Just to make it clear, those comments that Mr. Lamoureux was offering were given by Laurie Hawn, member of Parliament, who is sitting just down the table and who will be a witness before us on Thursday.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for giving me this time.
Mr. Kingsley, thank you for being here again. It's a real pleasure.
I want to concentrate on some comments you made today regarding vouching in two locations. You talked about vouching on reserve and in restricted access institutions. I'll start with your comments regarding reserves. You said that vouching occurs “on reserves which are defined territorially and where the person being vouched for already possesses a status Indian card, acceptable proof under the Canada Elections Act. Each reserve usually constitutes one or more polls, and consequently the possession of such a card should constitute sufficient proof of address; it does not. Hence the need for the vouching process.”
That could be seen as an argument, as presented here, for vouching. It could also be seen, I would submit, and I'm looking for your feedback of what I'm about to submit, as an argument in favour of extending the purpose and use of the status Indian card. It has a special status under the law.
I remember being on the committee when we actually negotiated over this point. One of the members of the committee, Karen Redman, who is no longer a member of Parliament, suggested that the status Indian card be given a special spot, which it is under subsection 143(2.2) of the current law, changing that status a bit so as to allow the status Indian card to also serve as a proof of residence. If that were done, would that resolve the issue you drew attention to here?