They're the most fundamental things.
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.
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.
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We'll have a recorded vote on Simms 1.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 25 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 26 to 38 inclusive agreed to on division)
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
That was defeated early yesterday afternoon, along with something else, apparently.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Okay.
(Clauses 39 to 43 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 44)
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I'd like you all to remember how that felt.
Keep that feeling in your head.
We're on to amendment NDP-26. Mr. Scott, I take it you're moving it.
7:50 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I'm moving it.
Again, just for the sake of completeness, we've been moving amendments until this point to make the returning officer, therefore Elections Canada, responsible for all appointments of elections officers, the central poll supervisor. In effect, although with different wording, that is the case in the current act.
Bill C-23 changed that and made central poll supervisors effectively subject to the de facto appointment of the candidates or the parties—this is the provision we have now—who placed first in the last election. Therefore, the whole point was that unbalanced the system that existed. The theory of neutrality was that there'd be a deputy returning officer of the first party, and a poll clerk from the second. This squeezed out any other parties, so it was a problematic system, but nonetheless this would have unbalanced it.
There have been a lot of comments from informed observers from the NDP, from the opposition, to say that was a mistake to include. I won't belabour the point, other than to note that the minister did say it was among the changes that he would support.
I understand that by virtue of voting against clause 44, the government will return us to where the act currently is on central poll supervisors. However, before we get there, I'd like to have a vote on this and get to returning the Canada Elections Act to a situation where the central poll supervisors would not be appointed by the first-place party.
Could we vote on this, and then go to clause 44?
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
There are others, LIB-15 and PV-27, that we'll have to deal with also.
7:55 p.m.
NDP
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Just to reconfirm so everyone is aware of what's happening, the entire clause 44 is the main clause that originally had proposed to amend the central poll supervisors. The government will be voting against it. We can't just delete it because that's inadmissible.
We can go through the various clauses that Craig, and perhaps others, oppose, but I want to assure the members of the opposition that the government will be voting against clause 44, which will in effect go back to the status quo.
7:55 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
A recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
7:55 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Chair, in case it slipped, amendment NDP-26 was stood, and I'll just not move it.
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, did you mention amendment LIB-15?
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
7:55 p.m.
Liberal