The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve has five minutes left.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, think of all we can do in five minutes. It is fantastic.
So, I was reminding you of how pleased I am to speak on Bill C-63 because the type of representative we will establish as parliamentarians depends on it.
I was reminding you of how sad I am to see that the government did not include the opposition parties in this House, that is, the official opposition and the third party, in the consultation and drafting process of this bill.
And I was reminding you of how proud we are, as an opposition party, to have been able to depend on the hon. member for Bellechasse, who combines the qualities of a highly skilled lawyer and those of a seasoned parliamentarian with such flair.
I was also reminding you of all the motions we have to put forward because this bill leaves so much to be desired. We hope that the government will agree to those amendments, because we believe that they will be better for democracy.
I was reminding you of how easy it can be, in this democratic system of ours, to make ourselves heard, even when one comes from a humble background-and I am certainly a case in point-since I, the son of a labourer, was able to run for office and get elected in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve after a campaign that cost only $35,000. When we come to think of it, it is really not much,
compared to the Americans who almost have to be an official member of a lobby to be elected.
We know that the quality of our electoral practices depends on a number of things. We brought to the attention of the government the fact that there is a means to keep the process under control, which is called a list of electors.
You know how important this voters' list is, since it supposedly contains the names of all the people who can vote and who, as we know, meet a number of requirements in terms mainly of citizenship, age and place of residence.
(1215)
We have questions regarding the government's refusal to allow the age of voters to be shown on the list of electors. It is a questionable position. The more the list will include detailed information, the easier it will be for all parties concerned to identify cheaters. There is nothing partisan about that.
You will certainly understand that if, on election day, workers at a polling station greet at their table a man named Réal Ménard who, according to the list of electors, is 34 years old and the person standing in front of them seems to be 70 years old, they will know that something is wrong. The vigilance of the staff on election day will help identify cheaters and stop the voting process when unauthorized people show up at the poll. I think the government's position to refuse such an argument is questionable.
The same thing applies to gender identification. It is not a matter of quality or quantity, but simply a matter of knowing if we are dealing with a male or a female voter. I take these things very seriously and it seems to me that it would be in our best interests to have as much information as possible in order to identify cheaters.
We cannot accept the rather obsessive argument of the Reform Party that the availability of this information will lead to sexual harassment. It is true that the list of electors is a public document and that the chief electoral officer has to make it available to any individual or group upon request. But I still do not think the Reformers' argument is valid.
The existence of such a list is not the kind of factor that would encourage people who have a predisposition towards sexual harassment to act on their impulses. We do not want to minimize the importance of this extremely complex problem, but there is certainly no correlation between the amendment we are proposing and the kind of legislation the Reform Party wants to see passed in this House.
We are much too aware of the importance of representation. We know only too well what it means to have an elections act that is truly reflective of the wishes of all parties. I believe the member, whose riding escapes me for the moment, but of which he, no doubt, is the worthy representative, knows the importance of consensus in this matter. It is not true that in matters of legitimacy, in matters which concerns us as parliamentarians and members of Parliament, we can afford to do without a real debate.
It is not true that we should be delighted by the haste shown by the government. This government did not show a lack of courtesy when the time came to consult us on the issue of riding redistribution and revision of the electoral map.
The hon. member for Bellechasse is in a very good position to confirm that we were very closely involved in the process. He reminded us that, with the help of all parties represented in the House, we took more than a year to do the required revision work.
Why the sudden haste, the lack of courtesy on the part of the government and its representatives, who decided not to call upon the opposition parties, since we know that the House would have come out of this a better House? Think about the impact we would have had if we had been able to say that the bill before us, Bill C-63 to amend the Elections Act, is truly what all parties in the House wanted. I believe the government treated this matter off-handedly.
(1220)
I think that the government did not live up to its responsibilities, and certainly lacked courtesy, by not allowing the opposition to fully participate in the review and enhancement of such an important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you are as committed to democracy as I am, and that makes you a very endearing Speaker, but do you not think that it would have been advisable to take advantage of the debate to discuss the funding of political parties?
I know that in a few minutes we will have the opportunity to discuss this matter, but I believe that it would have been wiser for the government to go back to the basic meaning of the word. It would have been a lot better for the government to draw inspiration from the practices currently in effect in Quebec.
As you know, and I will conclude on this, there has been for more than a decade in Quebec a political party financing act which is extremely democratic. And I will get back to this later.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank both the hon. member for Bellechasse and the member for Calgary West for their participation in the committee. I very much appreciated, as I did that of all members of my own party, their participation in the discussions involved with amendments to this particularly important piece of legislation.
Before I specifically deal with the motions that are before us I want to make one comment, in particular as it relates to something
that my colleague from Calgary West said and my colleague from Bellechasse. This bill came to the committee after first reading and the role of the committee after first reading.
It is important also to acknowledge that there was a royal commission, the Lortie commission, in 1991 that dealt specifically with some fundamental changes that ought to occur in electoral reform in Canada.
My hon. colleague will know that there were literally dozens and dozens, hundreds in fact, hours of representations and work that was done for the Lortie commission and the good work that has been done by our own House committee on procedure and House affairs.
The government's reaction and response with the bill that has come before us today is not something that was written on the back of an envelope. There has been a significant genesis that has evolved that has brought us to this period today. It is important for listeners and for colleagues of this House to remember that it is extremely important to have a consensus, in particular when it is dealing with this most important matter of electoral change.
As the chairman, I was particularly pleased to see that in principle there was a general consensus or an acceptance on the issue of a voter registry and that there was a general consensus on the principle of a shorter electoral campaign in view of the costs, the significant cost issues involved.
I know I will have an opportunity to speak to a number of other issues as they are presented later in this debate but I also want to specifically talk about the motion of my hon. friend. The list of electors derived from the federal registry will be distributed to the candidates and political parties.
The date of birth information in particular in our view is not considered essential to proper identification of voters on the list of electors. That is not just our view as the government and it is not just the view of many Canadians. It is important that the privacy commissioner's view is also considered, as I know my hon. colleague would want to have it considered.
I share the view that the date of birth information reveals personal information about voters. I do not believe that Canadians are prepared to see that level of personal information shared so widely.
(1225)
I accept and respect the views that are being presented in this House by my hon. colleagues but I have to respectfully submit in response to this particular motion that I think it is an intrusion. In fact, the privacy commissioner and the chief electoral officer have informed the committee not only on the issues of date of birth but also as it relates to gender, that on the second point, gender information, raised by my colleague, the opposition whip, it was felt it was useful for administrative identifiers for electors who have names common to both sexes.
My colleague, the hon. member for Calgary, was talking about the gender issue. I think it is important that the privacy commissioner stated that he did not see the voluntary collection of privacy information as a significant issue. In other words, gender was not a significant issue and he did not recommend the removal of gender. It was for those reasons that while we heard the views of hon. members, we felt it was the preferred approach to take the view we took in the legislation presented.
In responding specifically to the two motions contained in this group, those are the comments that I wish to offer to my hon. colleagues. I want to thank them for their participation. I regret that they did not gain or feel they had the same opportunity to participate in the debate at the committee stage.
They may recall that in March of this year the chief electoral officer came to our committee and presented the concept of a registry. I defer to the seniority on the committee of my hon. colleague, the member for Bellechasse, who was on this committee for quite a period of time prior to my assuming its chair.
He will recall that the concept of a registry is something that was universally endorsed as a good concept. I know that he does not necessarily take issue with that concept but it is perhaps the process that he did not find as friendly as he would have preferred.
While I regret that he has not endorsed it, perhaps over the course of this debate as we discuss this he may see his way clear to finding support for the proposal as it is being put forward. I thank my colleagues for their participation. This concludes my remarks related to this grouping of motions.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to contribute to this debate as it relates to two specific articles.
It was interesting that the member from the Bloc said there is information that has to be given at a time when a person has a driver's licence. Of course that is true but the last time I looked we do not distribute the information from the driver's licence to candidates and political parties or post the information in such a way that it becomes public.
Clearly the idea of the inclusion of the date of birth may be of value with respect to the registry itself, but surely to do with the list of electors I cannot say I agree with my colleague. I cannot see any value to having that information. With respect to the comments just made that the privacy commissioner did not see the inclusion of designation of sex as a significant issue or as necessary, I would like to read a letter which is very indicative of correspondence that many of the members of our party have received and I suggest with
respect that there may be Liberals who have received this kind of correspondence.
It is dated November 29, 1995: ``Thousands of Canadian women attempt to maintain the security of their domiciles with gender neutral references whenever possible. These efforts are nullified at election time by lists of electors which clearly note gender, complete with a current address. This information is widely circulated, being readily available in post offices throughout Canada, and used, copied and distributed in campaign offices extensively. When one of the research assistants to one of our members questioned Elections Canada about this system, the research assistant was informed that it was necessary to protect the integrity of the list''.
(1230)
The writer in this case was from the province of Alberta. She wrote: ``The province of Alberta manages to elect their government without putting females at risk''.
I ask the Liberals if they would not rethink this particular item. Unfortunately we have reached a point in our society-and it is a low point in our society-where women are put at risk because of certain dangerous elements in our society. We have to be much more sensitive in this place to what we are doing. With all due respect to the privacy commissioner, for whom I generally have a great deal of respect, I cannot respect his position that this is not a significant issue.
I would like to point out to the Liberals that the protestation made a couple of minutes ago that perhaps there should have been more discussion and more consultation at the committee stage is a little hollow. It is my understanding that there was a real rush to get this through committee and that, in fact, the Liberals did not allow sufficient time. As a matter of fact, it is probable that the Liberals, because they have left this matter for so long, are probably going to have to invoke closure to even get this through in time to meet their agenda.
Once again the House of Commons is being treated like a rubber stamp. The Liberals, when they suddenly wake up and discover that they have a problem with a timetable or legislation, out of the clear blue sky, very quickly, come to the House and say: ``Let us punch it right on through''. It is an unfortunate practice, an unfortunate happenstance, that the Liberals have chosen, systematically, to treat the House as a rubber stamp.
That being a very partisan comment, let me go back to the issue at hand. Unlike one of the Bloc members who said she would not plead or she would not negotiate, I am asking very sincerely, on behalf of the women of Canada, that the government take a very serious look at this issue of including gender on voters' lists. I say that because there are single women within my family and acquaintances who, for example, will put an initial in a phone book as opposed to designating themselves as being female.
This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of public safety for women. I ask the Liberals to rethink their position on this issue and vote in favour of the exclusion of gender on electors' lists.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral): I now recognize the hon. member for-
An hon. member: Matapédia-Matane.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral): Matapédia-Matane. But I know it by heart.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, I congratulate you, except you should remember that I represent Matapédia-Matane.
I would like to open up the debate just a bit, rather than limiting my remarks solely to the amendment by my colleague, the member for Bellechasse, who deserves special congratulations for his amendments, because he introduced several.
I think that we are moving a bit too quickly, and that we should look a bit more closely at what has been done. I am not on the committee, but it is important not to act in haste. In my view, there is a great deal at stake.
A year, or a year and a half ago as I recall, the riding of Matapédia-Matane was even going to be wiped off the map.
(1235)
The people I spoke with said: ``That's crazy. Who thought that up?'' I said: ``It is a mandate of the government, which thinks that Matapédia-Matane does not have the necessary population, and they want to go by population''. That got quite a reaction out of people.
The second agreement was that, instead of eliminating the riding of Matapédia-Matane, they are going to redraw the boundaries of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. This does not make any sense either, because if I draw you a map, or if you travel at all, you will see that the riding of Matapédia-Matane takes in Matane, obviously, and Amqui; on the north shore, Sainte-Anne-des-Monts and Cap-Chat as far as Madeleine; on the other shore, it takes in Carleton and Maria, no small distance.
The old riding consisted of the triangle formed by Mont-Joli, Matane and Amqui, which worked fine. There is no longer any sense of belonging. People really are right to say that they should go back to the drawing board and set up another commission, one that will listen to people in the regions. Village by village, these people have built a sort of family. When one village is lumped in with another, they feel hard done by, excluded. They are virtually excluded. I am therefore asking them to go back to the drawing board, or if they do not have the courage to do so, that at the least
the Bloc amendments as proposed by my colleague from Bellechasse be accepted.
Looking at the amendment proposing that the date of birth be included, this strikes me as logic itself. I would not like to pick up on the arguments of other members who have been quoting Boileau. One could quote other philosophers and say this: Listen up here. When something is obvious, it is obvious, so let us give up demonstrating it over and over. There is something obvious involved here, and we are trying to demonstrate an evident truth. Let us give up on that and just accept what is pure common sense.
What are the advantages other than those already mentioned? When someone turns 15, we will know it. When we say, in connection with the total population, that there are so and so many people in Canada, in Quebec, aged 16, 17, 18, we will know and can then take the necessary steps to provide them with some political education. The first time somebody votes is really something special for him or her. The schools are giving young people more and more information now, but those who have never shown any interest could be given more preparation when they reach 16, 17 or 18. With the figures in front of us, we will be able to help them and provide them with more information.
For these reasons, because there are many arguments on both sides, from the Reform Party and from the Bloc, I am asking the House to support the amendment of my colleague from Bellechasse, and I shall be speaking later on the other amendments.
(1240)
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words in this debate. I did not intend to, but I was listening to my colleagues, and I thought I would like to comment on the amendments presented by the hon. member for Bellechasse.
By the same token, I would like to thank him for and congratulate him on the excellent work he did on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois and the official opposition, but of course, first and foremost, on behalf of voters in the riding of Bellechasse, in Quebec and even in Canada. The amendments he proposed will make the process more democratic. That being the case, every citizen of Quebec and Canada stands to gain.
It would be too easy to go along with the demands of those who want the voters' list to be absolutely minimal, the excuse being respect for privacy and personal information, and so forth. The hon. member for Laval Centre made a very apt comment when she said that every citizen is entitled to a passport. The passport contains a certain amount of information, and no one challenges the need to include all this information. It only makes sense.
We all know there was quite a to-do about passports, so there must be some consensus in this House on the issue. When we go abroad, it is important for the customs officer to know who we are. It is even more important when we vote to elect the people who represent and govern us. In that case there must be no misunderstanding about the identity of the people who exercise their franchise.
I think it is important to indicate the gender of the voter on the list. I know this is a very emotional issue, but as the hon. member for Laval Centre pointed out earlier, the first name often gives a good indication of the gender of the voter, but in some cases, it may not work.
Take my own first name, for instance. Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to indicate my first name, which is Stephane. Unlike the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, my first name is spelled with an ``e'' at the end. While for many francophones the name ``Stéphane'' is clearly a man's name, for many of our anglophone colleagues it is not obvious that the name ``Stéphane'' with an ``e'' at the end is a man's name.
I can tell you that in the three years I have sat in the House of Commons, I have received a lot of mail addressed ``Dear Mme Stéphane Bergeron'' or ``Mrs. Stéphane Bergeron'' or when people wanted to make my name masculine, they would take off the ``e'', because, in English, such names, like Joanne or Suzanne, are usually women's names. I think, under the circumstances, to avoid any confusion, the gender of the voter must appear on the electoral list.
Mr. Langlois: Camille.
Mr. Bergeron: Camille is a fine example as well. I am not talking about the people at the clerk's table. In order to make sure there is no confusion, the voters' list must indicate the voter's gender. Similarly, and once again to avoid confusion, dates of birth must be indicated. That is obvious.
Up to now, my colleagues have been indicating the importance of including voters' date of birth on the electoral list. Some might point out that some first names might give an idea of the age of the voter.
(1245)
I keep coming back to my name, Stéphane, a relatively new choice in first names for French Canadians and Quebecers. Adalbert would be an older sounding name, I might say, or a more venerable one. That said, you have to understand that, for there not to be any doubt, the date of birth should be given.
I still have four minutes left? I had already started my conclusion, so I will have to reorganize my thoughts so I can continue.
As I was saying before, while Stephen might have a more modern ring to it and Adalbert or Canute a more ancient one, it is obvious that just with the first name-although earlier on I heard
my Reform colleague suggesting that we get rid of the first name altogether. What kind of information are we going to be left with on the voters' list if we reduce it to such a minimum?
God knows that not one member in this House would dare say or do such a thing, but there is no doubt that eventually, if the voters' list was watered down to this extent, certain evil doers could take this opportunity to corrupt democracy.
If that was the case, Canadians and Quebecers as a whole would come out the losers. Therefore I strongly urge all my colleagues in this House, who support democracy and the need for transparency in a democracy, to vote for the amendments moved by my colleague from Bellechasse.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this House on a nice Friday afternoon, after the hon. member for Verchères. I was going to mention his name, but this is not allowed.
Mr. Bergeron: You can only mention my first name.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Your first name? Ah, yes.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues have mentioned, but I will say it again for the benefit of those who may have just joined us, the bill before us, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act, is now at report stage.
People at home may wonder why a bunch of MPs are talking about gender and date of birth today. It is because we are discussing a bill to amend the Canada Elections Act.
My colleagues are making comments that may lead to various interpretations. I will try to remain calm and to tell you what I set out to say.
The reason why the date of birth should be included, as was explained by the hon. member for Bellechasse who tabled the motion, is that this information is already on Quebec's electoral lists. Why? It is to provide those in charge of an election with a tool to correctly identify people. As a number of my colleagues mentioned this morning, there may be several people with the same name, but they are rarely born on the same day.
It is a tool we feel is of great importance. Some people will say: ``You are going to use this information so that you can categorize voters''. Political parties have other tools they can use for this purpose, and the first thing that comes to mind is that when you want to know people, you must first live in their region and see them every day, which I do each week when I go back to my riding. That is the first tool a member has to work with.
I am therefore not in the slightest worried that they want to mention date of birth in the new bill. Quebec already has this tool, and I think it could also be important for the rest of Canada to include it in the Canada Elections Act. Everyone would then be on an equal footing.
As for the other addition, I think that gender is already mentioned in the bill.
(1250)
I do not have a copy of the Quebec statute in front of me, but I believe that it is included. With respect to the objection by the member of the Reform Party, although we could debate it a bit longer, I see no problem with mentioning gender as well, for the very same reason as that given by the member for Verchères, which is that an ``e'' can be misleading. Although one look at him and there is no doubt at all that you are dealing with a Man, with a capital ``M''.
I do, however, insist that gender be indicated. I would remind all of the hon. members and all of the electorate that 52 per cent of voters are female. When women are, for once, in the majority and can signal their presence, I think the voters' list is how they should do it.
There has long been criticism that women are not represented adequately in this House. This would be a good reason to retain in the Elections Act the requirement that gender must be indicated, precisely to force us as legislators to realize that more than 50 per cent of the electorate are women. These, then, are two tools which we see as indispensable.
I would also add, in connection with this group of motions, as my colleague from Matapédia-Matane has also said, that we have experienced considerable changes with respect to the redrawing of electoral boundaries. I wish to mention this, so that people clearly understand that this is not what we are talking about here this morning, for it could be misinterpreted. We are talking about the act to amend the Canada Elections Act, which is not the same thing as what was done by the Electoral Boundaries Commission.
My colleague from Matapédia-Matane has described the upheaval in his riding. I, who represent the riding of Gaspé, will have to face the hon. member for the present riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine in the next election.
In passing, I and my colleague from Bellechasse would like to thank the people who are here in the House today, particularly the Government Whip, for their support. Last week we adopted a bill at all stages to change the names of electoral districts. This is another achievement and I wanted to congratulate these two people. I would like to thank them and also point out to all members present in this House that the reeves of the RCMs in the Gaspé are very pleased that hon. members agreed to include all RCMs in the new designation of the new Gaspé riding which will be called Bonaventure-Gaspé-Îles-de-la-Madeleine-Paboc.
All four RCMs are very pleased, they thank you and they want to say that this will give them a sense of belonging, because all four will be identified with the new riding. They will be working together. As a geographical entity, it is still rather scattered, but they are prepared to do what they can, and we will see what will happen in the future.
I may add, and I say this personally, as long as the riding of Bonaventure-Gaspé-Îles-de-la-Madeleine-Paboc will remain part of Canadian history, since I hope that some day, we will have another referendum on the sovereignty issue, that we will have an opportunity to deal with the situation at that time.
That being said, I will get back to the group of motions now before the House. We said that the Bloc Quebecois wanted to ensure that age would be mentioned. We also wanted the gender of the voter to be indicated, as it is now. This will be useful as a reference for members and make it easier for the returning officer in a given region to identify people.
(1255)
Where I live, there are people with the same first name and the same last name as mine. My father had the same experience. By the way, you will recall that formerly in Quebec, although that is no longer the case, after they were married, women were known by the name of their husband. To my mother's astonishment, when she went to the doctor for a minor problem, she heard the receptionist say she was pregnant. However, this was another Mrs. Laurent Bernier. So you see the kind of confusion that can arise, even if this situation was funnier than most.
We must have the assurance that no one can use someone else's name and especially that the individual who wants to vote will be able to do so. The Bloc wants to make sure that the government understands these situations. There is no warfare intended here. We hope we can reach an agreement soon.
However, as many of my colleagues have indicated, the fact that we are at report stage indicates that we went a little too fast earlier on. Had debate been allowed, and the content of the bill shared with the opposition parties, these details could have been resolved earlier.
My colleague from Bellechasse mentioned this as well at the start of his speech; we are at the dawn of an election campaign. So the emotional reaction of the government is understandable, since it is in a hurry to change the Canada Elections Act. We would have expected that changes to the Canada Elections Act would be made at the start of the 35th Parliament, that is, when all the members of Parliament arrived. At that point, we would have had five years to debate this matter. We should have assumed that the government wants to do it faster for election or partisan reasons.
We have a fait accompli before us. The bill is now at third reading. To be sure there is no partisanship and no question of pushing things along too fast and to ensure everyone understands, we expect the government to let us have our full say.
Several members speak to a group of motions to be sure that the government gets our message, takes note and incorporates the points we make so that everyone's opinion is reflected in the bill. It will then be used in the election of all members. All voters, whatever their allegiance, must feel comfortable. That is what democracy is about. You have to believe in the tools we acquire in order to be able to move things along.
I conclude on this point. I will return later, when we discuss other groups of motions.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, fist of all let me say how much I appreciated the opportunity to renew my experience with committee work, particularly with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It brought back some pleasant memories, even if at the time I sat on the other side of the House. Frankly, I must say that the experience is more enjoyable from this side.
Having said that, I want to join with those who congratulated our colleagues from both sides of the House for their enthusiasm and hard work on this bill.
(1300)
They include my colleague, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, who chaired the committee, the hon. member for Bellechasse, who really gave it all he had and worked extremely hard, the hon. member for Laval Centre, the chief opposition whip-
[English]
-the member for Calgary West and the member for Lethbridge, from the Reform Party, and of course the whip of the Reform Party, the member for Fraser Valley East, and a good number of my colleagues, including the deputy government whip, the member for Ottawa West and many others, who, long before I arrived, had already put in a long number of hours hearing testimony from very impressive witnesses, including the commissioner of privacy-
[Translation]
-Mr. Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer, to name a few.
I also want to say briefly that I am left with the strong feeling that discussions and consultations have been all encompassing. If we recall the Lortie commission and all its elements, we know that there is already broad support in Canada for the general principles contained in the bill, including reducing the length of the election campaign from 47 to 36 days. This proposal has been very well received by voters throughout Canada.
[English]
I believe there is also a consensus among the parties and, more important, among the electorate that a permanent register is long overdue and will be a welcome addition to the electoral process in Canada.
In a later motion we will deal with another matter of great significance to the regions, particularly to western Canada, which is the matter of staggered hours.
I would like to take a few comments to the two principal issues within this group of motions, the first being the matter of gender. Both the issues of gender and date of birth, which I will deal with later, could be useful. There is no denying that administratively that information could be useful. However, I am satisfied from the testimony of Mr. Kingsley of Elections Canada and others, as well as the privacy commissioner, Mr. Phillips, that it is not necessary. It is not essential.
Our electoral system is based on honesty and the freedom to vote. We encourage all Canadians to exercise their responsibility to vote. Too many Canadians do not participate in the electoral process.
Having said that, because of the strong testimony of the privacy commissioner, I do not believe that it is necessary. He further stated that he did not see the voluntary collection of privacy information as a significant privacy issue and, therefore, he did not recommend the removal of gender from the list of electors.
In summary, while a clarification of gender is desirable information to differentiate voters with the same names, it is not necessary, and for that reason it is not included in Bill C-63.
[Translation]
With regard to the date of birth, I realize that the hon. member for Laval Centre, the chief opposition whip, is a very young and dedicated lady who is not hiding her age, but we must do what is in the best interest of Canadians. Even if it could be useful administratively, it is not essential.
Again, according to the testimony given by the privacy commissioner, I submit that the reason why it is not in the bill is simply because it is not essential and that our electoral process is a voluntary one. True to these broad principles and to the privacy commissioner's advice, we thought appropriate to include neither the gender nor the date of birth.
(1305)
The Deputy Speaker: Is the house ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 9, 15 and 18.
We now move to motions in Group No. 3.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-63 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 2 the following new Clause:
``1.1 The portion of subsection 9(3) of the Act after paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:
the Chief Electoral Officer may extend the hours of voting at the polling station to allow votes to be cast on the ordinary polling day after the hour fixed by or pursuant to this Act for the closing of the poll at the polling station, but shall not, in so doing, permit votes to be cast at the polling station during an aggregate period of more than twelve hours.''
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-63, in Clause 44.1, be amended by replacing lines 44 to 46 on page 25 and lines 1 to 7 on page 26 with the following:
``(a) between 8:30 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. if the electoral district is in the Newfoundland, Atlantic or Central time zone;
(b) between 9:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. if the electoral district is in the Eastern time zone;
(c) between 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. if the electoral district is in the Mountain time zone; or
(d) between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. if the electoral district is in the Pacific time zone.''Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-63, in Clause 44.1, be amended by replacing lines 44 to 46 on page 25 and lines 1 to 6 on page 26 with the following:
``(a) between 10:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. if the electoral district is in the Newfoundland, Atlantic or Eastern time zone;
(b) between 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. if the electoral district is in the Central time zone;
(c) between 9:30 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. if the electoral district is in the Mountain time zone; or
(d) between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. if the''Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-63, in Clause 46.1, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 27 with the following:
``day at an election, have no less than four consecutive''Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-63 be amended, by adding after line 44 on page 27 the following new Clause:
``47.1. That part of subsection 160 (1) of the Act preceding paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
160.(1) One and one-half hours after the close of the poll in the Newfoundland, Atlantic and Eastern time zones, one hour after the close of the poll in the Central time zone, one-half hour after the close of the poll in the Mountain time zone, and immediately after the close of the poll in the Pacific time zone, in the presence and in full view of the poll clerk and the candidates or their agents, or, if the candidates or any of them are absent, in the presence of those candidates that are present, and of at least two electors if none of the candidates are represented, the deputy returning officer shall, in the following order,''
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-63 be amended by adding after line 5 on page 35 the following new Clause:
``68.1 Subsection 328.(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
328.(1) No person, company or corporation shall, in any electoral district before the hour fixed by or pursuant to subsection 160(1) for the counting of the votes in that electoral district, publish the result or purported result of the polling in any electoral district in Canada by radio or television broadcast, by newspaper, news-sheet, poster, billboard or handbill or in any other manner.''[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, since I do not wish to be recognized for the purpose of the debate, I am raising a point of order of a very general nature by saying that the Bloc's motion in this third group is motion No. 22, dealing exclusively with opening hours of polls, and more specifically with the period of time employers must give their employees to vote.
If this is agreeable to you, Mr. Speaker, I will discuss this issue at the end, once the chief government whip will have tabled his amendments, and also after the member for Calgary West will have explained the nature of his amendments on a much more general issue, that is the possibility of having variable hours for polls across Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House agree?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1310 )
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to discuss the motions in Group No. 3. Group 3 contains a number of motions and I will try to address all of them in my comments. There are three Reform motions, two Liberal motions and one presented by the Bloc Quebecois.
All these motions deal with the attempt to incorporate provisions in this legislation that would stagger voting hours. We discussed this issue not when we addressed Bill C-63 in the House previously but when we addressed Bill C-307, a private member's bill.
That private member's bill was passed by the House in principle, although it is more than fair to say, based on the record, that Reform Party members indicated our grave reservations about the approach advocated in the bill. We only approved it in principle for the purpose of further discussing the proposal in committee and arriving at a consensus.
We did not arrive at a consensus on these issues. The government chose to go ahead with a proposal that is substantially different from what was passed in Bill C-307. It is substantially different in at least two ways. It altered the hours for voting that were proposed in Bill C-307, moving them up so that not only are we cutting into prime voting hours in British Columbia but in Alberta as well.
The other change made was to reverse hours in the case of the far eastern part of the country. In Atlantic Canada the polls would actually close at earlier local times than they would in central Canada. This was not a proposal the committee heard during deliberations.
These government proposals were not even an option for consideration when the Library of Parliament researcher prepared his report for our discussion. These proposals literally came out of nowhere.
Nothing was proposed in these options that would indicate a premature closing time in Alberta. Never was it proposed in this document that the hours be earlier than 7.30 p.m. in British Columbia; nor was it ever proposed that we would actually reverse the hours in the case of the far east of the country.
We said this set of proposals needed to be studied and on which we needed to come to a consensus, but we did not. On top of that, we discussed items in our preliminary discussion which sparked considerable interest in all the parties represented on the committee and in the chief electoral officer. However, they were then entirely rejected by the government when it tabled its proposal.
The items include not just the hours but the concept of delaying the vote count in some parts of the country as a way of dealing with this problem. There was also a proposal to eliminate the blackout.
We were looking for a proposal that would involve three elements as a way of dealing with the time zone differences across the country: staggering the voting hours, staggering the vote count and a blackout. But when the government presented its proposal the last two elements completely disappeared which was a surprise to us.
More surprising were the comments by some of the government members that it was necessary to arrive at a consensus and this was how they did it. I think I speak for the Bloc and my party when I say that we were left wondering where the consensus was since only one of the parties seemed to agree with this proposal. How could this decision possibly be classified as a consensus?
Mr. Abbott: That's Liberal consensus.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): My colleague says it is a Liberal consensus.
The three Reform motions in Group No. 3 deal with the proposals we put forward which I will not say were unanimously accepted in discussion. That is not the case. They were not rejected and seemed to be of interest to all parties in the committee during our discussion on this particular issue.
(1315)
Our proposals were to stagger the hours beginning by moving the hours of voting back a half hour in each time zone east of British Columbia, delaying the count a further half hour for each time zone and eliminating the blackout entirely in the case of Atlantic Canada as a way of making up anything over and above the three hour difference between British Columbia and Quebec. Those are the proposals we have here. They are divided into three motions.
Motion No. 21 relates to the actual closing hours we propose which would be 8 p.m. in British Columbia; 8.30 p.m. in Alberta; 9 p.m. in Manitoba and Saskatchewan; 9.30 p.m. in Ontario and Quebec; and 9.30 p.m. as well in Atlantic Canada. Motion No. 23 would delay the vote count. That would be an additional half hour for each time zone, a delay of a half hour in Alberta, an hour in Manitoba, and an hour and a half in central Canada. Motion No. 25 proposes to limit the blackout.
Our preference would have been with staggered voting hours to completely eliminate the blackout for Atlantic Canada because frankly we could not see that this really would be an issue to anybody in the west or even in central Canada. The fact that there might be some preliminary results available from Newfoundland and the maritimes did not seem to be an issue. Therefore we were going to propose eliminating it entirely.
The only reason our amendment does not do that is that we were concerned with the limits we had in our technical drafting, that we were not able to capture some of the effects on advanced polls and special ballots. We were concerned that some of those results might circulate even before the counting had begun in some parts of the country. That is why we only limited the blackout as opposed to eliminating it but the concept is still the same.
I will be speaking at much greater length on this when we reach full debate, but I urge the government to reconsider this. The whole rationale that many in the government have given for this is that somehow it would deal with grievances in western Canada, to deal with the fact that westerners presumably know the results or that governments are elected before the polls have even closed in the west. That was stated to be one of the concerns here.
The effect of what the government is proposing is to do that by limiting the ability of western Canadians to vote. Closing the polls in British Columbia at 7 p.m. has a major impact upon prime voting hours in that province. This is terribly problematic and it is not necessary. I am very suspicious about the proposal to close the polls early in Alberta. This is not necessary in any form to deal with this problem. I am very surprised that the government threw that in. It was another anomaly in its solution.
The final anomaly I will mention is that this provision is actually allowing the count to begin in Ontario a half hour earlier than when the polls close in B.C. While technically feasible, this was in fact rejected by the member from Vancouver East who proposed the bill in the first place.
There are all kinds of anomalies in this solution, things that did not reflect the committee discussions.
The Liberals are trying to make amends by their Motions Nos. 5 and 20, both of which we will oppose. Motions Nos. 5 and 20 essentially propose to extend voting hours across the country from 11 hours to 12 hours. I would presume that is one way of giving people more time and more ability to vote.
Allowing British Columbians to vote at 7 a.m. before they have had breakfast or presumably on their way to work is not compensation for not being able to vote at a convenient time of the day. In fact it is more costly to keep the polls open longer. Elections Canada testified to that effect. I do not think adding the extra hour buys us anything or deals with the fundamental problems created by the government's proposal on this. We will be voting against those two motions because we do not feel they fix the problem and it is costly.
I have just a very brief comment on Motion No. 22 proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. I must admit that we have had some discussion and some uncertainty as to how we should deal with this. The Bloc has proposed to reverse a proposal in the bill that requires
employers to give only three hours to vote instead of four hours. The motion would put it back to four hours.
(1320)
We will be opposing this motion. We are torn because we think it should be three hours. Four hours is too long and too much of an imposition on employers. I would point out that with the hours as they are in British Columbia, having only three hours is going to cause a fairly serious problem in terms of logistics for people trying to vote and also getting time off work from their employer, particularly if they travel some distance from work to home, which is often the case in Vancouver and some parts of rural B.C.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary West for his intervention. I am sure there will be a great deal more intervention from both sides of the House when we get to third reading.
As I said in my brief remarks in committee while in camera, this is a partial solution. Considering the number of time zones we have across this great land of ours from east to west, I believe it is the best accommodation that can be made to reflect the sensitivities members had particularly to those Canadians living in Alberta and British Columbia.
Obviously we all realize that when it is 7 p.m. in British Columbia it is 10 p.m. in Quebec and Ontario. It would be quite a test to draft something that would be perfect for all the regions of Canada. At the same time I believe that is the art of the impossible.
I submit that this proposal is equitable and fair to the electorate throughout the country. Yes, the amendment would provide for 12 consecutive voting hours in all time zones across the country by adding one hour of voting time in the morning. Bill C-63 provides for staggered voting hours across the country to respond largely to concerns of voters in the west, particularly in British Columbia and Alberta, that their votes do not carry the same weight as those of other Canadians. Each and every vote of each and every Canadian counts equally.
The bill as reported by the committee proposed that the polls be open for 11 consecutive hours as is currently the case in each time zone but that the hours for voting be staggered as follows: The polls in Newfoundland and Atlantic zones would be open from 9 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. The polls in the eastern time region would be open from 10 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. The polls in the central zone would be open from 9.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. Polls in the mountain zone would be open from 8.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. Finally, the polls in the Pacific zone would be open from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
The bill proposes a reduction by one hour, from four to three hours, in the number of consecutive hours that every employer must provide to employees in order to vote. This was proposed to address the concerns of employers in western Canada. A 7 p.m. closing time in the Pacific zone would mean that employers would need to let their employees leave work at 3 p.m. under the current four hour rule. The bill's proposed reduction to three consecutive hours means that employers would allow their employees to leave work at 4 p.m. which is the current situation. Recall that currently the polls close in B.C. at 8 p.m.; with the four hour consecutive rule employees may currently leave work at 4 p.m.
Under these staggered voting hours, results from the eastern, central and mountain time zones would be available at the same time. Results from the Pacific zone would be available one-half hour later.
The proposed amendment now before us would modify the staggered voting hour proposal of Bill C-63 by adding one additional hour of voting in the morning in all time zones across the country. This means that the polls in the Newfoundland Atlantic zone would be open from 8.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. The polls in the eastern time zone would be open from 9.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. The polls in the central time zone would be open from 8.30 a.m. to8.30 p.m. The polls in the mountain time zone would be open from 7.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. The polls in the Pacific zone would be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
(1325)
Allowing the polls to remain open for 12 consecutive hours would help to compensate voters in the Pacific time zone who are losing one hour in voting time in the evening. With this proposed new amendment, the polls in this time zone would open at 7 a.m. allowing most workers one extra hour to vote in the morning before starting work.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting things, which I am sure the government or anybody else would find in trying to create legislation that is going to work to solve a problem is to first discuss whether there is a problem of perception or a problem of a reality.
I happen to be a bit of a hybrid in that I come from British Columbia but I happen to be in the Alberta time zone so I speak with some authority to this issue. In fact, if we look at the reality, the reality is that with Internet, telephone communications and satellite services, those in western Canada who choose to avail themselves of information relative to voting patterns in Ontario, Atlantic Canada or Quebec can do so.
I may be admitting to some kind of a crime here, but in 1993, one hour after the polls closed in Ontario I made a telephone call from British Columbia to Ontario to find out what was going on. That does happen and it is a reality. However, the question has to be: How many people in western Canada actually do that?
There are only a selected number of us who choose to become candidates and a few more who choose to actually support the political parties. For the most part, there is no problem. As a matter of fact, according to the reports that I read in the news media on the most recent U.S. presidential election, the amount of information that was accessed on the Internet by people in the western U.S. about what was going on in the eastern U.S. was
minuscule. In other words, in actual fact this has no real basis of reality.
There is a problem of perception. The problem is that people will turn on their televisions in the Pacific time zone and the votes will have been in the process of having been counted for four and a half hours in Newfoundland and three hours in central Canada. The perception is that the election is over.
However, I agree with the Liberal whip that every Canadian's vote counts and is equal. I suggest to this House that in actual fact it does not make a bit of difference. There may be a perception in British Columbia on the part of some people, and a little disappointment, particularly as it happened in the 1993 election. We were expecting that Reform was going to break through in Ontario, as we will in this coming election, but we were expecting that in the 1993 election. Naturally there was a lot of disappointment for the people in western Canada that the people of Ontario had not quite woken up to the fact of what Reform was about. The fact is that it did not make a bit of difference.
What I do not understand is legislation that deals with perception only and in dealing with perception completely upsets the apple cart. Everyone in this House will be fully aware of the fact that between five o'clock and eight o'clock on election day, if they have anything approximating a team working for them, their people will have the information of whether their supporters have been out and have supported them. That not being the case is when the telephoning happens. It is part of the election process.
What we have done in British Columbia is to take one full hour out of the normal election process. Does this mean that the people of British Columbia will not get out and vote? I would suggest it could. It certainly will change the difference between the way in which the election is conducted by the respective parties and their organizations and the supporters of the candidates in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces to the way in which it is conducted in Alberta and British Columbia. They will be missing the hour between seven o'clock and eight o'clock when they could be getting their voters out.
I submit to the House that this legislation deals only with perception and is problematic. It creates problems. Instead of dealing with the real problem, it creates a real problem.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard the minister say that negotiations are ongoing and then he finished up by saying that we are unable to reach an agreement. In fact, the deputy House leader for the government and myself were sitting right here talking about this particular issue. I wonder, when we are talking, how the minister can stand up and say that no agreement has been reached.
The Deputy Speaker: The time is now 1.30 p.m. The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.