House of Commons Hansard #112 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was elections.
The House resumed from December 6, 2006 consideration of the motion that Bill S-211, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (lottery schemes), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-211. Although Bill S-211's objectives may be well meaning and the bill addresses the important issue of gambling, its effect is problematic.
In its wisdom Parliament determined in 1969 that the federal, provincial and territorial governments would each have permission under the Criminal Code to conduct a lottery scheme. In 1985 Parliament chose to eliminate the permission that had existed for a lottery scheme that is conducted by the federal government, leaving provincial and territorial governments running governmental lottery schemes exclusively.
Since 1969 provinces and territories have been free to decide for themselves what kinds of lottery schemes they would offer within their jurisdictions. This decision is one that they can freely take within the range set by Parliament under the Criminal Code. This range is presently very broad and includes not only lottery tickets but even slot machines or computerized lottery schemes. Provinces and territories have chosen to use their Criminal Code permission for lottery schemes in different ways.
For example, Ontario and British Columbia place provincial government slot machines, which pay out by cash at racetracks and casinos, but do not place any video lottery terminals, VLTs, which pay out by a ticket that is then redeemed for cash in bars. Yukon places slot machines at the casino in Dawson City. However, none of the territories places VLTs in bars. Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and prairie provinces all place provincial government VLTs in bars. Quebec, Nova Scotia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba also place slot machines at casinos or racetracks or both.
We see there is a great variety in the provincial and territorial decisions about the extent of machine gambling that will be offered. Each province or territory, I hasten to add, is responsible to its provincial or territorial voters. In fact, Alberta, Manitoba and New Brunswick have held province-wide referenda or municipal referenda on whether to place VLTs in bars. They have respected any decisions for the removal of VLTs from bars, thus reinforcing their rightful jurisdiction to legislate in this area based on the wants and needs of their citizens. Furthermore, some provinces have decided to cap or even reduce the number of their VLTs and slot machines.
It seems to me it is heavy-handed to suggest, as Bill S-211 does, that the federal Parliament should now step in and remove the ability of provinces and territories to make these decisions for themselves.
I also find it very striking that Bill S-211 limits itself to eliminating the possibility of placing provincial or territorial government VLTs in bars, but it does not eliminate them from casinos and racetracks. If the logic really is to reduce problem gambling, one certainly must wonder why provincial and territorial government VLTs and slot machines would remain permissible at all.
It seems illogical to me to think that problem gambling would be reduced by simply shifting the provincial government VLT machines into a mini-casino, in a strip mall or in a shop within the same locality where the VLTs now sit within a bar.
In effect, what Bill S-211 would bring about would be a redistribution of the rental fee now paid by provinces to bar owners over to some other landlord or even to the provincial government if it decides to be its own landlord for VLT gaming.
Bill S-211 sounds very much like an incursion into provincial areas of authority, and I would call it an intrusion, without having a real connection to the reduction of problem gambling. This alone could be enough to negatively affect federal, provincial and territorial relationships.
There is, however, the additional element of the federal, provincial and territorial agreements on gaming that would be thrown over by Bill S-211. They call for the preservation of the position achieved by the provinces through the agreements and stipulate that any alteration is to be made by unanimous agreement.
Although Bill S-211's objectives may be well meaning, its effect would be to completely ignore important provisions of the existing gaming agreement. It would also set a drop-dead time period for negotiating prior to proclamation into force. Its delayed proclamation date also sets parameters for negotiating any new agreement.
In reality, Bill S-211 would unilaterally kill the veto that provinces and territories now hold under the negotiated gaming agreement. Although the federal government is not putting forward this bill that breaks the deal, it would nonetheless be left to deal with its fallout in terms of federal, provincial and territorial relations. Such a state of affairs is highly undesirable.
All hon. members must clearly understand the impact that Bill S-211 would have on the trust relationships built between the federal, provincial and territorial governments on this issue. Bill S-211 would lead to the erosion of an important intergovernmental agreement without necessarily lowering the rate of problem gambling in Canada.
For these reasons, I cannot support this bill.
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill S-211, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (lottery schemes), introduced in the Senate by Senator Lapointe, to regulate the use of video lottery terminals. With this measure, Senator Lapointe, whom I very much admire, is trying to help compulsive gamblers. The Bloc Québécois is also concerned about this social problem.
Senator Lapointe's efforts are laudable and praiseworthy. I am sure I speak for all of my hon. colleagues when I say that, at some time or another, we have all been in certain public or private establishments where these machines are present, and seen or come across individuals, individuals of all ages, who are victims of compulsive gambling. Perhaps someone you know has such a problem. I have met some such individuals in my riding. Their situation is sometimes tragic, and I could not help but be moved.
Whether obsessed with bingo, horse racing, video poker or video lotteries, compulsive gamblers gamble for various reasons. Often it is for an emotional release, escape from their problems or the expression of a need. In many cases, they hope to win a large sum of money, which would earn them the admiration and respect of others, and would boost their self-confidence.
However, after losing their entire wager, they feel the need to try to get back the money they lost, which pushes them into a spiral of debt. According to a study conducted by the Université Laval, 83% of compulsive gamblers incur debt. The debt for a third of the men was between $75,000 and $100,000 compared to $15,000 on average for women.
I believe that video lottery terminals play a significant role in this addiction phenomenon. A relatively high number of people are addicted to these machines largely because of their programming. A study published in the scientific journal Neuron shows that they exploit certain weaknesses in the cognitive process the same way subliminal advertising does. I must point out that in Quebec, efforts have been made to limit the impact of video lotteries. I will discuss this further a little later.
Accordingly, the purpose of Bill S-211 is to limit the social problems related to the use of video lottery terminals. It is a noble objective to improve the lot of these individuals, an objective that is certainly shared by my peers in this House. That is why I am in favour of the bill in principle. However, I believe it is important to take into account the impact of Bill S-211, because underlying its apparent simplicity are consequences that should be carefully considered.
Bill S-211 suggests a way to curb the problem of compulsive gamblers by limiting access to video lottery terminals. To that end, it proposes three things: reducing the number of establishments operating video lottery terminals by limiting them to designated locations such as race-courses, casinos or betting theatres; amending the Criminal Code to make it an offence for any establishment outside the specified locations to operate this type of machine; and third, allowing three years after this bill comes into force for the various governments to develop a strategy to ensure an effective transition.
No one is against virtue and that is why I support the initiatives to reduce, if not eliminate, human suffering. That is the goal of Senator Lapointe's bill, but I think it is important to take into consideration some of these aspects that will undeniably have an impact in the short term. I am talking about future negotiations between the federal and provincial levels of government that will be held after Bill S-211 is passed. It is also important that the initiatives taken so far by the provinces, namely Quebec, be respected.
Accordingly, Bill S-211 certainly deserves to be thoroughly examined in committee. I hope that my colleagues will lend an attentive ear to my concerns about this bill.
I spoke about respecting provincial jurisdictions. Provincial control over lotteries came about as a result of a long battle between the two levels of government. The most important event in that struggle is the agreement reached in 1985 whereby the federal government transferred its power to the provinces and territories, on condition that they did not grant operating licences to third parties. Since then, the provinces and territories have managed their lotteries as they see fit.
I would like to mention what Quebec has done in the area of video lottery terminals to combat gambling addiction and minimize the social costs associated with gambling.
Before the Société des loteries vidéo du Québec was created in 1994, it was estimated that Quebec had between 30,000 and 40,000 illegal video lottery terminals. There was little or no regulation of these terminals, which were available to all segments of the population and often controlled by organized crime.
With the creation of this subsidiary of Loto-Québec, the number of VLTs was reduced to 14,000, which were located in 3,260 licensed establishments in 2005. I would like to point out that the number of terminals and establishments has been decreasing steadily since 1997.
In addition, Quebec has adopted a series of social measures to combat pathological gambling, including prevention programs, technical limits on terminals, strict rules to limit encouragement to gamble and direct assistance for compulsive gamblers.
Loto-Québec has gone even farther, with plans to reconfigure its network to reduce the current number of video lottery terminals by at least 31% between 2004 and 2007. This would eliminate 1,000 bars, restaurants and taverns from the current number of licensed establishments, especially in the poorest areas of Quebec.
However, if it is adopted as is, Bill S-211, by amending the Criminal Code, would open the door to the federal government in what today is a provincial and territorial jurisdiction. That could affect the balance that was achieved with the 1985 agreement with the provinces. Of course, the three-year period for coming into force would ease the transition, but might it not affect Quebec's current strategy against compulsive gambling? Would it not trigger another lengthy legal dispute between the two levels of government? I would like hon. members to look at this in more detail in order to develop measures to complement the Government of Quebec's initiatives.
Relations with Ottawa and respect for provincial jurisdictions are not the only things worrying me. Senator Lapointe wants to improve the lot of compulsive gamblers and, at the same time, the quality of life of society in general.
With regard to the situation in Quebec before 1994, I have the following question: if Quebec is responsible for appropriately operating these video lottery terminals, is it not participating in the fight against organized crime by depriving it of a guaranteed source of revenue? If we concentrate terminals in specific locations, will we not again be making way for the financing of organized criminal groups? My colleagues agree with me that these groups do not have a conscience when it comes to compulsive gambling. Furthermore, they do not have the resources the provinces do to curb this phenomenon. I hope to meet social groups that can answer these questions at the committee hearings.
We shall have to see how Ottawa will make up the revenue that the provinces lose by drastically cutting the number of video lottery terminals. We must also consider minimizing the financial losses of small establishments that own these machines. I believe that we are opening the door to lengthy negotiations that should be part of a federal-provincial agreement. If we do not succeed, we run the risk of having organized crime take hold of small operators.
As I mentioned, I care very much about the well-being of my constituents. I therefore wonder about the impact of Bill S-211 on compulsive gamblers. Reducing the number of machines will likely diminish the appeal for gamblers. However, if we criminalize illegal operators, will we not make it more difficult for gamblers to admit their gambling problem? I think a preventive approach, although it may not solve the entire problem, remains the best approach here, rather than tougher legislation.
I will close by saying that, in spite of the concerns I outlined here today, I remain sympathetic to Bill S-211. For this reason, like my party, I hope it passes second reading, so we can further study the impact I mentioned and hear witnesses on the issue. We will therefore vote in favour of this bill at second reading, and we plan to propose constructive amendments in order to strike a balance between the collective well-being and respect for provincial jurisdictions, especially for Quebec.
Compulsive gambling is indeed a serious problem that has significant repercussions on the friends and families of gamblers, and on the entire community. Bill S-211 shows an understanding of this problem, but does not prohibit video lottery terminals. Indeed, I feel this activity could benefit from greater regulation, since its repercussions are clearly significant and stir our conscience.
Rob Anders Conservative Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will talk a bit about S-211 that would amend the Criminal Code in relation to gaming offences to allow the narrow exemption which allows provincial governments to lawfully conduct and manage lottery schemes, involving video lottery terminals and slot machines. It would limit the locations at which such machines could be installed in casinos, race courses and betting theatres.
This is one of those situations where we try, as best we can, to respect, in a sense, territorial and provincial jurisdictions. In 1969 Parliament authorized the provincial and territorial governments to operate lottery schemes as a permitted exception to the gaming offences found in the Criminal Code. Under a 1979 gaming agreement with the provinces and territories, the federal government agreed not to operate lottery schemes.
Under a 1985 gaming agreement, the federal government agreed to place a bill before Parliament that eliminated permission for the federal government to operate lottery schemes and pool betting operations. Parliament passed that bill in 1985. The 1985 legislation also clarified that provinces and territories could operate a lottery scheme conducted on or through a computer video device or slot machine, but they could not license others to do so.
Furthermore, Ontario, British Columbia and the three territories do not place any government video lottery terminals, VLTs in other words, a form of slot machines, in bars. However, all the jurisdictions, commencing with the Atlantic provinces in the 1990s, placed territorial government VLTs at locations, including bars, for which the provinces pay a rental fee.
New Brunswick's decision to place VLTs in bars was, some years later, narrowly supported by a province-wide referendum. In Alberta and Manitoba, municipal referenda were held under provincial legislation and led to the removal of provincial government VLTs from bars in the few municipalities that voted in support of their removal. As well, a number of provinces, including Quebec, which is the province with the most VLTs, have chosen to place a cap on the total number of VLTs placed in bars across the province.
I see this generally as a situation whereby really we should respect those local jurisdictions with regard to how they do these things. Many things seem to indicate we have a responsible use of these provisions by the provinces and territories, and in that capacity, it is self-evident.
I will like touch on some aspects of things involving gaming and video lottery terminals. At this point, I am going to be extemporaneous with regard to this.
With regard to Bill S-211 and the Criminal Code, I would like to touch on some other things that are impacted by the Criminal Code. I have been in the House for close to 10 years. Many a time I have heard other parties in the House talk about how they care about the criminal justice system and how they would like to get tough on crime.
This is in reference to the Criminal Code and the fact that we are dealing with amending the Criminal Code, so I am broadening the debate.
I have heard many people over time in the House say that they want to see the government get tough on justice. The government has brought forward a number of changes to the Criminal Code, and yet it is facing a lot of opposition on those things.
It is not so much because the public is opposed to getting tough on crime, I think they are in favour of that. Some of those provisions, I am sure, like ending early parole or having mandatory minimum sentences and those types of things, are supported by a vast majority of people, probably in the order of 80%.
We are supposed to represent our constituents in the House, being democratic representatives, so it breaks my heart when I hear people say one thing when they go back home and campaign in their ridings.
In my last election campaign, we had a scenario where every one of the other parties in that race talked about how they wanted to get tough on crime and how they wanted to make changes to the Criminal Code and yet we have a scenario whereby in this place and through the committees and, even worse, in the Senate, people are trying to block all of these good things that we are trying to do to toughen up criminal justice in this country.
I think it saddens all of us to see that type of thing, speaking from the heart on this.
In my riding, I have had constituents who have had the ugly hand of crime touch their lives and they desperately would like to see many of these changes. I know many police officers who have given me their support and told me about the frustrations they have with the criminal justice system. These people are on the front lines for us against criminal elements, whether they be foreign or domestic in nature, and they are very frustrated by politicians who will tell them during election campaigns that they support changes to the Criminal Code, but then, when push comes to shove, and it is in this place, they do something other than that.
We have a situation in this place, daily during question period, where my opponents across the way will ask questions about judicial appointments. They will be very upset about the idea that my government wants to see police officers, who are intrinsically involved in the enforcement of our laws against criminal elements, play an important role in the selection of judges. These are the people, in a sense, who charge the criminals and then it is the courts that follow up with the execution of the sentence. However, we have people across the way in opposition who do not like the idea that police officers should somehow be involved with the judicial selection process.
I think that is a slight to police officers and actually goes against the will of the majority of Canadians on these types of things.
Furthermore, I recognize that there are many good and noble lawyers out there who do capable work on behalf of Canadians in defending interests and protecting people from maybe the ultra vires aspects of various laws we pass around this place, but the idea that only lawyers somehow can be served by this system, the idea that victims or the police officers who try to serve the public in all these various functions cannot be allowed to be a part of the judicial process or decision of who can be a capable judge, is beyond the pale.
We are not in this place just to serve as lawyers. The justice of Canada incorporates looking into the rights of the victims, those people who have not yet suffered a crime but want to feel safe walking down the street, people like my grandmother, for example, people who enforce the laws in this country, our police officers, our peace officers, our police in various functions, whether they be courts or otherwise.
More needs to be done. We have about a half dozen bills affecting the Criminal Code. This is but one more thing we are trying to address with regard to the Criminal Code. It is very frustrating when, during the last election campaign, we were seeking a mandate from the people and almost every party in this place talked about how they were supportive of many of the Criminal Code changes that we wanted to bring forward.
However, although they were willing to say that during the election campaign, I doubted it. Maybe I am becoming a cynical participant in the political process in the sense that I expected that when we returned to this place, they would not be as wholeheartedly in favour of various Criminal Code reforms as they said they were during the election campaign, and maybe the reason I am a cynic on those issues is because I was proven right.
We see them frustrating those things with their angle in their debate here in the House of Commons. We have also seen them frustrating those things in committees where those bills are sent for amendment, editing, proof-reading and overlooking. It is more egregious than anything. We see frustration for a lot of what we want to do in our mandate that we sought democratically from the people in the unelected body of the Senate where the Liberals still have majority control.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate, informing this House that the Senate has passed a public bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-211, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (lottery schemes) be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
Resuming debate.
The hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to take the floor to talk about Bill S-211, introduced by the Honourable Senator Jean Lapointe. I would like to take a few seconds to salute him for all his accomplishments and for his dedication to making this bill a reality.
The bill that we are debating this afternoon is of crucial importance for the well-being of Canadians. The purpose of Senator Lapointe's bill is to permit access to video lottery terminals at race-courses—where people can bet on horse races—betting theatres and casinos.
The main reason for this bill is to ensure that young people and the elderly, the two groups most vulnerable to this scourge, do not have easy access to these terminals. Making gambling less accessible will prevent these people from falling into the VLT trap. Mr. Speaker, this bill must be adopted as quickly as possible to put an end to distress and to give hope to those afflicted by the illness of compulsive gambling.
Already I hear the voices raised against this bill saying that once again the federal government is interfering in an area of provincial jurisdiction. And it is true that this area has, in a sense, been on lease to the provinces since the agreement of 1985. Under the provisions of that agreement, the provinces take the federal government’s place in the area of gambling, but they must return approximately $50 million to the government for the use of this legislative space.
This is not the first bill to attempt to amend the Criminal Code regarding video lottery terminals. In 2004, a bill called S-6, also introduced by the honourable Senator Jean Lapointe, was debated. It looked in particular at the federal government’s limits in this area. At the time the Senate committee noted that “the lottery scheme provisions in section 207 express the current federal government policy. Provincial and territorial governments are free to make decisions regarding the kinds of lottery or gaming schemes that they may conduct or license within the limits set by the Criminal Code”.
Moreover, as Senator Joyal mentioned in committee proceedings studying the Bill, and I quote:
If the federal Parliament wanted to ban all kinds of gambling, it could do so through the Criminal Code ... If the federal Parliament decided to limit some kinds of gambling to some kinds of circumstances and some kinds of location, it could do so, too.
The federal government has the power to legislate in the Criminal Code to permit the use of these video lottery terminals only in the places mentioned. It is much more a question of public interest than a constitutional issue. We are talking about the health of our fellow citizens.
There is a certain urban myth about the revenues that video lottery terminals bring in for the provincial governments. Each year, the provinces rake in record false profits with their video lottery terminals. In fact, numerous studies by university researchers across Canada, provincial governments, private institutions and social workers show that the social costs associated with video lottery terminals are three to five times greater than the revenues they produce for the provincial governments.
In the current situation, the federal government derives almost no benefit from gambling. It is thus in a better position than the provincial governments to defend the interests and well-being of Canadians grappling with gambling problems.
All we want to do here is provide a healthier environment for Canadians by removing the terminals from bars and restaurants and concentrating them in betting theatres, race-courses and casinos.
According to some of the evidence given to the Senate committee, video lottery terminals are often installed in bars in poorer neighbourhoods.
Their presence thus leads people who might never have been exposed to gambling to play them because of their accessibility.
According to a study published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, most compulsive gamblers are dependent on video lotteries, which they play daily or several times a week, because they can remain close to home and use the terminals available in local bars. These video lottery terminals have many more negative aspects than is commonly thought. It is clear that if we look at the revenues that the federal government receives from the money the provinces give back—we are talking about some $50 million here—it is markedly less than the social costs of gambling.
The reason is simple: people play more because the product is available.
Studies tend to demonstrate that people with a gambling problem prefer electronic forms of gambling to other types of games of chance.
In its 1999-2000 report, Jeu: aide et référence du Jeu pathologique du Québec, a telephone information and help line, reported that among the most frequently mentioned types of gambling, video lottery terminals were mentioned by 83% of callers in distress. It is important to note here that pathological gambling is compulsive, so there are serious social and financial repercussions for individuals, families and society in general.
Thus, pathological gambling can lead to indebtedness, divorce, bankruptcy, crime and, unfortunately, even to suicide. In all these situations, it is the family that will suffer. It should also be noted that pathological gambling has the highest suicide rate among all dependencies. Since the Coroner of Quebec began compiling statistics, 109 suicides have been directly related to gambling, including at least 49 in the past three years.
One of the groups that Bill S-211 wants to protect is young people. That is because researchers say they are more concerned about what will happen to adolescents than to adults. It is easy to understand; today’s children represent the first generation to grow up in a world where gambling is not perceived as a danger, where in fact churches, service industries and governments approve of gambling as a way to raise funds. Games of chance are legal, they are accepted and today’s children have never experienced a time when games of chance were not part of society. Moreover, they are considered the Nintendo generation; so, for them, electronic games are part of their surroundings and their lifestyle.
In support of these arguments, some surveys show us that there is general public support. In Quebec, 68% are in favour of such a bill, with only 10% opposing it. Nationally, 71% favour regulations that would relocate video lottery terminals to casinos and race-courses alone. Eliminating video lotteries, outside of casinos, race-courses and betting theatres across the country, would improve the quality of life of our fellow Canadians, particularly of our young people and elderly.
The government has the duty to act to protect our fellow citizens against any threat. Now is the time to take concrete action and to show the Canadian public that these video lottery terminals are harmful and dangerous to their health.
That is why we must legislate in this matter as quickly as possible and why you, hon. members, must support this bill.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
In my opinion the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 21 immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act, be read the third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
When we last considered this bill, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre was waiting with bated breath for a reply from the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington who has the floor.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Mr. Speaker, Gladstone said that if he was asked to give a speech on a week's notice he could do a 10 minute speech; if he was given a day's notice it would take him an hour.
I have had lots of time to prepare my answer to this question, so I can be brief. The member asked me specifically about problems relating to homeless people and their ability to vote under the new law. I think he is right to have concerns about it.
That is why at committee I proposed an amendment to the bill which was accepted by the committee and is now in the context of the law. It will ensure greater access to voting and to being on the voters list for people who are potentially unable themselves to put themselves on the voters list.
This is of course of great importance not only to homeless people but also to people who may be off at work when the enumerators come by to record who is living at a new address, perhaps in a new subdivision where no one lived a year before.
We have amended subsection 101(1) of the act. That subsection deals with who can be placed on the list by a revising agent coming to the door. Subsection 101(1) as amended will read as follows:
The returning officer or assistant returning officer may add the name of any elector to the preliminary list of electors if--
And this is the part we have added:
--the elector, or another elector who lives at the same residence as the elector, at their residence and in the presence of the revising agents completes the prescribed registration form and takes the prescribed oath.
That means individuals can get onto the list without having to have ID themselves or even being present, as long as another person residing at the same residence is there at the residence when the revising agents come by.
I should mention in this context that this was something the Chief Electoral Officer actually asked for in order to ensure that we had cast it as widely as possible. I think it was a very positive change. I am sure now that we have refreshed his memory, that the hon. member will recall that important change which will enfranchise so many Canadians in a way that does not exist at present.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his attempt at trying to answer the question. I guess I will have to restate it for him. My question was not about that particular amendment, which does nothing, zero, zilch, rien, nada for homeless people.
I was referring to the fact that there are people who have been helping the homeless with statutory declarations and other methods. The member was at committee. He knows this is not about having enumerators going to a certain place and getting homeless people on the list. This is about homeless people presenting themselves at a polling station and there is no one there on the voters list who can vouch for them. The people advocating for the homeless said this would be a barrier.
We are basically ignoring what the witnesses said at committee. We are basically saying that we know better, that Big Brother is in charge. We are not listening to people who are actually citizens and those who are advocates. I am just curious as to my colleague's take on this.
The member said he put the amendment forward. We all put the amendment forward in the spirit of cooperation. It was not challenged. I put the idea forward as well.
Does my colleague not agree that a barrier is still there for homeless people and aboriginal people? Only one person on the voters list will be able to vouch for another person. People advocating for the homeless are often not in the same riding. We have in fact set up barriers. That is what we heard from people advocating on behalf of the homeless.
This is going to land up in court and we are going to spend millions of dollars, and the thing will be thrown out anyway. In essence we are saying that Big Brother knows best. I am just curious as to why he thinks the bill with these barriers will help people exercise their franchise.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Mr. Speaker, we could dispute the prominence of this particular amendment. It came out of questions I asked to the Chief Electoral Officer. I asked him specifically to point these things out. We all agreed on it and that is the main thing. I will deal with homeless people in a second.
The member raised the point about aboriginal people and I did deal with their ability to vote. In response to an earlier question, I pointed out that Liberal members proposed, and we all accepted, an amendment which would ensure that a wider variety of identification could be used for aboriginal people in order to ensure they are able to identify themselves while still ensuring the proper security is in place and people know their franchise is secure.
The questions dealing with people presenting themselves on election day is one that is best dealt with by a non-legislative means. The Chief Electoral Officer could put extra effort into ensuring that greater enumeration is done in these areas and more resources be devoted to the areas that have a high turnover in population. That would be true both during the period of enumeration during the election and I would think on election day itself. That would have a profound impact. That is an administrative nature and was raised in committee. A number of members asked the Chief Electoral Officer and he indicated his good will.
When the new candidate for Chief Electoral Officer is before committee next week I think we will have the opportunity to ask him what he would do to ensure that maximum coverage takes place and as many Canadians are fully enfranchised on the list, and the voting process is made as smooth as possible.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to enter into the debate on Bill C-31. I would like to bring the perspective of the good people of Winnipeg Centre into this debate and I will try to accurately portray the views that I am getting from the area that I represent.
Let me say at the outset that we believe this new election law will be bad for voters and bad for the voters in the riding that I represent in a disproportionate way perhaps because it is, and I say this with no sense of pride, the poorest riding in Canada.
Low income people will be disproportionately disadvantaged by the provisions of this law, mark my words. I will make this point today, but I think we will be hearing a lot more about it in subsequent charter challenges. I say that without any hesitation or fear of contradiction. This will be challenged as a Charter of Rights and Freedoms issue.
Let me remind members of Parliament here today that section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says:
Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
This is a fundamental basic right and freedom that we established in this country. Persons wiser than I have said that the highest duty bestowed on anyone is that of a citizen in a democracy, and key and integral to that is the right and duty to participate fully in that democracy. That means exercising one's franchise to vote.
My colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, in his remarks in the House of Commons dealing with Bill C-31, quoted Alfred E. Smith, a former governor of New York, a famous populist and champion of child labour issues, et cetera. His famous quote was, “All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy”. There is no such thing as too much democracy.
Some of us are concerned that perhaps democracy was just a moment in history and in time. There are those of us who believe democracy is the highest achievement of civilization, but it is constantly at risk and under threat. If we are not vigilant and absolutely determined that we will embrace, enhance, protect, develop, promote, and strengthen democracy with everything we do, then it starts to slide. It cannot remain static. It is either improving or deteriorating. I argue without exaggeration that I believe the moves taken within Bill C-31 are detrimental and deleterious to the state of democracy in this country.
Speakers before me have made the point that requiring voter ID, the stringent new rules contemplated by Bill C-31, will have the predictable consequence and effect of less people voting. I would argue that if there is any one single problem with our election system today, poor voter turnout is the biggest problem we have. It is the failure to participate.
Roughly 60% of registered voters went to the polls in the last federal election. That is bad enough. But only about 50% of all eligible voters cast a ballot in the last federal election. If we treasure and value democracy above all else, we should find those figures very troubling.
The new changes contemplated by Bill C-31 will result in fewer people voting and ironically, or perhaps not ironically, and cruelly, the very people who need representation the most will be the most affected by these new rules. They will be disenfranchised and will not be exercising their right to vote.
I heard my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East, make some very passionate remarks in the House. I think I can safely argue that no one that I know in the House of Commons or anywhere else in this country makes a greater effort to encourage low income people to exercise their right to vote than the member for Vancouver East. Registration tables were set up in the Vancouver lower east side, some of the most devastated neighbourhoods and postal codes in the country. There was an effort to reach out and encourage people who were otherwise marginalized to participate and vote.
The member sounded the alarm that this bill will have a disastrous effect on the work that she does and will result in fewer people voting.
That is only one part of the bill that we are critical of today, the idea of the much more stringent rules about voter ID. That in itself would be enough to say that the NDP would not support this bill, but there is a second element to it that I find equally troubling.
I am our party's critic for ethics, privacy and access to information and serve as the vice-chair of the committee of the same name. From a privacy point of view in this era of identity theft and increased heightened concerns about the protection of the privacy of one's personal information, how could the government even consider putting the date of birth on the permanent voters list? It boggles the mind. It runs so contrary to everything we are doing, hearing and studying at the privacy committee. It is almost as if the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing in the government. It is sounding the alarm at committee that Canadians have never been so vulnerable to having their personal identity and privacy compromised and used in ways that the information was never intended to be used.
One's date of birth could be considered as one's individual pin number. That is the identifier. When we phone some place to get information about our accounts, the person at the other end will check by saying, “What is your date of birth so I can confirm you are who you say you are”. That is the identifier we use. It is the identifier crooks use too. If they have someone's name, address, phone number and date of birth, it is a recipe for identity theft. They have themselves a credit card under that person's name probably without much difficulty.
We cannot keep that information secure if it is put on a permanent voters list. I think I had 350 volunteers working on my election campaign. During an election campaign we cannot control everyone who does some volunteer phoning or some door knocking. It is not unusual to tear off a sheet of the voters list and tell someone, “Contact these 50 people and ask them to vote for our party”. This stuff will be circulated widely. It will not be controlled.
Our PIPEDA legislation mandates that anyone holding personal information must go through stringent security and privacy measures. Then on the other hand, again it is the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, the government in a cavalier way will spread all over the countryside one's name, address, phone number and date of birth on one convenient database. It is a recipe for disaster in terms of breaching one's privacy and allowing identity theft to take place. It is appalling.
In committee we are currently studying PIPEDA. Ironically, in this chamber the government is giving away the personal privacy protection of ordinary Canadians and in another room in the same building the privacy committee is seized of the issue of PIPEDA trying to enforce ever more stringent rules on the private sector so it will not divulge that information to anyone for our protection. Within the same building under the same roof we have these two competing dynamics going on: one striving to protect Canadians' privacy; the other cavalierly tossing it around the country. This ain't no beach party. This is not funny. It is not a joke.
I cannot believe we are even having this debate. I cannot believe the Liberals and the Bloc are in favour of this. We know where the idea came from, this date of birth business. Bloc members and PQ members in Quebec like to send birthday cards to voters. That is just crazy. If we are going to compromise the privacy and the personal information of every Canadian just so MPs can send birthday cards to try to endear themselves to their voters, we are really being flippant with the interests of Canadians. We are not putting the best interest of Canadians first and foremost, if that is the rationale. I do not know how they got away with it.
I do not know what the vote was like at the committee but I assume only one party voted against this idea at the committee. I think it was the NDP. I may be corrected; perhaps in the questions and comments period someone might want to correct me.
Then we heard from the Liberal Party. A university professor who teaches constitutional law, the member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra, made a very good speech full of good facts and figures of all the things to be careful about. He raised the caution of the voter ID situation. He raised the caution about the date of birth. Then his party is going to vote in favour of it. I do not understand it. I do not accept that more thorough and comprehensive enumeration will protect the interests of either one of those issues.
I will say there is important work that needs to be done in the Canada Elections Act. I wish we were having a serious debate about cleaning up some of the atrocities that I have witnessed in election campaigns.
One of the favourite tricks of the Liberal Party of Canada is to clear out senior citizens homes, especially in Chinatown in the area I represent, and then at the polling station, as each individual senior gets off the bus, the seniors are handed a piece of paper with the name of the Liberal candidate and a big X beside it. That is illegal. The Liberals think illegal is a sick bird. They do not really have any concept of right and wrong. I have maintained this before. However, if investigations were to take place on the Canada Elections Act, I would love to see that addressed, because where I come from it is illegal.
As far as actual voter fraud goes, we were kind of led to believe that this act is necessary because of the preponderance of voter fraud. In fact, all we can go by is the actual experience. In the 2006 election campaign, one person was charged and convicted of voter fraud. It was a person who voted even though he was not yet a Canadian citizen. He voted for all three parties or something and got 30 days' community service. In the previous election in 2004, there were no cases; not a single person was charged or convicted of voter fraud. In the 2000 election, there were three individuals convicted of voter fraud.
Where is the experience? Where is the empirical evidence that voter fraud is so rampant that we have to take these heavy-handed measures and risk disenfranchising many--I will not say thousands and I will not say millions--possibly disenfranchising a lot of low income people who do not have the economic stability to provide the right kind of ID?
Where do we get off jeopardizing the personal privacy rights of every voter in the country by putting their DOB on the voters list based on that kind of flimsy evidence? If we could have pointed to a thousand cases, I still would have argued that would not warrant the heavy-handed measures of Bill C-31, but the Conservatives can only point to four cases in the last three federal elections.
We know there is funny business going on, but it is not voter fraud. It is not the permanent voters list. It is not people misrepresenting themselves.
The Conservative members have said that it is going on like crazy, that it is going on all over the place, but we just never catch the people. That is not good enough. That kind of reasoning is not justification for changing the legislation. We need hard facts, and the hard facts are that there were four cases in the last three elections out of 24 million votes cast. Mercy. Statistically insignificant would be the way scientists would phrase that percentage. I cannot even figure out how many decimal points of 1% that would be.
I do not agree with Bill C-31. I fundamentally disagree with it.
The one thing I wanted the government to do was clean up the loans issue, if we are to deal with elections at all. Somehow the government left a loophole we could drive a Brinks truck through, or maybe a Mazda, in terms of loans as opposed to donations.
In Bill C-2, the federal accountability act, we severely limited the amount of money that individuals can donate to an election campaign, and we completely banned any union and corporate donations, which was the right thing to do. Get big money out of politics. Nobody should be able to buy an election in this country. However, we left a big loophole where we can lend a candidate any amount of money or we can lend ourselves any amount of money and never pay it back. How is that different from big money buying influence in Canadian politics? Frankly it is a bit of a no-brainer, because if the loan is not paid back, Elections Canada deems it to be a donation in 18 months.
What they did in one famous case on the Liberal side is that 24 hours before that 18 months was up, they took out another loan and paid off the first loan with the second loan, so now another 18 months would go by. Who is ever going to police whether those guys ever pay off their leadership loans in conjunction with the rules? I believe it will be lost in the sands of time and we will have been made fools of, because we will have knowingly and willingly watched those people violate the spirit and the letter of the election financing laws.
If we were going to address any shortcoming or inconsistency in our Canada Elections Act, election financing should have been addressed, especially if we are going into a federal election. Every well-off MP, or any MP that has a big financial backer or corporate sponsor now knows that Elections Canada is completely feckless, completely unable to police, to stop or to do anything about these massive loans.
When is a loan not a loan? If one never pays it back, it is a donation, right? That is the only conclusion I can come to. There are guys lending themselves a quarter of a million dollars. No one person is allowed to donate a quarter of a million dollars to any election campaign, even their own, but they are allowed to lend it to themselves. I cannot do that. Ordinary Canadians cannot do that. The whole idea was to level the playing field so that nobody had a disproportionate competitive advantage because of who they knew or what corporate backer they had or if their daddy was rich. That was the whole idea. Well, that is out the window now. It is making a mockery of the election financing laws.
Our time in the House of Commons would have been better spent trying to get that fixed before the next federal election campaign, because it is going to snowball now. Every Tom, Dick and Harry who has no conscience is going to take advantage of that loophole. Those of us who have morals and ethics I would hope might have a contributing factor in stopping people from doing that, but others who have a paucity of ethics and morality will take advantage of that loophole, and it is perfectly legal, apparently. Elections Canada cannot do anything about it.
The new requirements for voter ID will add further barriers to voting for marginalized people, for low income people, and will seriously undermine the right to vote. I think we are going to see a charter challenge.
I want to acknowledge the work that my colleague from Ottawa Centre has done on both of these issues, the voter ID issue and the amendments that he sought to put in place on Bill C-31, which we debated last week. The amendments made it to the floor of the House of Commons and then they were summarily dispatched to the trash heap of history, but it was a noble effort and he tried his best, given the limited cards he was dealt to do the honourable thing and the right thing with this.
I want to acknowledge my colleague from Western Arctic too, who has been a champion on this issue, because in the northern regions and in first nations communities, the idea of addresses and photo ID is a big problem. There are no street addresses on a lot of first nations reserves and people do not have photo IDs.
I know that this is a matter that my colleague from Ottawa Centre has brought to the Privacy Commissioner. I hope the Privacy Commissioner sees things the way we do. I hope that we can look forward to a favourable ruling from the Privacy Commissioner that will say that the government is wrong, that it is putting the right to privacy and the personal information of Canadians at risk when it has a permanent voters list with names, addresses, dates of birth and phone numbers on it. It is just folly.
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Speaker, as the member for Western Arctic, I will preface my remarks for my colleague by saying yes, in Western Arctic this issue has been debated in the newspapers, and it has been debated in our legislative assembly. People know this is an issue that drives to the heart of the sense Canadians have of their own place in their country and their own identity.
As for the idea that now we are going to drag out a photo ID licensed by the government in order for us to vote, in a small community, where everybody in the community knows each other, people do not carry identification with them on many occasions. In my own home community, I do not carry identification around with me. I do not find it necessary. I do not find it useful. I leave it at home where it is safe. When I do need it, I can get it.
There will be a lot of people right across this country in large cities and in small places who will not have their ID when they go in to vote at the voters' booth. This will disenfranchise them. They will be turned off voting. We are going to create more of a problem.
The real problem we have with voting in this country is that we do not get everybody out to vote. Forty per cent of voters do not show up to vote. That is a much greater and a much more serious problem than the four people who were charged with fraud in three elections. We have a staggering problem if 40% of our electorate does not go out to vote.
In my riding, it is probably closer to 50%. I do not want to put impediments to voting in their way. I want them to vote because by voting they join the democratic process and they validate what we in the House of Commons are doing.
I would like to ask my honourable colleague a question. In his riding, does everyone have voter ID and does everyone carry voter ID on election day? When they finish work, head to the voters' booth and find they do not have ID, are they going to be satisfied with going home across the city and coming back to vote?
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Western Arctic for his passionate commitment to this issue and for his very relevant comments on how this affects the people in his riding of Western Arctic.
His question specifically to me was about what the effect would be in an inner city riding like Winnipeg Centre. I know that the voter ID issue is a huge problem, because I have seen the lineups, even under the current rules. People come to the voting station and have to stand in a separate line for an hour, and sometimes an hour and a half, to get registered.
Now the test will be even higher. It used to be that one could bring an envelope, a hydro bill or some printed material with one's ID on it, as well as a driver's licence, for instance. Once people have made the commitment to come and vote and stand in line for that long, if they were turned away and told to go home to get something else or something they did not have at all, that would be it, they would never come back. It is tough enough to get low income people convinced that it is relevant to vote.
If I may, I will suggest some things we could do that would have been relevant. If we made sure the voters' cards were sent in envelopes instead of just in the mail, I think that would add an element of security. This is one of the things that my colleague from Ottawa Centre proposed. I have been in apartment buildings where I have seen the cards loose around a bank of mailboxes.
There is also universal enumeration. There is no substitute for door to door enumeration. The permanent voters list is a flawed document. An army used to be dispatched, sometimes of retired people, sometimes of people from the local legion, to knock on every door to clean up that voters list before an election. That practice should never have been stopped, in my view, especially in transient areas with high turnover, such as the inner cities we represent.
Also, my colleague from Ottawa Centre made the point for allowing people who are not on the voters list the ability to swear in with a statutory declaration, with the voters having to swear in at the polling station verifying who they are. This is reasonable. This has been used in the past. We do not believe it was subject to wanton abuse, as was implied by the Conservative Party members I have heard speaking. We think this is a reasonable consideration.
If the goal is to have more people voting, we should be putting in place measures that will facilitate it. If one is satisfied with the status quo or even can live with fewer people voting, then Bill C-31 is the answer.
It seems to me that we are coming at this the wrong way. The biggest problem we have, like my colleague from Western Arctic says, is the poor voter turnout, not this notion that there is widespread electoral fraud, because there is no evidence to back that up.