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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Okay team, let's get started. We got a lot done yesterday and we have a lot to do before we finish tonight.
(On clause 19)
When we were last here, we were about to go on to amendment NDP-18.
Mr. Scott, would you like to move it and then tell us a little about why you love it so much? Or maybe you have another way to get around the spot we are currently in. I know we are in a weird spot.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Before moving it, I would seek the guidance of maybe the legislative clerk. This actually relates to the later section 124 changes. It makes no sense until you deal with it in relation to section 124. It could be stood until we come to amendment NDP-26.
If I'm allowed to move it, I will, but I want to make sure that I'm allowed to move it and that it shouldn't be—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Well, you are; at this moment, it's perfectly fine. I think we had a conversation last night about what the government's thought was on the poll supervisors and on where they were going. I was hoping we could get by a bunch of these by doing something different.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Yes.
The bottom line is that amendment NDP-26 and this one would together be proposing to continue what we started proposing by way of getting parties out of the appointment system for election day. It would be to ensure that the returning officer appoints central poll supervisors “on the basis of merit, following a process that is fair and transparent”, the same test that we used for the deputy returning officers.
The fact of the matter is that we have already voted against the deputy returning officers. Is that correct?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
In one spot we have, but apparently there are other spots in here at which we're going to have to vote again.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Okay.
What I maybe would suggest is to wait until we get to the clauses that the government understands are the two that have to be deleted to achieve their purposes and see where this fits at that time. I would suggest that amendment NDP-18 should wait until amendment NDP-26.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Do you understand where we are, Mr. Lukiwski?
What we're trying to do here is not debate five things that are possibly going to be negated, or debate them at the same time.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Yes, I do understand. Craig and I had a brief conversation. I understand this. I'm not purporting that we should do anything except try to move through this as efficiently as possible. If we can find ways to gain some efficiencies here so that we don't have to, frankly, waste our time and our breath talking about something that's going to be relatively irrelevant, based on some of the proposals that the government is bringing forward, I'm all for it.
I would beg guidance from the chair and his officials on this, but if we can make it as efficient as possible so that we can spend time on other clauses coming forward rather than waste time on this, I think we would be best served.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Can anybody give the chair some guidance on what to do first, here?
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
What I would suggest is to determine whether this can be stood until amendment NDP-26, and then we would go to amendment NDP-19 and would just vote through them and get to the point where we're—
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Great. We are going to set that one aside for a minute and go to amendment NDP-19.
Please move it, and describe it.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I will move this, just so that we are consistent with what we have been moving.
I recognize that the committee as a whole voted against getting parties out of the business of appointing deputy returning officers. This is dealing with poll clerks, and the portion of the clause in question would be replaced with words that basically give to Elections Canada, to the returning officer, the power to appoint poll clerks “on the basis of merit, following a process that is fair and transparent”.
I think this is absolutely ideal in providing a system that would have Elections Canada doing the appointing in the way that this suggests.
We will still move and vote for this. At the same time, I'm going to say right now that I realize it would potentially create an imbalance, because we have already voted down treating the deputy returning officers in this sense.
I'll leave it at that. It should be voted on, but as part of a package.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Okay.
Also, amendments NDP-19, which was just discussed, LIB-10, and PV-21 are identical. All say the same thing. Each of you will know that those would be included. There would be one vote for the three.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
It's on amendments NDP-19, LIB-10, and PV-21.
Is there further comment on what Mr....on what Scott has said? I've already forgotten his name. It's incredible.
Mr. Simms, did you want to speak?
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Yes, I believe in lumping these together to the best extent we can, because it does create an imbalance, as was pointed out.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
It's a recorded vote on amendments NDP-19, LIB-10, PV-21.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That finishes debate on clause 19.
(Clause 19 agreed to on division)
(On clause 20)
