Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 6th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We'll start our debate, please.

Mr. Lukiwski's hand was up first, then Madam Redman.

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

Thank you, Chair.

My points are not to debate whether or not it's appropriate to have the Sunday prior to voting day as an advance poll or, as some would call it, a second polling day. My argument is one that's strictly on procedure.

I believe your ruling was correct. This clearly is outside the scope, because this bill, as we received it, was passed at second reading and then came to committee. Procedures and practices of the House indicate that amendments at committee after second reading should only be, shall we say, technical in nature, certainly not substantive. By contrast, if a bill were submitted to committee before second reading, then substantive amendments could certainly be made. That's why there's a difference between committees receiving bills before or after second reading.

The clear procedures of our own House indicate this amendment should be ruled out of order since it is very substantive, since one of the key provisions of the bill was to include the Sunday prior to voting day and all the provisions contained there.

I can't see any procedural reason why it would be appropriate to overturn your ruling, because your ruling was clearly quite correct by the very rules and procedures and practice that govern us.

That having been said, that's obviously my opinion. I would like to ask for comments from some of our officials from PCO as to their views. I don't know if the term “appropriateness of this amendment” would be correct, but certainly whether they think this amendment should be considered in order or not.

Chair, I'm not sure which one of the witnesses you wish to....

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

If the witnesses raise their hands, I could introduce, or please just speak up.

[Marc Chénier]

I think this is something for the chair and the committee to decide, whether the provision was out of order or not.

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

Just to conclude then, Chair, if that was your comment, that's fine, but I again point out the fact that this should be considered out of order only because it substantively changes the bill. That's not what we are here to do. We received this bill after second reading. This bill passed second reading in the House. Now the very core of this bill is being gutted, quite frankly, if this amendment passes. That's just not consistent with the procedures and practices of the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

Madam Redman, please.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would have to say I think there is a lot of goodwill in this committee, and there's a wholehearted agreement on the intent of this bill, which is, certainly as put forward by the government, to increase voter turnout.

This bill was referred to us after second reading; however, I would say we have heard from all the faith communities, almost universally, that they didn't see this as a very workable solution and a very good idea. We also heard from the Chief Electoral Officer that this is in essence duplicating election day. So I would say that eliminating that duplication of election day is by no means meant to subvert the intent of this bill. We had exactly the same motion. As a matter of fact, we've brought forward other motions we think really add to the robustness of trying to get greater voter participation.

I think this is true to the intent as expressed by the government, which is greater voter participation, and certainly we shouldn't ask witnesses to take the time and trouble to come here, listen to their testimony, and yet not have that reflected in the bill, which I think is appropriate.

That is why I feel it is in order, because I think there are other ways we can increase voter turnout.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was somewhat stunned by your ruling. I think what we've tried to do at this committee is look at the legislation with an open mind, to hear as many viewpoints as possible, and to try to work collaboratively.

There are two elements in this bill. One is the element in terms of ensuring that there's adequate advance polling, and I think the preponderance of opinion agrees with that. The other question was whether or not this so-called final advance poll was really an advance poll or was a full-out voting day and whether that was good or not. That is our job as members of this committee, to review legislation. To draw the line here, you're basically giving us a choice of whether or not to support the bill or throw it out. But there are two key elements in this bill, and one element certainly, I think, failed the means test, and that is why it came to committee. We were more than willing to have it come to committee so that we could hear expert witnesses, but certainly the issue of that Sunday failed the means test before the witnesses.

The other elements of the bill certainly have received, I think, very clear support. The New Democrats would certainly be more than willing to continue clause-by-clause on this bill. But on that one Sunday, the evidence does not support what was brought forward in this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Paquette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I will be brief because I completely agree with what the two previous speakers have said. However, I would point out that the bill is entitled "An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (expanded voting opportunities) and to make a consequential amendment to the Referendum Act" and I would stress the expanded voting opportunities.

We, or other parties, will be making a series of motions to respond to the need for expanded voting opportunities. There is a technical detail that some members of the committee thought had not stood the test of the testimony. It is also entirely proper for parliamentarians to be responsible and point out that some element of a bill is more of an irritant than a real opportunity for expanded voting opportunities.

Overall, the spirit of the bill will prevail, because ultimately, after it passes in committee, the bill will mean that Canadians and Quebeckers will have more opportunities to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Reid, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to say that my recollection of what happened with our witnesses was a little different from what some of the other people here have recalled. We started by making the observation that we heard from all faith groups and their opposition to this. Well, we didn't hear from all faith groups.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

There were a lot of faith groups that we heard from.

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

We didn't hear from all faith groups. We didn't hear, for example, from Jews, who of course, have a Sabbath on Saturday. Therefore, for an observant Jew, voting at any point in time from Friday at sundown to Saturday at sundown is not an option. That eats very heavily into the available days. If you work at a nine-to-five job and you're an observant Jew, five days a week.... You can't vote on Friday, you can't vote on Monday, and you can't vote on Saturday. I guess you could get to the poll on Saturday evening, but I can't remember how late they run. Is it 8 p.m., perhaps? But depending on the time of year, the sun hasn't gone down yet, so effectively if you're an observant Jew in Canada, under the current law you can't vote at an advance poll.

I admit there are lots of ridings that don't have a lot of observant Jews in them, and mine would be one, but that seems like a bit of a dismissive attitude. Had I realized that this was going to be the line taken by other parties, I would have brought in somebody, say a rabbi, to explain the difficulties that are imposed by this particular law. There are other religious groups that have other holy days, of course, but the restrictions placed on an observant Jew are significantly greater if you're trying to observe the Sabbath than the restrictions placed on a Christian, including a Christian who believes you ought not to work on the Sabbath. Given the way the law is currently written, the imposition the current law as unamended places on your ability to vote at an advance poll is significantly greater.

This is a colossal oversight. Approving this amendment and the other ones that deal with stripping back other aspects of the voting on the final day before polling day would have a really significant impact on the capacity of observant Jews to vote here. I'll just leave that as it is. I think that case speaks for itself.

I don't concur with Madam Redman's recollection that all the people from whom we heard oppose Sunday voting. As I recall, there were three witnesses. One was from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, I think, one was from a Baptist federation of churches, and the third one was from the United Church. As I recall, the representative from the Evangelical Fellowship and the Baptist representative were opposed to Sunday voting. The representative from the United Church was extremely specific in saying no, we'd be happy to continue to have our churches as polling places, and to see Sunday voting occur, we would like the time polling starts at to be moved to 1 p.m. That's a very specific observation. It demonstrates the inaccuracy of the statement made by Mrs. Redman and I think by someone else on the opposition side with regard to the unanimity of the Christian community on this subject.

That is, Mr. Chairman, leaving aside the astounding change of direction in the opposition parties, who normally would be at an uproar over things like.... Do you remember the Lord's Day Act in Ontario, the law that said we can't shop on Sundays because it's the Lord's day? Well, that's an outrage. That's the imposition of the views of one faith community on the whole country in a supposedly secular society.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, are we going to sit and listen to filibuster, or is there a point to this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's not a point of order.

Mr. Reid, you have the floor.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I would expect members to use the point of order call for that reason only. Members have been at this committee long enough to know what a point of order is.

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

Mr. Angus, in his comments, for example, has been quite explicit in thinking that the Christian faith should be privileged over other faiths in our society, and I must say that has been quite a surprise. I'd be most disappointed in seeing that commentary. If we believe in a secular society, if we believe in a society in which all faiths are equal, then there is no reason to privilege one, and certainly one should at least make the effort to give reasons other than that we need to protect the day of worship of Christians, but not of other people, which effectively has been his argument, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure he'll want to revisit that point of view.

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

I'd like to respond.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Angus, if I may make a comment—and probably I'll be ruled out of order—I would like to comment to all members that in none of these amendments has it been suggested we delete proposed subsection 167.1(2), which leaves in the Sunday voting before this Sunday. The argument I'm hearing from members, that it's an inconvenience to have voting on Sunday and that this is the attempt to remove Sunday and it doesn't matter, the chair finds irrelevant.

Mr. Reid.

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

That actually was going to be my next point: that if we really believe we ought to protect Sundays for this reason, then it seems passing strange to me that we would eliminate one Sunday but not the other Sunday.

I suggest that there is some other motivation. I don't know what it is, but it sure isn't the stated motivation, which I find hard to believe is the real motivation, based on the fact that I can't believe Mr. Angus and other members really believe the rights of Christians should be protected but not those of other religious practices in this country.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my comments on that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Preston, please.

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

I was going to make many of the same comments as Mr. Reid made.

I've heard the reference from the other side that we've heard witnesses saying the contrary of what we're saying here. I sat here and didn't hear the same thing, apparently. I heard the same thing; I heard the United Church clearly say they thought the Sunday was a great day, that they wanted to move the time around, and that the use of their churches was a perfectly good thing. So I maybe heard the same thing as Mr. Reid, and the others heard something different.

I heard many of other witnesses tell us that the specificity of having a polling station on the Sunday at the place where a polling station would be would, in rural communities, increase voter turnout. We had some of the academics come here and tell us.... We can argue about how much they said it would improve it, but that's the point of this bill: to improve voter turnout. We've had people come here and tell us it would do that.

Yes, we've heard from some faith-based groups who said they wouldn't vote on the Sunday, but we've left them the option not to.

I agree with what Mr. Reid has said, and I'll leave it at that.