Bill C-18 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (verification of residence)

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to allow an elector or voucher who provides a piece of identification that does not prove his or her residence to use that piece of identification to prove his or her residence provided that the address on the piece of identification is consistent with information related to the elector or voucher that appears on the list of electors.

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

Thank you.

Well, I find this a fascinating example of how dysfunctional this committee and this Parliament has been. Bill C-31 was a flawed bill; it was an embarrassing bill. This government has had to bring it back twice now to fix it. So C-18 is not simply a rural issue; it is a bill to address residential addresses.

We find we had this committee try to get this bill through without even asking any witnesses. They didn't want any recommendations as to why they had blown the bill so badly in the first place. So now we see this morning we have three parties that aren't even interested in asking any questions. I find this amazing, given the fact that one million rural voters were disenfranchised by this bill. Now we hear that 700,000 urban voters might not be able to vote, but that doesn't seem to have been an issue for anybody around this table.

I would like to say, for the record, that what I found in the pettiness and the myopic partisanship of this committee really speaks to what has happened with the voting bill. Bill C-31 was set up as a problem looking for a solution, a solution looking for a problem. Bill C-18 is an attempt to fix the mistakes that were made.

The other day, just to show you the extent of myopic views that we have on this committee, they wanted unanimous consent to get Bill C-18 through without any witnesses, without any discussion. I said we have to do due diligence. As legislators, our job is to do due diligence.

At the time, my good friend Mr. Lukiwski thanked me for not putting it through because he said it would give his party the opportunity to run 10% attack ads in Saskatchewan against the NDP. For what, I'm not sure. I suppose it's because we're doing our job.

So I'd like to begin my questioning.

Mr. Quail, you say that 700,000 urban residents will potentially not be able to vote because of this bill. Could you elaborate on that, because you are saying this is different from the one million voters whom this government has already booted out the door with their mistake?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's not a point of order; that's debate.

Could we have the microphone of the member shut off, please?

With all due respect to the witnesses, the issue turns out that we appreciate your being prepared for this committee. However, to help the committee do its work, we ask for testimony on specific subjects. Those subjects change from time to time as legislation comes before us, is passed, is modified, and so on. At that time we will invite you back again to help us make decisions on those.

We're not here today to solve the problems of the past. That bill was passed. We're here to talk about this verification of rural addresses.

I appreciate the witnesses' opening statements. We do have some time for questions. We'll open it for questions, but I will warn members that we're trying to get Bill C-18 through. We'll have all kinds of time for all these other issues. Let's not use every opportunity to run an agenda. Let's stick with Bill C-18. We'll be back on that agenda.

The first round of questions is seven minutes long. Are there any members who wish to speak to it?

Mr. Angus, seven minutes, please.

[Murray Mollard, Executive Director, B.C. Civil Liberties Association]

Thank you.

My name is Murray Mollard. I'm a lawyer and the executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association in Vancouver.

We don't have very much time, and I'm going to keep my remarks very short. I have had the opportunity of appearing before a variety of committees in the time I've worked at the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, which is over 12 or 13 years now, and I've never had such short notice to be called as a witness as on this bill.

I am very concerned that this bill appears to be a very quick job, whereby Parliament is attempting to rectify a problem that was created by Bill C-31. We testified over a year ago, and we've been asked to testify again. I think the things we're wanting to say today, along with some of the other witnesses, are really about problems that we identified with Bill C-31 in the first place. There are various groups of voters who wish to vote and would like to vote but aren't going to be able to effectively vote because of the combination of Bill C-31...which really hasn't been rectified by Bill C-18.

I think for you as a parliamentary committee concerned with the issue of voting, the big question or the big concern we have heard with respect to the amendments to the Canada Elections Act is that there's a real concern about fraud. We still have to see any real evidence as to whether this fraud is a real problem or not, and certainly that is going to be an issue for us.

[James, Jim) Quail (Executive Director, British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre]

Last winter Mr. Kingsley predicted that some 5% of voters would have difficulty casting ballots because of Bill C-31. That estimate was extrapolated from the experience of urban voters in Toronto municipal elections. Some 14 million Canadians voted in the last general parliamentary election, so 5% of that number is about 700,000.

Bill C-18 addresses a different problem, that of rural voters without assigned civic street addresses. In the public discussion accompanying the introduction of Bill C-18, we heard estimates that about one million rural voters could be affected by this problem. That million voters is a different group from the 700,000 urban voters Mr. Kingsley has warned us about.

Bill C-18 would fix a part of the problem created by Bill C-31, but only a part of it. If a voter without a street address or a post office box collects mail from general delivery in the Spuzzum post office and brings a hydro bill to the polls as one of their documents, according to Bill C-18 they will now be able to vote. An identically situated voter who does not use general delivery will not be allowed to vote.

If anyone can explain how it furthers the cause of confirming voters' qualification to have people prove that they use a post office box or a general delivery slot in a post office, I would be fascinated to hear about it. There is a word for a rule that makes a distinction in voting rights based on that kind of scenario. In my respectful submission, that word is “silly”.

After Bill C-18 there would remain distinctions that are a lot worse than silly. Parliament will still have disenfranchised homeless people. It is a result akin to reintroducing the concept of a property qualification for elections. Bill C-18 does nothing to resolve any of the problems created by Bill C-31, except to assist some rural voters who would otherwise lose the ability to vote. They would still have to jump through all of the other hurdles put in place by Bill C-31.

The most sensible solution is to repeal all of the new voter documentation rules that were introduced by Bill C-31.

By the way, I filed a petition in the B.C. Supreme Court seeking that the court do that, but I would suggest that Parliament undertake it itself.

Alternatively, Parliament should provide for a declaration and a prescribed form, which would be available in all polling places, rural and urban, for voters to attest who they are. That would be a far better proof of entitlement to vote than the production of a utility bill or a driver's licence.

It is gratifying to see that Parliament has recognized that Bill C-31 was off target and is taking steps to resolve at least part of the problem. I hope you will complete that job and ensure that every Canadian citizen has an opportunity to exercise their democratic rights in the next election.

Thank you.

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

Yes. I didn't want to interrupt the witness, but I point back to your earliest observations about relevancy. We're dealing with Bill C-18, which merely states that anyone who has a non-civic address, if that same address appears in the voters list, should be allowed to vote. That's all we're talking about; it's a very simple bill.

The complexities the witnesses are bringing forward go far beyond what we're dealing with in Bill C-18. I think we have to come back to Bill C-18.

[Ian Boyko, Government Relations Coordinator, Canadian Federation of Students]

My name is Ian Boyko. I'm the government relations coordinator for the Canadian Federation of Students, which unites approximately half a million students at colleges and universities from coast to coast in all 10 provinces.

I'm going to abandon my remarks today, because two minutes isn't enough to even touch on some of the things we have concerns with.

What I will flag for the committee is that my members are having great difficulty understanding the rush that was involved with Bill C-31 in the spring and now the rush that's involved with Bill C-18 today, when there are so many flaws in the Elections Act that prevent students and those with transient addresses from registering to vote.

I welcome your questions, specifically with respect to proof of identity and residence and the provisions for vouching, which will ensure that tens of thousands of students won't be able to meet the Elections Act requirements in the upcoming federal election.

As I said, we have serious concerns about the way students are being alienated from this process and why there is the rush on rural voters and not the rush on other very important voting populations who were ignored in Bill C-31 and are also ignored in Bill C-18.

[Naresh Raghubeer, Executive Director, Canadian Coalition for Democracies]

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good morning. My name is Naresh Raghubeer, and I am executive director of the Canadian Coalition for Democracies, CCD for short. I appear before you today on behalf of my organization.

We at the Canadian Coalition for Democracies--a non-partisan, multi-ethnic, multi-religious organization of concerned Canadians dedicated to human rights, national security, and the promotion of democracy--are concerned that provisions enacted by Bill C-18 may make the system of voting more susceptible to abuse. Consider the federal government's 1997 study A History of the Vote in Canada. It says, “Evolution of the right to vote was neither consistent nor ordered...rather, it evolved haphazardly, with the franchise expanding and contracting numerous times.” Today's parliamentary committee hearings serve further evidence that electoral matters continue to evolve, and not always in the most predictable of ways. The quest for accommodation, partly reasonable and partly unreasonable, is raising concerns.

First, CCD is concerned by the government's decision to “permit a voter to vouch for another voter where the acceptable identification of the former lacks a civic address”. Taking the government's suggestion to its logical conclusion, we may very soon be seeing on election day a potential voter dressed in a full burka vouching for another voter clad in a burka. While this may not trouble some members of committee who have already voiced their support for--

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Monsieur Guimond.

What I had been suggesting is that, if possible, we deal with clause-by-clause on Bill C-18 today. I'm not sure how all opposition parties would view this, but if we were able to get clause-by-clause done by today, I would then ask for unanimous consent in the House to report it back to the House today, which would allow us to debate Bill C-18 on Thursday. If we were able to conclude debate on Thursday, we could vote Thursday evening. In that way, Bill C-18 could be referred to the Senate before we rise for Christmas. If we cannot accomplish that, then Bill C-18 will not become law, will not be granted royal assent, until the new year.

My concern is, again, that because of pending elections, we may be in a situation where Bill C-18 is not a law before a byelection or a general election. That's why I'd like to get it done today, if possible, rather than wait until Thursday.

If we wait until Thursday, Michel, this bill will not be given royal assent until sometime in the new year, perhaps as late as February.

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

I am asking for unanimous consent regarding what you discussed with Ms. Picard, and your proposal, Tom, through you, Mr. Chairman, that we finish hearing witnesses on C-18 and then immediately move to Ms. Picard's item, and that we do Bill C-18 clause-by-clause consideration on Thursday morning.

I have checked with my Liberal colleagues and my NDP colleague; they agree with your proposal, Mr. Lukiwski. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I have announced that we would support having Bill C-18 sent to the Senate as quickly as possible for consideration there.

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

I have a point of order.

I am sorry to interrupt you. Given the delay in getting started, I think that you will find unanimous consent to... It is unfortunate that Mr. Lukiwski has not arrived yet. He had discussions with us, and we agreed with our NDP colleagues and the Liberals that we could finish hearing witnesses today and deal with Ms. Picard's item, and then do clause-by-clause study on Thursday.

As far as we are concerned, I can tell you immediately, Mr. Chairman, that if the government were to present a motion to have Bill C-18 sent to the Senate as quickly as possible, the Bloc Québécois would support it.

I am asking for unanimous consent. Mr. Reid may not be aware of this, but it is what Mr. Lukiwski has proposed.

I have unanimous consent with regard to what you suggest. I hope you will be okay with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Ladies and gentlemen, let's bring our meeting to order.

First, I want to apologize briefly—simply because we're running a little short on time—for starting late this morning. We had some business in the chamber that had to be attended to. So we're starting right away, following a vote in the House, pursuant to the committee's order of reference of Friday, November 16, 2007, on Bill C-18, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, in regard to verification of residence.

During the second hour of this meeting we're going to begin discussions and consideration of the first report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business regarding Bill C-482.

Colleagues, this morning we have a number of witnesses. We have two witnesses here in the room with us, as well as three by video conference.

To the witnesses, in a moment's time I'm going to give you each no more than two minutes to introduce yourself and, if you choose, provide us with an opening statement. That will allow members more time to ask questions that are very specific to their needs.

I want to remind members and witnesses that we have been dealing with a few bills that are very similar. I'm going to listen very carefully and try to keep us on topic and relevant to the topic this morning, which is the rural address identification and verification issue.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, 2007 has been a great year for Canada and a great year for the House of Commons.

Next week is the last week of the fall sitting and the last week before the new year. The sitting and the year have been extremely successful for the federal government, as we have introduced legislation in all of our priority areas and have delivered results for Canadians.

However, since we have only a few sitting days remaining this year to address important tax cuts, security issues and other priority bills still pending, Canadians are expecting us to work very hard in the coming days to produce results for them.

We want to see our priority bills passed in this House and sent to the Senate so that they may become law before Christmas. As a result, next week will be 2007, a year of results week.

We plan to build on our past achievements by debating and passing the budget implementation bill, which would lower taxes for all Canadians by reducing the GST to 5%, as well as by bringing in tax cuts for individuals and corporations.

We will debate Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, which must be passed by Parliament before January 1 to ensure that it is implemented and we can benefit from that.

We will also debate our railway transportation bill, Bill C-8, and our bill on the settlement of international investment disputes, Bill C-9. Both bills will help create jobs and provide economic certainty for Canadians.

Our government will continue to show Canadians that we are serious about tackling crime and strengthening the security of Canadians. Next week, we expect that our security certificates bill, Bill C-3, will be reported back from committee. The bill will then be debated at report stage and third reading. We hope the hon. members of the House understand the importance of passing this legislation so that it may be considered and passed by the Senate before the deadline imposed by the Supreme Court.

We will debate any amendments made to our Bill C-13 on criminal procedure, currently being examined by the Senate.

Speaking of the Senate, the government hopes that the tackling violent crime act will pass the Senate so Canadians can feel safer over the Christmas holidays knowing that the bill has been enacted into law.

Canadians also expect their institutions to be more accountable and democratic. We have built a record of results on this file as well, with the passage of the Federal Accountability Act and Bill C-31 to improve the integrity of the voting process. Next week we will continue with our plans in this area by debating Bill C-29, which closes a loophole in our campaign financing laws that Liberal leadership candidates used to bypass campaign contribution limits last year.

We would also like Bill C-6, on the visual identification of voters, and Bill C-18, on the verification of residence, to be sent back by committee. It is important for these bills to become law, so that they can be implemented in time for the next byelections.

Tomorrow I will also seek consent to send Bill C-30, the specific land claims bill, to committee. This bill to create certainty and allow land claims to be resolved more quickly is a welcome addition and the country will be better off the sooner its process is put in place.

This year, 2007, has been an excellent year for Canada. Our economy is booming, the country is united and there is integrity in government.

We have achieved a lot this year. Our government has delivered real results for Canadians in 2007 and will continue to do so next week and in the new year.

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

Before everybody scoots off here, this would require unanimous consent. I'm not sure it will get it, but it's merely to take up a kind offer that Madam Redman made when she said she wanted to deal with Bill C-18, on rural voting, expeditiously. If there's unanimous consent from this committee to pass that bill at all three stages, we could report it back to the House. I'm not talking about Bill C-6, on veiled voting. I know there's going to be lots of debate on that. I'm just talking about the rural voting, Bill C-18.

But we would need unanimous consent to be able to do that.

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

It is, and in response to Marcel and Charlie, I don't know about my colleagues, but I'm not trying to filibuster this, because I want to get to Bill C-6 and Bill C-18.

For the benefit of all members--and I know Pierre and Karen would know this--my minister wanted to make sure I informed everybody that Bill C-6 and Bill C-18 are priorities for our government. We want to get them passed before we rise for the break, because there could be byelections coming up. I certainly don't want to unduly delay this thing here--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Reid, I apologize for interrupting, but I have to respect members' agendas.

Colleagues, the subcommittee on code of ethics will be meeting on Thursday, 9:30 a.m. to 11 a.m., regarding the disclosure forms. That's just a reminder. That is just before the main committee's meeting at 11 o'clock.

As the committee agreed last week, I will need a list of potential witnesses for Bill C-6 and Bill C-18. If it's at all possible to have any lists in by Thursday at 9 a.m., that would be very helpful for our clerks.

The committee agreed last Thursday to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-16 on Thursday, December 6, which is our next meeting. I'm just being informed that we have all party amendments, so that's fantastic. We will therefore proceed to clause-by-clause of Bill C-16 on Thursday, failing any other motions to go in a different direction.

Ms. Redman, please.