Scott Simms

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the exchange I just heard, but I also would like to offer a quote into this debate that my hon. colleague the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl brought up, from Jamie MacWhirter from PTSD Buddies. There have been several in the group and they have been very proactive in the media, for reasons that are obvious. I want to quote him when he said, “So I thought if I could just get these people together we would all learn from each other and move forward with our lives”.

Anyone suffering from distress will use that method to get the same people together, talk about how they are coping with it, share best practices, and so on and so forth. I agree with that, but what has happened here is that the offices have been closed, these offices that have the capacity to deal with these people. They are on the front lines, if I could use that term, for people like Jamie MacWhirter and PTSD Buddies. I would like my colleague to comment on how much more difficult it is that these specialized services have disappeared, especially in Newfoundland and Labrador and particularly the office in Corner Brook.

[Citizen Voting Act, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a trend happening from Bill C-23 until now where consultations have not taken place, to the point where members in committee find themselves struggling to fix some of the mistakes that were made initially, which have been pointed out by many in the House earlier. The lack of consultation is certainly alarming. We were expecting this to address the Frank decision directly; instead, we got what was a different piece of legislation in addition to the challenge to the ruling that was made.

[Citizen Voting Act, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that is not exactly correct. Basically, what happened was this was dead on arrival. The Chief Electoral Officer said that this would not come in time, before this debate even began. I suspect the Conservatives should have known that. If they did not know that then they did not have that essential discussion with Elections Canada to get advice from it as to when this comes into force and whether it is to be effective. That is the unfortunate part.

My question though goes back to that permanent list again. It seems to me that the narrative they are putting forward is always the case where they have a solution in search of a problem that does not exist, like eliminating the international voters list. What was so wrong with it?

[Citizen Voting Act, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, there are several problems outlined, and they have been directly addressed, in some cases, but in other cases not so much. One of the problems arising from this, which I asked about earlier, was the coming into force, which the Chief Electoral Officer has told us is going to be very problematic, given the changes in Bill C-23 and now changes here.

Does the member agree that this would be overly problematic for Elections Canada, which does not have the resources for that?

[Citizen Voting Act, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have one point on the last note the member mentioned.

Why eliminate the permanent list, if the listing is so essential? I do not understand why getting rid of the permanent list of international electors was so necessary. That was by way of comment.

Now by way of question, the member said that military spouses should not have any problem being able to vote, despite the fact that they have to go through these new rules. If that is the case, why are military members exempt anyway? Why do they have that exemption?

[Citizen Voting Act, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, there is another issue that has come to light. If someone living in Abu Dhabi or somewhere in China wants to vote, in the process by which the list is created, as my colleague from the NDP pointed out, the list is created when the writ is dropped and time is of the essence. The minister said that it can be scanned and sent in that way, but in many places around the world, that type of technology just does not exist.

I would ask the member to comment on that.

[Citizen Voting Act, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her great speech. It was a good summary and many of the aspects in her speech were well done, because these are the problems we are experiencing. I even had a slight chuckle over the Stalinist reference as well. However, I would like to talk about the issue of the bill coming into force.

We have an election coming very soon and we have heard from Elections Canada officials that they are not quite sure if they are going to be ready for this in addition to the Bill C-23 changes that took place.

Would the member like to comment on that ?

[Citizen Voting Act, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague. One of the fundamentals is that the international voters list has been eliminated, which was something that was updated on an ongoing basis. It served the international community well for Canadians living abroad. I wonder if he could give the logic as to why that particular item was eliminated. To get rid of it seems to be a solution looking for a problem that did not exist.

[Citizen Voting Act, April 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is also a question of practicality in this particular case. Uniformity across this country, yes, I get that, but for example, the international list worked really well. Many people, once they go abroad, are able to use their past addresses, if they so chose, and get on that international list, which made it functional for them to be involved in elections. The reason, of course, is what she just mentioned. It takes long enough in this country to request a special ballot, receive a special ballot, vote, and send back the special ballot. For a snowbird who is in Greece, it is a little much.

The practicality of it is something that is not being addressed. I think all of the concerns brought up by the Chief Electoral Officer will certainly be addressed over the next little while. The other concern is about the respect of the courts. If that were the case, we would not have been discussing all of these court challenges for the past little while. The term “court tested” has now become a national term that everyone knows about. Is it Supreme Court tested? We do not know. As well, the government does not seem to know beforehand, and then we get into the courts and go through this again.

Then, of course, as my colleague pointed out, we expect legislation and compliance, which is not particularly the case. It is in line with the system that exists in this country, but is not practical for people outside of the country.

[Citizen Voting Act, April 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as I have just arrived in the House, I hope I do not sound too repetitive after my colleague from Toronto—Danforth.

From Bill C-23 to this bill, Bill C-50, there has been an overall theme. The overarching theme here concentrates on issues and problems that are overblown. We have used this expression before with the prior legislation, and now with this legislation as well, which is that in many cases the Conservatives are cruising for a solution to a problem that does not exist.

The Conservatives do not want people to be shopping ridings when they are living internationally, choosing any riding they wish. To a certain degree, I understand that concept. However, by doing this, it is making it very hard on individuals to go back to the prior addresses. In many cases, some of them are students and unable to do that. Not only that, but the vouching process or the attestations have to be done in that prior riding, which may be impossible. That could be many years prior.

These problems created by the Conservatives are fundamentally keeping people from their charter right to vote. It is their right. That is why my colleague was correct in saying that this did not address the judgment from the court and therefore has to be remedied.

In addition, there are the time constraints on this, time constraints within the legislation itself and time constraints regarding the enactment of the legislation. This is a strange 30-minute debate, because we are talking about time allocation as well. I will not get into that too much.

I am getting into the bona fides of the bill, because I will not have that opportunity too much longer. Therefore, we should look at that. I know the debate will continue soon.

Is there not a great concern about the timeliness of this, about the full debate, as to allow people, even if they live internationally, that fundamental right to vote, as given to them under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?