I was too focused on the main argument in the defence of my amendment, but I would like to take up on the element introduced by Ms. Jennings and my colleague, Mr. Roux, i.e. the accuracy of the lists.
The Chief Electoral Officer has not convinced us — not at all — that in the case of October elections, we in Quebec would have accurate and precise lists, given the number of residential moves that take place in Quebec around the 1st of July.
The most compelling proof that he himself foresees a problem — you will remember — is that he asked us, in the report he produced after the elections, to postpone the date from October 15 to November 15. On the contrary, we would ask him to accelerate! Despite all the good will the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec might have to register all changes as quickly as possible, Mr. Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, was unable to convince us of the lists’ accuracy. In fact, that is one of the reasons we wanted to move the whole thing to April, thus giving us the opportunity to use data that include the preceding year’s residential moves.
I conclude by lamenting the fact that, for some strange reason, the Register of Electors official here in Ottawa refuses to speak to us at the very time we need to check on issues of register accuracy. There seems to be a culture of secrecy around this register. I won’t go as far as talking about veto, such as suggested by my colleague from Drummond, but there is a certain lack of cooperation on the part of some persons around the Chief Elections Officer.
We therefore maintain that our amendment should be adopted, which is something that appears to be more and more doubtful.