Thank you.
I've talked about this a few times at committee meetings, so I won't spend 10 minutes explaining why this amendment is warranted. While I understand the desire to limit nomination paper signatures to one per elector, implementing that depends on other means that we will be debating today. Preventing an elector from signing more than one candidate's nomination paper seems to have an unequal number of pros and cons. Notably, as the Chief Electoral Officer indicated, it's impossible to check or cross-check signatures in a timely manner, to determine whether an elector has signed more than one nomination paper. Regardless, it wouldn't be grounds to disqualify a candidacy. The measure does not have any real coercive effect. The hope is that it will deter people by putting the responsibility on the elector as opposed to a person encouraging electors to sign multiple nomination papers.
As I see it, this also breaches the secrecy of the vote, since people will be told that they can't sign the nomination paper of more than one candidate. That could give the impression that they are supporting a candidate, even if that's not the case. At the beginning of the campaign, electors may not know who they are going to vote for and may want to see two candidates in the race. An elector who wants two candidates to run for the seat because it would make for a better debate is being prevented from signing both candidates' nomination papers. As far as I can see, the downsides of preventing people from signing more than one nomination paper outweigh the upsides. That is why we are proposing this amendment.