Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Are there other comments?

Thank you, colleagues, for discussing both the proposed amendments. I think we have enough information now to put the question forward.

Do you want a little more conversation? That's fine.

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that we were taking the French portion of BQ-2 and the English version of G-2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm going to look around the table and see if that's the understanding of other members. Is that the understanding? I'm seeing everybody nodding. Fair enough.

I'm being advised that this is the question: shall we agree to drop BQ-2 and adopt G-2?

Monsieur Guimond.

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

I would like to read the French version of amendment G-2. Ms. Kim told me earlier that it was the same wording as amendment BQ-2. I do not know how this works. Do we have to sub-amend amendment G-2 by using the French version of amendment BQ-2? I don't want to get bogged down in procedure, but—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Is everybody happy now? We'll use the French version of the Bloc motion.

I'm sorry, go ahead, Monsieur Guimond.

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

I withdraw amendment BQ-2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Shall amendment G-2 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 5)

On clause 5, folks, we have a number of amendments before us. We'll start with BQ-3 on page seven of your outline. I would like to point out that there is a bit of a line conflict here. There are a number of amendments on exactly the same line, so we're really dealing with this in the order we received them, in this case.

I'll leave this up to Monsieur Guimond. There are three Bloc changes, all dealing with the same line.

Monsieur Guimond, would you please apprise the committee?

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

The purpose of the amendment is to introduce a concept that has existed in Quebec for a number of years already. Quebec also has privacy and access to information legislation, hence the need to identify the elector. I have often given the example of a person coming to us with all the required documents indicating he was born in 1908—making him 99 years old—when he looks 22 years old. I think adding date of birth to our lists will allow us to better identify the elector and, at the same time, reduce fraud. That is the purpose of every amendment involving date of birth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Monsieur Guimond.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We would oppose the Bloc amendment just because of the date of birth. I understand that in Quebec it is proper, but my understanding is—and I'd like to get the panel's assessment of this—that we would have a problem federally with privacy, with the Privacy Act. If that's the concern, then, although I personally like the date of birth of concept, I think we have a problem in being in contravention of the Privacy Act.

I'd like to get our panel to make a comment on that, if we could.

[Natasha Kim]

If there were an express statutory authorization that could deal with the Privacy Act issue.... As the minister stated in his remarks when he appeared, it's more a concern about the distribution and the principles of privacy protection generally, and Canadians may be fairly sensitive about this information. If there is no significant policy objective behind it--and it's not clear that there is--in the same way as putting it on the revised list and the official list used at the polls would be, then there are privacy concerns as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I have somebody else on my list, Monsieur Guimond. Is this on the same point? If it is, I'm happy to let you continue.

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

I just want to ask a question on this.

You say that Canadians are fairly sensitive about personal information, but what is worse than stating one's address at the voting station? Furthermore, if this works in a province like Quebec, why would it be a problem in a federal election?

[Natasha Kim]

I'm sorry, what was the first question?

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

The question was on providing one's address.

[Natasha Kim]

The revised and official list will have the date of birth on it, which is provided for in Bill C-31. It amends section 107 for that purpose, so that polling officials can identify and confirm someone's date of birth for the purposes of dealing with voter fraud. The address is something that almost must be used for that purpose. But the point of this amendment, and a number of these other amendments, would be to add that date of birth to lists that are distributed to candidates and parties and MPs as well.

[Dan McDougall]

At the time of voting, the issue would be exactly the same: if there were privacy concerns with respect to both date of birth and address at the time of voting, they would apply equally. The issue here is that we were talking about the distribution of a list. That's one step removed from the time of voting. It's less clear that the intention is exclusively to prevent fraud at that particular time. The structure, as currently within Bill C-31, is to have the list with the date of birth available at the official register, so at the time of voting it could be used for verification. But for more general distribution prior to the actual voting, having that list distributed is potentially cause for concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I have concerns that were expressed already, but I have just a couple of key points, and I expressed these in committee.

I don't think Canadians are comfortable with their birthdates being attached to a list, particularly when we look at who might share this list. I just think of the issues around identity theft. What we're doing here by including birthdates as proposed is essentially giving more opportunities for identity theft.

On the question that was asked around the difference between providing birthdates and addresses, addresses are pretty public as it is. You can look in the phone book, or there are other ways of cross-tabulating one's address and one's name. It's fairly simple to do. But it is not the same for one's birthdate, and I think we have to be very careful--we're going into new territory here--that we don't overcompensate our concerns with voter fraud with...privacy.

As I mentioned before in this committee, I was hoping to hear from Ms. Stoddart, and I know we attempted to have her speak, but I think we need to err on the side of caution. I think concerns around privacy outweigh the concerns we have here about tightening up a process, particularly when we're providing things like a random ID and we have other parts of this bill that will deal with oversight. So I just can't support the amendment that includes this kind of information.

The last point--and we heard this in committee--is that for people who are fleeing war-torn countries, who have suffered from being on lists and having identification to the detail we're prescribing here, it would be a problem, and it would be a problem that I don't think anyone around this table would be able to identify with. But certainly when people are on lists and they've fled war-torn countries...and the detail to which your name, your address, your phone number, all of those things are included, I think adding a birthdate is very problematic.

The last point is simply that I've talked to a couple of seniors about this--this is not quantified at all; it's just anecdotal--and it's not something they're keen on having.

So just for those reasons, I don't see being able to support this. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Hill, and then Madam Jennings.

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

Well, I appreciate the concerns being expressed. I have a couple of questions for the panel.

One is an observation that I think most Canadians are comfortable with having their birthdate appear on official documents. We certainly have that with our driver's licence and things like that. It aids authorities in being able to ask you a question about whether it's actually your identification. Because if you don't know your birthdate, then obviously you're not that person.

I remember the discussion we had on this very point, and it was to aid poll clerks themselves, so that when an individual was in front of them, it would give them further assistance when looking at the person. Obviously, if the person's name was exactly the same.... Take the case of a father and son, if for some reason the son was going to cast a ballot for the father. If on the list the person's name is the same, but their birthdate shows that they're 60 years old, and the person in front of you is obviously not 60, you'd be able to catch that.

My question, then, is whether there's some way we could still have that aid, for lack of a better term, available to the polling clerks to be able to accurately identify the citizen who's in front of them without having it on a list, that list being the same list that's distributed, if that's the concern.

In other words, the list that's distributed to campaigns or candidates or anywhere other than specifically to Elections Canada polling clerks would not have the birthdates on it. Because I don't see any reason why, as a candidate running my campaign, I would need to have that information in addition to the identity of the citizen on the voters list.

Would that be possible in order to address this? If it's not, then obviously, for the same reasons that have been expressed by others, I'd probably err on the other side of caution and say we'd better just drop this idea of having that available to the poll clerks.

[Natasha Kim]

Clause 18 of Bill C-31 does provide for that right now. It makes a distinction between the lists that are used at the polls--the advance polls and the regular polls--and the lists that are distributed.

So it makes that fine distinction, reflecting the committee's recommendation on that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Are you comfortable with that?

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

Well, there's no reason to have it here then if it's going to be available, in a different clause, to the poll clerks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Let's have a few more comments on it, and then we'll call the question.

Madame Jennings, Monsieur Guimond, and then Monsieur Proulx.