Oh, oh!
Citizen Voting Act
An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act
This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2015.
This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2015.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative
In committee (House), as of May 4, 2015
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to
(a) eliminate the international register of electors and incorporate all of the information contained in it into the Register of Electors;
(b) require electors who are resident outside Canada to make an application for registration and special ballot after the issue of the writs at each election;
(c) stipulate that electors who are resident outside Canada may only receive a special ballot for the address at which they last resided in Canada;
(d) require that electors who are applying for a special ballot under Division 3 or 4 of Part 11 include in their application for registration and special ballot proof of identity and residence and, if they apply from outside Canada, proof of Canadian citizenship;
(e) require that an external auditor perform an audit and report on election workers’ compliance with special ballot voting procedures and requirements for every election;
(f) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information for the purpose of assisting the Chief Electoral Officer to, among other things, delete from the Register of Electors the names of persons who are not Canadian citizens; and
(g) add the offence of voting or attempting to vote by special ballot under Division 3 or 4 of Part 11 while knowing that one is not qualified as an elector and add offences under those Divisions of attesting to the residence of more than one elector and of acting as an attestor when one’s own residence has already been attested to.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
Order, please. A request was made for unanimous consent to see the clock. That was denied. The proper process was followed. This has nothing to do with the statement that was made yesterday afternoon or with what may follow.
Clearly the rules were followed related to the business of seeing the clock. Unanimous consent was denied. There is no argument that, given other circumstances, it changes the rules related to the unanimous consent requirement.
Again, I am going to go back to the member. The point that he is making is not valid. If he would like to make his point, I encourage him to do it succinctly.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, with respect, the issue of whether or not my point is valid cannot be ruled on in advance of me making the point. I am trying to argue that the Thursday statement and the practice that surrounds it is directly relevant to the vote that has taken place.
Therefore, if I cannot continue to explain that, I do understand and will accept your ruling. However, I need to explain the argument in order for you to understand why I do believe it is not the case that unanimous consent simply being given in these circumstances is in and of itself valid.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
The Chair has said twice, and I will repeat it a third time, that it is the opinion of the Chair that the procedure for unanimous consent was followed properly and that there are not extenuating circumstances that caused those rules to change. Consequently, the request to see the clock has been denied, as it should have been.
In the opinion of the Chair, there is no argument that this member can make that would suggest that different rules ought to apply in this situation, whether it relates to the Thursday question or what might happen next. On that question, the Chair is clear.
As always, any member of this place has an opportunity to challenge the ruling of the Chair if they so wish. However, I think in this case it is quite clear that what has just happened is unusual but is not outside the rules of this place.
Is the hon. member for Saint-Lambert rising on the same point of order?