House of Commons Hansard #205 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was elections.

Topics

Iran Accountability WeekRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Iran Accountability WeekRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

(Motion agreed to)

DementiaPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

NDP

Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise again in the House to present more petitions on my private member's bill, Bill C-356. I have 32 pages, some of them double-sided, of signatures from hundreds of people from my riding of Nickel Belt, Verner, Field, St. Charles, Cache Bay, North Bay, Sudbury, Guelph and other parts of Ontario.

The petitioners ask the government to support Bill C-356, which calls on the Minister of Health to help implement the national strategy on dementia.

Sex SelectionPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Conservative

Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.

The first petition draws attention to a CBC documentary revealing that ultrasounds are being used in Canada to tell the sex of an unborn child so expectant parents can choose to terminate the pregnancy if the unborn child is a girl. The petitioners note that 92% of Canadians believe sex-selective pregnancy termination should be illegal and note that 200 million girls are missing worldwide as a result.

The petitioners feel that it is a terrible shame that the three deadliest words in the world are “it's a girl”. They would like Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

ProstitutionPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from individuals who note the high percentage of prostitutes being forced into the sex trade and trafficked. As a result, the petitioners request Parliament to make it a criminal offence to purchase sex with a woman, man or child, and that it be a criminal offence for pimps, madams and others to profit from the proceeds of the pernicious sex trade.

These are people from across the country, from B.C. to Nova Scotia, and the petition has about 300 signatures in total.

The BudgetPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of Winnipeg North.

The petitioners have indicated that they are concerned about the 2015 budget, which favours the wealthy over our middle-class and low-income Canadians; that it lacks a true plan for jobs and economic growth; and that it fails to provide the necessary investments in our infrastructure.

The petitioners suggest that this budget does not meet the needs of Canadians.

AgriculturePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

May 1st, 2015 / 12:05 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition from residents of Duncan who have raised concerns about the ability of small family farmers to produce the food that is required to feed their families and their communities.

The petitioners ask the government to adopt international aid policies that support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the fight against hunger and poverty; that Canadian policies and programs be developed in consultation with small family farmers; and that they protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use and freely exchange seeds.

Public SafetyPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Schellenberger Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present today three petitions.

The first petition is from my constituents who are concerned with Bill C-51.

AgriculturePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Schellenberger Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Mr. Speaker, the two other petitions are the same.

The petitioners ask the House of Commons to respect the right of small-scale family farmers to preserve, exchange and use seeds.

Public SafetyPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first petition is from residents of the London and Woodstock areas.

While the petitioners agree that terrorism is a real threat and we must confront it, they are very concerned about Bill C-51. They believe that instead of making Canadians safer, the Conservatives are playing politics with this bill, which is dangerous, vague and, mostly like, ineffective. It could threaten our rights and freedoms, and would give CSIS sweeping new surveillance powers without proper oversight.

The petitioners are very concerned about the possibility of abuse. They call upon the House of Commons to listen to the NDP's principled stand, stop the attack on our civil liberties and vote down Bill C-51.

Employment InsurancePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with respect to Canadians who have paid into the EI fund their entire working lives and do not benefit. EI was designed to strengthen our workforce but instead, now, 6 of 10 workers are already disqualified from EI because of government restrictions.

With the latest change to EI, the petitioners believe the government is hurting Canadian families, damaging regional economies and driving down wages. They call upon the Government of Canada to reverse the devastating changes it has to made to EI and to restore fair access to decent benefits.

AgriculturePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present.

The people of my riding are calling on the government to ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers and that they protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use and exchange seeds freely.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Citizen Voting ActGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Oxford had 15 minutes remaining in his address.

The hon. member for Oxford.

Citizen Voting ActGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, picking up where I left off, subsection 143(2.11)(b) provides that the Chief Electoral Officer can only authorize the type of identification that has been issued by an entity that is incorporated or formed in Canada. It applies only to entities and not to physical persons. Therefore, private leases would be acceptable as I.D. to prove a Canadian address, even with an individual landlord who is not a Canadian citizen.

There is a third option available to non-residence electors who cannot prove their last place of residence in Canada with documents. These electors would have the opportunity to provide two pieces of authorized identification confirming their name and an oath or declaration as to residence, together with an attestation by another elector from the same electoral district.

The attestation form would be available online, and the attestor would be able to send the attestation to the non-resident elector with copies of their own identification documents by electronic means.

Additionally, proof of citizenship would have to be provided with the application. This should not pose any problems to non-resident electors who would have a Canadian passport or birth certificate. What is more, Elections Canada already requires proof of citizenship for non-resident voters, so nothing would change in that regard.

In terms of applying for a special ballot, this could all be done in an expeditious fashion. Once the writs are issued, a non-resident elector would download the application form, fill it out, copy the required piece of I.D. and proof of citizenship, print scanned copies of the attestation form, if necessary, and then fax or perhaps email the package to Elections Canada.

In my view, these are not unreasonable steps for someone to take in order to have a ballot for a Canadian election mailed to them outside of the country.

Some might ask how the identification requirements would differ between voting by mail and voting at the polls. The citizen voting act would create one set of voter rights identification requirements for all voters. However, minor changes to the requirements are necessary for the attestation of residents reflecting the different situations that apply to non-resident voters. When attesting to prove the last address of a non-resident elector, the attestor can be any eligible voter from that electoral district, while those attesting in Canada must live in the same polling division as the elector.

In addition, either a note or a declaration of residence would be acceptable as part of the attestation process when voting by special ballot, given that oaths administered out by Canada are only accepted as valid in Canada if administered by someone within a limited class of persons abroad. The prohibition on serial and multiple attestations in the Fair Elections Act would continue to apply to all electors.

Canadians support the identification requirements established in the Fair Elections Act, and it is important that Canadians in fact do support those identification requirements that were established in the Fair Elections Act.

According to an Ipsos Reid poll done in April 2014, and this is important because it is very recent, 87% of those polls said that it was reasonable to require someone to prove their identity and address before they were allowed to vote.

The other part of this whole thing is the issue on how many people it affects outside of the country. I heard people talk about trying to prevent folks from voting. This is nonsense. In the 2011 general election, 10,733 Canadians were registered on the International Register of Electors. Of that 10,733 Canadians, the ballots of 6,069 non-residents were counted. That is about average with the returns in all of Canada.

Upon receiving an application for a special ballot, Elections Canada would review the application form, the pieces of identification submitted, the proof of citizenship, and the attestation of residence, if applicable. Upon approval of the request for a special ballot, Elections Canada would update the national register of electors and the list of electors and mail the special ballot voting kit to the non-resident elector. It all seems pretty simple and straightforward. That is similar to what happens now for resident electors applying for a special ballot, as well as for first-time non-registered residents.

Upon receiving the special ballot, the non-resident elector would mark the ballot and send it back to Elections Canada in Ottawa. To be counted, the ballots must reach Elections Canada by 6 p.m. eastern time on election day. Special ballots may also be submitted to the care of Canadian diplomatic and consular offices.

Looking at these rules, I cannot help but ask where the administrative nightmare lies. Not only are these rules clear and easy to follow, but they would provide more tools to verify the eligibility of voters and to instill greater confidence that the ballots are being counted in the right district as non-resident voters would only be able to apply for a special ballot in relation to their last place of residence. That seems to be common sense, but it seems to be of great difficulty for some members on the opposite side. Just to be clear, non-resident voters would only be able to apply for a special ballot in relation to their last place of residence in Canada. Further, they track, in many respects, the rules already in place.

Under the bill, non-resident electors would now have to apply at each election to obtain the special ballot. Yes, that is a change, but a requirement that currently applies to resident electors who are voting by special ballot. There should be no difference between those living in Canada and those living abroad.

Non-residents would have to provide proof of identity, past residence in Canada and citizenship with their application. Apart from providing proof of past residence in Canada, this is already required when non-resident voters wish to register on the international register of electors.

Another change is the clear identification rules including the attestation procedure. This was adopted in the Fair Elections Act and is available to people if they are not in a position to prove their past residence in Canada. The rest is virtually the same.

Are the detractors of the bill being fair when they talk about chaos or administrative nightmare? As far as I am concerned, the answer is that they are obviously not.

The government has strived to ensure our electoral process is fair. Our electoral law is strong, but that strength must be maintained at all times. Bill C-50 is intended to further reinforce the integrity and fairness of our electoral system. It would do so notably by creating one set of rules for all Canadians voting from outside the country, and by ensuring that non-resident voters prove their identity and past residence when they wish to vote from abroad.

There may be questions, either in the House or by people watching today, regarding how the bill would apply to special forces personnel outside the country. A completely separate set of rules contained in division 2 of part 11 of the Canada Elections Act provides comprehensive procedures for voting by the Canadian Forces members at locations where they are stationed. This reflects the unique circumstances faced by Canadian Forces personnel.

As I have already indicated, I believe that this would bring fairness to it. It would also bring credibility to it, and it would make it fairer to every citizen of the country: those who live and vote in the country and those who are living abroad. It is not a difficult and onerous system, but is something that all Canadians could abide by, and believe in the truth and the honesty of the system.

I hope the members of this House will come to see the merits of this reform.

Citizen Voting ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague across the way for a considered speech. It seemed to respond to various critiques that have been offered already.

First, as to the administrative challenges point, the chaos or nightmare scenario actually has nothing to do with voters voting from outside Canada. One thing the government is not acknowledging is that the new subsection 143(2.11) would change the rules for identity within Canada. The government may not realize this, but with regard to some of the criteria, such as, “an entity that is incorporated or formed by...an Act of Parliament...otherwise formed in Canada”, Elections Canada's view is that this is incredibly difficult to interpret with respect to complex structures of corporations and what the words “formed by” mean, because it is not a legal term known under Canadian law at the moment.

The chaos has to do with how this would actually change the identity rules for what the Chief Electoral Officer is able to authorize in Canada. That is my only point. When we hear from the Chief Electoral Officer and his officials, it is at that point when we will hear whether this is going to be a problem. It is not about the other side of things. Our concern there is the increased difficulty—not chaos, but just difficulty—of being able to vote after the writ has dropped.

Citizen Voting ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is also a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. He is a learned individual and I appreciate his comments. I look forward to this matter going to the procedure and House affairs committee expeditiously. I am hopeful that it will be in committee very shortly and I hope the committee will hear from Elections Canada officials as to what they perceive to be or do not perceive to be the issues related to this. I think we will spend our time in PROC studying it appropriately. If Elections Canada and others bring that issue to the fore, it will be up to the committee to make its decision.

Citizen Voting ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, my question concerns members of the Canadian Armed Forces abroad. I understand that a provision in Bill C-50 exempts serving military members outside of Canada from the extra steps, more the difficulties, in voting from outside of our country, and I appreciate that exemption. That shows respect for the men and women in uniform and it recognizes that this bill would make it harder for Canadians to vote.

What the bill would not do is exempt family members of the military. Often, military members serving abroad have family members and a spouse with them. The spouse is treated differently than the military member while being in the same situation outside of the country and potentially unable to go through the bureaucracy and extra paperwork to vote.

Why are the Conservatives showing such disrespect for the family members of the military in that they exempt military members themselves, but put their spouses through all of the extra hoops that this bill would apply to Canadian citizens voting from abroad?

Citizen Voting ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to accept the member's statement about disrespect for military families. No government in this country has ever shown more respect for the members of the military and their families than this one has. This bill does not show disrespect to anyone.

These are rules that would be in place. They are not difficult to follow. I can tell the member that military families would not find it difficult to follow the rules in the bill. The process would not be significantly different than what occurred during the time the member's party was in government. This is a good bill. It has to be something that Canadians can respect. I believe this bill is one that Canadians will see as respecting the integrity of voters.

Citizen Voting ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Tarik Brahmi NDP Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, speaking of respect, the member across the aisle mentioned in his speech that it is just common sense that non-resident voters should only be able to apply for a special ballot in relation to their last place of residence. It is not just a question of common sense, given that many countries have decided to have representatives for their diaspora. It is just a legislative decision by Canada. We must not assume that Canada's legislative decisions are more intelligent or more reasoned than those of other countries.

However, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on another point. Bill C-50 will create two categories of citizens: one category of people who live in Canada and do not have to register for every election and another category of second-class citizens who will have to register every time there is an election in order to vote.

Citizen Voting ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I understood the logic to the question.

This legislation deals with Canadians who live outside of the country. Obviously, when someone lives outside of the country, there may be different standards required. However, in this case, they are very similar to the standards that are required here. In this country, people have to vote in the district in which they live, not in a district where they want to vote.

All this is doing is saying that the district from which people left, where they were formerly resident, is where they will vote. Most Canadians would find that to be the most realistic of requirements for people who live outside the country.

Citizen Voting ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, I have one point on the last note the member mentioned.

Why eliminate the permanent list, if the listing is so essential? I do not understand why getting rid of the permanent list of international electors was so necessary. That was by way of comment.

Now by way of question, the member said that military spouses should not have any problem being able to vote, despite the fact that they have to go through these new rules. If that is the case, why are military members exempt anyway? Why do they have that exemption?