Evidence of meeting #124 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was election.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
That's actually good, then, because I know that in my office I didn't have enough walls for all of my maps.
Liberal
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Is it just an addition to it?
Can you explain that a bit, Mr. Chair, before we go to the vote on this one? If we're voting on two, it's good to know what....
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I had to stay at the emergency debate last night until midnight, so I didn't have time to get to the....
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Is it just another amendment further on in the act that corresponds?
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Yes, it corresponds, but LIB-16 applies to advance polling stations.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay.
Now we vote on LIB-8.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 87 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 88 to 92 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 93)
Okay.
We have amendment BQ-1, the only amendment from the Bloc Québécois.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me quickly explain the principles underlying the legislative intent of this addition, which is to require face-to-face voting. This is a legitimate legislative intention and for which I have had a very clear mandate.
We live in a free and democratic society where there are freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Charter. Unlike a right, a freedom is not associated with responsibility. Everyone has freedom of expression automatically. The right to vote, on the other hand, is associated with a responsibility: that of demonstrating one's status as an elector. Unlike a freedom, a right is not automatically given.
A right may be infringed “within reasonable limits and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”; this is what the Charter says. We believe that it is reasonable to interfere with the right to vote if a person does not meet the conditions for demonstrating his or her eligibility as a voter.
In Quebec, we live in a society that has secularized its institutions. Some may have heard their grandfathers say that at one time, before the Quiet Revolution, the priests in the pulpit reminded them that hell was red and the sky was blue. This is called the time of the great darkness of Duplessis.
In a democratic host society, there are two moments when citizens seal their social contract. There are two essential symbolic moments that demonstrate a citizen's commitment to our democratic society and his willingness to integrate into our democracy. There is the oath, of course, and the right to vote, which we are discussing this morning.
For a host society, there is no better way to demonstrate its willingness to integrate a citizen than to grant him the right to vote. It is at this moment that a citizen signs his social contract. Similarly, there is no stronger time to demonstrate a willingness to embrace these democratic values than when citizens, in order to have the right to vote, comply with the law.
Everything always comes from concrete experiences. In 2007 in Quebec, in the middle of an election, the Chief Electoral Officer, wanting to be very inclusive, gave an administrative directive according to which he could even tolerate the full veil. I give this example because that was the problem at the time. This has resulted in unsightly acts by which people have violated the necessary decorum and the solemn moment that voting represents when you are a citizen. Everyone began to say that they would cover their faces when they went to vote—some people even arrived at the polling station with their faces covered—so the directive was removed. Nevertheless, this led to a debate that culminated in the creation of a special parliamentary committee, the Bouchard-Taylor Commission.
That being said, it seems quite reasonable to us that, in order to have the right to vote, citizens must have their faces exposed, since voter identification requires it. This is all the more true because in Quebec, in addition to having their voter card, people will already have taken out their photo ID.
We believe it is important that the values on which our democracy is based are respected at a time as important as the signing of the social contract, in other words, exercising the right to vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you.
Before I go to Mr. Graham, I want to ask you a question. Do people at the moment have to present photo ID?
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Not currently. There are several voting opportunities under the Canada Elections Act where electors don't have to present photo ID.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
If you don't need to present photo identification to vote, is this amendment useful?
LCdr Jean-François Morin
I would say that this is more of a political issue that I will leave in your hands.
Liberal
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I think this goes contrary to freedom of religion. What you have just pointed out, Chair, makes it seem that we're adding an additional requirement for certain religions, which doesn't necessarily exist for any other religion because they don't need to show a piece of photo ID, so what are you comparing it to anyway?
I think in this circumstance I would be opposed to this amendment.