Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I would like to respond to that, Chair.

What troubles me is the fact that notwithstanding the issue...and I was very careful to ask the Chief Electoral Officer about this whole issue, and he testified, not only before us but previously, to the degree and scope of what the problem is that we're addressing here. He certainly didn't identify this as a problem of a statutory declaration. I asked him to provide evidence of how many people had been charged under the act for violating the act, and he wasn't able to give me specific instances. In fact he said they are still ongoing investigations, but to date no one has been charged.

I'm sad to say that if this doesn't pass, what we're doing in effect is telling certain people that their franchise will not be...because we heard this from witnesses. This isn't me speaking; this is what witnesses told us—people who work day in and day out with the people who are the most vulnerable. The net effect of what we're doing is taking away their franchise.

Why? Because—and we'll get to vouching later, it will be interesting to see that discussion—what we're saying is that we're going to people who obviously have access to identification with photo saying, you're okay; you get to vote. If you don't have access to that, we're taking away what I think is a very commonsense approach, and that is an oath and a declaration that can be traced. We're taking that away from them. I don't know how else to describe it but disenfranchisement.

I would point to the fact that this was an issue in other jurisdictions in the 1950s and 1960s—very different in terms of how that was done, but similar in outcome in that—

[An hon. member]

Very different.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

No, of course, but I'm not the first to say this. In fact people who read this bill said it long before I did.

The unintended consequences of what we're doing here is that we're taking away the franchise of certain citizens to vote, because we're saying that this tool that they would have, a statutory declaration, will be taken away. I don't know how else to describe this but to say that we're taking away their access to vote. Particularly, when you look later on at vouching, we're proposing that we take away the ability of more than one person to vouch for another person.

So I think in the end, Chair, I would plead with those who are on the side of making our voting system more egalitarian, and not less, to support this amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Are there any further comments?

I will call the question, but I want to remind members that there are several consequential amendments to this. I believe our vote on this amendment will also apply to NDP-9 on page 31, NDP-10 on page 32, NDP-12 on page 34, and NDP-13 on page 36.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

This amendment is defeated, as are all the other amendments I mentioned earlier.

Colleagues, we will now deal with the Liberal amendment on the same clause, which you'll find in your handouts on page 26.

Madam Redman, I want to make the point that given that we have already carried G-7, I believe the numerical part of your amendment would be changed to (2.2) as a result. I'll point that out to you right up front and ask you to please take the floor.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am happy to speak to this. This came out of the needs that were expressed, I think, by some witnesses, but certainly by our members, as I mentioned earlier, who have large rural or remote constituencies with many aboriginal constituents. They asked that this be put in with an acknowledgement to ongoing consultation with the government to make sure that status cards are appropriate. So if they need to change them as we go forward, they would like to continue those conversations with the Chief Electoral Officer. But they ask that this be in for the purposes of documentation issued by the government, so that somebody registered as an Indian under the Indian Act would constitute the proof. I would ask for the committee's support on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Are there any comments?

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I understand the intent of the amendment. I'm wondering and would like to establish with the panel whether this is presently the case or not.

Is this something that is new in terms of what is acceptable ID?

[Dan McDougall]

We think this could be one of the items indicated in the previous motion that was discussed, with respect to the proposed subsection 143(2.1) that was within it. This would be one of those pieces of ID that would qualify.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

In essence, we're being prescriptive, to say that this “should” be and not “might” be up to the CEO. We're directing, if you will, to say this “shall be”, as opposed to....

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

My apologies to Mr. Reid. I did not see your hand up before Mr. Dewar's. My apologies; I will give you the floor now.

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

I'm not 100% sure whether it was the intention of Ms. Redman to do one of two things I could see this as meaning, so I'm going to ask, and maybe she can clarify it for us.

The way the amendment is written, it leaves the impression with me that a document issued by the Government of Canada that certifies that a person is registered as an Indian under the Indian Act is sufficient to be the one piece of identification; that you don't need a second one with your address.

I say that because the last part says “constitutes proof of that person's identity”, which suggests that it is all that is required. I'm not sure that was the intention; that's how I read it.

That's very different to me from saying that a document issued by the Government of Canada constitutes an authorized piece of identification, in which case it is one of the two pieces you're using under proposed paragraph 143(2)(b).

I'm just wondering which of the two meanings Mrs. Redman had in mind.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Having done many amendments, you know that you sort of do the gist of it for the drafter, and this is what the drafter brings back.

It is my understanding that it is the Canadian government proof of identification and would not therefore be the only proof. It's proof of that person's identity, but there's still the other piece, as we talked about earlier. Where they reside would still be required.

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

Right.

In that case, may I ask.... I'm not sure what the appropriate method is for proposing subamendments. What I would suggest is something like this:

for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b)

—thereby putting that little “(b)”after the “(2)”—

a document issued by the Government of Canada

etc., exactly the way you have it worded, until it gets to “constitutes”, and then after that:

constitutes an authorized piece of identification

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I would turn to the panel to ask what that means to them.

[Dan McDougall]

We think it would be essentially a “for greater certainty” clause. As I mentioned, we think this piece of ID is already one of the pieces that are authorized by the bill. This, with the amendment proposed, would make it clear—for greater certainty, in effect—that this is indeed one of those pieces. Technically it already is included; it is a government piece of ID. So we think it is already part of the scheme, but this would provide greater clarify on that point.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I would be open to discussion. I would see that as a friendly amendment if it clarifies the intent of this. I think it captures the intent of why this is before us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I will ask that the discussion stay at the subamendment level.

Mr. Lukiwski, you were next on my list, but not for the subamendment. Do you wish to speak to the subamendment?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Very briefly. I think we are all on the same page. We're just trying to get clarification to make sure it's consistent with what we've been trying to do here in terms of getting the two pieces of identification, one of which can be approved. One is identity, of course; one is proof of address. If the subamendment clarifies that, I don't have a problem with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Proulx.

Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. McDougall has a further comment. Then we will go to Mr. Proulx.

[Dan McDougall]

This is just a point of clarification. I think the language proposed on the subamendment should read “for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b)” rather than “subsection (2)(b)”. The subsection is (2), and the further delineation would be the paragraph.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. McDougall, would you kindly repeat that so we could copy it down, please?

[Dan McDougall]

It would read, “For the purposes of paragraph 2(b)” rather than “subsection”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

All right. The only addition on the amendment, as I understand it, is that we are replacing the words following “Indian Act constitutes” with “an authorized piece of identification”.

Go ahead, Monsieur Proulx, please.

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

As a point of clarification, am I correct in understanding that proof of identification means one of the two?