Raymond Simard

[Canada Elections Act, May 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to speak at second reading of Bill C-312, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (appointment of returning officers).

In this debate, allow me to stress how important the neutral administration of elections is to me.

For our electoral system to be perceived as truly fair and democratic, the individuals who run it must not only be honest, but also be perceived as free from partisan considerations.

In Canada, we enjoy an excellent electoral system which has proven itself over the years. Our system has been equipped with the necessary checks and balances for ensuring healthy electoral administration.

On election night, after the votes have been counted, Canadians take pride in the fact that our systems works, without having any serious doubt about the integrity of the process.

In some countries, that is not always the case. Doubt over possible political interference often mars the results and affects the legitimacy of the elected members.

It is in the context of good electoral administration that I want to address the bill under consideration. The bill amends the process for the appointment of returning officers, the local electoral administrators in every riding. The current process of appointment by the governor in council has a long history in Canada.

Although in the past being appointed returning officer was viewed as a political reward, the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing noted in 1991 that this attitude had changed over the years. The Lortie commission attributed this change in political culture to a real recognition by the parties of the need to ensure the proper functioning of elections at the local level.

The governing party, and every other party, has an interest in ensuring that the people chosen to run the election at the local level are competent, honest and impartial.

Some would say that the appearance of impartiality is just as important as being impartial in order for our voters to have confidence in our electoral system. That is perfectly fair. In Canada, that confidence rests on a solid exemplary tradition.

I am not aware of any specific instance in our modern electoral history where a returning officer has shown any bias, thereby influencing the outcome of an election. This is the result of a healthy democratic culture and of all the checks and balances in the Canada Elections Act, as I said earlier.

First, there are specific statutory prohibitions on partisanship, along with penalties including imprisonment. In my opinion, this constitutes a major deterrent for all returning officers who might consider assuming their responsibilities for partisan purposes. I am convinced that Elections Canada, when it trains new returning officers, carries out its duty to advise new recruits of this violation of the Canada Elections Act.

Second, it is important to note, too, that a returning officer's office is staffed by elections officers, who are appointed by the returning officer from a list of names submitted by candidates from different political parties. For example, the revising agents are appointed from a list of names submitted by the political parties whose candidates came first and second respectively in that riding in the last election.

This requirement ensures that the activities of election officers will be subject to mutual surveillance, in what is a fundamentally adversarial process.

Third, I recently read with interest the report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the 38th general election regarding the creation of field liaison officers for that election. The Chief Electoral Officer indicated that these field liaison officers, who were appointed by his office, were responsible for, among other things, providing the returning officers with functional leadership, identifying problems at the electoral district level and helping the returning officers resolve them, apparently by providing coaching and personal assistance.

The Chief Electoral Officer also mentioned that, over the 36-day election period, field liaison officers identified a total of 164 risks and problems; all were resolved promptly by the Elections Canada executive committee. In my opinion, this innovation seems to ensure even tighter surveillance by Elections Canada of the actions of returning officers within each electoral district.

With increased surveillance, the likelihood of partisanship seems to be minimized. My comment on this recent innovation to Elections Canada leads me to my next point: my opinion on the need to change how returning officers are currently appointed.

As far as I am concerned, the system has proven itself.

The Lortie commission report made it quite clear that the appointment of returning officers by the governor in council “allows the selection of candidates having experience in the organization of federal elections at the local level who care about the democratic process”.

No doubt there are ways to improve our system, but we have to be careful not to sacrifice a level of experience essential to the proper functioning of elections, in order to improve already satisfactory impartiality.

This experience can be found not among electors having no experience in the field, but rather among people who have knocked on doors and who have a practical experience of the electoral activities at the local level.

I am sure that after participating in an election only a year ago, all of my colleagues will agree that somebody who has no other experience of the polling station than that of an elector who only has to wait in line for five minutes, take a ballot paper, go in the booth to mark it and place it in the box after, cannot understand the skills required of a returning officer.

This is the person who will be responsible for choosing and training the returning officers in the riding, rather than asking somebody who has worked as a candidate representative during the 14 hours or so that the polling station is open.

To conclude, I would like to reiterate that the efficiency of our electoral administration is of the utmost importance.

It is essential that we thoroughly consider each and every change we might want to make to a system that works, in order to avoid any unexpected negative effects.

In this regard, I am afraid the suggested alternative is not really an improvement, although it might seem to be one on paper.

For this reason, I will not be supporting the bill.

[Citizen Engagement, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I believe that we are open to a better system. We feel that there are issues. As a matter of fact, since the last government a lot of substantial changes have been made to that effect and crown corporations are a typical example of that.

The President of the Treasury Board has instituted many recommendations. Changes have been made for the better. We feel that for people who are being nominated the whole process is much more transparent.

I believe we are moving in the right direction when it comes to appointments. Obviously, there is more work to be done. Hopefully, we are going to continue to move in that direction.

[Citizen Engagement, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Chair, actually I find it very unfortunate that probably the last question in the House tonight is a very partisan one. We have had extremely good discussions this evening on these issues. We put forward the debate this evening to try to get input from parliamentarians of all parties to see how we can improve democratic reform and how we can advance with this issue.

I am trying to tie the member's question into citizen engagement and I think maybe there is a possibility that we can do it. As a matter of fact, I feel that the government actually responded very aggressively in the days immediately following the tsunami event. The Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs reacted within a day or two.

I think Canadians were engaged in the sense that they asked us to invest more money in tsunami aid. I believe that in this case Canadians had a huge impact on the government investing more funds and I believe that we did react to it. I think that in a sense it was an excellent way, where Canadians did get involved and government reacted to it. I think it is totally normal for us to do that.

[Citizen Engagement, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I would like to respond by saying that petitions in fact are responded to by the government. It is up to every member of Parliament to then do what they want with them.

In my own case, I have had petitions responded to and I have forwarded the responses to the interest groups that forwarded them to me. I would think that it is basically the responsibility of the MP. The member, if not satisfied with the answer, should try to get more information from the government. That is the member's responsibility.The government does have a responsibility to react within three months, I believe. We do this all the time. As a member of the House leader's team, I have the opportunity to respond to petitions on almost a daily basis.

I would say it is the responsibility of every MP to ensure that the responses from the government are forwarded to their constituents. If they are not happy with the answer, I believe they have an opportunity to come back to the government for further responses.

[Citizen Engagement, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Chair, as the parliamentary secretary responsible for democratic reform, I am very pleased to rise in this take-note debate on citizen engagement. It is certainly not a new issue, but it is becoming more relevant to Canadians. It is an area where there is room for a lot of improvement, too.

I would like to take this opportunity to examine three key aspects of public participation, three aspects we must bear in mind in our discussions of the issue. I would first like to speak about the importance of public participation in democratic governance and public accountability.

Second, I would like to speak about the effect real public participation has on the relationship between government and the people. Engagement presupposes a different relationship, one in which people are not considered passive users of services, but one in which elected officials still play a key role in decision making.

Finally, I would like to look briefly at certain challenges and reservations sometimes expressed when discussing increased citizen participation in policy development.

The importance of citizen participation in keeping democracy healthy and strong is the first reason for valuing it. In Canada, as elsewhere, the significant decrease in voter turnout in elections in recent years, especially among young people, is forcing us to look at what appears to be a more general lack of public interest in public affairs. Many western democracies, in fact, are increasingly concerned over the drop in public participation in volunteer work and political activities, and not just in the election process.

Although it is hard to separate cause and effect, it is easy to conclude that a lack of interest in the election process is the product of a more general decline in community participation. In the absence of active Canadians knowledgeable about political processes and issues, we will probably see a weakening of our democratic institutions. The more informed Canadians committed to the political debate we have, the more vigorous our democracy will be. In this sense, public participation is important, because it allows Canadians to fulfil their duty as citizens.

In the past, it was often a question of our rights. We do not take interest in our responsibilities often enough. In Canada, although people are increasingly aware of their rights—since the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in particular—we should become more interested in the issue of citizen responsibility.

Citizen engagement contributes to improving the quality of government policies and it ensures that public interest policies take into account the needs and aspirations of Canadians. By providing citizens opportunities to take part in policy development, we are ensuring that these government decisions are based on the acknowledged preference of citizens. For the most part, that is what it means to have a democratic government.

The participation of citizens in policy development is important because it encourages individuals to think about public interest in a broader sense. Rather than restricting the focus to a particular group, the citizen engagement process, especially the deliberative type, encourages individuals to take common interests into account.

This dialogue allows the public to understand the challenges from different perspectives, including those of people from different regions and of different ethnicities, genders and religions. In fact, when the public raises concerns in a public forum, they often feel obliged to speak, not in their own interests, but in the interests of their community or their country.

In terms of the process, public participation can make it easier to determine common interests, which may serve as a basis for negotiations and which may increase the feeling of belonging and responsibility for results. This increases the legitimacy and acceptance of the process.

Additionally, the proceedings may complement the activities of the major advocacy groups or lobbyists. By promoting direct public participation, governments can better understand the needs and hopes of the general public.

This brings me to another issue, which I raised at the outset, namely, the fact that citizens are increasingly seeking a different type of relationship between themselves and government.

As University of Toronto professor Neil Nevitte pointed out some time ago, there has been a decline of deference among Canadians. Citizens are no longer willing to be passive figures in relation to authority figures. Increasingly, Canadians wish to play a much more active role in relation to their elected representatives.

The government-citizen relationship has grown more complex, with citizens demanding a greater voice in policy development, either individually or through advocacy organizations in civil society. Ministers and elected officials need to be actively in touch with citizens rather than simply seeing them as passive clients demanding services.

This demand for a new government-citizen relationship not only means more citizen consultation, but also a different way of engaging citizens that goes beyond the traditional narrow consultation exercise. While public opinion polls tells us consistently that citizens overwhelmingly indicate a great desire to be involved, they also demonstrate that Canadians have a low level of confidence that what they have to say matters much in the end. There is a sense that the involvement of citizens in policy development is done in a superficial manner, where a policy direction has already been taken in advance.

While studies clearly tell us that citizens wish to have a greater and more meaningful say in policy making, it is important to point out that ultimately citizens want their elected representatives to make final decisions. In other words, greater citizen participation transforms and, in my view, reinforces representative democracy. It does not negate it.

The demand for greater and improved means of citizen engagement is not without challenges. Beyond the benefits of citizen engagement, a number of concerns have been raised about involving citizens that I would like to address.

First, it has been argued that citizen engagement processes are just too expensive. The argument is that the money would be better spent on programs that directly affect the well-being of Canadians.

My response is that, yes, it is true that citizen engagement processes require significant funding. Real engagement exercises do require considerable time and resources. However, my understanding is that the overall cost of all citizen consultation and engagement is a tiny fraction of total government expenditures. Moreover, this fraction of government expenditures is more than justified if it enables MPs and the Government of Canada to reach out to citizens, to determine their needs and aspirations and to craft appropriate policy responses.

Another argument against citizen engagement is that it can tie the hands of the government, reducing its flexibility, particularly in the context of negotiations, and make it difficult to achieve policy reforms.

Concerns are sometimes raised, moreover, that citizens are unable to think through the difficult trade-offs that must often be made and increase the pressure on governments to take decisions that simply appeal to the lowest possible denominator.

While it is true that engaging citizens in policy development can reduce flexibility if a clear consensus emerges for a given approach to a problem, this is not necessarily a problem. If there is a clear consensus as to a solution to a problem, the government has an obligation to listen. If it chooses an alternative approach, it has an obligation to offer a publicly justifiable rationale.

Regarding the difficulty of trade-offs, one of the benefits of some new citizen engagement techniques is that they allow for citizens to discuss among themselves the choices they would make in a situation of competing priorities.

A final concern that is often raised is that it can be time consuming and could, in the extreme, paralyze governments. My response to this concern is that engaging citizens can be done in a variety of ways.

For some issues it will be important to have an extended citizen engagement process. The Romanow Commission on the Future of Health Care engagement process lasted for a number of months. However, not all engagement processes need to be large. In some cases, smaller, targeted processes can be extremely effective.

I will close by saying that, clearly, there are numerous excellent reasons to encourage public participation in policy development. Although significant progress in this area has been made over the past few years, we must multiply our efforts to reach Canadians.

Ministers and departments clearly have the obligation to improve their efforts to encourage public participation. In addition to what the ministers are doing, parliamentarians have a fundamental responsibility to speak with their constituents on government policy issues.

I am eager to hear what other parliamentarians have to say about this.

[Citizen Engagement, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I cannot help but feel that I am at a Conservative convention right now. It is a very interesting evening.

The hon. member mentioned free votes in the House of Commons. On this side of the House we have brought in the three line vote. It has worked extremely well. In fact, there is a lot more flexibility for members to vote the way they want to vote. I have not necessarily seen that on the other side of the House.

I would appreciate the member telling me how he figures that a Conservative government would bring that forward. Why would they not bring it forward immediately when they are in opposition?

[Citizen Engagement, May 3rd, 2005]

Madam Chair, I would like to ask my colleague a question based on one of my experiences as a new member of Parliament.

It will be three years that I have been a member of Parliament within the next couple of weeks. In my first year I am not sure if I was naive, but I said that I would do community consultations. I figured I would go right into the community centres and meet the people in their areas. I was extremely disappointed with the turnout. I literally invited thousands of people and dozens showed up. I think I was doing it for the right reasons. I wanted to engage people. I wanted their feedback on issues.

The hon. member spoke about cynicism and how citizens are cynical about things. Maybe she could tell us how we get beyond that. It is easy to get a full house at a town hall in times of crisis, but how do we engage people between the crises, when we want their feedback on day to day things and we want serious engagement from them?

[Citizen Engagement, May 3rd, 2005]

Madam Chair, I would like to pose a question to my hon. colleague. His comments were very valuable. I believe we on this side have offered a legitimate debate on citizen engagement. I think one reason Canadians are skeptical is because when we make this kind of an offer and people do not take us up on it and treat it seriously, it is an issue. I appreciate the comments. Some of these things are very valuable.

In the member's studies has he been able to identify some of the options when we work with different demographic groups? For instance, we know there is a huge issue with young people not voting. I thought the member's comments about people reading newspapers was very interesting. Are there any comments on how we can engage younger people in this process?

[Committees of the House, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the debate do now adjourn.

[Gasoline Prices, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague opposite is referring to the Canada-communities agreements, something I am quite involved in. This is something I am interested in and passionate about. I am in contact with the FCFA president and his counterparts in Manitoba almost daily.

I am very aware of the minority community demands. I am also aware of the increases they are looking for. You can be sure, and my colleague will certainly confirm it, that I am an ardent supporter of these communities.

I am told negotiations are going well. The Minister of Canadian Heritage indicated again the other day in Manitoba that negotiations with the communities were moving along quite well and I am confident this will be resolved shortly.