Bill C-31 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to improve the integrity of the electoral process by reducing the opportunity for electoral fraud or error. It requires that electors, before voting, provide one piece of government-issued photo identification showing their name and address or two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer showing their name and address, or take an oath and be vouched for by another elector.
It also amends the Canada Elections Act to, among other things, make operational changes to improve the accuracy of the National Register of Electors, facilitate voting and enhance communications with the electorate.
It amends the Public Service Employment Act to permit the Public Service Commission to make regulations to extend the maximum term of employment of casual workers.

Canada Elections Act

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

On June 22 the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled a report in the House entitled “Improving the Integrity of the Electoral Process: Recommendations for Legislative Change”. The report was based in part on the recommendations that we had received from the Chief Electoral Officer. While there have been discussions about fundamental changes to our entire electoral system, these should not detract from the efforts that have been made to improve our existing system.

The government tabled a response to the committee's report on October 20 and agreed with a vast majority of the recommendations that were made by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Bill C-31 was subsequently introduced on October 24 of this year.

The proposed bill will amend the Canada Elections Act to improve the integrity of the electoral process by reducing the opportunity for electoral fraud or for error. It requires electors, before voting, to provide one piece of government issued photo identification that shows their names and addresses, or two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer that show their names and addresses, or they can also take an oath, or they may be vouched for by another elector who does have photo identification.

The proposed bill also will amend the Canada Elections Act to, among other things, make operational changes to improve the accuracy of the national register of electors. It will facilitate voting and enhance communications with the electorate. It amends the Public Service Employment Act to permit the Public Service Commission to make regulations that will now extend to the maximum term of employment of casual workers. We see this as an improvement.

While the government did not incorporate the committee's recommendations into Bill C-31, it stated that when it did not accept these recommendations, it had a fundamental disagreement with principle, or the items required further study, or we had received inadequate testimony and had been unable to reach a definitive decision during the committee proceedings.

A key concern of the Liberal committee members was to ensure that the bill allowed aboriginal status identification to be deemed acceptable proof for voting purposes. Government officials have clarified that the text of the bill requires government issued photo ID with an address, or government issued photo ID without an address. This would include band status cards, but they would have to be accompanied by a letter from the band council, or something like a phone bill that would have the person's number, name and address to corroborate the claim that he or she was indeed eligible to vote in that specific riding.

A second concern for the Liberal committee members is ensuring that the enumeration process is strengthened in reserve communities. The government has suggested that rather than send the bill to committee, that the committee simply pass a motion calling on the Chief Electoral Officer to strengthen enumeration in reserve communities, as well as other areas of low enumeration. With all sides in agreement with the goals of the bill, its passage could be accelerated in the House.

As the bill has emerged from the work of an all party committee, sending it back to the committee would be somewhat redundant, given that the government has assured the opposition that the aboriginal ID concerns are addressed in the text of the current bill.

On this side of the House, we support changes to the Canada Elections Act that protect against the likelihood of voter fraud and misrepresentation. We need to ensure that aboriginal photo identification is an acceptable form of voter identification. We also support strengthening the enumeration process, particularly on reserve communities and other areas of low voter enumeration.

The committee thought long and hard. The House procedures committee has a lot of veteran politicians on it and we all had many stories. We also asked our colleagues for some stories. My colleague, the chief government whip, has enumerated some of them. One of the best refinements we are recommending, and it is in the bill, is to include the birth dates of individual electors so there can be an objective kind of identification.

I also think a photo ID is essential because on election day it would allow the volunteers and the workers at Election Canada to facilitate Canadians who have the right to vote and ensure no mistakes or voter fraud are involved in what we know is an outstanding electoral system.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House leader for laying out some of the principal elements of Bill C-31.

I have run in seven general elections and voters lists are quite familiar to me as I know they are to the House leader. I have had the opportunity recently to look at the latest list issued by the Chief Electoral Officer. My frustration continues with the his office, from the standpoint that changes brought to the attention of the Chief Electoral Officer, through the returning officer of the riding, continue to be ignored.

In fact, it is very difficult for changes to be made in the current system simply because they have to come through sources which are direct from the person on the list. It is clear, simply by taking the list and sorting it by postal code, or by street or whatever, that there is information missing or information is in the wrong columns. There are numerous addresses that have far more persons apparently resident than is legally permissible. None of these things seem to be addressed.

I raise it with the member only from this standpoint. If the obvious things have not been taken care of first, how can we overlay more changes and expect even a greater level of accuracy within the voters list? If basic changes cannot be made by the current system of relying on information collected through other agencies, the provinces, et cetera, or through the income tax return where people volunteer that information, how will this help?

The other point I would raise with the member is this. Even with our existing system, there are some circumstances where a family may relocate. If children do not have documents, which they have to file, then children tend to be left on the list in the former home rather than following the parents.

These are things that over time have led to a very significant distortion in the actual number of electors in a riding. It affects, as the House leader will know, many aspects of the work that members of Parliament and candidates in elections for all parties undertake.

It would be a tremendous boon if the changes being proposed here would contemplate and address some of the existing problems before we ask for a greater level of sophistication. Would the member comment on that?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

moved that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to begin the debate on Bill C-31, the voter integrity bill. This bill is aimed at improving the integrity of the electoral process and reducing the opportunity for electoral fraud. Together with the measures proposed in the federal accountability act, this bill will help to maintain the confidence of Canadians in their democratic process.

Many hon. members will already be familiar with much of what is in this bill. That is because it implements recommendations from an all party report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled in this place in June.

In formulating its recommendations, the committee had the benefit of testimony from the Chief Electoral Officer, the Privacy Commissioner and representatives from the four political parties in the House. Of course, the committee also had the expertise of its members. We have all been through the election process and are well aware that there is always room to improve the process by which we come to this place.

The committee's practical recommendations will enhance the process for all parties and all Canadians.

The government has listened carefully to the committee and we have tabled a comprehensive response to the report, but in addition, we are taking concrete action by means of Bill C-31, the voter integrity bill. As members can see, Bill C-31 makes a host of improvements to our democratic machinery. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the measures in the bill.

Foremost, Bill C-31 establishes a uniform procedure for voter identification at the polls. Currently, there is no automatic requirement to provide identification in order to vote. I am sure that probably comes as a surprise to most Canadians. We need identification for everything that we do in society and most Canadians would expect that they would have to properly identify themselves if they want to vote.

Under this bill, a voter need only state his or her name and address before being given a ballot. In practice, voters may often just present a voter identification card. However, these cards sent to individuals to notify them of their polling station are not intended to be used as identification. Indeed, the committee heard evidence of bundles of these cards being left in the lobbies of apartment buildings or being otherwise open to abuse.

Under the Canada Elections Act now, a poll clerk, deputy returning officer, candidate or candidate's representative may request identification only when there is doubt as to a person's identity. However, this right to challenge is often implemented unevenly across tens of thousands of polling stations in the country. Some polling officials may be reluctant to demand identification when it is not legally required. Some candidates may overuse their right to challenge. In the meantime, voters are required to carry identification in case the right is revoked.

By introducing a voter identification requirement, this bill will address these issues by providing consistency and clarity, reducing the opportunity for electoral fraud and signalling to Canadians the importance of exercising the right to vote.

The bill will bring Canada into line with the system in the province of Quebec, a number of Canadian municipalities and many other democracies. These jurisdictions take a variety of approaches, including the development of a unique voter identification card or exclusive photo ID requirements.

The voter ID process in our bill was carefully crafted by the standing committee to provide a balance appropriate to our Canadian system and consistent with our values. The balance is struck between protecting the integrity of the process and ensuring that no one is disentitled to vote by reason of lack of identification.

Most voters who have photo ID with name and address, such as a driver's licence, can show that in order to vote. Alternatively, a voter without such ID can show two other pieces of acceptable ID, establishing name and address.

The bill requires the Chief Electoral Officer to publish the type of ID that would be accepted so that all voters will know what to bring in order to vote. We encourage and trust the Chief Electoral Officer to take the necessary public education initiatives to ensure voters are aware of these requirements.

Let me be absolutely clear. Under the bill, the voters who may not have acceptable ID will still be able to vote. These voters will need to take an oath or affirmation as to their identity and have another elector vouch for him or her. This also reflects a balance of providing reliable procedures to protect the integrity of the vote while maintaining the accessibility of the franchise. We, like all the parties in the House and on the committee, want all qualified voters to be able to vote. Under this bill, they will be able to do so.

The voter identification process will go a significant way to reduce the opportunity for electoral fraud. In addition, we will tighten up the vouching system, both for registration at the polls without identification and for voting at the polls without ID. People who vouch for those without ID will not be able to vouch for more than one elector, as is currently the case for registration. Someone that is vouched for because he or she does not have identification will not be able to vouch for another person seeking to be registered or to vote without their own ID.

The date of birth of electors, something already contained in the national register, will be added to the list of electors used at the polls. As also recommended by the committee, we will require a written affidavit to be signed by an elector where reasonable doubts are raised as to his or her qualifications.

For example, together these measures will assist where someone presents himself or herself at the polls and does not appear to be of voting age. The ID may indicate the date of birth and establish the entitlement to vote. It can also be used to confirm identity if it matches the name and date of birth on the list of electors. This is especially helpful if there are two names that are very similar.

Or, if the identification does not indicate the date of birth but the person's ID establishes his or her identity, the person can be allowed to vote after signing the affidavit. If it is subsequently discovered that the person was not qualified to vote by being 18 years old, then there will be a record of the event. This reform remedies a gap in the current legislation for situations where someone's qualifications to vote are in doubt.

In addition, in its response to the committee, the government supported a number of recommendations that were not statutory in nature to deal with potential electoral fraud. We look forward to working with the committee and the Chief Electoral Officer to ensure such measures are pursued.

At this point, I want to underscore that we must be vigilant to ensure our electoral system is sound and functions with integrity. While the incidence of electoral fraud is difficult to pin down precisely, it is clear that it has occurred. There have been well publicized instances of non-citizens having voted, or people voting twice, or the clear potential for individuals presenting themselves at the polls as someone else, such as by using a voter identification card that has been discarded.

Such examples can erode public confidence in the democratic process, affect the results of a close election and create real harm to the integrity of our system. That is why Canada's new government is taking action to implement the parliamentary committee's recommendations.

Protecting the integrity of the electoral process of course means more than just reducing the opportunity for defrauding the system. It also means improving how the system operates. A well functioning electoral system will go a long way toward reinforcing public confidence in the electoral process.

There are four main areas of operational improvement that I would like to outline briefly.

First, the bill will implement measures for improving the accuracy of the national register of electors. Errors in the register have the potential to harm the integrity of the electoral process because it is meant to indicate who has a right to vote. For example, the committee heard evidence of the list of electors including multiple entries for a single elector, electors registered at business addresses, and even dead people on the list.

The bill will make important changes to the way the information on the national register of electors is updated to improve its accuracy. The bill will permit tax filers to be asked their citizenship so that only the information of qualified electors will be sent to Elections Canada if voters consent to the sharing of that information. The Canada Revenue Agency will be able to share information on deceased tax filers with Elections Canada so that deceased electors can be removed from the register in a timely fashion. Returning officers will be expressly authorized to conduct updating initiatives in relation to the register. This will enable, for instance, targeted updating in areas of high mobility or new development. The authority of a CEO to collect, retain and share identifying information for the purpose of updating the register will also be clarified.

Second, the bill will make reforms to avoid some electors being discouraged from voting due to operational hurdles. For example, no longer will voters with a physical disability be required to request a transfer to a polling station with level access three days in advance. This time limitation is impractical for voters, who may not realize their polling station is inaccessible until they arrive on polling day. Similarly, electors who have their polling station reassigned will now be able to vote at their original polling station. This avoids inconveniencing or discouraging voters because of an administrative change.

The bill also opens the accessibility of advanced polls. Under the act now, advance polls must group two or more polling divisions. In large areas of sparse population, this could require an elector to travel significant distances in order to vote.

Third, the bill will improve the way candidates and election officials communicate with Canadians. The way the Canada Elections Act is currently worded, candidates have access to apartment buildings to campaign but not to gated communities, all access to which is also controlled by someone other than the residents. The bill will clarify the wording in the act so that candidates may access such communities in order to canvass at homes in the communities. Individual Canadians themselves should be able to decide whether they want to speak to candidates seeking public office on their behalf.

Similarly, the bill will clarify the ability of elections officials to access apartment buildings and gated communities for the purpose of updating the register and list of electors, and candidates will have clear access to public areas for informing Canadians of their right to vote. They should be able to campaign. This is one that I am particularly pleased about. As for the shopping malls and strip malls, where sometimes candidates now find their way barred, if these areas are open to the public they are open to political office seekers to engage the public. I think this is a terrific step forward and one that I particularly like to see.

Lastly, the bill will make other improvements to ensure the electoral process runs smoothly and efficiently. For example, drafting errors in the act will be corrected and timelines for the production of annual lists of electors will be extended. Like all the changes I have already discussed, these reforms were recommended by the committee made up of all four political parties, often based on the suggestions and the experience of our Chief Electoral Officer. Like all changes already discussed, these reforms would improve the integrity of our electoral system.

Before I close, I want to thank the committee for its important work. Canada is a great democracy. We should never lose sight of that. There is no greater democracy in the world, but it does not mean that we should not adapt to the times and that we should not be vigilant to protect our democracy. Even the smallest technical change can help the way ordinary Canadians exercise their right to vote.

This bill, based on the committee's recommendations, makes these operational improvements and does more. It ensures that all Canadians can exercise their right to vote while improving the integrity of the voting system. This bill will benefit all Canadians and all parties. I will say to hon. members that since this has already been supported at the committee and is an adoption of the recommendations that were made by the committee, I hope this bill will have speedy passage and will soon pass into law.

Aeronautics Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I would like to thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan who has informed me that it is actually Bill C-6.

I would note that my colleague from Alfred-Pellan is on the committee. His participation is valuable and he, too, will have an opportunity to ask the government questions in committee, including why it is introducing Bill C-6, which is the old Bill C-62, which was itself the old bill S-33, which came out of a Transport Canada study begun in 1999.

The department wants to implement a new approach to the security management system. It claims this new approach has shown good results in Australia and Great Britain. The idea was to correct deficiencies that Transport Canada might never even have heard of. The department believes that this initiative would provide an additional layer of security.

Transport Canada is trying to convince us that this would not change the existing system. An additional layer of security would simply be incorporated. However, we think that in the final analysis, there is a risk that the safety of passengers and civil and commercial aircraft users would be endangered.

Indeed, while this bill aims to implement a new safety management system and to allow employees to speak openly about how it is working, at the same time, it allows each airline to have its own employee training program, its own system for auditing the work of employees, their skills, and the equipment.

Clearly, this is self-regulation. That said, we have learned certain things about the inspectors, the Transport Canada check pilots and those who are tasked with conducting investigations. I will give some examples in a moment. At present, Transport Canada has an entire team that randomly and without warning visits airlines to perform audits. They verify that the pilots have the necessary qualifications, are capable of piloting the aircraft assigned to them and have adequate training, and that the airline is keeping up with the most recent industry standards.

In short, they perform random checks. Yet, this entire system would be replaced in the security management system. That is what Transport Canada investigators are being told. All of the Transport Canada check pilots are being told that, in the future, they will only be auditors. They will no longer be allowed to perform random monitoring or random checks. They will only be auditors. In fact, with this system, the airlines will self-regulate and the auditors will have to confirm that the airlines have implemented what they promised to implement. That is more or less the case.

Lastly, the bill would give accreditation and training authority to the airlines themselves. They will have to ensure that their staff is trained and that the equipment is in proper working order. Thus, there will no longer be an inspection system. The inspectors will become auditors who will ensure that proper records have been kept. If an employee ever files a grievance, quite a process must then begin. In fact, what this bill hopes to encourage is whistleblowing.

Often, the industry will spend as little as possible on safety. Voluntary reports will probably be made after an accident occurs. The employee will say that he had notified the boss, but that the boss had forced him to work. Now, he is saying that, in a given year, something was not right.

That is what we in the Bloc Québécois are afraid of. At the same time as the government is introducing this safety management system, it is dismantling existing systems and investing less in training our Transport Canada inspectors, the check pilots.

What tipped us off was not Bill C-6, but the check pilots—the inspectors— themselves. They came to meet with members and told them that they used to receive training. Every year, there was a minimum number and a maximum number of hours of training. For three years now, they have been limited to the minimum number of hours of flight training. These are the inspectors who are responsible for determining whether pilots have the proper training on all types of aircraft. We are not talking just about airliners, but about all commercial aircraft, ranging from bush planes to airliners. They all must be inspected.

At present, there is a system that ensures that the Transport Canada check pilots or inspectors, trainers and investigators are trained in all equipment and all new technologies and are capable of telling a company that its pilots do not have the necessary training or need to upgrade through ongoing training or some other means. This system is now being set aside.

I would like to read some comments from people who work in this field, including Transport Canada investigators.

In this regard, I would like to read a few comments made by those who work in this area. Here is what they say:

Transport Canada's investigators, through ... the vice-president for Quebec of the Union of Canadian Transport Employees ... said they fear that the government will, under the SMS (safety management systems), take advantage of future retirements to not renew part of the supervisory staff.

This process is already underway. These people are concerned because the government is telling those who are retiring: “Listen, you are going to leave and you will not be replaced”.

The goal is to take all those who conduct investigations and turn them into auditors. They will no longer conduct investigations; they will merely look at the books and check to see if the company is doing a proper job of monitoring.

A letter dated June 7, 2006 reads as follows:

—the Canadian Federal Pilots Association told the government that it objects to pilots' proficiency tests being conducted by the companies themselves, rather than by qualified Transport Canada inspectors, who follow the pilots in flight to assess their skills.

This is what the SMS are all about. Airline companies will be certified and will test their own employees. As I said earlier, this is putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Yet, this is what is being done and what is already in effect.

This is a letter addressed to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and it is dated June 7, 2006. That was not five years ago, since this was just done. The letter continues:

—Similarly, we learned that, in order to save money, aircraft are always taking off with less fuel (thus making them lighter)—.

So, in order to save money, airlines have this good or bad habit—if you are like me and you are little afraid of flying—of putting in as little fuel as possible to save money, because the aircraft is then lighter. The letter goes on to say:

The options available are just that much more limited, which means that, in case of deviation, head winds or delays in landing, the risks become much greater. For example, a transportation safety board document indicates that, in 2003, because of a navigation error, an aircraft flying to New Zealand landed with 359 pounds of fuel left, which is barely enough to fly just a few minutes.

The inspectors' reports provide such examples and that is why we need inspectors to arrive unannounced to carry out analyses and inspections. The industry wants to save as much money as possible and it saves on everything, even fuel. Planes fly with just enough fuel to reach their destinations.

When there are investigations, the investigators see that the industry is in trouble. The reason for putting in place safety management systems is that there are no longer any inspectors and the industry is self-regulated. The industry will dictate the standards to its own companies because the government or Transport Canada will have accredited them for that purpose.

This policy of having as little fuel as possible and of saving as much money as possible will continue forever. One day, a plane will not have enough fuel, there will be an accident and then we will question all these safety management systems that were put in place because there was a problem, there were no longer any inspectors and the government, during that time, tried to save money. There were fewer inspectors, thus less monitoring.

I do not believe that the Conservative members or that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities have fully understood the implications of this reform that dates back to 1999, that is before September 2001.

I will close by quoting Grant Corriveau, a retired Air Canada pilot, in an interview with the Toronto Star:

All the new bells and whistles are continually pushed to the limit in order to become more profitable and to squeeze more airplanes into more airspace and then when something goes wrong, you have less outs and less room to manoeuvre.

He added that during his 30-year career, he has seen budgetary belt-tightening change the way pilots fly. Add to these serious examples the fact that airlines wanted to reduce the number of flight attendants and that the Conservative government decided to take a step backward.

All of these proposals are aimed at having as little security as possible, as little surveillance as possible. An industry that is constantly seeking to bolster its credibility should not be trying to do such things.

We would be doing it a disservice even though, on paper, it looks like a good idea to create this security management system and offload regulatory responsibilities, such as conducting personnel and equipment evaluations. It sounds like a good idea. The government would probably save money because it would no longer have to pay for inspectors, investigators and check pilots.

In the current climate of fierce competition, where companies are closing their doors, the Conservative government would be making a big mistake by letting them self-regulate and do their own personnel skills and quality control inspections. In Quebec, Jetsgo closed its doors about a year and a half ago, not 10 years ago. I am not just talking about large airlines. As I said earlier, we are talking about all aspects of commercial aviation, from bush pilots and bush planes to big commercial airliners.

The Bloc Québécois is against Bill C-6. The committee will try to improve it. We will have to ask the right questions and hear from the right people to ensure that we are not making a mistake by adopting Bill C-6 as written.

As I said, I am not sure my Conservative colleagues have understood. The Bloc Québécois feels that the Department of Transport's budget should be maintained, especially the funds for inspection. This is very important. We cannot leave passenger safety to the industry.

As I already explained, in this context of fierce competition, we are not doing a favour to the industry by making it responsible for its own safety. Transport Canada must maintain its staff of inspectors, check pilots and investigators, and it must uphold the principle whereby it may always carry out inspections and investigations without warning, to ensure that commercial and other airlines always comply with established standards.

Let us not do like in the example mentioned earlier and fly with as little fuel as possible. It was an investigation, an inspection which revealed that only the minimum amount of fuel required to reach destination had been put in the aircraft, thus jeopardizing passengers' lives.

It is often only for short term profit. The airline industry is going through very tough times and it needs long term support. The Bloc Québécois feels it is very important that the public be consulted. The objectives of Bill C-6 must be openly and publicly stated. Similarly, we should not impose an additional burden on the shoulders of small carriers. The bill does not set limits. Any airline can apply for certification. Clause 12, which amends section 5.3, reads as follows

5.31 (1) The Minister of Transport may designate, from among organizations that meet the conditions prescribed by regulation, one or more organizations whose activities relate to aeronautics to exercise or perform any of the powers, duties and functions set out in subsection (2). The Minister shall give a designated organization a certificate of designation setting out its powers, duties and functions and the terms and conditions under which they may be exercised or performed.

That is accreditation. This does not take into account the size of the business. Among the smaller airlines, those that are accredited will likely have lower expenses, and those that are not accredited will have to invest much more money, because they will be under Transport Canada surveillance and could be investigated. This is ideal, because it forces the airlines to always have the latest equipment and the best-trained staff. They will be less competitive and, over the medium term, will see that those that have their own service and have been accredited by the department of transport do not need to invest as much.

In that case, all these businesses will be forced to try to save money and obtain accreditation, and this does them no favours. This is why the Bloc Québécois will remain staunch defenders of Quebeckers and Canadians who like to travel by plane. We hope to maintain an adequate monitoring, investigation and inspection system under the responsibility of Transport Canada.

Speaker's Ruling

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today to join the debate on Bill C-16.

I wish to indicate at the outset of my remarks that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, the parliamentary secretary to the hon. government House leader.

I have had the privilege of serving as the chief government whip in Parliament and the honour, as well, of serving on the procedure and House affairs committee which was the committee to which Bill C-16 was sent for further deliberation following second reading in the chamber.

I was pleased with the work that the procedure and House affairs committee did on this piece of legislation. I commend members from all four of the political parties, not just from the government side but from the three opposition parties, which dealt quite expeditiously with the legislation and I think quite thoroughly. They looked at it, called witnesses, and debated it at some length, as my colleague from the New Democratic Party just alluded to. Amendments were brought forward that provoked further debate and some great comments, I felt, from colleagues from all four parties as we worked through this piece of legislation.

Indeed, it exemplified the way Parliament should work. There was a need identified on the part of the government, but as colleagues from other parties have said, not just on the part of the government. It is something that many people have worked on over the years and have highlighted that there should be further change to our democratic process and institutions.

It reminds me, if I needed any reminding, that I started out in this political business as a Reform Party of Canada member of Parliament. Really, when I was first attracted to the Reform Party back in the late eighties, I was attracted on three big platform issues. I was a farmer at that time raising three young children. I was trying to look forward to what life would be for my children. My children are now all in their mid-twenties. I was concerned then as I am today, as are many Canadians, about what kind of world and what kind of country we will be leaving the next generation.

I focused in on three issues. The first was the need for fiscal reform because I was concerned about the debt load that we would be passing to future generations. That is one of the reasons I am very proud of the steps that the government has taken already in the recent announcement of reducing our national debt by some $13.2 billion. That money was assigned out of the surplus to better enable our country to tackle the issue of our national debt and to ensure as much as possible that we do not see this intergenerational transfer of wealth that could result in reduced services and reduced opportunities for the next generation. Any parent, and indeed any grandparent, is concerned about that type of thing.

The second issue, moving on from fiscal reform for which I was attracted to public life, was the need for judicial reform. Here again, I am very encouraged by steps that the justice minister and the new Conservative government have taken. We have brought in 11 bills already thus far in this Parliament since it got under way in April. I am very proud of that fact. Even if they do not all pass, it has prompted further debate about the need to restore not only justice but the perception that justice is done in our country and that criminals will be held accountable for their actions.

As I travel throughout the beautiful riding of Prince George—Peace River and indeed across Canada, I hear this all the time from Canadians from all walks of life. They are very concerned with what they perceive to be an inherent injustice in our judicial system.

It is important to try to do what we can as parliamentarians to restore that faith in the justice system and, to give one example, in the fact that the most violent and most vicious of criminals will be held accountable and will serve their proper time in jail, not under house arrest.

The third area of interest for me is democratic reform. Here we come to the bill that we are debating. As part and parcel of the need for democratic reform--and the member from the New Democratic Party has just put forward thoughts about proportional representation--we have already taken some steps in this regard. We have legislation in the other place that deals with limiting Senate tenure, because Canadians have expressed concern that under the present system senators are appointed sometimes early in life and serve until the age of 75. Canadians feel that perhaps should be changed, so we brought forward legislation to deal with it.

We also have a bill before the House which I hope we will be debating later this week, Bill C-31. Again, it is on something that was raised at the procedure and House affairs committee by colleagues in all parties. There seems to be a general consensus that something further needs to be done with our electoral system to ensure that, as much as possible, voter fraud is eliminated. I noticed while watching television last night that there is concern about the voter fraud issue in the election that will be taking place tomorrow in the United States. As much as possible, we want to improve our system to ensure that it best serves the needs of Canadians.

On Bill C-16, certainly it has been indicated that we do have general agreement among the parties on wanting to eliminate the potential for abuse, either by prime ministers or, in the case of provincial legislation, which we already have in some provinces, by premiers, by having fixed dates for elections. We all need to be very careful when we refer to this that we do not talk about fixed elections. During the last debate in the House, a few people misspoke. We in the government are certainly not interested in fixing elections, but we are very much interested in fixing the dates of elections.

Already during the debate, we have heard about the fact that if the government were to be sustained until then and in actual fact did not lose the confidence of this place, under our electoral system the next election would not take place until Monday, October 19, 2009. I think that type of clarity is very welcome. I know it is welcomed by the constituents I represent, the people of Prince George—Peace River.

Why do I say that? Because British Columbia does have fixed election dates. It was the first province to do so, in 2001. Indeed, like other countries around the world, it was very quick to see the value in having a fixed election date that brought clarity and certainty to all political parties. It levels the playing field for all participants and indeed for all voters, because it is known well in advance when that election will take place.

In 2001, British Columbia brought this forward and we had our first fixed election date on May 17, 2005. A lot has been said about the possibility that if we have fixed election dates, they somehow will produce lame duck governments, but that has not been the experience, not only in British Columbia but also in other jurisdictions and countries around the world. That has not been the case. I think a strong argument can be made that, with this type of certainty, governments, whether they are majority or minority, will keep governing and working right up to the day of the election. Indeed, far from being a lame duck government, it will be a very effective government and will work in the best interests of its people.

I am almost out of time, but I will note the other argument we have heard, which is that by having a fixed election date the legislative agenda of the government somehow will be held hostage, or that somehow the government could fall suddenly, especially in a minority government situation. That is true, certainly in a minority government situation. We recognize that.

There has been some criticism that under our system the premier of British Columbia and the Prime Minister of the country still will have the power to call an election. That is true, because we have to build that into the system, especially in the present situation because of the minority government. Indeed, it might come about that the government could fall, but I do not think, and I made this point in the last debate, that a prime minister would dare call an election before that date unless he had a very good reason for it. He would be held accountable by the people, because their expectation, through the legislation itself, would be that the date was off into the future.

I of course welcome any comments or questions from my colleagues on this important piece of legislation.

Business of the House

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with the NDP opposition motion.

Tomorrow we should conclude debate on third reading of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment).

Next week we will begin the report stage of Bill C-16, fixed dates for elections, followed by Bill C-26, payday loans, Bill C-6, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, Bill C-17, an act to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts in relation to courts and then Bill C-27, dangerous offenders.

I will continue to consult with the House leaders of other political parties with respect to Bill C-31, the voter integrity bill, and we may be able to proceed with that next week as well.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

You've put your finger on one of the most difficult issues that the department will face, that any government will face relating to Bill C-31. I have a couple of comments.

In regard to the expenditures that you see relative to the registry and so on, one of the initiatives we're moving on is the creation of a status card that is more secure--

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of quick comments. One is on the minister's reference to the Caledon report. The presenter actually indicated that the report had to be used with a great deal of caution because of statistical problems with it. As well, my understanding is that there is insufficient data to talk about the numbers of post-secondary students who would be able to access education but can't because of the resource constraints.

The other comment I had was around the B.C. Treaty Commission and the Indian Specific Claims Commission. The reason it was so startling in its report is that, while it's common practice to project numbers into coming fiscal years, there was absolutely nothing in those two cases; that's why it was a matter of concern.

The question I have is around page 21 in the estimates. This particular page is dealing specifically with things like Indian registry and membership and what not. The actual question I have around this is whether or not the department is looking at Bill C-31, subsection 6(2), which has an impact on band membership. There's a report from 1985 by Clatworthy Smith that has done some projections based on subsection 6(2) in Bill C-31 that actually say a number of bands will start seeing a significant decline in population because of subsection 6(2). Given the fact that the estimates are dealing with band membership and plans around registry, could you could tell me whether the department has plans to address Bill C-31?

On a totally unrelated question, you've talked about the B.C. tripartite agreement. I wonder whether there are plans to put legislation into the House. My understanding is that there does need to be legislation.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

And we will be reinstating this no matter what happens to Bill C-31. We'll be making sure that this happens, as it should have been happening. And where it has not been happening, we want to make sure it happens.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I think that when the discussions come up on Bill C-31 as well, this subject is going to be beaten.

Perhaps I may ask for clarification on the bingo card. In the government's response on page 7, it does indicate that “implementing such an obligation at this time could cost as much as $23.5 million”. Is that your feeling as to the cost of implementing only the bingo card, or does it include other implementation recommendations?

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you.

First of all, I have a brief statement to make. I have some difficulty with what Madam Davies was getting at. She said we were going to use a sledgehammer to fix some mythical problem. She's not even part of this committee. This committee had achieved relative unanimity in recognizing a problem with voter fraud. Now she comes in and pretends the problem is mythical and we're using a sledgehammer to address it.

Furthermore, I want to say on record that I agree with her that it's a fundamental right for Canadian citizens to vote. It's an important franchise, and we don't want to disenfranchise them improperly. However, there are certain responsibilities that come with being a Canadian citizen, and we all too often overlook them. One of the responsibilities should be that you have some way to identify yourself. Goodness gracious, where are we going with this? Are we going to suggest that people who can't identify themselves still have this unalienable right to vote? Anyway, that's my little rant in reply to Madam Davies.

I participated in a trip to South Africa this past summer recess, and we had the opportunity to meet with their electoral commission. I was amazed at how advanced their system is. They have a photo ID voters card. They went well beyond what we're suggesting in our report, or in Bill C-31. They went well beyond a driver's licence or two other pieces of non-picture ID. They actually instituted a picture ID card that people are required to have when they go to the polls. In addition, to prevent any potential fraud, they also ink the thumb of the individual. So there's no chance, unless you cut your thumb off, of voting more than once.

I'm asking you, in light of your response to our report, and by extension to Bill C-31, if you believe that what's contained in the bill goes far enough. How many other countries around the world have followed South Africa and taken the precautions to make sure that voters are actually eligible?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

The remarks I made were meant to stimulate exactly the discussion that you're precipitating by your comments. I think it's going to be very important for people to understand that when there are no pieces of ID that are available there will have to be an oath and they will have to be vouched for by someone else who is already on the list. And it will not be possible to have serial vouching to achieve that, in accordance with the changes that would be brought about. I think the committee needs to be aware of that. And there will be no judgment on the part of the DRO; the law will prevent them from making judgments that they'll accept this person anyway because they look honest. That will not be a possibility. There will have to be strict ID, as prescribed.

That's why I said I will send you recommendations of the pieces of ID that I would accept as part of the statute I would have under Bill C-31. I'll send you the pieces that I consider acceptable, and you can tell me if you find them acceptable. Because I intend to be swayed here by the will of Parliament, not by my own will. I run elections; I don't write the laws.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Absolutely. That is on our agenda and it's okay; we'll just talk about that. I'll save time at the end. Thank you.

As discussed at our Tuesday meeting, the committee invited Mr. Kingsley to come today to discuss the response we've received from the government with respect to our 13th report at the end of session in June. We have that before us. Furthermore, on Tuesday of this week the government did introduce Bill C-31, which implements several of the committee's recommendations. That bill will ultimately be referred back to this committee after second reading. I'm hoping that members can maybe focus on the report, the response from the government today, and see whether or not we want to provide a response to the response, rather than getting sidetracked to Bill C-31. I would hope that members can keep focused on the response. That's what I had spoken to Mr. Kingsley about, and I'm quite sure it's the fair way to go.

Mr. Kingsley, I think if it's okay with you we would like to start with opening remarks from you. Perhaps you could introduce again your colleagues and then we'll open the floor to questions.

Colleagues, just so everybody is aware of the rules before we begin, we'll go in the usual round of questions starting with a seven-minute round in the usual format.

Mr. Kingsley, welcome, and thank you so much for agreeing to come again on short notice. I appreciate your cooperation and diligence for the committee. Please introduce your colleagues and then we can begin.

Thank you.

Canada Elections Act

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)