Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 15th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Let's bring the meeting to order, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so much again for coming.

I do want to remind members that this meeting is in public; however, I would like to bring to the attention of the committee that draft reports are generally considered in camera, basically because the reports are confidential until they are tabled in the House. However, I'm happy to proceed any way the committee wants to proceed as a group, of course. If the committee wants to proceed in public, then that's what we'll do, but I would simply like to remind the committee members. Perhaps I can read a quote here:

Committee reports must be presented to the House before they can be released to the public. The majority of committee reports are discussed and adopted at in camera meetings. Even when a report is adopted in public session, the report itself is considered confidential until it has actually been presented in the House.

I would just simply ask the committee once again for their agreement to stay in public, otherwise we will go in camera. Is there an agreement to stay in public, or is there a change of opinion?

Mr. Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I think yesterday's meeting went very well in the sense that it was public, but everybody knew we were working on a draft report. I don't see any problems in continuing in public.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I see everybody nodding. There's nobody with a concern.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay, then, thank you very much for that permission. We'll stay in public.

Monsieur Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I would simply like to add that this must not become a habit. The Committee must sit in camera when there is a reason to do so, and we must set the example. You are right in saying that the Standing Orders stipulate that draft reports must not be published. Furthermore, a report can only be published once all of the work is finished and it has been tabled in the House. This is a matter that requires reflection.

I would not like to see the other committees say that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs set the example by not sitting in camera. There are good reasons to proceed in this way, namely in order to give parliamentarians the opportunity to prepare a report that will be made public. There is nothing to be hidden from the public, but we are dealing here with the work of the Committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I think what we'll do, Monsieur Guimond, is we really only have a little time here, but we'll talk about this for another moment.

Monsieur Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

It is odd, Mr. Chairman, that you are constantly saying that we only have a little time right before I speak. In my paranoia, I get the impression that your comment is directed at me. I will therefore be very quick.

I am sensitive to Mr. Godin's explanations. However, given that we have nothing to hide, we thought we could work in a public session.

I would like to propose a middle-ground solution to my colleagues on the Committee. We are still at the report stage. It is true that we must respect the Standing Orders, that stipulate that reports must not be made public before being presented in the House. Otherwise, this clause would have no meaning whatsoever. Given that in law the legislator does not say things just for the sake of it, I would suggest to the group that the meeting we will hold to study the report proper, before its tabling, perhaps next week, be held in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay. It was my opinion that we would discuss it at the beginning of each meeting, and in fact, Monsieur Guimond, that was exactly my thought.

So let's proceed, ladies and gentlemen. We have about four hours left--not today--it's two hours today, thank you, and two hours on Tuesday. We are coming to most of the points that we've had all the information on.

Yesterday we left off with recommendation 1.15, so we will proceed today with recommendation 1.16, “Voting by Electors Absent from the Country for More Than Five Consecutive Years”. The Chief Electoral Officer is of the view that this provision deprives certain individuals of the right to vote and could be contrary to section 3 of the Charter of Rights. It says:

Section 11(d) of the Act prohibits voting by persons who have been absent from the country for a period exceeding five consecutive years. The Chief Electoral Officer recommends removing this limitation for persons who intend to return to Canada as residents.

Any discussion on that?

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

I think I'd probably be in favour of this.

I'm only wondering how the CEO would confirm that these people are actually coming back to Canada. I don't know how you would manage that, but I think the principle is fine. If somebody has been out of the country and working somewhere--in Saudi Arabia--and is planning on coming back in six years, they should still be allowed to vote in Canada. But how do you confirm that? They are not now residents of that place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

As someone who actually used to live in a foreign country, I'm not sure you can determine that easily. I was a resident of Australia for certain purposes and I was a resident of Canada for other purposes. For income tax purposes, I did my taxes here as opposed to there, but I was working there. Actually, I was a permanent resident of Australia.

What I'm getting at is that I think Mr. Simard has a good point. It's basically impossible to determine in the absence of a declaration, unless somebody has gone out and actually done something like rejecting their Canadian citizenship in order to become a citizen of another country, which some countries require.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'll ask Jamie to give us a bit more enlightenment on this.

[James Robertson, Committee Researcher]

This has been in the act since the early 1990s, I believe. The current provision reads:

Any of the following persons may vote in accordance with Part 11:

11(d) a person who has been absent from Canada for less than five consecutive years and who intends to return to Canada as a resident.

The question is the intention, not whether the person actually returns. I think for intention it is up to the individual to declare whether they have the intention. A person who has left Canada, has established a domicile somewhere else, and has severed all ties with Canada would presumably not have the intention to return to Canada. So I think it's a question of fact in individual cases, but it would be up to the individual, in most cases, to assert their intention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Shall we put that in there, that the individual must assert their intention to return to Canada?

Monsieur Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I do not know if James could help us out with this.

My understanding is that the right to vote is directly linked to one's citizenship. A person who has been living in the Bahamas for 15 years and who has retained his or her right to vote might very well have become very disinterested in politics but, technically, if he or she has remained a Canadian citizen, he or she has the right to vote.

With this provision, the voting rights of people who have remained Canadian citizens would be revoked for other reasons. Conversely, we do not want non-citizens to be entitled to vote. We are asking that Neo-Canadians and newcomers supply us with proof of citizenship if they wish to vote. And inversely, we do not want Canadian citizens who no longer reside in Canada to lose their right to vote.

There is another question that comes to mind. Where does this five year rule come from? Why five years? One of my brothers married an American and lives in Denver, Colorado. If he has been gone for four years and eight months, he would have the right to vote. But if he has been gone for five years and two months, then he no longer has the right to vote. Did this rule fall from the sky or out of a tree?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

It's a very good point. I'm seeing a lot of nods around the table.

Shall we simply remove this clause, that if you're a Canadian citizen you have a right to vote?

I'm only stirring up trouble here so I get some more comments.

Monsieur Godin, and then Mr. Reid.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I agree. A Canadian citizen is a Canadian citizen. There are Canadians who live in regions where they are able to go and vote. For example, in embassies, there is an area where you can vote. They can even send their ballot by mail.

I simply wish to underscore that a Canadian is a Canadian.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Reid, then Monsieur Proulx.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

This is paragraph 11(d) of the act. The logical thing would be to make the wording “a person who is absent from Canada”. Currently it says:

a person who has been absent from Canada for less than five consecutive years and who intends to return to Canada as a resident.

I'm assuming we could say that a person who is eligible to vote by a postal ballot would include “a person who is absent from Canada”, period.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I think I understood the last comment to mean the same thing that I wish, in the sense that as long as they're Canadian citizens, regardless of whether they live in Canada or outside of Canada, they should have the right to vote.

As candidates, we are all aware of citizens who are working outside the country who have registered with Elections Canada. As an example, National Defence gives us lists. So presumably, somebody who lives outside of Canada who is a Canadian citizen would need to register with Elections Canada—and bingo, they should have the right to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I think we're debating the obvious here, but I do find this confusing. Part 1, section 3, states that, “Every person who is a Canadian citizen and is 18 years of age or older on polling day is qualified as an elector.” So, boom.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

But it seems they're excluded. According to 1.16, paragraph 11(d) of the act prohibits voting by persons who have been absent from Canada for a period exceeding five consecutive years.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

That's not quite right. Section 11 of the Elections Act has paragraphs (a) through (f), and says, “Any of the following persons may vote in accordance with Part 11.” I think part II of the act has the rules on how you vote by postal ballot.