Evidence of meeting #124 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was election.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Yes, that's right.
Essentially, it's that the Chief Electoral Officer does not have to ask for proof of citizenship, but that it is a requirement.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
As I understand it, the Elections Act already requires you to demonstrate proof of citizenship. This would be redundant. Is that correct?
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
The Canada Elections Act already requires proof of citizenship, so would this add anything?
Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office
No, there is no requirement for proof of citizenship under the act. The act requires the Chief Electoral Officer to determine what is a sufficient proof of identity, and only identity in this case. As a matter of fact, for this section of part 11, the Chief Electoral Officer requires proof of passport to prove citizenship.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
He already has the power to compel proof of citizenship.
Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office
Well, in this case it's combined identity and citizenship through the passport.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
But this amendment is saying they have to do it every time, as opposed to having the ability to do it. Is that right, Stephanie?
Conservative
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
If we're looking at potentially adding a million people to the voting rolls, it only makes common sense if people are mailing in ballots from Davos, Paris—
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
—or wherever. There should be an assumption that there is proof of citizenship for those voting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
You do understand that Elections Canada has said it does have the power to request it if it has a concern.
Is there any further discussion on CPC-56?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Yes.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That's defeated. We will now go on to CPC-57, which is consequential to CPC-54, so that's defeated.
CPC-58 was consequential to CPC-55, so that's defeated.
CPC-59 is again about foreign persons providing some proof of residence. Is that proof of residence overseas or in Canada?
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
It's proof of the last Canadian residential address if overseas.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
I don't even know what this prize is. I think it's very straightforward. It's to require proof of the last Canadian residential address. It's another attempt to safeguard the legitimacy of the electorate. I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.
October 16th, 2018 / 12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
All in favour of amendment CPC-59?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 153 agreed to on division)
We're on clause 154.
Amendment CPC-60 was defeated as a result of CPC-55.
(Clause 154 agreed to on division)
(On clause 155)
We're on clause 155 now.
There's amendment CPC-60.1. Once again, it's providing for more identification for overseas voters.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
This also applies to amendment CPC-62.1, which is on page 107. They're related to the concept of proof of identification.
(Clause 155 agreed to on division)
There's a proposed new clause, clause 155.1. This is one of the new amendments that were submitted yesterday.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
It just won't be presented. When we withdraw it, we just won't present it.
(Clause 156 agreed to on division)
(On clause 157)
Now we go to clause 157. We have amendment CPC-61.
Do you want to present this, Stephanie?