Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 16th, 2018

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

But—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Graham—okay, Ms. Sahota, ask your question.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

This list wouldn't verify, and doesn't have to verify, that they're eligible voters. You just want a list of who lives there.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

It provides confirmation of residence. A long-term care home is not going to have proof of citizenship. That's not their role, and there is no such list of citizenship that's provided to those types of facilities. It's simply providing that confirmation of residency to vote. We're looking for alternatives for proving residency for seniors. A list from a long-term care home is a pretty easy one to do, especially within a polling division where the poll is there at that location.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I'm just trying to clarify the result of this proposal. Let's say that for some reason they did not do that and did not have time to even hit “Print” and make that list, and it's election day and the polling staff are there. Would the people who did not make it onto that list then still be able to vote because the nursing home didn't hit “Print” and didn't follow that obligation? Would it be a requirement in order to vote to have that list, or would it just be an additional bonus and they would still be able to vote, with LIB-9?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Yes, as long as they qualified to vote, they can vote. It's not as though the only way they could vote is by hitting “Print”. This is just one more option, one more way to allow proof of residency.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Perfect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead, Mr. Graham.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Morin, is there anything that pre-empts or prevents the letter from an institution to include all the names in a single letter?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

No, I don't think so. I think it would be allowed, and the Chief Electoral Officer can already authorize that type of identification under subsection 143(2.1) of the act.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

CPC-32 does not compel the creation of this list; it only says that you can, which is a power that they already have. Would it be fair to say that CPC-32 does not actually do anything?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Well, I'll let you come to your own conclusions, but the Chief Electoral Officer already has the authority to authorize such a form of identification.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Genuis is next.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I think the CPC amendment is more clear in terms of a process that would happen in providing a list. It doesn't require the extra.... It's more specific.

I was going to comment on an earlier point. The way I understand this would function—and John can clarify for me if I'm misunderstanding it—is it effectively provides another option in terms of ID. For the vast majority of people, in addition to a prescription or some other form of ID, this provides another way of proving residency in addition to the vast number of other ways that are available.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Such as the VIC?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

You've had that debate already.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Morin, you said some of the institutions didn't have time to push the button and print out the list of their residents. However, that would take less time than going around vouching for each person, wouldn't it?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

I'm just saying that while institutions have the power to issue such a letter right now, many do so and it facilitates their residents in voting, but some argue that they don't have time for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. Is there any further discussion?

Let's go to the vote on amendment LIB-9, which also applies to LIB-11, LIB-13, LIB-15, LIB-19 and LIB-63.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That is passed, with a lot of consequential amendments.

We've discussed at length amendment CPC-32. Is there any further discussion?

[Stephanie Kusie]

No, we'll withdraw it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Are you going to withdraw it because it can already be done by the Chief Electoral Officer?

[Stephanie Kusie]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We don't need unanimous support to withdraw it because she hasn't moved it yet. You're just not going to move it.

[Stephanie Kusie]

No.