Evidence of meeting #35 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
And Ms. Jennings, whom I forgot, as well as Scott. In any case, this affects the majority of the committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
I can tell you right now that we are actually through the tough part of this bill.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Yes, but I would just like to know when you want to continue. I would suggest 4:30 p.m., because 3:30 p.m. is problematic.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
It's not possible at 3:30. How about four o'clock? Going once, going twice, sold; it will be at 4:30.
We are now going to resume this meeting. The room will be secured, and we can leave our stuff here. Would you like to continue for 10 or 20 more minutes?
I would like to have unanimous consent. I think it's only fair. Would we like to continue for 20 minutes?
Colleagues, I'm not seeing unanimous consent. In fairness, I did say we would stop at 1:30. I will now officially suspend the meeting. We will resume the meeting at 4:30.
Thank you.
December 12th, 2006 / 4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Colleagues, let's begin our meeting again.
Thank you very much for your diligence today. We are in our final week. I know things are extremely busy, and I just want to express yet again my appreciation for your commitment in coming back.
Colleagues, we finished clause 21, which carried, so we can go straight to business with clause 22.
(On clause 22)
We have an amendment to clause 22. It is NDP-7, which you will find on page 29 of your package.
Mr. Dewar, I invite you to introduce the amendment and speak to it.
Thank you.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If we read the proposed language here, we see:
suggest that it is intended to refer to that person, the person shall not be allowed to vote unless he or she takes the prescribed oath.
We are just taking that language and...the proposal here is:
person, the person shall be allowed to vote if he or she takes the prescribed oath.
It's simply changing the way in which this is declared. If you will, it takes negative attributes out of the clause and puts a more positive light onto it. It's saying that when the person takes the oath, the person shall be allowed to vote.
Conservative
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I would first like to hear from our expert witnesses that in fact this change makes no substantive change.
Second, I believe there's a flaw in the French version of the English amendment. The English amendment clearly states “prescribed oath”. When one looks at the actual bill, it says “le serment prescrit”, whereas in Mr. Dewar's amendment it simply says “le serment”. I think a word has been dropped.
Senior Policy Advisor, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
The drafting in the bill was actually fairly deliberate. It's put in the negative because these sections, sections 146 to 148, deal with various eventualities or issues that may occur when you're on the list--for example, your name corresponds with another very closely, and that needs to be resolved. It was put in the negative form of “shall not be allowed to vote” so that they have to satisfy those conditions; then they follow the normal process set out in section 143.
Otherwise, if it's put in the positive form of “shall be allowed to vote”, there's the implication that it could mean they are immediately entitled to vote without satisfying other requirements, such as the voter ID requirements in section 143.
That's the reason for it.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
I might point out to the committee as well that the word that is apparently missing is actually in there. It's line 40. Am I correct on that? Yes, the word is there, Madam Jennings; it's line 40.
Are there any other comments on this amendment? Seeing none, I will call the question.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 22 agreed to)
(On clause 23)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Colleagues, we have one amendment on clause 23. It is NDP-8, which you will find on page 30 in your package.
I will call on Mr. Dewar.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I think you'll find.... I'm just making sure these aren't consequential from the previous amendments.
Conservative
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair. I'm just making sure this isn't consequential to the previous statutory attempt.
What we're dealing with here, Chair, is an addition:
(1.1) Section 149 of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a):
(a.1) the elector gives the deputy returning officer a statutory declaration under the Canada Evidence Act that specifies the elector's name and address;
In essence, what we're trying to do here is use a verification process, through a statutory declaration, simply to allow a person who is initially not allowed to vote to substantiate who they are and to provide that through the statutory declaration that was mentioned previously, but for a different purpose.
Conservative
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Once again, very briefly, I have to respectfully oppose, only because this again, if we passed it, would be in opposition to and contravention of the committee report and CEO recommendations.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Are there any other comments, colleagues?
I'll pose the question.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
In terms of a comment, I'm interested to inquire about something, Mr. Lukiwski. In terms of your mention of the CEO stating that this was something they didn't.... Was that something we had in the written report, or was that upon questioning?
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
If my memory serves me well, it was in questioning, but it certainly was in the written report from the committee as well.