House of Commons Hansard #105 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was metis.

Topics

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Canada Elections Act

10 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The Chair must rule on Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act.

Motion No. 34 may not be submitted to the House because it does not have the recommendation of the Governor General. Standing Order 76(3) requires that notice of such a recommendation be given at the latest on the sitting day preceding report stage.

Other motions will be grouped for debate as follows. GroupNo. 2, Motions Nos. 1 to 4, 9, 10, 14 to 19, 26, 27, and 28.

Group No. 3: Motions No. 5, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 25.

Group No. 4, Motion No. 6.

Group No. 5: Motions No. 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13.

Group No. 6, Motions Nos. 24, 29 to 33, 35 and 36.

Group No. 7, Motion No 37.

The voting patterns for the motions within in each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

Canada Elections Act

10 a.m.

Bloc

François Langlois Bloc Bellechasse, QC

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-63, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 1 with the following:

"surname, given names, sex, date of birth, civic address"

Canada Elections Act

10 a.m.

Reform

Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-63, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 1 with the following:

"surname, given names, civic address"

Canada Elections Act

10 a.m.

Bloc

François Langlois Bloc Bellechasse, QC

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-63, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 2 with the following:

"given names, sex, date of birth, civic address and mailing"

Canada Elections Act

10 a.m.

Reform

Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-63, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 2 with the following:

"given names, civic address and mailing"

Canada Elections Act

10 a.m.

Bloc

François Langlois Bloc Bellechasse, QC

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-63, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 8 with the following:

"name, given names, sex, and date of birth and indicating the"

Canada Elections Act

10 a.m.

Reform

Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-63, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 8 with the following:

"name, given names and date of birth if the"

Canada Elections Act

10:10 a.m.

Reform

Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB

moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 12 with the following:

"updating the surname, given names,"

Canada Elections Act

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be a disposition of the House to deem all the motions to have been read and seconded so that we might get on to the business of the day.

Canada Elections Act

10:10 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is it agreed?

Canada Elections Act

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canada Elections Act

10:10 a.m.

Bloc

François Langlois Bloc Bellechasse, QC

moved:

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 13 with the following:

"list contains the surname, given names, sex, date of birth,"

Canada Elections Act

10:10 a.m.

Reform

Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB

moved:

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 13 with the following:

"list contains the surname, given names,"

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 13 with the following:

"his or her surname, given names,"

Canada Elections Act

10:10 a.m.

Bloc

François Langlois Bloc Bellechasse, QC

moved:

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 13 with the following:

"information, but, with the exception of the date of birth, the person is not required to"

Canada Elections Act

10:10 a.m.

Reform

Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB

moved:

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-63, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 23 with the following:

"tor, surname, given names, civic ad"

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-63, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing line 42 on page 36 with the following:

"tor's surname, given names, and date of"

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-63, in Clause 78, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 37 with the following:

"the surname, given names and rank;"

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-63, in Clause 79, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 37 with the following:

"elector, the surname, given names and"

Canada Elections Act

10:10 a.m.

Bloc

François Langlois Bloc Bellechasse, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

In the Order Paper and Notice Paper for yesterday, Thursday, November 21, on page X in Roman numerals, Motion No. 22 appears to have been proposed by me, according to the English version, while in the French it appears to have been proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas. I am therefore rising to make the correction, if it has not already been done. I believe that I moved the motion, but my colleague for Stormont-Dundas could confirm this with the Chair.

Canada Elections Act

10:10 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse. There was indeed an error in yesterday's Order Paper and Notice Paper, which has been corrected in today's Order Paper.

If all of my colleagues could follow today's Order Paper, we would avoid problems such as the one the hon. member for Bellechasse has just raised.

Canada Elections Act

10:10 a.m.

Bloc

François Langlois Bloc Bellechasse, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for a copy of today's Order Paper; it will take just a few seconds. I trust you will not take this time off my speaking time. In fact, the pages were so fast it would not even be worth the bother.

First of all, the debate must go far beyond taking the amendments one at a time. I will be able to do that when I speak on third reading. The official opposition's extreme reticence about the bill before us today at report stage is, of course, partly because the finished product is imperfect and needs reworking. As some poet said-was it Boileau, my hon. colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve?-"Hone your work carefully; spare no effort and remember that that which can be said in fewer words is often better".

This bill was not honed carefully. It bears all the marks of having been thrown together any which way. In the parliamentary committee, we saw the divergence between the points of view of the government which tabled the bill and those of Elections Canada. In fact, it is a hybrid, like the offspring of a porcupine and a snake we used to joke about as school kids, saying that the result would be about three feet of barbed wire. That is what the bill is like.

Regardless of what has been said, the opposition was not involved in drafting this bill. The very nature of the bill, modifying the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act, ought to have

automatically meant that the opposition parties, all of the opposition parties represented in this House, would be closely involved in drafting the bill along with Elections Canada, so that the resulting bill would be non-partisan.

It is quite possible that in the end we may not reach a unanimous decision since we are here to discuss ideas, and to discuss them on the basis of very clear premises. However, that has not been the case.

The first false premise was that this bill would supposedly establish a permanent voters' list for the next election. That is absolutely untrue. That is merely the impression that was given, and that some people repeated.

As far as the next election is concerned, the bill will only allow for an enumeration outside the electoral period, which means the election campaign will be abbreviated, but there will be no permanent list of electors. There will be an enumeration and a revision of the list of electors, but for all practical purposes, the current Canada Elections Act will apply to the rest of the election. I will explain the difference in greater detail at third reading. So basically, the process is flawed.

I trust that in a case like this, if both opposition parties vote against the bill at all stages, the government will not take a bill on electoral matters that was adopted only by the government majority in this House and submit it to the Senate for approval and Royal Assent. This would create a dangerous precedent that is intolerable in a free and democratic society, where a debate on such matters should be as open as possible. I will get back to this.

We are told that passing Bill C-63 will save money. We will not save any money by passing Bill C-63, since the amount of money required to conduct an enumeration before the electoral period, a special enumeration held over a period of three weeks, will considerably exceed any savings resulting from the fact that the election campaign will be shorter by exactly 11 days.

Basically, our position is this: let us have one more election according to the old rules we all know. Reform members, Liberals and Bloc members are all familiar with this act. We went through one election with this legislation, the Reform Party as well, and the Liberals have had several. We are on familiar ground here.

Electoral legislation is like the Criminal Code and the Civil Code in Quebec. These are the pillars that carry the whole system, and we cannot change them on a whim, just because someone has a bright idea and feels it should be implemented right away. This bill was introduced in early October, and a month later, the same bill, after being fast-tracked through committee, is back in the House at the report stage.

In these matters, speed is not the best policy. It is much better to take your time. We did not have enough time, but we are nevertheless proposing amendments that could help improve the bill.

It is like an automobile muffler: for a certain time, you can always weld it so that it will not be too noisy, but sooner or later, it will fall off. What is proposed here is like welding a rusted muffler, which is what this bill is. Is it or is it not going to hold? At least if those amendments are passed, we will get rid of the noise for another two weeks and be able to travel from Ottawa to Cornwall once or twice, at most. Incidently, I lost my own muffler on my way to that same town two weeks ago, and I had another problem with that.

We will nevertheless try to make one last repair to this bill but basically I would like it to be put aside and I wish that those who will have the opportunity to examine it a second time will also take into account the haste with which it was considered the first time round.

There is also the undeniable fact that this government is in the last year of its normal mandate. Now traditionally, during the last year of a mandate, basic rules are not changed, in particular as regards the Elections Act.

It is somewhat like the hockey finals. I will give an example using two American teams to avoid controversy in this Chamber. The New York Rangers and the Boston Bruins have made it to the finals. The Bruins are leading three games to nothing. The Rangers have money as we know. They are in New York. They have Madison Square Gardens, which they fill each time. The Fox network televises their games. They have a lot of money. They survey the members of the board of governors and manage to get the board of governors of the National Hockey League to say: "It is no longer four out of seven; it is now five out of nine. We have another chance to catch up". The rules are changed at the end of the game.

The game is already underway. The government is already on the campaign trail. The Prime Minister rated his accomplishments at 78 per cent. He is clearly heading into an election trying to sell his 78 per cent rating. We will slip a decimal between the two figures during the election campaign, in fact, well before.

The game is underway; the finals have begun. Let us play the game with the old rules and not change anything. As the official opposition-and the Reform Party will speak for itself, it does not seem to have been consulted any more than we were-had no hand in writing Bill C-63 and did not give its approval, it is hard to agree, to hand over a blank cheque.

The smallest provision will blow up in our face at some point. They will say: "You voted for that; you have to live with the law as it was passed. You supported it". I by far prefer the process followed-and I will come back to it later-in the formulation of Bill C-69 on electoral boundaries in the first session of the 35th Parliament, where the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs took a year to prepare the bill.

The official opposition and Reformers did not support the bill, but at least we knew it word by word, comma by comma. The punctuation was checked over and over to make sure it changed nothing. Representatives of Elections Canada attended the meetings. The discussions were very broad.

This is not the case here. The government and Elections Canada are obviously very much at odds. We clearly have before us a partisan bill on electoral matters, where even Elections Canada officials disagree with several of the provisions of the Elections Act.

Because I have taken a few minutes to situate the debate my colleague for Laval Centre and chief whip of the Bloc Quebecois will speak shortly on motions of Group No. 2, which aims to include age as one of the essential factors in an electoral list.

To the extent that we want a permanent register of electors, not for the upcoming election but for the one after that, the date of birth must be included. Bill C-63 proposes that it be optional. However, the more complete the information, the more valid the register is. The information the state has on its own citizens comes from registers going back to their birth, as the provinces require that births be registered.

In French law, this obligation has existed for over 400 years. These rights were recognized very early. The government must know who makes up the nation and which citizens enjoy certain rights. It cannot be optional. Some members spoke about this earlier. My colleague from Laval Centre will, of course, address this issue in more detail.

If Motions Nos. 1, 3, 9, 15 and 18 are adopted, I would agree to support the motion proposed by my colleague from Calgary West to omit gender. If the date of birth is included, the information regarding gender is no longer necessary.

The age and the date of birth would allow us to distinguish between people with neutral first names such as Claude, Carol or Maxime. Those are the comments I wanted to make.

Canada Elections Act

10:25 a.m.

Reform

Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to the report stage amendments on Bill C-63. In doing so I would first like to summarize our position as a party on this bill because we are not having a full second reading debate, having sent the bill to committee before second reading.

Under this new process we only have a brief debate and then we come back here with a debate which combines second reading and report stage. At third reading I will have a chance to fully elaborate upon our position. I would like to comment on this process. I share many of the concerns of the hon. member for Bellechasse. I also am concerned about this process.

This process does not really allow us to fully debate legislation. We have used this new process of sending bills to committee before second reading several times. I am not sure that the opposition parties generally have found it to be satisfactory. Many of my colleagues have mentioned this to me. As a result of this new process, we never really have a full debate in principle on legislation.

In this case the bill had only a cursory debate and then was sent to committee. The purpose of sending a bill to committee before second reading is to examine a broad range of issues which are not necessarily related to the principle or contents of the bill. After all, prior to second reading the bill has not received approval in principle. That is supposed to be the concept. Of course it depends on the chairman's style, but my observation has been that we very much conduct those committees the same as we would if they were held after second reading. In other words we tend to restrict debate to the items raised in the bill.

I know for example with respect to this particular piece of legislation, some of my colleagues raised issues which were not included in the legislation. The hon. member for Bellechasse raised the issues of third party advertising and of some regulations of Quebec's electoral law. Our party raised the concept of fixed election dates. We also raised the whole concept of how this elections bill would apply to byelections.

In all cases, while we had a brief discussion, the committee basically said that these things were outside the scope and the principle of the legislation. Of course they were. The legislation had not received approval in principle. Nevertheless, we worked on the assumption that it had. That was constantly the attitude of the government.

Certainly there were things which went well beyond the subject matter, but most of the things raised were clearly within the subject matter. In the case of byelections, while not directly related to the amendments in the bill, they are actually affected by the subject matter of the legislation. These things should have been debated more thoroughly than is allowed under this process.

Another example is that we wanted to debate at some length the rationale for a 36 day campaign as opposed to 37 or 39 days. We had only the briefest of discussions on that issue and once again the attitude was that this was not the principle of the bill and we were proceeding as if the bill had been approved in principle.

I think that the process of sending bills to committees early in many cases simply allows the government to accelerate the timetable of debate rather than giving the bill a more thorough examination. That was the opposite of the intention.

I would make just a brief comment on our overall position on Bill C-63. We are going to oppose the legislation. I must be frank in saying that we are disappointed that we feel we have to do so. There are three major initiatives in the bill: the reduction of the electoral period, the creation of a permanent register and the initiative to stagger voting hours. All of these have some degree of merit, particularly the permanent register, which not only has merit but is critical.

We were unable to come to any kind of inter-party agreement on these. I think we could have if we had not been operating on an accelerated timetable. Many of the things that were discussed would have resulted in improved legislation.

I cannot speak for other parties, but on behalf of the Reform Party I can say that with a few changes we could have supported this legislation. The changes are not minor but they do not affect the principle of the legislation either. That troubles me a great deal. Maybe we will have some time to speak a little later in the debate about the process. I see my time is winding down. I would like to address the report stage amendments in the second group.

Group No. 2 includes 15 amendments, 5 moved by the Bloc Quebecois and 10 moved by the Reform Party. The five from the Bloc Quebecois concern making the date of birth a mandatory piece of information for inclusion on the register and the motions by the Reform Party remove gender as required information for the register.

I must say in all honesty that there is a bit of a technical problem with both of these being grouped together in that one does preclude the other the way they are drafted. I do not think that was the intention of either party because both the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party share the same position on these issues, which is that there is no necessity to include gender but there are reasons for including date of birth.

I will have time to address this very general issue later in the debate. What should guide us in constructing data registers is whether information is necessary for the purpose at hand or at least relevant. The primary consideration in constructing these databases should be whether it is necessary and relevant from the perspective of the citizen rather than some other group that may have an interest in the information.

It is quite obvious that the information on electoral lists should be relevant to a person's ability to be eligible to cast a vote. For a very long time in Canada gender has not been relevant in terms of whether or not somebody can vote in this country. On the other hand, clearly date of birth is relevant because a voter has to be at least 18 years of age. Why then are we including the one and not including the other?

If we examine the transcripts of committee meetings and comments from various members and if members had heard some of the comments that were made in camera, it becomes apparent that the guiding factor was not the needs of the electoral list or the needs of the voter. They were the perceived needs of political parties and of politicians. It was expressed over and over again that MPs found it convenient. Parties found it useful to know the gender of a voter. In some cultures, in French, and even some names in English, there are times when there is confusion, based on the first name, about whether a person is male or female. Certainly in some of the newer ethnic communities in the country names may not be obviously male or female. Because of our unfamiliarity with the names, as anglophones or francophones we do not readily know whether these persons are male or female. It makes identification harder. It can occasionally lead to an awkward situation. However, it is both a trivial and unnecessary reason for including gender.

We have had concerns raised by females living alone that electoral lists expose the fact that they are females living alone and that these lists do circulate. We all know that electoral lists can only circulate under very restricted conditions for very restricted use. The fact is that they circulate widely during elections and probably most extra circulation of lists is rarely heard about or prosecuted. This does become a piece of information conveying the gender on the voter's list. It is unnecessary and it should not be there. In the province of Alberta, for example, it is not done and this is the case in other provinces.

That is something we think should be changed. I am surprised government members were not more sensitive about the needs of women when designing this legislation. I hope they will support these amendments.

I think they have more serious and perhaps even more dubious motives for refusing to include date of birth but I will let them speak for their own position on these matters.

Canada Elections Act

10:35 a.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

Mr. Speaker, since Group No. 2 mentions the date of birth, I feel quite comfortable saying that I went to school a very long time ago. When I was in school, I learned one thing, that is to make a preamble which was different from, although linked to the content. I am sure I will be allowed to make a brief preamble.

I was able to follow closely the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, to hear the Chief

Electoral Officer of Canada, Mr. Kingsley, and the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr. Wilson. I listened very carefully, as I always do.

I almost swallowed my birth certificate when I saw how fast the clause by clause study of the bill went. I really had a feeling of being in a classroom where a very bright mathematics professor was lining up digits across the blackboard, leaving no time for students to think or breathe.

I could barely believe that man was our chairman. It went so fast that there was time left on the clock. This is extraordinary. I think the House will understand that we are determined to make up for lost time in the House because, in the end, it may be the best forum to hold the debate.

Basically the second group of motions deals with two elements, namely age-is it useful, necessary, indispensable or just nice-and sex. I am going to talk mainly about the date of birth, and then briefly about sex.

It seems to me that we all come into this world one day and that we all eventually die. It is recorded somewhere. If we apply for a driver's licence when we are not yet 18, our parents must sign on our behalf. Once we turn 18, our date of birth appears on everything. My date of birth appears on my passport, if I am not mistaken, so does the colour of my eyes, and I do not feel offended by it.

But when it comes to the electoral process, why do we in the Bloc Quebecois, and everyone in Quebec, believe it is important? For several reasons. First, on election day, it is a means to make a proper identification. My name is not very common. I will not mention it since I am not allowed to, but everyone here knows what it is. Suppose, however, that there are two other persons with the same name as mine, one born in 1953, the other, like me, in 1938. If the date of birth does not appear, I might be able to pass myself off as someone much younger.

This is one reason. I believe that this is one more way to clearly identify the voter at the polling station, because the one thing we fear more than anything else on election day is an imposter. This is the first reason.

There is another one which I find very important. The democratic process is said to be the most important thing in our society. During an election campaign several things are at stake. Of course, what is at stake is not of equal concern to the various groups in our society. In the case of measures specifically targeting the younger age groups, for example, the parties will have to know where they are to be found in order to give them some up to date information about what concerns them. This is the second reason why I think the date of birth should be mandatory and recorded.

For example, as far as old age pensions are concerned, I can assure you I would like the different parties to keep me informed of whatever changes are being proposed in the Liberal Party platform, for example. I would be very annoyed if my date of birth were not recorded.

I heard interesting arguments against that measure. The first one was that in Canada voting is optional and we are not forced to vote. It is true we are free to vote or not, just as we are not required to have a driving licence. However, if I do want to vote, my name must necessarily be on the electoral list. Otherwise, if it were not necessary, how could we justify the millions that are spent on compiling a list?

So, if I accept to be recorded on an electoral list, I am sending the message that as an elector in my country I intend to act as a good citizen and vote. In that context, I think it has nothing to do with freedom. Not indicating the date of birth would facilitate what we could call electoral fraud. You know, there are elections where the results are a close call. Imagine for example that in Laval Centre the candidates are neck and neck. It is possible, I am not saying it is probable, but it is possible. There are about 200 polling divisions and the difference in such a situation could be 2,000, 200, or even just 10 votes. Very clearly, with 200 polling divisions, one illegal vote per polling division makes the difference between victory and defeat.

So, I believe that, in all good conscience, the House should find another way to ensure that the voter who is in front of the deputy returning officer is really the person he or she claims to be.

I will now talk to you about sex. I am a little old to talk about sex, but I will tell you a little about it anyways.

Canada Elections Act

10:40 a.m.

Some hon. members

There is no age for that.

Canada Elections Act

10:40 a.m.

Some hon. members

No names, please.

Canada Elections Act

10:40 a.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

No, I will not name names. You can rest easy about that.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you one thing; no one in this House doubts that I am a woman: my name is Madeleine. So, I think that, if we do not indicate the sex, we should also remove first names and only keep the ones that are both masculine and feminine. In my opinion, an offender who would feel like doing some harassment would have plenty of ways to do so. And, to my knowledge, a voting list on which the sex would be indicated could not be used mainly to get involved in activities that would certainly not be right, but, as we say in the Lac-Saint-Jean region: as long as there are men, there are men's attitudes and, as long as there are women, there are women's attitudes. There may be offenders on both sides.

All this to tell you that I encourage the members of the House to pass the motions moved by the Bloc relating to age. They would show a greatness I know they are capable of.

They say the purpose of committees is to improve bills. This legislation has many flaws, including the fact that so little time was provided for its consideration. But, if the majority members wanted to earn brownie points, they could perhaps recognize that Canada should include the date of birth on electoral lists, as Quebec already does. I hope the Human Rights Commission will not fault me for saying that, in this context, it is not really a question of discrimination on the grounds of age.

I am counting on my colleagues across the way to support me so that, for once in this Parliament, all members unanimously agree on something important.

I only have one minute left and I will use it to make a wish. I think there are many bills considered important by the government. So I will go as far as imploring members opposite, why not?

Canada Elections Act

10:45 a.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC

No, haggle.