Paul Zed

[Government Response To Petitions, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to six petitions.

[Canada Elections Act, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today and to support Bill C-63 as it has evolved during the positive debate and study. Having chaired the committee study and having been a party to the debate in the Chamber, I would like to speak to the perception that this bill

has been rushed and that opposition concerns have not been given adequate hearing. Before I address these concerns, I would like to respond to some misconceptions about the impartiality of Elections Canada.

My colleague from Bellechasse suggested this morning that there was collusion between Elections Canada and the government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Elections Canada officials have been available to the House and as importantly, to the committee on procedure and House affairs to help us arrive at a good bill which Elections Canada will then administer.

The government would have been remiss in not consulting Elections Canada officials for their expertise on this bill. In fact, as my colleagues opposite will remember, it was Elections Canada officials when they appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee in March this year who prepared a draft piece of legislation which formed part of the genesis of the bill before us today.

I respectfully suggest that the member is misguided in suggesting that the presence in the government lobby of Elections Canada officials would prove his allegation. The truth of the matter is that these officials have been available to all members for the past two days of debate. I might also point out that my hon. colleagues from Bellechasse and Calgary West on numerous occasions have had the opportunity to discuss points of clarification with Elections Canada officials in the government lobby.

With regard to the major thrust of my speech, a careful review of milestones in this phase of reform of the elections system will help illuminate the actual process the bill has followed. Members of the procedure and House affairs committee are well aware of the extensive work that was carried out beginning in 1991 with the Lortie commission.

As colleagues in the House know, this body consulted widely and heard from many witnesses. In their extensive report the commissioners recommended a permanent register and commended for further consideration the concept of shorter voting hours. This latter point was complemented by commission reflections on public attitudes toward shorter campaigns.

Committee deliberations by the Special Committee on Electoral Reform started in 1992 after the Lortie report was received. This work culminated in Bill C-114 which was passed in 1993.

We then moved to the 1993 general election. Elections Canada was able to reuse electoral lists from the 1992 referendum to build the election register as a result of an amendment contained in Bill C-114. This eliminated the need for door to door enumeration in all provinces except Quebec. This was a real cost saving and demonstrated that the list could be reused thereby lending support for the concept of a register.

The next year Elections Canada began to work in earnest on the elections project. Data sources and systems were considered and the provinces and territories were consulted and contacted. I should reiterate the continuing work with and interest of these other levels of government in this cost saving initiative.

My predecessor in the chair of the committee on procedure and House affairs invited Elections Canada officials to several committee discussions which began in April 1995 when the committee gave its concurrence to further work on this issue. Without getting rhetorical, this does not sound like a bill that is being rushed.

December 1995 found Elections Canada back before the committee to provide a progress report and findings. As my colleagues opposite know, when I assumed the chair of the procedure and House affairs committee, I was pleased to chair a meeting in March 1996 where we received the feasibility report on the register project. We had a good discussion in committee. Members were asked to pursue the debate in their respective caucuses and to report back on these discussions.

My personal objective and our objective as a government was to be able to provide additional guidance to the chief electoral officer. I felt this would be important since the feasibility report raised the possibility of a shorter electoral campaign and the prospect of an enumeration outside an election period, a major initiative which is the thrust to build the register and to permit a 36 day campaign. But the feedback was limited. An opportunity seems to have been missed to broaden the consultation on an issue so important to elected representatives in this House now and in the future.

Following the presentation of the feasibility study and the draft bill presented by Elections Canada, a committee of senior officials began to review this matter and allied issues, privacy being one. This work has contributed to the bill we have before us.

The bill was introduced and caucuses were briefed by the leader of the government in the House and by the chief electoral officer. The bill was referred to the committee before second reading. As members are well aware, the government has three legislative paths available to it when introducing a bill: a committee can be asked to develop the bill; a committee can choose the traditional process; or, a bill can be referred to committee before second reading.

Members will know that Bill C-63 was referred to committee before second reading. The fact that the leader of the government is the sponsor of the bill is entirely normal. As the member for Bellechasse pointed out in his much appreciated comments this morning, Bill C-69 was also sponsored by the leader of the government.

The referral to committee before second reading indicates that while the government has made certain decisions about the policy it wished the House to consider, the government House leader and

the government as a whole were prepared to give serious consideration to members' comments about possible improvements to this bill. Referral to committee before second reading both invites those comments and creates the procedural room where necessary to proceed with wide ranging amendments.

Members will know the process has worked in this case. A total of 33 amendments have been made to this bill as a result of this committee process. I will speak to these in a moment. The point is that the bill is better for these amendments. The process chosen by the House leader to study the bill contributed directly to the acceptance of those amendments. Members on all sides of the House who have contributed to these and other suggestions should take pride in their involvement in this process.

As a result of the committee work, the amendments which were made meet express concerns. These amendments include: a provision for staggered voting hours, which came from my colleague from Vancouver; a provision to use provincial lists to build the register; a provision answering concerns of the privacy commissioner and the broadcast arbitrator; a coming into force provision; and a provision to distribute the annual list earlier and to provide a definition of how the list could be used by parties and candidates.

I would like to briefly touch on some of this morning's debate on the use of provincial lists. To reinforce what the leader of the government said, I reiterate that provincial lists will be used to build the first federal register as long as they meet the criteria outlined this morning.

Bill C-63 has from its introduction provided that these lists be used to maintain the register. As a result of debate at report stage and second reading, additional amendments, 19 in total, were made which I believe contribute to the effectiveness of this bill. These new amendments include: provisions concerning the use of gender and date of birth information; revisions to the staggered voting hours; an 11 day waiting period for the calling of byelections to recognize the different dynamics occurring in byelection events; and provisions to provide preliminary electoral lists following the planned last door to door enumeration.

May I also remind the House that we have had an opportunity both in the House and in committee to consider the bill that was brought forward by my colleague from Vancouver East. Any process can be improved but in the case of this bill, we have worked together and we have improved the original bill together. I appreciate that my colleagues on the committee acknowledge this. As my colleague said this morning in quoting an American jurist, we have moved with deliberate speed.

May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. colleague from Bellechasse for his thoughtful and helpful comments. He has worked diligently on this bill throughout and he has been open to amendments, even this morning.

The hon. member for Calgary West also deserves our thanks and appreciation. His comments and suggestions in part are reflected in this bill. I believe he has made an important contribution.

I also want to thank our own Liberal colleagues on the committee who have worked diligently, particularly the member for Stormont-Dundas, to bring together the forces that bring us all to this House. Sometimes they are forces of disagreement but no doubt they are forces to put forward good legislation, legislation that has thoughtful and wise amendments and amendments that have come from experience and policy directions of every region of our country representing the linguistic duality and geographic size of our country. I salute him and the other members of our committee.

The government has listened to the comments about this bill and accommodations have been made. This is in keeping with our longstanding approach on electoral issues of providing all members with an opportunity to contribute to developing electoral policy on these particular issues as well as on others.

In conclusion, we are asked to vote on a bill that will make important, practical and desirable changes to the way Canadians vote for those of us asked to represent their interests in this House. I look forward to the earliest implementation of these changes that will modernize and improve Canada's electoral system.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 26th, 1996]

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

[Government Response To Petitions, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.

[Canada Elections Act, November 25th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening with great interest to certain aspects of this debate. It might be helpful to put a few of my points of view on the record, particularly to let my colleagues in the opposition know that there is still some interest in some of the issues they have raised.

Things are not cast in stone. They obviously are not black and white. We are trying to develop a consensus. We continue to welcome the interventions of both opposition parties, particularly by the members who participated in the debate at the committee stage.

In principle I have a great deal of sympathy for the point of view expressed by my colleague from Calgary West relating to the byelection campaign period. There may be some way to make some accommodation on that matter as the days progress. I note that byelections are covered by the Parliament of Canada Act, not this act as my hon. colleague knows. That act is not being debated at the moment.

The motion in the name of my colleague from Bellechasse in this group talks about the concept of domicile. As my hon. colleague knows, the concept of domicile is not found in the Canada Elections Act. The entitlement to vote in a federal election is in part based on the fact of being ordinarily resident in a polling division. The term ordinary resident is fully defined in sections 56 to 62 of the Canada Elections Act.

I was pleased to hear several members opposite say that in principle they supported the establishment of a register. All parties have had a consensus that a register makes a lot of sense for a modern Canadian democracy that is evolving. It is a much more efficient way and a cost effective way. I hope over the course of several electoral events that dozens or tens of millions of dollars will be saved by the establishment of a registry.

I listened with great interest to the comments made by the House leader for the Reform Party. It is important for the record to show that the reason the Alberta and Prince Edward Island lists were considered to be more consistent with this legislation was based on the freshness of information that was coming from both of those electoral districts.

It is important to remember that while the British Columbia and Quebec lists may very well work, unfortunately due to the time frame of when this bill would come into force, presuming it receives approval in the other place, the information that would be on the British Columbia and Quebec lists would not be as fresh. The best information when the officials were at the procedure and House affairs committee was that the quality of the information would be less than perfect.

It was for that reason the government felt that the Alberta list and the Prince Edward Island list would be appropriate. It is not inconsistent to establish a federal registry by using provincial lists. I have agreed with that point of view all along. There can be some significant cost savings at the provincial level and even at the municipal level, depending on which region of the country is able to use the federal registry.

We want to build the first federal register with the most current voter information. This is why we will only use provincial lists that have been completed through a door to door enumeration within the last 12 months of the date of the last federal enumeration.

Therefore, while I understand the points of view that have been raised by my hon. colleagues, for the record I wanted to draw that to everyone's attention.

Motion No. 9, moved my hon. colleague from Bellechasse, makes it mandatory for incarcerated electors to provide their names, sex and date of birth. It is important to acknowledge that in Canada we have a system of voluntary registration. Bill C-63 is based on the principle that electors voluntarily would provide that information. Therefore, there is no mandatory obligation to provide that in the bill. I want to offer that comment to the motion of my hon. colleague.

Motion No. 10 is moved by the hon. member for Calgary West. Once again I want to draw the House's attention to the fact that the privacy commissioner and the chief electoral officer have informed the procedure and House affairs committee that gender information is useful as an administrative identifier for electors who have names that are common to both sexes. Obviously in French and English we can all think of names that may be somewhat confusing from a gender point of view.

It is also important to mention that the privacy commissioner did not see the voluntary collection of privacy information as a significant issue as it relates to gender and did not recommend it.

My hon. colleague from Kootenay East has made a very strong case for that. Again, at this point in the day, I want to acknowledge the points of view that he has raised, particularly as it relates to the security and privacy of women. No one would argue with the member for Kootenay East due to his size or his sex, but other people may feel a little intimidated. However, I want to tell my hon. colleague that we have been listening very carefully and if there are ways that we can consider some accommodation we are still open to it at this point.

The maintenance of the federal registry is something that I believe is also contained in Motions Nos. 12 and 13. The use of the federal list is also contained there. I want to once again remind my hon. colleagues that what we are trying to do with this legislation is to ensure that Canadians have the most modern and most current information before them. The best information, as it has been presented by the officials at Elections Canada, is information that is brought forward on a 12-month basis.

Therefore, it is not to try to prejudice any particular group in the country. I notice that both British Columbia and Quebec would find their lists not as current as Alberta and Prince Edward Island. It was for that reason that the government moved in that direction.

I believe that sums up some of the comments I wish to contribute to the debate. I thank my hon. colleagues and ask for their patience as the days move forward on this important matter, amendments to Bill C-63.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. I believe you are referring to Questions Nos. 87, 88 and 89. I have taken a note of your representation today. I can only tell you that those matters are being reviewed at the moment and we hope they will be before the House soon.

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

[Order In Council Appointments, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments which were made by the government.

Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.

[Government Response To Petitions, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.

[Point Of Order, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to this point of order, I think it is important for the Chair to note that at the time the minister gave the notice there was no agreement on time allocation. In fact, it is accurate to say there is no agreement now on time allocation. The discussions taking place were in relation to the substance and not to the time allocation.

I would respectfully submit to the Chair that the notice that was given is perfectly in order. The notice is related to the fact that there could not be agreement. There is not an agreement now. The discussions that have been ongoing, which I acknowledge I have been part of, are related to the substance but we still have not reached an agreement. There is no agreement.

While I accept what my hon. colleague is trying to put forward, there is just no agreement. The discussion is on the substance of this matter, not on time.

[Canada Elections Act, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank both the hon. member for Bellechasse and the member for Calgary West for their participation in the committee. I very much appreciated, as I did that of all members of my own party, their participation in the discussions involved with amendments to this particularly important piece of legislation.

Before I specifically deal with the motions that are before us I want to make one comment, in particular as it relates to something

that my colleague from Calgary West said and my colleague from Bellechasse. This bill came to the committee after first reading and the role of the committee after first reading.

It is important also to acknowledge that there was a royal commission, the Lortie commission, in 1991 that dealt specifically with some fundamental changes that ought to occur in electoral reform in Canada.

My hon. colleague will know that there were literally dozens and dozens, hundreds in fact, hours of representations and work that was done for the Lortie commission and the good work that has been done by our own House committee on procedure and House affairs.

The government's reaction and response with the bill that has come before us today is not something that was written on the back of an envelope. There has been a significant genesis that has evolved that has brought us to this period today. It is important for listeners and for colleagues of this House to remember that it is extremely important to have a consensus, in particular when it is dealing with this most important matter of electoral change.

As the chairman, I was particularly pleased to see that in principle there was a general consensus or an acceptance on the issue of a voter registry and that there was a general consensus on the principle of a shorter electoral campaign in view of the costs, the significant cost issues involved.

I know I will have an opportunity to speak to a number of other issues as they are presented later in this debate but I also want to specifically talk about the motion of my hon. friend. The list of electors derived from the federal registry will be distributed to the candidates and political parties.

The date of birth information in particular in our view is not considered essential to proper identification of voters on the list of electors. That is not just our view as the government and it is not just the view of many Canadians. It is important that the privacy commissioner's view is also considered, as I know my hon. colleague would want to have it considered.

I share the view that the date of birth information reveals personal information about voters. I do not believe that Canadians are prepared to see that level of personal information shared so widely.

I accept and respect the views that are being presented in this House by my hon. colleagues but I have to respectfully submit in response to this particular motion that I think it is an intrusion. In fact, the privacy commissioner and the chief electoral officer have informed the committee not only on the issues of date of birth but also as it relates to gender, that on the second point, gender information, raised by my colleague, the opposition whip, it was felt it was useful for administrative identifiers for electors who have names common to both sexes.

My colleague, the hon. member for Calgary, was talking about the gender issue. I think it is important that the privacy commissioner stated that he did not see the voluntary collection of privacy information as a significant issue. In other words, gender was not a significant issue and he did not recommend the removal of gender. It was for those reasons that while we heard the views of hon. members, we felt it was the preferred approach to take the view we took in the legislation presented.

In responding specifically to the two motions contained in this group, those are the comments that I wish to offer to my hon. colleagues. I want to thank them for their participation. I regret that they did not gain or feel they had the same opportunity to participate in the debate at the committee stage.

They may recall that in March of this year the chief electoral officer came to our committee and presented the concept of a registry. I defer to the seniority on the committee of my hon. colleague, the member for Bellechasse, who was on this committee for quite a period of time prior to my assuming its chair.

He will recall that the concept of a registry is something that was universally endorsed as a good concept. I know that he does not necessarily take issue with that concept but it is perhaps the process that he did not find as friendly as he would have preferred.

While I regret that he has not endorsed it, perhaps over the course of this debate as we discuss this he may see his way clear to finding support for the proposal as it is being put forward. I thank my colleagues for their participation. This concludes my remarks related to this grouping of motions.