Scott Reid

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes the assertion that this motion has widespread potential implications. She is incorrect. I want to set things straight by pointing out a number of things to her.

First, the kinds of meanings she is imagining as being there would apply only if this were some form of constitutional amendment or something that had some form of legal meaning beyond being a symbolic motion. It is in fact a motion of the House of Commons and motions are understood to represent a will of the House with regard to what is said by those who are advocating the motion.

The speeches of those from all sides of the House who have advocated the motion are on the record and they clearly indicate that this is meant to be a recognition of the sociological fact that the Québécois form a nation within Canada, as distinct to a political nation.

I am glad the hon. member raised the point of George-Étienne Cartier's quote from 1865 during the Confederation debates when he said, “If we unite, we will form a political nation...”. She raised the great distinction between a sociological nation, an ethnicity, a people and a political nation.

It is very clear that the motion deals with the Québécois as a sociological people, an ethnicity that is recognizing a sociological fact and that deliberately puts a wedge between that sociological fact and the political nation that the Bloc Québécois wants us to deal with and wants to conflate those terms. We are separating those terms.

I say thank goodness for this motion because it would end that terrible game that the separatists have been playing for years in this country, seeking out some way of driving those two terms together and causing the disruption of this country. I am thankful that the member's interpretation is so very wrong.

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in their discussions today, I noticed that a number of hon. members have been very careful to emphasize what they believe this motion is not about. I think that is a good thing to do when we deal with a motion that is as laconic in its language as this one is. It is necessary to make sure that no one understands us as having supported something for reasons that were in fact invalid and therefore imputes meanings to this motion that are not actually there.

I thought, therefore, that it was good and very valuable to hear the hon. member just a moment ago speaking about the things that she does not want to be understood as supporting when she votes for this motion. She is concerned about the government having an agenda to do a number of things to roll back the federal government's role in Canadian life.

I want to assure the hon. member that such is not the case. I think that is to some degree self-evident from the nature of the way in which this motion came forward after the Bloc Québécois had proposed another motion. This motion was introduced after that time.

I also want to be clear in indicating that my own support for this motion is based upon understanding it to have limited implications, on understanding it to be a reflection of a sociological fact and not to be understood as, for example, indicating that we are or I am supportive of some form of asymmetrical federalism, or for greater powers for one part of the country over another, or for having the kinds of implications that the distinct society clause had when it was introduced.

Some people here supported the distinct society clause back in the early 1990s. Others of us did not and campaigned against it. The distinct society clause had the implication that, among other things, the charter of rights would be interpreted in light of the fact that Quebec is a distinct society.

This motion, as I understand it, has no such meaning. The charter of rights and the Constitution apply equally. The equal status of the Canadian provinces is not changed. That is my understanding. My question for the hon. member is this: is this narrow reading of the motion also her understanding?

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that must be coming to the attention of every member of the House as we approach the Christmas break is the large number of important items on the government's agenda and, indeed, on the agenda of all Canadians that need to get through the House of Commons in order that the nation's business can be carried on.

The primary reason that I am supportive of this motion is that it allows us to move on to these important items and not see the nation's business held up. I am hoping the House leader can explain to us some of the items that need to be dealt with prior to the time that the House rises for Christmas.

[The Québécois, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is late and perhaps it is time for us to get ready to head back to our ridings for the weekend. In that spirit, I think if you were to seek it you may find unanimous consent to see the clock as being 1:30 p.m.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, one of the key principles of democracy is that the vote of every citizen should hold exactly the same weight as the vote of every other citizen. This principle which was encapsulated in George Brown's famous slogan, “Representation by population”, was a foundation stone of the Confederation deal of 1867. Today we should do all that we can to prevent this principle from being watered down.

Bill C-290 directly undermines representation by population. The bill would entrench one value for votes cast by Ontarians living north of Lake Nipissing and another value, about 20% lower, for votes cast in the rest of the province. The bill would cause this inequity to expand over time. Bill C-290 would do this by amending the Canada Elections Act so that northern Ontario would never be represented in the House of Commons by fewer than 10 MPs. Before explaining the implications of the bill, I will describe Ontario's electoral status quo.

Northern Ontario's current population is 838,000 and it has 10 seats. The rest of the province has a population of 10,572,000 and it has 96 seats. If the principle of representation by population had been followed, the division would have been eight seats for the north and 98 seats for everyone else, but two seats that should have been allocated south of Lake Nipissing were instead placed north of the lake.

It is mathematically impossible to overrepresent one group of voters in a province without partially disenfranchising every other voter in that province. Effectively therefore, the current distribution of Ontario ridings takes away some of the value of each voter's franchise south of Lake Nipissing and gives it to the voters to the north.

Specifically, the current seat distribution has the following consequences. One, the average population of the 10 ridings north of the lake is 83,800. Two, the population of the average riding in the rest of the province is 110,000. This is 2.2% higher than it would have been if those two extra seats had not been awarded to the north. Three, as a consequence of this, the vote of every elector living south of Lake Nipissing is worth 24% less than the vote of a northern Ontarian.

That is the status quo. By making this arrangement permanent, Bill C-290 would be almost certain to make the situation even more inequitable. If, as the bill's sponsor seems to assume, the population growth in areas south of the lake continues to outstrip growth in northern Ontario at the current rate, Bill C-290 would have the practical impact every 10 years of stripping away another 1% from the value of every vote in every riding south of Lake Nipissing, since with each redistribution, the rest of Ontario would be deprived of an additional riding which under the terms of the bill would be reserved for the north.

I suppose one could argue that systematically underweighting votes by 2% or even 3% or 4% as contemplated by the bill is a trivial matter. Perhaps it is trivial for anyone of us in so far as our vote goes, but there are 10.5 million Canadians living south of Lake Nipissing and when so many voters are even partly disenfranchised, it is simply undemocratic and it is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, if you are planning on overturning one of the foundation stones of democracy, it behooves you to have powerful reasons. I confess that I do not find the arguments presented thus far in defence of Bill C-290 to be particularly compelling. As far as I can tell, Bill C-290 appears to be based on three premises. I will list each of them in turn, pointing out my reservations as I go.

The first premise behind the bill seems to be that the primary function of a member of Parliament is to be a local service provider and solver of constituency problems with the logical consequence that voting in the House of Commons on behalf of constituents is a secondary role. After all, if the primary role of MPs is to provide equitable representation for the people of Canada in this place, it becomes impossible to justify such anomalies as the existence since the last redistribution of one Ontario riding, Kenora, which in order to compensate for its very large geographical size, has been assigned boundaries that give it a population 40% smaller than the provincial average.

In the first hour of debate the member for Kenora was one of the most eloquent defenders of Bill C-290. A glance at Hansard reveals that he and the bill's sponsor spoke at length about the challenges of geography but not a word about the merits of having all votes within Ontario be of equal value.

I take very seriously my own role as a service provider in my riding, but it is my view that if it were possible to provide a better level of service to my own constituents at the cost of imposing permanent partial disenfranchisement on the voters of the rest of Ontario, this would not be a justifiable trade-off.

It goes without saying that I do not support the first premise behind Bill C-290. Even if I did, the bill would still not be intellectually defensible unless I were also to subscribe to a second premise.

This premise holds that in very sparsely populated regions where ridings are necessarily very large, a substantially better level of MP service to constituents can be provided when the population of the riding is reduced by 20% or 30%. After all, if the problems of service provision are not resolved by putting a few extra MPs on the ground in northern Ontario, there is no value in giving extra ridings to the region.

I do not agree with this premise any more than I did with the first one, but I will take a moment to review some of the words presented in favour of this premise during the first hour of debate before stating my objections.

The member for Kenora was quite explicit that this was his reason for endorsing the bill. He said that northern Ontario is “a massive chunk of land and deserves to have MPs serving it. It has 10 right now and it needs to remain at that”. The member then went on to point out that Kenora is not only the largest riding in Ontario, it is also the eighth largest in the country.

He described some of the practical difficulties involved in servicing the more remote parts of his riding. He pointed out that the communities are far apart and in particular that 21 of them can be reached only by air. I would like to focus on this particular point for a moment because I believe that it reveals what is wrong with the premise that more MPs would lead to better service. I will start by quoting the member verbatim. He said:

[Kenora has] 21 fly-in communities.... [T]here are rules in the House of Parliament where we can only travel for four days in our ridings. For me to go to those communities, it takes 21 days straight. I have to go home continually because I have to start the four day cycle again. If we took the population ratio that we try to use now [for the rest of the province], I would probably have 50 or 60 [fly-in communities]. How could anyone possibly service that?

The member raised a good point. It may be the case that rules that forbid an MP to travel for more than four days in his riding and charge the expense to the member's office budget should be re-examined. However, the member's assertion that he would have 50 fly-in communities if the population of the riding of Kenora were increased is simply incorrect.

Prior to the last redistribution, the predecessor riding to Kenora was considerably more populous because it included the Rainy River district. But in relative terms, this area was heavily populated so it added only 5% to the area of the riding and had no fly-in communities. This perhaps is why Bob Nault, the MP for the old riding of Kenora--Rainy River, so strenuously opposed the creation of the smaller new riding that now exists. He told a committee of the House of Commons:

[The argument is made that Kenora--Rainy River] is too large for the Member of Parliament to service it. I take exception to that, of course. I've been its member for 15 years, and I think we do a pretty good job of managing our way around the riding.... [Red Lake is] basically the end of the road, and from here on up are totally isolated first nation communities. The only way you can get there is by air and/or winter road. So [the southern part] is basically the part I drive to in the summertime--

From Mr. Nault's comments we learn that the successful servicing of a large riding requires good management skills. He made reference to the winter roads that let him get to some of the less remote fly-in communities. He indicated that he serviced the non-remote parts of his riding by driving around in the same manner as any other MP.

I know from personal experience that it really is difficult to service a widely spread riding. It takes over two hours to drive from one end of my riding to the other. Here is how we handle things and any MP can do the same thing: One, we rented two offices at two ends of the riding; two, one of my office managers, John Campsall, holds regular mobile constituency offices at community halls in more remote areas; and three, we set up a 1-800 number so that constituents can call us from anywhere without paying long distance fees.

I mention all of this to make the point that all of the problems that are represented as being unique to northern Ontario are in fact endemic to all large ridings and in some cases, are worse in genuinely rural ridings with no large centres than in large wilderness ridings with one or two large centres. The largest centre of population in my riding has a population of less than 10,000. By contrast, in Kenora the largest centre has a population of 16,000.

The solution to this problem and to the unique problem of remote communities which is a problem in northern Ontario is not to guarantee a minimum number of MPs to any region, but rather to examine whether the supplemental budget provided by the House of Commons for MPs with large ridings is too small. Currently this amount sits at $35,000 for Kenora and about $250,000 for all of northern Ontario.

The upshot of this is I do not think that premise one or premise two hold water, but even if we subscribed to both, that would only provide justification for a bill for making large rural ridings less populous than geographically compact urban ridings. It would not provide justification for the present bill which seeks to make all northern ridings, including that of the bill's sponsor, the riding of Sudbury, which is one-tenth the size of my riding, less populous.

If we want to get involved in making rural ridings larger, frankly I do not think it is justifiable, but that would involve a different bill and the defeat of this bill. As I have said before, I do not believe that it is appropriate to sacrifice one of the cornerstones of democracy on the altar of better constituent services. That can be dealt with by other means, as I have outlined in my remarks.

[Canada Elections Act, November 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-31.

This bill should be of interest to all members and all Canadians, because its goal is to improve the electoral process, the foundation of our democratic system. There can be no doubt that Canadian democracy is a great democracy.

All members here have been through at least one election and know that the process is not perfect. They know that an election period lasts 36 days and is organized around a complex set of rules and procedures. They also know that holding general elections in 308 electoral districts is a major undertaking. In any operation of this scope there will always be room for improvement. Bill C-31 will allow our electoral process to run more smoothly.

At first glance, many changes seem to be somewhat technical, but even small operational modifications can produce concrete results in practice. Providing support for the machinery of democracy strengthens the integrity of the process as a whole.

I believe that the reforms should be greeted with the support and confidence of the candidates seeking election, the parties involved in the electoral process, the election officials responsible for the conduct of elections and, more particularly, the Canadian public, whose democratic choice is expressed through the electoral system.

The bill contains tangible improvements for everyone involved in the democratic process. That is why I support it. I would like to briefly describe a few of the changes proposed.

The most important change is that electors must identify themselves at the polling stations. As my colleagues from Quebec undoubtedly know, this measure has been in place in Quebec for the last seven years. Quebec’s Election Act was amended in 1999 to incorporate an obligation to present a piece of identification before voting. Other amendments also require that Quebecers identify themselves to vote in a referendum or municipal election.

In order to exercise their right to vote in Quebec, electors must present a Quebec health insurance card, a driver’s licence, a Canadian passport, a certificate of Indian status or a Canadian Armed Forces card, and electors who cannot do that are referred to an identity verification panel and must sign a sworn statement as to their identity. They must produce at least two other documents to the panel that establish their identity or ask another elector who has an identity card with a photograph to be their guarantor.

Those measures are similar to what is proposed in Bill C-31. I am persuaded that the process for identifying electors will work as well at the federal level as it does in Quebec. A study done by the chief electoral officer of Quebec in 2002 shows that deputy returning officers and the persons responsible for polls are generally satisfied with this provision and that it has been relatively well received by electors.

The deputy returning officers who took part in the study noted these facts: first, mandatory identification has strengthened the integrity of the voting process by reducing the possibility of fraud; second, this measure has led to increased public confidence in the system; and third, it enhances the importance of the voting process.

I believe that Bill C-31 will have the same good results, results that are really necessary at the federal level.

For example, members will recall an incident that was much talked about: an American student had voted in the 39th general election. His stated purpose was to demonstrate that the enforcement of rules at polling stations was too lax and that the opportunities for fraud were in his own words, “immense”. He succeeded.

However, I want to make it clear that the very great majority of voters go to the polls in good faith, solely to exercise their legitimate, democratic duty. It is almost impossible to prevent someone whose goal is to defraud the system from finding a way to do so.

Nevertheless, the provision dealing with voter identification in Bill C-31 will make it a great deal more difficult for voters with unlawful intentions to achieve their goal. The bill includes mechanisms that will allow for an investigation after the election if necessary by requiring, for example, that voters without identification take an oath. The bill will highlight the rules for voters who may believe, incorrectly but in good faith, that they are eligible to vote. It will not prevent eligible voters from exercising their rights.

Most Canadians are used to presenting some form of identification for a variety of daily activities. Unlike other levels of Canadian government where identification is compulsory in order to vote, the bill provides alternative solutions for Canadian voters who do not have photo identification.

In other words, the bill establishes an important balance between accessibility and integrity.

This bill introduces important changes that have been standard practice for a long time at other levels of government in Canada, like most of the reforms on election financing in Bill C-2. I think especially of the prohibition on donations from corporations and trade unions. The voter identification system works well in Quebec, and I am convinced that it will work well in the rest of Canada.

This bill contains numerous tangible improvements to the electoral process. I will mention only some of them. First, the voter’s date of birth will be added to the official and revised list of electors that will be used at polling stations. This measure is already in use in Quebec and represents another means of confirming the identity of a person who wishes to vote.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs specifically requested in the recommendations on which these provisions are based that the elector’s date of birth not be shown on the lists given to candidates. I agree with that because it is very important to protect personal information. I see that the bill abides by this request.

I would like to highlight the fact that advance polling stations can henceforth be set up for a single polling division, instead of a minimum of two as is currently the case. This is an important change in those provinces and regions where the polling divisions are very far apart, in northern Canada, for example, or in highly rural areas. Now that the advance polling stations will be closer to the electors in these areas, it will be easier for them to exercise their right to vote.

Finally, I would like to point out that the bill contains various specific points on how the Chief Electoral Officer uses and communicates election information. For example, each registered elector will be assigned a unique, randomly generated identifier to facilitate the updating of the Register of Electors and improve its accuracy.

In addition, income tax returns can be used to enhance the reliability of the information that Canadians agree to provide to Elections Canada.

The bill also contains specific provisions on the exchange of election information between federal and provincial election authorities. This will help to improve the integrity of the federal and provincial voters’ lists and ensure that personal information is well protected.

I could go on much longer about the various advantages of this bill, but what is most important is the cumulative effect of all these improvements. These changes, taken together, enhance the integrity of our election process. Like the Federal Accountability Act , this bill will help us maintain public confidence in our democratic system. Like Bill C-2, which deals with election financing in particular, this bill contains important reforms that have been tested in Quebec. Like Bill C-2, this bill, I hope, will be passed quickly by Parliament so that it will be in effect for the next election. These measures are important for all parties concerned and for all Canadians.

I hope that this bill will receive the enthusiastic support of all hon. members and parties in the House.

[Canada Elections Act, November 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I gave a tiny shudder when the reference was made to the American parallel simply because, although things are far better and have been for a number of decades in the United States, there was a time when electoral laws in some states were designed for the purpose of selectively disenfranchising certain people. I always worry that someone will misunderstand.

I want to make it clear that the model that was used in designing the ID requirement was based on a precedent that is Canadian. It is the electoral law in Quebec and modifications were made to that law in 1999. In saying that, I think my hon. colleague who just spoke would agree that the logical thing to do in committee is to seek out information as to how well this has worked out in Quebec. My understanding is that it has been a positive experience in Quebec, but obviously we could summon, as witnesses, electoral officials from that province and enquire about problems that have occurred, and also advocates for the homeless. Obviously there are homelessness issues in some Quebec cities as well as there are in Vancouver and elsewhere. We could probably deal in a businesslike manner with that problem.

One thought that I do have as well is that the fundamental problem, when it comes to homeless people voting, is in addition to the issue of identification, and that is the fact that one's identity is normally linked in the electoral rolls to an address. It seems to me that there is a general need anyway for us to work on those whose addresses have recently changed. Young people going off to school tend to fall into this category, as do homeless people, obviously.

I think a good case can be made for enhanced enumerations shortly before an election in areas where there are high levels of homelessness. This is obviously easier with fixed date elections.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. Matters of procurement, which I believe this is dealing with, fall under the Department of Public Works and, therefore, they are not germane to this particular discussion.

[Canada Elections Act, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I sat on the committee with the hon. chief opposition whip. I am glad to hear that her comments reflect what I thought was a reasonably high degree of consensus on the goals of this particular piece of legislation.

She made reference in her commentary to our experience in Ontario--and I suspect there are other provinces that are the same--with municipal elections that have fixed dates and low levels of voter turnout, and she suggested that it might mean that a fixed election date will not produce a higher turnout. I would just point out a couple of considerations which I think suggest that is not correct.

One thing is that in Ontario, particularly in a rural area like mine, property owners who own cottages, for example, are on the electors roll. Often they cannot vote because elections are held when they are back in Toronto or wherever and not in the municipality, so that tends to produce a lower overall voter turnout.

However, I am wondering if she will agree with me on this. If the Chief Electoral Officer took the opportunity to focus on extra enumerations, particularly in areas such as student areas around universities where we find there is lower turnout, would that not help produce a higher voter turnout? And would he not be aided in that process by the fact that he would know when these enumerations could occur?

[Ontario Clean Water Act, November 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when a law is enacted for the benefit of all in society, it is society as a whole and not an unfortunate few who should bear the associated costs. This rule applies no matter how important the law, and it certainly applies to the worthwhile goal of source water protection as enacted last month in Ontario's clean water act.

To the extent that it is necessary under the clean water act to place restrictions on the use or enjoyment of land or property by farmers and other landowners, the associated financial losses should be fully compensated for by the provincial government with all taxpayers, in other words all beneficiaries, picking up the burden.

It is disturbing that the new law specifically states that landowners shall receive no compensation for damages. The result is that full costs of potentially devastating prohibitions on property use will be borne solely by the landowners, even when the costs were largely avoidable or had been imposed without reason or justification.

This amounts to confiscation without compensation. It is wrong and Dalton McGuinty needs to set it right before great harm is done to thousands of rural Ontario landowners.