Evidence of meeting #123 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
There are no amendments to clauses 7 to 14. Shall clauses 7 to 14 carry?
(Clauses 7 to 14 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 15)
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
On clause 15, we turn to CPC-6.
We can get an introduction. This one may be hard to read, because they're referring to.... It's in two parts. In the first one, where it looks as if there's nothing there, it's just because they're taking out 18 and replacing 18.1, but go ahead, Stephanie.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
This amendment proposes to have the effect of the Chief Electoral Officer maintaining the existing public education mandate.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is CPC-7. This is related to no electronic voting without the House or the Senate—
Do you want to introduce this?
October 15th, 2018 / 5:55 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
I don't have anything further to add.
John, do you?
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
It's just that Parliament would be our final decision-maker on whether we go to electronic voting or not.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Is Parliament not the prime decision-maker on this already? Could Elections Canada wake up tomorrow morning and say we're going to move to an electronic vote?
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 15 agreed to)
(Clauses 16 to 19 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 20)
We have CPC-8. It is about an officer not being able to live in the adjacent electoral district, whereas I think the act is proposing they could. This amendment would not allow them to do that, if I've read it correctly.
I think Elections Canada said often officials are very close, but this amendment wouldn't allow them unless they're in the adjacent district.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It would not be so much for jurisdictions like ours, Chair, but certainly in some of the urban jurisdictions I can imagine that an election officer is one street over and not technically in the district. Am I correct in saying that?
Elections Canada can hire somebody as an election officer who lives two blocks away, but they're outside the district. I don't see the motivation for this amendment, unless I'm understanding it incorrectly, which is highly likely.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I think what can happen is that riding boundaries can change, so someone who was in the middle of it now is not.
You could have two skilled officers, each in their own riding. Thanks to boundary change, they're both in different ridings or they're both living in the same riding now, but one of them can't....
6 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
But imagine outside any boundary change scenario, just a scenario in which you have an election officer who lives not in Toronto Centre but Toronto one up. Literally, they're a block or five blocks outside the riding; it doesn't really matter. Does that prohibit them from performing the duties we expect of them?
I get it in large, rural, dispersed ridings. Some intimate knowledge is required of the district to hold the election, but I just don't see that it's going to matter to the voter in a lot of urban and suburban contexts. They can handle most of the questions and problems that can come up.
