Bill C-50 (Historical)

Citizen Voting Act

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to
(a) eliminate the international register of electors and incorporate all of the information contained in it into the Register of Electors;
(b) require electors who are resident outside Canada to make an application for registration and special ballot after the issue of the writs at each election;
(c) stipulate that electors who are resident outside Canada may only receive a special ballot for the address at which they last resided in Canada;
(d) require that electors who are applying for a special ballot under Division 3 or 4 of Part 11 include in their application for registration and special ballot proof of identity and residence and, if they apply from outside Canada, proof of Canadian citizenship;
(e) require that an external auditor perform an audit and report on election workers’ compliance with special ballot voting procedures and requirements for every election;
(f) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information for the purpose of assisting the Chief Electoral Officer to, among other things, delete from the Register of Electors the names of persons who are not Canadian citizens; and
(g) add the offence of voting or attempting to vote by special ballot under Division 3 or 4 of Part 11 while knowing that one is not qualified as an elector and add offences under those Divisions of attesting to the residence of more than one elector and of acting as an attestor when one’s own residence has already been attested to.

Citizen Voting Act

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is also a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. He is a learned individual and I appreciate his comments. I look forward to this matter going to the procedure and House affairs committee expeditiously. I am hopeful that it will be in committee very shortly and I hope the committee will hear from Elections Canada officials as to what they perceive to be or do not perceive to be the issues related to this. I think we will spend our time in PROC studying it appropriately. If Elections Canada and others bring that issue to the fore, it will be up to the committee to make its decision.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question concerns members of the Canadian Armed Forces abroad. I understand that a provision in Bill C-50 exempts serving military members outside of Canada from the extra steps, more the difficulties, in voting from outside of our country, and I appreciate that exemption. That shows respect for the men and women in uniform and it recognizes that this bill would make it harder for Canadians to vote.

What the bill would not do is exempt family members of the military. Often, military members serving abroad have family members and a spouse with them. The spouse is treated differently than the military member while being in the same situation outside of the country and potentially unable to go through the bureaucracy and extra paperwork to vote.

Why are the Conservatives showing such disrespect for the family members of the military in that they exempt military members themselves, but put their spouses through all of the extra hoops that this bill would apply to Canadian citizens voting from abroad?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to accept the member's statement about disrespect for military families. No government in this country has ever shown more respect for the members of the military and their families than this one has. This bill does not show disrespect to anyone.

These are rules that would be in place. They are not difficult to follow. I can tell the member that military families would not find it difficult to follow the rules in the bill. The process would not be significantly different than what occurred during the time the member's party was in government. This is a good bill. It has to be something that Canadians can respect. I believe this bill is one that Canadians will see as respecting the integrity of voters.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of respect, the member across the aisle mentioned in his speech that it is just common sense that non-resident voters should only be able to apply for a special ballot in relation to their last place of residence. It is not just a question of common sense, given that many countries have decided to have representatives for their diaspora. It is just a legislative decision by Canada. We must not assume that Canada's legislative decisions are more intelligent or more reasoned than those of other countries.

However, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on another point. Bill C-50 will create two categories of citizens: one category of people who live in Canada and do not have to register for every election and another category of second-class citizens who will have to register every time there is an election in order to vote.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I understood the logic to the question.

This legislation deals with Canadians who live outside of the country. Obviously, when someone lives outside of the country, there may be different standards required. However, in this case, they are very similar to the standards that are required here. In this country, people have to vote in the district in which they live, not in a district where they want to vote.

All this is doing is saying that the district from which people left, where they were formerly resident, is where they will vote. Most Canadians would find that to be the most realistic of requirements for people who live outside the country.

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

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?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do believe the military does possess a different place in Canadian society.

For many of our military members, it is easy to look at them when they may be in some location where the members are living together, but in many cases, our military are stationed overseas in combat locations. They are not in the same place and do not have the same opportunities to do some of these things.

I have had family members overseas in the military. For some of them, it is very difficult. It would be difficult to do these things if they are in a combat theatre. It is a whole lot different when the families are with them, but in a combat theatre, the families are not there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on that a little. I just want to make sure that the government is at least open to seeing scenarios that could be a problem. For example, one of the most frequent sources of Canadians going abroad for up to two years, sometimes three years, is graduate students. They often go abroad, to London, Paris, or wherever, after having been at a university. Their last place of residence is only defined as where they were at university, versus picking up on the fact that the last place of residence could be either there or where their parents reside. The problem is a lot of their compatriots will have gone. They will not have anybody who is able to vouch for their previous address.

The question is whether we can make sure that in those kinds of circumstances, and it might only affect a couple of dozen or a couple of hundred people, these special cases that can easily be imagined, are taken care of in the committee. I am just hoping that my colleague who is a member of the procedure and House affairs committee will be able to assure me that this kind of situation will be looked at closely.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is the reason we have committee meetings.

Members opposite will have a list of people they wish to present at the committee, as will the government side. I am sure that we will hear all about those issues that he and others have raised.

This bill needs to get to the procedure and House affairs committee as soon as possible so that the committee can deal with it and get it back to the House.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to stand to speak to this very important issue today. What I will do is focus on some important measures and how Canada is, in many ways, similar to other countries.

The relationship works both ways. Canada's electoral process serves as a model for other countries to emulate. Our electoral system is deemed to be one of the best in the world. One of the reasons we have this enviable reputation is that we strive to improve how our elections are administered. We review our electoral procedures and laws. We study the recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer to Parliament and the various studies and reviews of election procedures conducted by parliamentary committees. We listen to our constituents, and of course, we all live through elections.

We learn from these experiences, and we build on them to improve the processes in place, particularly the procedural safeguards against irregularities or impropriety that could call into question the validity of electoral results. If there is room for improvement or we find that existing procedures are deficient, we need to respond with new procedural safeguards. This is the responsible thing to do, and that is precisely what we would do here with the citizen voting act.

Election procedures must include the checks and balances that ensure that elections are conducted fairly and with transparency and accountability to instill confidence in the electoral process. At the same time, any new procedures must be developed with a view to ensuring that voting remains accessible. This legislation would achieve both of these aims. It strikes the right balance between procedural safeguards and the accessibility of the voting process.

When we review how other mature democracies, particularly those in the Westminster tradition, structure their voting rules, it further supports this conclusion. Reviewing procedures from other jurisdictions also enables us to assess how well our own electoral processes measure up internationally.

How does the citizen voting act compare with the way non-resident voting is administered in other jurisdictions?

To start, I will talk a little about the United Kingdom. Non-residents must have previously registered to vote in the 15 years before leaving the U.K. To register to vote, the voter must provide the U.K. with the equivalent of a social insurance number, called a national insurance number, which is matched or cross-referenced against various trusted sources of data. If the voter cannot or does not provide the national insurance number, proof of identity may be requested. Failing these options, the voter must provide an attestation from an eligible registered elector living abroad who is not a spouse, civil partner, or immediate relative. All voters, including non-resident voters, must confirm their election registration details each year.

International voters cannot choose the electoral district for which they cast a ballot. The ballot is cast for the electoral district where the voter actually last cast a ballot.

It is very important to see how similar that is to what we are proposing with respect to the attachment voters would need to have to their place prior to leaving.

Another country we could look at that is very similar is Australia. Its rules for non-resident voters have identification and residence requirements. Non-resident Australians may vote only if they have not lived abroad for more than six years. They must register to vote by providing their driver's licence and passport number. If they cannot provide either of these pieces of identification, a registered voter may attest to their identity.

A non-resident voter may not choose the electoral district in which to cast a ballot. People may only vote in the last electoral district in which they last voted. There is no separate register of international electors, like the measure proposed in the citizen voting act. There is only one register of electors.

New Zealand takes a slightly different approach. It has the most specific jurisdiction requirements. New Zealand voters residing outside the country may vote in national elections provided they have lived in New Zealand for more than one year at some point in their lives, have not been absent from the country longer than three years, and have visited the country in the past 12 months.

New Zealand non-resident voters may not choose the electoral district for which they cast a ballot; they may only vote in the electoral district in which they have resided for one month or more. Finally, non-resident voters do not automatically receive ballots. Like the measure proposed in the citizenship voting act, they must apply for a ballot at each election.

Notably, Ireland does not permit voting by non-residents unless they are officials of the Irish government who are posted abroad, or their spouses.

If we look closer to home, there are further examples of different approaches to non-resident voting. For example, Ontario's rules for non-resident voters incorporate elements from many of the international jurisdictions I have reviewed. Ontario non-resident voters may vote in an election for the provincial legislature if they lived in Ontario for at least 12 consecutive months before leaving the province, have not been absent from Ontario longer than two years, and intend to return to Ontario. Members of the Canadian Forces, federal and provincial government employees, students, and the families of these voters are exempted from these particular time limits.

The rules in Quebec similarly impose requirements on non-resident electors. Non-resident Quebec voters are entitled to vote in elections for the Quebec National Assembly provided that they have resided outside Quebec for no more than two years and that they resided in Quebec for a period of at least 12 consecutive months before their departure. Voters must apply for a mail-in ballot by providing two documents that establish proof of identity, date of birth, and residence in Quebec.

I would like to say a few words about France, which has come up in debate in this House. It is important for members to be aware that France has a different approach than Canada or the other Westminster systems I have mentioned. French citizens residing abroad are entitled to vote either in an extra-territorial overseas constituency, sometimes referred to as a consular constituency, or in a domestic constituency. To vote in an extraterritorial or consular constituency, non-resident voters must register in a separate registry of French citizens living outside France. To do so, they must provide proof of identity, citizenship, and address abroad.

As hon. members are aware, Canada does not have extraterritorial constituencies, although I think many of us could think of some wonderful places we might like to live that would provide that extraterritorial constituency. Our system is based on democratic representation based on territoriality, meaning geographic constituencies in Canada, with each domestic constituency returning a member to represent that community.

In France, non-resident voters may also apply to register on a list of electors in a domestic constituency in France. This requires proof of identity and citizenship by means of a French national identity card, a French passport, or a driver's licence accompanied by proof of citizenship. Registration on this list must be renewed every five years, and no later than three months before the expiry of the registration. Failure to do so results in the voter being taken off the register and potentially the register for consular constituencies.

There are two main lessons we can take from the survey of international practices on non-resident voting.

First, all jurisdictions, importantly, impose procedural safeguards to ensure that the integrity of the process is not compromised, and many go further, with limits on the time a citizen can reside abroad.

Second, and as important, the approaches vary widely, reflecting that each democracy must decide for itself how to structure its rules to instill confidence in its own elections.

There are variations in the nature of the procedural safeguards across jurisdictions, variations in how proof of citizenship and identification are established, and variations in residency requirements to maintain the right to vote.

What Bill C-50 is proposing for Canada is not out of line with the approaches of other jurisdictions. Indeed, what is proposed measures up remarkably well with what other jurisdictions have done to construct procedural safeguards for non-resident voters.

We are also seeking to ensure that safeguards do not act as barriers to voting.

In conclusion, the procedural reforms in the citizen voting act are aimed at improving the integrity and fairness of the special ballot process. By strengthening the procedures required to receive a special ballot, we would strengthen our confidence in the integrity of the ballots. By establishing common application and identification procedures for non-residents and non-resident voters, we would reinforce the fair application of rules for citizens, regardless of where they vote.

These provisions of the citizen voting act would accomplish both of these goals. I certainly encourage all members in this House to support it.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill would actually make it very difficult for persons living abroad to actually register and vote. Currently people living abroad who have registered to vote stay on a list. All they need to do is change their address, if their address changes.

This would require them to wait until a writ is dropped before they could even apply to vote. That would do two things. First, it would discourage people from putting themselves on the list. Second, it would make Elections Canada's job that much more difficult if it only had 35 days to receive all the applications, check to see whether they were accurate, check all the data that would be submitted with those applications, and mail a ballot back, which according to this law, would have to be received in Ottawa before six days prior. Therefore, there would really only be 29 days to do all of this work.

Would the government be assigning more resources to Elections Canada to accomplish all this extra work during an election period?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks I outlined the many different countries and approaches, and there are some approaches that are very similar to what we are proposing in this act. I certainly have every confidence that Elections Canada would be able to process these people who are living outside the country and who are so committed to our democratic process and really do take the time. Of course, we always hope that as many Canadians also take the time, when elections come, to exercise that incredible responsibility and opportunity we enjoy in Canada in our democratic system.

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

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?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although this is early in the process, we anticipate that it will move its way through committee. It is already, very importantly, signalling the structure and the mechanisms that would need to be in place. Obviously, the committee will be reviewing it in detail.

I have every confidence in Elections Canada and its ability to do what is required in terms of the appropriate structure and mechanisms. Certainly there are some pretty good signals about what those are going to be so it can start to do some planning now.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her remarks on this very important debate that is taking place today. I recognize that part of the process will be that the bill will be referred to committee for further study. However, for the purposes of today's debate, I am wondering if she would advise the House why our government has introduced the bill.