Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 27th, 2007

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I certainly hope so. Dealing with Elections Canada, one never knows for sure. But I can tell you that the suggestion we have adopted here was developed largely on the suggestion of Elections Canada as to how they would like to see it resolved, a solution that they believed would work. Our officials worked with them and, as you know, with the political parties, and we circulated that suggestion as it had come into the political parties for comment.

We're very optimistic and hopeful that it will have resolved the problem.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we could possibly think of requesting from Elections Canada a quick confirmation. We don't necessarily need to have them as witnesses, but we could certainly ask them for a letter to tell us that they agree with these changes and that it actually meets repairs they wanted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Minister.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Chair, if I may, that request actually did arise in a House leaders' meeting. As a result, we did obtain a commitment from Elections Canada to obtain such a letter for this committee. I'm looking back...it has not yet arrived, but that request has been made. As soon as we do obtain that letter, we will provide it to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Is that sufficient, Mr. Proulx?

Then we will wait for the minister to pass that letter along, rather than make a separate request. Is that fair?

Thank you.

Next on the list is Mr. Lukiwski, for seven minutes, please.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, I just want to again get something on the record here. Let's face it, we all have our partisan interests that we represent aggressively at times. I note, with some interest and much amusement, that over the course of the last few weeks, since Bill C-31 was first discussed and subsequent to that, when we found out there was this gap in the legislation that inadvertently potentially disenfranchised up to a million people, there have been members of opposition parties who have been claiming that this was a fault of the government, pure and simple, nothing more than that, when in fact—and you were quite correct in your assessment, Minister—this was a shared responsibility.

All members of this committee, quite frankly, just missed that one portion of the bill that talked about residential or civic addresses, because rural residents—and I'm one of them—don't technically or legally have a civic address; we have a post office box or a rural route. So it was an honest mistake and a responsibility shared not only by members of this committee but by the elections office officials themselves, because they appeared before this committee on two occasions and at neither time during those discussions were there any indications that this could be a potential problem.

I want to get that on the record, because I know, whether it be the member from Timmins—James Bay or the member from Regina—Wascana or Thunder Bay—Rainy River, they have from time to time made statements publicly that the problem was solely the fault of the government, and again it was not. It was a shared responsibility.

But beyond that partisan politics, I think we need to have assurances—and you've given them, I believe—that this bill, in the consideration of both you and the Chief Electoral Officer, will fix the problem we had. And perhaps more importantly than that, in the event of an early election, whether it be a by-election or a federal election, prior to this bill coming into effect, what assurances do you have, if any, from the Chief Electoral Officer that he would use his power of adaptation to ensure that no rural voter is disenfranchised?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Thank you very much.

You're right, it is a shared responsibility by all, including Elections Canada, though as the government we have to take ultimate responsibility, and that's what we're seeking to do with moving quickly to correct the issue.

In doing so, I have spoken with the Chief Electoral Officer. It was he who actually drew the problem to my attention personally. He called me to raise the issue. We did discuss how it would be approached at that time. Obviously, since I was just learning of it, we didn't have a bill, and my concern was how, in the event that we had an electoral event that precipitated...that risked people losing their right to vote, we would respond to it. I had assurances that led me to believe that if one of those events came on very quickly he was prepared to use his adaptation powers.

In particular, one of my concerns was that sometimes, if you're dealing with a bill and an item of legislation, it might cause an official like him to say, “Well, that's before Parliament so I don't want to wade into it”. I asked, “If we brought forward a bill to correct it, would that make it more or less likely that you would use your adaptation powers?” He said, “Well, if it was clearly the government's intent to bring forward a bill like that, and if it was going through the parliamentary process, it would make me more likely to exercise my adaptation power to ensure that people's right to vote was protected”.

So those were practical and positive responses from the Chief Electoral Officer, who I think recognizes that he has some ownership in the problem and certainly has a very strong interest in ensuring that people's legal right to vote—and that's what we're talking about here, the legal right to vote—is protected. So I'm pleased with that.

That being said, I would still encourage the committee to move with the greatest alacrity to deal with the bill and get it into law as quickly as possible so that he doesn't have to resort to that kind of measure, and he can simply apply the new law.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I have a final question, and a short one.

Monsieur Proulx had asked whether or not there would be a letter forthcoming from the electoral officer stating that he believed this bill would rectify the problem. Would he also be able to put into that letter his willingness to use his power of adaptation if required due to an early election?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I don't know if he would be willing to do that or not. You'll have to ask him.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Lukiwski, you have two minutes left. Did you want to...?

Thank you very much.

Madam Picard, please, you have seven minutes.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I would like to have your comments on the statement made in a newspaper by Mr. Angus, a member of Parliament. He called the bill a slapdash solution and decried the fact that the new provisions do nothing to make it possible for a homeless person, or transients and some students to vote, because those people have difficulty obtaining the pieces of identification required and keeping them up-to-date.

What means will be available to those people to enable them to vote?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Well, if a student or a homeless person is in a similar situation where they were...they'd be in a position to deal with it.

I know this committee canvassed those issues extensively at the time they dealt with Bill C-31. That's not the content of the bill before us, so I don't want to spend too much time plowing old turf. I think what we're trying to do here is to deal with the specific problem of voters in the rural context for whom identification normally has an address but not a civic address. It's a consequence of the identification problems.

I know there were provisions put in place. The Chief Electoral Officer has included attestation letters from people who run homeless shelters, for example, to deal with the homeless information, and student information from the residence that they live there. These things are all available to protect their interests, so I believe they are more than adequately protected under the bill, which you originally dealt with, C-31, and the Chief Electoral Officer's application to it.

Something that might be of interest to all of you, and this is probably not a bad thing to know about, is that there was a study done by Elections Canada dealing with the application of Bill C-31 in the by-elections in Outremont, Roberval-Lac-St-Jean, and St-Hyacinthe-Bagot. The results are very, very positive. The new requirements worked. The vast majority of voters found the identification requirements easy to meet, and they were quite satisfied with the ID verification and voting process. Most people have a favourable view of the new identification provisions.

The one I thought was most surprising and positive is that 83% of voters said it didn't take any longer to vote using the identification provisions. So from the voters' perception, it was very positive. Overwhelmingly, people had no difficulty providing the identification. For a first-time run in a by-election, that's pretty remarkable. As we indicated, this is the first time that requirement has existed.

I know they did the same in the provincial elections in Ontario. I don't have any statistics for how they worked there, though in the polling station where I was a scrutineer on election day there appeared to be no difficulties with their identification requirements.

It looks like the reforms that this committee brought forward on Bill C-31 are working very well.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I asked Elections Canada to canvass my riding, and I was told that some 10,900 people use post-office boxes or live on rural routes. Only 18 people were an exception to this, and they would not have been able to vote if amendments had not been made.

I fully support these amendments, which enable as many people as possible to exercise their right to vote and correct the error made in Bill C-31.

I just wanted to make that comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

Okay, we're going to stay with seven minutes.

Mr. Angus, you have the floor.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm very glad we are discussing this. I think it's a very serious issue, and we have to fix it and fix it right.

I have to state for the record that what's being stated this morning is inaccurate. Certainly the Conservative Party made a big mistake with this bill and they were supported by the two other opposition parties. However, we did raise these issues at the time. In fact, I spoke in the House and said:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite the government House leader to come with me to the northern part of my riding....

I'm amazed at the number of people in these communities who do not have access to the kind of identification we are talking about.

When we are talking about ensuring that people are able to exercise their democratic franchise, the member opposite is accusing us of supporting electoral fraud. I certainly take exception to that because I have people in my region who are trying to vote, who do not have addresses....

That was stated in the House, but it was not considered an issue at the time. It just didn't seem to be something that this government took seriously. So this morning you were asked the question about homelessness and students, and you said you don't want to delve into that. Have you looked at how many people are still going to be disenfranchised by this? Do you have numbers? Certainly having a bill that has already had two band-aids brought forth raises questions. We'd better do it right this time.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

The question of the rural voters is very different from the question of homeless voters or students. I'm just saying the solutions and the questions are very different. I wasn't a member of the committee, so I can't say for certain, but I understand that it was debated extensively. Perhaps it was the focus on that that caused the concerns you raise to be subsumed and missed, if those concerns were raised at the time.

The provision has been created where they can provide identification. Even if you don't have photo identification, a driver's licence or something of that sort, if you are a homeless person, a shelter can provide an attestation as to your residence.

In the by-elections, 0.8% of those people voting used attestation letters as a form of identification. What that tells me is that for that small portion of the population that is affected, that is a valid, workable option. It is being utilized, and they are able to vote.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I guess the issue here is certainly that I think each of the challenges that are put forward in the bill are to ensure as highly as possible that people are who they are. We saw this in the Ontario election. I saw this in my region. I talked with senior citizens who were not on the electoral list. They were on for their entire life, and they were not on the electoral list this time, for whatever reason—a computer glitch.

They didn't have the proper ID. One was told that a passport wasn't an adequate piece of identification. People at the polling stations interpret the law very literally. So we have to ensure that at the end of the day there is a provision that a person can still vote, because that is an inalienable right.

So I would say that the issue of homeless voting, or first nation or student voting, is the same as rural voting. It comes down to the issue of declaration. We heard at the committee last week that 15% of the people of Australia are voting now by declaration because it's a highly mobile society, with areas where we have students moving in and out, where people haven't put together the proper identification yet.

Have you done any numbers on comparable levels in Canada? If we fix this glitch and we're still leaving 5%, 6%, 10%, or even 4%, that's too much. Have you looked at the issue of declaration voting in Australia and compared it to the situation in Canada?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

The Australian system is very different, of course, as you know. In Australia, there are legal consequences if you do not vote. There is a mandatory requirement for voting, so people are voting for a very different reason. They are voting to avoid a penalty. They are voting to avoid a fine, in many cases. So I would not be surprised that you would find a different pattern of behaviour there.

That being said, I haven't particularly analyzed it. I'm not sure how much wisdom that would provide us, because it is such a different context.

I look at this first trial run—the results that I spoke of that were provided by Elections Canada—that showed a very favourable response in terms of people being able to vote. Most used photo ID, the first preferred option. It was 80% who used a photo identification to vote. Most often that was a driver's licence; 73% of that 80% were using a driver's licence, 73% overall of the 100% who voted. Of those who used option two, 19% used things like hospital cards, utility bills, the attestation letters I referred to, leases, and some of the other ones. I'm sure you've seen the lengthy list of identification that the Chief Electoral Officer has considered to be acceptable, and 1% were vouched for.

In terms of the need for vouching, it appears that we have a roughly comparable number using the attestation letters as being vouched. So in terms of the analysis, there we have it from the first set of elections or by-elections under Bill C-31. And from what I see here, and I'll use this summary from Environics who did the work for Elections Canada--so it's an independent group, independent from Elections Canada. They're not a group interested in showing that it worked; they're a group that was simply looking to analyze it--and I quote here. It says:

The vast majority of voters found the identification requirements easy to meet and were quite satisfied with the ID verification and voting process. Most have a favourable view of the new ID provisions.

So my response would be to compliment the members of this committee for the original initiative and the parliamentary committee report that led to Bill C-31, and as well for their work on C-31. Yes, we found subsequently that it's not perfect, and that's why we're here today to correct these glitches. But I think that--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm running out of time here, so I want to ask one last question.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I'm only trying to provide information on what was done and whether it worked.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

I guess the final issue for me is that this bill was problematic to the New Democrats. It was subsequently found to disenfranchise a million people. We still have issues of the homeless. We have another bill with the veil coming forward. If we're going to do it, we have to do it right.

Now, voting is a fundamental, inalienable right. Any attempts that have been made by government in the past to circumscribe people's rights to vote have lost in the court. The Supreme Court, in 2002, overturned the rule banning prisoners voting. So we know there is a court challenge coming forward against this present piece of legislation.

Has your department examined the court challenge? Do you believe that this legislation, if we fix this, will be able to withstand a court challenge? It would certainly be pretty embarrassing, on top of all the other band-aids we've thrown on it, to have this thrown out in court.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

People always have the right to bring any challenges they wish before the courts. We always seek Department of Justice opinions on the legislation we bring forward. In this case, we believe it will withstand...but obviously, since there have been laws struck down in the past, no legal opinion is infallible.

Those of us who have practised law believe you can get at least two opinions on any issue, if not more, that are contradictory. But we're confident that what we're doing is constitutional and effective. In fact, we think it strengthens people's rights and protects that fundamental right to vote by ensuring that voter fraud doesn't take place. That's protecting the rights of all Canadians from those who wish to undermine our electoral process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

We'll move to a second round, a five-minute round. If you need the full five minutes, by all means take them. If you don't, we can move to the next questioner.

Madam Redman, five minutes, please.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to underscore an issue that has actually been raised by a couple of colleagues, and that's the fact that this is remediating an unintended consequence of a previous piece of legislation.

While I certainly concur with Minister Van Loan that the request was made through House leaders, I'm wondering if there is an occasion to have the Chief Electoral Officer back to talk about some of the other legislation before us, such as Bill C-6. Maybe the chair could let him know that this is an issue that we would like to address.

I would certainly like to have the assurance of the Chief Electoral Officer that this is indeed remediating what we are trying to do and there are no other unintended foreseeable consequences before we deal with this piece of legislation.