Debates of Nov. 14th, 2007

Canada Elections Act

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I again want to applaud the remarks made by my colleague, who has done a tremendous amount of good work in this file and on this bill and who has critiqued it on its merits and looked at some of the issues and terms that have been presented with respect to the flaws in the bill.

I do have a question for my colleague with respect to this bill. Was any official complaint launched? Was there any incident that prompted this bill to be introduced in the House? Why does this bill specifically target, it seems, one community? There could be other examples and other precedents regarding visual identification that need to be addressed. Specifically, and again, why does he believe the government is targeting one community? More importantly, is this a reflection of the government's ideology or a reflection of it not doing its homework?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am struck by the comments of the Minister of Transport. He also said when the bill was introduced on October 26, 2007, “While there was no apparent case of fraud in the recent Quebec byelections, it was widely reported that numerous individuals voted while purposely concealing their face”.

The question I might have, and it is a question I am not answering but I am buttressing the argument of my friend through his question, what were these numerous instances of concealing the face and did they really cause people to question the credibility and integrity of the voting process?

It seems to me that we are all veterans of the political process, and that where there are abuses, complaints are made. No complaints were made in this case.

The minister said that it was widely reported. Was it reported in the Minister of Transport's living room? Was it reported in his local newspaper? Was it down at the pumpkin patch that he heard these things? Those are the questions that I would like answered, because the short answer to my friend's question is that there were no complaints. There is no major problem. Let Elections Canada do its job. Let us concentrate on the rural voters question first. Why was the rural voters address question not dealt with first? It shows that pumpkins are more important than rural Canada to the Conservative government.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am getting more and more frustrated.

In September there was a special meeting of the committee held here in Ottawa. All parties agreed that we needed to deal with the issue. All parties. That includes the Liberal members on that committee.

What I am hearing from the member today is that it does not matter what the parliamentarians had to say about it. The question he just answered was, who decided to bring this here and why was it an issue? It was the committee that decided it was an issue. It encouraged us to bring forward a bill. We have done it.

We would like to get the bill to committee for further discussion on any changes that are needed. I am not asking what the member's party is doing. Will the member support sending the bill to committee so that the committee can deal with the issues he has raised today?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to be the cause of the member's frustration.

I would say to him that this is very bad legislation. I am not sure it can be cured by going to committee. I have looked at it. If it was amended, it might have so many holes in it, it might not be a bill. In legal terms, what that means is that amendments may be beyond the scope of the bill.

The point is that we will either have visual facial identification of every voter in this country who wants to vote, or we will have it for no voters. That is the issue. I do not know where or when that will be dealt with.

Bill C-31 has other issues. If a special committee is struck for the rural voters issue, I would be quite pleased to discuss that issue at committee because it can be saved. This bill does not reply to a problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak about this bill, especially since I am going to change the presentation I had drafted in my head and answer a question my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier asked the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

The suggestion made by my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier to refer the bill to committee before second reading is excellent. In light of what has been said, I can say that that could improve this bill. As I said earlier to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, this bill, like any bill, can be improved. I also want to tell my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier that the relevant committee—because both members referred to the relevant committee—is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, of which I am vice-chair.

That said, I would like to repeat that the Bloc Québécois will support the bill in principle, but that some parts will have to be changed. It is interesting to note that the bill provides for some exceptions. The issue had come up before, and this is an interesting point: the bill will allow people to keep their faces covered for medical reasons. These people could exercise their right to vote.

When I was a teenager, one of my friends had an operation. Beauty is important at that age. In fact, it is chief among our concerns. My friend had plastic surgery to pin back his ears, and his head was literally swathed in bandages. You could see only a few centimetres of skin on either side of his eyes. This would be ample reason for allowing this person to vote on presenting a medical certificate, of course. It goes without saying. However, we need to ask ourselves how often this situation arises in a general election or byelection.

In addition, Bill C-6 adds clauses that allow returning officers to appoint additional people at the polls and to delegate some of the responsibilities at the polls. In this way, the members of the election staff would have some flexibility to determine the circumstances under which a person would have to show his or her face. For example, a Muslim woman who so requested could uncover her face only in front of another woman.

We do not want to announce any amendments because we want to hear from the various stakeholders first. We will recall the controversy in late summer last year surrounding the decision by Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand to allow the possibility for veiled electors to vote. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs heard testimony from Muslim women's groups from Quebec, such as Présence musulmane Montréal, but mostly from Ontario. Five or six of these groups were represented at the roundtable with us, at the committee. These women told us that they never asked to vote with their faces veiled. That is something they never requested. Like other women in Canada, these Muslim women are seeking gender equality, and rightly so.

The government bill, however, seeks to leave a degree of power or flexibility with the Chief Electoral Officer. Mr. Mayrand had such flexibility, and we have seen what he did with it. We do not want to leave such flexibility with him. The Bloc Québécois wants clear legislation requiring everyone to remove their veil upon arriving at the polling station. Now, he is given the power to make accommodations.

The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has answered my question. I could have put the following question to him. How will this work in a polling division with three stations where the entire electoral staff is male?

How is this going to work? Will we stop the process if a woman shows up at the polling station and wants to vote—which is her legitimate right—but is veiled?

We have to find a way for her to unveil her face. We left that responsibility to the Chief Electoral Officer. How is it going to work? Will this be done in a polling booth, or in another location?

Let us take the example that I gave regarding polling divisions with two or three polling stations, as we find in rural communities. There may not be many in downtown Toronto, but in rural areas, in small communities of 230 people, such as Baie-Sainte-Catherine, in my riding, at the mouth of the Saguenay River, there are not going to be four polling divisions. If in this polling division that has only one polling station there are only men on duty, will we stop the voting process and swear in a special female returning officer? This is not feasible.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will hear witnesses who will reiterate the fact that Muslim women never requested that. I remind the House that Muslims account for 92% or 93% of the population in Morocco. This means there is a high probability that some women are veiled. It may not be all women, but again it is estimated that Muslims account for 92% or 93% of Morocco's population. These groups of Muslim women told us that this was never a problem.

In Morocco, when an election is held, there are two ballots. If my memory serves me right, elections were held on August 25 and on September 6. Elections were held at the end of August and in September, and there were no problems. Women uncovered their faces to vote.

By giving back this flexibility to the Chief Electoral Officer, the bill puts us back in almost the same dilemma. In any case, Mr. Mayrand will have the opportunity to come and tell us about it.

Again, the Bloc Québécois supports the bill in principle, because we feel that all voters, whether men or women, must be equal before the law.

In 2007, the House of Commons amended the Elections Act to enhance the requirements for proving the identity of voters. I do not intend to go over this at length, but there was indeed room for improvement. Before, two or three weeks in advance of voting day, the Chief Electoral Officer would send out a small card indicating the polling station and the polling division. This was sent out to every home.

As candidates in an election, there is a good chance we will see the electors at their home because we go door to door. I once went door to door in buildings with 64 dwellings. At the entrance, we could see the mail room with various store fliers and piles of elector cards. We saw 30 or 40 cards scattered on the floor among the flyers. A dishonest person could have gathered those cards and handed them out. They could have been used as identification.

I want to acknowledge the good work all parliamentarians have done to correct this situation. We have improved the identification process. I was a member of the committee at the time. If my memory serves me correctly, on February 23, 2007, we examined the issue of elector identification. I must admit that at the time, we did not discuss the issue of uncovering one's face to vote.

I also admit that the situation arose in Quebec during the March 26, 2007, general election. In fact, the chief electoral officer of Quebec, Marcel Blanchet, used his authority to rule that everyone presenting themselves at a polling station must vote with their faces uncovered. Period. The chief electoral officer, Mr. Blanchet, reiterated this fact during the byelections held in the Quebec riding of Charlevoix, in my riding, where the leader of the Parti Québécois, Ms. Marois, was elected. In addition, we learned last week that the National Assembly tabled a bill that will be studied by a parliamentary committee.

The Bloc Québécois, as well as the other political parties, and in particular, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and some members, pointed out in their interventions that the principle of the bill was consensual. Yes, that is correct. However, that does not mean that if we are in favour of the principle of the bill that we are in favour of all the provisions contained therein. That does not mean that all the provisions of the bill are not good.

I mentioned the example of someone who could vote with their face covered for medical reasons. However, some aspects of the bill are problematic.

In anticipation of the three byelections held last September 17 in Quebec, the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Mayrand, could have used his discretionary power and ruled that everyone had to vote with their face uncovered. The elections act gives him this authority. Contrary to what he told us in committee—and I challenged him on this—he seemed to say that it was too complex and too broad an issue to use his discretionary power.

I reminded him that, in the January 2006 election, the Chief Electoral Officer had used his discretionary authority on more than 33 occasions. He used it to amend the law to facilitate the voting. Therefore, Mr. Mayrand could have done it. However, he decided not to and at that point, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I announced that we would introduce a bill when Parliament resumed.

I do not want to get into a discussion of the type “my dad is stronger than yours” or “whose idea was it?” However, one thing is certain—before the introduction of Bill C-6, which we are discussing, after Parliament resumed, the Bloc Québécois had kept its promise. I proudly introduced, on behalf of my party, Bill C-465, to clarify the situation.

I agree that my bill left out the medical issue, but like all bills, it could have been improved. That being said, the bill introduced by the Bloc was clear: all individuals must show their faces to vote.

On behalf of my party, I even requested unanimous consent for this bill to be passed at all stages and referred to the Senate. The reality of a minority government is that an election can happen at the drop of a hat. This situation must be clarified, especially considering that Mr. Mayrand has refused to use the discretionary power available to him by law. Let us hope that there will not be an election next week, because we will find ourselves in exactly the same situation.

Unfortunately, for partisan reasons, the Conservative government refused to speed things up for the bill. The Conservatives introduced their own bill. As I said, I do not want to talk about whose idea it was in the first place. That is not the issue, but the truth is that before this bill was introduced, the government could have fast-tracked the Bloc Québécois' bill. However, the government chose to exhibit partisanship and pettiness by rejecting the Bloc's bill.

As I said, this bill would open the door to a breach of gender equality. The first five clauses of the bill were included to enable returning officers and poll clerks to delegate their authority to another individual. That means that there would be another person authorized to perform the duties normally required of returning officers and poll clerks as custodians of the ballot box and designated officials responsible for verifying the identity of voters.

Even the Secretary of State responsible for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity confirmed that these measures were included to accommodate certain cultural groups. On October 30, 2007, Le Devoir published an article in which the secretary of state said, “I think that the bill is well written... It strikes a balance between Parliament's desire to verify the identity of individuals and the need to remain flexible to accommodate cultural needs.”

That is not what Muslims, particularly Muslim women, are asking for. They want to be treated equally. They do not want to be treated differently from other voters. That is what the government is failing to understand.

When he was invited to explain the provisions of the bill, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities told us that he wanted to leave some things to the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer. We are right back to square one, the original reason this bill is before us. The Chief Electoral Officer is misusing his discretion, and refuses to take responsibility and issue an order.

The Bloc Québécois said that with the agreement of all the parties, we would propose a clear bill. However, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities wants to allow more room for discretion. So the government is sending the problem back to the Chief Electoral Officer.

I would like to remind the House that in a La Presse article, dated October 30, 2007, the Chief Electoral Officer said that he did not intend to take sides in societal debates. What does it mean to take sides in societal debates?

In conclusion, I would like to say that this is completely unacceptable. All civil servants working in elections, whether they are deputy returning officers or poll clerks, deserve the same respect, regardless of their sex. Election workers, whether they are male or female, must be able to carry out the same tasks without being discriminated against based on their sex.

To get around the requirement I mentioned earlier, at a polling station where there are only men, the Chief Electoral Officer could require that there be one woman at each table in each polling division, to allow female voters to uncover their face only in front of a woman. This would encourage discrimination, setting us back years, and it is not our intention to encourage such behaviour.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before moving on to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Access to Information; the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Fisheries and Oceans.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, normally I rise and say it is an honour and pleasure to speak to a bill. Sad to say, it is not in this case and I will explain briefly why that is and then get into the essence of the bill.

The reason that I have problems with this bill is because of the politics behind the bill. What we see here is a bill, whether or not it is the intent of the government or for that matter members of the Bloc, that targets a specific group, that is certainly how it feels to a lot of people.

We have heard that from people most recently at the procedure and House affairs committee. I know that the government has referenced the committee hearings as having heard from members of the Muslim community. The fact that we are focusing on this issue, notwithstanding the government's premise that this is to deal with integrity in voting, is to deal with how people feel because they feel as if they are being targeted and I can understand why.

It is important to understand how we got here. The House should recall that this is really a band-aid for a problem that existed with Bill C-31 which is now legislation. At the time, our party voted against it. We tried to fix the bill at committee. Sadly it did not get the support of other parties.

However, let us go over the tenets of Bill C-31. The tenets of Bill C-31 came out of a committee report which I think was part of the Conservative Party playbook. It was to take a committee report, cherry-pick it, and bring forward legislation, swiftly I might add and not very well written, so that the Conservatives can get their agenda put forward using the committee as cover.

I invite anyone to read the debate on Bill C-31 at procedure and House affairs committee. This was a wide-ranging report by the committee, cherry-picked with a response for the government very quickly, and a bill following within a week or two to repair a problem. The best way to put this is that this was a solution looking for a problem and that is what has happened with Bill C-31.

I mentioned many times when speaking on Bill C-31 that there was a problem with privacy. We had the problem with birthdates being put on the voters lists which would be in the hands of DROs across the land. Think of 308 ridings with hundreds of polling stations with the birthdate information of voters. However, to make matters worse, we had an amendment at committee by the Bloc and the Liberals to have that information shared with all political parties, if one can imagine that.

This was at a time when I was asking for the committee to hear from the Privacy Commissioner because I thought this was obviously an issue of privacy that we should hear from her on this. At the committee stage, I voted against this strongly. There was support at the time by the government, but when it went to the House Conservatives lost their courage, supported the other parties, and the amendment to have birthdate information included in the bill was voted and supported by all parties except for ours.

It is interesting to note that during the debates on Bill C-31 I said many times we needed to hear from more witnesses. I asked that the Privacy Commissioner come before committee. I believed it was incredibly important that we hear from the Privacy Commissioner on the issue of birthdate information being shared. The premise of course was that Elections Canada would have the date and year of birth of everyday people, and that somehow this would be a measure to ensure that the voter who was presenting himself or herself was in fact that person.

The problem with that premise was the verification number in the bill for citizens to provide photo ID. If they do not have photo ID, they need other ID that is acceptable. If they do not have that, they have to swear an oath, et cetera. This says that the government, through the bill, does not trust Canadians. We have to ask ourselves, what is the premise of the bill?

If we believe the government, the premise of the bill was the possibility of voter fraud, and I underline possibility. I asked the Chief Electoral Officer at committee whether there was rampant voter fraud. There were four cases in the last three elections that might have potentially been voter fraud and these cases were being looked into.

I said at that time, and I want to submit here, that there were more problems with candidate fraud than voter fraud. Candidate fraud is when a candidate presents himself in an election as being with the Liberal Party and then after that election, transforms himself into a Conservative. We have seen floor crossings. We have seen candidate fraud. This is of more concern to my constituents than so-called voter fraud.

What we have here is a false premise. The government got itself into this muck based on a bill that we did not need. We had the problems around privacy with respect to birth date information. We heard testimony at committee from those who advocated for the homeless, for first nations and aboriginal people and for students. They asked us not to let the bill go through without amending it so the people they represented would not be disenfranchised.

Unfortunately, the government and some of the opposition did not support amendments that would have allowed people to have a statutory declaration swearing who they were and then be able to vote. I believe that would have been the sensible way to go. It would have been good public policy, but that did not happen.

The bill went through and now we have the problem with birth date information. It was dealt with somewhat at the other place. We now have the potential problem of people not presenting themselves in a way the government believes is proper comportment.

We of course have a problem with voters' lists. My friend from the Bloc said that voter registration cards were ubiquitous and all over the place. A proposal was made at committee, which would have employed the incredible new technology called an envelope. A voter card would be put in an addressed envelope and sent to the voter. If it was not taken by the household to which it was addressed, it would be returned to sender. I believe this is done now in Ontario. This should have been done first before we started tinkering with people's privacy and the likes of Bill C-31.

We see a huge concern with respect to folks in rural Canada and the voters' list. We proposed universal enumeration for universal suffrage. People would go door to door to ensure the accuracy of the voters' list. We all have encountered problems with centralized voters' lists. It requires an overhaul. It requires having men and women doing door to door enumeration so we can have a more accurate voters' list.

The envelopes and the enumeration should have been done first before we got into the likes of Bill C-31. I am sure members sitting around the cabinet table are asking themselves why in heaven's name they got involved in this. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time because they felt they could crack down on voter fraud. It is like cracking down on some other issues that the government likes to talk about, but in the end perhaps creates more problems.

On the bill itself, I think we have to look to the most recent committee testimony when we met in September. I was there. I have listened carefully to the Bloc talk about Morocco. The member was actually referencing my comments. I had just returned from Morocco and witnessed the elections there.

For the record, I want to clear up what he is interpreting happened in Morocco. He was quite right that the Moroccans do not have a problem. He should also know that laws such as this are not required. It is simple common sense. When women present themselves, they are able to vote. In a respectful manner they are asked to visually identify and then they are given ballots. I witnessed that. I believe it is something from which we can learn. He was wrong to interpret this and say that there was a law in place and that there was legislative oversight.

We do have to be careful that when we deal with legislation, it does not have unintended consequences. I have already outlined some of the unintended consequences, or hopefully they are unintended, that Bill C-31 presents. However, what we have to look at is does this legislation target a specific group and do we believe it is charter proof?

What I mean by that, and it was already mentioned by a member from the Liberal Party, is this. The first question we need to ask is, does this comply with the charter? This is incredibly important. I said this at committee regarding Bill C-31. I believe it will be struck down for reasons that I have mentioned about the homeless, aboriginal people and students being able to vote. I think it is being challenged as we speak. Presently the way this legislation is written, I believe there could be a charter challenge. We first need to ask if the bill will be charter proof.

We have agreed that electors under the Canada Elections Act should require voters to be identified. However, we will not give a blank cheque to the government to pass laws such as this that seemingly, maybe for unintended reasons, will target a group and will be challenged under the charter. That is very important.

I also need to underline the role of the Chief Electoral Officer. I was at the committee when the Chief Electoral Officer made his argument. He said that the way the legislation was written at the time he could not do what he was being asked to do, notwithstanding the motion. I was there and we all supported it that motion.

At that time, I said we could support the motion, but, and I said very this very clearly, it had absolutely no efficacy. It meant absolutely nothing. However, I said that if it made people feel like they were actually achieving something, good for them. It was clear at the end of the day that the Chief Electoral Officer would interpret the legislation the way he did, and that a committee would not tell an officer of Parliament how to direct himself. He had done his homework, but we had not done ours, and that is the problem with Bill C-31. The bill we have in front of us is an attempt to clean that up.

I underline the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer was doing his job. We need to do our job better. That means we have to be much more diligent, especially when we are changing the Canada Elections Act. In fact, it is the same for any legislation.

If we think about it, the foundation of our democracy is allowing people their franchise. What seems to be happening is we seem to be going backwards. As opposed to opening up ways for people to vote, we seem to be putting up barriers. As I said, maybe they are unintended, but the end result seems that we are putting up more barriers rather than opening up pathways.

At committee, the Chief Electoral Officer said:

I also wish to remind you that last Monday, I asked election officials to invite anyone whose face is concealed to uncover it in a manner that is respectful of their beliefs. If they decline to do so, voters must take an oath as to their qualification as an elector in order to be eligible to vote. However, I have not amended the Act to require them to uncover their face. Again, the choice continues to be up to the individual.

It was very clear how the Chief Electoral Officer interpreted the legislation.

We have in front of us now legislation that essentially tries to make up for the fact that we created a problem. We did not create a solution. As I said before, it is a solution looking for a problem.

If we look at the bill and how it is outlined right now, it requires a lot of oversight, but the most substantive thing it requires is actual consultation. In my questions to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities I asked what kind of consultation had happened since we were in front of the procedure and House affairs committee in September and to the writing of legislation. He assured me there was a lot of consultation.

Last week I spent time consulting with Canadians who are affected and concerned by the bill. They are deeply concerned about the direction and the perception they have of the bill separating and targeting people.

I will share my question to the Chief Electoral Officer at committee when we met in September on this issue. The meeting was to be about election financing and it turned into a meeting about this issue.

When I asked Mr. Mayrand if he knew of any cases of voter fraud when women wore veils, he answered none, zero in the history of our country. I also asked members of the Muslim community at committee if they had any issues about complying with what Mr. Mayrand had already indicated, and that was when people presented themselves, they would be asked to give visual identification. None of them said that there was a problem.

I consulted people from the community last week. I asked them if there had been a problem of having to present themselves and give visual identification. Again, there was no problem.

Therefore, we have to ask ourselves what is the problem. I go back to this. It is a solution looking for a problem. Bill C-31 was. This bill seems, maybe unintended, to be going down a path that is going to divide people and perhaps be a charter challenge. There might be a problem constitutionally.

We need to do what was not done before, and that is for the government, and for that matter Parliament, to do their homework and consult with Canadians before we write bills like this and while we are in the midst of debating bills.

The bill was rushed through quickly. That is how I began my comments and I will end them on this note. We must take the time to write legislation well and consult often. When we believe we have consulted enough, we should consult more.

Canadians want to not only be seen to be heard, but to actually be heard. Parliament dropped the ball on Bill C-31. We believed it was a bad bill. That is why we voted against it and tried to change it, sadly without the support of other parties.

In this case, we need to ensure the ball is not dropped again by consulting widely. We need to ensure that voices are heard. Let us stop dividing people on an issue like the representation of people when they come to vote. Let us absolutely listen to the voices of the people who will be affected by this.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member made some thoughtful remarks. I tend to agree with him that this is a solution looking for a problem. I must have been talking to the same people that he has been talking to, which are various Muslim groups. I have not talked to Elections Canada, but I thought I heard the minister say in his speech that there is no actual incident of this being a problem. So, we have before us a piece of legislation for which there is no evidence that there is a problem. That seems to be a strange use of Parliament's time and a reaction to a perception rather than a reaction to a reality.

I am very curious that something like this would be almost effectively a very large tempest in a very small teapot. I wonder whether the hon. member is as concerned as I am. If in fact identity is an issue when one is proposing to vote, is he equally concerned or not concerned at all with respect to those who mail in their votes? There is no identity issue at all with mailed in votes. People can simply mail in their votes. As I understand it, in every election literally thousands of votes are mailed in. So, it is not an issue of veils, it is not even an issue of seven veils, and it is not even a dance of the seven veils, it is merely mailing in a vote.

I would be interested to know first, whether the hon. member thinks that that is an issue that needs to be looked into and if it does, is it on a greater scale of concern than this particular bill. Second, has he or his party done any analysis as to whether this is in fact charter compliant?

I would have liked to ask the minister whether he is prepared to table, or has tabled, the charter analysis by the Department of Justice to show that--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to cut off the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood in order to give the hon. member for Ottawa Centre a chance to respond.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been clear about the whole bill. I am sad to say that the Liberal Party supported Bill C-31 at the beginning and I did not quite understand that, but it is never too late to show one's opposition.

If we look at how we got here, it was a solution looking for a problem from the very beginning. If we are making laws, they should be evidence based. As I said, there were more problems with candidate fraud than voter fraud. Instead of bringing in a law like this one, we should have had a law on floor crossing and people switching parties. That is more important to everyday people than this bill is, which has turned into a Frankenstein that the government is trying to put to rest and is having problems with it.

On the issue itself, I think that this is the government's latest attempt, and it has other bills coming forward on rural voting gone amok.

With regard to the charter, I mentioned that in my comments. If we looked at section 15, we might have some problems with the charter. I am hoping the government did its homework on that this time, but I guess it will be our job to hold the government to account, and quite frankly, that is what people pay us to do. That is what I will be doing.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the member who just spoke and concerns his remarks.

I have heard him more than once describe this bill as a solution looking for a problem. This makes me seriously wonder about the member's perception. While the problem may not have been experienced extensively across Canada, I can say that there is a serious problem in Quebec in connection with this issue. The bill before us seeks to remedy this real problem experienced by people in Quebec.

My hon. colleague was concerned about this bill possibly targeting specific groups. I would ask him if the question is not whether the bill targets specific practices rather than groups, which practices are contrary to the principle of voter equality before the law. I would like to hear him on that.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify. I believe this is a solution looking for a problem. When we look at Bill C-31 and go back in time to see how many instances there were of concerns around voter fraud, what was the evidence? It was minuscule. Would my friend be able to say to his constituents with a straight face that we came up with this great law, Bill C-31, because we had this horrible, huge problem we had to deal with?

We should look at all the other problems we have before us. As I have said many times, why do we not deal with enumeration? We should make sure that we have universal enumeration, clean up the voters list, get envelopes for those voter cards that the member's colleague was so concerned about, and do some common sense things.

When I talk to people, they ask why for goodness' sake are we debating these kinds of bills and not cleaning up the voters list and not ensuring that we have a proper registry. That is what they want to see.

I have to say on the issue of target, I am not saying that is what we are doing. I am saying that is how people feel, after consulting them. We need to do more of that. I say consult and consult, and after we have done that, consult a bit more, because this is too--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will stop the hon. member there. I think we have time for two more questions and comments if members are mindful of the clock. First, the hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. My colleague has done a good job on this bill and other types of work in the House.

One thing he has not mentioned is that the Conservative government actually put an unelected person in the Senate, the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Fortier. I would like the hon. member to comment on that. That is one of the things we need to straighten up with regard to democratic reform.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I talk to people who are concerned about democratic reform, the first issue that comes to mind is not this issue. This is an issue that has been injected into the body politic. The issue that people are worried about is accountability, which is what the government dined out on for quite a long time.

I am wondering why the government is putting people from the backroom into the Senate and then into cabinet. That is what is on people's minds.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member for Ottawa Centre is the same question I had asked of the Minister of Transport. Although I had not asked the question of the Bloc members, we did get an answer from them. It relates to how we are going to deal with the bill.

My question was, is the government prepared to refer the bill to committee before second reading? That is an established practice that enables the House to deal with difficult and complex issues without committing to a certain principle. It also gives the committee latitude in terms of hearing witnesses and perhaps gauging the situation and offering solutions to a problem, whether it is real or not.

My question for the member for Ottawa Centre is, would his party support referral of the bill to committee before second reading?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, anything that could improve a flawed bill, going back to Bill C-31 and this band-aid that we have, would be welcome. Any idea that could further consultations and recommendations for improvement would be welcome.

I would simply point out that we go to our respective caucuses to talk about processes like this. I will certainly not stand here and tell the member exactly how we will go forward on that. However, it is an idea and it is not a bad idea. I will leave it to our respective parties to look at that idea and to moving it forward.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I should ask a rhetorical question here, but the first question is, where is the bill coming from? That is important to establish in order to help us answer some of the questions that will come up as we look into this bill.

The bill is not coming from Elections Canada. I have had the pleasure of a briefing from officials at Elections Canada, at my request, and it is quite clear that this bill emanates from the body politic, the government, and not from Elections Canada. That, I believe, is significant in the sense that the government therefore must answer the question that has already been put by my colleague as to whether or not this meets the charter test, whether the government has sought and obtained assurances that the proposed legislation in Bill C-6 does indeed meet the test of the charter. I believe that we might be surprised with that down the road, should Parliament decide to go much further with this legislation, because I am not convinced that it does meet the charter test.

I was also hoping to garner enough support in the House from members where there is goodwill to try to refer this bill to committee before second reading and therefore give ourselves more latitude in looking at the situation.

The representative of the Bloc Québécois who spoke said that his party would certainly consider that favourably. The member for Ottawa Centre indicated he thought the idea had merit and he would seek some direction from his own caucus.

I was hoping that if indeed the three opposition parties are in agreement here, the government would take that into consideration and would allow this bill to proceed to committee before second reading and therefore give our members who are representing each party there more latitude in dealing with a very difficult, complex and delicate situation.

I want to review how it is that Canadians can vote. There are different ways.

First, of course, they can show up at a polling station, and while at the polling station there are three different ways that Canadians can signify who they are and obtain a ballot.

The first way, as we mentioned, is by providing some sort of photo ID issued by government, one of which is a driver's licence. Another could be a passport. Another could be, in some jurisdictions, a health card. However, let it be known that 20% of Canadians do not have a driver's licence and do not necessarily have photo ID with them. Therefore, in its wisdom, Parliament, when it enacted this act in the past, recognized we had to have some flexibility for other ways of self-identification, because facial identification is not accessible to everyone.

The second way that any Canadian who is on the list of electors can use to obtain a ballot and vote is by providing non-photo ID that recognizes who they are and where they live. There is, I believe, a list of 50 or so such possibilities that they can use to identify themselves, not visually, not facially, not with a photo ID, but identify who they are and obtain a ballot.

The third way is go to the polling station, swear a note and be vouched for by another registered elector. All the person needs to provide is his or her name, address and signature. Again the person does not need to provide any photo ID.

There is a fourth way people can vote, which is really broken down into two. Both are called special ballots.

One of those two other ways is a mail-in ballot. At the start of or during a campaign, electors can ask that their ballots be sent to them and they can mail them in. It is usually people from overseas who will do that, but I have known citizens in the riding of Ottawa--Vanier who have exercised their right to vote by mail-in ballot. In those circumstances, they do not need to provide photo ID as well.

The other way is to obtain a special ballot from the returning officer of the riding. People do not even have to show up in person. Someone else can go to the returning officer's office up to six days before the actual polling day, obtain a ballot and go back to the person for whom they are doing that. The person, however, must sign and put the ballot in the sealed envelope and then return it by a specified time.

Essentially, we have created an environment where Canadians have five ways of voting and that is done to ensure Canadians can vote. Of those five ways, only one requires facial identification. The other four do not. That is how it is now and that is how it would remain should Bill C-6 be adopted. It is important that we take that into consideration.

Then we get into what Bill C-6 really does and we heard what it does tonight. It basically forces one very small, narrow category of Canadian citizens to unveil themselves should they be veiled for religious reasons.

Here is where I have a real problem. We have a situation where a Muslim woman, who has decided for religious reasons to wear a veil, goes into a polling station on election day, is forced to remove her veil and yet is not forced to facially identify. She can present two pieces of identification that recognize her name and her address or swear an oath and will not need to present photo ID.

What are we doing here? When my colleague from Ottawa Centre says that we have a solution looking for a problem, I would perhaps add a word to that. It is perhaps a non-solution looking for a problem because we are not changing anything here. However, we are going to force Muslim women to unveil themselves without having them photo identified. What is the point? That is a question that deserves an answer.

I do not have a problem with demanding that Muslim women identify visually. We do so as we do for every Canadian. If we want a passport we must have our picture taken and it must be in our passport. I do not have a problem with that and I do not think Canadians have a problem with that.

If we want a driver's licence, I believe in all jurisdictions in this country, we must have a photo. I know in Ontario we must have a photo if we want a driver's licence, and an unveiled photo if one happens to be a Muslim woman. I do not have a problem with that.

If we want to board a plane in this country we must provide photo ID, unveiled, and we must prove who we are as well. I do not have difficulty with that and I do not think anyone has. It is the same thing for the citizenship card. People must have a photo on it and Muslim women must be unveiled. I do not think anyone has difficulty with that because it is a universal application.

We have a situation here where we have said to all Canadians that they have five different ways of voting but for Muslim women we will be adding a special condition: they must remove their veil. At the same time, we are telling them that they do not need to provide facial proof of who they are. What is the point? That brings us to the questions of charter compliance. We heard comments about that earlier today.

We have had discussions concerning individual rights versus collective rights, and concerning freedom of religion and religious rights in relation to the fundamental right to vote. That is certainly the kind of debate that should take place in a House of Commons or Parliament. I am very interested in this question, and so are most of my hon. colleagues.

However, if the government were to ask me to express my opinion beforehand, without even knowing whether the bill before us meets the requirements of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if the government were to ask me to state my position before I even had some answers to some of these questions, in my opinion, the government is going too far, too fast.

This bill involves potential fundamental conflicts between freedom of religion and the right to vote. This must be reconciled and it is up to Parliament to do so. Perhaps we will not be able to do so in this House. Furthermore, I find it rather ironic that, earlier, my hon. colleague from Ottawa Centre, who advocates abolishing the Senate, referred to that very chamber, in order to correct what he saw as a flaw in another bill, that is, Bill C-31, regarding the Canada Elections Act. We could very easily find ourselves in the same situation again.

I find it even more ironic that his party advocates abolishing the house that could in fact help us resolve this matter, if the government does not seem inclined to act appropriately, transparently and respectfully.

I want to use a very personal event. I was not sure I should but I will. I am thinking that what we are confronted with is very similar to an event, which the House may recall, that I was confronted with. In Ottawa at one point we had the merger of hospitals. The board, in its wisdom, hired someone who it believed to be the most competent person to help it navigate through the merger of a number of hospitals.

The board hired a gentleman who had essentially shepherded hospitals in the Montreal area in the same kind of environment, which is very difficult. People are suffering through a great deal of uncertainty. There are all kinds of questions. There may be people who fear for their jobs. Therefore, it is a tense environment to start with.

This gentleman happened to be David Levine who had been in the past a Parti Québécois candidate in the riding of D'Arcy McGee. He garnered, I gather, a very low number of votes, but that is neither here nor there.

However, we were confronted with a situation where a gentleman who had been hired was being threatened of being fired for political beliefs although he had accepted squarely to leave whatever political beliefs he held at the door. They were not germane to the job he was hired to do. It was a very heated debate in our community, so much so that the board thought it should hold a special meeting and it did. It chose the biggest hall it had at the hospital and still people spilled over to the street.

I chose to go and speak. Some of my friends told me that I was nuts and that I would be confronted. It was a bit mobbish but I felt it was important that the principle in this country that we do not hire and fire people based on their political beliefs if they leave those beliefs at the door. If we are hiring people for their competence and for their capacity, that is what they should be judged on, not because they may have run for a political party that we do not agree with.

I certainly have never shared the views of the Parti Québécois in terms of its basic tenet or the Bloc for that matter, but we cannot fire people. That was the slipperiest slope we could get on.

I have the feeling that the bill that is before us has such elements because of a rather volatile reaction to Mr. Myrand's decision to apply the law as he chose to. In the rush to condemn or criticize, perhaps some people have forgotten but what is at play here is the fundamental right of freedom of religion and the fundamental right of freedom to vote and people should be treated the same.

I know people tell me that all they are asking for is that all people who come to vote unveil themselves if they happen to wear a veil.

That is not quite true. One can vote by correspondence, vote by mail where one does not ever have to identify oneself visually. It is not quite true because one can vote by special ballot where someone else gets the ballot for the person and brings it back to the returning officer's office, so one ever needs to visually identity.

It is not quite true because right now someone else could show up and not have to prove who they are with visual identification, even the Muslim women whose veils we have forced them to remove because there are two other provisions that allow people to vote in this country without facial identification.

Do we want to go to that? Perhaps the country needs to look at that. I, too, have observed elections. I was in the Congo.

Last summer, I was in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where I noticed that something that contributed to the legitimate success of the electoral process was the voter's photo ID card. Everyone had one, so it was easy. Voters also had to dip their thumb in indelible ink. There were mechanisms to make sure the vote was legitimate, that people voted only once and that the person who was voting was the person on the voter's list. Do we want to move toward that sort of system? Perhaps. In my opinion, there is some merit to it.

However, we have to recognize that today, in Canada, we do not have a universal photo ID card. Moreover, 20% of Canadians do not have a driver's licence, and an even larger percentage do not have a passport.

Two jurisdictions have a photo on their health cards. The process is still under way in Ontario, but in some provinces, people do not have their photo on their health card. In addition, they do not have their address on their citizenship card or their photo on their social insurance card. Canadians therefore have no photo ID card they can use to exercise their right to vote. That is why voters are not required to visually identify themselves by showing a photo of their face.

Why require people to uncover their face when they are not required to identify themselves in this way? It is strikingly incongruous. We are entitled to ask what is behind this bill.

What motivates a government—because the bill comes from the government and not Elections Canada—to target a group and tell the members of that group that the government no longer believes in their right to religious freedom and is requiring women to uncover their faces?

The government can impose that requirement. I comply with that requirement for passports, for boarding planes and the like. However, there is an inconsistency. When we take a plane, we have to prove our identity. If we do not, we do not board. If we want a passport, we have to identify ourselves with our face uncovered or we do not get a passport. As far as voting is concerned, we are forcing these women to show their faces, but visual identification is not required. This is does not make sense. This is totally illogical. We are not being consistent.

I hope we will take a serious look at this bill because it was thrust into the heat of a possibly non-existent crisis. As the hon. member for Ottawa Centre said, it is a solution looking for a problem; in my opinion, it is a non-solution looking for a non-problem.

As legislators of a country like Canada, which espouses human rights and has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have to be consistent and respect our social foundations, which are the envy of the entire world.

If we are inconsistent we will destroy those foundations and those rights. We must be very, very careful because the bill before us is inconsistent with those rights, it is inconsistent with the purpose of the Canada Elections Act. There is a lot to think about.

I may have used up all my time, but it was important to raise these arguments and questions. I know that I am not the only one who has these questions. We have seen these questions raised in the media. Good for them. We have seen that concerns have been raised within the targeted group. I think we need to pay attention to those concerns.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member who told us that Canada, for one, does not have photo ID. It would be a basic document that could serve as identification. I would like him to explain something to me.

I know that, in Quebec, the photo on a driver's licence is mandatory, although it is not a universal measure. Nevertheless, there is a photo on the health card and it is used to identify individuals. In my opinion, individuals with a health card should have the right to vote. Every individual who is entitled to vote should have a health card. If you do not have a health card, you would not have the right to vote.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I said, and I stand by it, is that there is no universal card in Canada. Yes, I know that Quebec has photo health cards, as does Ontario, but not everyone does, because adding a photo is a relatively recent phenomenon. In Canada, some provinces do not have photo health cards, so health cards are not a universal solution for the country.

Driver's licences are similar. In any event, as far as I know, only 80% of the population has a driver's licence. It is the same thing with all the other official photos found on ID cards or passports. There is no photo ID for all Canadians who have the right to vote. It would have to be created. I am not saying that it is something we should not consider. I am saying it is something we could consider. However, that is not the purpose of the bill before us.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member gave what I thought was a very useful speech. I learned a few things that I did not know about identity.

I have a question for the member. It is not likely in the very near future that I will become a Muslim woman, veiled or otherwise, but if I understood the member's speech properly, if I were to walk into a polling station wearing a cowboy mask or something of that nature, I could still vote. I could be “accommodated” if I insisted on not removing any kind of facial mask which would somehow or other prevent visual identification.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if that were the choice on the directive given by the Chief Electoral Officer, I suppose the member is right. Therein lies the problem. This is very serious. That is why I am not prepared to dismiss out of hand some of the concerns that have led to this.

Indeed, what if we followed what some people did in some of the last byelections in Quebec, in jest or as a lark or to prove a point, by arriving with Halloween masks and so forth? Someone apparently arrived with a pumpkin, but I do not know about that. We cannot dismiss this out of hand.

I would hope that Canadians would understand. We have just celebrated Remembrance Day throughout Canada. We underline Remembrance Day. People have died to protect our right to democracy and the right to vote, so we cannot make a jest of the right to vote. I would discourage anyone from doing so. I suspect the Chief Electoral Officer might have in his discretion the ability to prevent that.

It is not a red herring in the sense that it has just flared up now as a reaction to this. I think we need to address these matters very seriously. If we were to choose to go to the polls with paper bags over our heads, we would start having problems. The problem that we are trying to solve now is non-existent. It is not a difficulty.

I have to repeat myself. If the bill is adopted, we are going to be forcing a small group of Canadians to not respect their own religious belief, if that is why they are wearing a veil. At the same time, we are not going to ask them to identify themselves visually because they could do so in any other way. It is incongruous. There is a huge gap in logic in the bill and I think it is problematic.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we are all interested in maintaining the integrity and credibility of the voting process. Those were the minister's words when he introduced the bill. He talked about widely reported cases of people voting while purposely concealing their faces but no apparent cases of fraud. Where is the line between fraud and concealing one's face?

Second, is the real gap not in Bill C-31 not addressing the concomitant result of requiring, in the first instance, a photo ID? In other words, the first option was photo ID, but there was nothing in the legislation that says what someone is supposed to do with that photo ID, unless my friend could enlighten us. It just sort of said implicitly that the photo ID would be compared to the person standing in front of them.

Finally, and very briefly, are we therefore, by the wedge of this bill, leading to a system where photo ID will be the norm even though many people in Canada do not have photo ID?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a complex question, because if we are indeed headed down the path of requiring all Canadians to visually identify facially, then everyone will need to have photo ID. Since that does not exist on a universal basis, we have to create it. I suspect that it is doable, but at a substantive cost. There are questions any government would have to ask itself. Is it required? Is it necessary? What problem are we trying to solve? Is there a problem of fraud?

I do not know if there is a problem of fraud. We keep being told that there is not and that we have always approached the electoral process on a trust basis. First of all, we trust electors to register. If they are not registered, we trust them to make sure they get registered and are on the list. We trust that once they are on the list they will self-identify, not necessarily doing it visually with photo ID but with an address and so forth.

At times there may have been some loopholes or some perception that progressively there was some abuse, so we tightened it up here and there. We tightened up one thing in Bill C-31, in that there was a belief that on election day in certain ridings, for instance, the number of people registering totally from scratch to be on the electors list and thus vote was growing by leaps and bounds. I have heard that in some ridings as many as 10,000 people registered to vote on election day, through the third method that I have highlighted. So then Parliament tightened it up a bit by saying that an individual can vouch for only one other person, not a whole slew of individuals.

Therefore, if there is a perception that there is some abuse or slippage, yes, Parliament can tighten it and so forth. In this instance, and it has been highlighted by a number of colleagues from all sides, there is no complaint. There was no report of attempted fraud or otherwise. So what is the problem we are trying to solve here? I do not know. I suspect it is in the perception and the perception that has been given to this. I think that whenever parliamentarians rely on perceptions when they are adjudicating rights, they should be very careful.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, do I understand that there really are two fundamental rights engaged by this bill, the right to vote in section 3 of the charter, and freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the charter, and both of these rights can be protected and need not be in conflict, and this bill in effect forces a conflict that makes it unnecessary?