Mr. Chairman, with respect to prisoners in federal penitentiaries, I have, in light of the Supreme Court judgment, adapted the statute in accordance with my powers, which is the power to adapt in unforeseen circumstances or in cases of emergency. I have adapted the statute because Parliament had not had an opportunity to amend the law, based on the Supreme Court judgment.
What I am indicating here is that since it is not proposed to change the statute at this time, it would be my intention to continue to do so, unless I hear differently from this committee. That's what I'm asking, because that would be a bit of a stretch to the definition of “unforeseen” and emergency situation, which is what the statute allows me to do at this time.
Otherwise, what will happen is that the persons who are affected by the decision, if I do not adapt the statute, would have to go and seek redress from the courts to force the Supreme Court judgment to be enforceable for the election. That's why I'm seeking the guidance of the committee.
With respect to serial vouching, my understanding is that this is an issue that is of concern to all the parties represented in the House, which is the ability of a person to be registered on polling day, through a vouching, and then to vouch for the next person in line.
This has an impact all over Canada. It has not been particularly reported as an issue, that I can recollect, with respect to aboriginals. I think it would have an impact all over. I sense parliamentarians around this table felt this was a problem and therefore viewed the response of the government to be something that reflected the will of this committee.
With respect to convention fees, I have nothing further to add to what I've stated before in terms of interpretation, and therefore I would not want to add anything.