:
Colleagues, let's begin our meeting today.
First of all, I want to thank everyone for coming.
I particularly want to thank the members of the committee, if I don't have the opportunity later today, for the hard work they've done over the past year. I had the honour this morning of tabling our 56th report. I certainly suspect that this committee is setting an example for other committees, but we won't go too much into that. We might not be, but anyway....
Today, colleagues, we have a couple of pieces of business to deal with, but before we get started, I would like to mention to members that we are in public again today.
Our first order of business this morning is pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, June 1, 2007, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, expanded voting opportunities, and to make a consequential amendment to the Referendum Act.
We have the honour and privilege again, colleagues, to have the government House leader, the Honourable Peter Van Loan, who is also the Minister for Democratic Reform.
Minister Van Loan, would you kindly introduce your team, and then I will give you the floor to proceed?
:
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you. I am pleased to appear before you to discuss Bill , also known as the expanded voting opportunities bill. The purpose of the expanded voting opportunities bill is to strengthen our democracy by making it easier for people to vote.
As I stated when I introduced the bill, the right to vote is our most precious and fundamental right, and citizen participation in the political process through the exercise of that right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. By making the decision to vote, Canadians do take ownership in their country.
As I mentioned in my previous appearance before this committee, the expanded voting opportunities bill is one part of our plan to strengthen accountability through democratic reform. The plan has three broad themes. First, we are eliminating the influence of big money in the political process by regulating the financing of political parties. Second, we've introduced legislation to modernize the Senate to make it more democratic, more accountable, and more effective. Third, and finally, we're taking steps to strengthen our electoral system, which includes the expanded voting opportunities bill that we're discussing today.
First I want to discuss the trend of declining voter participation.
[Translation]
As we are all aware, there has been a disturbing downward trend in voter participation in general elections. In 1958, 79.4% of Canadians voted in that year's General Election. However, that fell to 69.6% of eligible voters by 1993, and by 2004, only 60.5% of eligible voters cast a ballot.
More troubling than the overall participation rate is the fact that the voter participation rate of young people in general elections has been even lower. A 2002 study by Elections Canada found that only 25% of eligible 18 to 24-year-olds voted in the 2000 General Election.
This is a trend that we cannot allow to continue. The health of our democratic institutions depends on how successful we are at restoring the faith of our youth in the democratic process.
[English]
In terms of facilitating voter participation, I believe it's incumbent on elected representatives to do all they can to encourage Canadians across the country, both young and old, to get involved in the political process to ensure accountable, responsible government. We need to make sure that everyone who wants to vote is able to do so. This is essential to maintaining a healthy, vibrant democracy.
Unfortunately, despite the voting opportunities that currently exist, there are still significant numbers of eligible voters who continue to cite work and family responsibilities as their primary reasons for not voting.
In a 2003 survey conducted on behalf of Elections Canada, the authors found that nearly 40% of non-voters, during the 2000 federal election, indicated that they did not vote because of reasons that could be addressed through advance poll opportunities. Examples included being too busy with work, school, or family activities, transportation issues, or being away from home on voting day.
More importantly, 43% of respondents in the 18- to 24-year-old category stated that factors such as work, family, and school responsibilities, and similar reasons, had prevented them from voting. Similar numbers turned up in a 2001 voter participation study by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada.
We've all heard stories about people who woke up on election day with every intention of voting but because of a variety of reasons—maybe they had to work late, take their kids to hockey, or run errands—they didn't have time to vote. The fact is that the busy lives of Canadians is a serious factor that we must consider when looking for reasons behind declining voter participation.
There is considerable evidence that the existence of advance polling days has a positive impact on voter turnout. The Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing made a number of pertinent conclusions. On page 123, it says:
In the specific case of advance voting, it might also be noted that for a variety of reasons, many Canadians do find themselves away from home at any given point in time, including the day on which the election is held. The increase in the incidence of travel, for business and leisure, likely means many would not be able to exercise their franchise without advance voting opportunities.
On page 130, it says:
Generally speaking, the evidence from the four countries and, indeed, Canada itself, suggests that advance voting has become an important mainstay in the repertoire of voting opportunities. There are suggestions that without it, turnout levels would be lower, and extending the point in the other direction, with more opportunities for advance voting, turnout levels might be higher.
In a study commissioned by Elections Canada in 2003 to analyze the impact of expanded voting opportunities on voter turnout, the empirical analysis found that turnout is some ten points higher in countries where it is possible to vote in advance.
[Translation]
As well, since 1993, the use of advanced polls by voters has nearly doubled in the Canadian elections. In 1994, 5.4% of voters cast a ballot at an advanced poll. This number has risen steadily in each election since, and 10.5% of voters cast their ballots at an advanced poll during the January 2006 General Election.
I believe that this trend will continue and that the public would respond very positively to the increased convenience and opportunity to vote presented by additional advanced polling days.
There is some evidence that countries which offer weekend voting have higher rates of voter participation. A 2002 study by Mark Franklin of the University of Houston found a significant positive effect of Sunday voting. He found that countries with Sunday voting have a voter turnout rate that is about six to seven percentage points higher than countries without Sunday voting.
Of note, the recent French presidential election, where voting is on Sunday, had a voter turnout of 82%. Moreover, advanced polling on Sunday is already available in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec. And, in his April 2004 report, the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec recommended holding elections on a Sunday for a number of reasons, including that it would be easier for workers who normally work Monday to Friday to get out and vote.
After taking into consideration the benefits of Sunday voting on voter turnout, and the increased use of advanced polls in Canadian elections, on May 9, 2007, Canada's New Government, introduced the Expanded Voting Opportunities Bill.
[English]
With respect to the details, the bill proposes to amend the Canada Elections Act to provide Canadians with two additional advance polling days on the two Sundays before election day.
Canadians currently have access to three advance polling days, on the Friday, Saturday, and Monday of the second last weekend before election day. People may vote between 12 noon and 8 p.m., but some people have to travel long distances because maybe only half a dozen polling stations are open in their constituency. The amendments in the expanded voting opportunities bill would add an advance polling day on the second last Sunday and the last Sunday before election day. This means there would be a block of four consecutive days of advance polling on the second last weekend before election day. However, the advance poll on the Sunday before election day would be a special one. All the polling stations used on election day will be opened, thereby maximizing voter opportunities for Canadians at a time when media attention and interest in the election should be at its height.
The hours for all advance polling days would continue to be between noon and 8 p.m., as opposed to the 12-hour periods of staggered voting hours that are available on election day.
In conclusion, our expanded voting opportunities bill will mean that all Canadians will have an opportunity to vote at an advance poll in their own neighbourhood on a Sunday, which for many is a day without work or school commitments. This will make it easier for Canadians to vote.
[Translation]
And with this increased convenience, we hope that families will bring their children with them when they go to vote—helping them appreciate from an early age the civic duty and opportunity to cast a vote, and to understand what it means to be a citizen in a free and democratic country. These are lessons that, if well taught, last a lifetime, build stronger communities and make a brighter future for Canada. And we know that engaging more Canadians in the electoral process through increasing voter turnout is good for our democracy and good for our country.
Thank you.
I would now be happy to take any questions that committee members may have.
:
Mr. Chairman, if I do not use my entire seven minutes, I will share my time with my colleague Mauril Bélanger.
Thank you for your comments on Bill , Minister. As politicians representing all political parties, we can only be supportive of this bill's purpose, which in essence is to increase citizens' participation in voting, a democratic process. Obviously, we want voter participation to increase.
I held a position with the provincial government before becoming a federal member of Parliament, and when I first came to Ottawa I remember how impressed I was by the variety of means available to Canadians so that they can vote. In fact, not only can they vote early by mail, but also do that at any time. As soon as the process is initiated, they can go and see the Chief Electoral Officer. I discovered that a wide variety of opportunities to vote was available to Canadians who really wanted to vote. The system has a flexibility that our provincial systems generally do not have. I think that is a very good thing.
You cited a number of studies carried out by a variety of people. But I wonder if you, minister, the Privy Council or the government itself have carried out studies to determine whether increasing the number of early polling days available, as you suggested, would really have an impact on voter participation. In addition, I would like to know whom you consulted before putting forward this proposal.
:
I'll go with the last one first, because we did actually calculate the costs. There would be a one-time cost of $6.8 million for information technology, and then of course for every election, in terms of recurring costs for staffing of the additional polling stations, $30.4 million. So that's the cost.
In terms of consultation, the bulk of it has been obviously of the academic research. The research, I can tell you, has been done by very impressive people. I talked about Pammett and LeDuc's study. Louis Lavoie has done a study that we looked at. André Blais, Louis Massicotte, Agnieszka Dobrzynska.... I think perhaps the most interesting one is the 2001 study that was done by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada, which is a very stimulating piece, and I encourage you to go to it anyhow, as people who are obviously interested and involved in politics.
But you look at folks like André Blais; Marc Chénier, a very impressive author and a contributor; John Courtney; Donna Dasko; Agnieszka Dobrzynska; Fred Fletcher from York University, and I think most people know him; Mark Franklin; Jonathan Malloy from over here at Carleton; Louis Massicotte, Université de Montréal; Alain Pelletier, who came from Elections Canada; Jon Pammett; and Lisa Young, out of Calgary, who has done a fair bit of research on voter turnout, and she comes up with all kinds of different conclusions all the time.
There's an abundance of research. I'd go beyond that to say there's a lot of research that's outside of the political realm, and I'll maybe save that speech for answering another question.
But I think one of the mistakes that's often made in looking at this stuff is to limit ourselves only to the political horizon, because we're really looking at an overall decline of community involvement over the past half-century or more in every kind of community organization that exists. I shouldn't say it so sweepingly—“every kind of community organization”—but generally speaking, community involvement has been in decline for a bunch of reasons.
:
Well, I'm not sure whether I'll use the entire time.
Partly in response to Madame Robillard's questions in connection with Bill C-55, I want to be on the record as representing rural Canada on this particular issue.
I have the good fortune of representing roughly a quarter of the land mass of British Columbia, more than 250,000 square kilometres, almost evenly divided by the Rocky Mountains. That riding certainly would benefit hugely, I believe, from this type of legislation. The rural ridings, in particular....
Madame Robillard made the quite correct statement that any elector can exercise the option of attending the returning office in the riding at any time during the writ period to cast a ballot. Indeed, I think statistics would show that a number of Canadians do exercise that option. But in a rural riding like mine, to do that would still necessitate the vast majority of constituents travelling hundreds of kilometres. And as the minister stated, not only is it inconvenient, it's obviously costly. It's also, I would argue, somewhat dangerous in winter driving conditions, should we happen to have a winter election again, when the roads can be particularly treacherous.
So having the advance polls, not only as we normally operate them in the communities, but even on the Sunday before, and having all the polls open to give them more opportunity I think would be hugely advantageous to my constituents up in Prince George—Peace River, and, I would argue, to most rural ridings.
I just wanted to be on the record with that.
As well, Mr. Chair, on this whole issue of consulting anyone, I think the minister has addressed that. But I want to say that, again, I've had the privilege and honour of representing my constituency for close to 14 years now. Many times my constituents have suggested to me that if they had greater opportunity, they would certainly take advantage of it. In ridings like mine, where the economy is doing extremely well.... It's an oil and gas economy. It's a big part of the economy of Prince George—Peace River, as is forestry. There is a lot of blue-collar work, with people out in the bush working. The more opportunities they have when they might not be on shift work or might not be out in the bush where they can't readily get to a poll.... This type of legislation would give them greater opportunity to do that.
I wanted to be on the record, I guess, both in that sense and with the feedback I've gotten from my constituents over the years, especially in relation to the oil and gas workers, the forestry workers, and the miners. They are out in the bush—that's what we call it up north—working, perhaps, on election day, and they don't have the same opportunities as other Canadians to just stop by the polling station.
:
To underscore some of Mr. Hill's comments, Saskatchewan, as you mentioned in your presentation, already has advance polling on Sunday.
I also represent a riding of which about 30% is rural and 70% is urban. The particular point in this legislation that's going to be very popular in our riding is the Sunday immediately prior to election day. Because of the vast distances that have to be covered in most rural ridings to get to an advance poll, many of my constituents have told me that they vote only on Sunday, even at an advance poll, just because it's far more convenient. And when I've had the opportunity to mention to them that we are considering bringing in legislation that would allow them to vote in their own community, at their regular polling station, on the Sunday prior to the election, I've heard nothing but tremendous feedback on that. Particularly in rural ridings, depending on the time of year, if it's a farming community and people are out in the fields and the like, Sunday is the one day they always schedule time to relax a little bit. They've got church, and that makes it a family day. Many of my constituents have told me that in previous years on the Sunday they have gone to church and then, as a family—those who are 18 and above—they have travelled directly from there to the advance poll to cast their ballots so that they didn't have to worry about it on the Monday.
If we can get a Sunday immediately prior to election day with a poll that is in their home community, so they don't even have to travel—in my case, I think the longest distance one of my constituents had to travel was about 130 kilometres, which is a fair haul there and back—it's going to be very popular and very well received.
You can make a comment if you wish, , but it's been proven in Saskatchewan that Sundays are popular. It is not an inconvenience. It doesn't disturb the day that many people use as a church day, and I think it's just going to be a very well-received piece of legislation.
:
I ask you that because there are a number of bills that came forward. In fact, we had, and I recall well, the democratic reform week, and this was part of it. I believe it was on the Wednesday of that particular week that this one was announced.
I'm just trying to get a picture of where the government is going in terms of democratic reform. I say that because there are a number of pieces out there on democratic reform. I certainly am trying to figure out what this government's vision is, because it seems to me, and I might be wrong on this—I'm sure you'll suggest that I am—that we're kind of just throwing things out there, and is an example of that, without really understanding where we're going.
I say that. We're in committee. We're just trying to probe here. We don't have an overall picture. I know the philosophy of the government is trying to get things done, and we'll do a little piece at a time. So fixed-date elections we supported; the loophole funding we supported. Those were initiatives we had claimed as a party. But when you look at this bill, at Bill C-56, and at the Senate bills, which seem to be contradicting each other, the fixed terms and then electing senators, and then not acknowledging that we have to go back to the Quebec Conference of 1865 and take a look at what the debate was, even with true Grits, not the kind like those here but the reformers of the time—Brown, etc.—there was a very definite idea, historically speaking, of the role of the Senate. I'm really concerned that we're on a collision course, not consciously, not intentionally, of course, where we're going to end up with a real mess by way of not having an understanding or vision.
I say that because this bill—and you've somewhat confirmed it for me—was brought up because we needed to be doing something on democratic reform, because there were some concerns about getting some of these bills through.
The bill in the Senate obviously isn't going well. The bill extending the distribution of seats after a census has obviously been pulled—and I can ask you a question about that after.
So we're trying to get these little pieces done to be seen to be doing things. I can say that.
So I'm pleading with you to do more than tell us about studies. I know some of these studies. I know some of these people. They weren't addressing this as being a direct expansion of voter opportunities, as you put it.
When you took social science I'm sure you dealt with statistics. This isn't a dependent variable here that would automatically provide....
Well, this will be my question to you. Do you believe that this expansion of voter opportunity will directly result in higher voter turnout?
:
First, I'll go to the big theme. The big theme is a pretty simple one, and it runs across our Senate reform, our election finance reform, and bills like this, and that is strengthening democracy. We want to see our democracy strengthened. Reversing voter turnout declines is part of that.
I believe it will increase voter turnout. If you ask me, will it reverse the decline in voter turnout, my answer would be a little bit different, in the sense that while there will be an initial bump, this goes again to work like my personal favourite, which is Putnam's work on declining community involvement, which shows that there has been in the post-war era, particularly since about 1950, a decline in community involvement of every type. That includes membership in political parties, participation in political parties, voting, and attending political events, as one of those groups, but it also includes involvement in civic organizations, running hockey leagues, and so on. It has been a consistent trend.
But the other thing Putnam identifies, and you can find it in some of this other work, is that this decline has not been one where somebody who used to be involved isn't anymore; it's a decline in successive age cohorts. If you were voting, if you were involved in Kinsmen when you were in your twenties and you're now in your sixties, you're probably still voting and you're probably still involved.
You can see that here in the Pammett and LeDuc study of 2003, where they look at voting and not voting in 2000 by age cohort.
Of those who were over 68—
I wanted to start with a note of frustration at some of the requests that have come down. Why aren't there government studies on this subject? A lot of the material here relates to how this has performed in foreign countries, and you obviously can't have a Canadian government study of that.
I used to be the critic for democratic issues for the Canadian Alliance, and I was asked repeatedly why voter turnout was lower in Canada than elsewhere. The simplest explanation was that in European countries, which we're usually compared to, they vote on weekends, when people have free time. Having gone through three elections now, I must say that I see over and over again lots of anecdotal examples of places where that's an issue.
The comment I wanted to make is with regard to advance polls. The rural versus urban issue is based on a bit of experience I've had myself, having represented at one point a riding that was half urban and half rural, the city of Kanata and the large rural area. Subsequently, it was been redistributed, so it's all rural now.
One of the things I've been aware of is the degree of difference between the number of people using advance polls in my constituency and in the adjoining constituencies, which fall within the boundaries of Ottawa and are urban. What you notice is a very significant difference because of the fact—this is what I've attributed it to—that advance polls, which are not as widely distributed as regular polls, are easier to get to in an urban setting than they are in a rural setting. I think that goes a long way toward explaining why you see higher turnouts at advance polls, in particular in the two ridings to my immediate east. So I think having advance polls at all locations on the day before voting is likely to have a particularly significant impact in rural areas, and as a rural MP I appreciate that.
Just another thought, though, pursuing Mr. Bélanger's observation about voting at the RO's office ahead of time. There's already a provision in the law that permits more than one RO's office to be set up. We took advantage of that in my constituency. We've got a constituency where, essentially, in population, it's like a dumbbell: very few people live in the middle and there are two population centres at each end, about two hours—
An hon. member: We're not describing the member, are we?
Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you for pointing out that that was not a reflection of me personally.
It was two hours' travel time from one end of the riding to the RO's office, which was located 10 minutes from the riding boundary at the other end of the riding. So we requested and the RO complied and set up a second office.
It seems to me that some pressure locally—it certainly worked in our case—can produce a second RO's office. Something of that nature can already be done under current laws. I don't know whether legislative change is required to do that—probably just more active participation by the MPs to identify this and bring it to the attention of their ROs.
It was more in the way of commentary than questions. Thank you.
Mr. Minister, I know you've got a lot of studies in front of you, and I will try to throw in some anecdotes from a straight business point of view of what's happened to Sundays over the last decade or couple of decades.
From a business point of view, Sunday used to be the seventh day of volume, the slowest day of the week, if you will, in most of the restaurant business.
An hon. member: Not Boston Pizza.
Mr. Joe Preston: I'll tell you where it's gone today. It's now, in most cases, the second or third busiest—from the seventh to the second or third busiest.
This simply shows us that people are now taking your Sundays as a much more common day, whether it's work—and obviously if it's a commercial enterprise they are working—or just a normal day, whether it's shopping or banking or whatever else they can possibly do. So I commend you for putting Sunday back in there, because it didn't make sense that it was left out of the advance poll chain on the Friday, Saturday, Monday. Using that Sunday before and making it more of a community thing I think works far better.
:
We'll have access to it. It will be helpful for the committee to see the results, because in it there are some of the issues you've referenced on volunteer and civic organizations.
I have to say that I'm not convinced yet on this issue. As I mentioned in my comments and questions—I'm from Missouri, if you will, on this—show me some evidence, notwithstanding that we've mentioned we can look to other countries. In terms of the countries you've mentioned, I could easily put forward, and I will, the study that was done in Canada by the Law Commission on democratic reform. The most extensive overview on democratic reform in this country would suggest that it's not an extra day of voting that will increase voter participation. Making sure every vote counts is what Canadians want. They would be looking at some form of proportionality.
In fact, I could argue in terms of the list of countries—and you mention the OECD—that maybe it's because they have a fairer voting system and not the fact that they vote on Sundays. I think most political scientists might look at that and say, what's in the window, if you will, as opposed to, when do I get to buy it.
I put that forward because if we're going to have serious debate on increasing voter participation, we need to look at the whole picture here. When I was questioning you about your vision of democratic reform, I have to say I was a little concerned. I'm seeing these piecemeal—I don't think it's intentional. I really don't. But when we see the Senate bills, we see Bill C-56, which popped up and then went away—It didn't go away. Okay. It just went off the order paper radar, just for awhile, until we could talk to Mr. Tory.
Seriously. If we look at it, I'm concerned that there isn't a vision. A vision of democratic reform, for what it's worth, to me, is if you look at institutions like the Senate—Put up the question. It's the elephant in the room. Maybe it's time to phase the Senate out and look at an institution that's more representative, not tinkering with it. Where do we want to be in ten years? In 1865 they were looking at 1841. They were dealing with the Durham report. It's time we looked at our institutions and asked, are they required?
Anyhow, my question to you is regarding Sunday. I go to church. I've mentioned this in passing. Some people think it's okay and others are really not happy with it, I have to tell you that. I think the lack of consultation on this bill might be a problem not just for you but for us if we're supporting it. I would ask that part of our witness list be faith groups. They need to be heard from. They're going to let us know if we don't. I think it would be smart to do that.
I have to say that for some people it seemed like an opportunity to be able to vote on it. For others, you've got politicians in your face for an extra day. That's the other side of the coin.
The other thing I have to ask you is this. Are you aware that in Manitoba they just recently had an election and they actually upped the voter turnout? They did that not with an extra day of voting but through some other innovative things. Has anyone looked at that in your shop, or have you?
What they did, very quickly, is they put voting stations, advance polls, not in churches or schools, like we usually do—you might have a conflict with this plan with churches because not everyone goes to church before noon—but they put them in malls. This is the third consecutive majority government for the Doer government, and voter turnout went up. That's very unusual. They allowed people to vote in unusual places, for many of us, such as in malls. Young people might not go to church as much as they used to, but they sure go to malls. Have you considered that as an idea?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
I've already forgotten half of what he ran through.
Certainly in terms of the issue of changing where you have your polling stations to a more commercial nature, the joke I was making was about the change from citizen into consumer. And that's one of the things that's been happening here. If you look through some of the research and some of the comments, there is this whole concern that people are changing to be more consumers and less citizens with a duty. Duty and obligation are big parts of voting.
Some people say we need to have better education to get people to vote. Some people point to political efficacy as a reason why people don't vote. They think their vote doesn't matter, and so on. And there are some studies, as acknowledged, that indicated that a different voting system results in a higher turnout. There are others who say that it's a competitive election that results in a higher turnout. If they think it's a foregone conclusion, they don't vote. There's cynicism. All these things are different factors, and we can go through them all.
I simply think you can't solve all those problems all at once, and there are all kinds of good debates about why you may or may not want to do that, but the reality is, whether you go with a proportional system or stick with our first-past-the-post system, whether it's a close election or not, the fact that we will be making this change I think will have a positive impact regardless of what other changes you do make.
I don't think it's a sin to look at it in isolation. I think it's fine to look at it, and I don't think it's a sin to give someone the opportunity to vote on Sunday, as long as you're not obliging them to vote on Sunday.
:
Thank you for your generosity, Mr. Chair.
[Translation]
Good morning, minister. Welcome to the committee.
Minister, I'm surprised you are here this morning, because I don't remember having discussed your appearance before this committee, or the planning committee. In any case, you are here. We welcome you.
Minister, I'm trying to understand every aspect of what you are doing. First, you are adding one advanced polling day. That means there will be a full weekend of advanced polling: the Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday before the election, one week before the election date. This would mean advanced polling as we have known it for several years now.
Second, instead of there being only one voting day, there will be two voting days, since you are decreeing that the Sunday immediately preceding election day Monday will become just like election day itself. Is that correct?
:
So that answers the question about the cost of having these extra days.
Mr. Chair, far be it from me to jump in here and defend your decision to have this legislation and the minister before us, but I clearly recall at the last meeting, which was only yesterday—I don't have a long memory, but we had that special meeting yesterday to deal with Bill . At the end of it, I recall you saying something to the effect that tomorrow we would have our regular Tuesday meeting at 11 a.m., and the minister would be appearing to discuss this piece of legislation. You asked if anybody had any concerns, and nobody did. So for Mr. Proulx's benefit, that's how I remember the conversation yesterday. There was notification of the events of today.
Rather than suggesting that the government or the minister is trying to suck and blow at the same time, I look at it a bit more positively—instead of always looking at it in a negative way when it comes to government legislation. I'd like to maybe use a different adage, something like we're offering Canadians the best of both worlds with this legislation.
As Mr. Proulx quite correctly stated, some people might consider it an affront to their religious convictions to vote on a Sunday. But they don't have to. They can still vote on the regular election day on Monday, in one of the other advance polls, or by attending Monday to Saturday at the returning office. So they have a lot of options as well. We're not trying to do anything negative here. I think this offers more choice.
I always believe that politics is the art of the possible, so we have to sometimes do what's doable. I guess I'm referring now to Mr. Dewar's comments about lacking vision. For the 14 years I've had the privilege of being in Parliament I've heard criticism about making any reforms to our democratic institutions because it would be piecemeal. We used to hear that all the time from former Prime Minister Paul Martin. Any time we wanted to see any changes made to either the House of Commons or the Senate of Canada, he would say he didn't want to do it piecemeal. That was an excuse for doing nothing.
Now that we're trying to make some incremental changes we're being accused of not having a vision, or cobbling this together and maybe getting ourselves into a mess that way. If we're ever going to change things around here we have to start somewhere. That's why I refer to my earlier comment about politics being the art of the possible. We want to make some changes, and I think Canadians are expecting us to make some changes. That doesn't preclude us from making more dramatic changes as we go along, and I think that was Mr. Dewar's point. I don't think this is the be-all and end-all. Nobody is saying it is, but it is a step.
I'd like to give whatever time I have left to the minister to respond, instead of using the whole five minutes for myself.
:
Thank you, Chair, and thanks again to the minister.
I guess my point on the piecemeal, just to address my friend Mr. Hill, is that when you put all the pieces together, no one is against—I was careful in my comments. I supported, as did my predecessor Mr. Broadbent, electoral reform. The fixed-date election was supported. We supported the loan loophole; in fact, we brought it forward in Bill . I don't want to give people the wrong impression.
But it does beg the question, what is the whole picture here? That's what my point was. We are particularly concerned, not about this bill per se, but when you add it all up, where are we going as a country in our institutions? I guess when we look back to debates around this table, we came up with a process to consult Canadians, and the government said we were against it, so they came up with this public consultation. I won't get into that taffy pull.
It really does beg the question, where are we going? I guess my concern is consulting Canadians.
When I hear from you, Minister, that this really was an idea you had—and that doesn't mean you can't have a good idea—I'm asking for you to perhaps widen the net a bit and consult Canadians on all of these ideas.
On this bill, for instance, I think we are going to hear from certain faith communities—we have to hear from them—that they might have some problems with this. For some families, although they're not being forced to vote, they'll see it as an interference in their day-to-day lives in their communities. I don't know, because we haven't done the consultation.
I guess I would ask, Minister, if you are considering doing—if it's not wider consultation beyond what this committee can do, because we were hoping to travel the country and have a parallel process on democratic reform, and unfortunately it didn't go there—any sort of polling or focus groups on what people think of this bill.
Minister, thank you very much for coming today. If I could use an Olympic analogy, I can't resist saying, in connection with what you said about short-term doable issues that this government is focused on, that sometimes I worry that it's just going for the bronze, and I think Canadians deserve better than that. I have some concern over the lack of consultation, and I would be interested to know—and I'm not going to ask you to take up time right now—if you could cite the studies. I know you've talked about the Franklin study in Houston in 2002. There's also a passing reference to the French presidential election. My understanding is that whether or not the voting is on Sunday, it's a historically large voter turnout in any election.
I'd also underscore that you're right in saying the people around this table probably know more about elections and how they work than they do about banking. However, I could also point out that from time to time, when really contentious referendum questions are put on presidential ballots in the United States, the voter turnout spikes, so I think it is a legitimate concern to say that we do need to look at other studies, other jurisdictions, and other extenuating circumstances, and not just presume that Sunday voting is going to be for higher voter turnout.
I don't think there is a member in this House who wouldn't support the idea of more Canadians being involved in the democratic process. I, however, am not persuaded there's a short straight line between Sunday voting, the cost-benefit analysis that needs to be done through this, and whether this bill has received due diligence in order to receive support.
Colleagues, I want to thank the minister. If there are more questions, we can make arrangements to have the minister back.
I have to note, though, that I noticed that on the last few opportunities for members to speak, we were drifting into debate, which sort of appears to me to mean that we've gotten through our questions, at least for the minister.
I want to thank the minister for being here this morning with his staff. I appreciate your being here to help the committee understand this bill. We certainly appreciate the extra half-hour you were able to give us this morning. We can excuse you now.
Colleagues, I would like to just point out a couple of things. By no means is this a request for a final list. But it seems to me that this is fresh in our minds right now. There have been some good suggestions around the table for reports we've been keeping track of that members wish to see, reports we might wish to summarize, and we'll certainly do that. But while it's still fresh in members' minds, if you would like to submit to our clerk any witnesses that you have in your minds right now, we can revisit this at another time. I'm not suggesting that this would be a final list, but rather than forget —
Here is the second issue I wish the committee to advise me on and help me with. I'm not sure that we can get any of the witnesses here for Thursday. We could probably get some of the research here and continue debate. But I'm going to leave it to the committee that this would be the only thing we would do on Thursday. I'm at the will of the committee. We either schedule a meeting on Thursday and move forward with whatever research we can get and whatever witnesses we can get, or we not have a meeting on Thursday and we conclude today.
Is there a brief discussion by anyone?
We'll have Mr. Preston.
:
Do you want to call Elections Canada for Thursday?
A voice: No.
The Chair: First of all, I'm getting the sense from the committee that we not have a meeting on Thursday.
A voice: I would be here, but we're not going to have a quorum.
The Chair: Order, please. I know we're all jovial today and having a good time, but I have my business to do.
We are not going to have a meeting on Thursday, then.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Colleagues, there is nothing further for today, except again, a reminder to get any witness lists or suggestions for further study on Bill to our clerk as soon as you possibly can.
I wish almost everyone the best of summers. I certainly hope you have a safe and wonderful time. I didn't know it was summer. I'm prepared to be here next week, but in the event that we're moving toward summer, I do sincerely wish everybody that.
And actually, with all sincerity, I thank everybody for this session. I believe that this committee is an example for other committees. I can tell you that I've never seen some members work as hard as you members do and be as prepared as you are. I appreciate it. Our clerks appreciate it. Canadians appreciate it. Have a wonderful summer.
The meeting is adjourned.