The NDP as a Canadian party....
Evidence of meeting #37 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was move.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #37 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was move.
A video is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
NDP
May 1st, 2014 / 4 p.m.
Director, Democratic Reform, Privy Council Office
In terms of the political entities involved or the third parties involved, there's generally a connection to Canada.
4 p.m.
NDP
4 p.m.
Director, Democratic Reform, Privy Council Office
The political entities...? Definitely. The third parties, so long as they're not incurring expenses to a certain limit....
4 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I'm just trying to make sure we have the interpretation right.
Thanks, Chair.
4 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I think that the answers are—from everything I know—completely accurate. Although the concern about whether or not, by putting this in this part, it could create a negative inference elsewhere in the act, I guess what I would say is that in the hands of certain judges, it might. Those are the kinds of judges that engage in overly formalistic technical approaches to the law. So I recognize that as an issue.
I would state unequivocally on the record, that it is not the intention. This is a self-contained part. That being the case, it would be an outside risk. I would be inclined, but for time, to actually draft an amendment that's saying this shall have absolutely no impact for inference anywhere else in the act. But my own view is that it is a pretty minor risk that the courts would take that view, especially if we go on record now saying that it is not the intention of the amendment. It's intended to be limited to this section, and have no prejudicial impact on the esoteric application of any other part of the act.
On that basis I guess I would like to go forward with the amendment with a recorded vote.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
A recorded vote on NDP-42, please....
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
(Clause 76 agreed to on division)
(On clause 67)
On NDP-38.1 in clause 67, Mr. Scott, did you want to...?
4 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I won't go into detail. This is just to remind everybody that this was already moved as an effort to deal with the question of opening ballot boxes in order to search for the documents that now are allowed to be sent to parties after an election. The Chief Electoral Officer said that if, in fact, those documents could now be transmitted upon request to parties after an election, he needs specific authority to go into ballot boxes if any of the ones that have been put together for this purpose prove to be missing.
I didn't have much more understanding of the issue than that, and left it with Mr. Lukiwski.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Before I make a comment, again I'm going to ask our colleagues at PCO to clarify when the boxes can be opened, in what circumstances they can be opened, and who is eligible to be present when the boxes are opened.
4 p.m.
Senior Officer and Counsel, Privy Council Office
There's already a provision in the act for the ballot box to be unsealed if the statement of the vote, which is the result at the polling division, isn't available at the validation of results. In that case, the returning officer can go into the box to retrieve the copy of the statement of the vote. But this is done at the validation process, where the candidates' representatives are present. Our concern with this provision is that it seems to allow for the ballot box and the envelopes to be opened without candidates' representatives present to ensure there's no improper stuff happening with the election documents.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you for that. The reason I asked is that I wanted to get some validation because it's been a standard practice, for all the right reasons, any time a ballot box is opened. Regardless if we're looking for documents, there are still ballots in there—ballots that were cast by Canadians. That's why candidates' representatives are always present. I fear that if we move away from that, we're moving in the wrong direction. So I can't support the amendment as proposed.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Well, on that basis, I'd be prepared to withdraw it, simply because it's an attempt to implement something that Elections Canada requested, which nobody else has seen fit to try to attend to. We got advice that this would do it, but it is a valid concern. All I would say is that the view is that it could result in a very patchy framework of providing these new documents. That may be the consequence, and we might end up having to come back to amend it if that's what the Chief Electoral Officer says, but I have no problem just withdrawing it.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
(Amendment withdrawn)
(Clause 67 agreed to on division)
We went backwards for a moment. It's like we ran really fast and the earth turned the other way, and we went backwards. Now we're going back to where we are. Yes, that was like Superman. That was a Superman reference for those of you who are into it.
(On clause 77)
We're on PV-44. Ms. May.
4:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
It could have been a Harry Potter, Hermione Granger, reference.
Sir, the PV-44 is in keeping with recommendations from Democracy Watch and the Chief Electoral Officer, that the records should be kept not for one year but for five years.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
A voice
LIB-29 is identical.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
LIB-29 is identical, and of course, would be dealt with at the same time.
There is also a line conflict with G-21, so we will wait and see how this turns out to decide how that will work.
So, here we are on PV-44.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
It is defeated, and therefore so is LIB-29, which moves us, then, to G-21, and there will be no conflict.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Yes, which I move, and of course, this one asks that service providers keep the scripts and recordings, as well as all records of when they were used, for a minimum of three years.