They're not identical at all.
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.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
No, they're not.
It was the same thing before, actually. It's—
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Okay, so amendment NDP-18 was not moved.
We'll get back to these in just a second, Mr. Simms.
That means we should now be moving what.
7:55 p.m.
A voice
LIB-15.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I so move, including what was said before plus subclauses 44(4) and 44(5), which, as you can see, lay out the intention of this.
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Right. Is there any further discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call the question on amendment LIB-15.
8 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Could we have a recorded vote, please?
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
8 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry for jumping in to point out that this wasn't identical. It was in the sense that the representative shall be appointed based on merit.
The significant difference from previous amendments that is found in this particular amendment, PV-27, is based on recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer, as well as from Democracy Watch, as well as from Mr. Neufeld particularly.
There's no question there has been controversy throughout the period since the first reading of Bill C-23 over the content of the Neufeld report. There's no question the review of the 2011 election by Mr. Neufeld commissioned by Elections Canada reflected that there were a number of errors. The errors were not, as you will recall from testimony, related to attempts at fraud, apparent fraud, or even suspicion of fraud. What they did relate to is that our electoral system depends on a lot of people who are hired at the last minute and who do not necessarily receive adequate training.
The key difference between this amendment and previous ones is to allow the returning officer to appoint the central poll supervisors 180 days before the writ. You will recall from Mr. Neufeld's testimony how significant he feels it is that we stick to fixed election dates. Then you know when the writ's going to be dropped and then you can start bringing in the chief election day workers well enough ahead that they get the training they need to reduce error rates.
If you stepped back and were inventing our electoral system from scratch, you wouldn't invent the system we have . We've eliminated the enumeration. We don't have a voters list that's reliable. We're now relying on multiple pieces of identification. We have a bunch of people picked by political parties who are appointed at the last minute and not given adequate training.
This is an attempt to say that in the case of those central poll supervisors who play such an important role, let's hire them early and make sure that they're the bulwark of the system with adequate, in fact excellent, training.
8 p.m.
Conservative
8 p.m.
Conservative
8 p.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you.
I have a question, and maybe Madam May or the folks here can answer me.
In English, the amendment says:
The returning officer may appoint the central poll supervisors as of 180 days before the issue of the writ.
In French it says, “dès la date de délivrance du bref”.
I just want clarification.
8 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
It says “Le directeur du scrutin peut nommer les superviseurs de centre de scrutin dès la date de délivrance du bref.”
8 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I'm sure it means the same thing in French, but I'm not quite sure why it doesn't say “180 days”.
8 p.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
But is it 180 days before the issuance of the writ or is it on the day of the issuance of the writ?
8 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
It's supposed to be 180 days before the writ. It's the same in English as in French. I'm afraid I'm also confused as to whether they've made a mistake in the drafting.
They told me when I asked that question
about the wording of “de centre de scrutin dès la date de délivrance du bref”.
it may be that there's a drafting error. I thought that, but I was assured it was the same.
8 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
If indeed it was, it would be corrected. Am I right?
We'll have to ask the people from the Privy Council.
April 30th, 2014 / 8 p.m.
Senior Officer and Counsel, Privy Council Office
There's a difference between the two language versions. The English-language version allows the returning officer to appoint as of 180 days before the issuance of the writ.
8 p.m.
Senior Officer and Counsel, Privy Council Office
The French version allows them to do it as soon as the writs are issued.
8 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I was afraid of that, Alexandrine, because the drafters we worked with said that it would come out to mean the same thing, but I didn't see it either. I'm afraid there is a difference between the English and French versions.