House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 47% of the vote.
Canada Border Services Agency May 29th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, members in my riding of Oxford are concerned with foreign criminals abusing the generosity of Canadians. They want to be assured that action is being taken to address profiteers.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety update the House on what is being done to ensure that the integrity of Canada's immigration regime is protected?
Free Votes May 28th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in today's discussion of Motion No. 590 and try to get back on track. As we know, the motion concerns free votes on matters of conscience. I think all members would agree this is an important topic and Canadians want to know where parties stand on this issue.
My colleague, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, has continued in a recent trend in private members' business by bringing forward a motion that pertains to how we conduct ourselves and do business in the House of Commons. I applaud the member for bringing forward such a straightforward motion. It might be one of the most direct and to the point motions we have had the pleasure to debate in this session of Parliament.
It reads:
That, in the opinion of the House, all Members of Parliament should be allowed to vote freely on all matters of conscience.
I would like to spend my time today reviewing some of the history of the use of the free vote in Parliament and our government's record in that regard.
I have a quick comment on the motion itself. It is worth mentioning, given our system of responsible government and the importance of confidence convention, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain has made the important distinction of limiting the motion to matters of conscience. No one would disagree that party solidarity on confidence matters is crucial, given the important consequences.
At the other end of the spectrum, matters of conscience are those where the representative role of individual members is the most acute. I hope no one would disagree that free votes are particularly important on these matters. We have seen a number of private members' motions come forward that address issues related to how we do business in this place and also the role we play as members of Parliament. Similarly, the motion addresses one of the most important roles we perform, and that is voting.
When I took a moment to compare the motion with some of the others we have debated in this session there was one clear difference that struck me, which I will address in a moment.
Since the start of 2014, the House of Commons has adopted Motion No. 428 from the member for Burnaby—Douglas, regarding the implementation of an electronic petitions system. We also passed Motion No. 431 from my colleague, the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, related to the study of the process for selecting the chairs of committees of the House. The House also adopted Motion No. 489 from my colleague, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, to study the process for electing the Speaker of the House of Commons.
A common thread among those motions is that they all required a consideration of the standing orders, the rules that govern the House. As members know, the standing orders are carefully balanced based on parliamentary principles and traditions and reflect the interests of all members. They set out in detail how things such as petitions or the selection of committee chairs are handled.
It is in relation to the rules of the House of Commons that I discovered a key difference between Motion No. 590, which we are debating today, and the other three motions I just outlined. What I noted is that when one takes a close look at the standing orders, nowhere does one find a reference to a free vote. As noted on page 576 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 0 'Brien and Bosc, it states:
There are no rules or Standing Orders defining a "free vote" in the House of Commons ... Simply defined, a free vote takes place when a party decides that, on a particular issue, its Members are not required to vote along party lines, or that the issue is not a matter of party policy and its Members may vote as they choose.
What we can conclude from this omission from the standing orders, and what Canadians should know, is that the principle of free votes and when they are used rests with each individual party.
How is it then that each party has used free votes in this place? As I mentioned at the outset, given our system of responsible government, I would suspect that all parties agree there is a need for party discipline when it comes to voting on such matters as, for example, the budget and main estimates. These have traditionally been matters of confidence. However, in what sort of circumstances have members been afforded freedom in how they vote? Let us look at some examples.
As stated in O'Brien and Bosc on page 577, it is not clear when the first free vote took place in the House of Commons, but that the first free vote of note took place in 1946, on the matter of milk subsidies. While voting down the government's intent to eliminate milk subsidies was not necessarily a matter of conscience, it did open the door to free votes on several key matters of government business through the 1960s, 70s and 80s. The national flag debate in 1964 was treated as a free vote.
Similarly, as noted by Ned Franks in his November 1997 article in Policy Options, the issue of capital punishment and abortion, as items of government business, were treated as free votes by the Progressive Conservative Party and the Liberal Party over those three decades. For example, there were a number of free votes on capital punishment, including the original legislation to abolish capital punishment in 1967, which passed, and a motion to reinstate capital punishment in 1987, which was defeated.
Generally, the well-publicized free votes that have taken place since 1946 have been largely limited to matters of morality and conscience. Following the significant reforms to private members' business brought about by the 1985 third report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, known as the McGrath reforms, there has been an even greater opportunity to have free votes. The McGrath reforms resulted in more private members' business being introduced and debated, resulting in more free votes. Importantly, these are also the matters of most significance for individual members and their constituents.
We as a government are quite proud of the record number of private members' bills that have become law under our government. I would contend that our government has a demonstrated record with free votes, especially on matters of conscience. Let me highlight two examples that would back this up.
Bill C-624, introduced by my colleague, the member for Ottawa—Vanier, called to amend the National Anthem Act, which was a gender issue. The second reading vote on the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca's Bill C-279 on gender identity is another prime example. The vote passed 150 to 132 on June 6, 2012, with 15 government members voting differently than the majority of their caucus.
What are the characteristics of our Parliament that are relevant to this debate? First, our system is modelled after what is known as the Westminster style of government; that is, after the parliamentary institutions that emerged from the United Kingdom over the past 800 years. Legislative power is vested in Parliament to become law. Legislation must be assented to by each of Parliament's three constituent parts: the House of Commons, the Senate and the Crown.
The executive powers of government, in other words the power to implement government policies and programs, are formally vested in the Crown, but effectively exercised by the Prime Minister and cabinet, which belong to the governing party. The executive function is fulfilled by the Governor-in-Council, which is, practically speaking, the Governor General acting with, and on the advice of, the Prime Minister and the cabinet. The role of the executive is an important aspect of the principle of responsible government, which is a cornerstone of Westminster-style parliaments. The Prime Minister and cabinet are responsible to, and must answer to, the House of Commons for their actions.
Another important characteristic of our parliamentary system is that our Parliament is also the forum for our representative style of government. Members of Parliament are individually elected to represent their constituents within a single electoral district, and that is their representative role. In addition, members generally have campaigned and been elected as a member of a particular political party, and thus also have a responsibility to their constituents and parties to uphold the overall objectives of their parties.
This leads us to another key feature of our parliamentary system, which is the role of party discipline. This is the practice whereby individual members of a party are strongly encouraged to support their party's position on issues of importance to that party. This practice is not enshrined in the Standing Orders, but plays an important role in ensuring that the government of the day is held to account for its actions, making it clear to Canadians what the positions of the official opposition and other parties are in Parliament. At the end of the day, political parties are formed to accomplish certain collective goals and to represent key shared values. To do this, they require MPs to stand together so there is no ambiguity as to where the party stands.
I am proud to be a member of a party that stands for clear policies and stands up for essential Canadian values, and one of those values is the recognition that some matters are of such importance that members should be free to vote their conscience. This government will support the motion, and I expect that all hon. colleagues who respect the democratic process will do so as well.
National Defence May 15th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, media are reporting on a new audio message allegedly from the leader of the barbaric death cult ISIS, once again mentioning Canada and our allies by name. Canada is not sitting on the sidelines. We are proud of our men and women in uniform.
Would the Associate Minister of National Defence update this House on Canada's military mission to degrade ISIS so it is no longer a threat to Canada?
Petitions May 13th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which calls upon the Government of Canada to make changes to the current drinking and driving laws in Canada, and to make a change to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Citizen Voting Act May 1st, 2015
Mr. Speaker, that is the reason we have committee meetings.
Members opposite will have a list of people they wish to present at the committee, as will the government side. I am sure that we will hear all about those issues that he and others have raised.
This bill needs to get to the procedure and House affairs committee as soon as possible so that the committee can deal with it and get it back to the House.
Citizen Voting Act May 1st, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I do believe the military does possess a different place in Canadian society.
For many of our military members, it is easy to look at them when they may be in some location where the members are living together, but in many cases, our military are stationed overseas in combat locations. They are not in the same place and do not have the same opportunities to do some of these things.
I have had family members overseas in the military. For some of them, it is very difficult. It would be difficult to do these things if they are in a combat theatre. It is a whole lot different when the families are with them, but in a combat theatre, the families are not there.
Citizen Voting Act May 1st, 2015
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 Act May 1st, 2015
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 Act May 1st, 2015
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 Act May 1st, 2015
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.