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.
