Madam Speaker, if the House agrees, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yes.
Lost his last election, in 2004, with 37% of the vote.
Canada Elections Act November 25th, 1996
Madam Speaker, if the House agrees, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yes.
Canada Elections Act November 25th, 1996
Madam Speaker, you will find that there is unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members having voted yes.
Canada Elections Act November 25th, 1996
Madam Speaker, if the House agrees, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
Canada Elections Act November 22nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary West for his intervention. I am sure there will be a great deal more intervention from both sides of the House when we get to third reading.
As I said in my brief remarks in committee while in camera, this is a partial solution. Considering the number of time zones we have across this great land of ours from east to west, I believe it is the best accommodation that can be made to reflect the sensitivities members had particularly to those Canadians living in Alberta and British Columbia.
Obviously we all realize that when it is 7 p.m. in British Columbia it is 10 p.m. in Quebec and Ontario. It would be quite a test to draft something that would be perfect for all the regions of Canada. At the same time I believe that is the art of the impossible.
I submit that this proposal is equitable and fair to the electorate throughout the country. Yes, the amendment would provide for 12 consecutive voting hours in all time zones across the country by adding one hour of voting time in the morning. Bill C-63 provides for staggered voting hours across the country to respond largely to concerns of voters in the west, particularly in British Columbia and Alberta, that their votes do not carry the same weight as those of other Canadians. Each and every vote of each and every Canadian counts equally.
The bill as reported by the committee proposed that the polls be open for 11 consecutive hours as is currently the case in each time zone but that the hours for voting be staggered as follows: The polls in Newfoundland and Atlantic zones would be open from 9 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. The polls in the eastern time region would be open from 10 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. The polls in the central zone would be open from 9.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. Polls in the mountain zone would be open from 8.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. Finally, the polls in the Pacific zone would be open from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
The bill proposes a reduction by one hour, from four to three hours, in the number of consecutive hours that every employer must provide to employees in order to vote. This was proposed to address the concerns of employers in western Canada. A 7 p.m. closing time in the Pacific zone would mean that employers would need to let their employees leave work at 3 p.m. under the current four hour rule. The bill's proposed reduction to three consecutive hours means that employers would allow their employees to leave work at 4 p.m. which is the current situation. Recall that currently the polls close in B.C. at 8 p.m.; with the four hour consecutive rule employees may currently leave work at 4 p.m.
Under these staggered voting hours, results from the eastern, central and mountain time zones would be available at the same time. Results from the Pacific zone would be available one-half hour later.
The proposed amendment now before us would modify the staggered voting hour proposal of Bill C-63 by adding one additional hour of voting in the morning in all time zones across the country. This means that the polls in the Newfoundland Atlantic zone would be open from 8.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. The polls in the eastern time zone would be open from 9.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. The polls in the central time zone would be open from 8.30 a.m. to8.30 p.m. The polls in the mountain time zone would be open from 7.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. The polls in the Pacific zone would be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Allowing the polls to remain open for 12 consecutive hours would help to compensate voters in the Pacific time zone who are losing one hour in voting time in the evening. With this proposed new amendment, the polls in this time zone would open at 7 a.m. allowing most workers one extra hour to vote in the morning before starting work.
Canada Elections Act November 22nd, 1996
moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-63 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 2 the following new Clause:
"1.1 The portion of subsection 9(3) of the Act after paragraph ( b ) is replaced by the following:
the Chief Electoral Officer may extend the hours of voting at the polling station to allow votes to be cast on the ordinary polling day after the hour fixed by or pursuant to this Act for the closing of the poll at the polling station, but shall not, in so doing, permit votes to be cast at the polling station during an aggregate period of more than twelve hours."
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-63, in Clause 44.1, be amended by replacing lines 44 to 46 on page 25 and lines 1 to 7 on page 26 with the following: a ) between 8:30 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. if the electoral district is in the Newfoundland, Atlantic or Central time zone; b ) between 9:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. if the electoral district is in the Eastern time zone; c ) between 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. if the electoral district is in the Mountain time zone; or d ) between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. if the electoral district is in the Pacific time zone.''
Canada Elections Act November 22nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, fist of all let me say how much I appreciated the opportunity to renew my experience with committee work, particularly with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It brought back some pleasant memories, even if at the time I sat on the other side of the House. Frankly, I must say that the experience is more enjoyable from this side.
Having said that, I want to join with those who congratulated our colleagues from both sides of the House for their enthusiasm and hard work on this bill.
They include my colleague, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, who chaired the committee, the hon. member for Bellechasse, who really gave it all he had and worked extremely hard, the hon. member for Laval Centre, the chief opposition whip-
-the member for Calgary West and the member for Lethbridge, from the Reform Party, and of course the whip of the Reform Party, the member for Fraser Valley East, and a good number of my colleagues, including the deputy government whip, the member for Ottawa West and many others, who, long before I arrived, had already put in a long number of hours hearing testimony from very impressive witnesses, including the commissioner of privacy-
-Mr. Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer, to name a few.
I also want to say briefly that I am left with the strong feeling that discussions and consultations have been all encompassing. If we recall the Lortie commission and all its elements, we know that there is already broad support in Canada for the general principles contained in the bill, including reducing the length of the election campaign from 47 to 36 days. This proposal has been very well received by voters throughout Canada.
I believe there is also a consensus among the parties and, more important, among the electorate that a permanent register is long overdue and will be a welcome addition to the electoral process in Canada.
In a later motion we will deal with another matter of great significance to the regions, particularly to western Canada, which is the matter of staggered hours.
I would like to take a few comments to the two principal issues within this group of motions, the first being the matter of gender. Both the issues of gender and date of birth, which I will deal with later, could be useful. There is no denying that administratively that information could be useful. However, I am satisfied from the testimony of Mr. Kingsley of Elections Canada and others, as well as the privacy commissioner, Mr. Phillips, that it is not necessary. It is not essential.
Our electoral system is based on honesty and the freedom to vote. We encourage all Canadians to exercise their responsibility to vote. Too many Canadians do not participate in the electoral process.
Having said that, because of the strong testimony of the privacy commissioner, I do not believe that it is necessary. He further stated that he did not see the voluntary collection of privacy information as a significant privacy issue and, therefore, he did not recommend the removal of gender from the list of electors.
In summary, while a clarification of gender is desirable information to differentiate voters with the same names, it is not necessary, and for that reason it is not included in Bill C-63.
With regard to the date of birth, I realize that the hon. member for Laval Centre, the chief opposition whip, is a very young and dedicated lady who is not hiding her age, but we must do what is in the best interest of Canadians. Even if it could be useful administratively, it is not essential.
Again, according to the testimony given by the privacy commissioner, I submit that the reason why it is not in the bill is simply because it is not essential and that our electoral process is a voluntary one. True to these broad principles and to the privacy commissioner's advice, we thought appropriate to include neither the gender nor the date of birth.
Canada Elections Act November 22nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would find, with the greatest of respect for yourself and the Chair, that sometimes things might be deemed to be practical and logical and that above all, the rules of the House must prevail which entitle members on either side to participate in the debate whenever they so choose and get the attention of the Chair, the eye of the Speaker.
While certainly I would understand fully that the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve would complete his remarks, I would hope that during the remainder of the debate we would be given the opportunity to participate fully.
Canada Elections Act November 22nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I believe that I was involved in some of those discussions.
Keeping in mind what the Chair has put forward, in terms of members who have brought motions forward, in this case in Group No. 2 they would stand in the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse and in the name of the hon. member for Calgary West.
I would add that the member for Laval Centre, who at this time and in this particular group has no motions standing in her name, participated in the debate. I believe, with every entitlement, that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal should be given the opportunity to speak. I think that any government member should be given the opportunity by that criteria.
I understand that the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, who is speaking now of course, does not have a motion in this group. I submit that possibly a large number of members on that side may want to speak and the government will not be silent on this important piece of legislation.
Canada Elections Act November 22nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be a disposition of the House to deem all the motions to have been read and seconded so that we might get on to the business of the day.
Supplementary Estimates (A) November 21st, 1996
Madam Speaker, you will find that the House would give its consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members being recorded as voting yea.