Evidence of meeting #127 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 elections.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
NDP-8 did pass but we're just checking.
This amendment was related to NDP-8 but in NDP-8 we changed the words “electoral district” to “polling station” so we withdrew the consequential effect, because you can't live in a polling station. Therefore, we can discuss this amendment now because we withdrew its consequence.
Do you want to present the effect of the amendment?
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I'll start with our officials. The language is about vouching, as I understand what has been proposed. It's about somebody in the same electoral district being able to vouch for somebody else.
Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office
No, it wouldn't be in the same electoral district, but it could be in one of the polling divisions associated with the polling station.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
One of the polling divisions within the same electoral district.
Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office
That was associated with the same polling station.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's not novel, but it's the new introduction where these would be allowed. We're in the gym. There are several.... We didn't call it a polling place. Remind me of the terminology.
Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office
It used to be called a polling place, but now it's called the polling station.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It would allow somebody, as they're in different divisions but in the same polling station, to be able to vouch for somebody else.
Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office
Exactly, the rule used to say that you could only vouch for someone if you were registered on the list of electors for the same polling division. Then the amendment, as amended, that was brought forward changed that so that you can only vouch for a person if you are registered on the list of electors for the same polling station, and the polling station regroups one or several polling divisions.
Now this amendment here would need to refer to a person whose ordinary residence is in a polling division associated with the polling station.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Again, we're looking at having voters vote in this similar but new way. If somebody comes in and says, “I'd like to vouch for this person; they're my neighbour", as it currently stands, if they're not in the exact same polling division, that vouching is not valid. Is that right?
Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office
The frontier between polling divisions can be in the middle of the street, and you could very well try to vouch for the person who lives in front of you but if you're not in the same....
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The circumstance we're contemplating is that two citizens go to vote, and one seeks to vouch for the other. They live literally across the street from each other, and as Bill C-76 is currently written now, that vouching cannot happen if they're not in the exact same polling division.
Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office
One of your motions, which was amended to say “polling station”, would now allow the person to be vouched for if the voucher is on the list for the same polling station. That being said, there are two other sets of provisions that would restrict it, which now create an inconsistency in the act.
Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office
One is located in the proposed new part 11.1 of the act, which talks about the prohibitions related to voting. This provision has already been passed, so this is something that will need to be fixed.
Now we are in the provision about the solemn declarations, so one of the statements the voucher needs to make is that the elector who is being vouched for resides in the same polling division. This is where we would need to change for—
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Because of what's been passed already, there are two inconsistencies within the act, which maybe at report we'll have to....
Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office
Probably at report.... I cannot predict what will happen in Parliament's proceeding.
The second inconsistency is the one we are dealing with now, the one that is found at proposed paragraph 549.1(2)(a).
NDP