Evidence of meeting #125 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 election.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Just for reference, the largest poll in my riding is the size of Lebanon and has a population of 500. How are we going to make sure that people actually show up for that count?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Realistically, are they all in one current poll?
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
A lot of them are, but the point is, if you're not allowed to count until two people show up, how are you going to compel two random people to show up at the poll for the count? You're requiring a minimum of two people, which is a weird thing to do.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
That's already in the act. It already requires two people.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
It's if there's only one scrutineer present, then two electors, two witnesses....
5:25 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
So is a scrutineer...a candidate is present, and then...?
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Sorry, could you explain again what the act says now and what the new thing would be?
5:25 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Yes. Obviously, two people need to be present. That's evident.
5:25 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Currently, Bill C-76 would provide that if one candidate or one representative of a candidate is present, the vote can begin in the presence of that person, but also in the presence of multiple candidates and representatives.
5:25 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
This would require at least two candidates or at least two representatives or at least two electors, and then there is the little drafting issue I noticed regarding the presence of only one scrutineer or one candidate.
5:25 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
It seems reasonable to me that a second witness would be required when only one candidate is represented. Are you indicating that a second witness is present at all times anyway, for all counts? Is that what you're saying?
5:25 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Sorry, no.
Currently, Bill C-76 requires the presence of at least one candidate or one representative, and if only one is present, then the vote can begin without the presence of other electors.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Did you just say that one candidate alone is all that would need to be at a count to start counting?
5:25 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
It seems like a reasonable safeguard to me to ensure that a second witness is there.
John, did you want to add something?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Mr. Morin, you mentioned there could be a drafting error in the amendment. What would you propose to change to correct what you see as a flaw there? I read it one way, but I can certainly appreciate that others might come from a different direction.
5:25 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Maybe I can speak with the legislative clerk and come up with a written solution if you want. I just think that if there is only one candidate, you should mention that this representative should also be present in addition to the elector. That's it.