Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 19th, 2007

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

That's what Elections Canada identified.

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

So that answers the question about the cost of having these extra days.

Mr. Chair, far be it from me to jump in here and defend your decision to have this legislation and the minister before us, but I clearly recall at the last meeting, which was only yesterday—I don't have a long memory, but we had that special meeting yesterday to deal with Bill C-54. At the end of it, I recall you saying something to the effect that tomorrow we would have our regular Tuesday meeting at 11 a.m., and the minister would be appearing to discuss this piece of legislation. You asked if anybody had any concerns, and nobody did. So for Mr. Proulx's benefit, that's how I remember the conversation yesterday. There was notification of the events of today.

Rather than suggesting that the government or the minister is trying to suck and blow at the same time, I look at it a bit more positively—instead of always looking at it in a negative way when it comes to government legislation. I'd like to maybe use a different adage, something like we're offering Canadians the best of both worlds with this legislation.

As Mr. Proulx quite correctly stated, some people might consider it an affront to their religious convictions to vote on a Sunday. But they don't have to. They can still vote on the regular election day on Monday, in one of the other advance polls, or by attending Monday to Saturday at the returning office. So they have a lot of options as well. We're not trying to do anything negative here. I think this offers more choice.

I always believe that politics is the art of the possible, so we have to sometimes do what's doable. I guess I'm referring now to Mr. Dewar's comments about lacking vision. For the 14 years I've had the privilege of being in Parliament I've heard criticism about making any reforms to our democratic institutions because it would be piecemeal. We used to hear that all the time from former Prime Minister Paul Martin. Any time we wanted to see any changes made to either the House of Commons or the Senate of Canada, he would say he didn't want to do it piecemeal. That was an excuse for doing nothing.

Now that we're trying to make some incremental changes we're being accused of not having a vision, or cobbling this together and maybe getting ourselves into a mess that way. If we're ever going to change things around here we have to start somewhere. That's why I refer to my earlier comment about politics being the art of the possible. We want to make some changes, and I think Canadians are expecting us to make some changes. That doesn't preclude us from making more dramatic changes as we go along, and I think that was Mr. Dewar's point. I don't think this is the be-all and end-all. Nobody is saying it is, but it is a step.

I'd like to give whatever time I have left to the minister to respond, instead of using the whole five minutes for myself.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I will respond by picking up the other thing I forgot to answer to Mr. Dewar. He started as a bullfighter at the bullfight, waving the red flag, by asking me about abolishing the Senate.

[An hon. member]

Phasing it out.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Like many other things, that would require a very comprehensive approach to reform. Our approach in this Parliament is to try to seek things we can do that are achievable. We still hope the Senate can be salvaged, and we're doing our best to salvage it.

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

Am I over my five minutes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

No, you're 45 seconds under.

Mr. Dewar, you have five minutes. Then we'll start our fourth round.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thanks again to the minister.

I guess my point on the piecemeal, just to address my friend Mr. Hill, is that when you put all the pieces together, no one is against—I was careful in my comments. I supported, as did my predecessor Mr. Broadbent, electoral reform. The fixed-date election was supported. We supported the loan loophole; in fact, we brought it forward in Bill C-2. I don't want to give people the wrong impression.

But it does beg the question, what is the whole picture here? That's what my point was. We are particularly concerned, not about this bill per se, but when you add it all up, where are we going as a country in our institutions? I guess when we look back to debates around this table, we came up with a process to consult Canadians, and the government said we were against it, so they came up with this public consultation. I won't get into that taffy pull.

It really does beg the question, where are we going? I guess my concern is consulting Canadians.

When I hear from you, Minister, that this really was an idea you had—and that doesn't mean you can't have a good idea—I'm asking for you to perhaps widen the net a bit and consult Canadians on all of these ideas.

On this bill, for instance, I think we are going to hear from certain faith communities—we have to hear from them—that they might have some problems with this. For some families, although they're not being forced to vote, they'll see it as an interference in their day-to-day lives in their communities. I don't know, because we haven't done the consultation.

I guess I would ask, Minister, if you are considering doing—if it's not wider consultation beyond what this committee can do, because we were hoping to travel the country and have a parallel process on democratic reform, and unfortunately it didn't go there—any sort of polling or focus groups on what people think of this bill.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

We're not doing this from a perspective of polling or focus groups. It isn't our intention to do any of that. We think there's adequate study and research out there demonstrating that there are tangible benefits to be had in terms of increasing voter turnout. That's simply our objective, to find a way to increase voter participation because we think it has a positive ripple-on effect through society, and it increases and enhances the legitimacy of our political institutions, it leads to other forms of civic engagement and involvement, which are good for communities, and if we get people in the habit of voting by making it easier for them, we're more likely to continue to in the future.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

My question is very simple. If we don't consult with Canadians directly on these issues, aren't we leaving them out of the equation? I say that with all sincerity, because that's what I think is missing in both C-56 and C-55. We're getting it from head office, and dare I say it—and my friend Monsieur Belanger would appreciate this—often we hear out in the hinterland that that's coming from Ottawa, and that's a concern. I wouldn't want to have our reputations tainted on this or any other bill, to say that we don't provide people with good ideas in the rest of the country.

In other words, this seems and smells like and looks like coming from Ottawa and sending it out to, well, Mr. Hill's riding, etc., and saying, “We know what's good for you. Here, take it, and this will benefit you.” And that's it, as opposed to inverting that equation, going out to people and actually asking them what they think would improve—There is Mr. Reid's point, about more opportunities to vote at different places. I mentioned what they did in Manitoba. Doesn't that process make sense to you?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

What we're doing here is in fact what Mr. Reid suggested, more opportunities to vote. We're doing what Manitoba did in their provincial election, having additional advance polling days. That was one of the methodologies they used for getting voter turnout up.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Not on Sundays, not to the degree of this bill.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

They did have additional advance polling days. That methodology is indeed what we're going through.

This is, in many ways, a kind of an election mechanics bill rather than a deep philosophy bill. If you ask people, should you have more opportunities to vote, that's kind of a convenience opportunity choice, where the answer is, well, yes, why not. The people who actually really know it and understand it are the people, exactly, whom we're consulting right now. I think nobody knows better than parliamentarians the significance of these processes, how they work, how they work in practice, what's meaningful about it.

That's why it's actually a unique situation, where members of Parliament are more qualified to opine and be consulted and offer advice on this kind of issue than almost any other issue we deal with in Parliament. In fact, most of us know more about how to run an election than we know about how to run a bank.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We are on our fourth round, and I understand the minister has given us an additional half-hour this morning and has to leave shortly. However, I have two questioners left. If we can agree to go to three minutes, we might get it done.

Madam Redman is next, and then Mr. Lukiwski.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Minister, thank you very much for coming today. If I could use an Olympic analogy, I can't resist saying, in connection with what you said about short-term doable issues that this government is focused on, that sometimes I worry that it's just going for the bronze, and I think Canadians deserve better than that. I have some concern over the lack of consultation, and I would be interested to know—and I'm not going to ask you to take up time right now—if you could cite the studies. I know you've talked about the Franklin study in Houston in 2002. There's also a passing reference to the French presidential election. My understanding is that whether or not the voting is on Sunday, it's a historically large voter turnout in any election.

I'd also underscore that you're right in saying the people around this table probably know more about elections and how they work than they do about banking. However, I could also point out that from time to time, when really contentious referendum questions are put on presidential ballots in the United States, the voter turnout spikes, so I think it is a legitimate concern to say that we do need to look at other studies, other jurisdictions, and other extenuating circumstances, and not just presume that Sunday voting is going to be for higher voter turnout.

I don't think there is a member in this House who wouldn't support the idea of more Canadians being involved in the democratic process. I, however, am not persuaded there's a short straight line between Sunday voting, the cost-benefit analysis that needs to be done through this, and whether this bill has received due diligence in order to receive support.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Very quickly, the price of democracy in a cost-benefit analysis is a strictly different kind of value question than a dollar value question, so it's hard to quantify. But in terms of studies, I'd point to the 1991 Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing and Voter Turnout in Canada, by Herman Bakvis, which said that Sunday voting was a clear factor in increased turnouts in European elections and that ready access to advance polls before election day also increased voter turnout.

Second, the 2003 Pammett and LeDuc study I've referenced a number of times explained that the turnout decline in federal elections demonstrated that being too busy with work, school, and family was the reason 14.3% of the non-voting respondents gave to indicate why they didn't vote. There were other factors as well that can be covered by an advance poll.

The 1998 article “Voter Turnout at Federal General Elections in Canada”, by Louis Lavoie, makes the point that elections held on a day of rest can result in higher turnout.

There's a 2001 article called “Voter Participation in Canada: Is Canadian Democracy in Crisis?” by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada. In that one, they had a survey of the 2000 election; about 34% of respondents said they didn't vote because of work, illness, or travel, again things that can be solved by—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Minister, thank you very much. I'm wondering if we could just submit the studies. Our researchers can create a summary and get it back to the committee. It'll save a little time.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I could do that. I'd really point you to that last one I referenced. I could keep going, but there's a wide range of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

If you could kindly provide the list, then our researchers can get the study, and we'll save a little time here today.

Go ahead, Mr. Lukiwski, please, for three minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of quick comments.

One is in response to some observations raised by Mr. Dewar on having faith-based groups appearing here as witnesses. I've got no problem with that, but I would also point out that over the course of probably the last 30 or 40 years, we've had many debates on Sunday activities, whether they were on shopping on Sunday, sports on Sunday, or serving beer at sporting events on Sunday. Every time we've had those, Sunday activities have been allowed, and I have not seen any studies yet that have indicated—to me, at least—that it has negatively impacted upon the ability of any faith-based group or organization to worship and take Sunday as a religious holiday. I don't see that there's really any difference in the progression that we have been making over the last 30 or 40 years with activities occurring on a Sunday.

The second point I would make is in response to Monsieur Proulx, who was saying that he thinks they've got a real problem with staffing from Elections Canada. I would merely point out that in my riding—and perhaps it's completely different in his riding—the people we have for election officials would gladly welcome a second day, because they get paid for it. We have a budget for it, so I think there's no difficulty whatsoever, because the same individuals—

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

Are you kidding?

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

Come out to Saskatchewan, Monsieur Proulx, but thank you very much for the interruption.

I don't see that to be a problem whatsoever. There's a budget established for it. I believe we'll find there are plenty of volunteers, and we'll hear from Elections Canada on that.

The last thing is on a comment by Madam Redman. She was saying this bill was poorly thought out and needed more extensive consultation. I don't think the minister has ever said that expanded voting opportunities and voting on Sundays is ever going to be the panacea for all the ills with voter turnout, but I do think it would be almost impossible for any parliamentarian to suggest that giving voters more opportunities to vote is a bad thing. That's the bottom line here, isn't it? I can't see that giving more opportunities to cast your ballot, to exercise your franchise, is a bad thing.

With those comments, I'll cede the rest of my time to my colleague Mr. Preston.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Forty seconds, Mr. Preston.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

That's great. I just have this very small piece to do.

Through you to the minister, I'm beginning to get a complex. At this very committee we put forward a motion about consultation on democratic reform issues, and here we're being told, gee, we haven't done this enough. I seem to remember a lot of people across from me voting it down.

Mr. Minister, this committee has already asked to look at some of the democratic reform issues, and yet we weren't allowed to do so. Do you have any comment on that?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I was going to comment on the fact that I thought you said you were getting complex, and then I heard it was a complex.

No, there's no harm in doing further study and further consultations, if you want, but I do share with you a sentiment that it's difficult to understand, as Mr. Lukiwski was saying, why someone would have a resistance to this. It's good news for everyone. It's good news for dealing with some of the most affected groups.

There's no partisan angle here. One appendix that I like comes from a 2001 study by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada. They list the top ten constituencies in terms of turnout in the 2000 election: eight out of the ten are Liberal, one is NDP, and one is Alliance. They also have a list of the top ten constituencies with the lowest turnout: nine out of the ten are Liberal and one is Alliance.

So at either end of the spectrum you have people distributed. There is no partisan angle, it seems, in this exercise. It's just about making our democracy work better. That's a positive thing for everybody, I think.