Evidence of meeting #32 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:50 p.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Honestly, I thought this would be ruled out of order, because of the nature of Bill C‑19, which aims to guarantee election health safety. Perhaps Mr. Blaikie can explain it to me, but I don't see the connection between this amendment and elections in pandemic times.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
That's why I was saying there was some back and forth between me and the legislative clerk on this. The reason we found it to be inadmissible, at first, but then on second glance, admissible, was that it deals with special ballots, which in a pandemic election will be increased in volume. This legislation does touch on that aspect of special ballots.
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
In our view, in a pandemic election environment, it is highly likely that many more Canadians will vote using a special ballot. So there is a risk that the number of uncounted ballots, which is normally 40,000 to 50,000, could increase to 4 to 5 million. This could have a real effect not only on the final outcome of the election, but on Parliament itself. We believe that the priority in a pandemic context should be the intention of the voter, not the fact that the first and last name of the candidate for the constituency in question appears on the ballot paper.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Yes, I was going to agree in terms of the first part, in the sense that it was within the scope because it does have to do with that connection, and obviously, having a relatively short name, like Nater or Kent, we're fairly lucky on this one. I'm not sure how the good folks of Lake Centre—Lanigan go with Lukiwski but that's for Tom to deal with, I suppose.
Just very quickly, could I have a clarification from Elections Canada on how would they interpret this? Does it have to be Conservative Party of Canada, New Democratic Party, or can someone.... I'm reading the actual clause here. It says, “the candidate's political affiliation”.
Would CPC, NDP or BQ be acceptable, or would it have to be Conservative Party of Canada, to clarify the political affiliation there? Generally I'm in support of this amendment. I just want to get a little bit of clarification on that.
1:55 p.m.
Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Electoral Events and Innovation, Elections Canada
I think we will not comment on the merit of the proposal—we have no opinion on that—but I would say that in general, as long as the intent of the elector is clear, the ballot will be counted for the candidate.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I just wanted to express a slightly alternative perspective on this. While I agree with the intention that Mr. Blaikie has outlined, I think that this particular amendment would unintentionally disadvantage independent candidates. It naturally favours parties that have a wide presence and a brand that's easily recognizable, which I think is problematic from a fairness perspective to independent candidates.
That's why I feel a little reluctant. I also relate very strongly to the argument that I'm not sure that this really addresses some of the heart of the issues that are present within a pandemic context. I think this requires further study. It's a change to the physical ballot—that's my understanding—the special ballot process. I think that you don't need further study and consideration. I think it's actually a big change. Although seemingly small, I think it has far-reaching impacts that we should strongly consider before making any decision.
I will be voting against this.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay. Unfortunately, I'm going to call on all of you to make a decision at this point.
Shall NDP-8 carry? We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
2 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Yes. This amendment would require the declaration provided to an elector—I'm sorry Mr. Therrien; I shouldn't speak so quickly, but I'm just trying to get through it—as part of a special ballot package to [Technical difficulty—Editor] the elector's riding name and polling division number in order to permit returned special ballots to be sorted by polling divisions so that special ballot results may be counted and reported by polling division.
This is something that we were looking at for this. I'd like to move CPC-14.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I find that this is beyond the scope and the principle of the bill, because the amendment seeks to add the term “polling station”, among other things, to documents provided by Elections Canada or for statistical purposes. The addition does not seem to address the question of enhanced health and safety of electors or electoral officers.
The amendment also amends a section of the parent act not amended by the bill. Bill C-19 does not touch upon this aspect.
Ms. Vecchio, would you like to move to the next one or...?
2 p.m.
Conservative
2 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Could I just get some clarity, and perhaps it could come from Monsieur Méla?
I think you and I might have been the only two who were on PROC when we reviewed C-76, and we had a similar issue when it related to the parent act rule. I'm drawing a blank on the specifics, but it was something that we challenged within the committee. It was dealt with by the clerk, and then it went to the House. The Speaker at the time, Speaker Regan, ruled that in that case it was acceptable to make an amendment, even though it offended the parent act rule.
If I had my little folder of past rulings I could look into it. It's at my home in Mitchell.
Perhaps it's something that the legislative counsel could address off the top of his head. If not, then I'm not going to push the issue, obviously. I'm not going to challenge the ruling. I was just hoping for some clarity on that. I thought there was some flexibility that was noted in Speaker Regan's ruling on that.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I don't recall it going to the House or what that ruling was.
Mr. Lukiwski, did you want to speak before we hear from the legislative clerk?
2 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
I just wanted some clarification, Madam Chair.
I understood that we were going to two o'clock. Now we're exceeding that. I'm not sure exactly how long you plan on continuing this meeting.
I have some other commitments that I had scheduled for just past two o'clock. I'd like to see if I can get some clarity on that, if I have to extend my time here or not.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I just received a nudge from our clerk as Mr. Nater was speaking earlier that we have until 2:30. The administrative staff is willing to stay here until 2:30.
I think we could get it done. We're almost there. I'll just let you know that there are two amendments that are still inadmissible after this one, and then the rest are clear and good to go. We could probably just bang them out.
Would you be able to find a replacement, Mr. Lukiwski?
2 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
No, I'll make some arrangements. If I know that we're going to be either suspending or adjourning at 2:30, then I can make some arrangements. I wouldn't want to commit to anything past 2:30.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
At this point I'm being told that it's only until 2:30. I was originally told that it was only until two o'clock. Now all of a sudden I've been nudged and they're saying they can do a little bit more.
That's what they're telling me—that it's only until 2:30. I will adjourn at 2:30 so that you can make it to your other commitment.
Mr. Méla, please go ahead.
2:05 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes, Mr. Nater, I remember well what happened at C-76 last time. Yes, indeed, the parent act.... In this case there was no amendment to the bill that was adopted that would warrant this amendment to be moved, or to make it admissible. The content of the amendment in itself goes beyond the scope of the bill by adding “polling station”. It's not linked to the part of the bill on the enhanced health and safety of conducting elections. That was the reason.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you for that. I'm impressed that you were able to recall that provision. It was interesting at the time. Basically, it had to have amended another provision prior to this one being able to be moved. I appreciate that.
Thank you.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you, Mr. Nater.
We will move on to NDP-9. NDP-9 also has an issue.
No, I missed one. I missed G-3. I'm sorry. I should be following along on the actual amendments page.