Debates of Nov. 15th, 2007

Canada Elections Act

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I had the opportunity to put forward a private member's bill in the last session and the one I chose was electoral reform. I chose electoral reform because it is something that is fundamental to how members are elected.

Many British Columbians went through a process of meetings and discussions over a period of a year. We made presentations to a committee that was struck by the provincial government to talk about electoral reform. People began to understand that there were problems with our electoral system and they wanted to make changes. Come election day, when the referendum was on the ballot, after the votes were counted we found that 57% of British Columbians wanted to change the voting system.

I know the voting system that was put forward by the provincial government was not necessarily the system that everyone wanted, but because 57% of people voted for it tells me that they want some sort of a change. When we have that many people in my province wanting to see a change in their voting system, it is significant, and that translates federally as well.

I know Ontario just went through the same kind of process and the percentage was not as high but I think it was a different system. Ontario did not have the same kind of citizens assembly that B.C. had, where people were able to learn about the changes. Sometimes all it takes is educating people.

In the motion I put forward, I wanted to ask Canadians how they would like to see their voting system changed. I received a lot of letters and petitions from people all across the country agreeing that we should have some kind of debate in this country, a citizens assembly that would reach out to the grassroots and talk to Canadians, not the sham of a process that we had with one meeting in each province to basically talk about Senate reform.

That is something that would have changed the look of Parliament. It would have opened up the doors to people, especially young people who do not vote in great numbers. That is one of the least represented demographics at voting time. If we had some kind of system where people felt their votes actually counted, they might be more willing to participate.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short intervention to make a couple of points for people to consider.

First, I would like to thank all the parties for working together to bring forward Bill C-18, verification of residence of voters, so quickly, particularly on behalf of people in the north because inappropriate wording or an inadvertent mistake would have disenfranchised a lot of northerners because of their addresses. I used to have an address like RR 1, Site 2, Comp. 3. Other people have box numbers. Most northerners do not have a verified street address.

I express appreciation to all members of Parliament and all parties for getting this technical change through quickly. A large percentage of the people in the rural areas of Canada in particular, and I will speak for rural areas being the chair of the rural caucus, would have had difficulty voting, technically, under the definitions and would have needed special provisions. These are very warranted changes.

After reading the amendments, I am not positive that the issue of residential street addresses has been addressed. I just want to make sure that the voting rights of certain people in relation to their residential street address are protected. One example would be military personnel who are away. Hopefully, this provision would allow them, as long as they have the proper identification, to vote in the riding that they have chosen, as has occurred in the past.

Similarly, in places like my riding, a number of people, especially seniors, go south for a portion of the winter and therefore end up having to vote on occasion from down there as, of course, elections are seldom in the summer. Once again, I am assuming that if the residential address that is on the voters list is the same as the address on their identification they would have no trouble voting. However, I want to make sure that the people on the committee who are investigating this in line by line detail make sure those people are protected.

The final category of people in similar situations are students. As there are no universities north of 60, in the northern half of the country, people who go to universities in the south are often there on federal voting day. So once again, I am assuming that if they are on the voters list, as per this act, Bill C-18, and their identification matches the information on the voters list they would be able to vote. I would like the committee to confirm that in its deliberations.

I have one other item I want to bring forward. If there is a member of committee in the House perhaps he or she could just answer this question for me during questions and comments. What is the number of people a person can vouch for? In my reading of Bill C-18, I do not see any conditions on that. There may be conditions back in the original act that were not amended. I am thinking of particularly small polls where there may be a number of people in the situation where they need people to vouch for them and there may not be enough of those eligible voters to swear in those people who are not on the voters list.

Perhaps someone could clarify for me the number of people an eligible voter can vouch for under these new amendments.

I again thank everyone. We will certainly be doing everything we can to get this through as quickly as possible because everyone in Parliament agrees that this is a necessary amendment so that no one is disenfranchised, although the chief electoral officer would never let that happen because he has the flexibility to make sure everyone can vote anyway. However, it should be done properly.

I congratulate all members in the House for making these corrections as quickly as possible.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member. He has done a lot of work and has been very concerned about this issue, as all of us are, and he quite rightly points out that all parties appear to be cooperating and not playing games to get this through.

The member's comments about folks who travel is a very good one because a lot of folks in my riding too when the weather gets bad, head down to Florida. We want to ensure that wherever Canadians are in the world at the time of an election, that they actually have every availability to them to express their franchise to vote. The member should know that special ballots, mail-in ballots, allow folks that are in another country to go to the Canadian embassy and vote there. Those ballots can be sent home as our troops have done, et cetera. So none of those are affected by this legislation.

The member may not be familiar with the most current piece of legislation whereby the government wants to ensure that every opportunity is provided for Canadians to vote and vote with integrity within the system. We have added an extra couple of days where Canadians can vote. That would help some of the folks in my riding who perhaps might be in Florida on the day of the election. They can mail in their ballots as I have said in a special ballot situation, but it is convenient for Canadians to have these extra voting days.

I wonder if the member would not mind to comment on his intentions to support the other legislation that I am sure would help folks in his riding too by having a couple of extra couple of options. I suspect in the member's riding that having an extra couple of days might be a great idea because I know his riding is very large and that would help folks to have a few extra days. Would he support that legislation?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, two points. First of all, in reference to the students and people who travel south and the military, I know about special ballots and everything will be there to vote in the same way. My question was regarding the requirement for a street address and whether that would negatively affect that procedure, would they now need to have a street address where they did not before? Hopefully that is covered by the amendments in Bill C-18.

In relation to the extra voting days, because people can vote by special ballot the day the writ is dropped, I am certainly in favour of having a system that is very flexible with good advance polling days because one or two days does not always help my constituents. As the member said, I have a huge riding and voters could easily be outside their poll and still in the riding, but impossible to get there. It is five or six hours in three directions to get back to my riding and a lot of people would not do that to vote, especially driving in minus 40°. As we discussed earlier, a lot of them travel outside the territory. They often go south for reasons of work, to visit family or other reasons so that one day or two days is not necessarily enough. There needs to be flexibility over the whole system.

There is one other problem that arises, and hopefully the committee will look at this. I was in a hospital last election day visiting people who were sick and a couple of people were there who had come from out of town for a couple of hours to visit people in emergency. They could not vote because people have to be at their poll to vote. That is disenfranchising people and hopefully that problem can be addressed in the future.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that yesterday in northern Canada a major report on women and homelessness was released, it is entitled, “You Just Blink and It Can Happen”. It talked about the very serious situation that faces women who are homeless in Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

One of the problems that we know existed with the legislation that was passed in the first session of this Parliament, Bill C-31, was that it did not go out of its way to assist people who were homeless to register and vote in elections.

Since the bill that we are currently debating tries to fix one of the glaring problems created by the previous legislation, which is the disenfranchisement of rural voters, I wonder if the member might comment on how the legislation that we are debating now does anything to ensure that homeless people will be able to vote in federal elections. For instance, it does not allow for statutory declarations. It does not allow for someone to vouch for more than one person at a poll.

For example, if a woman finds herself in a transition shelter, it would not allow the person who operates that shelter to vouch for all the women who happen to be living at that place at the time of a federal election. The person who vouches also has to be someone who is on the voters list in that poll, so it is a very limited possibility for ensuring that those people who are homeless or in some kind of a transition at that moment are able to vote.

I wonder if the member might comment in light of this very disturbing report that came out yesterday on women's homelessness in the north.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that question because it is something I love to talk about as it was a very distressing report.

I raised the question about homelessness during the original debate, urging the committee to make sure that as much as possible was done there. It is also the reason I asked the question, which has not been answered yet, that the member raised about the number of persons an eligible elector can vouch for. We have to make sure that people in those situations can vote and I know the committee is looking at that.

I was delighted to be present for the release of the report, having read the executive summary, and to be there with the Liberal critic for women's issues. We were two MPs who attended the release yesterday. It contains horrific stories which, living in the north, I see all the time.

I was delighted that a number of things requested in the report were in the Liberal leader's anti-poverty plan. For instance, with regard to poverty for children, the Liberals would make the non-refundable tax credit refundable so that the poorest of poor could be helped by that tax credit. It does not help them at all now because if they do not pay taxes, they cannot receive the credit.

Also, we would expand the national child tax benefit which has been a widely acclaimed program in Canada, but we would make it even bigger and better.

We would also do three things to help seniors, which are part of poverty and homelessness in the north. First, we would increase the old age supplement, which goes to the poorest of poor; second, we would try to ensure that if one spouse dies, the other does not get dragged, for bureaucratic reasons, below the poverty line; and third, we would try to reward people who wanted to go back to work.

We would also work with other orders of government on items like affordable housing, which is obviously a big need, and continue our support for homeless shelters. There are a lot of good projects in my riding, I do not know about the rest of the country, through the SCPI program. There was no shelter at all before and now there is one, but it is certainly not totally suitable for the needs of women and, as the report said, 16 to 18 year old women. There are not enough services related to substance counselling and, in particular, in local areas there is not enough legislation related to landlord and tenant acts.

I highly recommend that everyone in Parliament look at this report. It is very thick. It dealt with the homelessness and poverty of women in all three territories and the excruciating effects it can have, particularly where there are excessively cold, harsh conditions.

At 50° or 60° below, as the member who used to live in Dawson knows, people cannot be homeless and lie on the streets. They have to go somewhere and probably somewhere they should not be, such as where their children can be abused or they have to provide services they do not want to just so they can survive the night. These are horrendous conditions in the north.

Having a very wealthy country with the amount of surpluses that we have, I would highly recommend that each party look at the recommendations in the report and try to put those into their platforms.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (verification of residence). I would like to provide a bit of background on why we are seized today with this bill. In February 2007, the House of Commons passed Bill C-31, which changed the Elections Act to reduce the chances of fraud or error by strengthening the requirements around the identification of electors.

As a result of these changes, Bill C-31 became more like the Quebec Election Act. It was nothing new, therefore, for us in the Bloc Québécois. Bill C-31 will be in effect in the next election campaign and came into force at the time of the last byelections in Quebec. Voters now have to present a piece of government-issued identification containing their name, photograph and home address, for example a driver’s licence. Voters who do not have identification containing a photograph must supply two pieces of acceptable identification in order to establish their identity and home address.

The Chief Electoral Officer will issue a list of the acceptable pieces of identification that electors can present at polling stations. We had one during the last byelection in Quebec. The identification can range from a credit card or credit card statement to a telephone bill or any other document that makes it possible to quickly identify the elector.

Potential electors who go to a polling station without two pieces of identification will be required by law to take an oath that they are who they say they are. In addition, a person who has already met the voting requirements can vouch for them. So it is very simple. If a person does not have two pieces of identification, someone who has already voted and met the requirements and who has his or her identification can vouch for that person.

This seemed very acceptable to us. Of course, there are always exceptions to any good rule. We had to review the situation in light of the recommendations by the Chief Electoral Officer, who told us that more than 1 million Canadians do not have a home address in due form.

We can understand that in Quebec. Until 2000, I was the mayor of a small town. I was given the opportunity to be the warden of the MRC and one day the president of the Union des municipalités du Québec. I can say that in the 1980s, a number of the smallest communities in Quebec did not have street numbers, door numbers, etc. The Government of Quebec asked all these municipalities to have addresses with street numbers and door numbers. This required a major investment. People had to go through the Commission de toponymie to get street names and so forth. The effort was made in Quebec, in areas that had municipalities.

However, there are still some areas not organized in municipalities. In Quebec, there are thought to be about 15,000 people who are affected. This figure also includes people with no fixed address, the homeless and so on. According to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, there are about 15,800 electors who do not have an address consistent with Bill C-31, passed last February.

When we look at what happened in the other provinces, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, we see that approximately 23% of voters would not be able to vote because they do not have a home address with street number. This means that they have rural addresses with only P.O. box or rural route numbers. This was the case 20 years ago in Quebec. So we can understand why other communities decided not to invest in this. In Ontario, 150,000 voters are affected and in Saskatchewan, there are 189,000. In Nunavut, approximately 80% of residences do not have individual addresses. So we can understand why this bill aims to regularize the situation and enable these people to vote.

Obviously, the proposals in Bill C-18 seem acceptable to us. In short, the bill amends the Canada Elections Act to make the rules more flexible, making it possible to verify the residence of voters living in areas where the municipal address on ID cards is a P.O. box, general delivery or rural route.

The bill states that if the address on the ID card provided does not establish the voter's residence, but corresponds to the information found on the voter's list, the voter's residence would be deemed established.

For example, a voter whose ID card shows only a rural route address would be able to establish his residence if that address corresponds to the information on the voter's list.

Obviously, if the voter's list shows that a person lives on rural route #2 in a particular place, and the identification shows the same address, it would be possible to make the connection and the bill would not require a street name and number as it did before. There would be enough information to make the connection.

There is also the case where one voter vouches for another. I gave an example of this earlier. Under the current act, someone who has an address and knows someone who does not have an address with a street number or does not have two pieces of identification can vouch for that person. People without addresses cannot be vouchers under the current act. Now, people who have proven to scrutineers, Elections Canada workers or the people responsible for supervising the vote that their general delivery address is the same as the address on the voter's list—and who therefore have previously exercised their right to vote—may vouch for another voter.

Clearly, these people can be allowed to vouch for voters who have no identification. The current bill keeps the references to pieces of identification, but allows rural routes in lieu of addresses with street numbers as addresses that match what appears on the voters list.

In my opinion, it is good that this bill can make things better for 15,800 voters in Quebec with no fixed address. The same problem exists in the other provinces, so the bill makes things better for the million voters the Chief Electoral Officer mentioned.

However, we have heard from members of other parties in this House. This measure must not nullify the whole principle of Bill C-31, which was introduced in the last session. We want to be able to avoid fraud by requiring two pieces of identification. We must not allow statutory declarations. What some members are trying to say is that we should go back to statutory declarations. A person simply has to take an oath to be entitled to vote. What we want is evidence, identification or someone who can vouch for someone else. Otherwise, this bill would call into question or have the opposite effect of Bill C-31, which was passed in February 2007.

I want Quebeckers who are watching us to know that Bill C-31 of February, 2007, is identical to the Election Act of Quebec. In Quebec, when we vote, we have to show identification. The federal legislation was much more lax. In the past, this resulted in mistakes and possibility for fraud. Quebec has always been a leader. Since René Lévesque, who overhauled the entire electoral system, political party financing and so forth, Quebec has always led the way in electoral legislation. We must applaud the Government of Canada for yet again modelling its legislation on legislation in force in Quebec and for the decisions it makes here in this House, with tremendous support from the Bloc Québécois. We are always proud to help the rest of Canada benefit from the good things in Quebec. Often, the best things come from Quebec. I am sure that the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean can attest to that. As a former mayor, he knows quite well that we are always leaders in Quebec, but lately with the Conservative government, we have been falling behind in forestry and the development of the manufacturing sector.

If the federal government would agree to invest in its jurisdictions in economic development, if it would agree to listen to the recommendations of the Government of Quebec, of Premier Jean Charest, who is not a sovereignist, things would be better. Premier Charest asked the federal government to intervene and help the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

We saw that the Conservative government's recent policy statement, its mini-budget, offered absolutely nothing to deal with the crisis in forestry and manufacturing.

Bill C-18, which follows on Bill C-31, is a good piece of legislation. It modernizes the Elections Act and is based on legislation that has been in force in Quebec for almost a decade.

It would be nice if, in other matters such as aid programs for the forestry and industrial sectors, the Conservative government reacted to and relied on the good advice it is being given by the Bloc Québécois MPs and the Government of Quebec.

Once again, it is sad to see our colleagues from Quebec who agree to sit here, to sit at the same table as the hon. members from the rest of Canada, who do not have the same interests as Quebeckers. What can I say? They might understand, one day. There are seats available here on this side of the House for them.

That is why we always have to pay attention and be alert. After all, we are here to stand up for citizens. Bill C-18 was introduced in response to a complaint from Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, who wanted voters with no fixed street address to be allowed to vote.

The Bloc Québécois intends to stand up for their interests and supports the government in helping the Chief Electoral Officer.

When it comes to the Chief Electoral Officer, however, we always have to be very careful. When he asks for something, that is one thing, but when we do, that is another thing entirely. Let us not forget what happened during the last election campaign in Quebec, for the byelections. All of the parties in this House asked the Chief Electoral Officer not to allow people to vote with their faces covered. He did not comply with the unanimous decision of the members of this House who asked him to act in a timely and efficient manner like Quebec's chief electoral officer did.

I want to make sure this message reaches Canada's Chief Electoral Officer. This bill can help him. However, when all of the parties decide to recommend something, he should comply with that. After all, he is a public official. We want him to be neutral, but the position is a political appointment. That raises some questions. The Conservatives appointed him. They were very upset when he allowed people to vote with their faces covered. But since they were the ones who appointed him, they played it down later.

Obviously, by introducing a voter identification bill in this House, they are trying to correct one problem by creating another. The Conservatives are often conflicted like that. They want to solve the problem of veiled voters, but that means staff at polling stations will have to be women. Clearly, by solving one problem, they are creating another. That is often the case with the Conservatives. That is why they are languishing in the polls. In my opinion, they will continue to languish for some time.

Nevertheless, we hope here today to help those who do not have a fixed address. I explained this at the beginning. Something like this happened in Quebec in the 1980s. The tiniest communities did not have street names or civic numbers. That is understandable. Now, out of seven million residents in Quebec, there are only 15,000 people who do not have one. We understand that not all provinces have invested in this way. We can respect that reality, and help those people, while respecting the fact that they must produce identification.

Bill C-18 states that, even if a voter does not have a civic address, he or she must bring identification. If that identification indicates rural route number 1, without a house number, and if the voter registration indicates the same information, that is, rural route number 1, that is considered a match.

Thus, this bill would allow these people to vote. That is the aim of the bill, and we support it.

I can give an example of the identification required. A list, which can be updated for every election, was drawn up by the Chief Electoral Officer.

That is why it was not included directly in the bill. However, concerning ID cards, for all the voters listening here today, it could happen sooner than one might think. One never knows. There could be a federal election any time. With a minority government, any little slip up could trigger an election.

They need to know that the identity cards that will be accepted must include a photo and address, like a driver’s licence. Otherwise, it will be necessary to produce two other pieces of identification; in particular, those with a photo but without the address, such as a health insurance card in Quebec. It could be a matter of a health insurance card, a social insurance card, a birth certificate, a driver’s licence, obviously, a Canadian passport, a certificate of Indian status, Canadian citizenship certificate or citizenship card, a credit or debit card in the voter’s name, a Canadian Forces identity card, a health care card, an employee identification card produced by an employer, the old age security card, a bus pass, a student card, a library card, a liquor store identity card, a card from Canadian Blood Services or Héma-Québec, a hospital card, a fishing permit, a wildlife identification card, a hunting licence, a firearms acquisition certificate, an outdoors card or permit, a provincial or territorial identity card, or even a card from a local community services centre.

Obviously, these pieces of identification are accepted. Original documents with a name and residential address are also accepted; credit card statements, bank account statements, public utility bills, municipal property tax evaluations, school report cards, residential leases, statements of benefits, as well as income tax notices of assessment.

It should be understood that there is no shortage of pieces of identification. Obviously, the easiest is to present an identification card with photo and address, like a driver’s licence; however, not everybody has one and we are well aware of that. Next, there is a whole list of documents with name and address, two of which could be presented in order to vote, whether they have a photo or not.

The residents of Quebec should recognize that it is the same thing for the provincial elections: they must always bring their pieces of identification when they go to vote. As for the people who are responsible for applying the law, they should know that it is done out of respect for the institution; that is to say to ensure that the right people are voting. The procedure is very respectful. It will help election workers prevent fraud and error.

Above all, we are not falling into the trap where we allow the famous declaration under oath, without requiring any piece of identification, as was previously allowed. A voter could declare that he or she was the proper person without those who were working at the polling station really knowing that person’s identity. It was enough just to make a declaration. From now on, that will not be tolerated. An eligible voter will have to vouch for someone who does not have the proper identification.

If you do not have identification, you must be accompanied by someone who fulfills all the conditions—an individual who has identification, who was able to vote and who can vouch for you because they personally know you. This is allowed but you have to be accompanied by someone who knows you. Therefore, if there was fraud or whatever, the person who vouched for you would be responsible and liable to legal proceedings.

The Bloc Québécois is pleased to support Bill C-18 at second reading. We hope that amendments will be made quickly because elections can be called earlier than anticipated when a minority government is in power, particularly when the government acts like a majority government, as is the case at present, and is very arrogant towards the other parties. As the chief organizer of the Bloc Québécois, I am in a position to say that we will be pleased to go head to head with the Conservatives anywhere and anytime.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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 Jeanne-Le Ber, Public Safety; the hon. member for Malpeque, Agriculture.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly struck by the member's focus on his province, and his own constituents, particularly those who have been disenfranchised.

The member will know that the NDP voted against the original Bill C-31 because of the very issue of disenfranchisement. Our concerns are that those issues still remain unresolved. There still will be literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of homeless individuals who will have no means of being able to vote.

Despite the hon. member's concern for his constituents, he suggested that this bill would kind of make everything okay. From the NDP perspective, it still leaves unresolved all the key issues, in particular the matter of a statutory declaration, which we believe would go a long way to resolving that issue. The bill before us now will not address that and it will still to leave a number of my constituents and a number of his disenfranchised. They will be unable to participate.

Perhaps he could help close that gap for me in terms of understanding the Bloc members original support for Bill C-31, their support of this bill and his personal concern raised here today about those who will be disenfranchised. The disenfranchisement will still continue even after Bill C-18 is passed, which in effect amends Bill C-31. Would the member be good enough to help me understand and close the gap between the two trains of thought?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say to my colleague that there is no problem in Quebec. The legislation has been in place for more than 10 years. Contrary to what our colleague believes, there is no problem.

In the bill before us, it is clear that the person who goes to vote, but who does not have an address and wishes to vote, can do so provided that they are accompanied by someone who fulfills all the conditions and who vouches for them. That has always been the case. My colleague would like a voter without an address to be allowed to swear an oath. I am sorry but that is what has caused confusion, mistakes and, on occasion, fraud.

The bill before us here today allows people who do not have an address to vote, on the condition that they have a vouching elector who meets all the requirements. This changes nothing. This is how it is done in Quebec and no one has lost their right to vote. A voter simply has to know someone in the same polling division. Voters cannot report just anywhere, and at any time, to vote. Even in the case of homeless people, someone nearby usually knows them. Someone will be used to seeing that homeless person on the street corner. If they report to a polling station, someone who knows them can vouch for them. That is how it works.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not going to rise, but I have to after that explanation.

I was at the committee when Bill C-31 was discussed. We heard testimony from people from first nations. We heard from students and advocates for the homeless. They were very clear that there needed to be a process in place that would allow the people they advocated for to vote and that if Bill C-31 went ahead the way it did, they would not be able to.

What did we do? We ignored them. We did not listen to them, because apparently we knew better. Well apparently we did not. Apparently they knew better because here we are trying to clean up the mess that we were told would happen.

Therefore, was the hon. member aware that at committee we heard from witnesses, from everyday Canadians, from the homeless, from first nations and from students. They said to us that if we did this, we would disenfranchise them. They asked us not to do it. Why in heaven's name did his party support that bill at the time?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows very well that the aim of the bill is to correct the situation for thousands of voters who do not have a civic address, but whose address is listed on the list of voters with their post office box or rural route number. This bill would recognize that the information on the list of voters matches that of the identification.

My colleague is trying to say that the scope of the bill must be expanded to include those who do not have identification and who know no one. Evidently, this already exists in Quebec, and we are not having this problem.

In some measure, we are not prepared to allow just anyone to go and vote. What the hon. member is proposing is even worse. It would be more advantageous for them to never produce any identification. It would be much easier to enforce the NDP's solution. In Quebec, this would mean turning back the clock 10 or 15 years, which we are not prepared to do.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is not with great pleasure that I stand today to debate Bill C-18.

As a member from a northern riding, I am debating a bill that may solve some of the issues within our riding, but it does not really get at the essential nature of the change in the voting system that will disenfranchise many people and will create great confusion and hardship in voting, at least in the next election, if not many other elections into the future.

When I stand today to speak to Bill C-18, I truly want to speak to Bill C-31. I want to speak to a bill that, in its nature, I cannot support. Its nature will change the way Canadians view their essential political rights in our country. It is a bill that I do not understand and I do not see where the direction is. I have to go back in some ways to Bill C-31 to look at some of the reasons given by our government members in putting forward the bill.

The member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre spoke to the bill on June 18. He said:

What we are trying to do, by presenting a bill that will give increased and expanded voting opportunities for all Canada, is attempt to raise the level of voter turnout because.

To say that by creating these types of conditions that need to be in place for the voter to vote, we will increase the voter turnout in this country is, by any stretch of the imagination, patently absurd.

He went on to say, which is something more personal:

I think there is no greater fraud that could be perpetrated on Canadians than that of an individual voting in a federal or provincial election who pretends to be someone that he or she is not.

That is quite a significant fraud. We have seen greater fraud in the House over the past two years with the member for Vancouver Kingsway. He did not even take the time for the House to open up before he jumped across the floor and demonstrated his utter contempt for the voters who elected him. That is a greater fraud by far than a single voter who may misinterpret where he or she is supposed to vote or may make a mistake in the location of his polling station.

At the same time, the Minister for Democratic Reform spoke. He said:

As I have mentioned on other occasions, this bill makes a number of changes to the electoral process that will reduce the opportunity for electoral fraud, improve the accuracy of the national register and the lists of electors, facilitate communication with the electorate and improve the administration of elections.

Let us look at some of those statements. He said “Improve the accuracy of the national registry”. Where, in any of the discussions we have had over the past while, do we see a better enumeration system? Clearly, that is one thing we need. Many of the problems we have in the voting system in Canada come from the attempts of the current government and previous governments to reduce the work and the effort that is put into the enumeration system across the country. That is one of the serious problems we have with voting.

This bill and Bill C-31 will not change that. They will not make the system more complete. They will not ensure that people are carefully enumerated and that we have the kind of system that our parents and grandparents built up over many years.

Will it facilitate communication with the electorate? I do not see how that will happen with these two bills. What we are going to see is a situation in which many people will find, for one reason or another, that they do not have the proper identification or the proper address or that the address does not match. They are going to be turned off voting.

That is going to happen with a lot of very young voters. That is going to happen with voters who are in disadvantaged situations across this country, the homeless, the poor and the people who have to work long hours and do not have the opportunities that others do.

I know that federal employees have consecutive hours off work in order to vote. The people who are less advantaged across this country will find it more difficult to vote. They are going to have to ensure that on voting day they carry their identification and make even more of an effort than they are accustomed to in many cases to carry out what is their fundamental, democratic right in this country.

The government is responsible for the bills that it brings forward and for the accuracy and the scrutiny that should go into every piece of legislation that is as important as this one, as important as this legislation that goes to the fundamental nature of our democratic system, which is the right and the ability to vote and the certainty that a voter has when he goes into the voting booth.

The government has completely failed Canadians here. It has brought forward another piece of legislation wherein they are attempting to fix their mistakes yet it does not go far enough. Our party says that if the government wants to fix the mistakes in Bill C-31 then it should go back to what the NDP said previously.

What we proposed previously was to allow the voters to swear that they are who they say they are at the polling station. Then, if there is doubt about the identity of the voter, the voter would put forth sworn testimony that they are who they are and they have the eligibility to vote in that riding. That is trust in Canadians and Canadians deserve our trust.

In the last four elections, where probably in excess of 60 million votes were cast, there have been four cases of voter fraud. All this work that we have been doing in Parliament is taking a big sledgehammer and knocking down a tiny gnat. That is voter fraud in Canada. This bill is a huge sledgehammer.

Then, as for improving the administration of elections, Bill C-31 is going to turn the next election day into a fiasco. We are going to have hundreds of thousands of people, millions of people, standing at polling stations across the country, people who do not understand the rules, who do not have the proper identification and who do not have everything lined up. Canadians are used to voting one way and they will come out to vote and find that the rules have been completely changed. The administration of elections in this next period will be a mess. It will reflect badly on this country and on the voting process of many citizens.

I find these reasons to be bogus at best.

Let us look at what is going on here. We are taking the time now to bring a bill forward that will assist Bill C-31 and some of the errors that were made in that bill in terms of the layout. I heard the comments today from the Conservative government that the opposition did not pick up on these mistakes in committee and therefore it is the fault of the opposition that the bill is not correct.

Why are we doing this? The most cynical bone in my body says that this is a social conditioning exercise.

It will be followed by other social conditioning exercises to ensure that Canadians slowly give up their individual freedoms and slowly find that they have to show identification for whatever they are doing at every step of the way in this country. I do not like that. I still feel that Canadians are trustworthy and that we should encourage trust among Canadians. The concept of continually asking Canadians for their identification at every possible opportunity is the wrong road to go down. Those are my views on dealing with those issues.

I would like to move on now to issues that concern my riding.

Last month I had the opportunity to attend a meeting at Paulatuk, a community high on the Arctic coast. We talked about photo ID and identification. There is no place in Paulatuk to get identification. The residents have to go to Inuvik, which requires a plane flight, to get any kind of identification. Quite obviously, many of the residents do not have current identification. They do not need it in Paulatuk because everybody knows everybody.

When people in Paulatuk go to the polls on election day, the returning officer is going to ask for verification for all kinds of people and they will not have the required identification. They do not have the opportunity to go to Inuvik. They do not have the opportunity to get that set up. That will make a travesty out of a community's life. People who have known each other throughout their whole lives will have to show identification to each other.

That is a difficulty. That is a fundamental problem within this legislation. It does not deal with the honest and trustworthy nature of Canadians. It does not consider that. Unless someone proves who they are, says this legislation, they must not be who they say they are.

In fact, even if an elector has identification but it is not quite what is wanted, as I have said, what happens is that under proposed subsection 3.2, “a deputy returning officer, poll clerk, candidate or a candidate's representative who has reasonable doubts concerning the residence of an elector” appearing in front of them “may request that the elector take the prescribed oath”. We are putting it in the hands of all those people to decide the trustworthiness of that Canadian, but we are not allowing the Canadian himself to say that he is trustworthy and give his oath that he is a citizen and is legally within the jurisdiction and has the right to vote. To me, that is the solution we should be going forward with.

The changes that are going to be made with this bill will help a problem that has been created by Bill C-31, but will not help the problems inherent within it. They will also discourage Canadians from voting. They will reduce the already pathetic voter turnout in this country. They will probably reduce it among those who should vote, those who are disenfranchised from the system, those who need to express their opinions on politicians and the people who run this country.

This is a difficult situation for anyone who did not support Bill C-31. We are being asked to repair some damage that the bill caused, not nearly all of it, but we are still going to leave our electoral system in chaos in the next election. The government is still not providing a decent rationale for its actions. It is not coming clean with Canadians about what it is trying to accomplish here.

To me, Bill C-18 is totally inappropriate because it does not go far enough toward fixing the problems that have been created with the other bill. Until the government realizes the fundamental mistakes it made in the previous legislation, how is it going to fix them with this patchwork? How is the government going to make the changes that are going to make this work for Canadians in the next election and elections in the future? It is not. That is the problem.

We can send this bill to committee. We can try to work with other parties in Parliament to fix errors in a bill that is not appropriate, but that is not good enough. For Canadians, one of the only hopes we have now is what is happening with the charter challenge on Bill C-31. It is being challenged in our courts for its unreasonable nature in terms of our fundamental rights as Canadian citizens.

We will have to wait and see. Perhaps this problem will be solved for us by the courts, but that is a crying shame when we look at what has happened here in Parliament with this kind of legislation and the direction the government has taken. It is a real shame.

I am disappointed in the government. I am disappointed for my constituents. I do not want any of my constituents not to be able to vote, whether they are students travelling from one community to the other or transient people who have changed their address but have not changed it on their identification. Whatever the problem is, we will see problems with this bill that are hard to judge today, but they definitely will show up on election day. It will cast the whole system into some considerable doubt and will create a lot of pressure for change after the next election.

I do not know what we were doing when we brought forward Bill C-31 or what the thinking was there, but as a Canadian, as someone who prizes my right to vote and the right of every other citizen to vote comfortably and cleanly without any conditions put on that right, I am not happy with this. I do not think the bill is appropriate. I certainly hope that the courts will adjudge the same. That will solve the problem for us and bring it back to the reality of our electoral system, our voting system, which has worked well for us.

If there were examples of large scale fraud that came before the courts, we might have a case to say that we needed to be more vigilant here. We should have opened up the whole act and looked at how to review it to ensure that deputy returning officers and poll clerks all have the proper authority to deal with the issues that come in front of them. Instead, we took this course. Is it a course that is going to work for us? I do not think so. I think we have taken the wrong course and we need to right it.

If this Parliament does not do it, perhaps the courts will. I hope the voters realize this when they go into the voting booth in the next election and realize which parties caused the problems that they see in front of them, when they see the lineups and the people rejected from voting. I hope they think about it when they are going in to vote and I hope they cast their votes accordingly, realizing what the government has done to the system that was working well and was in place, a system that needed more work on the enumeration side and that needed the electoral act to be looked at in certain ways to ensure that the performance of the officers involved in conducting the elections is proper in this day and age.

Those are the things we should have looked at. We can attempt to fix this in a small fashion with this bill. We can fix the problems we have created with Bill C-31, but it is not good enough. It is not good enough and it should not be taking place in this Parliament.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend gloomy-and-doomy down there as he spoke about social engineering. I want to assure him that there are no black helicopters circling his riding, or anybody else's, taking away Canadians' human rights. One would think the sky had fallen because all parties in this House made an honest error when Bill C-31 came through in the first place. That has been acknowledged by everyone except, apparently, the NDP. They voted against Bill C-31 for entirely different reasons. To suggest they saw this, of course, is completely false and disingenuous.

Credit should go to all parties that have said we need to fix this right away. The government responded. We have Bill C-18. It will fix the problem of rural voters right away. That is what was asked for and that is what is being done.

Therefore, the gloom and doom from down the way is just silly, frankly. The government has taken action. I would like to ask my hon. colleague a simple question. Is he going to support this bill or not? All parties, including his, asked for action to be taken and it is being taken. Is he supporting it or not?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the only problem we have seen with Bill C-31. We just had another with Bill C-6.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

You didn't see this problem in Bill C-31.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I can assure my hon. colleague that through this process I have always said that this photo ID requirement for voting is wrong. I have never changed my position on that. I voted against Bill C-31. I did not even want to look at the provisions within it because I felt it was wrong from the beginning.

When it comes to fixing Bill C-31, which is what we are doing now, we are fixing a bill that was only in front of us six months ago. We have two bills in front of Parliament right now that are trying to fix Bill C-31. What a mess we have.

Who is responsible for that mess? Is it the opposition parties? Is it the government that brought it forward? I would say that it is the government's responsibility to bring forward bills that it has scrutinized and that it understands the implications of the bills. They should not be put forward in such a quick fashion that the government does not understand how they will affect hundreds of thousands and millions of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is the saying “Heavy is the head that wears the crown”. I will go this far with my hon. friend from Western Arctic in saying that the government has the responsibility to bring forward legislation in various areas, including, in this case, democratic reform. However, it has missed the boat substantially. It did not take heed of loopholes or gaps in the legislation as it was reviewed by the Senate. Now the government is playing the game that everyone is to blame.

It seems to me that the Conservatives are still stuck in the opposition ways and Lord knows they were there so long that it may be a form that they cannot get out of, but let us hope they get back into it soon.

However, I differ from my friend from Western Arctic, although I deeply respect his comments. He represents a riding that is among the most affected ridings due to the deficiency in Bill C-31 as it relates to the actual issue which is the civic address on the list of electors versus the address or domicile that one presents through identification at the polling booth.

I respect his philosophical point of view but will he and his party not be blamed if thousands--in fact we know it is millions in the affected ridings--of people in his riding show up and cannot vote because his party did not act to do the band-aid approach, which is what this is, but will, nevertheless, put more voters back on the list by pushing it along and improving it in the committee and bringing forward the concerns that are deficiencies in Bill C-31 that my friend has raised?

Will the member not agree that we should at least move this along to committee, to put this band-aid on it, which is all the government can do, and we know that, in order to put back on the voting list the people who in his riding will be most affected?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the dilemma that we are in. We have proposed a solution that would deal with the issue. We have proposed that voters would be permitted to take an oath as to their legitimacy in voting in a particular riding at a particular poll. It is a simple solution. Why is it not adequate for the government? Why is it not adequate for the very small number of voter fraud cases that we have in this country? Why are we creating this convoluted mess in this country? Why are we not taking the simple solution?

If the bill goes forward to committee, we will still be asking for a simple solution to this. I do not know whether the amendment would be possible at this point in time. If we have to go ahead with an amended bill that is not amended in a simple fashion but in a more complex fashion, then we will be talking about it when the voters go to the polls. We will be talking about the failure of those parties to deal with the voters' rights.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, occasionally in this place, when we are debating any piece of legislation or private member's bill or whatever the case may be, oftentimes some very silly statements are made. Most of the time those are forgivable.

I have a very simple question for the member from the NDP. The member seems to think that there is no requirement for identification to vote. It is one of the things he has raised several times. I am wondering if the member from the NDP has ever taken out a video from a video store. People have to produce identification with a photograph on it to take out a video. How could taking out a video be more important than the basic democratic right in this country to vote? I would like to have an answer to that question.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, in my life in the Northwest Territories, I have rarely had to produce photo ID to take out a video at a video store.

One of the Conservatives' problems is mixing the rights in a public government with that of business opportunities and businesses that are conducted in a private fashion. These are two totally different things.

I think something needs to be said about the sanctity of voting in Canada and I am hoping that if we cannot do it here that the courts will do it, the courts will come up with an answer for us about that sanctity and that responsibility of all of us to ensure that everyone has the best possible opportunity to cast their vote in an election. That is what I want, that is why I am standing here today and that is why I have taken the position that I have.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the report, “You Just Blink and It Can Happen: A Study of Women's Homelessness North of 60”, was released. I wonder if the member might comment, since often people think that homelessness is an urban issue. I know this is an issue in his riding. How is the failure of this legislation to allow people who are homeless to register to vote an issue in his riding of Western Arctic?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, in the Northwest Territories people are centralized. They may be in small communities and then move to larger centres. Issues occur and they become homeless. If those people have identification, it will be, in many cases, a driver's licence, which is a five year document in the Northwest Territories for which we pay $80. Nobody changes their driver's licence without reason, especially--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again trying to deal with the problems of Bill C-31. I know that might not be the kind of comment that the government wants to hear but it has to look reality in the face. The only reason this bill is in front of us is because of what I said Bill C-31 was from the beginning, which is a solution looking for a problem.

We have found a couple of bills to date. We have Bill C-18, which is what we are debating today, and we have Bill C-6. I suppose we will have a couple more bills before it is all over.

If we go through the bill, one clause states that when swearing an oath to prove someone's identity, the person who vouches for another individual does not necessarily need a civic address on his or her ID if the information on the voters list matches up with the information on the ID.

The committee heard from groups of advocates, people representing the homeless, people representing aboriginal people and people representing students. The people representing the aboriginal people were very clear on this issue of civic address and all members of the committee heard it. They said that we would have problems identifying voters because some people do not have a civic address. I invite all members of the House, including members who may have been on the committee, to look at the blues and read the witnesses' comments where they invited us to look at this concern.

What they were saying is that if we were to go ahead and do this, we would be disenfranchising people, and did we disenfranchise people. We disenfranchised not a couple of hundred or a couple of thousand, but probably millions of people. Why? It is because the House, in its infinite wisdom, passed a bill that was not sufficient. It was not sufficient because the committee, I would submit, did not do its homework.

I asked the committee for more time to hear from witnesses beyond the list that we had in front of us and I was told, in the instance of the privacy commissioner, no because it had already heard from her. I had to take it upon myself to write to her and obtain a response about the whole issue of privacy and birthdate information. She readily supplied me with an opinion of the bill contrary to what members of the committee had believed, which was that there were concerns about privacy in the bill.

I would submit that we have in front of us a bill that is trying to mop up the mess that was created by a bill from the government. I would like members, perhaps during questions and comments or to seek me out afterward, to provide me with an explanation or an instance where Parliament has passed a bill and, within months of it coming into force, has had to come up with further bills to deal with the problems in the initial bill. We are now up to two bills, and counting, based on the flaws and problems in Bill C-31.

I know members of the government will say that I did not raise these problems in committee and that I did not have the wisdom of knowing that these things would come up. I would suggest that I did not foresee all of the problems but I certainly saw the problem, which was the way Bill C-31 was crafted.

The crafting of the bill was taken from a committee report. What seems to be the Conservative Party playbook is that committees are used to put forward one's agenda. A fairly lengthy report was written by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, there was a government response and within a week a bill was in front of us called Bill C-31.

Bill C-31 was introduced because there was a concern about potential voter fraud, and I triple underline “potential”. When this was put in front of parliamentarians, they said that it had to be dealt with right away and cleaned up. In fact, that is what the committee did by way of hearing from a limited, in my opinion, number of witnesses.

It heard from witnesses like the Chief Electoral Officer who was asked if voter fraud was a major problem. They all heard quite clearly that it was not and that there had been approximately four cases of potential voter fraud in the last three elections.

We spent a large amount of time on it and we are spending more now trying to deal with this outrageous problem of voter fraud, but I have to give the government credit because it was clear in saying that it was potential voter fraud.

I have to submit that the concerns of my constituents are around cleaning up politics, ethics in politics, and integrity in the system. There is much more concern about candidate fraud, when candidates say they are with one party one day but wake up the next and lo and behold they are not a Liberal candidate anymore but rather a Conservative cabinet minister. Constituents are more concerned about how to deal with that kind of lack of integrity, where people can run for a party, cross the floor, and virtually within minutes it seems jump into government or into cabinet.

How about going from the backroom of the Conservative Party into the Senate and then vaulting into cabinet? Those are the concerns that my constituents have around the integrity of our electoral system. They are not concerned about potential voter fraud other than not to make matters worse.

Excluding my party, what Parliament has done is pass a bill that disenfranchised so many people. In committee we talk about this often and say we should always be vigilant for the unintended consequences of legislation. We all know this. We heard from people who were advocates of the homeless and from aboriginal people.

We are talking about people who are living in rural areas. We identified that what we have now in front of us is a concern about actual addresses. We heard from people who were representing students. The surprising fact is that when we were at committee they told us quite clearly this would be a problem.

What did we do? We did not consider it to be that big a problem and that it would all be fine because we knew better. Well, we did not know better and here we are with a bill to prove it. It is Bill C-18.

What we did not do is consult. I have said it before, that our job is to consult and after we have consulted, consult some more until we are absolutely sure we have done our homework. That is not the case in the instance of Bill C-31. We in fact had worse than that. It was not unintended consequences but some intended consequences with birth date information. It bears repeating that in Bill C-31 there were unintended consequences.

We did not hear this from witnesses and everyday people at all, this need to have birth dates on the voters list as an oversight requirement. However, what was really strange and quite disturbing was that we had intended consequences at committee. Not only would the bill have one's birth date information on the voters list but it would be shared with political parties.

In this instance it was not unintended consequences but very intentional. Our friends from the Bloc brought forward a motion at committee supported by the Liberals. The government joined me in opposing the amendment but lo and behold by the time it got to the House for third reading, it lost its courage to fight for the privacy of Canadians and it collapsed.

As my friend from Winnipeg Centre said the other day, the government folded like a cheap suit. It just said, oh well, for the interest of getting the bill through it needed to ensure that it let the amendment go through. My goodness, we had the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, in a letter that I gave to the committee, ask:

Is the problem of voter fraud so serious and sufficiently widespread to require the use of additional personal information? If it is a serious problem, is it necessary to provide polling clerks with the date of birth or can the same objective be achieved using less detailed information?

She was clear in saying that we should not, but again we had the government and the opposition parties saying that it was okay, that they would let date of birth information go through and share it with political parties.

This kind of information is analogous to giving people, who would like to use this information for fraud purposes, a little kit. I was calling it a government sponsored identity theft kit. That is what we are giving people.

Members know that there have been recent reports about concerns regarding credit card theft and people who are able to access bank accounts. What do they need? They need a date of birth and an address, and a lot of harm can be done. We were going to give this not only to poll clerks where, with all due respect to them, that information might get lost, but also to political parties.

I know the Liberal Party wanted it because it needed to do a little more in terms of fundraising. The Bloc said that is how it does it and that it had done it before in Quebec. I have no idea what the government was going to do with it. I guess one day it will tell me or it will be written in one of its member's memoirs.

In the meantime, what we have is a privacy problem within this bill. Then we have a problem with leaving hundreds of thousands of people off the voters lists, and now we have Bill C-18 in front of us. I submit that not only did the government not get the job done and did not do its homework on this bill but that we also opened it up to having the unintended consequence of invading people's privacy.

We really have to question why, at a time when all politicians and all parties are saying we want more people to vote and we want to get young people interested in politics, we put up these barriers.

I have to give the example of Ontario, where Ontario has made some changes to the requirements to vote. It did not do a very good job at all in telling people that when they go to the voting stations now they have to provide some ID. Voters have to tell the poll clerks their names, their postal codes, et cetera. Having taken part in the most recent provincial election, I know of a senior in my riding who, when I knocked on her door to ask her if she was going to vote, said “I tried to vote but they would not let me”.

That is exactly what is going to happen in the next federal election and I am not sure that this bill is going to solve that problem. The reason she said that is because she did not have the required ID and she had no one to vouch for her.

I can guarantee members that that will be the situation for hundreds and thousands, if not more, Canadians if we do not change the law. The law needs to be changed for people who do not have the requisite identification, in this case a senior who had lived in this particular domicile for more than a decade and did not have the requisite ID. We are going to see people disenfranchised like never before.

In fact, what we will see unless we change the law, with something like a statutory declaration, is people who are disenfranchised in the rural areas, in the north, in the urban areas, as well as homeless and transient people.

What we need to do is take a good look at this bill and at what the poison pills are in this bill. We saw the poison pills in Bill C-31. Are there any in here? I would submit there are a couple and I would just ask the government to do a very simple thing and look at enumeration. Why in heaven's name is it not going to engage in universal enumeration at every election for the universal suffrage of all of our citizens that we so obviously respect?

The other thing is not only to have universal enumeration and spend money there, but to make sure we train people properly. Those are nuts and bolts things, common sense things that we put forward at committee. The statutory declaration was another thing.

Finally, regarding the voting cards that everyone is so concerned about, and I am one of them, that are ubiquitous in some of these lobbies, put them in envelopes for goodness' sakes, address them to the voters, and if the voters are not present at those domiciles, they would be returned.

Presently, these cards are left around and open to potential voter fraud, I agree, but for goodness' sake, use this terrific new technology called an envelope, address it to the elector, and if the person does not live there anymore, it will be returned to sender, in this case to Elections Canada.

That is yet another way we can improve the system. It is another suggestion the NDP had. We should clean up the voters list, make sure we have actual human beings going door to door to clean it up, put the voters cards in envelopes, and ensure that there is a safety gap with the statutory declaration.

I must say that some of the critiques about statutory declarations are ridiculous. It suggests to me that there is mistrust among some members of everyday people, of citizens of Canada. As I said, there should be more scrutiny of people who cross the floor than citizens who are trying to engage in their franchise.

We will have to go to committee and try to fix yet another government bill, a mess that was made with the mélange of the three parties to ensure that Canadians will not be left out.

Members should read the blues of the committee. We were told by the Chief Electoral Officer that the way Bill C-31 was written and the way this bill is written now, goodness knows the way this bill was put through without us trying to fix it, people will show up at polling stations and will be sent away. They will not return.

That is what will happen at five minutes to eight or five minutes to nine, just before the poll closes, if people have to go get more ID because they do not have sufficient ID or they have to find another person to vouch for them. I can guarantee that people who have been voting all their lives, particularly people like the senior referenced in the Ontario election who had voted all her life, will just plain give up, and that is pathetic. It says that we have not done our job here.

I am not willing to do that, to allow our government to provide legislation that will disenfranchise. My party will not and I will not. We will make sure this bill, from our perspective, will make sure that Canadians, every day people, will not be disenfranchised. Then we will have some semblance of common sense in our electoral system.

I sincerely hope that the government will engage us this time in some of the ideas I have put forward, three straightforward ideas, and that it will take a look at it with honesty and sincerity, and say that maybe this is not a bad idea.

When we are talking about our democracy, the foundation and the franchise, people fought for it, as we just celebrated on Remembrance Day. To just let it fray away, to watch it be torn apart because of either ill-conceived notions or worse, as I said before, conceived notions, is not something we in this party will stand by and see happen.

I will just wrap up with a couple of comments about what can be done to ensure, through witnesses at committee, that we not have the fiasco and the mess we had with Bill C-31 yet again.

I would ask that parliamentarians go to their ridings. I have done this already. I have talked to people about the proposition of not only Bill C-31, but further to Bill C-31, Bill C-6 and Bill C-18. I am not sure as many people were engaged with Bill C-31. There has been a wake-up call, clearly, because of the mess of Bill C-31, and the fact that we have disenfranchised in a blink hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Canadians.

However, hon. members should talk to everyday people in their constituencies and ask them what would happen tomorrow if they had to follow the requirements of the present legislation before us. Would they be able to vote? Would they have a problem finding someone to vouch for them? Would they have the requisite ID? Hon. members should go to a seniors residence, go to a homeless shelter, talk to some students, and then find out from them if there are problems, because that is the business of consultation.

That is what I did last week vis-à-vis Bill C-6, and I heard a lot of concerns. I would plead, almost beg, with members of Parliament to talk to their constituents on this bill because we did not consult enough last time. Let that not happen again.

Let us engage our citizens on this. It is their right. We are making up the rules here for them. We made a mess of it with Bill C-31. We need not do that again. Hon. members should talk to their constituents and then bring witnesses forward to committee through their respective representatives on committee, so we can hear from everyday people about how this would affect them. That did not happen last time.

The people who did come forward warned us that there would be problems, but sadly, members did not listen to them. Our party did. That is why we voted against Bill C-31.

We now have two bills which are trying to clean up Bill C-31. I am not sure if this is a record. I will have to look it up. We need to clean this up.