Debates of Nov. 22nd, 1996

Canada Elections Act

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this House on a nice Friday afternoon, after the hon. member for Verchères. I was going to mention his name, but this is not allowed.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

You can only mention my first name.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Your first name? Ah, yes.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues have mentioned, but I will say it again for the benefit of those who may have just joined us, the bill before us, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act, is now at report stage.

People at home may wonder why a bunch of MPs are talking about gender and date of birth today. It is because we are discussing a bill to amend the Canada Elections Act.

My colleagues are making comments that may lead to various interpretations. I will try to remain calm and to tell you what I set out to say.

The reason why the date of birth should be included, as was explained by the hon. member for Bellechasse who tabled the motion, is that this information is already on Quebec's electoral lists. Why? It is to provide those in charge of an election with a tool to correctly identify people. As a number of my colleagues mentioned this morning, there may be several people with the same name, but they are rarely born on the same day.

It is a tool we feel is of great importance. Some people will say: "You are going to use this information so that you can categorize voters". Political parties have other tools they can use for this purpose, and the first thing that comes to mind is that when you want to know people, you must first live in their region and see them every day, which I do each week when I go back to my riding. That is the first tool a member has to work with.

I am therefore not in the slightest worried that they want to mention date of birth in the new bill. Quebec already has this tool, and I think it could also be important for the rest of Canada to include it in the Canada Elections Act. Everyone would then be on an equal footing.

As for the other addition, I think that gender is already mentioned in the bill.

I do not have a copy of the Quebec statute in front of me, but I believe that it is included. With respect to the objection by the member of the Reform Party, although we could debate it a bit longer, I see no problem with mentioning gender as well, for the very same reason as that given by the member for Verchères, which is that an "e" can be misleading. Although one look at him and there is no doubt at all that you are dealing with a Man, with a capital "M".

I do, however, insist that gender be indicated. I would remind all of the hon. members and all of the electorate that 52 per cent of voters are female. When women are, for once, in the majority and can signal their presence, I think the voters' list is how they should do it.

There has long been criticism that women are not represented adequately in this House. This would be a good reason to retain in the Elections Act the requirement that gender must be indicated, precisely to force us as legislators to realize that more than 50 per cent of the electorate are women. These, then, are two tools which we see as indispensable.

I would also add, in connection with this group of motions, as my colleague from Matapédia-Matane has also said, that we have experienced considerable changes with respect to the redrawing of electoral boundaries. I wish to mention this, so that people clearly understand that this is not what we are talking about here this morning, for it could be misinterpreted. We are talking about the act to amend the Canada Elections Act, which is not the same thing as what was done by the Electoral Boundaries Commission.

My colleague from Matapédia-Matane has described the upheaval in his riding. I, who represent the riding of Gaspé, will have to face the hon. member for the present riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine in the next election.

In passing, I and my colleague from Bellechasse would like to thank the people who are here in the House today, particularly the Government Whip, for their support. Last week we adopted a bill at all stages to change the names of electoral districts. This is another achievement and I wanted to congratulate these two people. I would like to thank them and also point out to all members present in this House that the reeves of the RCMs in the Gaspé are very pleased that hon. members agreed to include all RCMs in the new designation of the new Gaspé riding which will be called Bonaventure-Gaspé-Îles-de-la-Madeleine-Paboc.

All four RCMs are very pleased, they thank you and they want to say that this will give them a sense of belonging, because all four will be identified with the new riding. They will be working together. As a geographical entity, it is still rather scattered, but they are prepared to do what they can, and we will see what will happen in the future.

I may add, and I say this personally, as long as the riding of Bonaventure-Gaspé-Îles-de-la-Madeleine-Paboc will remain part of Canadian history, since I hope that some day, we will have another referendum on the sovereignty issue, that we will have an opportunity to deal with the situation at that time.

That being said, I will get back to the group of motions now before the House. We said that the Bloc Quebecois wanted to ensure that age would be mentioned. We also wanted the gender of the voter to be indicated, as it is now. This will be useful as a reference for members and make it easier for the returning officer in a given region to identify people.

Where I live, there are people with the same first name and the same last name as mine. My father had the same experience. By the way, you will recall that formerly in Quebec, although that is no longer the case, after they were married, women were known by the name of their husband. To my mother's astonishment, when she went to the doctor for a minor problem, she heard the receptionist say she was pregnant. However, this was another Mrs. Laurent Bernier. So you see the kind of confusion that can arise, even if this situation was funnier than most.

We must have the assurance that no one can use someone else's name and especially that the individual who wants to vote will be able to do so. The Bloc wants to make sure that the government understands these situations. There is no warfare intended here. We hope we can reach an agreement soon.

However, as many of my colleagues have indicated, the fact that we are at report stage indicates that we went a little too fast earlier on. Had debate been allowed, and the content of the bill shared with the opposition parties, these details could have been resolved earlier.

My colleague from Bellechasse mentioned this as well at the start of his speech; we are at the dawn of an election campaign. So the emotional reaction of the government is understandable, since it is in a hurry to change the Canada Elections Act. We would have expected that changes to the Canada Elections Act would be made at the start of the 35th Parliament, that is, when all the members of Parliament arrived. At that point, we would have had five years to debate this matter. We should have assumed that the government wants to do it faster for election or partisan reasons.

We have a fait accompli before us. The bill is now at third reading. To be sure there is no partisanship and no question of pushing things along too fast and to ensure everyone understands, we expect the government to let us have our full say.

Several members speak to a group of motions to be sure that the government gets our message, takes note and incorporates the points we make so that everyone's opinion is reflected in the bill. It will then be used in the election of all members. All voters, whatever their allegiance, must feel comfortable. That is what democracy is about. You have to believe in the tools we acquire in order to be able to move things along.

I conclude on this point. I will return later, when we discuss other groups of motions.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, fist of all let me say how much I appreciated the opportunity to renew my experience with committee work, particularly with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It brought back some pleasant memories, even if at the time I sat on the other side of the House. Frankly, I must say that the experience is more enjoyable from this side.

Having said that, I want to join with those who congratulated our colleagues from both sides of the House for their enthusiasm and hard work on this bill.

They include my colleague, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, who chaired the committee, the hon. member for Bellechasse, who really gave it all he had and worked extremely hard, the hon. member for Laval Centre, the chief opposition whip-

-the member for Calgary West and the member for Lethbridge, from the Reform Party, and of course the whip of the Reform Party, the member for Fraser Valley East, and a good number of my colleagues, including the deputy government whip, the member for Ottawa West and many others, who, long before I arrived, had already put in a long number of hours hearing testimony from very impressive witnesses, including the commissioner of privacy-

-Mr. Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer, to name a few.

I also want to say briefly that I am left with the strong feeling that discussions and consultations have been all encompassing. If we recall the Lortie commission and all its elements, we know that there is already broad support in Canada for the general principles contained in the bill, including reducing the length of the election campaign from 47 to 36 days. This proposal has been very well received by voters throughout Canada.

I believe there is also a consensus among the parties and, more important, among the electorate that a permanent register is long overdue and will be a welcome addition to the electoral process in Canada.

In a later motion we will deal with another matter of great significance to the regions, particularly to western Canada, which is the matter of staggered hours.

I would like to take a few comments to the two principal issues within this group of motions, the first being the matter of gender. Both the issues of gender and date of birth, which I will deal with later, could be useful. There is no denying that administratively that information could be useful. However, I am satisfied from the testimony of Mr. Kingsley of Elections Canada and others, as well as the privacy commissioner, Mr. Phillips, that it is not necessary. It is not essential.

Our electoral system is based on honesty and the freedom to vote. We encourage all Canadians to exercise their responsibility to vote. Too many Canadians do not participate in the electoral process.

Having said that, because of the strong testimony of the privacy commissioner, I do not believe that it is necessary. He further stated that he did not see the voluntary collection of privacy information as a significant privacy issue and, therefore, he did not recommend the removal of gender from the list of electors.

In summary, while a clarification of gender is desirable information to differentiate voters with the same names, it is not necessary, and for that reason it is not included in Bill C-63.

With regard to the date of birth, I realize that the hon. member for Laval Centre, the chief opposition whip, is a very young and dedicated lady who is not hiding her age, but we must do what is in the best interest of Canadians. Even if it could be useful administratively, it is not essential.

Again, according to the testimony given by the privacy commissioner, I submit that the reason why it is not in the bill is simply because it is not essential and that our electoral process is a voluntary one. True to these broad principles and to the privacy commissioner's advice, we thought appropriate to include neither the gender nor the date of birth.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the house ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 9, 15 and 18.

We now move to motions in Group No. 3.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-63 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 2 the following new Clause:

"1.1 The portion of subsection 9(3) of the Act after paragraph ( b ) is replaced by the following:

the Chief Electoral Officer may extend the hours of voting at the polling station to allow votes to be cast on the ordinary polling day after the hour fixed by or pursuant to this Act for the closing of the poll at the polling station, but shall not, in so doing, permit votes to be cast at the polling station during an aggregate period of more than twelve hours."

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-63, in Clause 44.1, be amended by replacing lines 44 to 46 on page 25 and lines 1 to 7 on page 26 with the following: a ) between 8:30 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. if the electoral district is in the Newfoundland, Atlantic or Central time zone; b ) between 9:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. if the electoral district is in the Eastern time zone; c ) between 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. if the electoral district is in the Mountain time zone; or d ) between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. if the electoral district is in the Pacific time zone.''

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-63, in Clause 44.1, be amended by replacing lines 44 to 46 on page 25 and lines 1 to 6 on page 26 with the following: a ) between 10:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. if the electoral district is in the Newfoundland, Atlantic or Eastern time zone; b ) between 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. if the electoral district is in the Central time zone; c ) between 9:30 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. if the electoral district is in the Mountain time zone; or d ) between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. if the''

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-63, in Clause 46.1, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 27 with the following:

"day at an election, have no less than four consecutive"

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-63 be amended, by adding after line 44 on page 27 the following new Clause:

"47.1. That part of subsection 160 (1) of the Act preceding paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

160.(1) One and one-half hours after the close of the poll in the Newfoundland, Atlantic and Eastern time zones, one hour after the close of the poll in the Central time zone, one-half hour after the close of the poll in the Mountain time zone, and immediately after the close of the poll in the Pacific time zone, in the presence and in full view of the poll clerk and the candidates or their agents, or, if the candidates or any of them are absent, in the presence of those candidates that are present, and of at least two electors if none of the candidates are represented, the deputy returning officer shall, in the following order,"

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-63 be amended by adding after line 5 on page 35 the following new Clause:

"68.1 Subsection 328.(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

328.(1) No person, company or corporation shall, in any electoral district before the hour fixed by or pursuant to subsection 160(1) for the counting of the votes in that electoral district, publish the result or purported result of the polling in any electoral district in Canada by radio or television broadcast, by newspaper, news-sheet, poster, billboard or handbill or in any other manner."

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since I do not wish to be recognized for the purpose of the debate, I am raising a point of order of a very general nature by saying that the Bloc's motion in this third group is motion No. 22, dealing exclusively with opening hours of polls, and more specifically with the period of time employers must give their employees to vote.

If this is agreeable to you, Mr. Speaker, I will discuss this issue at the end, once the chief government whip will have tabled his amendments, and also after the member for Calgary West will have explained the nature of his amendments on a much more general issue, that is the possibility of having variable hours for polls across Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House agree?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to discuss the motions in Group No. 3. Group 3 contains a number of motions and I will try to address all of them in my comments. There are three Reform motions, two Liberal motions and one presented by the Bloc Quebecois.

All these motions deal with the attempt to incorporate provisions in this legislation that would stagger voting hours. We discussed this issue not when we addressed Bill C-63 in the House previously but when we addressed Bill C-307, a private member's bill.

That private member's bill was passed by the House in principle, although it is more than fair to say, based on the record, that Reform Party members indicated our grave reservations about the approach advocated in the bill. We only approved it in principle for the purpose of further discussing the proposal in committee and arriving at a consensus.

We did not arrive at a consensus on these issues. The government chose to go ahead with a proposal that is substantially different from what was passed in Bill C-307. It is substantially different in at least two ways. It altered the hours for voting that were proposed in Bill C-307, moving them up so that not only are we cutting into prime voting hours in British Columbia but in Alberta as well.

The other change made was to reverse hours in the case of the far eastern part of the country. In Atlantic Canada the polls would actually close at earlier local times than they would in central Canada. This was not a proposal the committee heard during deliberations.

These government proposals were not even an option for consideration when the Library of Parliament researcher prepared his report for our discussion. These proposals literally came out of nowhere.

Nothing was proposed in these options that would indicate a premature closing time in Alberta. Never was it proposed in this document that the hours be earlier than 7.30 p.m. in British Columbia; nor was it ever proposed that we would actually reverse the hours in the case of the far east of the country.

We said this set of proposals needed to be studied and on which we needed to come to a consensus, but we did not. On top of that, we discussed items in our preliminary discussion which sparked considerable interest in all the parties represented on the committee and in the chief electoral officer. However, they were then entirely rejected by the government when it tabled its proposal.

The items include not just the hours but the concept of delaying the vote count in some parts of the country as a way of dealing with this problem. There was also a proposal to eliminate the blackout.

We were looking for a proposal that would involve three elements as a way of dealing with the time zone differences across the country: staggering the voting hours, staggering the vote count and a blackout. But when the government presented its proposal the last two elements completely disappeared which was a surprise to us.

More surprising were the comments by some of the government members that it was necessary to arrive at a consensus and this was how they did it. I think I speak for the Bloc and my party when I say that we were left wondering where the consensus was since only one of the parties seemed to agree with this proposal. How could this decision possibly be classified as a consensus?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

That's Liberal consensus.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

My colleague says it is a Liberal consensus.

The three Reform motions in Group No. 3 deal with the proposals we put forward which I will not say were unanimously accepted in discussion. That is not the case. They were not rejected and seemed to be of interest to all parties in the committee during our discussion on this particular issue.

Our proposals were to stagger the hours beginning by moving the hours of voting back a half hour in each time zone east of British Columbia, delaying the count a further half hour for each time zone and eliminating the blackout entirely in the case of Atlantic Canada as a way of making up anything over and above the three hour difference between British Columbia and Quebec. Those are the proposals we have here. They are divided into three motions.

Motion No. 21 relates to the actual closing hours we propose which would be 8 p.m. in British Columbia; 8.30 p.m. in Alberta; 9 p.m. in Manitoba and Saskatchewan; 9.30 p.m. in Ontario and Quebec; and 9.30 p.m. as well in Atlantic Canada. Motion No. 23 would delay the vote count. That would be an additional half hour for each time zone, a delay of a half hour in Alberta, an hour in Manitoba, and an hour and a half in central Canada. Motion No. 25 proposes to limit the blackout.

Our preference would have been with staggered voting hours to completely eliminate the blackout for Atlantic Canada because frankly we could not see that this really would be an issue to anybody in the west or even in central Canada. The fact that there might be some preliminary results available from Newfoundland and the maritimes did not seem to be an issue. Therefore we were going to propose eliminating it entirely.

The only reason our amendment does not do that is that we were concerned with the limits we had in our technical drafting, that we were not able to capture some of the effects on advanced polls and special ballots. We were concerned that some of those results might circulate even before the counting had begun in some parts of the country. That is why we only limited the blackout as opposed to eliminating it but the concept is still the same.

I will be speaking at much greater length on this when we reach full debate, but I urge the government to reconsider this. The whole rationale that many in the government have given for this is that somehow it would deal with grievances in western Canada, to deal with the fact that westerners presumably know the results or that governments are elected before the polls have even closed in the west. That was stated to be one of the concerns here.

The effect of what the government is proposing is to do that by limiting the ability of western Canadians to vote. Closing the polls in British Columbia at 7 p.m. has a major impact upon prime voting hours in that province. This is terribly problematic and it is not necessary. I am very suspicious about the proposal to close the polls early in Alberta. This is not necessary in any form to deal with this problem. I am very surprised that the government threw that in. It was another anomaly in its solution.

The final anomaly I will mention is that this provision is actually allowing the count to begin in Ontario a half hour earlier than when the polls close in B.C. While technically feasible, this was in fact rejected by the member from Vancouver East who proposed the bill in the first place.

There are all kinds of anomalies in this solution, things that did not reflect the committee discussions.

The Liberals are trying to make amends by their Motions Nos. 5 and 20, both of which we will oppose. Motions Nos. 5 and 20 essentially propose to extend voting hours across the country from 11 hours to 12 hours. I would presume that is one way of giving people more time and more ability to vote.

Allowing British Columbians to vote at 7 a.m. before they have had breakfast or presumably on their way to work is not compensation for not being able to vote at a convenient time of the day. In fact it is more costly to keep the polls open longer. Elections Canada testified to that effect. I do not think adding the extra hour buys us anything or deals with the fundamental problems created by the government's proposal on this. We will be voting against those two motions because we do not feel they fix the problem and it is costly.

I have just a very brief comment on Motion No. 22 proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. I must admit that we have had some discussion and some uncertainty as to how we should deal with this. The Bloc has proposed to reverse a proposal in the bill that requires

employers to give only three hours to vote instead of four hours. The motion would put it back to four hours.

We will be opposing this motion. We are torn because we think it should be three hours. Four hours is too long and too much of an imposition on employers. I would point out that with the hours as they are in British Columbia, having only three hours is going to cause a fairly serious problem in terms of logistics for people trying to vote and also getting time off work from their employer, particularly if they travel some distance from work to home, which is often the case in Vancouver and some parts of rural B.C.