Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 1st, 2014

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Basically, it's just a motion regarding the attestation requiring that returning officers compile a list of all of the people who have taken oaths, signed attestation oaths, co-signed, that type of thing, to determine whether or not there was anyone who had voted twice or attested twice. That's all it is, a security measure more than anything else.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All in favour?

(Amendment agreed to on division)

(Clauses 68 to 73 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 74)

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That brings us to NDP-39.

Mr. Scott.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I'd like to just explain this briefly. I had mentioned, I think, to Ms. May what the rationale was and I'm not sure I've spoken to anybody else.

At the moment what's happening with clause 74 is that the ban on transmitting broadcasting results from polls is being lifted. I understand the rationale that in the new communicative universe we live in, word can travel through many other means other than through broadcasting. The sense of that being an effective barrier has been diminished; however, it remains the case that broadcasting is one of the main ways in which people will receive their information.

When they know the results from polls that have closed in other time zones, we believe that it's reasonable to assume that an unspecified number of people may have their voting pattern affected by that. They may decide not to vote if it looks like the election.... If you're in B.C., for example, the election has already been determined and there's still an hour, an hour and a half, left in your time zone, you may not turn out.

That is the primary reason why there was a broadcasting ban in the first place. Therefore, the only way to create full parity and equality of voting across the country, so that every voter has the same condition—no voter knows the results elsewhere until after they've voted—the only way to do that is to preclude Elections Canada from transmitting the results to the public before all polling stations close.

The fact of the matter is, there's a very close real-time closing of stations in the country now, so the gap won't be that long. But in some parts of the country people will have to wait just a little bit longer in order for people, primarily in British Columbia and Alberta, to get a chance to vote without knowing the results elsewhere that, as I said before, could affect the way they vote.

I move, Mr. Chair, to replace section 329 with the following:

The returning officer shall not transmit the result or purported result of the vote in an electoral district to the public before the close of all the polling stations in Canada.

I'm happy for that to go to an immediate vote because, again, we have lots to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm calling the question on amendment NDP-39.

(Amendment negatived)

We'll go to government amendment 20.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you.

I so move, Chair.

It's a technical amendment to change a cross-reference to reflect the new numbering provisions in part 18 of the act. The change will make sure the cross-referencing is correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm on amendment G-20, yes. Are there questions?

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 74 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Amendment PV-40....

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This recommendation, members of committee may recall, was made by Duff Conacher, the witness for Democracy Watch, in which he suggested we take this opportunity under the fair elections act to create a legislative framework for the leaders' debate. I think we'll all agree that the leaders' debate has become a very significant pivot point during election campaigns and I think a lot of Canadians assume that there are some set of rules and that Elections Canada supervises them.

Probably all of us around this table know it's basically a large cartel of public and private broadcasters—CBC, Radio Canada, TVA, Global, and CTV—that makes a decision among the news directors, generally in consultation with the leaders of the more established parties, and there are no rules. Since there are no rules they can be applied rather inconsistently. So this amendment as proposed by Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch would suggest that the Chief Electoral Officer would henceforth have the ability to set the number and date for election debates, supervise them, invite to the debate the leader of every party in the last election that either had a candidate elected under that party's banner or had won 5% of the vote, and then require all the broadcasters in Canada to broadcast the debate.

This is in the interest of fair, transparent, and consistent leaders' debates for greater public information and engagement in electoral campaigns.

So I submit to you amendment Green Party-40.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Scott.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Yes, I'd like to say a few things about this.

First, in terms of its general thrust, although I don't know the exact details, I'm personally very sympathetic. I have to say it is not something I have worked through with the party and I'm a bit concerned that we haven't had.... This is not something that there was discussion on in terms of witnesses or the Chief Electoral Officer, unless I'm mistaken.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

There was a witness who put this forward, Duff Conacher.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

But has the Chief Electoral Officer forwarded this as something he thinks should be added? If not, I honestly think this is something that needs more tweaking. It is going to get voted down I have a feeling and I would almost—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'd like to be on the right side of the vote.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

No, no, but I want to make a suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Scott has suggestion that may help us all.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I want to make a suggestion that we have proposed a series of three or four transitional clauses that require the Chief Electoral Officer to report after consulting all the parties on a given topic. One is de-politicizing the polling stations. Another is on independence, making sure there is a report within a year or two years—I can't remember—after the next ended polling day.

If you were able to put in a transitional clause to say this has to be looked at and reported on, then I would be sympathetic. In my party mode I would be sympathetic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have Mr. Lukiwski first, so we'll go there first.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Yes, quickly....

I was obviously being facetious, Craig. I respect your intellect very much, but I also agree with you on a couple of things. My point primarily is that this shouldn't be in the act. This is a function of an election, I agree with that, but it's not a procedural thing. This is something that's always been agreed upon among parties and I think it should continue to be so.

I can understand where Ms. May is coming from, wanting to entrench in there that perhaps she be included in all future debates, but this is something I believe should be discussed among the parties running in an election and should not be ensconced in the act itself.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

On that point, I'm not prepared to go that far. I think there's a public-good issue here that does need to be thrashed out because the dynamics of negotiations include power dynamics that exclude smaller parties. I just don't think it is ripe for being stuck in the act right now, given the lack of groundwork to get us to that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Do you want to make a quick remark?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Very quickly, my difficulty is this. I would be more than happy to see any progress made in this area. It's not solely, as Mr. Lukiwski suggests, about me or my party. The fact that something so pivotal to Canadian democracy has no rules at all is worrying to a lot of people, and was to at least one witness.

I don't think I'm in a position to make any changes because the way the rules this committee adopted impose upon me, my option might be to take it to report stage as an amendment to this bill, suggesting it be a transitional stage. As a matter of procedure, I think I am stopped from putting forward changes to my own amendments in the midst of committee hearings. I'm only allowed to bring forward, when I can, 48 hours ahead of clause-by-clause and not make up amendments on the fly as a full member of committee could do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Then the best I could do is call the question on PV-40.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 75 agreed to on division)

(On clause 76)

On NDP-40—

Mr. Simms, do you have a point of order or a suggested amendment?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Yes, and I would humbly suggest—first of all, does NDP-40 come before mine?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's my understanding.