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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Ladies and gentlemen, we'll begin the meeting this morning. I apologize for the delay. Obviously, we have to have this room this morning because of our teleconferencing, which will start at the noon hour. I thank you for your diligence and your patience.

I want to advise members that this meeting is being held in public. Again, we are dealing with our continuation of Bill C-31.

I also want to remind members that at 12 o'clock today we will start our video conferencing. So we have one hour for our first witness.

I would like to welcome the director general of Élections Québec, Monsieur Marcel Blanchet.

Thank you very much for being with us this morning, Marcel. Normally what we do is offer you a few minutes for an opening statement.

Then we would start, colleagues, with our usual round of questions, the first round being seven minutes. I want to just remind members that we have one hour, and if we could keep our questions short and to the point, we'll probably get through more questions than we normally do.

Monsieur Blanchet, the floor is yours.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Minister, I would like to speak about the right to vote of convicts who are serving a sentence of two years and more. To allow inmates in federal establishments to vote, the chief electoral officer recently had to invoke the adaptation right that he has pursuant to section 17 of the Act.

For what reason did the government drop the committee's recommendation regarding inmates' right to vote from Bill C-31?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to put a brief question to you minister.

You followed the work of this committee since we undertook consideration of Bill C-31, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act. We've had an opportunity to discuss the system that is in place in Quebec. That system enables us to eliminate representatives from each party, which complicates even the physical layout of the tables in polling stations. The committee will be receiving the Québec Chief Electoral Officer, who provides a formula to compile the names of people who have come to vote from the time the polls open. Some doubts were expressed, because it was feared that this would require hiring extra staff. I don't know if this came from you or the returning officer. However, it is possible that in each polling station, the clerk could do this compilation work. This is what we normally call the bingo cards.

Minister, I would like to know if you're opened to amending this bill, if that is the wish of my colleagues here on the committee. This system is not in place in provinces other than Quebec, where it has existed for many years. That's why I suggested we invite people from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec. If that is the wish of the committee, would you be prepared to amend your bill to reflect this, minister?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister for Democratic Reform]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to introduce Natasha Kim, a policy analyst in legislation and House planning in the Privy Council Office; Raymond MacCallum, counsel in the human rights law section of the Department of Justice; and beside me is Dan McDougall, director of operations for legislation and House planning in the Privy Council Office.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me to speak on Bill C-31. But most importantly, and to begin with, I would like to thank you and all the members of your committee for the work you did on the 13th report.

I can tell you that the government has reviewed your report very carefully. We tabled a response on October 20, supporting in principle virtually all of the recommendations you made in that report.

But we did not stop there. Bill C-31 was introduced shortly thereafter, on October 24, and as you know, it is based on the recommendations from the 13th report, recommendations aimed at improving the integrity of the electoral process, recommendations originating from this committee that were developed in a non-partisan, collaborative way.

Mr. Chair, if you take the bill and the government's response together, I think they represent very clearly the intention of this committee, and indeed changes to Bill C-31 at this stage would probably mean revisiting the committee's original recommendations.

That being said, the government is, of course, open to listening to such changes, if it is the will of the committee members, but I would simply say that I agree with Monsieur Guimond, who, in his second reading remarks on November 7, said that Bill C-31 came from an “excellent collaboration among the political parties”.

This is an issue of common concern for all parties, and I would hope you will do everything within your power to expedite the passage of this bill.

I would like to turn to addressing some of the measures in the bill. Because the bill implements the committee's own report, I won't review every measure, of which there are many; rather, having reviewed the second reading debate, there are three in particular that I will address. I will quickly discuss these three issues: voter identification, date of birth on the voters' list, and the unique identifier. I will then take your questions.

First, I'd like to spend some time on the issue of voter identification. Bill C-31 implements the committee's recommendation on this point, and the recommendation had no dissenting opinions. It was formulated after the committee discussed the issue with the Chief Electoral Officer, the Privacy Commissioner, and representatives from the four major political parties. Concerns were raised at that time about ensuring that no voters were disadvantaged because of not having identification.

The result was the balanced approach recommended by the committee and reflected in this piece of legislation. It allows three options: a photo ID, with name and address; two pieces of other identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer; or, for those without identification, an oath or affirmation and a voucher.

This is very similar to the current process for registering at the polls, and I think it is important to spend a minute on this point. As you know, to register at the polls you need to have identification or to take an oath and have someone vouch for you.

The Canada Elections Act already forbids vouching for more than one person to get them registered. We have had these safeguards in place for polling day registration for many years. Bill C-31 simply extends the same safeguards from the registration stage to the voting stage, as the committee recommended.

I would emphasize that amendments were made to the Canada Elections Act in 2000 to allow a shelter to be considered a residence. This provision, subsection 8(6) of the act, will continue to apply to facilitate voting by those without a fixed address.

Mr. Chair, the voter identification process will bring the federal system in line with other jurisdictions that require identification, including the province of Quebec, a number of Canadian municipalities, and many other countries.

By providing three options for meeting the ID requirement, Bill C-31 will provide greater voting accessibility than some jurisdictions that do not provide any alternatives to photo ID. For example, some American states that do not provide alternatives to photo ID have encountered legal challenges; on the other hand, states that provide alternatives like those found in Bill C-31 have not.

Each jurisdiction must determine for itself what works best for its system and its electors, and I think we have found the right balance in Bill C-31 between maintaining voter accessibility and protecting the integrity of the Canadian electoral system. Indeed, without a system that functions with integrity, the right to vote would become meaningless.

The other two issues raised on second reading were raised by the Bloc Québécois. First, my Bloc colleagues indicated a desire to amend the bill so that the date of birth would be added to the lists of electors sent to candidates, rather than only on those used at the polls. To this I would note that the committee expressly recommended against this approach in its report.

Further, this appears to be an unnecessary intrusion into the private lives of Canadians without a clear policy rationale. In appearing before the committee, the Privacy Commissioner noted the importance of adhering to privacy principles in formulating legislative recommendations--in other words, the importance of ensuring proportionality between an objective and the degree of privacy intrusion.

The justification for adding the date of birth to the list used at the poll is clear. It improves the integrity of the system, acting as a means of confirming the identity and eligibility of voters. The same justification does not appear to exist for giving the dates of birth of Canadians to individual candidates. Many Canadians are sensitive about such personal information. While it is an important tool to verify identity, we should avoid unnecessary distribution unless there is a pressing reason.

The other issue raised by the Bloc Québécois was with regard to how the provisions on the unique identifier are drafted in the bill. The identifier would be a permanent number or code assigned to each elector by the chief electoral officer and tracked on the voters lists. The bill currently contains permissive language so that the chief electoral officer is authorized to assign identifiers, but not expressly obligated.

We would see no problem with strengthening the language so that the Chief Electoral Officer is required to assign the identifier.

Before concluding, I would note that other issues arose in second reading. For instance, many members raised recurring concerns with the accuracy of lists of electors and the national register. Indeed, this issue was raised in committee and discussed with the Chief Electoral Officer.

As a result, Bill C-31 implements a number of the committee's recommendations that will unquestionably make important improvements to the register and the accuracy of the lists. For example, the bill will clarify a Chief Electoral Officer's authority to have returning officers conduct updating activities between election periods. Such activities could include targeted revision of the register for areas of low registration, such as areas with a high degree of homelessness or on aboriginal reserves. I would further suggest that the committee pass a motion to formally request the Chief Electoral Officer to undertake such initiatives.

In combination with the greater predictability that fixed dates for elections will provide, measures in Bill C-31 will enable better planning and preparation for accurate voters' lists. Of course, there is always more that could be done, and the government fully supports the committee's desire, as it was expressed in recommendation 6.8 of the 13th report, to explore other methods for improving the lists, such as the use of census data or targeted enumeration.

However, in the meantime, I would suggest that we act now to implement the committee recommendations in Bill C-31, and we can continue to work together on other ways to improve our electoral system.

In closing, Mr. Chair, I will simply quote the committee from page 1 of its report:

As Members of Parliament, we are directly concerned with the electoral process, and have first-hand experience with the rules governing the conduct of elections. ... It is important that we use these experiences and the lessons learned to correct deficiencies and improve our electoral system. ...[I]t is important that the necessary legislative changes are made in an efficient and timely manner. The Committee believes that a window of opportunity for legislative changes exists.

Bill C-31 provides these legislative changes. This is an opportunity to implement your recommendations.

Let me say, on a personal note, that I have been involved with many committee recommendations and reports over the last 22 years, and many, if not most, of those committee recommendations did not end up as completely as parts of legislation as your 13th report has, as before you.

I would ask you to seize this opportunity, keeping in mind that this is a minority parliament, of making a difference in the legislative framework of improving the electoral system, enhancing its integrity. With your cooperation and with your leadership in that report, I think this is very possible, and I urge you to act on that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Ladies and gentlemen, let's call the meeting to order.

First of all, thank you, everyone, for coming out today. I apologize for running a bit behind. There was a meeting before us, and I appreciate the work of our support team here getting things ready as quickly as they have.

I would like to advise all members that today's meeting is being held in public. I would also like to advise members that we're going to need about 15 to 20 minutes at the end of the meeting—I will watch the time, of course—to discuss future business regarding our study on Bill C-31, particularly respecting witnesses. But we'll leave that until the end.

The third thing I would like members to be aware of is that we have received some motions. We'll distribute them in one second. Mr. Lukiwski has provided us with motions; I'll distribute those to the committee, and we can discuss them later.

Next, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to welcome the Honourable Rob Nicholson, sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Nicholson, thank you very much for being with us today. If you would be so kind as to introduce your team, then we can begin.

Let me ask folks on the periphery of the room to keep the conversations to a minimum, out of respect for our witnesses.

Mr. Nicholson, please.

[Chief Patrick Brazeau]

To be really quick, some of the resolutions are to engage in bringing about more accountability within the organization and in being more forthright about membership lists that we were going to be working on, consulting our people within the next year, so that we're in a position about a year from now to say exactly how many members are in the organization.

That doesn't stray from the services we provide on behalf of or offer to aboriginal people across the country. It's to work towards implementing some of the RCAP recommendations, including possibly having a discussion on the issue of Bill C-31, which is very important, because it's outright discrimination. It basically allows the federal government to decide who is a status Indian and who is not. In my family I have nieces and nephews who are non-status Indians, and on my side my children are status Indians. That makes for a healthy debate at Christmastime.

It's basically to move forward to demonstrate our true representation, our legitimacy within the organization, and to demonstrate to the Canadian public, the taxpayers, that the funds we receive, although very small.... We receive an annual budget, including programs and services core funding, of $5 million. Out of that $5 million, half is disbursed through our provincial organizations so that they can provide services.

So we're not talking about a lot of money within our organization. It's to demonstrate to the taxpayers that with the moneys we receive we are going to provide results with the funds and are going to make significant changes in the lives of people, whether being funded or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay.

Colleagues, thank you very much. I think we've had an extremely productive conversation this morning, and I appreciate the consensus we're hearing around the table. It demonstrates significant cooperation and a need to do better.

What I'm understanding, just for the record, is that this will be discussed amongst the individual caucuses in some matter of seriousness, and that at some point in the future we'll put it on the agenda. My guess is that it might be February, but let's see how things go. If it's not going to take too much time, we could have a brief discussion about the results of those discussions at caucus here at the meeting, and then decide how further to deal with it, if at all.

Is there any confusion on that? Are there any questions? Okay, perfect. Jamie, we'll mark that down for some future date. We're good to go.

Ladies and gentlemen, what I want to remind members is that we do have before us now Bill C-31, which is, of course, as a direct result of our report from this committee. That will be coming before this committee on Thursday. Regrettably, we're putting the conflict of interest code on the back burner, so to speak, for a little while, as legislation takes precedence.

Members, I just want to remind you that, at the very most, we have seven meetings left before the Christmas adjournment. Before you, you should have a blank calendar. I would certainly like to have a discussion now about what witnesses we need. We have some already. We need to schedule the witnesses, and if necessary—hopefully it's not necessary—I would like to have a brief discussion about the possibility of extra meetings so that in fact we can get our work done prior to the Christmas break.

What we know so far, colleagues, is that on Thursday, Mr. Nicholson will be appearing before the committee--that's confirmed--to begin the discussions. He has been invited. He has agreed, of course, to come.

There are some other witnesses here, I can tell you, who have requested to appear, but also, before I forget, I want to make sure that we agree, as a group, on notice for any amendments. We did agree prior, when we were studying Bill C-16, to 24 hours’ notice for any amendments. First of all, can we get that out of the way? Is that acceptable to members, that there be 24 hours’ notice for any amendments?

I'm seeing nods around the table. Okay, then we can just record that that will be the rule with respect to that. The witnesses who we feel that at this point we need to hear from, and as well have asked, are the B.C. Civil Liberties Association; and Duff Conacher, who is the coordinator of Democracy Watch. We have an individual request that I'm not 100% sure of, from an individual named Tina-Marie Bradford, from British Columbia. She's a lawyer. She has requested to come before the committee.

As well, we had requests from our friends in the Bloc to have folks from Quebec in to discuss the issue of bingo cards. My thinking is that Quebec might be able to offer some insight as well on how they have managed the issue of folks who are homeless, how they've dealt with it.

And then, of course, Mr. Kingsley will be appearing--Mr. Shapiro may want to appear, but I don't see the relevance.

May I just suggest as chair, to lead things along, that we have Mr. Nicholson coming in on Thursday. So next Tuesday, might I suggest that we invite our colleagues from Quebec and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association via teleconferencing? Obviously, I will leave it to the committee to agree to that. I have no position on Mr. Conacher or the individual from British Columbia, the lawyer, so I would leave that to members, if they choose, but my thinking is that we get them all in here on Tuesday, November 28.

Thursday, November 30, is adjourned out of respect for the Liberal leadership campaign. We could reschedule that to a Wednesday night, but let's see how many witnesses we come up with.

I suggest that Tuesday, December 5, which would be the next meeting, we have Mr. Kingsley in for at least the first half of that meeting to answer any concerns we come up with as a result of the witnesses.

I remind colleagues that we've had many witnesses on the report that we tabled. Much of this is going to be repetitive, but in all due process and with respect to colleagues here who may have questions, I will now open the floor for comments on who the witnesses should be.

Monsieur Godin.

Canada Elections Act

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-31 on improving the election process. First, I basically agree with everything my colleague said. I would like to reinforce it, in the environment of my riding, with a bit of background.

It is interesting that we are discussing this on the night after an American election. We saw the little pitfalls it ran into, which were related to computers. Improvements can always be made to the system.

I think we have unanimous all party agreement that we want the highest integrity possible in the voter system. It is so important to our country. We want to ensure that as many people as possible are correctly enumerated so no thinks the elections are unfair. The type of indepth study into the bill is totally supported by all parties. We need to do as much as possible to ensure the integrity of the system for every one of our some 30 million Canadians, at least those who are of voting age.

We have had some problems over the years in my riding, once again minor problems. Hopefully, administrative changes can fix these. With the new mailboxes, voter the cards mailed to people sometimes fall on the ground and other people pick them up and think they are supposed to vote. Sometimes they are mailed to the wrong address. Therefore, we have had a problem with all these cards floating around.

Another problem, which we have had periodically, is the transient population in my riding. Some people move either in or out of the riding, or they move to other parts of the riding. There is a fair amount of movement throughout the riding. Although I am a big supporter of the permanent voters list, many times we would go door to door never knowing if we had the right number of voters. People had moved in, who were not on the list, or they had moved out, but they were still on the list. Hopefully, these amendments in the bill will help improve that.

In relation to the photo access card, I am not sure if pilot projects have been done or considered. However, we have to ensure the wrinkles are ironed out so everyone can have access to those cards, whether they are transient, or youth or aboriginal. Many youth in the country have no reason to have a photo ID card. When they need to get one early in their voting career, they have a hard time getting it. I also know there may be transient people who do not have a photo ID. We had a problem in my area when passports were becoming mandatory to get into the United States. Certain aboriginal people could not obtain a passport easily because they lived so far away.

Hopefully, all these items will be facilitated by Elections Canada to ensure that everyone has easy access to the requirements needed to vote. They are not unreasonable requirements. They are in place in many other countries, as the study on the bill has shown. However, we always have to facilitate every person in our society, whether they are disabled, or a youth, or a senior or aboriginal, to ensure that new requirements are fair to everyone, that they can afford them and can obtain them.

I am adding my support to improving the integrity of the system. As I said, it is exciting coming after the eve of an American election, which turned out very well for my riding. A number of people have been elected who are against drilling in the Arctic National WildLife Refuge. The objective of all parties in Parliament is to ensure no drilling takes place in that area. I am excited for those who were elected, but I lament the loss of a few members who were also against drilling.

I close by lending my support to the bill and I compliment all members of Parliament, especially on the procedures and House affairs committee who are looking at these technical details to make the system fair.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Yukon.

The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington and the member for Ottawa Centre went into great detail describing the bill and how we got from that place to here, so I will not repeat that, but I would like to highlight a few aspects that are important for us to consider as we deal further with this bill.

First of all, there was a report from the Chief Electoral Officer in September 2005 which set out a number of these improvements in the integrity of the electoral system. That report was considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs last spring and a report was generated from that committee's hearings. That went to the government and on October 20 we received this report back from the government, incorporating most of the committee's recommendations as well as the drafted Bill C-31 which we are considering.

I was not involved in that committee last fall, so I do not have the full history of what was suggested and what was rejected. However, it seems to me that it is a bit of a surprise at this stage, when we have gone through an iterative process with experts, party members, the Privacy Commissioner, the Chief Electoral Officer and other electoral officials, as well as debate in committee, and our own report going to the government and the government responding to it, that we are not a little further ahead than we appear to be now.

I listened carefully to the member for Vancouver East and the member for Ottawa Centre. While the points that they raise with respect to democratic access to the voting process make eminent good sense, and in fact they are fundamental principles that must be respected in a democracy, I am a little surprised that at this very late date in this process these are being raised as things that have been totally neglected by members from all parties, the government, electoral officials over the last period of longer than a year.

I am a little surprised at that. I thought actually there was an agreement that we would be moving this pretty quickly through at this stage. Having raised those concerns, it is incumbent upon us, of course, to consider that concerns they raise are either dealt with by amendment or that we are all given the assurances that they are properly looked after.

As we look at election administration and this particular act amending the Elections Act, integrity of the voting system is absolutely critical. We have to balance two things. We have nothing if we do not have integrity of the system. We may have access to all sorts of people who may not otherwise have been enumerated or have easy access, but if we do not have the confidence of Canadians that the system as a whole has integrity, we have nothing. It simply is a chimera.

How do we balance that integrity in ensuring that we have voter identification, that we have effective enumeration, as well as making access as easy as possible for those in society who do face various barriers? We have heard a number of examples of that, either people who are transient and do not have current local information to establish their residence and address, or people who indeed are homeless or living in shelters where they are living very restrictive lifestyles and have a very restricted ability to identify themselves or have someone vouch for their identification.

That balance is tricky, I agree. We must ensure we get it right. I thought we were getting quite close there, but what needs to be done very quickly is to ensure that, first of all, the enumeration process is as sharp, as focused, as accurate, and as up to date as it possibly can be. I think this bill takes some steps toward doing that. There are many communities in our country which are remote and where there are really perennial problems with enumeration in those areas.

We have to, as a committee and as this House, give very strict directions to the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff to ensure that an extra effort is made to identify those areas of low enumeration. I think remote aboriginal communities are the best example of that where there have been in some communities over time a real under-enumeration. It is pretty obvious on the face of it, given what we know about the population and how many people are enumerated. That is an administrative factor. The bill is adequate for enumeration powers. We just have to ensure that the efforts are more strenuous in getting that enumeration done.

Another part, and it came up partly in the comments from the member for Vancouver East, is that we ensure that identification is as easy as possible. The bill lays out certain types of identification at different levels of challenge that can be used for the purpose of confirming identification. One thing that has not been specifically mentioned, which I think is very important, is that aboriginal band identification cards, which do have a photo and are issued by band councils, be accepted as government identification. This would be sufficient with the address and the photo. If they do not have the address, perhaps a letter from the band council would ensure that people in reserve communities have the full opportunity to vote.

Focusing on careful enumeration in order to ensure that we have a secure but a broad interpretation, particularly in aboriginal communities, of the first line of identification with a photo on it that would be acceptable as government photo identification. It should go without saying. It is certainly in line with the whole recognition, under our Constitution and governments across this country, of the inherent right of self-government of aboriginal people and therefore that type of identification should be acceptable.

What we had better do, because of the concerns raised by members of the NDP, is get this back into committee after the vote as soon as possible, and get the necessary officials before us to ensure that the issues raised can be dealt with. At the end of the day, this will be a balance. We will not have enumerated every person eligible in this country. There will always be transients. There will always be difficulties that individuals have, but we must ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, we catch as many people while still securing the integrity of the system.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-31.

This bill should be of interest to all members and all Canadians, because its goal is to improve the electoral process, the foundation of our democratic system. There can be no doubt that Canadian democracy is a great democracy.

All members here have been through at least one election and know that the process is not perfect. They know that an election period lasts 36 days and is organized around a complex set of rules and procedures. They also know that holding general elections in 308 electoral districts is a major undertaking. In any operation of this scope there will always be room for improvement. Bill C-31 will allow our electoral process to run more smoothly.

At first glance, many changes seem to be somewhat technical, but even small operational modifications can produce concrete results in practice. Providing support for the machinery of democracy strengthens the integrity of the process as a whole.

I believe that the reforms should be greeted with the support and confidence of the candidates seeking election, the parties involved in the electoral process, the election officials responsible for the conduct of elections and, more particularly, the Canadian public, whose democratic choice is expressed through the electoral system.

The bill contains tangible improvements for everyone involved in the democratic process. That is why I support it. I would like to briefly describe a few of the changes proposed.

The most important change is that electors must identify themselves at the polling stations. As my colleagues from Quebec undoubtedly know, this measure has been in place in Quebec for the last seven years. Quebec’s Election Act was amended in 1999 to incorporate an obligation to present a piece of identification before voting. Other amendments also require that Quebecers identify themselves to vote in a referendum or municipal election.

In order to exercise their right to vote in Quebec, electors must present a Quebec health insurance card, a driver’s licence, a Canadian passport, a certificate of Indian status or a Canadian Armed Forces card, and electors who cannot do that are referred to an identity verification panel and must sign a sworn statement as to their identity. They must produce at least two other documents to the panel that establish their identity or ask another elector who has an identity card with a photograph to be their guarantor.

Those measures are similar to what is proposed in Bill C-31. I am persuaded that the process for identifying electors will work as well at the federal level as it does in Quebec. A study done by the chief electoral officer of Quebec in 2002 shows that deputy returning officers and the persons responsible for polls are generally satisfied with this provision and that it has been relatively well received by electors.

The deputy returning officers who took part in the study noted these facts: first, mandatory identification has strengthened the integrity of the voting process by reducing the possibility of fraud; second, this measure has led to increased public confidence in the system; and third, it enhances the importance of the voting process.

I believe that Bill C-31 will have the same good results, results that are really necessary at the federal level.

For example, members will recall an incident that was much talked about: an American student had voted in the 39th general election. His stated purpose was to demonstrate that the enforcement of rules at polling stations was too lax and that the opportunities for fraud were in his own words, “immense”. He succeeded.

However, I want to make it clear that the very great majority of voters go to the polls in good faith, solely to exercise their legitimate, democratic duty. It is almost impossible to prevent someone whose goal is to defraud the system from finding a way to do so.

Nevertheless, the provision dealing with voter identification in Bill C-31 will make it a great deal more difficult for voters with unlawful intentions to achieve their goal. The bill includes mechanisms that will allow for an investigation after the election if necessary by requiring, for example, that voters without identification take an oath. The bill will highlight the rules for voters who may believe, incorrectly but in good faith, that they are eligible to vote. It will not prevent eligible voters from exercising their rights.

Most Canadians are used to presenting some form of identification for a variety of daily activities. Unlike other levels of Canadian government where identification is compulsory in order to vote, the bill provides alternative solutions for Canadian voters who do not have photo identification.

In other words, the bill establishes an important balance between accessibility and integrity.

This bill introduces important changes that have been standard practice for a long time at other levels of government in Canada, like most of the reforms on election financing in Bill C-2. I think especially of the prohibition on donations from corporations and trade unions. The voter identification system works well in Quebec, and I am convinced that it will work well in the rest of Canada.

This bill contains numerous tangible improvements to the electoral process. I will mention only some of them. First, the voter’s date of birth will be added to the official and revised list of electors that will be used at polling stations. This measure is already in use in Quebec and represents another means of confirming the identity of a person who wishes to vote.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs specifically requested in the recommendations on which these provisions are based that the elector’s date of birth not be shown on the lists given to candidates. I agree with that because it is very important to protect personal information. I see that the bill abides by this request.

I would like to highlight the fact that advance polling stations can henceforth be set up for a single polling division, instead of a minimum of two as is currently the case. This is an important change in those provinces and regions where the polling divisions are very far apart, in northern Canada, for example, or in highly rural areas. Now that the advance polling stations will be closer to the electors in these areas, it will be easier for them to exercise their right to vote.

Finally, I would like to point out that the bill contains various specific points on how the Chief Electoral Officer uses and communicates election information. For example, each registered elector will be assigned a unique, randomly generated identifier to facilitate the updating of the Register of Electors and improve its accuracy.

In addition, income tax returns can be used to enhance the reliability of the information that Canadians agree to provide to Elections Canada.

The bill also contains specific provisions on the exchange of election information between federal and provincial election authorities. This will help to improve the integrity of the federal and provincial voters’ lists and ensure that personal information is well protected.

I could go on much longer about the various advantages of this bill, but what is most important is the cumulative effect of all these improvements. These changes, taken together, enhance the integrity of our election process. Like the Federal Accountability Act , this bill will help us maintain public confidence in our democratic system. Like Bill C-2, which deals with election financing in particular, this bill contains important reforms that have been tested in Quebec. Like Bill C-2, this bill, I hope, will be passed quickly by Parliament so that it will be in effect for the next election. These measures are important for all parties concerned and for all Canadians.

I hope that this bill will receive the enthusiastic support of all hon. members and parties in the House.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Okay. That answers my question. I'm always shocked at what things cost, so don't judge by my reaction.

I'm interested too in a bill that was just introduced in the House of Commons that may have serious implications for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. It's Bill C-31, dealing with the new voter registration cards, whereby the date of birth will go on the permanent voters lists. A lot of people are reacting negatively to this already. They feel that, seeing as voters lists are given out to every candidate in every election, you will now know the name, address, phone number, and date of birth of every person on the voters lists.

Does this cross any lines that your office deals with on a regular basis, or does it cause you concern? Can you anticipate a volume of complaints stemming from something like that?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

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

I would like to begin my comments by quoting Alfred E. Smith, a very well-known governor of New York, a populist, a reformer in child labour and some other areas, and a solid advocate for the poor and for democracy. Many years ago, he said, “All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy”.

I agree with Mr. Smith. Those words are a prescription and should guide us in our deliberations. If, as some have claimed, there are ills in the system, the only way to cure the system is to open things up and have more democracy. I believe that what Mr. Smith was really referring to was the importance of opening up the process of government and of believing that democracy is not a static concept. In fact, democracy is fluid and evolves, and it can always be improved.

On the fundamental idea of improving the process of voting, or of democracy, let us make no mistake about it: my party and I support the concept and we believe that much more can be done to improve our system. To be clear, we support the principle and the spirit of Bill C-31. In fact, for many years we have called for improvements to the voting system.

But let me also be clear in saying that I have major problems with this bill. I believe it needs not just fine tuning but a major overhaul. To be clear, this bill is not the democratic remedy that will cure the body politic and what ails it right now. In fact, there is an argument to be made that the bill could make it worse.

Let us examine the origins of this bill. I think that is important. The bill started with an examination by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, just after the last election, on how to improve the integrity of the electoral system and the electoral process. In June 2006 the committee report was tabled. The government responded on October 20. The government then proposed this bill that is in front of us.

Just as a side comment on that, there is something that I find interesting. Yesterday the government said there was all party support for the report and there was a sense that we had a consensus on what is in the bill. We have to clarify that this was not the case. I think most people who were on the committee would acknowledge that. This bill and its contents are not what the committee asked for.

In fact, there was a committee report and the government response to the report, and then, I would submit, there was cherry-picking in terms of what was in the report and what is in this bill. Those are the origins of the bill. I will be cautionary here. As I said, we support the spirit and the principle, but we are being cautionary because of the way in which the government has decided to improve the democratic process.

We have concerns about some of the points in the bill. As my colleague from Vancouver East has already mentioned, one of our concerns is about requiring people to have photo ID. This is possible disenfranchisement for some people. Not everyone has photo identification. Those on the government side will say, as others have said, that it is not a problem because they can then have someone vouch for them and they can swear an oath. There are problems with that. As my colleague said, the devil is in the details.

There are many concerns around people's ability to find someone to vouch for them and concerns around having supports for that, be it because of language issues or lack of knowledge on how to have people to advocate for them. There may be unintended effects of this bill that would marginalize and shut out some of our most vulnerable citizens. I know that this is certainly not the intent of anyone in this House, but that unfortunately could be the outcome.

The way the bill is written might also leave it open to a charter challenge, for some of the reasons I have mentioned. Of course this is something that will come out in committee. It is very important to understand this. We saw, as was referred to by another member, that in the United States the electoral laws in the 1950s and 1960s were structured in a way that intended to disenfranchise people. It was part of the clarion call of the civil rights movement to change that in the United States.

I would hate to see unintended consequences that would do the same here. I do not think that is hyperbole. We have seen laws in this country that have done that. I refer to B.C. and its so-called section 80, whereby people were not able to get on the voters list until the actual day of the election simply because of a flawed enumeration system. It is important to acknowledge, with the way the bill is presently written, that a charter challenge could happen.

It is also important to note that there are other ways to deal with the concerns MPs and people in general have with the integrity of the system. It is always important to note that when we have a piece of legislation in front of us we have to look at what the problem is. Here, the problem being put forward to us is that there is possible fraud occurring. How do we change that? The government is proposing a bill that talks about photo ID, vouching, swearing oaths, et cetera. Perhaps there are other ways and I think we have proposed some.

One way to change that, as my colleague said, is a proper enumeration. We have just had two bills passed in Parliament that would affect enumeration and the electoral process. I am referring to the clauses in Bill C-2 about the appointment of district returning officers based on merit. That is a good thing. My party supported it. We supported it before the election and we certainly supported it in Bill C-2.

The bill now before us gives the district returning officer a new purview. The bill talks about who shall be given an oath and who shall be questioned, et cetera. We do not have the other piece in place, sadly, because of what is going on in the Senate. That process needs to happen. The Senate needs to pass the bill.

Before that happens, I note that I have concerns about how these people will be trained and what merit we will be basing our decisions on. How are we going to train them so that the people we have employed are going to know the intricacies of their jobs? In this bill, we are giving them the authority to question people's legitimacy and whether they should be given a ballot or not.

Another concern of mine has to do with fixed date elections. Recently in this House in that regard I supported more resources being put into enumeration. That is what we heard about from witnesses who spoke on Bill C-16. I would like to see more emphasis put on a viable and sound enumeration process. That would be a better way of dealing with the problem, rather than simply asking for more ID, for referrals or for vouching for people when they might not have access to photo ID or to someone who could vouch for them.

I believe the intent of the bill is important. Quite frankly, I believe the bill was rushed in the way it came from committee and has been put before the House. I think the bill needs an overhaul, not just fine tuning. We look forward to making major amendments to the bill when it comes to committee and we look forward to hearing from Canadians on how this will affect them.

My last point is that I began my comments by saying that the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy, and if we are not careful, we will not be following that prescription. In fact, we will be doing the opposite with some of the unintended consequences of this bill.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the discussion yesterday by other parties that spoke to Bill C-31, the voter integrity bill, and now the NDP is here to put forward its issues and concerns about the bill.

I want to say at the outset that the member for Acadie—Bathurst, who is a member of the procedure and House affairs committee, was a member of the committee when the report was done, a report that was based on the bill before us. However, I should make it clear that the bill only deals with a few of the matters that came from the report. I was at committee when the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, responded to the issues in the report.

The bill deals with a voter identification system based on the premise that fraud and serial voting take place and therefore we need a voter identification system in our national registry and in our voting system.

The NDP is very supportive of the need to take measures to ensure fraud does not take place within the voting system. It is very important that we protect the integrity of the system. We are talking about a time honoured, democratic process where eligible voters have a proper place to vote and we have integrity in our system. From that point of view, we support the need to review the system and ensure measures are in place to lower the risk of fraud. I am sure it cannot be eliminated 100%, but measures should be in place to offer that protection.

What is being offered as the main solution to this problem is a voter identification system. In looking at the bill and knowing where this came from at committee, we want to express some of our concerns about what may be the unintended consequences of the ID system on voters. In particular, we are concerned about how this would impact low income people, people who live in small remote communities and aboriginal people who do not have the necessary ID outlined in the bill.

I represent the riding of Vancouver East where, in one community, the downtown east side, regrettably and unfortunately, many people do not have IDs through no fault of their own. These people are often homeless and often transient and they have difficulty getting government ID. They certainly do not have photo ID.

One of the problems with the bill is that it would require one piece of photo ID from any level of government or two pieces of ID that are authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer. A further provision in the bill says that an elector who is not registered can take a statutory oath if he or she is accompanied by an elector with ID whose name appears on the list of electors for the same polling division.

On the surface this may sound like a reasonable measure in that it would allow people with no ID to have some mechanism to vote. However, I have looked at this carefully and have talked to lawyers in my community who have been involved in providing assistance around statutory declarations for voters with no ID, and they are very concerned, as I am, about what this provision will mean.

At present, it is acceptable for a voter to make a statutory declaration along with a person in the community who can identify the voter. In the downtown east side, it has often been a street worker, someone who knows many of the people in the community, who vouches for the individual. Under the new bill this would no longer be allowed.

We are very concerned that this provision may have a very negative consequence and may disenfranchise potentially thousands and thousands of people who will now, through no fault of their own, not be able to vote.

We are prepared to see this bill go to committee. The government has said that it is willing to look at amendments that would correct this to ensure that by dealing with voter fraud, we are not at the same time unintentionally disenfranchising people who have a right to vote, who want to vote and who are voting legitimately, but would be precluded from doing so by these new provisions.

When the bill goes to committee, it is our intention to see substantive improvements and changes made to this bill to address what are very fundamental democratic issues. One of the provisions in the bill is that a person vouching for another can only do it for one person. This would set up a very complicated system where people who are not registered and who do not have ID would be running around trying to find somebody else who is registered, is on the list and does have the proper ID, and then getting that one person to vouch for one person. It would create a very complex situation and could mean that a lot of people would not get to vote.

It may also impact more middle class voters who go to the polls thinking that because they are registered they are okay. They have the voter cards and some ID, only to find that when they get there they do not have the proper ID. We may actually be frustrating those people.

I would also point out that this has been an issue in the U.S. elections and in fact there have been some court challenges. A similar provision was struck down in Georgia and there is currently a challenge going on in Ohio. In the United States, there is no centralized voter registration or election apparatus. It is contingent upon each state, and varies from each state, but a similar provision has been used in the U.S. and it actually has caused immense problems in the current elections that were just held yesterday. Challenges are underway and some of the provisions in some states have already been struck down. We should learn from this.

In terms of the principle of dealing with fraud, we support that but we do want to ensure we are not setting up a system that creates a two tier system where it becomes increasingly difficult for marginalized, low income people to actually exercise their franchise, which would be a travesty.

I do not think that is what anyone intended in this bill, at least I hope not. However, it will be up to us in committee to hear from experts, especially the lawyers who are very familiar, as are those in my community, with the statutory declaration process. They will be able to offer some insight into how this process works and may be able to tell us what we need to not only protect the system but protect people's right to vote.

With those kinds of concerns and reservations that we have, we are prepared to see this bill go to committee where I hope we can sit down and work on some amendments to make sure people who legitimately have the right to vote are not disenfranchised.

The House resumed from November 7 consideration of the motion 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.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

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

This is a bill that the committee has studied exhaustively. When there are things that are not working, the role of the opposition is to point them out. However, when things have worked well, then as a matter of intellectual honesty they should also be pointed out. This is called not engaging in shamelessly partisan politics. Here in the House of Commons there is of course adversarial debate, by definition. It must be noted that if a lot more discussion and a lot more collaboration among the various political parties were sought, by all sides, we would be able to produce better bills, bills that were an improvement on what was initially proposed.

Bill C-31 is a good example of what comes of excellent collaboration among the political parties. I will explain what I mean by this.

At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the government responded to a report. To summarize the sequence of events for the benefit of the people listening to us, the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, has to submit a report after an election campaign. The report is submitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That report was studied in committee and all parties are represented on that committee. Our report was tabled in the House. On October 20, the government responded to the report. The response was in writing, in the form of a formal response. There was also a legislative response. Bill C-31 represents that legislative response, which reflects a majority of the points raised in the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

In the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, when the bill goes back to committee, we will have an opportunity to suggest amendments to our colleagues in the other parties, to improve the bill once again.

The reality of a minority government means that there should be a lot more collaboration and consultation with the other parties, as I said earlier. In my view, the government should follow the example of Bill C-31 to amend the Elections Act and follow the same course for other bills.

For example, instead of insisting on pushing its law and order agenda, its right-wing agenda, the Conservative minority government should listen to the Bloc Québécois, which is calling for more emphasis to be put on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Instead of digging its heels in on its right-wing agenda, it should do the same thing with the opposition parties that are calling for the Kyoto objectives to be upheld. The Conservative government should also do the same thing for the gun registry, when it is bent on dismantling it.

I wanted to explain this point during my introduction in order to illustrate how it is possible to come up with better legislation by consulting the opposition. Why are we of the opinion that Bill C-31 is appropriate? The Bloc is in favour of it in principle. We are in favour of it because there is a whole aspect where the possibilities of fraud and error are reduced. Now, thanks to this bill, voters will have to present government issued photo ID, with the bearer’s name and address.

At home, in Quebec, the basic document could be the driver’s licence, which contains this information.

It seems to me that colleagues from New Brunswick mentioned that their driver’s licences do not have photos. I am not sure, but I think that my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst drew attention to this. The goal is to have a document that is issued by the government and bears personal information making it possible to identify the person. It is true, unfortunately, that when voter identification procedures are inadequate, some situations may arise in which people are tempted, often in exchange for money, to go and vote for other people.

There was the classic case that occurred in the Quebec riding of Anjou. I think that someone voted 34 times in the Quebec elections in Anjou. If I recall correctly, the candidate, Pierre Bélanger, lost by fewer than 50 votes. Since then, this flaw in the Quebec electoral system has been corrected.

Voters who do not have photo ID will have to provide two acceptable pieces of ID so as to establish their identity and address. The Chief Electoral Officer will publish the list of acceptable ID. In a recent election, in 2004 or 2006, someone came to a polling station to vote, armed with a pile of magazines like L'Actualité, Macleans, Femmes d'Aujourdhui and 50Plus. These magazines can be purchased every week at the supermarket. In this case, this person received them at home because she was a subscriber. On the covers was the Canada Post seal. This person managed to vote, thanks to her pile of magazines.

When people live in an apartment building, they have no guarantees that no one will go through their mail. In multiple dwelling structures, the mail is not always protected. Anyone can take the mail. So we can understand the absurd example that I gave. This person wanted to vote using this process.

Under Bill C-31, each voter's date of birth will be added to the official list of electors used in polling stations.

For example, a person might know the Speaker's name. I know the Speaker is young; I believe he is not yet 30. A person could try to pass himself off as the Speaker. At the polling station, he says he is that person. The list of electors makes it clear that that person was born in 1918. Perhaps the Speaker remained young thanks to a fountain of youth or an elixir of youth even though he was born in 1918. The birth date provides some indication that there might be a problem. This raises a flag, perhaps not a red flag, but a warning flag nonetheless. The bill includes this improvement.

Given that we believe Bill C-31 can be improved upon, I wish to announce that, subject to consultation, we intend to amend it to ensure that voters lists provided to political parties also contain date of birth information, as is the case in Quebec.

Bill C-31 will also improve the accuracy of the voters list because the chief electoral officer will assign a unique, randomly generated identifier to each voter.

This is a continuing demand of the Bloc Québécois, which has been calling for a unique permanent identification number for each voter for a long time. We would have preferred that the bill was more binding on the Chief Electoral Officer and clearer on this subject. We give notice that we will also have some suggestions for amendments on that point.

Bill C-31 also seeks to remove the deadline after which voters who have a functional limitation can no longer request a transfer certificate to a polling station offering level access. In our opinion, voters in wheelchairs or with a physical disability should have an equal opportunity to democratically express their choices. Unfortunately, when voting places are located in facilities that do not have full and free access or that involve stairs, by definition, they do not in any way promote access by voters in wheelchairs.

It is our view that Bill C-31 will improve communications between election officials, candidates, parties and voters.

Bill C-31 will give candidates a right of access to common areas of public places for election campaign purposes.

I believe that all of our colleagues here today have encountered situations where the owners of some shopping centres have refused permission for us to meet and introduce ourselves to members of the public. An election campaign is a special opportunity to call attention to ideas, to talk about our record as a member or as a party, regardless of which party is campaigning. The government can speak about its record. In the present case, the record of the Conservative government includes the torpedoing of the Kyoto protocol and a disposition in favour of war, similar to the Americans. We will have the chance to return to that record at the proper time—in an election campaign.

Bill C-31 will also provide election officials with a right of access to multiple residence dwellings and to gated communities to revise the voters list. Gated communities are dwellings to which access is controlled by a gate. How can voters be enumerated if no one is able to enter, or barely so? The accuracy of the lists then poses a problem.

Other provisions deal with certain operational and technical improvements, but I cannot list them in detail since my time has almost expired. In any case, we will have an opportunity to return to this topic. I wish simply to remind members that the Bloc Québécois will re-examine some aspects in committee or at third reading.