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.
10:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
It's withdrawn. Thank you very much to everyone for working together on this.
10:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Now we'll go to LIB-9, which has roughly the same objective, but it also applies to LIB-11 on page 61, LIB-13 on page 70, LIB-15 on page 79, LIB-19 on page 113, and LIB-63 on page 353.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
This is like what we discussed under LIB-13 just a second ago. This is pretty consequential. It's allowing multiple vouching for people in retirement homes or long-term care facilities.
10:55 a.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Now I would bring up that we have CPC-32 following as well, which we believe is a more effective solution to this, where the care home electors' residence—and they also do not live in polling stations, Mr. Cullen—is to be established by a list prepared by the home's administrator. That eliminates the need for the vouching, as the home provides the list of the residents.
We present that as a more bona fide alternative to the vouching system.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
To be flexible, I think it's okay if we discuss these two amendments together. Does anyone have comments on either one, how it would work or which would work best?
I don't know if the witnesses have any comments related to the ways of enfranchising seniors. You're welcome to comment. There are two different ways here.
Mr. Cullen, go ahead.
10:55 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's vouching by another form, putting the vouching in the hands of the home care officials or administration. However, home care facilities will have a mix of residents, citizens and non-citizens, and I don't know how that's better than having the vouching process that is described in LIB-9, LIB-13 and some others.
If I had to pick between the two, putting it on the administration to provide the list and verify that the list is of only eligible voters, which is how I understand it.... I don't know if that's any better. In fact, it might be worse.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Is there other input?
Please keep talking while Philippe talks to the witnesses. Someone say something.
10:55 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Normally, in a room full of politicians this wouldn't be a problem, Chair.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Mr. Nater's going to speak, I'm sure, and Garnett has all his binders with him.
Mr. Nater, go ahead.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
To clarify the amendment the Conservatives are putting forward, this is simply a list confirming residence. There is no such list of citizenship that anyone would have access to in those types of facilities or elsewhere. Passing CPC-32 would provide an alternative for that proof of identification. Those within the home, who often won't have a driver's licence, won't have that type of identification.
One of the things that count as proof of residence is a pill bottle, a prescription. It's an acceptable form of ID. I just say that tangentially. I find that interesting, and a lot of seniors will have that.
The main point I want to make is that this is a proof of residence for those in the home. It's not a proof of citizenship. That simply doesn't exist in those contexts.
10:55 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm wondering if these work together or if all it does is provide a list of people in a long-term care facility. I'm trying to see if it does more than that.
10:55 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
If it does just that, then in conjunction with LIB-9, why wouldn't that all...? It's just more information.
11 a.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually, the act already authorizes the Chief Electoral Officer to authorize pieces of ID that can be used at the polling stations. The Chief Electoral Officer has already authorized a letter issued by the management of such institutions to be recognized as a piece of identity.
However, my understanding is that the management or many directors of these organizations do not have time to issue these letters, so in fact the residents find themselves without the proof of address anyway.
11 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Again, my question was that if CPC-32 passes, which asks for the administration to make a list of residents, as John has said, that's not a validation of their citizenship. In combination with LIB-9, is there any reason they don't work together? That is my question. One provides a list, but the other one is about vouching and the ability of a care provider in a facility to vouch for someone. Would a list of residents be any kind of a problem for that?
11 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
On that point, Chair, about a letter from a long-term care administrator, I've been on a board for long-term care before, so I know how busy they are. Making individual letters can be problematic. This is just simply hitting “Print” on the list of residents and you're done. It's not going to be an onerous process of writing letters for 84 or 112 or however many residents there are; it's just hitting “Print” on a list of residents and providing that to Elections Canada as proof of residence. I think it's common sense.
