Paul Dewar

[Canada Elections Act, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for a very concise and poignant overview of this bill and the concerns that we on this side have. Clearly, the NDP is the only party that has raised concerns.

This is about privacy and about the access to franchise. As we speak, there are concerns about the accuracy of census data. We know the problems that exist presently with the databases, be it with the banking sector or Elections Canada. Now we are going to add even more data to it.

We heard from the Chief Electoral Officer before he retired that in his estimation there was not a real problem. He said at committee that it made sense to have the voter cards put into envelopes so that people who might think of using the cards for voter fraud would not be able to, and that, yes, enumeration is a good idea. It really begs the question as to why we need this bill.

In my colleague's experience in the many elections in which she has participated, who is it who is most vulnerable in terms of the ability to vote? Is it people who are at fixed addresses, or people who move around and are in transition? I would like to hear of her experience in her constituency as someone who has participated in many elections.

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 14th, 2007]

What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the government issued in the constituency of Ottawa Centre since February 6, 2006, including the 2006-2007 Budget and up to today, and, in each case where applicable: (a) the department or agency responsible; (b) the program under which the payment was made; (c) the names of the recipients, if they were groups or organizations; (d) the monetary value of the payment made; and (e) the percentage of program funding covered by the payment received?

[Government Appointments, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, he forgot one thing: a long time Conservative.

Had the government simply adhered to the NDP amendments to the Accountability Act, this appointment would be above reproach. To be clear, the Conservatives had a choice. They could have chosen the quick establishment of the public appointments commission but they chose patronage as usual.

Will the government do the right thing, stop its dithering and set up the NDP proposed public appointments commission immediately?

[Government Appointments, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, partisan appointments were supposed to be a thing of the past with this so-called new government but today we learned that the wife of a long time assistant to the former minister of justice has been appointed to the Parole Board.

While this appointee is a qualified parole officer who no doubt deserves consideration, the appearance of patronage taints the appointment.

Will the government accept that transparency is what ordinary Canadians want in the public appointments process?

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague's take on this bill. He said that it is important for citizens to have trust in the system; no one can disagree with that. However, I would challenge him on the remedies that are provided in this bill.

Most people think the need to have photo identification is reasonable. We on this side of the House think so. But now there are additional barriers in place. If one does not have access to those documents, we are going from allowing people to vouch in a statutory declaration to only allowing one person to vouch for one other person. We are taking away that opportunity, particularly for those who are homeless. There is no question that will restrict people from voting. We heard that from witnesses at committee. At committee I asked the Chief Electoral Officer if this was a problem. I asked him how many people had been charged with fraud and he told me that none had. We have to question the purpose of this bill.

The issue around privacy is something that is very disturbing to me. The bill as amended by the Bloc and supported by the member's party would allow Elections Canada to have birth date information. This would allow all Elections Canada workers to verify that the person who was voting was the actual person.

Under the bill, birth date information would also be given to all political parties. All of us here know that is about our having that personal information to target voters, get our message out and raise funds. What does my colleague think about birth date information being shared among all political parties?

[Canada Elections Act, January 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to see if the member believes in the amendment that we put forward to take away the propriety of privacy concerns that we have, that is, the birth date information. The amendment put forward by the Bloc was supported by Liberals, and now I am hearing the Conservative Party saying it is okay, as well. Does he not share our concerns that political parties would have private information of citizens, such as their birth dates? If he does not have a problem with that, I would be curious to know why he does not have a problem with that.

[Canada Elections Act, January 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was on the committee, and I want to pose a question about the issue of birth dates. It is not something she brought up in her comments, so I would like to have her take on it.

In committee I had deep concerns about the fact that not only would the government have access to this private information, which it does from time to time, but political parties would have access to it as well. The Bloc put this forward as a motion and the Liberals supported it. Now the government is supporting it too, under the auspices of goodwill.

I do not understand the need for parliamentarians to have that private information. We have seen recently the concerns consumers have about private information being out there. There will be 308 ridings, with goodness knows how many political parties, all having the birth date information of all electors. We already have problems with our system mixing things up. We just need to ask people who thought they were Canadian citizens.

What is the rationale for this and why would my colleague support such an amendment?

[Canada Elections Act, January 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think what my colleague missed in my comments were the amendments put forward by the Bloc and supported unanimously by his party to share that information with political parties.

I cannot fathom the reason for political parties needing to have birthdate information. My colleague suggests that maybe it is so they can send out birthday cards, but the purpose here is verification, and the bill calls for photo ID. The idea of sharing birthdate information for all political parties is worrisome for some of us, but as for going to the extent of sharing it with all political parties, the Bloc and the Liberals were the ones who pushed through that amendment. It was not in the bill.

Let me be very clear. This is about political parties having that information. I know that in the hon. member's previous employment as an ombudsman he would have been deeply concerned that this kind of information, which is private information from my perspective, would be shared. I hope he supports our amendment.

[Canada Elections Act, January 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's answer. It does not address the concerns that I raised in my comments. I was at committee with him. The witnesses stated very clearly that the people they deal with would not have access to the identification he just mentioned. He knows that the change in the bill means that these people often will not be able to find people to vouch for them.

I am a little puzzled as to his take on this. Bus passes often are not something that someone who is homeless has access to. A bus pass is a piece of identification that normally would require an address on it, so I am not satisfied with his take on how things happened in committee.

I have to also touch on the idea of enumeration. We asked, and we were very clear about it even before this bill, that we have universal enumeration for universal suffrage, nothing less, nothing more. We know about the problems we had when we went to the centralized list. People were left off the list, usually in ridings like my own and other urban ridings where there is a lot of turnover. The fact of the matter is that we have not had assurances. In fact, when we asked for universal enumeration for each election, with people going door to door, that was not accepted. With all due respect to my colleague, it is not enough. An assurance from the Chief Electoral Officer to do that was something we had before.

[Canada Elections Act, January 31st, 2007]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-31, in Clause 22, be amended by deleting lines 28 to 42 on page 10.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-31, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 38 and 39 on page 11 and lines 1 to 18 on page 12 with the following:

“26. Subsection 161(6) of the Act is replaced”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-31, in Clause 28, be amended:

(a) by replacing line 32 on page 12 with the following:

“28. (1) Paragraph 162(f) of the Act is”

(b) by replacing lines 37 to 42 on page 12 and lines 1 to 11 on page 13 with the following:

“(2) Section 162 of the Act is amended by striking out the word “and” at the end of paragraph (i) and by adding the following after paragraph (i):”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-31, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 43 on page 13 with the following:

“30. Section 169 of the Act is amended by”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-31, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 40 on page 15 and lines 1 to 6 on page 16 with the following:

“38. (1) Subsection 489(2) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a.1):

(a.2) contravenes subsection 161(7) (vouchee acting as voucher);

(2) Subsection 489(2) of the Act is”

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-31. I want to step back and talk a bit about how we arrived at where we are.

Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act came from a committee report that was commissioned by all parties initially to look at the previous election and how it had been conducted. People had some concerns about how that election and previous elections had been conducted. This report was boiled down and turned into this bill.

Unbeknownst to many people, including myself, the bill was put forward without those of us in the House and on committee understanding that we were going to take on how people voted, the most fundamental aspect of our democracy.

We heard from numerous witnesses in committee about their concerns with this legislation. The amendments that we have put forward deal with those concerns as well as the concerns of many others who spoke to us in our communities.

The concerns expressed by witnesses and people who we spoke to in our communities were about the requirements for photo ID. Initially, many people said that was fine. However, those without photo identification would be required to have people vouch for them, but an individual who vouched for one person could not vouch for another, and they considered this restrictive. Witnesses who supported this amendment and had those concerns spoke from the perspective of those who worked with our homeless, our most vulnerable, and our students, who some would say are part of our most transient population because of the fact that they move back and forth from their homes to their schools numerous times.

We have tried to encourage both of these groups over the last number of years to exercise their franchise, to vote. Sadly, what we have in front of us are barriers to that. Why? Now they are required not only to have photo identification, but different tiers are being used. If they are unable to produce photo ID, then they are required to produce other pieces of identification with vouchers.

Vouchers is a topic of great concern for myself and my colleagues in our party. They will now be required to have someone who is already on the voter's list vouch on their behalf. This can only be done once. We know from people who were witnesses at committee that this is impossible in many cases simply because of the populations with which they deal.

If I can reference the homeless population. It has only been recent that we have been able to organize systems in our country allowing homeless people the opportunity to exercise their franchise. That was not done by government, but by the people who work in our communities. They took this on themselves. They were not paid by government exclusively to do this. They saw the need, the benefit and the responsibility as citizens to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens were not disenfranchised. These people did the work that some of us in government should perhaps have done. They took this on themselves.

They are confused and angry because they believe Bill C-31 will undo all the good work they have done by way of organizing people who do not have addresses because they are homeless. They ensure the homeless have an address, usually a drop-in centre or homeless shelter, and they are able to vouch on their behalf. The bill as proposed, without our amendments, would mean that those who work with the homeless would not have the opportunity to vouch for more than one person if they themselves were on the voter's list. This would be the restriction.

We put forward an amendment that would allow someone to vouch for more than one person. Also, we would have an opportunity to use a system that works in British Columbia. There would be an opportunity for them to swear that people were in fact who they said they were, and this could be tracked and accountable and would not be open to exploitation.

Further amendments that we have made have to do with privacy issues. I want to underline the concerns that we have, which I brought forward in committee.

According to the bill as written, electors will now have their birth date information given to Elections Canada. This birth date information will be passed on to people who are working in the polling stations for Elections Canada.

I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, about the concerns people have had recently about privacy and personal information. We have seen exploitation of the privacy of people recently with companies. We have seen stories about the information of people being used and abused.

What we have in front of us is a bill that would take the birth date information of citizens and that information would be circulated among all those who work on behalf of Elections Canada. I am not concerned about the propriety in the trust of the employees of Elections Canada. I am concerned about how this information can leak out. We have 308 ridings with I do not know how many different polling stations. This kind of privacy needs to be protected. That is why we put forward an amendment to remove the requirement to have birth date information shared with Elections Canada because of the privacy factor.

When we look at ensuring we have legitimacy and trust in the election system, there are other ways of dealing with that issue, other than sharing the privacy of one's birth date. I know many people in my riding are aghast at the fact that their birth date information would be shared with Elections Canada.

What is even more egregious is the fact that we now will share, according to the amendment put forward by the Bloc and supported by the Liberal Party, this birth date information with all political parties. For what reason? We know what it is. It is so they can exploit it and use it for their own purposes. It has nothing to do with checking the verification of the voter in front of them. It is an opportunity, to be polite, for political parties to use personal information for their own purposes. Why else would a political party need one's birth date information?

We put forward amendments on birth date information and the sharing thereof. We do not believe Elections Canada should have it to share with everyone. We most assuredly, and I think there would be a charter challenge on this, do not want political parties to have birth date information.

Consider this. In my riding of Ottawa Centre we have up to eight to ten different candidates and parties running. This would mean that each and every one of those parties would have access to the private information of each and every elector. How do we ensure that this information will not be shared with others for purposes other than to verify if a voter is genuine?

I implore other members of the House to support our amendments to ensure that there is privacy protection. When they find out that Parliament will pass a bill that will open up their private information to not only Elections Canada but to political parties, I think most people will be aghast. I am sure they do not know that at this point.

That is why we have put forward these amendments. I hope for the support and hopefully a change in the minds of the Bloc and the Liberals, who at committee said that it was fine for political parties to have birth date information shared among themselves. That makes no sense. I am sure others in the House, now that they have learned about this, will want to support our amendment to remove that clause of the bill, which allows political parties to have this kind of private information of citizens.

Finally, I think if we are unable to have these amendments go forward, it will be very difficult for us to support the bill. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.