House of Commons Hansard #85 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was election.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin
Order, please. It is unparliamentary to use a member's name, including one's own name. It is the third time it has happened in the last week, so you are not the only one guilty of the practice, but it is in fact improper.
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Mr. Speaker, I forgot I cannot refer to members of Parliament, including myself. I take it back and I apologize profusely for that breach in procedure. It is probably wrong that the chair of the procedure and House affairs committee did not do that right.
I made a number of phone calls. Every one of them said what my name was and who I was representing and gave a phone number where I could be reached. Then it went on with whatever the message was, such as reminding people that advance polls were tomorrow. At the end of it I again said what my name was and where I could be reached. If that is done properly, there is no trouble at all.
The CRTC told us at committee that there is much good use of telephones during campaigns, and they would be able to take on the role of how we work together as politicians during campaigns. There would be certain rules to follow, and we should all know them ahead of time or we should all be aware of them if we are not, but the CRTC would be able to take over and tell us if anything like robocalls happened. By adding this piece, by taking that whole electronic monitoring aspect and putting it into CRTC, I think we have been able to make it a better piece of legislation.
I would like to finish by thanking the committee, all of our witnesses, and Canadians who care a lot about how we get elected, how important it is that we do it properly, and how important it is that it be a rules-based system. In a mature democracy, from what I have heard from my constituents, asking people to prove who they are before they vote is probably appropriate. I also thank my helpers, the other members of the committee, for doing the hard lifting.
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, as one of the hon. member's little helpers, I am pleased to ask a question.
The member tries very hard to be a fair-minded chair. I think he was a little more successful in a minority government, but that is probably as much a biased comment as anything.
I will be very direct. Given that the member worked very hard to be seen as fair-minded and reasonable, as the chair of the procedure and house affairs committee, I would like to ask if he believes that it would be fair-minded and reasonable, before any government attempted to change the election laws in Canada, for the government to at least consult the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections? Is it not common sense to consult at least those two people before any government were to bring in a brand new election law?
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Mr. Speaker, as I said, I hear that voice in my sleep. Sometimes I sleep with the TV on, and he might very well be on it.
The answer is, as I shared during my speech, that over my number of years as the chair of procedure and House affairs, the Chief Electoral Officer has had much contact with us, has appeared at committee a number of times after each election, and shares with us a group of recommendations that he would like to see as changes to the Elections Act before the next election.
Of course he has done that. I think some 38 of his recommendations are in the fair elections act. The consultation at the committee level and in conversation with the Chief Electoral Officer has taken place.
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague and big London Knights fan, in his speech, identified the fact that Elections Canada should not be putting forward a reason why Canadians should be going to vote. It should not be involved in the why, just in the where and when.
However, last year the government, in the Canada job grants ads that it spent millions and millions of dollars on, told Canadians why they should be accessing this program that did not even exist. There was a why there.
Could the member square that circle for me?
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for noticing my green suit today in honour of the London Knights.
We have had a great number of good times together. The member served on the procedure and House affairs committee, and he remembers our good times together and what we were able to do.
I cannot speak for the Canada job grants. I guess the chair of the human resources committee could stand up here and tell us about that one. However, as chair of the procedure and House affairs committee, having heard the number of witnesses, and having shared anecdotal parts in my speech, I suggested why the why was our job.
I know in the member's riding he is the why. In my riding, hopefully I am the why, and the other candidates might be up against me.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin
It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, May 8, 2014, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin
In my opinion the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Call in the members.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
It being 6:08 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
The House resumed from March 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-571, An Act to amend the Meat Inspection Act and the Safe Food for Canadians Act (slaughter of equines for human consumption), be read the second time and referred to a committee.