House of Commons Hansard #78 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was forces.

Topics

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, we clearly want to avoid that, which is why we said that each individual could vouch for one other person. Obviously, the person vouching would need to have a photo ID and proof that he or she was truly eligible to vote in that poll.

I would also point out to my hon. colleague that a mechanism we thought would be helpful, and which this bill facilitates, is allowing people to say on their income tax returns whether they are Canadian citizens and are able to vote in an election. It is very clear to anyone who has been involved in any aspect of a federal election that it is very important that the permanent voters list be updated so that people who have passed away can be taken off the list and people who have moved have provided their current addresses.

As far as serial vouching, we felt that it was one of the mechanisms we could put in place to stop any kind of abuse. Certainly there is anecdotal evidence of this. I know in the past election the Chief Electoral Officer was actually asked to formally investigate two elections for what were seen as somewhat untoward events and he certainly performed those investigations. That kind of mechanism will still be in place for people who feel that fraud is involved in an election.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

This is a bill that the committee has studied exhaustively. When there are things that are not working, the role of the opposition is to point them out. However, when things have worked well, then as a matter of intellectual honesty they should also be pointed out. This is called not engaging in shamelessly partisan politics. Here in the House of Commons there is of course adversarial debate, by definition. It must be noted that if a lot more discussion and a lot more collaboration among the various political parties were sought, by all sides, we would be able to produce better bills, bills that were an improvement on what was initially proposed.

Bill C-31 is a good example of what comes of excellent collaboration among the political parties. I will explain what I mean by this.

At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the government responded to a report. To summarize the sequence of events for the benefit of the people listening to us, the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, has to submit a report after an election campaign. The report is submitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That report was studied in committee and all parties are represented on that committee. Our report was tabled in the House. On October 20, the government responded to the report. The response was in writing, in the form of a formal response. There was also a legislative response. Bill C-31 represents that legislative response, which reflects a majority of the points raised in the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

In the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, when the bill goes back to committee, we will have an opportunity to suggest amendments to our colleagues in the other parties, to improve the bill once again.

The reality of a minority government means that there should be a lot more collaboration and consultation with the other parties, as I said earlier. In my view, the government should follow the example of Bill C-31 to amend the Elections Act and follow the same course for other bills.

For example, instead of insisting on pushing its law and order agenda, its right-wing agenda, the Conservative minority government should listen to the Bloc Québécois, which is calling for more emphasis to be put on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Instead of digging its heels in on its right-wing agenda, it should do the same thing with the opposition parties that are calling for the Kyoto objectives to be upheld. The Conservative government should also do the same thing for the gun registry, when it is bent on dismantling it.

I wanted to explain this point during my introduction in order to illustrate how it is possible to come up with better legislation by consulting the opposition. Why are we of the opinion that Bill C-31 is appropriate? The Bloc is in favour of it in principle. We are in favour of it because there is a whole aspect where the possibilities of fraud and error are reduced. Now, thanks to this bill, voters will have to present government issued photo ID, with the bearer’s name and address.

At home, in Quebec, the basic document could be the driver’s licence, which contains this information.

It seems to me that colleagues from New Brunswick mentioned that their driver’s licences do not have photos. I am not sure, but I think that my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst drew attention to this. The goal is to have a document that is issued by the government and bears personal information making it possible to identify the person. It is true, unfortunately, that when voter identification procedures are inadequate, some situations may arise in which people are tempted, often in exchange for money, to go and vote for other people.

There was the classic case that occurred in the Quebec riding of Anjou. I think that someone voted 34 times in the Quebec elections in Anjou. If I recall correctly, the candidate, Pierre Bélanger, lost by fewer than 50 votes. Since then, this flaw in the Quebec electoral system has been corrected.

Voters who do not have photo ID will have to provide two acceptable pieces of ID so as to establish their identity and address. The Chief Electoral Officer will publish the list of acceptable ID. In a recent election, in 2004 or 2006, someone came to a polling station to vote, armed with a pile of magazines like L'Actualité, Macleans, Femmes d'Aujourdhui and 50Plus. These magazines can be purchased every week at the supermarket. In this case, this person received them at home because she was a subscriber. On the covers was the Canada Post seal. This person managed to vote, thanks to her pile of magazines.

When people live in an apartment building, they have no guarantees that no one will go through their mail. In multiple dwelling structures, the mail is not always protected. Anyone can take the mail. So we can understand the absurd example that I gave. This person wanted to vote using this process.

Under Bill C-31, each voter's date of birth will be added to the official list of electors used in polling stations.

For example, a person might know the Speaker's name. I know the Speaker is young; I believe he is not yet 30. A person could try to pass himself off as the Speaker. At the polling station, he says he is that person. The list of electors makes it clear that that person was born in 1918. Perhaps the Speaker remained young thanks to a fountain of youth or an elixir of youth even though he was born in 1918. The birth date provides some indication that there might be a problem. This raises a flag, perhaps not a red flag, but a warning flag nonetheless. The bill includes this improvement.

Given that we believe Bill C-31 can be improved upon, I wish to announce that, subject to consultation, we intend to amend it to ensure that voters lists provided to political parties also contain date of birth information, as is the case in Quebec.

Bill C-31 will also improve the accuracy of the voters list because the chief electoral officer will assign a unique, randomly generated identifier to each voter.

This is a continuing demand of the Bloc Québécois, which has been calling for a unique permanent identification number for each voter for a long time. We would have preferred that the bill was more binding on the Chief Electoral Officer and clearer on this subject. We give notice that we will also have some suggestions for amendments on that point.

Bill C-31 also seeks to remove the deadline after which voters who have a functional limitation can no longer request a transfer certificate to a polling station offering level access. In our opinion, voters in wheelchairs or with a physical disability should have an equal opportunity to democratically express their choices. Unfortunately, when voting places are located in facilities that do not have full and free access or that involve stairs, by definition, they do not in any way promote access by voters in wheelchairs.

It is our view that Bill C-31 will improve communications between election officials, candidates, parties and voters.

Bill C-31 will give candidates a right of access to common areas of public places for election campaign purposes.

I believe that all of our colleagues here today have encountered situations where the owners of some shopping centres have refused permission for us to meet and introduce ourselves to members of the public. An election campaign is a special opportunity to call attention to ideas, to talk about our record as a member or as a party, regardless of which party is campaigning. The government can speak about its record. In the present case, the record of the Conservative government includes the torpedoing of the Kyoto protocol and a disposition in favour of war, similar to the Americans. We will have the chance to return to that record at the proper time—in an election campaign.

Bill C-31 will also provide election officials with a right of access to multiple residence dwellings and to gated communities to revise the voters list. Gated communities are dwellings to which access is controlled by a gate. How can voters be enumerated if no one is able to enter, or barely so? The accuracy of the lists then poses a problem.

Other provisions deal with certain operational and technical improvements, but I cannot list them in detail since my time has almost expired. In any case, we will have an opportunity to return to this topic. I wish simply to remind members that the Bloc Québécois will re-examine some aspects in committee or at third reading.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, in the name of the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #55

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Judges ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage and second reading of Bill C-17.

Judges ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just previously taken to the motion before the House on Bill C-17, with Conservative members present this evening voting yes.

Judges ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

Judges ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Judges ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting yes on this motion.

Judges ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois will vote against this motion.

Judges ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favour of this motion.

Judges ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, the NDP will be voting yes.

Judges ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Conservative

Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #56

Judges ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Motion No. 10Ways and MeansGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Pursuant to order made earlier today the House will now proceed to the taking of deferred recorded division on the ways and means motion no. 10.

Motion No. 10Ways and MeansGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That worked so well, let us try it again. I believe that you would find unanimous consent in the chamber to apply the vote on the motion previously taken to the motion presently before the House on ways and means motion no. 10, with Conservative members present voting yes.

Motion No. 10Ways and MeansGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

Motion No. 10Ways and MeansGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motion No. 10Ways and MeansGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting emphatically no.

Motion No. 10Ways and MeansGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this motion.