Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 1st, 2014

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, I'm just about done, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's speak to the amendment, and then we'll get off the personal stuff.

Speak to the amendment, please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

They have a lot to say now.

You know, no one is fooled by these detailed talking-point arguments you have on this amendment or any other. The fact that they didn't, through you, Chair, even consult the Chief Electoral Officer, that alone exposes the government 100% as to what this is all about, and every expert.... Do you think international experts have nothing else to do except hunt around and find out what Canada is doing in terms of legislation that's in our House? No, it came to their attention because—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Please....

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—they care about these issues, as we do, and that's why we're going to use every minute we can, Chair. I know it upsets you, you don't like to hear it all, and too bad, but there are a lot of Canadians who didn't get their voice heard. We're doing our best to give them that voice because they are angry, and so are we, and everyone should be. This is voter suppression, period, full stop.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We've spent way too long on one amendment this morning, and we're not speaking to it, and from the procedural point of view—it is procedures and House affairs here, folks—let's at least try. I'll be as nice as I can to give you time to make your points, but let's not make them points about each other. Let's make them points about the amendments, and we'll get through this a lot more quickly and with a lot more fun. It won't be fun if your chairman isn't having any.

On the amendment,...a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll move on to G-7.

Mr. Lukiwski? Oh, I'm sorry, I've done it again.

(On clause 50)

Shall clause 50 carry?

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

Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes.

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

I hadn't consulted with my opponents on this so I apologize, but the government's intention is to vote against clause 50. I can go into detail if you wish, but I think if the opposition members took a look at clause 50, they would be pleased that we'd be voting against that.

Voting down clause 50 would remove the proposed changes in section 144.1 of the Canada Elections Act, which was only being amended to change a cross-reference that was no longer correct because of the elimination of the vouching process. With the proposed reinstatement of a process for attestations of residence, the existing cross-reference is no longer needed to be corrected. This is all in relation to that, so if you want to take a few moments and take a look at that....

I do apologize, I should have given you this information ahead of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Scott.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Is it urgent then, because if it's a cross-referencing cleanup kind of thing....

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I vote that we suspend for a minute and get a coffee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're back. I missed you all while we were gone.

Mr. Lukiwski, did you have more or are we going to Mr. Scott?

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

Let me just again say, and I did apologize.... Of course, it could have been that if I hadn't said anything it would have been a nice surprise when you voted against it and so did we. But rather than have that kind of surprise, I thought I should let you know in advance what we were doing.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Very quickly, we were going to vote against it, although it was in the recesses of my mind why. I would have thought this might even have been a consequential amendment if it had gone through, but I'm not sure.

Therefore, it's important to vote against it. Thank you for telling us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

On clause 50, those in favour?

(Clause 50 negatived)

(Clause 51 agreed to)

(On clause 52)

On clause 52 we have amendment G-7.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

I will so move. Basically, this is consequential to G-5, which we've already dealt with and passed. Frankly, this is the beginning of many parts of the package on attestation for residence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

On G-7, those in favour? Those opposed?

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 52 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 53)

We now go to NDP-35.

Mr. Scott, would you like to....

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Do you know what, Mr. Chair?

This all gets caught up in stuff that's already been decided.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

So you will not move it?

We will not move NDP-35.

We'll go to Liberal-21.

Mr. Simms will have to decide. Liberal-21 is exactly the same as the one that Mr. Scott didn't move, so you could take the same choice.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Again, we're going back to vouching, that's my understanding.

Sorry, I didn't get the reasons why you withdrew....

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Because it's already been covered.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Also because there are multiple ways to try to deal with this and we really already dealt with it and lost.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

That is true. I'm going to call for a vote on this anyway. The reason why is that when I dealt with vouching, there's one point I neglected to mention. I think it's very important and I'm sorry if you feel I'm wasting your time, but it's one point that I think is very important in vouching and that is this.

Vouching is a form of ID and from what I understand it is probably the only one with an address that you don't have to pay for. I think I'm right on that one. For anything that proves your address, whether it's a passport, driver's licence, or that sort of thing, there's a substantial fee added onto it. That's another reason why we should do this. I'd like to call for a vote. I won't waste too much time on it.