will enhance the fairness, and the perception of fairness, in the entire voting process if no partisan operatives are involved in recommending registration officers.
With that, I'll close.
7:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
Contrary to what certain high school math teachers might say about my ability, I had the ability to do math, and after the last vote I have an idea how this is going to go, which is why, with this stack here, I'd like to move as reasonably sensibly quickly as we can.
We'll vote on amendment LIB-12.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
A recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
7:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
It's defeated, so I carry with it amendment PV-23.
Shall clause 21 carry?
7:20 p.m.
An hon. member
On division.
7:20 p.m.
Conservative
7:20 p.m.
A voice
Are you sure we don't want amendment NDP-21 first?
7:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Well, it's not the order it's in here.
Amendment NDP-21 is first.
Sorry, Mr. Simms.
7:20 p.m.
A voice
How come?
7:20 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
If I can make it easier, I decline to move amendment NDP-21. Can I withdraw it, please?
7:20 p.m.
Conservative
7:20 p.m.
A voice
No, it would be NDP-22.
7:25 p.m.
NDP
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
7:25 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Amendment NDP-22, I also will decline to move because, given the way the votes have been going, I explained this would have been the section—
7:25 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
—setting out guidelines, but it's a little bit redundant, or something else.
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
7:25 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Yes, I'm going to quickly say we're deleting part of the clause, removing partisan activity from administration of elections. That's it.
