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

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Madame Robillard.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, let's try to keep things in context and leave aside the religious days belonging to Muslims, Jews or Christians. That is not the basic issue. The basic issue is that all of the political parties want to expand voter participation.

The evidence that the various witnesses presented to us, including the research that has been done on the subject, cannot categorically establish that the proposals to add two days, two Sundays, are going to increase the number of voters substantially.

It has not been proved, and so I would wonder: can we find other ways to increase voter turnout? Looking at the amendments proposed by the various opposition parties, you can see that this is precisely the objective we are trying to achieve.

The Chief Electoral Officer told us about the difficulties there would be in implementing these measures—very concrete techniques. We can have fine principles, but how will it work on the ground?

Setting an advance polling day immediately before the general polling day creates significant difficulties for election workers, who will have to follow two different sets of procedures and processes from one day to the next. We have been told that in very concrete terms.

In addition there is our difficulty in attracting election workers, which has been acknowledged. It is in this much more general context that we are saying yes to an advance polling day, but a week before the official polling day, so that this confusion and difficulty don't arise. We will therefore be proposing amendments subsequently today.

On the question of the $34 million that the government's proposal is going to cost, how could we better use that $34 million to increase the number of voters? That is the issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have two points. I said originally I didn't want to get into debate on the merits of the bill, because I wanted to concentrate on the procedural aspects of it. I will ask for comment, perhaps, from some of the analysts on the propriety of the procedural change the opposition members are trying to enact.

But to clarify and to get my two cents' worth in on debate on the merits of the bill, I cannot agree with the position taken by the opposition members who have spoken and have said that the vast majority of people who came here said the Sunday prior to voting day is a bad idea. It's not what I heard at all.

At least Madame Robillard is making the argument advanced by the Elections Canada official, saying it would cost $34 million; that's a substantive argument. However, I would counter-argue, as evidenced by the testimony from Professor Ned Franks, who asked, what price democracy? He said it costs on average about an extra $150 to put that extra day in. Do you want to tell a constituent that he or she was denied the opportunity to vote for the sake of $150 because it was too much money? What is the price of democracy?

We heard consistently from experts—and I realize that these are opinions, since there's no empirical evidence yet, because we haven't had a Sunday prior to voting day.... All of the opinions of these experts said there's not going to be a substantive increase in voter turnout, in their opinion, but there probably will be one running anywhere from 1% to 4%, which is a significant number.

If the intent of this bill and the intent of the committee is to try to provide increased voter turnout, to get more people engaged in the democratic right to vote, then what are we arguing about here? It's clearly not a view advanced by members opposite saying that Sunday is going to be an infringement on the faith-based organizations. That's not true of all of them. Some of them said it would be an inconvenience, but others, such as the United Church, said clearly it wouldn't; they'd welcome it.

Mr. Reid made a very cogent argument in asking, what about other religious faiths? Are they going to be inconvenienced, and why are we only choosing the Christian faith that might be inconvenienced?

The crux of the bill is to try to do something that would actually increase voter turnout. Every single person who came here, except for the faith-based organizations, said that in their opinion it would. They said, pass the bill.

Maybe we can do other things that would increase voter turnout in other areas, but at least as a start, this is a pretty good idea. It may not increase the voter turnout by a whole bunch, but it will probably increase it. And isn't that what we're trying to do here? I thought we all agreed on this, that we were trying to bring a piece of legislation forward that would actually increase the number of people who would cast ballots.

Every single person who came forward, with the exception of the faith-based groups—and even they didn't question, I might add, Mr. Chair, whether or not voter turnout would increase.... They didn't even touch that argument; they just touched on the argument about how it would inconvenience them. But that's not the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is not to talk about whether this is going to inconvenience Elections Canada in terms of having to hire extra staff, or whether it would cost Elections Canada more money, or whether it would inconvenience faith-based groups. The purpose of the bill was to try to do something that would increase voter turnout, and every person who offered an opinion on that said yes, in their opinion, this would increase voter turnout.

Now, if the bill were intended to increase voter turnout by 10%, then I would tend to start agreeing with some of our members opposite, because I haven't heard anybody say it would increase it by 10%. But it would increase it incrementally. Then, as I believe Professor Franks said, perhaps that would multiply over the years, because perhaps the Sunday voting would have a positive impact on young people, the demographic least likely to vote right now, and on their voting, and then, once they got in the habit of voting, they might continue the habit.

So for all of those arguments, which I'm just repeating here and was hoping my colleagues would recall, the opinions were that this bill and the Sunday, particularly, would increase voter turnout.

We have a procedural argument here. I believe your ruling was quite correct in ruling it out of order. But on the merits of the bill itself, what are we doing here? Why are we saying we want to scrap Sundays, when every single person who came before this committee said yes, I think—I don't know for sure, and we'll have to see, but I think—it will probably increase voter turnout? That was the intent of the bill.

Finally, then, I would ask if the clerks or the analysts would be prepared to offer an opinion on the appropriateness of the chair's ruling. I mean, is it, from a procedural standpoint? Or am I putting you in a conflict here? I don't want to do that, but I think I'm right when I make my procedural argument that this is out of scope.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Are you finished, Mr. Lukiwski?

Mr. Angus, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm still trying to come to terms with this sudden outburst. This is not about pitting orthodox Jews against imposing Christian values. This is about the efficacy of this legislation.

We sat here as members taking witnesses to see and to test.... I don't think there's anybody here who's questioned the possibility that the advance polls.... Well, certainly every faith group is going to potentially take a hit. They could go on that day or not. The question then becomes whether the Sunday before, which is full voting, is the real intent of this legislation.

I guess I'm surprised that, from what I'm hearing from the Conservatives, that is the point of this bill. All the other stuff appears to be a bit of flowers on top, window dressing. Now it's becoming clear that when we tested the various witnesses—and it wasn't just the faith groups, it was Elections Canada when we had representatives from Saskatchewan—about the actual implementation, whether this was a good piece of the bill or not.... Now we're seeing that all the other elements of the advance polling seem to be almost irrelevant. It's the issue of that Sunday, so that's what we have to discuss.

Obviously there is some consensus on this side of the table that the Sunday before is unnecessary. That is our right as members of this committee, having brought the question.

The question was raised again and again, very clearly, consistently, to witnesses. And we waited. You don't need unanimous opinion from witnesses, Mr. Chair, to develop an opinion. You work on a cross-section. That's what we all do here. So we've done our job. Now it comes down to these clauses. I think we should simply start to move ahead on them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Mr. Reid.

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

Mr. Angus raised the question of effectively having universal polls voting everywhere on the final Sunday, and he states quite correctly that it is very important to many of us. It's certainly important to me.

One of the things that Mr. Angus will recall from our discussions and from the line of questioning I was pursuing is that I would ask witnesses on a fairly consistent basis whether they thought this would produce a greater turnout. In particular, he may recall that with our final group of witnesses, I asked the question.... One of them had raised the point that you don't get all groups in society using advance polls in equal numbers and to the same numbers that use the polls on election day. This specific witness pointed out that senior citizens, for example, are more likely to use advance polls, and speculated that this may have something to do with the fact that senior citizens are worried about the weather being bad on election day during a wintertime election.

I then asked the question, well, does this suggest that people who have limited mobility might be able to use advance polls in a way that is not possible? I offered some suggestions, and I think these are the kinds of groups that are likely to make use of advance polls that are located at many locations--for example, people who are shut in, who, in order to vote, require somebody to assist them to the poll. Now, that involves a family member coming from wherever they live to that person's address, picking them up, and taking them to the poll, something that is easier to do if the poll is nearby the person's house. It involves people who have limited mobility who can get down to a polling station close to their home, but not one that's farther away.

I pointed out that in urban areas it's frequently the case that polling stations are, in practice, at virtually every location—or close to every location—because you have multiple polling stations in one spot. But in rural areas, advance polls are not centrally located. It's therefore hard to get to the--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

There is a point of order.

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

I apologize to Mr. Reid for cutting him off.

This is a point of order, but it's also a point of clarification, Mr. Chair.

Are we sure that we're on the right track? This has all been debated prior to this meeting. We are now at the clause-by-clause meeting. I can appreciate that people have opinions, and people want to talk on whatever amendments, changes, or interpretations there might be. But are you convinced, Mr. Chair, that you are allowed to let individuals speak more than one time?

The purpose of my question is that there are many clauses to be looked at, regardless of who brings in amendments, corrections, or changes. At the rate we are going now—and I'm not saying anybody is filibustering, I'm not accusing anybody, and I think everybody has the right to his or her opinion—I don't think we'll get home for Christmas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Proulx.

I can assure you that we are on the right track. As long as the comments are not repetitive, we are on the right track, and members can speak. This is a debate process. As long as the debate centres around the amendment and the issues around the amendment, it's allowable.

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

Is that regardless of repetition, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

No, not regardless of repetition. I'm listening for repetition. Please trust me that I'll be listening for that.

I am hearing Mr. Reid say that the elimination of that Sunday means eliminating some other opportunities for voters that are not present the previous Sunday. That's what I'm listening to, and I encourage all members to listen. When the debate is over, we'll have the vote as we normally would.

Mr. Reid, please.

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

I appreciate Mr. Proulx's intervention.Through you to him, Mr. Chairman, I simply observe that I'm partly responding to some comments that had been made following my previous comments that bring up some new points. But also, part of the reason for concentrating these comments at this end is that while this is not the only proposed amendment that deals with the actual day before polling day, there are some others that come up later on.

If this adjustment were made, as proposed in Bloc amendment 2, it would effectively reduce the efficacy. The voters list would not be as good for that final day of voting. So that means that even if we were to come back and continue on with allowing the voting on the final Sunday at all polling locations, we would not have voting that is as effective. So it seems a reasonable place to present the argument so that others can come to the conclusion that there is merit to Sunday voting on the day before, at universal polling stations.

Of course, I make all my comments--and I hope all members do the same thing--very much in the awareness that our purpose here is to try to convince each other, in the spirit of collegiality, of the reasonableness of our arguments, so that we may actually sway the point of view of members of this committee as they exercise their legal right and obligation to vote in good conscience for the best possible laws and amendments thereto.

All of this being said, I now return to the point regarding groups that would be unable to engage in voting if there were not universal polls. I mentioned people with limited mobility, the handicapped people who are shut in, the very elderly, obviously, in some cases, and those who rely upon a family member who might have to get to them to assist them in casting a vote. I stress, in particular, people in rural locations.

Not every member here represents a rural riding. Having represented one that is partly rural and partly urban, I do notice a significant difference with the urban area, where you would typically have six or seven polls at a single polling station, typically in a high school gymnasium, say, or a fire hall. If you have an advance poll, what happens is that you have often one poll at that polling station but it's in the same location.

In a rural area, it's very different. In a rural area, you can be in a situation in which you have an advance poll that covers a very wide area and can only be reached by car. Anybody who doesn't have a car, or access to a family member with a car, effectively can't vote at the advance poll. That's just the way it works.

One of the observations made by one of the witnesses was that those who are better able to take care of themselves, those who are of a wealthier socio-economic status, are most likely to take advantage of advance polls. I submit to members of the committee--and all of us at least purport to have a great concern for those who are less advantaged financially in our society--that based on that argument that we all present about trying to take special care of the less advantaged in society, we ought to be trying to ensure that they have the same kinds of opportunities to engage in voting at advance polls as people who are more advantaged would have, based on those mobility concerns.

That was a point that I thought needed to be fully expounded on.

The second thing I want to address is the issue of the number of voters we're talking about. Madam Robillard raised the issue of the cost. She said $37 million, and I heard somebody else—

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

It was $34 million.

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

Okay, $34 million, sorry. I thought I heard $37 million, but it's $34 million.

Witnesses gave different estimates. These are purely estimates, because we don't have any clear parallels of the number of people who would be enfranchised, and the numbers ranged from a 1% to 3% increase in voters.

It wasn't clear to me if it was 1% to 3% of those who are already voting, or the percentage of total eligible voters in the country. But let's take the more conservative of those numbers, the lower of those numbers, and take 3% of the 16 million participating voters. There is in fact a universe of something like 25 million potential voters in Canada. So 3% in the universe of participating voters, 3% of the more or less 16 million--I actually worked this out while this particular witness was talking--boils down to 44,000 more voters. I would say that a bill that accomplishes getting 44,000 more Canadians to vote is a very worthwhile bill. When you put it in those terms, suddenly the costs don't seem so significant.

In all fairness, some of those voters would come out, I believe, at the first Sunday, because the advantages of Sunday voting are there whether it's the Sunday before the election or the Sunday prior to that. So some of that universe would come out. I don't know the percentage. None of us can know this because we haven't gone through the exercise yet.

But I would submit that given the fact that the Sunday is very much like the Saturday that precedes it and the Friday that precedes that and the Monday that comes after, in that it's only at limited voting stations, you are facing a situation in which it would be a further advantage to those who are in the same kind of socio-economic demographic groups who are already taking advantage of the voting. It would be an advantage to them, but it would not, nearly as much as that last Sunday, advantage those people who are unable to take advantage of advance polls by their nature.

So on that basis, I would strongly urge people to reconsider this amendment and the others that are allied with it that effectively remove that last universal Sunday of voting.

I feel strongly about this, Mr. Chairman, because this basically reflects the kind of riding I have. When I had a half urban and half rural riding, I had one of the wealthiest suburbs of Canada, Kanata, as part of my riding. And now that the riding has been split and I've moved to the rural area, I'm aware of the fact that the area I left behind has the highest turnout in the entire country for advance polls. The area that I now represent has a much lower turnout at the advance polls because of the kind of consideration that I'm describing: people who don't have flexibility in their hours, people who are shut-ins, and people who have to walk to get to the polls.

I remember on one occasion going down Highway 38, a highway in Frontenac County, in my riding, and seeing a woman pushing a stroller along the side of the road. She had to push her child down the side of a highway, which is a not a safe thing, to get her to a day care centre, and we wound up giving her a lift.

You're talking about, in many cases, people of lower socio-economic status who can't take advantage of something we've intended to make available to them, and that's what I'm pleading for. And I'm pleading it in all sincerity, on behalf of everybody who finds themselves in that kind of situation.

If you take the extreme example of remote communities such as the ones in Nunavut, where effectively there are no advance polls in practice, there simply will be no advance polls at all under the change of the law, whereas we would have permitted, under the new law, a polling station in each of those remote communities where you can't get to the next community where the advance poll is because it's a plane flight away. And Nunavut is not unique, but it's certainly the most dramatic example of that kind of thing.

Finally, with regard to the remarks on observant Jews, my point is not, as Mr. Angus, I think in all innocence, suggested, to pit Jews against Christians; my point is to draw attention to the fact that we didn't bother, as a committee, to get any observant Jews. I am at fault too. And being the only one on this committee who has actually got a Jewish background, I'm more at fault than the rest of us. Having said that, it doesn't change the facts that if you're an observant Jew you can't use a vehicle on the Sabbath; you can't use a writing implement and make a mark, that's considered work. This is not something that any Christian faces, because this isn't the interpretation that any Christian group, of which I'm aware, gives to scripture. So this is a significant impediment.

Adding the first Sunday, again, does make a significant difference, and I think it's good. I'm happy that none of the amendments are considering removing that Sunday, but I do ask you to keep this in mind as we deal with this. The impositions, not on all Jews but on observant Jews, are more significant than we might realize.

Mr. Chairman, I'll stop my comments at that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Monsieur Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I wanted to voice some of my concerns with the amendment as well. Perhaps it's my military background, but I tend to focus on what the aim is. What is it we're trying to accomplish with this bill? To me, the aim is to increase voter turnout.

We had many witnesses come before us, and if I remember correctly, almost all of them agreed that voter turnout would increase as a result of the initiatives we're trying to put forward in the bill. However, no one could really quantify it and say by exactly how much voter turnout would increase.

This is where my element of concern comes in. We're all interested in knowing by how much voter turnout will increase. To know that, we have to put in place the additional opportunities for voters to vote. This Sunday that the opposition is trying to remove is a critical element of that.

Here we are trying to put in place a mechanism by which to increase voter turnout during advance polls, and yet at the very same time we'd be decreasing what's proposed in the bill to do exactly that, so that when it came time to measure the results, we'd have actually undermined the results we were hoping to achieve.

In terms of turnout, as I say, in terms of conflict that people might have—they might have a moral or a religious or a conscientious objection to voting on that Sunday—they don't have to vote on that Sunday; they can vote at some other time. But for those who can vote on that Sunday, I don't think we should take that Sunday away.

So I don't really think there's an argument here, from the point of view of the voter, as to why that Sunday should be removed. The voter has choice, and I think that's what we're trying to offer to voters: choice.

From the point of view of inconvenience of locations, which is another argument that could be used here, in terms of disenfranchising churches that might have their services in the gyms at that time, I think what we did here was ask whether it is possible to accommodate that, perhaps by changing the hours associated with that Sunday—not by completely eliminating the Sunday, but simply by opening the polls a little later on the Sunday than the time currently contained within the bill.

This is not a show stopper, this idea of inconvenience to locations.

Those are really the points I wanted to bring forward. I see this as a major change. What's the aim of the bill? The aim of the bill is to increase voter turnout, and yet at the same time as we're trying to do that, we're somewhat undermining our efforts by reducing the number of days available. When it comes time to measure the outcome of this initiative, it will be less, because we've removed a key voting day, and that doesn't make sense to me.

Just to finish off, the third argument would be the one of cost raised by Madame Robillard, the $34 million. I would like to echo what my colleague said: it's very hard to fix a price tag to this, because everything is speculative right now. There are no hard data upon which to put forward the $34 million, and because we don't know how many voters might turn out, you can't break it down into a cost per vote.

In other words, we have to use reasonable judgment, and I think we didn't hear Elections Canada say the additional cost is unreasonable, that it's disproportionate to their activities right now, or that it's disproportionate to the potential increase in voter turnout that we could see. They did their analysis and said it would cost $34 million. It seems reasonable. I didn't hear anyone on the committee at that time object and say that $34 million is outrageous and in no way should the government proceed in this manner. So I don't really buy into that argument.

The other thing to say too is that the cost may very well be less, because they're talking about one day here, not about abolishing all days.

Thank you for that, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.

I don't have anybody else on my list, but I would like.... We have one more? Okay.

Before we proceed, I want to remind members that inasmuch as I want to offer the broadest range of debate on these issues, I feel we've covered many of the arguments. I don't sense too much repetition between members, but I'm hearing the same arguments used. I want to be fair to everybody. A broad range of arguments is what we're here for, but I just want to make that note so that everybody knows I'm aware of it.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

This will be mercifully quick.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Is this a point of order?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

If it's mercifully quick, I'd be happy to hear it.

[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. Lukiwski, that was painfully irrelevant.

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

My question remains the same. It's the question I asked originally, but still haven't heard an answer. In viewing of some of these amendments, I find many similar to this that I would consider to be out of scope. Am I wrong when I say that if you had this bill before committee before second reading, you could make substantive changes from a procedural standpoint?

I know the NDP has asked before for bills on other issues to be sent to committee before second reading for the very reason that they can actually rewrite the bill. When it comes to committee after second reading, that's not what you're supposed to be doing. I'd like an opinion. Am I wrong here? If I am, I will stand corrected.