:
Colleagues, let's begin our meeting today.
First of all, welcome. Thank you for attending the meeting.
Ladies and gentlemen, today we have, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, November 15, 2007, Bill We have the honourable minister before us this morning for that, which I hope we can deal with in the first hour.
Colleagues, following the first hour we will also have the minister with us, but we will be dealing with a separate bill, Bill . We can go into that in the second hour.
As well, colleagues, I'm going to ask that we have an additional fifteen minutes—and we probably don't need that long, but an extra fifteen minutes—to deal with committee business at the end. We will do our best to speed it along, but we do have some committee business.
Without further ado, I would like to welcome the honourable minister, Mr. Peter Van Loan, leader of the government in the House of Commons and the Minister for Democratic Reform.
Minister, I will ask you to introduce your team, and then we will allow you some time for an opening statement.
Colleagues, we'll follow the usual procedure of a seven-minute round of questions. And, members, in front of you is the legislative summary for Bill Although the minister is here and has a number of bills before us, it would be very helpful to stay focused on this particular bill. We'll deal with the other ones as they come up.
Minister, I'm going to offer you the floor for your opening statement, please. Welcome. Could you introduce your team?
:
Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always a pleasure to be here in this room, notwithstanding the terrible acoustics under the portrait of the fathers of Confederation and Sir John A. Macdonald done by Rex Woods, especially after a weekend of enjoying that great national cultural event, the Grey Cup, in which people from all across our country come together to share what they have in common in a way that Sir John A. Macdonald would have wanted them to, by enjoying the odd beverage and having a good time. Tom is, of course, very proud of his Saskatchewan Roughriders and the result.
I want to start by thanking all the members of the committee, including you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to discuss the government's visual identification of voters bill. The government introduced Bill C-31 in the last session of Parliament. It was a bill to improve the integrity of the voting process and to prevent voter fraud, and while the legislation made many changes, the one we are dealing with today responds to how that bill was interpreted by the Chief Electoral Officer in the conduct of applying the voter identification requirements.
[Translation]
Before Bill was enacted, voters could simply turn up at a polling station, give their name and their address, and vote.
Since then, and for the first time, voters will have to establish their identity and indicate their place of residence before being able to vote.
After Bill received royal assent on June 22, 2007, Canada's Chief Electoral Officer decided that the changes would be implemented in time for the September 17, 2007, by-elections in Quebec.
[English]
Later, the Chief Electoral Officer publicly stated that contrary to what I believe Parliament's intent was—namely, that voters would have to demonstrate their identity before voting—people would be permitted to vote while concealing their face.
Beside the fact that it's not logical for someone to demonstrate their identity while concealing their face, the decision went against what I think most people saw as common sense, and it left many people shaking their heads. All of us, as parliamentarians, probably heard about it from our constituents.
[Translation]
The government was of the opinion that this interpretation of the act did not take into account Parliament's clear will and intentions, and called on the Chief Electoral Officer to review his decision.
[English]
The government was not alone in asking for this. All four political parties in the House of Commons expressed disagreement with the Chief Electoral Officer's interpretation, and in September this committee, on a recorded motion, unanimously passed the following motion:
That the committee call on the Electoral Officer to use his powers of adaptation to require electors to show their faces before being permitted to vote at voting stations across the country.
Moreover, many other members of Parliament from all political parties expressed their support for the requirement to demonstrate visual identity. For example, on September 7, 2007, Stéphane Dion, the leader of the Liberal Party, issued a statement that said the following:
...we do believe that when they are casting a vote in elections, Canadian citizens have a responsibility to fully reveal their identities. For this reason, we would ask Elections Canada to reconsider its decision, and to require veiled women to unveil their faces to confirm their identities.
Later, on September 10, 2007, he told the Canadian press, “We disagree with Elections Canada's decision and we ask them to revisit their decision”, and then again later the same day, “At the end of the day, you must be able to identify yourself when you vote.”
On October 24, 2007, Liberal MP Marlene Jennings told the Montreal Gazette, “I think that people showing their faces for identification purposes to vote is fine.” She went on to say:
“Most of the Muslim community say so as well. They didn't ask for the ruling that the chief electoral officer made. Nobody had asked for the right to vote with their faces covered. It was a unilateral decision on the part of the chief electoral officer.”
I think that Madam Jennings hit the nail on the head when she said that, and that is in fact why we are here. It is not because of any decision or action taken by parliamentarians in adopting Bill , but rather in consequence of the interpretation of the Chief Electoral Officer and his reluctance to accede to the advice of this committee when the matter was discussed in September.
The Canadian Press reported that “NDP Leader Jack Layton said he continues to hold out hope that Mayrand”—that's the Chief Electoral Officer—“will change his position before the byelections, but is prepared to support a legislative move. 'If not, it appears it will be necessary to change the law to make it clear.'” During committee hearings in September, Mr. Dewar said the following: “...the position from our party has been clear. ...that you show your face; the veil has to be removed to get your ballot.”
However, despite the overwhelming support from the party leaders and members of Parliament for voters to show their faces before voting, the Chief Electoral Officer refused to heed that expressed intent of Parliament and of the committee, and on election day we saw the consequences of that decision. In several places in the ridings in Quebec where the by-elections were occurring, people voted while purposefully concealing their faces for no justifiable reason. I think we recall seeing on television one even wearing a pumpkin on their head.
Throughout Canada, these actions and the fact that these folks were permitted to vote in that fashion caused a lot of Canadians to question the credibility and the integrity of our voting process—exactly the opposite of what we were seeking to do with Bill . When people start to ridicule the rules that are in place for an election, that starts to erode public confidence in our system.
I don't believe we as parliamentarians can stand by and allow this to continue; certainly we in the government don't believe we can. We have to ensure that public confidence in our electoral system is maintained.
To maintain that confidence and ensure that the will of Parliament is respected, the government has committed to making the necessary legislative changes, which are in the bill we are discussing with you today. That bill flows directly from the commitment in the October 2000 throne speech.
The legislation sets out a simple requirement for a voter to show their face before voting. It will assist in voter identification, reduce the potential for voter fraud, and enhance the integrity and credibility of the voting process. In short, our bill will prevent someone from, if you will, putting a bed sheet over their head and then going to vote first for themselves and then, using the identification of someone else in their family, voting again somewhere else with someone else's identification—a friend's identification, or bills they've picked up in the mail room of the apartment building, or what not.
The bill also makes Parliament's intent explicit in law, preventing any future disagreements on what the intent of this act is.
[Translation]
There is one exception: an individual may vote with a concealed face if he or she has valid medical reasons to do so.
For example, if a person was severely burned and her face is covered in bandages, she can still vote on the provision that she swear an oath attesting to the fact that uncovering her face would be dangerous to her health.
[English]
The bill also takes into consideration the fact that some, because of their cultural customs, cover their faces in public. The bill allows--in fact I argue that they already have this--an additional administrative flexibility for Elections Canada to establish the processes they may need to require visual identification while respecting cultural practices, but the bottom line of equal treatment will be maintained.
It's a position that was supported by NDP Quebec lieutenant Thomas Mulcair. Stéphane Dion felt the same way. He said the following in a statement on September 7, 2007: “We would also propose that female Elections Canada officials be available to confirm the identities of veiled women, thus ensuring their values and privacy are respected.”
The Canadian Islamic Congress agrees as well. The Montreal Gazette reported on September 8 that Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress said the solution is as simple as having women who wear a niqab show their faces to female elections officials.
The government believes our bill is a sensible compromise between respecting cultural customs and maintaining the integrity and credibility of the voting process.
Some critics have claimed our bill is unnecessary because there is no evidence of a problem. Even if this were true, that's surely not a reason for doing nothing, but in fact there is, as we've seen, a problem. Certainly we don't want to wait until we see many documented cases of electoral fraud before we put in processes to prevent that fraud from occurring. The government isn't going to wait for that, and that's why we're taking action now, I think as all parties want us to do.
Nevertheless, it's important for this committee and for Canadians to know that the government did not want to go down this road. We don't believe every single detail of how elections are run and how electoral officers do their work should be made explicit in law. We don't need to sit there and prescribe which pencil or pen or ruler electoral officials use when they check people off the list. However, the Chief Electoral Officer continues to interpret the law in this way, which we know is contrary to what was the expressed will and intent of Parliament and of this committee. That makes it necessary for us in this case to act. The result is our visual identification of voters bill.
[Translation]
The bill requires electors to show their face at the polling station before being able to vote, with the stipulation that an exception be made for medical reasons and accommodation made for persons who normally cover their face in public.
[English]
The bill will protect and maintain the integrity and credibility of the voting process and ensure that the will and intent of Parliament are respected.
I hope all members of the committee will work with the government to ensure successful passage of this bill. I'd be happy, along with Ms. Kim, to take any questions you have on the subject.
:
You raise a couple of issues.
First, on the question of disputing or disagreeing with the decision of the Chief Electoral Officer, I think actually the leader of the Liberal Party was quite clear when he indicated that “We would ask Elections Canada to reconsider its decision”, and he made the same statement later, “We disagree with Elections Canada's decision”. So I do believe there was consensus on that question.
On the issue of the special ballot process, the special ballot is very different from people showing up at a polling station on election day with lineups and seeking to vote in person. There's a time pressure issue there in terms of allowing the balloting to occur. The special balloting process is very different. It requires a much more complicated process, where people have to apply. They have to fill out an application form for that particular purpose. They have to provide copies of identification in the acceptable forms. They have to provide additional information, including a birthdate and their gender, that they are not required, of course, to provide at a polling station when they show up to vote. There is, because of the additional time available, an opportunity for election officials to carefully scrutinize the information that comes in and ensure that it is accurate and proper and that there is not an exercise of fraud taking place. That I think has to be looked at very differently from a situation where people are coming up in person, asking to vote right then and there, and looking to be able to cast their ballot and leave immediately.
In fact, one might look at it as actually an additional solution to the problem. If someone is uncomfortable about going to the voting station to vote, even using whatever flexible means the Chief Electoral Officer might apply, this will provide an opportunity for those who are truly uncomfortable to vote by a special ballot, because of course it is something that is available to all voters. So I think these measures, taken together, work well.
:
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister, for appearing.
Minister, obviously this has been a bit of a controversial bill, particularly in light of the fact that prior to the Quebec by-elections we had meetings at which we invited the Chief Electoral Officer, Monsieur Mayrand, to appear.
I recall questioning Monsieur Mayrand at that time and expressing to him that we had unanimity among the committee members, that everyone on this committee agreed that there should be visual identification before an individual was given the right to cast a ballot. I know that since that time the Liberals have apparently changed their position, but nonetheless, at the time we met with the Chief Electoral Officer we had, I believe, expressed the will of Parliament.
In my opinion, at least--I'm giving my interpretation of that meeting--Monsieur Mayrand expressed his opinion that he would not in fact respect the will of Parliament because there was no proper legislation in place, even though the members of this committee, representing the vast, vast majority of all members in the House of Commons, said they wanted the intent of this bill to be respected and that all voters had to uncover their faces.
I'd like your comments on that, because I'm not quite sure why on one hand Monsieur Mayrand would say he has to respect the will of Parliament, yet at a committee meeting, when the will of Parliament was being expressed verbally, he did not seem to wish to act upon the instructions of this committee.
In fact, in the subsequent Quebec by-elections, there were a number of individuals who, probably as a prank or a bit of a lark, showed up, as you mentioned, at the voting station, one wearing a pumpkin and another some funny masks. I would anticipate, Minister, that this perhaps may be a continuing problem unless we have assurances from Monsieur Mayrand that he will respect this bill itself.
I have some concerns, quite frankly, with all due respect to Monsieur Mayrand and his office, that if he did not respect the will of Parliament as expressed verbally through this committee, what assurances do we have that he will in fact ask individuals to uncover their faces if they show up at a polling station in upcoming by-elections or a federal election wearing a Darth Vader mask or something like that?
:
It's obviously our hope that the bill we are looking at will provide sufficient direction. He was looking for explicit, clear direction, rather than applying an interpretation. I think he also acknowledged he could have equally interpreted the law on the books, Bill C-31, in the other direction to require people to show their identification. We simply encouraged him to do that.
I think here it will not be equally open to him to interpret it either way, but to interpret it in the way we are clearly...it's really now a very clear statutory intent to require visual identification.
The unfortunate thing about it, and I hope the Chief Electoral Officer has learned from this, is that, as far as I know, nobody was asking, no cultural communities in Canada were asking for the right to vote without showing their faces. The major Muslim organizations that appeared on this issue made clear they didn't seek special treatment, they sought equal treatment. They want to be treated the same as everybody else.
The unfortunate consequence of his decision was to thrust, as said, these folks into the spotlight, to cause them to be the centre of a controversy that was not of their making, a controversy that only occurred because of an interpretation of the Chief Electoral Officer to provide a special treatment to a group in society that was not seeking any special treatment. I think some of the negative social impacts of that were unfortunate. I hope the Chief Electoral Officer has taken note of those and has learned from the experience.
I know, when the matter in was before the committee originally there was a suggestion that he would consult extensively with communities before dealing with the bill and finding out the mechanics of how to make it work. I gather that if there was consultation, it was not that extensive, because certainly those major groups came here saying this was an interpretation they didn't seek and did not want, and they didn't appreciate being targeted.
It's my hope that by this legislation we'll be able to restore that kind of social peace, that people will see that everyone is getting equal treatment. There won't be an artificial controversy that targets anybody. I think all the individuals affected, the affected communities, will be better off for it and all Canadian society will be stronger for it.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To begin with, I'd like to make a comment to the minister, and I'm sure he has a thick enough skin to take it.
I've been a member of Parliament since 1993 and I have sat on committees since then. I spent six years at the Standing Committee on Transport. There were very arrogant Liberal ministers. For example, I remember Doug Young, the former Doug Young. Well, he's not dead, but he was formerly a member of Parliament. He was beaten by my colleague Yvon Godin, to my great satisfaction.
Ms. Robillard, my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie sat as minister here. And I've already had the opportunity to question her in the past.
So there were very arrogant ministers, but I can tell you, Minister and Government House Leader, that in my opinion, when you come and testify on bills, you need to stay above the fray. You didn't attack the Bloc that much, but you said things about Mr. Dion, Mr. Mulcair and Ms. Jennings. There was a little bit for everybody in the turkey. There was a thought for everybody, on the eve of the holiday season. And I want to tell you, Minister, that you've missed an important opportunity to show a bit of class and remain above the fray, in introducing your bill.
Having said that, my remark probably won't make waves anywhere. But I didn't make it for effect, I made it as a sincere expression of what I believe.
I'm now going to make a second comment which you'll have the opportunity to respond to. As my colleague Tom Lukiwski mentioned, on the eve of the by-elections in Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, it became apparent that the Monday, September 24 election was going to turn into a circus, so much so that the members of our committee decided unanimously to meet and hear from Mr. Mayrand.
I undertook, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, to introduce a bill, which is what I did in early October. And you introduced your own. I was fine with that, but our committee unanimously decided that the Chief Electoral Officer enjoyed too much latitude, in other words, had too much leeway. Everyone here agreed that that was the case. He had extraordinary powers that he refused to use, I might add. But in your bill, Minister, you give this discretionary power back to the Chief Electoral Officer, particularly in the first five clauses.
Wouldn't it have been simpler to say, as is the case in Morocco, a 92% or 93% Muslim country, that voters turning up to vote at a polling station must do so with an uncovered face? But no, you are counting the angels on the head of a pin.
Clause 3 of the bill amends section 32.1 of the Act:
32.1 After the issue of the writ, a returning officer may, with the approval of the Chief Electoral Officer, appoint any other persons that are necessary to attend at a polling place for the conduct of the vote.
I had the opportunity of telling the committee that there are 280 residents in the small community of Baie-Sainte-Catherine, in my riding. That means that there are one or two polling stations. Now let's imagine that only men work in these polling stations and that a woman turns up and wants to vote fully veiled. You've given Mr. Mayrand the power to force her to uncover her face in front of a woman, in another room, in a isolated polling booth, or something to that effect. You've complicated the situation.
:
Firstly, on the issue of the thickness of my skin, it may be thin, but there are lots of layers directly underneath that are thick.
The comments I provided at the start, in terms of providing pie for everyone, were actually statements with which we agree. These are our allies. It very much is, as I was suggesting, a non-partisan bill, in that all parties supported this.
My references are to how all parties supported it, and I don't think there was a partisan tone to that at all. I think it was in fact in a non-partisan fashion that I was referring to those, to show the broad support for the principles that all parties had expressed and to which we are responding here—in fact, to the direction of this very committee in September, when they wanted to see action taken on this issue. So from that perspective, I have to respectfully disagree.
In terms of the issue of polling staff and gender, first of all, it's no different from the staffing that's provided, for example, at airport security, the requirements for staffing at customs borders, places where searches are required, or places where people are required to show their identification. It's the same kind of situation. I don't believe anybody has a problem with it in those other contexts. I don't know if the Bloc Québécois has a problem with it in that context, but it's the same thing. So I reject the notion that it's a problem.
In practical terms, the flexibility that is there for the Chief Electoral Officer—a flexibility that's already there in the act, but we've simply expressed an ability to obtain some more resources if need be—is, frankly, one that they can apply already.
In practical terms, I don't think it will be a big problem. We've been told that the places, the number of cases where we need to provide additional flexibility, in staffing terms, where people are going to be uncomfortable, where they're going to need some kind of special measures, are very, very few.
And in practical terms, there has never been, as far as I'm aware, a difficulty or shortage of women in terms of the proportion of staff involved in elections. At the polling stations, there are always a lot of women.
I think, in practical terms, the Chief Electoral Officer will find it very easy to make it work. It can work successfully. It should be no more disruptive, and in fact less disruptive, than what we see in terms of staffing of border crossings and the like, where a similar requirement or demand exists.
:
It was not an election; it was a referendum. That's because in Ontario owners of property can vote, but not seven times. You're only allowed to vote once in the municipality.
The question of the charter and the balancing is perhaps the core philosophical question behind what we're wrestling with here. When you have competing rights and responsibilities, it's often what you have to wrestle with as public policymakers or as courts. Here we are dealing with fundamental rights to vote, the integrity of that system, and people's religious beliefs.
I'm not a theologian and I'm not going to pretend to be one. There's certainly been a lot of comment offered by people from the Islamic community suggesting that the wearing of a veil in this particular issue of face covering is not a religious requirement but rather a cultural choice. I'm not going to decide that question. I don't think I'm qualified to decide that question.
What we have attempted to do with this bill and with the flexibility that's available to the Chief Electoral Officer is achieve that balance, even if it is someone's religious view and somebody determines that is a valid religion--but, of course, what's a valid religion? If someone says their religion involves human sacrifice, obviously we say we don't accept that; we say that the right of an individual to life and to not be killed trumps that. As I say, there are times when you have to decide where you come down. I think here you've got a solution that allows people to vote and also gives the Chief Electoral Officer the ability to create the flexibility to respect those cultural or religious norms, if that's what they are, while still requiring a visual demonstration of identification.
I've said this before on the positive beneficial effect. What I think offended most Canadians was the notion of special treatment and lack of equality in different people being given different rights or different treatment. Then the other fear was that the different treatment could be abused by other individuals who, under the guise of pretending they had a religious view or something else, would then be able to commit fraud. That was not the intention.
I think the balance has been struck here. I'm sure you could have different views from different people depending on how they interpret both the theological questions and the balancing of rights.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to come back to what you said a little earlier regarding the Chief Electoral Officer's flexibility under bill . You indicated that similar flexibility existed in airports, at customs, etc. I don't exactly agree with you. Being asked to vote with an uncovered face is quite different from having one's clothes taken off or being subjected to a search to determine whether or not you're hiding something illegal. As far as I'm concerned, it's not the same thing.
I also believe that this flexibility is discriminatory insofar as we don't all live in big cities where, at a particular polling station, there may be 20 polling booths and both female and male staff. There are places, in some small municipalities in my riding for example, where there's only a single polling booth, and where the deputy returning officer and poll clerk are all men.
What's a person supposed to do in such a situation? Should you call the returning officer and ask him to send a woman because a veiled female does not want to uncover her face?
In some countries, such as Morocco, where the majority of women are veiled, they are required to take off their veils, whether they are men or women, and there's no problem with that. And yet here, this flexibility is given. It makes me a little uncomfortable. What would happen if groups of women decided by way of protest to go and vote veiled and ask for someone to identify them in a polling booth by showing their faces? This flexibility makes me uncomfortable.
Moreover, have any groups of Muslim women been demanding the right to vote while veiled? You've organized a lot of consultations, so you can tell me what those consultative groups were and whether, among those groups, there were any Muslim women asking to vote while veiled.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
, the verification of residence bill, is one designed to ensure that legitimate voters will be able to exercise their fundamental democratic right to vote.
I think everybody recalls how we got to where we are. was passed by this Parliament to improve the integrity of the voting process and prevent voter fraud. The bill was made based on recommendations that came out of this committee in a report that was dated June 20, 2006, and it was a report that was supported by all political parties.
For the first time ever, and many voters comment to me positively about this, the bill required voters to demonstrate their identity and residence before being allowed to vote.
[Translation]
To establish identity and residence, voters must either show one government-issued piece of identification containing a photograph, as well as the name and residential address of the voter; or show two pieces of identification approved by the Chief Electoral Officer, both of which contain the name of the elector, and one of which contains his or her residential address.
Or, the voter must have another registered voter in the same polling division vouch for the elector, after having shown the pieces of identification required to prove his or her own identity and residence.
[English]
These new requirements were designed to ensure that those who vote during elections are actually legitimate voters.
[Translation]
With the new requirements, people will no longer be able to pick up voter information cards abandoned at apartment building entrances, and vote under the name of a different voter.
There will also be no way to vote in a riding where the voter works, rather than in the riding where the voter lives, in order to support a particular candidate in a particularly tight race.
[English]
Since the bill received royal assent in June, Elections Canada has identified a problem with the requirement for voters to demonstrate their residence before voting.
In defence of this committee, which dealt with the bill originally, it should be said that the problem had not been identified by the Chief Electoral Officer when he originally came to testify before you.
To that extent, while everyone here shares an ownership in the problem, that ownership in the problem is in part because the ownership was spread out and the Chief Electoral Officer did not communicate the problem to you at the time you were originally dealing with the bill.
This problem is that many voters do not have a piece of identification with a civic address that can prove their residence on polling day.
[Translation]
For some voters, the problem lies in that the full municipal address is not provided. Others have one, but it does not appear on their pieces of identity.
[English]
It's a problem that arises most often in rural areas across the country. It's most often in these areas that individuals may only have a postal address, such as a post office box, a rural route number attached to a post office, or simply a mailing address that provides for general delivery to a particular post office.
These individuals will be unable to produce identification with a civic address that can establish their residence.
[Translation]
Moreover, because the problem affects particular regions, the voters in question would have trouble finding someone to vouch for them, because their neighbours will probably not have a home address on their piece of identity either.
[English]
Now, once the government was informed of this problem by Elections Canada, we moved very quickly to solve it, with the assistance of Elections Canada and in consultation with all the other political parties.
The solution proposed in the bill provides for an address on a piece of identification to prove residence, even a non-civic address if the address is consistent with information about the voter on the list of voters.
When registering to vote--that would be registering for the first time--the voter would have to prove they lived in the polling division where they intend to vote. Since this is the case, we can now use the mailing address that appears on the voters list to corroborate that it is the same voter who has already proven that they reside in this polling division.
[Translation]
The same would apply to someone who vouches for another voter. If the mailing address on his or her pieces of identity corresponds to the information on the voters' list, that will be considered sufficient proof of residence.
[English]
An election official or a candidate's representative who has reasonable doubt about a voter's residence will still be able to challenge this voter. In such a case, in order to vote a person would have to take an oath as well.
It's important to note that for individuals not on the voters list, who are seeking to register at an advance poll or on a polling date, to be on the voters list they will still have to show a piece of identification that contains a residential address, or otherwise be vouched for. This is to ensure the integrity of the information in the register and to ensure that those who are registered to vote in the polling division really do reside in that polling division.
Mr. Chair, our verification of residence bill solves the problem of verifying the residence of voters who do not have a civic address on their identification. Now that the government has acted quickly, with the assistance of Elections Canada and in consultation with the other political parties, it's incumbent, I believe, on Parliament to act quickly so that Elections Canada can apply these rules at the earliest possible opportunity.
I'd like to thank you for your attention and answer any questions you may have.
Minister, I just want to again get something on the record here. Let's face it, we all have our partisan interests that we represent aggressively at times. I note, with some interest and much amusement, that over the course of the last few weeks, since Bill was first discussed and subsequent to that, when we found out there was this gap in the legislation that inadvertently potentially disenfranchised up to a million people, there have been members of opposition parties who have been claiming that this was a fault of the government, pure and simple, nothing more than that, when in fact—and you were quite correct in your assessment, Minister—this was a shared responsibility.
All members of this committee, quite frankly, just missed that one portion of the bill that talked about residential or civic addresses, because rural residents—and I'm one of them—don't technically or legally have a civic address; we have a post office box or a rural route. So it was an honest mistake and a responsibility shared not only by members of this committee but by the elections office officials themselves, because they appeared before this committee on two occasions and at neither time during those discussions were there any indications that this could be a potential problem.
I want to get that on the record, because I know, whether it be the member from Timmins—James Bay or the member from Regina—Wascana or Thunder Bay—Rainy River, they have from time to time made statements publicly that the problem was solely the fault of the government, and again it was not. It was a shared responsibility.
But beyond that partisan politics, I think we need to have assurances—and you've given them, I believe—that this bill, in the consideration of both you and the Chief Electoral Officer, will fix the problem we had. And perhaps more importantly than that, in the event of an early election, whether it be a by-election or a federal election, prior to this bill coming into effect, what assurances do you have, if any, from the Chief Electoral Officer that he would use his power of adaptation to ensure that no rural voter is disenfranchised?
You're right, it is a shared responsibility by all, including Elections Canada, though as the government we have to take ultimate responsibility, and that's what we're seeking to do with moving quickly to correct the issue.
In doing so, I have spoken with the Chief Electoral Officer. It was he who actually drew the problem to my attention personally. He called me to raise the issue. We did discuss how it would be approached at that time. Obviously, since I was just learning of it, we didn't have a bill, and my concern was how, in the event that we had an electoral event that precipitated...that risked people losing their right to vote, we would respond to it. I had assurances that led me to believe that if one of those events came on very quickly he was prepared to use his adaptation powers.
In particular, one of my concerns was that sometimes, if you're dealing with a bill and an item of legislation, it might cause an official like him to say, “Well, that's before Parliament so I don't want to wade into it”. I asked, “If we brought forward a bill to correct it, would that make it more or less likely that you would use your adaptation powers?” He said, “Well, if it was clearly the government's intent to bring forward a bill like that, and if it was going through the parliamentary process, it would make me more likely to exercise my adaptation power to ensure that people's right to vote was protected”.
So those were practical and positive responses from the Chief Electoral Officer, who I think recognizes that he has some ownership in the problem and certainly has a very strong interest in ensuring that people's legal right to vote—and that's what we're talking about here, the legal right to vote—is protected. So I'm pleased with that.
That being said, I would still encourage the committee to move with the greatest alacrity to deal with the bill and get it into law as quickly as possible so that he doesn't have to resort to that kind of measure, and he can simply apply the new law.
:
Well, if a student or a homeless person is in a similar situation where they were...they'd be in a position to deal with it.
I know this committee canvassed those issues extensively at the time they dealt with Bill . That's not the content of the bill before us, so I don't want to spend too much time plowing old turf. I think what we're trying to do here is to deal with the specific problem of voters in the rural context for whom identification normally has an address but not a civic address. It's a consequence of the identification problems.
I know there were provisions put in place. The Chief Electoral Officer has included attestation letters from people who run homeless shelters, for example, to deal with the homeless information, and student information from the residence that they live there. These things are all available to protect their interests, so I believe they are more than adequately protected under the bill, which you originally dealt with, C-31, and the Chief Electoral Officer's application to it.
Something that might be of interest to all of you, and this is probably not a bad thing to know about, is that there was a study done by Elections Canada dealing with the application of Bill in the by-elections in Outremont, Roberval-Lac-St-Jean, and St-Hyacinthe-Bagot. The results are very, very positive. The new requirements worked. The vast majority of voters found the identification requirements easy to meet, and they were quite satisfied with the ID verification and voting process. Most people have a favourable view of the new identification provisions.
The one I thought was most surprising and positive is that 83% of voters said it didn't take any longer to vote using the identification provisions. So from the voters' perception, it was very positive. Overwhelmingly, people had no difficulty providing the identification. For a first-time run in a by-election, that's pretty remarkable. As we indicated, this is the first time that requirement has existed.
I know they did the same in the provincial elections in Ontario. I don't have any statistics for how they worked there, though in the polling station where I was a scrutineer on election day there appeared to be no difficulties with their identification requirements.
It looks like the reforms that this committee brought forward on Bill are working very well.
:
The Australian system is very different, of course, as you know. In Australia, there are legal consequences if you do not vote. There is a mandatory requirement for voting, so people are voting for a very different reason. They are voting to avoid a penalty. They are voting to avoid a fine, in many cases. So I would not be surprised that you would find a different pattern of behaviour there.
That being said, I haven't particularly analyzed it. I'm not sure how much wisdom that would provide us, because it is such a different context.
I look at this first trial run—the results that I spoke of that were provided by Elections Canada—that showed a very favourable response in terms of people being able to vote. Most used photo ID, the first preferred option. It was 80% who used a photo identification to vote. Most often that was a driver's licence; 73% of that 80% were using a driver's licence, 73% overall of the 100% who voted. Of those who used option two, 19% used things like hospital cards, utility bills, the attestation letters I referred to, leases, and some of the other ones. I'm sure you've seen the lengthy list of identification that the Chief Electoral Officer has considered to be acceptable, and 1% were vouched for.
In terms of the need for vouching, it appears that we have a roughly comparable number using the attestation letters as being vouched. So in terms of the analysis, there we have it from the first set of elections or by-elections under Bill . And from what I see here, and I'll use this summary from Environics who did the work for Elections Canada--so it's an independent group, independent from Elections Canada. They're not a group interested in showing that it worked; they're a group that was simply looking to analyze it--and I quote here. It says:
The vast majority of voters found the identification requirements easy to meet and were quite satisfied with the ID verification and voting process. Most have a favourable view of the new ID provisions.
So my response would be to compliment the members of this committee for the original initiative and the parliamentary committee report that led to Bill , and as well for their work on C-31. Yes, we found subsequently that it's not perfect, and that's why we're here today to correct these glitches. But I think that--
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to point out that the proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act were prepared after members of all parties were consulted, including the government side and opposition parties. I think that the study was conducted very transparently, with a genuine desire to represent electors well. We also wanted to let voters vote with their conscience, by eliminating all irritants. As we always say, people will do what they do.
In the past, deficiencies were observed in the legislation. People could present themselves at different polling stations, and vote again. In the past, we have seen all kinds of dreadful things. For 10 years, the then Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, wanted to improve the way in which people were identified when going to vote. We talked about a visual identification process. For those who could not present a photo ID card, many ways were implemented to ensure they could identify themselves.
I think that, as citizens, it is our responsibility to vote. When a citizen is aware, well informed and able to exercise his or her right to vote, he or she should make the effort to determine whether he or she is on some register. The era when everyone was put onto a bus is over. I come from a family in whose house the polling station would be set up, so I know how things worked then. Procedures have improved over the years. So we would now like to have a much more transparent system, which may never be perfect, but which is, in my view, now transparent enough.
I think that with the amendments we have just made we should emphasize awareness-raising and greater responsibility among citizens. I'm very satisfied with the work we have done here. I have taken this very seriously, as I believe most other committee members have.
I think we're trying to move this bill forward so that we can deal with necessary problems that have arisen, and yet we come back to the usefulness of the electoral list at the end of the day. I know that's not part of this bill, but we have to ensure that our bill is able to deal with the reality on the ground of people who go to vote.
We don't have a major initiative for enumeration, so it's somewhat of a hit and miss game, which is why I want to return to Australia.
I know that the obligation to vote in Australia is different from the obligation to vote in Canada, but these are both very westernized democracies, pretty much from the same stock of tradition in some ways. Yet we're finding that the movement of population in Australia is now at the point where 15% have to rely on declaration voting.
I want to return to this, because the problem we're going to find at the end of the day—and I certainly don't think this government should be positing a situation where rural voters are somehow more important than first nation voters or any other voters.... We have to make sure that anyone with a right to vote should be able to vote, at the end of the day. Many people, whether they're urban, rural, or first nation, might be in a situation where they've moved. That's why in Australia they have a declaration system.
Would it not be possible to have a declaration system here wherein the ballots are put aside and can be checked? Whether the percentage of the declaration voting were 15% or 10%, those would be the problem votes. Those are the ones we'd be looking for, if there were going to be any issues of fraud. We need to ensure that at the end of the day we are allowing people the right, if they're lacking or have moved, to vote with the declaration system.
What is the problem with that?
:
I wasn't a member of this committee when it did the report that went into . I don't know whether that approach was examined at the time or not. It might be a worthy subject of study for this committee, if you want to bring it forward.
The broader question of electoral lists is one that certainly has interested me. The move from regular enumeration to a permanent voters list, it was hoped, would solve a lot of the problems. In the early years, people began to wonder if it didn't create a worse problem, and anybody who, in practical terms, whether in running campaigns or as a candidate, has had to work with electors lists saw a lot of those problems. On both sides of the ledger, as a guy running campaigns and as a guy being a candidate, I certainly saw some of those.
I should say, though, that I have been favourably impressed with how the system is getting better. I think the permanent electoral registry is improving. There are still all kinds of problems with it, and mobility is huge. It's fine, if people are interested and motivated to get themselves on the list and have the changes registered, but a lot of people aren't. If you don't have a driver's licence and are not interested in being on the list and don't check off the box on your tax return, it's pretty tough for the list to be up to date.
If you want to examine the notion of whether returning to enumeration is a better idea, that's fine. If you want to study the idea of declaration, that's fine, too. I think at the end of the day, people who are motivated seem, within our system, to be able to vote.
We should note, though, that returning officers are able to provide for enumeration in areas where they believe there has been particularly high mobility, or where they believe—in a new subdivision, for example, where there are new residents who wouldn't be on the permanent voters list because they're all just moving in, in areas of new and rapid growth.... One would hope those are used judiciously.
It's certainly open to all parties and all candidates, in discussing this with their local returning officer, to encourage that this kind of spotty enumeration be undertaken.
So there are mechanisms in place. I don't think we will ever come up with a perfect system. I was initially skeptical of the permanent voters list and thought enumeration was a better way to go, but I'm beginning to be sold on the permanent list as it gets better over time.
:
Thank you very much for the clarification. That's why I'm reading this out, so that we know what we do have to do.
Monsieur Proulx asked for a copy of any response from the Chief Electoral Officer to the minister's requests. Not much later, Madam Redman brought up the suggestion about bringing the Chief Electoral Officer in to discuss .
Would it be a smart idea to bring the Chief Electoral Officer in to deal specifically with Mr. Proulx's request as well as Madam Redman's request, as well as , if he has comments on it? We could have him here one time and deal with all three.
If no one objects to that, we will send the Chief Electoral Officer, then, a letter and give him notice of that.
We are still waiting for a letter from Monsieur Blanchet regarding . We haven't received it yet, so we will follow up on that.
This week, colleagues—I just want to remind members—tomorrow, on Wednesday, November 28, we have the subcommittee on the code of ethics meeting in room 112-N from 3:30 to 5 p.m. for the election of a chair and continuation of the committee's review of the code of ethics commissioner's report.
At five minutes to seven is an informal meet and greet with the Chief Electoral Officer, Monsieur Mayrand, at Elections Canada. All are invited to attend who can.
On Thursday from 11 to 11:45, we have two academics, Jon Pammett and David Docherty.
Scheduled from 11:45 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. is Chief Electoral Officer Jean Ouellet, from Saskatchewan.
Following that, there is also an informal meet and greet with Mary Dawson, who is the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
That brings us to a problem I'm going to ask my clerk to explain to members before we go into consideration of the report; it has to do with the ability to televise future meetings. There was some conversation yesterday at the steering committee about televising and when it would happen and what rooms are available.
We have priority, as this committee takes priority over other committees, and it would be up to the whips to determine whether we take precedence or priority over a televised room.
I'm going to ask Mr. Latimer to explain to committee members the difficulty with televised rooms. Then we'll move right into the report so that members can consider it.
Please, Mr. Latimer.