Lawrence Cannon

[Constitution Act, 2007 (Senate tenure), November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot remain silent on such a debate and on the words of my colleague and good friend.

I share with my friend and hon. member a number of values as a Quebecker, but I do not share his vision for the future of Quebeckers and neither do a good number of our colleagues in this House.

I always marvel at Bloc Québécois members who say they have been defending the interests of Quebec in this chamber since 1993. They make countless references in their speeches to the best interests of Quebec, or the interests of Quebec.

But it is action that counts. I have a question for my hon. colleague. I can anticipate his response and it will not be the one I am hoping for. I know full well that in his heart, he is not in favour of reforming Canadian federalism. If he were in favour of reforming Canadian federalism, he would not be here in the House.

Rather than find ways to honestly and truly represent what Quebeckers have done, said and asked for—I am talking about a population that has twice in its history chosen to stay within a united Canada, to remain a nation within a united Canada—the Bloc focuses on its own agenda.

In my opinion, this is a relatively clear signal. For everyone here, this means we have to work on reforming Canadian federalism. I would like the hon. member to tell me how an unelected upper chamber, in its current form, can necessarily advance the democratic governance of our country. I would ask him to explain just that. I do not want him to look back at 1992, or 1993 or Meech or all that. I would like him to say a few words specifically on this.

When someone says they are here to represent interests, I could play cat and mouse with him and ask him why his political party voted against the economic statement, thereby refusing to allow Quebeckers to have $12 billion in tax cuts, both in income tax and the GST. But I would not do that.

I would like him to stick closely to the wording of my question.

[Vehicle Safety, November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his work on this file over the last two years.

Transport Canada has been evaluating the performance of electronic stability control since 2004 by testing various vehicles on different surface conditions. The department is continuing research and promoting electronic stability control, but more importantly, it is developing regulations for prepublication in 2008.

[Infrastructure, November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, the last time I spoke with the mayor of Mississauga I was pleased to be with her and my colleague, the Minister of Finance, when we announced the FLOW project in the greater Toronto area, with $83 million for the BRT, the bus rapid transit system in Mississauga. That is what we are doing.

[Infrastructure, November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is time to explain to our friends from the NDP that we are doing a lot.

We have committed $33 billion, unprecedented, of which $17 billion will be going to local communities and to municipalities across the country. Indeed, we are sending money to the municipalities through the gas tax transfer and through 100% rebate on the GST. That is--

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows:

(a) The federal government has provided VIA with over $35 million between 1987 and 2006 for the operation of VIA’s Victoria-Courtenay inter-city passenger service. No funding has been provided for a commuter rail service. Traditionally, the federal government has not funded commuter services as they are the responsibility of municipal and provincial governments.

(b) No applications received

(c) No applications received

(d) No applications received

(e) No applications received

(f) While urban transit is a provincial/territorial and municipal responsibility, the federal government recognizes the vital role transportation plays in the well-being of Canada’s urban centres and communities, and its potential benefits. The Government of Canada is committed to working closely with other jurisdictions to ensure that communities have the best possible transportation systems by directly investing in infrastructure projects through the new infrastructure programs announced in budget 2007. As well, municipalities can use the one hundred percent GST rebate and gas tax fund for commuter rail infrastructure and equipment initiatives. Budget 2007 makes a historic investment of more than $16 billion in infrastructure, bringing federal support under the new building Canada plan over the next seven years to a total of $33 billion, including the funding provided in budget 2006. This summer, the transport, infrastructure and communities portfolio undertook discussions with the provinces and territories and the municipal sector regarding the new $33 billion building Canada infrastructure plan and the operation of the new programs. The next steps will be to obtain Treasury Board approval of the funding programs, as well as identifying priorities, assessing projects, and negotiating the necessary agreements with the new terms and conditions for the funds. Throughout this process, funding will continue to be delivered through existing infrastructure programs, including the gas tax fund and the public transit fund.

[Canada Elections Act, November 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, of course consultations were undertaken by my colleague, the minister responsible, in drafting this legislation and we went forward with this legislation, which we think to be appropriate under the circumstances.

I was closely involved with the byelections in the province of Quebec. I had seen, on numerous occasions during election day, circumstances that were unpredictable. Six months ago, nobody would have thought that somebody would have come into the polling station with a pumpkin on his head and ridiculed the process that we were putting forward.

Therefore, yes, when we came through with this draft legislation the appropriate consultations were undertaken by my colleague. We have here what I feel to be a fair and balanced piece of legislation that represents the will of the members of this assembly, this House, to ensure that our process is one that is above any suspicion and that we have and maintain the best electoral system in the civilized world. In that regard, I am very proud of what we are putting forward here and I do call upon all the members of this House to support it.

[Canada Elections Act, November 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I will remind members that the intention of legislators is quite clear: people have to uncover their faces to vote. There cannot be any question about that. Until now, the law did not require that. As legislators, we have made the commitment to accept that someone be able to vote when they provide identification. Usually it is a Quebec driver's licence, since the member and I are both from Quebec. If voters are asked to show their driver's licence, it is because it provides visual identification.

Let us be very clear on that: the purpose is to have voters uncover their faces. As for the circumstances and the manner in which it will be done, we are saying to the Chief Electoral Officer that we are leaving it up to him.

I touched on that in my remarks. For example, women who enter Canada or fly out of Canada and have to submit to a body search have the right to require that CATSA have a woman do the search.

We find that reasonable. It is just common sense. The member says the system could be improved, which is precisely why we think it is reasonable that someone can make such a request. It does not bother anybody. Officials and staff work at polling stations. The Chief Electoral Officer can look at this issue and clarify it in committee.

Again, I must remind the member that the purpose of this bill is to ensure the integrity of our electoral system beyond suspicion. That is what this is all about.

[Canada Elections Act, November 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier to raise this question with his party's House leader. I will do the same with my House leader so that we can discuss his suggestion.

[Canada Elections Act, November 14th, 2007]

moved that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (visual identification of voters), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lead off the debate on Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (visual identification of voters). Everywhere in the western world, governments are taking measures to improve the integrity of democratic processes by trying to prevent voter fraud. Canada is no exception.

After the tabling, in June 2006, of the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which was adopted by all parties, the government introduced Bill C-31, which followed through on several recommendations contained in that report. While a good number of changes were made thanks to that piece of legislation, the bill before us today deals with changes to the voter identification requirements.

Before Bill C-31 was passed, electors could simply go to a polling station with their voter card and vote. Today, for the first time, electors will have to prove their identity and residence before they can vote. They can do so in three different ways. First, they can present a valid identification card with their photo, name and address. Second, if an elector does not have photo identification they could present two other pieces of identification approved by the Chief Electoral Officer that verify their identity and residence. Third, if an elector does not have proof of identification, they could swear an oath and use a voucher.

After Bill C-31 received royal assent on June 22, 2007, the Chief Electoral Officer decided that these changes would be implemented in time for the byelection in Quebec on September 17, 2007. Albeit quick, this decision was not surprising. It was the Chief Electoral Officer's interpretation of the legislation that surprised the government. Even though the legislation clearly states that electors must prove their identity before they can vote, according to the Chief Electoral Officer, they can vote with their face covered.

Not only is it illogical for a person to be able to prove their identity if their face is covered, but this decision also makes no sense and has many people perplexed. The government was of the opinion that this interpretation of the legislation did not take into account the will and clear intentions of the Parliament of Canada and asked the Chief Electoral Officer to review his decision. The government was not alone in that view. The four political parties of the House of Commons disagreed with the Chief Electoral Officer's interpretation and, in September, unanimously passed a motion in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs calling on him to review his decision.

Nonetheless, the Chief Electoral Officer has refused to respect the will and intentions of Parliament. On the day of the byelection on September 17, we saw the consequences of that decision. In several locations in Quebec, people deliberately covered their face for no reason. One person even voted with a pumpkin on his head. As a result, the public has called into question the credibility and integrity of the electoral process.

The government cannot stand by and let this happen. A democratic country must maintain public trust in the electoral system. In order to maintain this trust, to ensure that the government's will and intentions are respected and to prevent this from happening again, the government made a firm commitment to make the necessary legislative changes.

We reiterated this commitment in the Speech from the Throne in October 2007, when we stated “—the integrity of our federal voting system will be further strengthened through measures to confirm the visual identification of voters.”

I am pleased to say that we honoured this commitment on Friday, October 26, with the introduction of Bill C-6, which we are debating today.

The bill provides for the simple requirement that electors show their face before being allowed to vote. This legislation will strengthen the integrity of the electoral process: by improving voter identification by making it possible to compare voters' faces with the information on their identification card or on the voter's list; by helping to ensure that only people who are qualified electors, people 18 and older, vote; and by making it possible to identify anyone trying to commit an offence at the polling station, for example, someone who tries to vote more than once.

It is important to note that there is one exception in the bill: a person may vote with their face covered if there is a valid medical reason.

We realize that some customs require women to cover their face in public. We want to clearly state that this bill does not target them. It targets people who want to use those customs to commit electoral fraud.

While the government was compelled to take action to protect the integrity and the credibility of the voting process, it did so strictly and only because of the ruling made by the chief electoral officer.

If these women were dragged into this debate, it is because the chief electoral officer interpreted the act in a way that did not reflect the intent of our Parliament. Consequently, the government had to react.

However, it is important to point out that women who wear the veil never asked to be allowed to keep wearing it when they vote. In fact, these women readily show their face in numerous situations, when this is necessary. For example, they remove their veil when they get their picture taken for a driver's licence or a passport, or when they cross the border, and they never objected to having to show their face to vote.

This was confirmed during the committee's hearings on this issue, in September 2007, when a large number of people representing the Muslim community clearly said that women have no problem with showing their face if it is necessary.

The real question that we should ask ourselves is the following: why did the chief electoral officer make the decision that he made, and who did he consult before making that decision? Why did he drag these women into a debate that they did not want and that they had not requested?

Be that as it may, the government felt that it would be reasonable to allow these women to uncover their face in front of another woman.

While this decision ultimately belongs to Elections Canada, we gave that office the administrative flexibility to allow women to uncover their face before another woman.

Surprisingly, some people said that these measures jeopardize the equality between men and women under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is totally absurd.

Does the fact that women at the border can only be searched by other women threaten the equality between men and women? Of course not, and our bill does not threaten it either.

Others have asked why we did not amend the special ballot process. Quite simply because this process is very different from the regular ballot process on election day.

The special ballot process requires some paperwork so as to create a paper trail.

Voters who vote by mail must register in advance. To obtain a special ballot, voters must provide proof of their identity and residence. They also need to fill out a special request.

Once registered, voters are removed from the voters list and are not allowed to vote at the polling station. With such a complex process, it takes considerable time to evaluate and confirm the integrity of the votes that have been cast. Advanced registration to obtain a special ballot has to be done before election day, not on election day, because of the close scrutiny required in these circumstances.

On election day, throughout the day, many people show up at the polling station asking to vote immediately, but the thorough process for giving out special ballots is not used that day.

That is why the rules regarding voter identification have been adopted in the first place, to prevent voter fraud in these circumstances.

Critics have argued that there was no evidence of voter fraud having occurred because of people having their face covered. Even if this were true, that is certainly no reason not to act. Following that logic, we would wait for our houses to be broken into before putting locks on our doors or wait for someone to drawn before posting deep water warnings. The government will not wait for evidence of voter fraud before taking steps to prevent it.

The government passed Bill C-31 to improve the integrity of the electoral process. Under the new act, electors are now required, and this is a first, to show identification before voting. However, because of a misinterpretation of the act by the Chief Electoral Officer, allowing people to vote with their face concealed, the integrity and credibility of the electoral process has been called into question. That is specifically contrary to the spirit and intent of the legislation.

Our government has therefore responded by introducing the bill on visual identification of voters. This bill requires electors to show their face at the polling station before voting, while providing for an exception for medical reasons and an accommodation for people who normally have their face covered in public.

I hope that all members will work with the government to ensure this bill is passed so that it can be enacted shortly.

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my hon. colleague had to say. In her criticisms of my response in the debate today, I noticed that she failed to mention the targeted initiative for older workers. About 1,400 older workers come under this program. Already a certain number of projects have been approved in Quebec.

I heard Bloc members denouncing the government’s attitude as heatedly and fervidly as usual. We need to remember, though, that it was this political party that had to be dragged kicking and screaming into seeking a settlement of the softwood lumber issue. It was also this political party that refused just last week to support the Economic Statement providing $12 billion—I repeat, $12 billion—in tax cuts of all kinds for Quebeckers. This was unprecedented tax relief. So what did the Bloc Québécois do? Nothing. As usual, it was opposed.