Before we finish with Bill C-76, I would like to make a few comments regarding two important points that Senator Frum raised in her speech on Friday.

The first has to do with the use of the voter cards as proof of address.

[English]

In the 2015 federal election, 49,600 Canadian citizens went to polling stations but were denied the right to vote due to a lack of two accepted pieces of identification. Another 123,000 stated that they did not even make it to the polling station because they believed they could not meet the existing identification requirements. The time has come to correct this situation, not out of mere kindness, but because every Canadian has a constitutional right to vote.

To this end, Bill C-76 proposes to reinstate the Voter Information Card as an accepted piece of identification at the polling station. Currently, to vote, a person must present an ID with photo, name and address. For most electors, this is not a problem. Indeed, at the 2015 election, 93 per cent of voters were able to present a government-issued ID such as a driver’s licence, with name, photo, and address on the same card.

But it remains that 7 per cent of Canadians may not have such an ID readily available to them. For them, it will be necessary to present another ID, usually a health card, which, as you know, does not include the address, at least in Ontario and in Quebec. To establish their address, they need another document such as utility bills, bank statements, credit card statements. However, they are not entitled to present the voter information card. In my opinion, this is an absurd situation.

First, for some, such as the elderly, the youth and Indigenous people, it may be difficult to produce one of the other accepted documents. Take, for example, utility bills and bank statements, which may be mailed to only one member of a couple.

Second, this seems to ignore that for most people, it will be natural to bring with them to the polling station the voter information card, but not a utility bill or a copy of their lease.

By reintroducing the voter information card, Bill C-76 makes it easier for many to establish their address. And I repeat: To vote, a person must present another piece of ID, and his or her name must already be on the list of electors at the polling station. No danger of fraud there.

[Translation]

The second point is about Canadian citizens living abroad. Let me point out that most modern democratic states grant full voting rights based on citizenship regardless of place of residence. One of those is the United States, where American citizens who have not lived in the country for, say, 40 years can vote in presidential and congressional elections. If non-residents can vote for the most powerful man in the world, surely they can vote for a Canadian member of Parliament.

Very few countries have a five-year limit like Canada’s. The limit does not apply to members of the Canadian Armed Forces or to federal, provincial or international public servants working abroad. There is no limit for them. For example, a United Nations employee who has been living in New York for 30 years has the right to vote in Canada. The five-year limit doesn’t apply in that case. Why shouldn’t a Bombardier employee who has been working in Paris or somewhere else in the world for 10 years not have the right to vote?

In fact, only two democratic countries restrict the right to vote by imposing a period of time: Australia has a period of six years and the United Kingdom has a period not of five years, but 15 years. Canada is therefore the most restrictive country with respect to democratic rights. Furthermore, I want to underscore once again that the subject is currently being debated in both countries, both Australia and England, that is, to remove the six-year and 15-year limit.

To sum up, it’s entirely appropriate to recognize the right to vote for citizens of democratic countries. Why is that appropriate? Because it’s rare for citizens who live abroad not to maintain ties with their country. Canadians who live abroad often still have family living in this country or children who attend college or university here. There are also retired Canadians who may decide to live somewhere in the world with a warmer climate.

Did you know there are more than 186,200 Canadians who are permanent residents abroad and collecting CPP and 149,400 who are collecting Old Age Security while living as permanent residents abroad? These people aren’t stealing from Canada. They worked there their entire life. They’re receiving a pension to which they’re entitled because they worked 20 years or more in Canada. Don’t these people have a strong enough connection to Canada? Don’t they have a vested interest in getting their Old Age Security pension? Don’t they have a vested interest in it being indexed? Don’t they have a vested interest in it continuing to be paid out?

What about all these citizens living abroad receiving a portion of their income from Canada? That’s true for people receiving dividends from Canadian corporations or even a private pension. They all pay taxes to Canada, collected at the source. Don’t they have a vested interest in Canadian budgets and Canadian taxation?

Lastly, on what grounds can we exclude Canadians living abroad who dream of returning to Canada someday when they retire? These are all things the framers of the Charter understood in 1982, things we must recognize today by removing the five-year limit introduced in 1993. Why hesitate? Those who oppose the idea say they are afraid our elections might be compromised by Canadians who have no idea what is going on in this country or who are under the influence of a foreign power. Let’s look at the facts before we start fearmongering.

(2040)

There are no precise statistics on the number of Canadians living abroad. Estimates range from under 1 million to almost 2 million. Hopefully, the passage of Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act, will allow us to have more reliable data in the future.

However, we know that a Canadian citizen living abroad can’t vote unless he or she has taken all the necessary steps to be added to the list of electors and provided proof of residence in a Canadian electoral district before leaving the country. Moreover, statistics show that in the United States, scarcely 10 per cent of non-resident Americans go through the necessary process to register to vote in the presidential election, to choose the person who will fill the most powerful office in the world.

It is reasonable to assume that not more than 10 per cent of the Canadians living abroad will exercise their right to elect an MP in a Canadian riding. If Bill C-76 is passed, the Chief Electoral Officer estimates that barely 30,000 Canadians will exercise their right to vote in the next election. Based on the most conservative estimates of the number of Canadians abroad who are eligible to vote, which amounts to roughly 1 million Canadians, just 2 per cent of these citizens voted in the last election and will vote in the next one.

During the last federal election, 14,000 people living abroad, including public servants and members of the Canadian Armed Forces, made the effort to register with the Chief Electoral Officer in a timely manner so that they could be on the list of electors. Of the 14,000 people who registered, only 11,000 went to the trouble to vote in the 2015 election. This is not easy, because they receive a blank ballot on which they have to write by hand the name of the candidate they are voting for.

According to the data provided by the Chief Electoral Officer, non-resident citizens voted in dozens of different ridings during the last election. On average, fewer than 200 people living abroad voted in the same riding. That number was higher for only one riding, and it just so happens it was the riding of Ottawa-Vanier, where many public servants lived before moving abroad. A total of 496 Canadians living abroad voted in that riding. However, the Liberal candidate who won had a 24,280-vote lead over his closest rival. I do not see any risk of fraud in Ottawa-Vanier or in the immediate future. It has been said that it could happen “one day,” but I think that day is still a long way off.

Colleagues, please do not hesitate to vote in favour of Bill C-76 at third reading in order to give back to Canadians citizens the opportunity to fully exercise one of their constitutional rights.