Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Contrary to what my colleague, Mr. Angus, has said, it is not that the other parties are not interested. We gave Mr. Angus the opportunity to explain to us what the witnesses wanted to tell us. So I have a question for all the witnesses.
The first clause of Bill C-18 reads as follows:1. Section 143 of the Canada Elections Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will read the following clause in English because I want it to be understood.
So section 3.1 reads as follows:
If the address contained in the piece or pieces of identification provided under subsection (2) or paragraph (3)(a) does not prove the elector's residence but is consistent with information related to the elector that appears on the list of electors, the elector's residence is deemed to have been proven.
Correct me if I'm wrong, ladies and gentlemen, witnesses, but my understanding of Bill C-18 is that we are looking strictly at the situation whereby somebody who is already appearing on the list of electors has a problem voting because their pieces of identification do not necessarily correspond to what's on the electors list.
So you may be talking about people who are not on the electors list who would want to be on the electors list. But that's not the point of Bill C-18. I think you're knocking on the wrong door. I think Bill C-18 is strictly with regard to, and again I quote, the phrase “related to the elector that appears on the list of electors”.
So you would you please tell me how you can manage talking and wishing for something else?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.