Evidence of meeting #13 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was privacy.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jennifer Stoddart  Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Raymond D'Aoust  Assistant Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
James Robertson  Committee Researcher

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

Yes.

Let's put the question. We're opposed to this because we think the status quo is working just fine. It's too broad--

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

The status quo is working and this is too broad.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

--and it needs to be redefined.

Our recommendation is that it's worth consideration but it needs to be more defined. It's too broad. We are opposed.

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Unless we get clarification.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

I don't want clarification.

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB

I'd like to come back to one of the points Mr. Preston made a little bit earlier on. He was absolutely right. Right now we're looking at the recommendations of the CEO. We're not looking at the whole act. I think this is fine, because we're responding to his report. But at the same time, it seems to me that it's incumbent on us to make the commitment that in the fall we would look at the whole act and maybe review this type of thing. It just doesn't make any sense for us to deal with this stuff piecemeal. It's out of context.

I don't know if our program would allow that to happen in the fall.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

We'll be reviewing the entire act in the fall.

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB

Our population is aging, and I think we should give every opportunity to Canadians to vote. If we're not doing this right, I'd like to come back and revisit this in the fall.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Hear, hear!

That's all our committee should do for the next year.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

Okay. There you go.

I notice there are two unmarked items here that we have not discussed before. Am I wrong? Did we discuss recommendation 1.15 the right to vote of inmates serving sentences of two years or more?

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

No, we have never discussed that.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

We've never discussed it.

Shall we do that right now?

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

What about the one before it?

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Why did you skip over one: access to multiple buildings?

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

We had already dealt with that and it was agreed on.

Recommendation 1.15 says:

As a result of the Supreme Court of Canada`s decision in Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519 ("Sauvé"), all prison inmates who are otherwise eligible to vote in a federal election may vote regardless of the length of their sentences. The Court struck down the provisions of the Act which denied the right to vote to inmates serving sentences of two years or more. The government, however, has not tabled legislation to put in place a voting process to facilitate voting for these inmates, most of whom are held in federal institutions. The Act currently only authorizes a process in provincial institutions. The Chief Electoral Officer has had to rely on his power of adaptation in section 17 of the Act in each election held since the judgment in Sauvé to enable these inmates to vote. He seeks an amendment to the Act explicitly authorizing him to establish a process for voting in federal institutions.

Is anybody in disagreement?

We will report that it was not the majority of the vote, that it was a yes, but not by a majority.

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON

It was by majority, but it wasn't unanimous.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

I'm sorry. Correct. It wasn't unanimous.

Thank you. It's getting late.

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

I need a clarification on recommendation 1.14, the second paragraph:

The Committee fully supports this recommendation. It would, however, go further and recommend amendments to permit access to other premises such as schools, shopping centres and workplaces.

Then we go on to say that other people didn't agree. Do we agree or do we not agree?

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

I'm thinking we did talk about Canadian communities.

June 14th, 2006 / 6:15 p.m.

Committee Researcher

James Robertson

The intent is to agree. We will reword that.

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

On the same point, Mr. Chair, I don't remember talking about workplaces. I don't believe it's the right of anyone to come into my workplace to politic.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

I have to admit that I don't remember talking about workplaces either. I'm concerned about safety.

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Oh, workplaces.

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Who snuck that in there? Good grief.