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.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Chair, as NDP-3 and NDP-4 are consequential to either NDP-1 or NDP-2, we'll decline to move them at this time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay.
Mr. Blaikie, I just want to be clear. I'm not sure why we're skipping over these. Just to let you know, because they deal with the special ballot, I would find them to be admissible if you did want to move them. I don't know if—
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I appreciate that, Madam Chair, but both NDP-1 and NDP-3 were designed to give indigenous people across Canada access to voting in their own language. NDP-2 and NDP-4 were designed to pilot that initiative within Nunavut. The amendments work together as a pair.
Given that the committee has already expressed support for your decision to rule them out of order, I don't think it would behoove the committee to spend time to relitigate issues that have already been decided by the committee, given the limited amount of time we have and the importance of getting C-19 through committee today.
If an overwhelming number of members on the committee have changed their minds since our last vote and they would like to disclose that to the committee, I would be very happy to hear that. In that case, I'd also be happy to move those amendments. However, given that I doubt that is the case, I appreciate that we now need to move on to the other important issues that the committee will be considering today.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I just wanted to be clear that I see them to be admissible, as they deal with the special ballot and the bill does deal with special ballots.
We will move on to CPC-1.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Thank you very much.
For CPC-1, I would like to move this amendment.
Basically, the background is that this amendment would require the Chief Electoral Officer to have the support of the recognized parties in the House for any adaptation of the act on health and safety grounds.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
CPC-1 is also inadmissible, as it seeks to limit the Chief Electoral Officer's abilities that he can already do under a regular election. This is seen to be beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
The principle of the bill is to make elections safer and easier. This would not be doing either.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Okay.
We will move on to CPC-2, if that's okay.
Amendment CPC-2 would prohibit the Chief Electoral Officer from changing the dates of advance polling through his authority to adapt the act.
This is just very important. As we know, with the communications during this period of time, there will be so many moving parts. Giving voters as much structure as possible is what we're looking for. It's to try to keep things as easy as possible for communication strategies. This is why we are putting this forward.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Bill C-19 amends the Elections Act to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to extend time for doing any act to ensure the health and safety of electors or election officers pursuant to proposed subsection 17(1) of the bill.
This amendment proposes to disallow the Chief Electoral Officer from doing so in relation to voting hours or voting days at an advance polling station, or in relation to the voting hours during the polling period. As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” This would be deemed to be beyond the principle of the bill.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Fair enough, Ruby.
Let's try CPC-3. This amendment would prohibit the Chief Electoral Officer from barring candidates or scrutineers from being present at polling stations through his authority to adapt the act. We have seen, and perhaps this may fall on the same thing, that one concern we had was the fact that there are going to be so many moving parts once again and that scrutineers are a very important part of the process, as well as candidates being able to go and just check in. Those are really important things.
Because it was absolutely missing.... There's nothing in this bill talking about scrutineers. That is a huge part of the election process and the democracy of Canada. This is something that we want to ensure. We've talked about the spacing. We've heard from the Chief Electoral Officer that it's going to be very difficult to be able to find locations and facilities, and that they'll need bigger rooms to be able to facilitate this. One thing that I want to ensure is that the democracy of our country is not denied because of spacing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I hate to do this to you, Mrs. Vecchio, but after this I think we're good for a while. This is also deemed to be contrary to the principle of the bill. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible. It goes against the principle of the bill.
Mr. Blaikie, you have your hand up?
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Was this on CPC-3, Madam Chair, that your ruling is inadmissible?
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I have to express some surprise at that, in that the purpose of the bill, and we've heard this very clearly from the minister on a number of occasions, is to comprehend what we have to do as a country in order to ensure not only a safe election but a fair election, and an election where Canadians are able to vote.
Having scrutineers observe the process is a fundamental principle of not only Canadian democracy but of democracy in general. This is why parliamentarians go on trips to bear witness to other elections. That's why the United Nations facilitates election observation missions. It seems to me that if there were a situation where it was so dangerous to have a few extra people in a polling station in order to protect public health at that point, the CEO should be exercising another authority he has, which is to cancel the writ either in that polling station or in that riding generally until such time as a safe vote can be held.
I think it would be a mistake to proceed with an election without allowing the participants themselves, or their representatives, to observe the proceedings. For that reason, Madam Chair, again I have to respectfully dispute your ruling as to the admissibility of this. I think it's well within the scope of the bill, and I think it touches on a very important principle that we're grappling with about how you not only protect public health but protect democracy in the context of a pandemic election.
Respectfully, Madam Chair, I would challenge your ruling and ask for a recorded vote on the matter.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Since it is dilatory, we'll move to that. I see Ms. Lawson's hand up as well, and we can hear from her afterwards. Maybe she didn't intend to have her hand up. I thought maybe there was something that she could supplement.
With this amendment there may be times in the election where you can't have a certain number of people, and this amendment proposes to prevent the Chief Electoral Officer from prohibiting the presence of candidates or their representatives at polling stations. That could be even for a brief moment in time. Perhaps having somebody vote is more important maybe for a certain period of time, rather than having the venue full with scrutineers or the candidates being present there. It is found that the principle of the bill is to make sure that voters are not disenfranchised and that voters can exercise their rights.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I don't know if he intends to speak, Madam Chair, but I see that Monsieur Therrien has his hand up, so you may want to recognize him before we vote.
Liberal
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
The need to protect citizens' health goes without saying, but democratic life must still continue and elections must be held in due form, as they usually are.
Candidates always visit polling stations in a respectful manner. All candidates have rules to follow. So, I don't see any reason why candidates should be prevented from going there to see if everything is going well, while respecting the rules, not only the ones that existed in the first place, but also the health rules that have been added to them.
I don't think this is a problem that prevents us from visiting the polling stations and checking if democracy is going well.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I think I agree that candidates and their representatives should be there to witness the counting of ballots, and I think this is fundamental.
I want to say that, based on my understanding of this specific amendment, it's contrary to the intention of the bill, which I know the chair has already said. My understanding is that only in the rarest of circumstances, where public health would be at risk, would the CEO adapt in this regard.
My understanding is that this amendment tries to stop that or prohibit that from happening in the rarest of circumstances. I think we can conceive of circumstances where there is a very small polling station, where perhaps there is not enough social distancing to have all of the scrutineers in the location. I think it would be in very rare circumstances. The CEO also has the power to not host an election in those sites or to essentially call off the election in those locations, if needed.
I think limiting the power that the CEO has to adapt is part of the challenge I see here, and my understanding is that, after the fact, the CEO also has to report back on all of the adaptations that were made during the election. The other thing is that this would be advised by public health advice.
I want to acknowledge the concerns on this one, but from my perspective, I really think it's quite reasonable to trust the decision-making of the CEO, which is informed by public health advice. It would only be used in the rarest of circumstances when it's absolutely necessary for public health protection, which I think is the intention of the entire bill.
I just want to put that forward as the reason I can't support this amendment.
Thanks.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
It could—and that's why that flexibility is supposed to be there—increase the risk on health and safety of electors or election officers. In cases where it wouldn't, I'm assuming that, obviously, it would be allowed. That's why the bill provides this flexibility.
Go ahead, Mrs. Vecchio.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Thank you very much.
Although I recognize what Mr. Turnbull is saying, the bottom line is that there shouldn't be an election if scrutineers aren't able to go there. If a scrutineer can't go there, then do we really want a senior going to the poll? Do we really want somebody who is vulnerable going to any of these things?
The bottom line is that we should not be going to an election if doing so presents a health risk for Canadians. I think there's the health risk, but we cannot forget about democracy because of the health risk either. I think we have seen too many questions.
I have been a scrutineer many times throughout my life. I know that the job is truly going in and out and picking up a bingo sheet, but limiting that is not right for campaigns. It is not right for democracy. I think this is very valuable and the most important thing is that we have a fair election.
If we can't have scrutineers, then we probably wouldn't be able to have polling clerks and DROs, and we probably shouldn't be having voters going to the polls. There probably shouldn't be an election.
I would continue to say that I support this amendment fully and that hopefully we can go further.
Thank you.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I want to add to my comments earlier that there are examples of how the local context within specific elections can change dramatically week by week. I think what we've seen is that outbreaks can be extreme. There are chances that scrutineers might not be fully vaccinated. We're talking about the most extreme circumstances in the most limited number of locations that would be informed by public health advice.
From my perspective, we have to trust that the CEO, given those adaptation powers, is going to make those decisions in a way that is, only when truly necessary, to protect the health and safety of electors, poll workers, scrutineers and everybody involved in the election process.
Based on that, we should not be limiting the CEO's ability to make those decisions. He already has the power to call off an election in a particular location if need be. That is my understanding. I don't understand why we would be limiting those powers when the whole intention of the bill is to give that flexibility to ensure that the CEO can host the safest possible election to protect everybody involved.
Liberal