Bill C-50 (Historical)

Citizen Voting Act

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to
(a) eliminate the international register of electors and incorporate all of the information contained in it into the Register of Electors;
(b) require electors who are resident outside Canada to make an application for registration and special ballot after the issue of the writs at each election;
(c) stipulate that electors who are resident outside Canada may only receive a special ballot for the address at which they last resided in Canada;
(d) require that electors who are applying for a special ballot under Division 3 or 4 of Part 11 include in their application for registration and special ballot proof of identity and residence and, if they apply from outside Canada, proof of Canadian citizenship;
(e) require that an external auditor perform an audit and report on election workers’ compliance with special ballot voting procedures and requirements for every election;
(f) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information for the purpose of assisting the Chief Electoral Officer to, among other things, delete from the Register of Electors the names of persons who are not Canadian citizens; and
(g) add the offence of voting or attempting to vote by special ballot under Division 3 or 4 of Part 11 while knowing that one is not qualified as an elector and add offences under those Divisions of attesting to the residence of more than one elector and of acting as an attestor when one’s own residence has already been attested to.

Citizen Voting Act

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

moved that Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the occasion to address the House today on the citizen voting act.

The citizen voting act has three principal objectives. The first is to help prevent non-citizens from voting in federal elections. The second is to require voters living abroad to provide proof of identity, past residence, and citizenship. The third is to create one set of rules for all Canadians voting from outside the country.

To start with the background that led us to this legislation, I would bring members' attention to the Ontario Superior Court ruling in Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada. In this case, the court struck down the law that had been in place preventing citizens from voting if they had been out of the country for more than five consecutive years or have no intention of returning. Estimates show that the reading could lead to 1.4 million new eligible voters and an outdated system to administer their votes.

I will now work through some of the individual problems that exist within the status quo and how the bill seeks to address them one by one.

The first problem is that an estimated 40,000 non-citizens are on the voters list. Elections Canada has brought this number to my attention. It has indicated that these lists are not perfect, and that as a result, names of people who have interactions with various levels of governments get into the overall system and inadvertently end up on the list of electors. These people are sent voter information cards that indicate where they can go and vote, although they are not eligible to do so.

The problem is that there will be some who go and vote, even though they are not citizens, because they think that they are allowed. If they get a voter information card that says they should show up at the elementary school around the corner to cast their ballot, logically they would think that they, as permanent residents, are allowed to do that. There will be people among that 40,000 who will accidentally break the law.

There will also be some who might deliberately break the law. With their names being on the voters list, they do not even have to sign oaths asserting that they are a citizens when they go to cast their ballots. It is only those who are not on the voters list who have take an oath of citizenship when they vote.

The solution in the citizen voting act would authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the names, genders, birthdates, and addresses of non-citizens who are in Canada so that Elections Canada can cross-reference and remove them from the National Register of Electors. This would be a very difficult and tedious undertaking, I am afraid, but it is a worthwhile one. If it can reduce that number of 40,000 non-citizens to a smaller number, or perhaps eliminate it altogether, we can celebrate that as an improvement in the accuracy of the voters list and the fairness of our elections.

The next problem is that under the current law, Canadians voting abroad do not need to have any proven link to the riding in which their vote is counted. At present, if a person is living in London, England, or Washington, D.C., for example, and wants to vote in Canada, that person can register to vote in pretty much any constituency with which they feel that they have a connection, and that connection will not be verified by Elections Canada. Everyone else has to vote in the riding in which they reside, because the residential link is a critical part of our constituency-based system, but there is a double standard that allows some to pick their riding and do riding shopping, while others have to vote where they live or where they have a residential connection.

The solution is to bring about the same rules for everybody. The way we would do that is by requiring proof of past residence.

Obviously someone living abroad most likely would not have a current residence in Canada, so I think it would be reasonable to ask them to cast their ballot for the constituency in which they last lived before they left the country. The citizen voting act would do that. The bill would require that they prove their identity and their most recent Canadian address, using the same documentation as do voters who live in Canada under the new rules that came in through the Fair Elections Act.

The options would be a photo ID containing a prior address, or any two of the 39 pieces of ID approved by the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada. If none of the documentation has their address on it, the voters would be able to rely on someone who would sign an attestation that in fact they did reside in the riding in which they want their vote counted, and that attestation would quality as a proof of past residency.

These rules might seem familiar. That is because they are the same ones that the Fair Elections Act brought in. Under that bill, we require people to show ID when they vote, but if that ID does not have an address on it, then they can rely on someone to sign an attestation or co-signing an oath that they in fact do reside in the riding in which they want to vote. We are simply taking that set of rules that we apply within Canada and applying it outside of Canada.

Some might ask about expired documents. If someone has been living abroad for 10 or 15 years, obviously their documents would not be up to date. We have specifically stated in the bill that expired documents are acceptable forms of ID, so if somebody has an old drivers licence that is past the expiration date, it would still qualify as proof of previous Canadian residency and render eligible that voter in the riding where he or she is attempting to cast a ballot.

The next problem is that there is a double standard for voting abroad.

There are two types of voters who cast ballots from abroad. There are those who are resident in Canada but are on vacation or working abroad during the election. Examples are the snowbirds who go down to Florida or California during the winter. They have to vote by something called a special ballot. When they vote, they actually have to apply for the ballot at each election. They have to provide ID to show where they reside in Canada, and then they get a ballot for the riding that they come from. They send that ballot back in the mail, and it is counted in the correct constituency.

By contrast, those who are long-term non-residents, those people who live outside of Canada, do not have any of those obligations. They merely apply to be on the voters list once, and then into perpetuity the ballot arrives in their mailbox as soon as the election is called. This causes a lot of problems.

One problem is that someone could easily have moved. Someone resident in Mexico City might move to another part of the world, but their ballot would still come from Elections Canada to the Mexico City mailbox of someone who has no connection to Canada and should not be in possession of a Canadian ballot. As a result, into perpetuity we would obviously have ballots going to the wrong people, and there is no way of verifying that the address is accurate in that kind of circumstance. The requirement to apply for a ballot for each election is an organic way to keep the list of those Canadians who are voting abroad up to date.

Next we move to the issue of proof of citizenship. The citizen voting acting would require in law that everyone voting outside Canada provide proof of citizenship. This requirement would not apply to Canadian Forces members, but it would apply to everyone else.

Finally, the citizen voting act would apply some audit procedures to Elections Canada to make sure that all of these rules are followed. That process was established in the Fair Elections Act for voting when it occurs within the country. We are simply applying it to all of those who vote from outside of the country.

How does this proposed system compare to other countries around the world? Many like-minded democracies place restrictions on voting by non-residents with limited exceptions for citizens serving abroad.

For example, in the U.K., non-residents can only vote if they have been out of the country for less than 15 years. In Ireland, non-residents cannot vote. If they do not live in Ireland, they do not vote in Ireland. In Australia, non-residents can only vote if they have lived abroad for less than six years and intend to return to resume residence in the country within six years. They must provide either their Australian drivers licence number or their Australian passport number or have a person who is on the federal electoral list confirm their identity—not their address—by signing the application form. In New Zealand, non-resident citizens can vote only if they have been abroad for less than three years. In Germany, non-residents can only vote if they have been abroad for less than 25 years. They also must have lived in Germany for three consecutive months following their 14th birthday.

To avoid getting into all of the details, members can surmise from these examples that among our peer group, Canada, which currently allows Canadians living abroad to vote without restriction, has basically one of the most generous systems of enfranchisement for citizens abroad.

This legislation would not change that, but it would improve the integrity of the system. It would ensure that only citizens vote, that their vote is only counted in the riding from which they come, and that they only vote once. That is basic to the integrity of our electoral system, and the bill would bring the rules for Canadians abroad in line with the rules we have now established for those voting here at home.

That is in essence the proposal we bring forward to the House. I thank the House for this opportunity to address the chamber.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my general views about the bill will be made known in my reply speech, but I am hoping to ask a series of specific questions to the minister that could ease the way in committee if the answers are clear.

Although this may not be intended, a new provision, proposed subsection 143(2.11), says that any ID authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer must come from some governmental entity or an entity formed in Canada. I am just wondering whether it is known by the government that this language looks as though it would exclude private leases, leases issued by individual persons. Students, for example, are often subject to those leases. I am wondering if this was intentional, and if not, whether the government would be open to a clear amendment on that point.

Second, the snowbirds phenomenon is such that they have the temporary absence voting rules, but unlike other citizens abroad, who can be vouched for by anybody from the entire riding, temporarily absent Canadians can only have somebody from their poll vouch for them. However, the polls are not known until about 10 days before election day. That is when the VICs get issued, so the fact of the matter is that any snowbirds who have to rely on the new vouching provisions would not be able to do it in time. They are in a specific problematic situation. I am wondering if the minister realizes that and would fix it.

Third, under the current system a special ballot can be mailed to an address that someone has failed to change in the international register. As an example, a Canadian who moved from his or her address in Mexico City may have failed to change the address in the international register, and a Mexican may now live at that address and receive the ballot. Does the minister really believe that the Mexican will pick up the ballot, fill it out, send it back, and vote in Toronto—Danforth, or Nepean, or wherever else? How real is that scenario as one of the reasons for changing this entire system to make it much more difficult for citizens abroad to meet deadlines and fulfill the requirements in order to be able to vote at all?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the first question about the list of eligible ID that voters abroad could use to prove who they are and where they last lived in Canada, the bill's intent is to see that the list of eligible ID produced by the CEO of Elections Canada would apply to voters abroad just as it does to those here at home. I do not have the section he refers to in front of me, but I would be happy to look at it and go over the specific wording. However, that is the intention of the bill. It is a very exhaustive list with about 39 different forms of ID. The bill requires that the ID be of Canadian origin. In fact, it would have to be of Canadian original to prove someone's past residence. One would not have a foreign driver's licence showing where one lived when in Canada, so it would be impossible to use a foreign ID to provide that information.

On the question of providing attestations, for example for snowbirds, the rules would basically not change a whole lot. The major change is that the person would have to provide proof of citizenship. For snowbirds, or someone who is vacationing abroad, that is pretty straightforward, because they would not leave the country without their passport, or else they would have a lot of trouble getting back in. A NEXUS card would apply as well, but proof of citizenship is a pretty straightforward requirement for someone who is vacationing outside the country, that is, if they ever want to come home.

The member's final question was whether or not a ballot mailed to someone's home, from which they had moved long ago, might be returned by someone who is not eligible to vote. When ballots are sent out and go to the wrong person because the address of someone changed long ago, we do not really know what will become of the ballot. I am not pointing to this example as evidence of an enormous crisis, but I think the member would agree that it is an administrative problem if we send ballots to people who are not citizens and just happen to reside in the former residence of a Canadian.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I can obviously tell the minister is fighting a flu, so I will try not to be too long and prolong the agony.

I just want to ask some specific questions. My colleague asked one of them, but there is another one I want to ask. When we talk about people employed by the Government of Canada, such as military personnel, people working in embassies, and so forth, there is an exemption for them, but I am worried about their families who are also Canadian and also eligible to vote. Will they be included in that?

Second, the timelines here are really tight. People have to register. They are living in a country abroad, which could be halfway around the world, and they would have to do three things. They would have to apply, get their ballot, and it then it has to go back as their vote. With a 36-day writ period, it is a very tight timeline for people living halfway around the world to follow.

My third point is about riding shopping, as was described, where one gets to choose any riding. Was that really a problem brought to the minister by Elections Canada or any other entity? In the press release they say that they want to get rid of it, but where is the research showing this was such a major problem and major abuse?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for showing me such mercy, given the state of my health today.

On the first question of the timelines, I did think about this quite a lot, because the member is right that ballots would have to travel to the voter and then be returned. One thing I would correct is to say that the application would not have to travel by mail. It could be done online. Therefore, the Canadian citizen voting, say from Abu Dhabi or Beijing, or some other location that is hard to reach, could actually provide a scanned document and email the identification and have the ballot mailed very quickly.

Canadian residents who happen to be around the world use that process right now. They do so with success. In my time I have never encountered a snowbird, for example, who said they wanted to vote but that there just was not enough time for the mail to go back and forth and so they did not get their vote counted. Therefore, I think if it works for Canadian residents who are visiting abroad, it should work for Canadian non-residents abroad. It basically would create one system for all electors who happen to be outside of Canadian borders, whether they are resident here or not.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister, knowing that we are going to have an opportunity for amendments.

My question very much builds on what my hon. colleague from Toronto—Danforth pointed out. There are a lot of complications within the bill, such as regarding residence. As my friend from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor pointed out, we have Canadian families overseas, people in the diplomatic service, and people in long-term jobs or potentially teaching in foreign universities who have every intention of returning to Canada. Making sure that every Canadian has the right to vote is fundamental.

As we go through the minutiae of the bill, because it is complicated in how it would apply to different categories of citizens, is the minister prepared, as he was on his previous bill, the so-called Fair Elections Act, to take amendments forward during the committee process?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question, although I do think she is over-complicating the bill. It is actually quite simple.

Basically, if someone is residing abroad and wants to vote, they merely have to submit their ID proving who they are and where they last lived in Canada. A ballot would arrive in the mail, they would tick the box, and send the ballot back to be counted. It is not that complicated as a procedure.

The member seemed to suggest that there are different rules for different categories of voters. Actually, the truth is the opposite. We would be removing the different categories. For example, before, special ballots for snowbirds were treated completely differently than ballots for people living abroad. We are now merging the same practice for all people who happen to vote outside the borders of Canada into one simple process: a person would send in their ID, they would be sent a ballot, and they would vote and send the ballot back.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his presentation. Along with my colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, I acknowledge that this may not be the best day for the minister in terms of his health. Accordingly, in the spirit of what we heard from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I may be a little more gentle than I was intending to be.

Some here might have had a chance to read the piece that came out today in the National Post, where I make it very clear that I do believe—this sounds like how I started the debate on Bill C-23, what we call “the unfair elections act”—that the effect, at minimum, of these changes in Bill C-50 would voter suppression of citizens living abroad, and something that I am not sure the minister is fully aware of, namely, that it could create chaos with voting in Canada, because of the changes to a section that would prohibit the Chief Electoral Officer from authorizing any use of ID that basically does not have its origin Canada. I will explain why that could cause those problems.

I will stick with this phraseology that “in the result”, this is the problem, although seeing what has been knowingly put in the bill, I honestly think that the minister has to realize what these impacts would be. I hope that with some of the presentations during this debate and some of the criticisms he is already beginning to receive, he will be open to some serious amendments, including a couple that, to follow his own line, would be quite simple and could actually get rid of some of the serious blocking effects that I see. It is also important to note, although the minister did not really make hay of this in his own speech today, that in the presentation back in December when the bill was tabled, there very much was an effort to spin this bill in a way that created two false impressions. This is important to know.

One is that the press release in the backgrounder made it seem like the government was implementing the Frank judgement, which basically said that citizens away for more than five years now have the right to vote from abroad. It was very unclear from the presentation whether or not the Frank judgment was being accepted. It is important that everyone knows that Bill C-50 would not remove any provision in the Canada Elections Act that was struck down by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Frank decision. It is still sitting in the statute. The reason for this is that the government has clearly decided it is going to continue to fight to prevent citizens who have been away for more than five years from voting. It is appealing the decision, and it even sought a stay of the trial judgment to try to prevent it from going into effect. The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied that stay.

The fact of the matter is that the government is still actively seeking to keep as disenfranchised Canadians who have been living abroad for more than five years. Yet the presentation of the bill made it look like this was somehow an effort to bring things into line. If this were really bringing things in line with the Frank judgment, all the government would have to do would be to adopt the suggestion by the member for Halifax in her Bill C-575 and simply repeal the same sections the judge found to be unconstitutional in the case. Instead, the Frank decision is being used as a supposed reason for a wholesale change of issues that never arose in the Frank case. It is important to ensure that the Frank judgment does not carry the government along in any sense where people think the government is actually respecting that judgment. It is still appealing it.

Second, the press release directly claims that all Bill C-50 would do is to apply the same voter identification rules enacted by the so-called Fair Elections Act, Bill C-23, and extend those rules to Canadians voting from abroad. There is some truth in that. There are some analogues that get brought forward. For instance, the vouching for an address gets brought forward. However, Bill C-50 inserts a new prohibition on the kinds of documents the Chief Electoral Officer could designate as identity documents. It would apply to documents used by all.

The new subsection 143(2.11) would apply to all electors and would basically create additional limitations on what the Chief Electoral Officer would be free to authorize by way of identity documents.

Because of the wording in that provision, this would have impacts in Canada. It would also make it extraordinarily difficult for some Canadians abroad to produce the right kinds of ID that now they have to produce. They would not be able because of this change. This is new. This was not in Bill C-23.

I just want to set the scene by making clear that this is the case.

It is also important to note, to set the scene, although the minister has downplayed it in his presentation today, and I acknowledge that. There was a sign it was not going to go this way. There is virtually no reality to the idea that there is a fraud problem from voters from abroad. The judge in the Superior Court, Mr. Justice Penny, basically said that those kinds of claims were so unreal as to not even constitute a pressing and substantial reason under section 1 of the charter to limit the right to vote.

“Riding shopping” is not something that Elections Canada has ever seen as being a problem. All that happens at the moment is that multiple points of contact are available to increase the chances, the ease with which somebody from abroad can vote. The idea that there is something illicit going on when people choose to vote where their parents live versus choosing to vote where they last lived seems to me to be a spin that is designed to make this look palatable or necessary when there is actually no problem. There is no such thing as “riding shopping”, except perhaps in the minister's imagination.

It is important to clarify that when the minister talks about 40,000 non-citizens being on the register, this was brought to his attention—and I am glad that two years later he is acting upon it—by the Chief Electoral Officer. The new mechanism that would allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to allow Elections Canada access to the non-citizen database that CIC has would be great. However, it is important to note that we are talking about a fear, by error, that approximately that number of people are on the national register, not on what is, until this point in time, the international register. To get on the international register, one has to actually show one's citizenship.

It is a separate issue that would be dealt with in the bill, but it should not be confused with anything to do with a concern that non-citizens are voting from abroad. I fear that, unintentionally, the minister's emphasis on that could allow people to think this is what is going on. No, the issue is cleaning up the national register for people who are in Canada. That is fine. That one particular piece is a good thing in the bill.

I do feel duty-bound to note that Elections Canada was not consulted on this, except for the discussion a couple of years ago on the issue of trying to ensure non-citizens were removed from the national register where they appeared in error. That will probably prove to be a problem at the time of committee because we will probably hear some very detailed testimony from Elections Canada about many problems the bill would create.

As long as the minister is open, seriously open, to changing them, because these have not been foreseen because there has been no consultation, we might well end up with a productive committee process. If the minister thinks it has all been thought through and that whatever he hears from Elections Canada will not change his mind, then we will have a serious problem. What we will have, in effect, is the minister confirming that the intention here is to make it much more difficult to vote from abroad and that it is not just the unfortunate result of how the act was written.

Let me go to this issue that is the sleeper issue. It is the question of subsection 143(2.11). It is a new provision that would basically create a new prohibition on the Chief Electoral Officer. It says:

—the Chief Electoral Officer is not permitted to authorize...a type of identification that has been issued by an entity other than...a Canadian government, whether federal, provincial or local, or an agency of that government; and...an entity that is incorporated or formed by or under an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province or that is otherwise formed in Canada.

It is fairly complex wording.

The bottom line, as the minister made clear, is to ensure that ID only originates in Canada, essentially. That seems to be the general idea. The problem, however, is that it has been done in a way that might actually end up creating some serious administrative, and even more serious problems, in Canada.

This new prohibition, which is intended to deal with voters from abroad so they have to somehow produce Canadian-originated ID, is going to have an impact on everybody who shows up on election day in Canada.

What is the reason for that concern? First, “formed in Canada” is not a legally known concept and is not defined in the bill. The question of what an “entity formed in Canada” means is going to produce some serious problems in Elections Canada trying to scope it out, and then having that interpreted on election day by pressed election officials. We really need to ensure that this will be clear. Obviously the intention is probably that organizations like the CNIB are covered, and it is not just documents issued by corporations, for example, utilities bills, et cetera. However, the language is used in a way that is very unclear.

Here is an issue. Now a voter can use a Visa, Amex or MasteCard bill as one piece of ID to show an address. However, people could show up with it, and the deputy returning officer or the chief poll officer could look at it and ask if Visa is a company incorporated or formed in Canada, is there a Visa Canada and who has issued the document. The chance of that kind of minute questioning will be a problem, even if it seems farfetched. It will create serious workability problems. I know for a fact that Elections Canada is concerned about this extra burden and the mistakes that could be made.

The second thing is that it is not at all clear to me that private leases will be caught by this wording, as I asked in my question to the minister. The language is all about corporations, entities or government agencies. There is no scope there for a document that has effectively been issued by an individual, which is what private rental leases are. They are often a form of identification to prove address that students in university tend to use.

The bottom line is that this will create workability issues that I do not think the minister intended to create, but that we will hear about in committee from Elections Canada. The unworkability issue is major.

I am also concerned that some party scrutineers who now would be allowed to ask to inspect identification documents as a result of Bill C-23 would see these new rules as an opportunity to ask, more often than they should, for proof that this new provision has been met by whatever document has been presented by somebody showing up.

If somebody shows up with a Visa bill, somebody might ask the deputy returning officer if that is a document issued by an entity formed in Canada. Maybe it is a document issued by an entity doing business in Canada. We can imagine the opportunity for mischief that could occur.

I am being a bit like the minister in that I am looking down the line at what kind of abuse is possible. The minister looks in one place and I look in another. We have to talk about that.

In my remaining minutes, I want to talk about what everybody knows is a big concern. The big concern here is that the new requirements for citizens voting from abroad can be extremely onerous. They can produce delays that can result in ballots not arriving in time to be counted.

The primary problem is the requirement that voters have to register for each election, apply to receive their ballot or register, the same kind of thing collapsed into one, only once the writ has been dropped. People have to be aware that it has happened. They have to register quickly enough in order to ensure that all the mail can occur. As the minister has said, sending in their application, even if that is virtually, and receiving the special ballot and mailing it in and doing that from Dar es Salaam, New Delhi or Sydney, requires time.

There are all kinds of reasons to think that the way the mail service works or the way citizens abroad may be not be immediately on top of when a writ has been dropped could result in timelines that could be almost impossible to make. Currently, people can register in the international register at any time. However, I believe we will hear testimony from Elections Canada saying that currently when people wait to register until the election has been called, there is an increased incidence of the ballot not arriving in time.

A system has been created in this new bill whereby that problematic situation that we already know exists, for some who wait too long to register, get their ballots and mail them in, is now scripted as the only way. Therefore, the delay issue is huge.

We should also not underestimate the problem of ID. The longer people have been away, the chances that they have retained Canadian-issued IDs, apart from their passports, may go down dramatically. In some jurisdictions when people get local drivers' licences, they actually have to hand in their old drivers' licences. People who are hoarders, and have kept every ID they have ever had, may have no problem. However, with no notice, many of the two million Canadians already abroad may already have sort of jettisoned or lost the IDs that they now have to use.

They cannot rely on the Chief Electoral Officer to issue a list of acceptable foreign IDs that go along with proving people's addresses. Let us say people still have to prove their last known addresses in the way the bills wants, but they can use their passports and some foreign piece of ID as corroborating ID. The Chief Electoral Officer is not permitted to allow that, even though a foreign driver's licence is at least as good in proving who one is as a Canadian licence. It has nothing to do with the address, but it does with identity. Therefore, there are serious problems with actually producing two pieces of ID for some abroad that we have to take into account.

Let me now talk about vouching. The bill would get rid of the possibility that people could vote where they would have a strong connection to relatives and would focus only on people's last known addresses. The problem is they have to prove it affirmatively. If people do not have pieces of documentation saved, such as a driver's licence, which in New York state they have given up to the Americans, then they basically will have to rely on this new vouching provision.

The new vouching provision says that people have to provide proof of their last place of residence, so they would have to contact their neighbours and ask them if they remembered them when they were neighbours seven years ago. They would have to ask them to do this attestation. They would need a statutory declaration, see their IDs to prove they are voters, have them fill out a form, get the form back to them and then include it in their package in applying to vote. We can obviously see that the one big problem is the delay this will create. The need to have someone vouch for them within a 35-day election campaign period will already make it virtually impossible to meet that deadline.

The other issue is that all the same rules in Bill C-23 apply. A person cannot vouch for more than one individual. If a family of four living abroad can only find one neighbour who still lives where the family used to live and the neighbour lives alone, that neighbour can only vouch for one of them. The other three are out of luck.

Therefore, it is very clear that the issue of how the vouching system would work will not be as relatively easy as it is in Canada when somebody on election days goes with the person to vouch for him or her. The idea of saying that the rules are the same for those voting in Canada and those voting abroad is a very formalistic understanding of equality, because when the same rules are applied to very different circumstances, there is a serious disadvantage in complying with the rules. The committee will find example after example like this and the minister will really have to get his mind around them.

Let me give another example. Students going abroad to get their masters degrees or Ph.D.s quite often are heading off from a previous university. Now, sitting in London, Paris, or New York, they will have to prove that their last residences were in university towns and pretty much the only people who know that was the case are former students, who themselves have moved on. How will a proper vouching system be created for that particular case? It may sound like an imaginary issue, but it is not. When we think about students moving around internationally, they usually move from a university town or an address that they lived at to obtain their education.

What I would say is that in its result, Bill C-50 is a clear exercise in suppressing the votes of citizens abroad in a way that is diametrically opposite to the spirit of the Frank judgement, which the minister started out by invoking as the reason for these changes.

In sympathy for the minister and his illness today, as he seems to have the flu, I will not hit too hard any more, but I very much hope that he is not doing this intentionally in the bill. I also hope that, for once, we will be able to make serious changes at committee based on the evidence that there are problems with this bill.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we have been through this on a few occasions now, where we have talked about changes to the Canada Elections Act, and here we go once more.

I agree with 99% of his speech. However, one of the issues that I would like to address with him is the issue of coming into force. It states that it would come into force 60 days after royal assent. On top of Elections Canada getting used to the changes made in the former bill, Bill C-23, this will be a particularly hard thing to do, especially when we are dealing with outside entities, and especially with issue he brought up of the Canadian entity.

How do we get the poll clerks trained to the point where they are able to recognize that? It could result in the mass confusion he talked about. I am not sure if he addressed that issue, but could he address the coming into effect of this particular piece of this legislation?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely good question. In fact, I took the liberty of talking to Elections Canada about that specific issue, and I very much expect that its testimony will be that 60 days would be impossible. The transitional provisions of the act do say that it would go into effect 60 days after entering into force.

It is not just an issue of th poll clerks across the country having to be trained, but the central staff at Elections Canada in Ottawa that would be receiving the applications from citizens abroad. They are in a better, more concentrated position to pass judgement on the identity documents that are coming in, but even they would need to do this accurately and take the time to do it within a very limited period.

I personally believe, and I believe that Elections Canada confirmed it during my discussions with them, that the 60 days is completely unworkable.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to summarize what was said in somewhat simpler terms. I have many friends who moved to other countries to go to school or to work for Canadian companies located outside Canada. After this bill passes, I will have to call those friends and tell them that if they want to vote in the next election, they need to start preparing now, or else they unfortunately will not be able to vote.

I think that is going to cause quite a lot of stress for people who live in a country where they do not speak the language or do not have the necessary knowledge because they have not lived there long enough. It is truly ridiculous for the Government of Canada to treat citizens like that, regardless of whether they live in Canada or not.

Other members mentioned how students are already dealing with fairly high levels of stress. They will have to start thinking about preparing all those documents now. They do not have a driver's licence and cannot get a Canadian health card because they no longer live in the country. Where does that leave them?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would be a really good idea to warn friends and students to be prepared, as my colleague said.

However, no one can register until an election is called. People can have their identification ready, but they cannot register.

Furthermore, it is not clear whether we can contact people in advance to ask them to swear that a certain individual was in a certain riding and sign an attestation. The bill is not clear on whether that can be done in advance. It may be that we have to wait until the election is called. There are some real obstacles, and this should be clear to the minister. I do not know why these obstacles exist.

In the United States, for instance, people have to register every year. However, people can do it on January 1 every year, whereas here you have to wait five years, or until the election is called. It makes no sense.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to my colleague's exposition of the law, and it bothers me tremendously to know that even though we have a fixed election date and the law now says that the next election will be on October 19, even if we wanted to ensure that at each election we had a fresh voters list for Canadians living abroad, surely the doors could be open now.

How many people do we estimate would have to register and be processed and do all of those things within the 35 days of a writ? What possible reason could there be for not starting that process on January 1 of an election year under the fixed election law?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know from the court case and from some other testimony that the government alone believes that 1.4 million or 1.5 million Canadians would potentially be enfranchised by getting rid of the five-year rule.

In terms of those of the right age who would have the right to vote and would be added to this—beyond the military and diplomats, et cetera, who are excluded from the provisions of all this—let us say that the court in the Frank case said that it was at least a million, that does not mean that people would want to vote or would try to register. However, the fact of the matter is that it is a right to vote and if someone has that degree of connection to Canada that they want to vote, then a certain percentage of that one million people would be what we are dealing with.

The idea of shoving all of this into the campaign period and overburdening Elections Canada makes no sense. Contrast that to France, which has gone out of its way in recent years to make it easier and easier for citizens abroad to vote. They can do it postally. They can vote by Internet now, and they can also go to one of over 700 locations around the world to physically vote. France does it three different ways to make it as easy as possible.

While France is trying to make it as easy as possible, the government here is going in the opposite direction, in the name of some kind of weird set of principles that have no application to any known mischief or problem.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on Bill C-50.

Does the member believe the government's claims that this bill comes in response to the Ontario Superior Court decision in Frank et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada, which specifically addressed paragraph 11(d) of the Canada Elections Act, or is it simply a way for the government to try to change the law on the pretext that it really is a response to the Superior Court decision?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ironically, it is indeed a response.

However, it is a response that goes against the decision. It aims to fix things ahead of a confirmation from the Ontario Court of Appeal, or perhaps even the Supreme Court.

It was a very reasoned decision, and I think the government's chances of winning the appeal are no more than 5%. This response confirms that from now on, people will have the right to vote even if they have been outside Canada for five years. The government does not want it to be too easy.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, to begin I would like to seek unanimous consent to share my time.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Does the member have unanimous consent, as this is the first round of debate, to share his time with another member?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Who is the member you will be sharing your time with?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

To the consternation of my colleagues, I was not attempting a bait and switch there. I apologize, but I am sure that members have the deepest respect for the member for Ottawa—Vanier, as I and his constituents do.

I want to start by saying many of the points have been brought out already, and by way of background I want to say that I am a firm believer in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, where in section 3 it says everyone has a right to vote, providing they are a Canadian citizen and 18 years of age or over. The bill raises a lot of questions as to stifling that ability, and that is why I have questions. As another colleague pointed out, obviously with the majority in the House, this bill will end up going to committee, assuming that all members of the governing party vote in favour of this, and when it goes to committee, serious amendments should be sought. I mean serious.

There is one instance where it is positive. The rest, however, raises many questions, and as my colleague pointed out, may result in some chaos, certainly in the administration of our elections, regarding electors outside of the country temporarily or permanently.

I want to talk about some of the things in Bill C-50. I will get to the Frank decision in just a few moments, but first of all, I want to talk about eliminating the register of electors who temporarily reside outside of Canada and incorporating the information found in it into the register of electors. Basically there is a harmonization process that is going on with the process of special balloting.

When we hear Conservatives and the minister, in particular, talk about the same set of rules for both, a lot is being missed, in the sense that the circumstances are different either way. Remember that what is tantamount or most important is not the administration of this and the efficiency of the administration of this. What is most important is that nobody's rights are violated by denying them the right to vote, which is what people talked about with Bill C-23 and now Bill C-50 regarding the suppression of vote. That is the absence of any accusations of that being the intent.

Nevertheless, there is a level of suppression that is a continuation of what we had last, from vouching now to this, not to mention what the voter information card dismissal brought about in the last round of legislation.

The bill would require Canadian electors who reside abroad to apply for registration and a special ballot after the writs are issued at each federal election, stipulating that electors may only receive a special ballot for the address at which they last resided in Canada.

There are a couple of things here. What made it easier in the past was that people could register to vote living outside the country. Now they could only do it when the writ is dropped, and as pointed out before, the time period is of the essence here. The time period would become so narrow. Again these are special circumstances where voters live outside of the country, so we are making it particularly hard for them to do that, in light of the fact that they do have the right to vote.

The bill would require an external auditor to report on election workers, compliance with special ballot voting, procedure, and requirements for every election, and add the offences of attempting to vote by special ballot while knowing that one is not qualified to vote. It refers to electors temporarily residing outside of Canada, electors residing in Canada improperly attesting to the residence of more than one elector, and attesting to the residence of an elector when one's own residence has been attested to.

What we look at here is that we know the government wants to cut down on election fraud. We have heard all this before. It does not want to send a ballot to an address outside of Canada that could be picked up by a non-Canadian citizen. At the same time, we are reverting to a previous argument. The theme is a solution that is looking for a problem. Once again we find it within Bill C-50.

One thing that was brought about in the bill—and I will get to this right now because we agree with it—is authorizing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information to help the CEO to delete the names of non-citizens from the register of electors.

We grant that it is a process that should be done and should be looked at. Virtually everyone in the House would agree that this is the type of measure that should be taken for the sharing of information to make sure we can exercise our right to vote.

The history behind people outside of the country being allowed to vote goes back to the First World War. The soldiers who fought valiantly for us while overseas were given the right to vote. That is a natural extension of being a Canadian and living in the country that we do, which is so great and wonderful. That extension still applies. There are extensions for people who work for the Government of Canada, whether they work for the military or several embassies around the world, to be able to vote as they would if they were residing in this country.

The question I have, and it has yet to be answered, is with respect to the families, particularly spouses or partners, who are eligible to vote but face different rules than do the people who are employed by the Government of Canada. That is problematic because they have to go through the process of re-registering every five years and the others do not. Therefore, there are different rules applying to two different people who are living in the same residence in another country for the same reason. I hope that some of the amendments would address this issue as we get closer to looking at it in committee.

In 1993, the rules were changed further to allow more people the right to vote. However, we again had the five-year rule that if they had been outside of the country for more than five years they were not eligible to vote, which is their right, despite the fact they are above the age of 18 and Canadian citizens. The Frank decision recently decided that was not good because it denies those Canadian citizens above the age of 18 who happen to reside outside of Canada, whether long or short term, the ability to exercise their right to vote under the Constitution.

In looking at the Frank et al decision, I see that section 3 of the charter states:

Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

The Frank decision posed this to the government to take action. However, there is some confusion in Bill C-50 as to whether that was done. I am not a constitutional expert, but in reading it I have yet to square it as to where the vote of these people who are more than five years outside the country has been protected, because it is not protected at all. I think an administrative nightmare has been created for many of them to do that. In the past they could register once they were outside the country. They cannot do that anymore. They have to wait for the writ to be dropped. That puts them in a tricky situation as far as timelines are concerned. I understand there are some online mechanisms that the minister has pointed to that would remedy this, but by the same token there is still that process.

The verification of signatures for those people outside of the country appears to be absent from this, or I have yet to see it. I hope the minister can clarify the situation. That qualification is no longer there. It would have made it easier to identify and verify those people based on two signatures, one on the ballot and one on the application form, and that would have gone a long way toward helping Elections Canada. That is something we have to look at.

I would also like to talk about vote shopping. The government has stated on several occasions that vote shopping is a problem. For those Canadians who are not aware of what vote shopping is, in its base form, those people can choose the riding in which they want to vote. However, Elections Canada has never stated that it was a big problem or that there was too much abuse and the law had to be changed. I again go back to the theme that it was a solution looking for a problem. Unfortunately, it would impede their ability to vote; it would impede their right under section 3 of the charter. Therefore, in looking at this, we see the government wants to cut down on an abuse that we are not sure existed to any extent, by making it problematic for those who want to legitimately vote in the riding they left when leaving Canada. That raises many questions.

My final point is with respect to this coming into force in only 60 days. I cannot see how Elections Canada can administer all of these rules in that 60-day period.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member opposite prefaced his speech with the comment about bait and switch.

My question is twofold. First of all, does he not see a problem with 40,000 electors on the list not being Canadian citizens? With respect to his last remarks on vote shopping, does he not see the potential for abuse, and perhaps existing abuse, wherein a number of foreign nationals decide to cluster into one riding and cast all of their ballots there?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member may have misunderstood the first point, because we actually agree with the first point. I think what she is getting at is the data sharing with immigration. She used the figure 40,000 and I do agree with that. That is a valid point. Information sharing with Citizenship and Immigration Canada is necessary.

With respect to the second part of her question about accumulating votes into one riding based on what is outside, that is news to me. I did not know that existed and I am wondering if the hon. member could rise in the House and let me know what riding that is.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be good to follow up on the point about ganging up to try to swing ridings somehow or other. The number of citizens abroad who actually vote suggests that is unlikely to ever be effective, if it ever occurred. Elections Canada will confirm in testimony that it has never seen any organized effort, ever, to try to channel votes to particular ridings using the flexibility that currently exists in the Canada Elections Act to vote where one has a specific number of relatives. It is a fictional concern. The member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor put it well to say it is a solution in search of a problem.

Could the member tell me what the big problem is with the current flexibility? If individuals are away from Canada, what says that the last place they happened to live is their most meaningful link to a country? Why would there be this geographic fixation? If students live abroad, is it not just as meaningful to say that where their parents currently live is a valid place for them to exercise their valid right to vote as a citizen?

We are not going to go to the wall to say that the current flexibility of the list should stay, but the fact of the matter is that it is not as if it were an abuse problem either.

I wonder if my colleague could comment.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the clarification and also for talking about the flexibility within the system.

There seems to be an exercise where that flexibility is being cut at every corner, so it therefore becomes an exercise of blaming them for voter suppression. Suppressed votes will be a result of what the government feels are administrative fixes.

What is the government's responsibility? A government is responsible for allowing a person to vote if that individual is 18 years or over and a Canadian citizen. There are special circumstances for people who live outside of Canada. Therefore in this situation, if they have an attachment to where they came from last, their home, then obviously they should be allowed to vote there. I would not want to give people the right to go all over the country and choose whatever riding they want. Nobody does. In its press release, Elections Canada did not describe that as a problem. I am at a loss to find out how people can gang up, go into a particular riding, and overturn the results based on people living outside the country who get to choose whatever riding they want. That is not their intent either. The flexibility allows these people to exercise their right under section 3.

The second part is the lack of time Elections Canada would have to adjust itself to the new realities in light of the fact that it also has to deal with the realities of what was Bill C-23. It is impossible now for Elections Canada to do this. If the government wants to fix administratively what is happening with Elections Canada and give it some help, then it needs to give Elections Canada some time.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for sharing his time and my colleagues in the House for unanimously agreeing to let him do so.

I have some questions about the bill. I happen to represent a riding where possibly one of the higher number of electors abroad cast ballots, given the fact that Foreign Affairs and National Defence headquarters, and many public servants, are in the riding. I have had a number of people write to me from abroad asking, “What gives?”

The first thing I need to understand, and I hope the government would offer a rationale for this, is that it used to be that Canadians living abroad beyond five years could not vote unless they were members of the Canadian Armed Forces, public servants working abroad, or Canadian citizens working for an international organization of which Canada was a member, such as NATO or the United Nations. They and their families could keep voting if they had been there for longer than five years.

Two students in the United States wanted to vote in the last general election and could not, because they had been abroad for more than five years and were not part of the forces, were not public servants, and were not working for an international organization that Canada is a member of, so they were not allowed to vote. They challenged that in court. That is the decision we heard referred to this morning, Frank et al. v. AG Canada. I have read it, and I will quote a couple of paragraphs from it in my presentation.

The reason I am bringing this up is that the distinction that remains standing in Bill C-50 is the Canadian Forces. They will be able to continue voting, as they did before, but their spouses and families, and certainly public servants and Canadian citizens working for international organizations, will not.

I have had two people write to me who are working as interpreters for NATO. They are Canadian citizens, and they are concerned now, because the rules under which they used to be able to vote would not apply if the bill were adopted.

What is the rationale for limiting this to the Canadian Forces and restricting, through Bill C-50's measures, the rest of Canadian citizens who used to be able to vote even if they were abroad for longer than five years? That needs to be explained.

I will quote two paragraphs from the decision, because I think they may indicate the nature of the debate here. The magnitude of the vote is not all that much. In paragraph 113 of the decision, it states:

I am equally troubled by the notion of what is or is not “fair” to the resident majority of voters. Substantive “fairness” is almost always in the eye of the beholder. To put the issue in context, since the Special Voting Rules were implemented in 1993, a vastly smaller number of non-resident Canadian citizens have exercised their right to vote than expected. Elections Canada estimated at the time that approximately 2,000,000 Canadians were living abroad and planned for 200,000 registrations. In the election that followed, a little over 15,000 special ballots were requested and issued. Over the next several general elections, the number of external ballots issued ranged from a low of 10,733 (in 2011) to a high of 19,230 (in 2000). In the most recent election, in the ten Canadian ridings with the highest number of special ballots, as a percentage of total registered electors in the constituency, the non-resident votes ranged from a low of 0.05% to a high of 0.2%. Also in that election, Elections Canada reported that barely 6,000 votes were recorded from international electors, compared to approximately 26,000 votes from Canadian Forces electors and almost 15,700 votes from incarcerated electors.

The other paragraph I will quote is paragraph 114.

This is comes from the government in its presentation of arguments.

The second objective, concerns over electoral fraud, while less vague than the first, is subject to the same frailties. In this case, the government has failed to identify any particular problem with non-resident voter fraud or of non-resident voting causing an undue drain on Parliamentary resources. Indeed, the only evidence of these concerns at all comes from the speculation of a political science professor teaching at the University of Buffalo - State University of New York, who opines that an increase in non-resident voting “could,” “may” or “might” give rise to concerns in the future. The available evidence from Elections Canada is that there are no documented problems associated with non-resident voting.

The reason I brought these up is that the numbers also show quite clearly that 6,000 of two million non-resident Canadians voted versus 26,000 Canadian Forces members. I am wondering if that is part of the rationale with respect to the first question I asked. It would be good for Canadians to know that.

Also, as has been brought up a number of times, there is the matter of delays. It is true that if 36 days, which is the span of an election, is the time that triggers when one can register, it will cause significant problems. One has to wonder if indeed that is not a way of suppressing votes that would otherwise be more likely to be cast. The question asked by a colleague of the member for Toronto—Danforth is quite accurate. Given that we now have a fixed election date law, why can Canadians who are resident abroad who want to vote not start registering now? If the law says that the election is going to be on October 19, 2015, then it would help Elections Canada, it would help voters, and it would help declared registered candidates. They would be able to approach these folks in terms of trying to convince them to vote one way or the other. Why not now, as opposed to once the writ is dropped? That to me is troubling, and I would like to hear the rationale for that, too.

Finally, there is a question about the last address. Why would people have to register every election, when they did not have to before? I am wondering about that. If they are part of the registry, and nothing has changed in their citizenship and so forth, why must they always re-register, and with the same address? What happens if they have lived in an apartment building that is now demolished and the address does not exist anymore? Will they be able to register if the address does not exist anymore? If the apartment building is gone and all their neighbours are gone, how will they get someone to ascertain that they were indeed living there? It is going to be difficult.

I wonder to what extent the Conservatives might be open to amendments to this kind of provision, because I do not believe they have thought things through completely.

Finally, a number of us in this room have been declared candidates for our respective parties. I have always tried to send some material to Canadians residing abroad who are eligible to vote. If that registry no longer exists, and if they cannot register until the writ is dropped, then obviously, the local candidates, of whatever party, will have a difficult time communicating with these Canadian citizens who are eligible to vote, presumably, but who may be in the midst of trying to register. Therefore, we would have no idea of how to communicate with them, and voters will not have any idea of who the local candidates are.

All of these are issues of some concern. I have received, again, a number of complaints from constituents who are Canadian citizens who would vote abroad, and I hope that these will be answered either here by the minister or in committee, either by the government or by Elections Canada. These are serious matters, and if they are not answered, I would think we would not be able to support such a bill.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has long been defending Canadians' right to vote, whether they live in Canada or abroad.

In February 2014, my colleague from Halifax took the initiative and introduced Bill C-575 in order to extend the right to vote to all Canadians living abroad.

Does the Liberal member agree with the NDP that Canadian citizens living abroad should have the right to vote?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the NDP that feels that way. I believe that all parties, except for the Bloc Québécois, are in agreement.

In 2006, the issue was raised at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which tabled a report recommending the abolition of the five-year rule. This report was supported by all members of the committee, except the Bloc Québécois members. The New Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives all agreed in 2006.

In fact, it is no surprise that the judge declared this law to be ultra vires given that even parliamentarians were in agreement.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I would follow up on the answer just given by my colleague for Ottawa—Vanier.

Back in 2006, when there was agreement by all parties to change this rule, the government of the day then replied to say, “Let us not do this immediately”. It was something along the lines of having to do a comprehensive study of the special voting rules to do this.

Now, 10 years later, I am not aware that any such study was ever done, let alone one involving any committee of the House. Is my colleague from Vanier aware of a study?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that it was never done. Indeed, the government responded as my colleague for Toronto—Danforth said. It did not refuse it, but it did not accept it at the time. The government wanted to submit it to a detailed overall study, which should have been done, but it has not been done. That is why we ended up with the Frank et al. court decision, which the government has appealed and has tried to suspend the implementation of. That might give members a sense of where the government is situated on that.

More proof is contained in Bill C-50. If the questions we have asked are not answered, and if the rationale is not forthcoming, transparent, and real, then I think the concept of some sort of selective voter suppression might indeed be at the root of Bill C-50, and that would make it totally unacceptable.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can make no sense of the bill. Why erect such barriers? What possible motives could the government have if not to suppress the vote?

Does my colleague have a more charitable interpretation of the government's motives than the most obvious one?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a more charitable interpretation.

I asked for an explanation of the rationale behind these measures. Why not continue to allow our public servants, Canadian citizens who work for international organizations of which we are members, and their families to vote as easily as the members of the Canadian Forces?

We have to know the rationale. If there is no justifiable, transparent and fair rationale, then the only possible conclusion is that there is indeed something fishy going on and the government has other hidden intentions that must be exposed.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the citizen voting act, which was introduced by my colleague, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

Our government has a strong record of democratic reform. We ended the per-vote subsidy. We made the House of Commons more representative with the Fair Representation Act. Most recently, we closed loopholes for big money, ensured that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, and made it harder to break election laws with the Fair Elections Act. All of these initiatives have strengthened Canada's democracy and reinforced confidence in our electoral system.

Today I am very pleased to discuss our government's latest democratic reform initiative, the citizen voting act. The bill would ensure that everyone who votes is a Canadian citizen, and it would require voters living abroad to follow the ID rules set out in the Fair Elections Act.

Specifically, the citizen voting act would ensure that only Canadians vote in federal elections by requiring proof of citizenship from everyone voting in federal elections while abroad. This would not apply to Canadian Forces members.

Second, the bill would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to cross-reference the National Register of Electors with Citizenship and Immigration data to remove non-citizens from the voters list.

Third, the bill would put an end to the possibility of riding shopping by ensuring that non-residents receive a ballot only for the Canadian address at which they last resided.

Fourth, the bill would apply the same voter identification rules to all Canadians. Under the Fair Elections Act, Canadians living inside the country must prove who they are and where they live. Canadians support this requirement, and that is why the citizen voting act would expand it further to residents living abroad.

Finally, the bill would create one set of rules for voting from outside the country. Anyone voting while abroad, whether temporarily, on vacation, or permanently, will need to apply for a ballot in the same way and follow the same rules.

Given the limited time that I have today to discuss the citizen voting act, I am going to focus on a couple of items. First, I will focus on riding shopping.

Currently the Canada Elections Act permits non-resident voters to choose the riding that they vote in. They can select from one of four options. First, they can choose their last place of ordinary residence. Second, they can choose the address of a spouse, a relative, or a relative of a spouse. Third, they can choose the address of a dependent. Fourth, they can choose the address of someone with whom they would live if not residing outside of Canada.

Voters living in Canada do not have such flexibility. They must vote where they live at the time of an election. They cannot choose the riding in which they want their vote to be counted, and justly so.

Geographic representation is an essential characteristic of our electoral process. Canadians in each electoral district elect the candidate who they feel will best represent their interests and those of the community. Particularly in this vast country of ours, territorial-based representation ensures that diverse communities are represented in the House of Commons.

I am sure members may think that when an expatriate voter chooses his or her riding, proof of past residence is required. However, they would be wrong: Canadians living abroad are not required to provide proof to Elections Canada of their last Canadian residence. By stipulating that a non-resident voter's last place of residence in Canada would be their residence for voting purposes, the citizen voting act would end the unfair option of riding shopping and standardize the rules for resident and non-resident voters. This would ensure that each voter has a direct and meaningful connection to the riding in which he or she is voting.

I would now like to turn to the issue of voter identification.

The citizen voting act would ensure that Canadians living abroad would follow the same rules as those living in Canada. The bill would build on the Fair Elections Act by requiring Canadians voting by mail—both residents and non-residents—to include proof of identity and residence in their application for a special ballot. This requirement is similar to the rules set out in the Fair Elections Act.

The Fair Elections Act, adopted last June, contained important measures to reinforce the integrity of the vote by strengthening ID rules. According to Ipsos Reid, in April 2014, when debate about the Fair Elections Act was at its height, 87% of those polled agreed that it is reasonable to require someone to provide proof of identity and address before being allowed to vote. The citizen voting act would make this requirement consistent for all Canadians, both resident and non-resident.

The same three ID options for voting at the polls would apply to those applying to vote by mail: either a government-issued photo identification with the name or address; or two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, one with address and both with name; or two pieces of authorized identification with name and an oath or declaration of residence that is attested to by another properly identified elector.

In the case of non-residents, the attestation process would enable them to provide proof of their last residence in Canada by an oath or declaration. The person providing an attestation would be a fully proven resident or non-resident qualified to vote in the same electoral district as the person applying for the special ballot.

To account for the potential difficulty that non-residents might face in obtaining an attestation as to their former residence in Canada, the citizen voting act would allow the attestor for the previous residence of a non-resident to be qualified to vote in the same electoral district not to be of the same polling division. This is a slight variation to the attestation process for Canadians voting at the poll that was introduced by the Fair Elections Act.

A non-resident Canadian applying for a special ballot must also provide, in addition to his or her own identification proving his or her identity, copies of identification providing the identity and residence of the person providing the attestation.

Standardizing the voter identification requirements for resident and non-resident Canadians removes preferential treatment for one group of voters over another and obviously just makes sense.

Our government recognizes the unique circumstances of members of the Canadian Forces. A completely separate set of rules found in division 2 of part 11 of the Canada Elections Act governs their voting procedures. Canadian Forces members serving abroad can vote at the location they are stationed, and the citizen voting act would not affect those rules.

In conclusion, our government remains committed to ensuring that our electoral system meets the needs of voters, both in Canada and abroad. The amendments being made by the citizen voting act are necessary to ensure the fairness of the electoral process and to ensure that one set of rules applies to all Canadians.

To summarize, the bill would strengthen Canada's election laws by, first, ensuring only Canadian citizens vote in federal elections; second, putting an end to the possibility of riding shopping; third, applying the same identification rules to all Canadians; and fourth, creating one set of rules for voting from outside the country.

These important advancements will bring greater accountability, integrity, and accessibility to Canada's fundamental democratic process. These are common sense legislative changes, so I would encourage all members to support the citizen voting act.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

However, I did not hear him mention that the government held consultations on drafting such a bill.

I have a very direct question for him: who was consulted? Was Elections Canada consulted by the minister responsible when the bill was being drafted? What was their response? What information did the government obtain and receive and what other consultations were held to draft this bill? What facts and figures did it obtain? In short, what consultations were held, specifically with Elections Canada?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, we spent all last spring talking about the Fair Elections Act. That was a piece of legislation that Minister of State for Democratic Reform brought forward that was heavily consulted on by the previous Minister of State for Democratic Reform and by members of Parliament on this side of the House.

As part of that consultation, I heard from a number of my own constituents with respect to the procedures for voting abroad. I am very lucky in my constituency, in that there is a big retirement community. Many of these constituents spend time in different parts of the world in the winter, and I had the occasion last April to speak with them about what we see in this legislation today.

When we bring forward changes to the voting procedures for all Canadians, we do so in a way that reflects the broader Canadian attitude that elections must be fair and must represent the core Canadian values of honesty and respect for Canadian law.

In doing so, we would not only speak to Canadians but with the Chief Electoral Officer. Debating this today is part of that consultation. We are hearing what the opposition would say with respect to this bill, and in committee we will also flesh out the different parts of the bill a little bit more.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, would the member explain why the bill would treat Canadian citizens working for the Government of Canada as public servants abroad differently from the military?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is because our public servants working abroad are not the Canadian military. They actually are different from the Canadian military.

That is not to suggest that the work that is done by our public servants around the world is not very important work. At the same time, we know that when public servants are sent abroad, they are often stationed there for a specific amount of time and know the length of time they will be there, unlike members of the Canadian Armed Forces. As the member would know from his own constituency, a lot of the time they maintain a Canadian residence when working abroad.

I suggest to the member that Canadian Forces members have circumstances much different from those of the great public service we have. When Canadian Forces members are in Canada, they move around a lot within Canada too. Therefore, to compare Canadian Forces members with the broader public service does a disservice to the Canadian Forces but at the same time does a disservice to the very professional men and women of the Canadian public service, who, as part of their service, also like to maintain consistency and connection with the communities they come from.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, following up on the question just asked, I am wondering whether the bill would exclude the families of Canadian Forces from the special rules that continue to apply to the Canadian Forces and how that would be rationalized.

Second, what conceivable justification is there for creating such a short window for applying for a special ballot, receiving it, and then voting? What would be the problem in allowing registration well in advance of an election or, as the Americans do, from day one each year? On January 1, Americans can register for whatever elections are coming up that year. What would be the problem in having that system?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the member bring that forward at committee for greater debate.

As we know, once the writ is dropped, people living abroad or who find themselves outside of Canada have the ability to go online immediately and begin the process of applying for ballots. That can happen almost immediately. I suggest to the member opposite that 36 days is enough time for people to go online, start the process, and then receive ballots, but that is something that can be discussed at committee. I believe it is long enough, but I am willing to hear from experts who might think that 36 days is just not enough time.

The main goal of this legislation is to make sure that people are allowed to vote. It is consistent with what we see in other western democracies, and I think it is what Canadians, by and large, would expect: that the people receiving ballots and voting in elections are entitled to do so. That is what the citizen voting act, in addition to the Fair Elections Act, would ensure.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for the great eastern Ontario riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to the citizen voting act.

When it comes to elections, I am pleased to confirm that I have successfully earned the confidence of the people for the last five general elections. It is with gratitude and humility that I thank the electors of my riding for the honour and the privilege of serving them in this place. As members know, the people are always right. I look forward to being given the privilege of continuing to represent the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke after the next general election.

Our government has a long list of important accomplishments, including the bill before us today. I congratulate the Minister of State for Democratic Reform for the excellent job he is doing on behalf of all Canadians. I look forward to working with him for many years to come.

This important bill would ensure that everyone who votes in federal elections is a Canadian citizen, and would require Canadians living abroad to follow the same ID rules as those voting from home. It would also fill a void created in the aftermath of the Ontario Superior Court decision in Frank v. Attorney General of Canada, which struck down the long-standing rules on voting while living abroad.

The citizen voting act would build upon our government's ongoing commitment to strengthen the fairness and integrity of our electoral laws. The commitment started from the time we were first elected to government when we brought into law a series of reforms to clean up the stench of corruption, which Canadians refer to as the “sponsorship scandal”.

Unfortunately, Canadians may never find out what happened to the millions of dollars that were stuffed into envelopes, to be secretly passed to Liberal candidates to subvert the democratic process.

Since 2006, we have brought forward common-sense changes that protect Canadian democracy. One does not have to look too far back to recall the Fair Elections Act, which introduced important reforms that require proof of identity and residence to cast a ballot in federal elections.

Our government is committed to treating both resident and non-resident voters fairly and equally. That is why the citizen voting act would make important reforms to the voting-by-mail procedures and would make the process fairer and more consistent. The bill would also address unfair inconsistencies in the special ballot voting system.

I would first like to take a few moments to explain the relationship between the citizen voting act and the ongoing litigation regarding non-resident voting in Ontario.

In May 2014, the Ontario Superior Court, in Frank v. Attorney General of Canada, struck down the legal requirement that, in order to vote in federal elections, citizens residing outside Canada must have done so for less than five consecutive years and have the intention to return to Canada.

For the benefit of those constituents of mine who are currently serving their country abroad as members of the Canadian Armed Forces, I am pleased to confirm that the ruling did not apply to their unique situation and will continue not to apply their service out of country. In the last federal election, my riding received the highest number of non-resident votes in the country, in no small part due to the significant number of women and men from Base Petawawa that is located in my riding. I thank them for their support. I will always watch their backs to ensure that they have the necessary equipment to do whatever their country calls upon them to do.

As a result of the Ontario court ruling, Canadians residing abroad are now able to vote in federal elections, regardless how long they have resided outside Canada, so long as they have lived in Canada at some point.

For over two decades, Canadian law limited, to five years, the length of time someone can be abroad and still vote.

For over two decades, Canadian law limited to five years the length of time someone can be abroad and still vote. We continue to believe that this is fair and reasonable and that non-residents should have a direct and meaningful connection to Canada and to their ridings to vote in federal elections. That is why our government has appealed the Ontario court ruling. Here it is important to make clear that the citizen voting act does not make any substantive changes to the provisions at issue in the Frank litigation. Our government will leave the resolution of the constitutionality of those sections to the courts.

I will now turn to the substance of the citizen voting act. The bill proposes important reforms to the vote-by-mail process that would strengthen its integrity and fairness. Specifically, it would ensure that only Canadian citizens vote in federal elections by requiring all voters applying for a mail-in ballot from outside Canada to provide proof of their Canadian citizenship.

Further, it would authorize the Chief Electoral Officer to obtain information from Citizenship and Immigration Canada that would allow Elections Canada to remove the names of non-citizens from the voters list, or to ensure that non-citizens are not added in the first place. It would put an end to the possibility of riding shopping by stipulating that non-residents can only receive a ballot for the last address at which they resided in Canada, and that they must present proof of that prior residence.

We must apply the same voter identification rules to all Canadians by requiring that everyone voting by mail include in their application proof of identity and residence consistent with the Fair Elections Act. It would create one set of rules for voting from outside the country.

Finally, it would require the Chief Electoral Officer to carry out an audit of special ballot voting after every election.

I will begin by focusing on what I think are the most important measures of the citizen voting act, the proposals that would ensure that only Canadian citizens vote in federal elections.

The National Register of Electors, or the NRE, is Canada's permanent database of qualified electors. It is intended to include only those who are eligible to vote in federal elections, those being Canadian citizens aged 18 and over.

I think we can all agree that the accuracy of the NRE is what is vital to the integrity and the fairness of Canadian elections. That is important to our Conservative government. However, its accuracy is only as good as the data that supports it. Elections Canada estimates that there are approximately 40,000 non-citizens currently on the National Register of Electors. That means that 40,000 non-citizens could receive voter information cards telling them to vote, even though they are not qualified to do so.

To deal with this unsettling issue, the citizens voting act authorizes my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information of persons who are not Canadian citizens, including their name, gender, date of birth, and addresses. This would allow Elections Canada to cross-reference the names on the NRE and delete names that are not Canadian citizens.

Let me be clear. This would not be a one-time clean-up of the voters list. The new authority would allow Elections Canada to periodically request information from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to make sure that the list remains up to date. The purpose is clear, to not to allow 40,000 non-citizens to end up back on the National Register of Electors in the years to come.

The bill also makes an important change to require anyone applying to vote by mail from outside Canada to prove Canadian citizenship. Since proof of citizenship is required when travelling abroad, Canadians temporarily outside the country during an election would not be adversely affected by this change. I think we can all agree that this is reasonable practice and should be a part of Canada's election laws.

Collectively, these are important changes that would help prevent non-citizens from voting and should be supported.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech.

I get the impression that her speech is rather partisan and that she is trying to change some rules and consider demographic data that, according to the government's studies, would be advantageous to her. I cannot help but wonder, when they talk about riding shopping, if there is a credible and objective source—obviously not the Conservatives' research—that talks about riding shopping in Canada. In any case, I have not seen one.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this is fairness and equality for all Canadian voters. When a voter goes outside Canada for a vacation, they are required to prove their place of residence, as is every Canadian still living in Canada and not vacationing outside the country. When they go to the voters booth, they have to prove where they live. This is making it equal and fair so that people who no longer live in Canada do the same.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was rather surprised by the tone of my colleague's speech. She was not able to give a single example of riding shopping, as she called it. I will take that to mean that she has none.

Take, for example, a Canadian citizen working abroad for the Government of Canada or for the armed forces. This worker's family will obviously move with her. Does the member realize that under this existing bill, this woman and her husband would have different rules for voting in the same election? It would be much easier for her, as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, but her husband or her children over the age of 18 would have to follow a different procedure to vote.

Does the member realize that this bill will create a two-tier system for members of the same family living abroad? Some of them will have to go through such a long and tedious process that they may decide not to vote, while others, in the same family, will have a much easier time voting.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a completely different set of rules contained in division 2, part 11 of the Canada Elections Act provides comprehensive procedures for voting by Canadian Armed Forces at locations where they are stationed. This reflects the unique circumstances faced by Canadian Armed Forces personnel. Someone who is a family member can register online and go through the mail process quite easily.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Conservative colleague's speech.

I still have to wonder why the government did not consider the bill introduced by my colleague from Halifax. This bill would have fixed a lot of the problems we are discussing today. If my Conservative colleague had listened to the comments and questions from Liberal and New Democrat members, she surely would have seen that we think the bill creates more problems than it fixes, while the bill introduced by my colleague from Halifax would fix a number of problems, in my opinion.

Has the member read Bill C-575, introduced by my colleague from Halifax?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite referred to a question by his colleagues who are Liberals. I think the member for Ottawa—Vanier did ask a valid question in wanting to know what would happen if the former place or address of a Canadian citizen now living abroad was demolished. That person can submit an expired driver's licence showing that address, or any passports with that address, or they can scan any bill and submit it with their application online.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will share my time with my colleague from Chambly—Borduas, who will also talk to us about Bill C-50.

As the deputy critic for democratic and parliamentary reform, I am honoured to speak today and to have the opportunity to work with my esteemed colleague from Toronto—Danforth, supporting him on a number of files. I also thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for all of the work she has done over the past few years as the deputy critic for democratic and parliamentary reform. I also thank her team, Jean-François and Myriam, who work extremely hard. I will have the opportunity to work with them again in the future.

It is an honour for me to rise to speak to Bill C-50, but it is also a disappointment. Instead of making it easier for people to exercise their right to vote in Canada, this bill attempts to make it more difficult. That is the opposite of what we should be doing as a country. The government should be encouraging people to vote and making it easier for them to vote, whether they reside in Canada or are Canadian citizens residing abroad. The bill before us today will make it even more difficult for Canadian citizens residing abroad to exercise their right to vote.

This is out of step with what other countries are doing. Some of my colleagues gave examples of countries where, rather than making it harder to vote, they are making voting easier and more enjoyable, especially for the younger generation, who are voting less and less. Voter turnout for young people aged 18 to 25 has been between 30% and 40% in some elections. That is very low, and it means that over half of young people do not go to the ballot box to exercise their right to vote. Instead of making it harder, the government should be working on making it easier and more appealing for all Canadians to exercise their right to vote.

Bill C-50, introduced by the federal Conservative government, follows the decision handed down recently by the Ontario Superior Court in the Frank et al. case. The bill we are debating here today is supposed to be the government's response to that court ruling. This response is unsatisfactory, to say the least. The bill claims to be a response to that decision, but it is definitely not the response that we were expecting. Anyone who has read the Superior Court ruling would have expected a very different response from the government. The Superior Court ruling struck down paragraph 11(d) of the Canada Elections Act, which deals with the right to vote for Canadian citizens living outside of Canada for less than five years.

We might have expected a response that extended the right to vote to all Canadian citizens living abroad. That is something our party has introduced before. My colleague from Halifax, whom I would like to thank, introduced a bill to extend the right to vote to all Canadian citizens living abroad and to make it easier for them to exercise that right. There are many Canadians—in fact, 2.8 million—who live outside Canada. Unfortunately, not all of them are going to vote. However, if we were being generous, we could say, and I am just picking a number, that an estimated 300,000, 400,000 or 500,000 might vote. It would make a lot of work for Elections Canada, which would have to review all these applications in the 35 days prior to the election.

I will spend a little bit of time talking about these changes because if Bill C-50 does pass in its current form, Canadian citizens living abroad will have to register for every election. When an election is called, they will have to send a form and supporting pieces of identification to Elections Canada. They will be able to vote in the election with a special ballot that they will then have to return to Elections Canada within 35 days, which is the time between the day the election is called and the day of the vote. This extremely short timeframe will make it practically impossible to vote.

In order to vote, the voter will have to prepare in advance and be very familiar with the procedure. When the election is called, the voter will have to immediately fill out forms and pay the requisite fees so that the mail arrives at its destination within the requisite period of time. Depending on where one lives in the world, it can be very difficult to send a document to Canada. These steps will sometimes be expensive for people who want to register to vote in a federal election. This will certainly not encourage them to exercise their right to vote.

If someone has the misfortune of having expired ID or ID that is not considered valid proof for Elections Canada under Bill C-50, then someone else will have to vouch for them. That is another aspect of the bill that makes things even more difficult. A person who was fortunate enough to have the required ID still had to go through a three-part mailing process in a very short time during the election period; but if a person has the misfortune of not having the ID requested by Elections Canada under Bill C-50, then they will have to go through an extra step. This is a complex step, since that person has to find someone to vouch for them who lives in the riding they lived in before leaving Canada. The voucher has to prove that the voter is a citizen of the riding in question and attest to the person's identity, citizenship, and right to vote.

This can take a lot of time if that person lives in a part of the world where postal services are limited, which makes it almost impossible to send the necessary correspondence to register on the voting list. This bill is the government's so-called answer to the Ontario Superior Court decision. However, instead of encouraging people to exercise their right to vote, it makes it almost impossible.

I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister whether the government had conducted any consultations before drafting this bill. He did not answer me, which I took as a no. It seems that Elections Canada was not consulted before this bill was drafted, even though this bill would have a huge impact on the agency. Indeed, Elections Canada will have to process hundreds of thousands of applications in 35 days so that these people can vote before the election date. That is a significant amount of work.

Furthermore, clause 20 of Bill C-50 states that the bill will come into force 60 days after the day on which it receives royal assent. It will be a huge amount of work for Elections Canada to do to implement such a system and to conform with the new legislation.

The government is imposing a huge burden on Elections Canada. It does not even seem to have consulted the agency before it introduced this bill in the House.

I would be happy to take questions from my colleagues.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually quite surprised to hear that today. It seems obvious to me that the government should actually be encouraging all Canadian citizens to vote, not making their lives more difficult. It should not make voting even more complicated than it already is.

However, I think we need to know what would happen after an election. Say everything goes smoothly: a citizen registers to vote in the next federal election, which will take place in October 2015. That person has to go through the whole process all over again for subsequent elections, which are supposed to take place every four years.

How can the government say that it is complying with the court's ruling to give all Canadians living abroad the right to vote when it is actually making their lives difficult, not just once but two or three times over? These people might have to move to another country where there might not be a Canadian embassy nearby.

What kind of government makes Canadians' lives even more complicated and prevents them from voting instead of encouraging them to vote?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the irony of Bill C-50, which the government claims is a response to the court's ruling.

The court ruling indicated that all Canadians should have the right to vote. That right is protected by the charter. All Canadian citizens have a right to vote. The existing legislation bars Canadian citizens living abroad for more than five years from voting. That provision has been struck down.

However, there is a paradox here. The government wants to give all Canadians the right to vote, but it is discouraging them from doing so by making it extremely difficult or even impossible to exercise that right. That is hard to understand.

We had hoped for a much broader and much more satisfactory response in order to make things easier for Canadians who want to exercise their right to vote. Instead, we have before us today a bill that does quite the opposite.

Canadians will have to re-register every time an election is called and they cannot even pre-register. If we had a fixed election date, then at least Elections Canada could be given a timeframe. That would be the minium. However, that is not the case. The government decided to add a provision to the bill specifying that people cannot register until the day the election is called and they must register for each election.

That means that if a person registers to vote in the 2015 election and another election is called in 2016, that individual will have to register again. The registration is good for only one single election. What is more, people have to register during the election period.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, right now, citizens of France living overseas can vote electronically, and Americans living abroad can vote by email.

Bill C-23, the unfair elections act, contains a provision that stipulates that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada must conduct a pilot project or test on electronic voting but that he must obtain the consent of the entire House of Commons and the Senate—not just one committee, but the entire Senate.

Does my colleague think that this is a coincidence?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my colleague for his question, which ties in with what I said at the beginning of my speech.

Instead of making it easier for citizens to exercise their right to vote, as it is done in other countries, the government is making it even harder and cumbersome to vote.

It is completely unacceptable for the government to tie the Chief Electoral Officer's hands and prevent him from making suggestions to make it easier to vote. He cannot make suggestions without the consent of Parliament, even though he is the one with the necessary knowledge on how to get more Canadians to vote.

That is our goal on this side of the House. We want to increase voter participation, not decrease it, as the Conservatives are trying to do.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members may have noticed that some of my colleagues and I are fighting a little cold. If we do not seem all there, it is not because we are not interested in this topic.

Bill C-50 obviously deals with an important issue. The government addresses the same problems and same visions of democracy that we saw in Bill C-23 on election reform—or electoral “deform”, as we nicknamed it.

There are a number of problems with this bill. Before I get into them, I want to give a brief background. This bill came about because of a ruling by the Ontario Superior Court stating that it was unconstitutional to prohibit Canadian citizens living abroad for more than five years from voting in a federal election.

This is an important issue, especially in 2015, in light of the global village phenomenon. We have increased access to other countries and opportunities—this is especially true for young people. I am thinking about young university grads who want to pursue opportunities abroad without ruling out the possibility of returning home. They remain invested in their home community even though they are abroad.

The right to vote has always been essential, because at the end of the day, it is the very essence of what it means to be a citizen. With how easy it is now to find information and follow the events leading up to an election, the right to vote is increasingly important for citizens living abroad, considering the global realities of today's world.

I would like to mention another very important point that also relates to the right to vote, which, as I said, is the very essence of citizenship. The number of Canadian citizens residing outside Canada translates into a lot of money for the public purse because those individuals pay taxes. We all know the famous slogan that served a certain American cause very well: No taxation without representation. This is another important factor that must not be overlooked, beyond the principles of citizenship. Those people pay taxes, and ultimately, they are entitled to have a say in how their tax dollars are used, that is, in the governance of their home country, where they are citizens.

There are a number of problems, but there is one that we already saw with Bill C-23. The government sees problems; some are legitimate, others do not even exist. They are scaremongers. Last time, the government talked about fraudsters, as though there were thousands of fraudsters across the country trying to steal the right to vote from other citizens. Obviously, there were some dubious findings there. The idea was that many non-citizens were trying to take advantage of the right to vote.

Earlier, I heard an hon. member allude to the fact that non-citizens were receiving ballots abroad, as though this happened frequently and there were wide-scale electoral fraud. That being said, some media reports indicated that it was hard to tell the extent to which citizens abroad were affected. If the journalists who were focusing on this issue were unable to dig up these numbers, I do not see how an hon. member can make this observation. What is more, when my colleague from Sherbrooke asked the hon. member whether there were any studies to back her comments, she was unable to provide an answer.

The point I am trying to make is that instead moving forward and finding progressive ways to improve our electoral system, the government always takes a step backward. Instead of moving forward, it takes two steps back. That must be extremely frustrating for the people who, like the NDP, want to see a higher voter turnout. That is the problem we saw with Bill C-23, which had negative consequences for seniors, aboriginal people, young people and students. We see the same problem here.

The thing that strikes me the most is the French example. In 2012, I went to France with my colleagues to observe the presidential election.

I was surprised because I did not know that France had elected representatives—senators and members of the National Assembly—who represent constituencies outside of France. They represent French citizens who live outside of France. I know one person in the area, in Gatineau, who is a French citizen. This is a well-established system because French citizens living outside of France even receive campaign material from political parties.

That says a lot about how important it is to the Republic that all French citizens be properly represented, not just French citizens residing in France. This relates to what I was talking about at the beginning of my speech: in the new global village, where more and more citizens are pursuing opportunities abroad but staying connected to and involved in their communities, the governing body should represent not just residents but all citizens, no matter where they live.

As pointed out by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth—who does an excellent job of developing our positions on democratic reform—the French system has another component: the right to vote by Internet. The Americans allow U.S. citizens living abroad to vote by email.

While other countries look for solutions that will make it easier for citizens living abroad to vote, our government seems to be stuck on making it more difficult. A fine example—and that is another problem with the bill—is the issue of people living abroad who serve the government. We think of course of members of the Canadian Forces who are deployed abroad. The government will say that they are still exempt from the five-week period proposed in Bill C-50.

Although the government is not saying as much, this is a step backwards from what was already in the act. I will explain. Previously, diplomats were also exempt because, after all, they also serve the country, Canadians and the government abroad. Now, diplomats will have to follow the same laborious process as all other Canadians living abroad. They do not get a break even though they are abroad to serve their country.

The same is true for military families. It is a good idea and it is important—and I am not being sarcastic here—to grant exemptions to members of our Canadian Forces. However, we also need to think about their families. Some of these members are undoubtedly accompanied by their 18-year-old children. Some have spouses who also have the right to vote. The government is forgetting to look at the big picture when it comes to people who are living abroad.

Today in his speech, the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke about the team and the public servants who served him abroad. As my colleague from Sherbrooke mentioned, people like that, who are working for a minister and serving the Crown—it is important to point that out—are also not granted an exemption from this long and sometimes difficult process. As a result, they will have to use courier services, which Elections Canada has no legal obligation to use. They will have to turn to courier services that sometimes take a long time to deliver things and, in some countries, are difficult to use. There are many problems with this.

This once again shows, as Bill C-23 did, just how much difficulty the Conservatives have resolving problems, making it easier to access the electoral system and increasing voter turnout. They are once again introducing a bill that makes the process even more complex and forces Canadians to work even harder to exercise their right to vote. The right to vote should be an automatic part of citizenship. The government has the responsibility to make this process easier.

In closing, I would like to quickly mention one more thing, which I did not have time to really talk about. Once again, students are affected. When I was going to McGill, I saw how easy it was for American students to vote, even though they were living in Montreal. However, Bill C-50 contains an error that requires any lease used by a student as proof of residence to be for an official university residence.

Students who are going to school abroad and living off-campus as an individual and not in accommodation such as a university residence cannot use their lease as valid proof of identity.

It is because of these types of problems that we are forced to oppose yet another botched bill on an issue as fundamental as our democracy.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech, even though he said he was not feeling well. It is true; we have all been hit.

His speech really showed me the extent to which this bill creates nothing but outdated bureaucracy. As we heard earlier, a number of civilized countries, both western and eastern ones, use new communication technologies.

Why does he think that the government insists on using outdated methods? Is it because it does not trust technology, or is it because it is not interested in catering to the modern voters who would use these new platforms?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We do not want to buy into conspiracy theories, but the Conservatives' speeches seem to indicate some fear of the unknown, whether we are talking about Bill C-23 or Bill C-50, which is being debated today. They use scare tactics, claiming that people will cheat the system and that non-Canadians will try to vote in our elections. Last time we heard about people who would cheat and vote several times.

Like my colleague, I have to wonder why they are doing this. Perhaps this issue does not concern Conservative voters. I do not think that is the case, since everyone, regardless of their political beliefs, should be trying to make it easier for voters living in Canada or abroad.

As my colleague mentioned in his question, as I said in my speech and as all of my colleagues have said, while other developed countries are using these technologies or using other means to make it easier for citizens, especially with respect to deadlines to register to vote, the Conservative government seems to want to make things harder.

Then we wonder why people are so cynical and why voter turnout is so low. The Conservatives need only look in the mirror.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have noticed about the government is that it seems to have its own election reform thoughts and ideas and wants to impose, with its biases, new laws that would affect a person's ability to vote. Even if it contradicts what Elections Canada might recommend or if unified opposition parties are opposing what is being done, its way is the only way.

It is interesting that this legislation would make it more difficult for people to exercise their right to vote. The government will say that it is exempting the Canadian military, for example, but many members of the Canadian Forces who serve abroad have spouses or dependents with them who are over the age of 18. They are going to be subjected to these new rules. Let there be no doubt that these new rules will make it that much more difficult for individuals to vote.

Would my colleague from the New Democratic Party provide his thoughts with regard to this issue? Yes, Canadian Forces members appear to be excluded from this, but not their significant others or dependent children over the age of 18.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague: it is a problem. As I said in my speech, we have to consider the Canadian Forces, but we also have to consider their family members and all of the people who are serving their country and doing important work for governance abroad, people such as public servants and diplomats and their family members.

The Elections Act also included an exemption for members of the RCMP. Unless I am mistaken, that exemption no longer exists in Bill C-50. Once again, I do not mean to suggest that there is a conspiracy afoot, but I do not blame people for reacting to the government's measure with cynicism.

Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister accused us of disrespecting the Canadian Forces because we criticized that part of the bill. That statement was so ridiculous that it was a little hard to believe. It said a lot about the Conservatives' approach.

They grant exemptions for the Canadian Forces not out of respect for the Canadian Forces, but just because they want to hand out goodies in a show of support for the troops. That is the kind of thing we hear quite a lot. If they really supported the people who serve us abroad, they would make more of an effort to encourage them to participate fully in our democracy.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I should say first that I will be sharing my time with the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification.

I am pleased to address the House with respect to Bill C-50, the Citizen Voting Act. The bill deals with electoral reform intended to strengthen the integrity and fairness of our electoral system.

Canada has one of the world’s most generous electoral systems with respect to the right to vote, and Canadians are proud of their democracy. That is why our government is taking measures to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. I will therefore explain how the citizen voting act, which we have the pleasure of discussing today, protects our electoral system.

Preserving the integrity of our electoral system is important. Elections Canada estimates that there are about 40,000 names of non-citizens currently listed in the national Register of Electors. This means that there are 40,000 non-citizens who could easily obtain a voter information card telling them where and how to vote, and could therefore go to a polling station and vote. As we know, that is in fact illegal.

That is why the citizen voting act will authorize Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the name, gender, date of birth and addresses of non-citizens, so that Elections Canada can compare the data and remove non-citizens from the national register of electors.

The citizen voting act will make it a legal requirement for anyone voting outside Canada to provide proof of Canadian citizenship. The rule does not apply to members of the Canadian Armed Forces, of whom we are extremely proud. I would like to take this opportunity to mention the extraordinary work they are doing against the terrorist threat constituted by the Islamic State in Iraq.

Getting back to the citizen voting act, I would like to talk about another problem that affects the system as it currently exists. Canadians living abroad do not have to prove that they lived in the riding in which they vote. They can in fact vote in the riding of their choice, on the basis of unverified personal or family ties. Voters living in Canada, on the other hand, have to vote in the riding in which they are residing when the election is held. They cannot choose their riding. It is unfair to allow someone who has never lived in a community to vote for the person who will represent that community. That is why the citizen voting act will ensure that Canadians living abroad are bound by the same rules as those who live in Canada.

Canadians living abroad will have to provide proof of their identity and their most recent Canadian address with the same documentation required of voters who live in Canada, namely photo identification with their previous address or two of the 39 pieces of identification approved by the CEO of Elections Canada. If they do not have a piece of identification showing their previous address, voters living abroad may use an attestation as to their previous address produced by a voter in the same riding who has proven their identity.

Like the Canadian public, we believe it is reasonable to require that a person provide proof of their identity and their address in order to be entitled to vote. Canadian residents who happen to be abroad when an election is held, people like the snowbirds, have to apply for a special ballot at each election and produce pieces of identification and proof of residence. It is a different matter for citizens living abroad, who, once they have applied for a ballot for an election, automatically receive a ballot for every subsequent election at their overseas address, even though we do not know whether or not they still live there.

That is why the citizen voting act is so necessary. It will remove this inequality between Canadians by establishing a single set of rules for citizens who vote outside Canada.

The citizen voting act strengthens the rules that apply to special ballots to match the standards of integrity adopted when the Fair Elections Act was passed last June. It harmonizes the rules for voters whether they are temporarily or permanently residing outside Canada.

The Citizen Voting Act contains measures to safeguard the integrity of our electoral system.

To summarize, we will establish a single register, the National Register of Electors, which will be maintained by Elections Canada, for voters who reside in Canada or who are in Canada when an election is held.

The existing information on non-residents will be retained, and all of the information on voters will now be included in the national register. We will ensure that people living outside Canada—other than members of the Canadian Armed Forces—who want to to vote have to produce proof of citizenship.

Voters living abroad will no longer be able, as they were in the past, to choose the riding in which they want to vote without showing a connection to that community, and they will be able to obtain a ballot only for their most recent address in Canada. They will be subject to the same rules as other Canadian citizens with respect to identification and proof of residence.

Lastly, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will be authorized to provide Elections Canada with information about non-citizens so that their names can be removed from the voters list.

Canada has one of the world’s most generous electoral systems with respect to the right to vote. Many democracies like ours place restrictions on voting by non-residents. I am thinking of Ireland, for example, where non-residents cannot vote. Canada is much more generous with respect to the right to vote. It is therefore reasonable to expect citizens living abroad to meet the same identification requirements as those living in Canada.

Since our government came to power, it has worked tirelessly to reform the Canada Elections Act, so that our system remains one of the most respected in the world. Each of the government’s successive reforms have sought to maintain the integrity and fairness of our electoral system.

The Citizen Voting Act is part of that series of reforms and demonstrates once again our government’s commitment to strengthening the integrity and fairness of our electoral system.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague, who is also my neighbour, near Quebec City, Quebec. I would like to ask him a question.

I have been working on the issue of democratic reform for a long time. He mentioned how many changes his government has proposed to the Canada Elections Act to date. We know that the main changes were in Bill C-23, which was introduced last year and amended a number of things. With a lot of pressure from the official opposition, from our party, the Conservatives ultimately backed down on several fairly major points in Bill C-23, in particular vouching.

In the case of this bill as well, I would like to know whether he would be open to changing some elements of the bill to make it as effective as possible, in particular to improve access to the vote for Canadians living outside Canada, rather than restricting it as is being done here. Voting is being made more difficult for all Canadians, not just for those who have been outside Canada for more than five years. Could we find ways of facilitating it as much as possible, rather than making it more difficult?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I would note that it has always been a pleasure for us to work closely with the official opposition on various bills that enable our society to grow.

We think this bill is fair and equitable for non-residents of Canada. It is equivalent to what people who leave for brief periods have to do. People who vacation in Florida for two months have to provide proof of identity. We think that non-residents could do exactly the same thing: provide proof of identity and specify the electoral district where they lived and what their last address in Canada was. That is fair and equitable for all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a specific question for the minister.

As I pointed out in a previous question, I am always somewhat suspicious of the government when it brings in changes to the Canada Elections Act.

Can the minister indicate which of the actions in the legislation are actually actions recommended by Elections Canada? In other words, is there anything in the current legislation, and if so, what were the actual recommendations that came from Elections Canada to the government in terms of requesting changes?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe all Canadians should vote in the electoral district where they reside. At present, a non-resident can choose an electoral district they have never known in a province where they have never lived. We think a non-resident who wants to vote in Canada should vote in the electoral district where they voted the last time, based on their last place of residence. I think this recommendation is really very important.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a technical question to ask my colleague from Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. I really did not hear my colleague mention this in his speech.

There is a new section in Bill C-50: section 143, subsection 2.11, which specifies the documents that Elections Canada may consider to be a piece of identification. It says that these are documents issued by local governments, the federal government, provincial governments or an entity that is incorporated or formed in Canada. However, it does not specify whether that includes aboriginal governments. This provision still leaves a grey area and it could restrict the right to vote of Canadian citizens who live here. They will have to present two pieces of identification, but they will not necessarily have access to anything other than a document issued by an aboriginal government.

I would like my colleague to state whether his government considers this to be included in the bill or not. If it does, will they clarify this provision in committee?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill identifies the 39 pieces of ID approved by Elections Canada. Two of those pieces of ID are required to identify non-residents. Those 39 pieces of ID will be recognized. If my colleague would like other pieces of ID to be added to the list, she could propose them in committee.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to this act, which addresses some important concerns that have been raised in recent court rulings, which have been discussed in debate already today. As well, it clarifies some of the procedures by which certain types of voters participate in our democratic process.

As the debate was going on today, I had the opportunity to listen to a few of my colleagues' concerns and some of the technical questions that were raised. I would like to use the bulk of my speech to try to address some of the concerns raised in the House today.

I was very pleased to hear that there was some general consensus on the need to remedy the fact that, according to Elections Canada, there are approximately 40,000 non-citizens on our voters list at present. My colleague from the Liberal Party, the member for Winnipeg North, just asked what some of the recommendations were. I believe that this particular fact was brought forward by Elections Canada. There seems to be consensus in the House on the sharing of information between Citizenship and Immigration and Elections Canada to ensure that only those who are eligible to vote, as per our country's legalities, are actually on the voters list. That is a very positive thing.

Just to clarify for the House, this act would authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with names, genders, birth dates, and addresses of non-citizens so that Elections Canada could cross-reference and remove them from the National Register of Electors.

One of the things that came up several times, both in questions and in speeches, was that there is no evidence of riding shopping. I want to go back a bit, because through this Parliament, we have had some fairly substantial debates in this House on how the electorate ties into local representatives. I believe that we are even going to be talking about it today with respect to the reform act. That is a very worthwhile debate. How do elected representatives function in this place? How do we do our jobs, and what is the tie between the electorate and the elected representative?

We need to ensure that this particular relationship is enshrined in our legislation and protected. The reason we have 308 members of Parliament here is to recognize the fact that there are different interests in different communities in this great, vast country of ours. The question becomes how we ensure that the integrity of that relationship is maintained. The context of this act addresses that.

Going back to that riding-shopping phenomenon, my question for the House is this: How do we know that this is not happening? Right now, there is no verification process for electors living abroad who are on the international list of electors. As well, because there is no process in place, there is no audit procedure to ensure that compliance rules are being followed. I am actually quite supportive of putting legislation in place that would require the verification of the different voting requirements contained in this bill for that reason. It would ensure that those who are abroad have a tie to their elected representative and would ensure that there is a verification process that every other Canadian citizen who is participating in the voting process has to follow.

Just to clarify, what we put forward as a government in the citizen voting act would ensure that Canadians living abroad would follow the same rules as those living in Canada. The bill would require that they prove their identity and most recent Canadian address, using the same documentation as voters who live in Canada use under the Fair Elections Act.

I was pleased to hear my colleague from Toronto—Danforth earlier today. He stated that it is relatively easy for attestations to occur under the amendments made in Bill C-23. “I believe” was the term he used. This attestation procedure would continue to exist under this particular act. Having this requirement for verification would ensure that we have the data that would ensure both compliance and a link to a particular community and an elected representative in Canada.

There was a bit of a discussion as well about ballots going to the wrong address and whether this was a real problem. We go to great lengths in this country to ensure that the balloting process at on-site elections during a writ is sacrosanct. We have to make sure that ballots are handled with the utmost care. That is the reason we have scrutineers in our election campaigns.

We should be trying to prevent problems and ensuring that a ballot, which gives people a democratic right to vote for an elected representative, is being sent to a correct address. I do not think we should be arguing over whether this is a problem. It is a problem if it goes to a wrong address. This act would rectify that.

The 60-day coming into force period was discussed earlier today as well. With respect to the criticism that there would be no time for Elections Canada to adapt to the new rules, the House needs to understand that what is being proposed in this legislation is an extension of existing procedures and not the reinvention of a wheel.

When I work with my department officials, I always like to give a shout-out to the hard-working public servants within WD Canada. We work toward a goal. We ask what the legislative requirement is. One of the most important roles of the public service is to implement and execute directions from government. We try to put together a project plan. We put resources around that to ensure we have a plan in place to execute the needs of the government direction.

There certainly is a clearly defined need to have this implemented, given that the Frank ruling that came out adds approximately 1.4 million people to our voting list. Therefore, we need to ensure there are procedures in place in short order to protect the integrity of the voting process in Canada. Given the need that has been precipitated out of this ruling, as parliamentarians, I hope we would look at ways to make this happen through committee debate, rather than saying this cannot be done without giving any specific reason.

The issue of the families of diplomats came up. The Canada Elections Act has always clearly spelled out who is exempt from the different requirements for out-of-country voting. The Canada Elections Act applies a separate set of rules for members of our armed forces. They are under different circumstances than many of those who are living abroad. They are deployed in short order. Sometimes they do not know how long they will be overseas or where they will be. We want to ensure that the men and women of our armed forces have every right to participate in the democratic process. That is why there are separate rules for them.

However, it is worth re-emphasizing that this act puts in place a set of rules for voting overseas that is consistent among voters across the country. Whether they are on vacation, or are a snowbird or have moved abroad, they would have one very similar set of rules that would be applied across the board. That is a positive thing. People on vacation have used the special balloting rules without incident for a long period of time. I think it is reasonable to say that those rules can be extended to others, especially those people who have been out of the country for a certain period of time.

There was also some debate regarding the requirement for identification from a Canadian source and whether that would disenfranchise voters. We had this argument with respect to Bill C-23, and I hope there was some consensus respecting the 39 eligible pieces of identification listed by Elections Canada. It is a robust and comprehensive list. That set of identification is also pertinent to this act, and I think in no way disenfranchises people. There are 39 forms of ID. Surely, there is something on that list that can be shown to meet the requirements in the act.

With respect to there not being enough time for people to register, to get their ballot and to vote, people already do this with the special ballot rules. If my colleagues would avail themselves, the special ballot rules are readily available on the Elections Canada website and many of the rules contained in this act are similar. Again, this has been happening with ease for a lot of people.

Out of curiosity, I went to the Canada Post website to see how long it took for a letter to reach its destination. It states that it is four to seven business days for international letters. Given the variety of ways that people can register to vote, be it online, at the embassy or by fax, there is a way for people to get that information and interact.

Therefore, I support this law. It provides great clarity, given the Frank ruling.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the kind of debating that really elevates the scrutiny of bills in the House. There was a conscious effort to address a number of concerns that were heard in the first part of the debate so far. I truly appreciate the effort.

I want to ask two quick questions in clarification.

First, it is not true that it is merely an extension to the existing Bill C-23 procedures because subsection 143(2.11) is reworded to prohibit the authorization of any documents to be used for ID unless issued by a government entity in Canada or by an entity incorporated or formed in Canada.

The wording is done in a way that a number of possible things that are currently among the 39 pieces of ID may no longer easily qualify. Private leases that are not issued by corporations is one. The other is that it will be very unclear whether utilities bills, credit card bills, et cetera necessarily meet this new definition.

I am not saying this is deliberate, but the government has tried to come up with a definition of documents originating in Canada that actually, it appears, would not cover all 39 that currently exist. I know Elections Canada is very concerned about the administrative chaos that this could cause.

Second, is there any harm in extending the period when one can actually register, especially when we have fixed statutory elections?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on my colleague's first question, in talking to folks who have been involved in the drafting of the bill, trying to get some clarification on his first point, my understanding is the intent of the wording around this clause is to ensure that the identification can be verified as having a Canadian source.

Second, the verification is happening in Canada. I know there was discussion earlier about whether somebody at a poll could look at this, et cetera, but just to clarify, this verification process is happening in Canada.

All that said, I am sure this is a point of clarification that will come up in more technical detail in committee. I hope the House, on next reading of the bill, will be able to speak to it in greater depth.

With regard to the time period for registration, again, there is precedence for the time period that is prescribed in the act, and that is the special balloting procedures that we currently abide by under the Canada Elections Act. In every instance that I have heard, this process happens without incident, and that precedent should be good enough to show this could be applied under this act.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member answering the question I had posed to her colleague on whether the legislation included recommendations from Elections Canada.

As a whole, people across Canada have a deep amount of respect for Elections Canada. They see it is as an independent agency, which it is. It does phenomenal work in protecting the integrity of our democratic system in our elections.

The member cited one aspect from Elections Canada. Could she indicate if there are other aspects of the legislation that have come to the government through a recommendation by Elections Canada, outside of the citizenship and immigration aspect?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to remind my colleague opposite about the function of parliamentarians in this place, and that is to make laws. The Frank ruling creates some circumstances which must be addressed in terms of legislation and of ensuring there is clarity on voting procedures for approximately 1.4 million, which I would loosely say are new electors to Canada.

Again, while respecting Elections Canada as an organization that serves the Canadian people, it is incumbent upon the House to also understand that sometimes laws come from parliamentarians, because that is our job.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Davenport in the great city of Toronto to participate in the debate on Bill C-50.

It is important to the people in my riding. Many people in Davenport, in fact many people in Toronto, go back and forth between Canada and their home countries, the countries in which they were born. Many of my constituents live in both places and care deeply about Canada and the electoral process. They are Canadian citizens, yet from time to time over the course of one's life, end up living elsewhere for a period of time.

We already know from the various accounts that we have heard in this place how difficult it is for many immigrant Canadians to receive government services, to access Service Canada, for example, and how difficult and tricky that is for many in our community. We now are seeing another example of how the government erodes the trust of Canadian citizens who are immigrants or Canadian citizens living abroad. This bill is part of a long litany in a grand narrative, the result of which is a deepening lack of trust.

There is also a very adversarial relationship between the government and expert opinion of society and court rulings. In fact, the government has no hesitation in spending money, the dollars of hard-working Canadians, to fight court challenges and to thumb its nose on what Canadian jurisprudence would lead us to.

In this one I am referring to Superior Court Justice Michael Penny who made it clear that long-term expats who cared deeply about Canada should have the right to vote. The federal government, though, did not withdraw its appeal of the Frank judgment when it tabled Bill C-50, even though it wrote its press release and backgrounder on Bill C-50 to make it appear as if it was accepting the Frank judgment.

We have a bill, and it is important that Canadians understand that parliamentarians have been attempting to deal with this issue in a manner that reflects the values of Canadian society, which is that if an individual is a citizen in Canada, regardless of where they live, they have the right to vote.

The government will say, as it did in earlier debates around its unfair elections act, that it is making things simpler and streamlining the system. In fact, we know that is not the case. One would think that when we are faced with the reality of plummeting voting rates in liberal democracies, including Canada, that we would, as parliamentarians, be thinking about ways in which we help facilitate and invite Canadian citizens to participate more fully in the electoral process. However, we are seeing the government, once again, going in the opposite direction, to the extent that organizations have raised serious concerns about this legislation.

Dylan Penner from the Council of Canadians said, “Bill C-50 is a blatant abuse of power. The current government is trying to legislate its way around a court decision it doesn't like”, and we have heard that one before, “to further stack the deck in its favour for the next election”, and we have heard that one before too. He goes on to say, “Rather than accept a court ruling that restores voting rights, the government has decided to change the law in a way that infringes voting rights”.

I would like to add that I will be splitting my time with the member for Gatineau.

I would also like to quote from the organization Leadnow, which asked the Prime Minister and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to commit to respecting section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees all Canadian citizens the right to vote. It reads:

Any further attempt by this government and future governments to overturn the recent court ruling that reaffirms that right will be considered an affront to the democratic rights of all Canadians.

In a sense, that gets to the crux of the issue here.

This is part of a long narrative by the Conservative government in pushing the envelope around democratic rights and freedoms, of obfuscating in and outside this place regarding its intentions. There have been countless inquiries. There have been police inquiries into voter fraud.

In short, Canadians do not trust the government.

We heard earlier this morning from the former minister of foreign affairs about the importance of this place, of the centrality of this place to preserving democracy in Canada. Yet time and time again we see a government that is willing to play fast and loose with the rules, in the hope that Canadians who are struggling just to get by in their day-to-day lives will not notice as the government starts stacking the deck in its favour. This legislation is just an example. We have not heard any compelling evidence or arguments from the government that that is not the case, and here I am talking about the grand narrative.

Over 2.8 million Canadians live abroad. These are Canadian citizens who pay about $6 billion in Canadian taxes. We need to be thinking of ways to include them more easily in our electoral process. That is a project that any government would think important and vital, but that is not what we see here. It is important that we get to some of the nuts and bolts of how these things play out. We have the legislation, but parliamentarians need to hear how these bills would affect people living their day-to-day lives.

Bill C-50 proposes to give Canadian citizens only five weeks before an election to complete the process. The citizen must send in the form and Elections Canada has to mail out a special ballot. The citizen then has to mail that ballot back. As one Canadian abroad put it when consulted on the impact of Bill C-50, “With international postal delays being what they are, expats have to use FedEx or other courier services to have any hope of their vote being counted”.

Elections Canada is not legally mandated to do the same. In other words, if Elections Canada sends the ballot by surface mail, voters outside of North America are going to have a difficult time. Even just the timing of this is going to be difficult. One would think that the government would take these issues into consideration, but what do we expect from a government that is seeking to tear down bit by bit our own postal service. I suppose that is what we get.

This legislation is of deep concern to our party. We have a solution in Bill C-575 put forward by the member for Halifax. I would urge the government to look seriously at that legislation.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Davenport for his excellent speech on Bill C-50.

Since this is a matter of consideration on the government's part, it seems to me that there was not much consultation, based on the replies we have heard so far today from the government. The government does not appear to have consulted Elections Canada in drafting Bill C-50.

I would remind the House that many of the measures in this bill will of course affect Elections Canada, because that is the body that oversees the election process and registration applications for the voters list.

Is the member concerned about the government's failure to consult or about the situation that Elections Canada could face if it receives hundreds of thousands of applications? Is he concerned about the courageous voters who do decide to go through the process? Hundreds of thousands of applications in just 35 days of voting does not leave very much time. Is he also worried about Elections Canada's ability to process all those applications in time for the election and the organization's ability to manage such a huge volume of applications in such a short timeframe?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question underlining significant issues around how the government moves forward with legislation, particularly if it is not consulting the major stakeholder, Elections Canada, and not laying the groundwork. Not hearing back from Elections Canada and getting its expert feedback further erodes Canadians' trust in the government and its intentions.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. I know that he is very much in touch with the young people and the culture in metropolitan Toronto.

We have our usual suspicions about this government's blatant electioneering. However, beyond that, I would like to ask my colleague if he believes that this bureaucratic process is daunting for young people and out of step with the modern technologies embraced by other countries that want to make it easier to vote. Will this instead discourage a young, mobile Canadian who would like to become engaged in politics?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend raises a very important point, which is whether we want more people to vote in this country. Do we want people engaged in our electoral process? Do we not want to encourage participation and engagement, and facilitate it?

That is what we want, and that is not the intention of the government.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

Does he also have concerns about the coming into force of the bill? Clause 20 of Bill C-50 states that the bill will come into force 60 days after it receives royal assent. Elections Canada will only have 60 days to implement the new provisions and make the changes to the register of electors required by the bill.

Does he think that this is a reasonable amount of time for Elections Canada? Should the government at least give Elections Canada the time it needs to make the necessary changes?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, highlighting some of the great work that the member for Sherbrooke has been doing in this place since he was elected in 2011. Indeed, it raises serious concerns that the government has not thought this one through, or that it has thought it through and it really does not matter whether or not Elections Canada scrambles.

By answering it this way, I do want to emphasize the great respect that the NDP and I have for the people at Elections Canada. They do phenomenal work, but they need the tools and the time. They need to have an opportunity to provide input when significant changes to their mandate are made.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Gatineau, I would like to inform her that I will interrupt her at 2 p.m., when statements by members will begin. There are four minutes left.

The hon. member for Gatineau.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will try to do the best we can in the four minutes left to us to talk about a bill as important as Bill C-50.

To begin, I want to commend the exceptional work done by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth, who, on behalf of all of us in the official opposition, is trying to make sure that democracy continues to be alive and real in this wonderful country.

I am both happy and sad to rise. I am happy to do so on behalf of the people of Gatineau and to have a moment to speak to Bill C-50. At the same time, I am sad to see that Bill C-50 is being described as a response to a decision of the court. Once again, this shows me that this government has a strange way of responding to decisions of the courts. Every time, I am gobsmacked.

Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada was decided in the context of section 11, paragraph 11(d) of the Canada Elections Act. It stated that every Canadian citizen who had been absent from Canada for at least five consecutive years could not vote in Canadian federal elections.

In fact, what Justice Penny tells us in Frank is simply that the principle stated in section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees every Canadian the right to vote, without limitation. There is no exception depending on the context; it is an intrinsic right of every Canadian citizen. This is the primary method by which we are able to speak democratically in this country. It is the right to speak in the context of an election. It seems to me that this principle was obvious. The court made the decision that had to be made: that the right to vote cannot be taken away from Canadian citizens. We are talking about Canadian citizens. We are not talking about people who have no ties to Canada. They may not be in Canada, but they are Canadian citizens. What did the government do? It introduced Bill C-50.

As I listened to the debates all morning, I was pleasantly surprised. I would say I was was somewhat surprised because people sent me messages on Facebook, including a message from one person in particular. We know that in paragraph 11(d), to which I referred just now, there was in fact an exception relating to the military. The person in question said that all the rules obviously will not apply to our troops—and I am very pleased to know that—but this will not necessarily be the case for the family members of military personnel. That is a double standard.

I have some difficulty with that example and with others as well. What Bill C-50 does is leave us with different kinds of citizens.

I agree with all my colleagues who have spoken in the House and said that, insofar as we can, we must do everything in our power to make access to the vote as easy as possible—not to encourage ways of hijacking democracy, but to enable the most possible people to express their democratic choice. We might say that this government has a lot of trouble acting that way.

The bill tells us that it is in response to the court’s decision, but the decision says that people may not be prohibited from voting. What are the Conservatives doing? They are prohibiting people. I truly have a lot of trouble understanding how this government reads the decisions of the courts. In any event, they have continued to appeal the case.

I know my time on a subject this important has unfortunately already expired. However, I will certainly have an opportunity to speak to this issue at greater length.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Gatineau will have six minutes for her speech and comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

The House resumed from February 3, consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on the second reading of Bill C-50, the citizen voting act.

Bill C-50 proposes important reforms to Canada's election act. These reforms would reinforce the integrity of a special ballot voting system while at the same time showing fairness for resident and non-resident voters alike.

In doing so, the citizen voting act would follow in the footsteps of the Fair Elections Act. In particular, Bill C-50 would ensure fairness by providing that non-resident voting procedures are consistent with the procedures for resident voters that were brought in with the Fair Elections Act.

Among these key provision, the citizen voting act would require that electors applying for a special ballot must include within their application for registration proof of identity and residence, and, if they apply from outside Canada, proof of Canadian citizenship. Electors who are resident outside of Canada would only receive a special ballot for the address at which they last resided within Canada.

In the debate thus far, some concerns have been raised about the potential negative impacts that could arise as a result of the new identification requirements for non-resident voters. I would like to demonstrate that these concerns are unfounded. Accordingly, I will focus my comments today on the voter identification requirements in the Canada Elections Act and what is proposed in Bill C-50 for special ballot voters.

Before addressing any specific concerns, I think it is worthwhile to again briefly review the voter identification requirements in Bill C-50. The voter identification provisions would require that electors voting by special ballot, non-residents and residents, must include within their application for a special ballot proof of identity and residence, similar to that set out in the Fair Elections Act. Further, Canadians living abroad would be required to prove the place of residence in the riding in which they would be voting, using the same documentation that voters living within Canada must also provide. The same general identification scheme that was established in the Fair Elections Act would apply to applicants wishing to vote by special ballot.

Under the first option, a voter may provide one piece of government-issued identification with the voter's photo, name, and address. An example would be a driver's licence or a provincial or territorial ID card. Under the second option, a voter may show two pieces of ID authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, one with the voter's name, and one with the voter's name and their address. An example would be a health card and a phone bill, or a debit card and a bank statement. Under the third option, a voter would provide two pieces of ID with the voter's name, and an oath or declaration of residence that is attested to by a properly identified voter from the same riding.

For non-residents, the attestation process would enable them to provide proof of their last residence in Canada by means of an oath or written declaration. A person providing the attestation could be either a resident of Canada or another non-resident who is qualified to vote in the same electoral district as the person applying for the special ballot. In either case, both the applicant and the person attesting for their residence would have to provide either an oath or a written declaration. An oath would have to be administered by a qualified official, either in Canada or abroad. On the other hand, a written declaration could be completed by the applicant abroad, and it would not require that an official be present in order to administer it.

To sum up, the provisions of Bill C-50 would ensure that Canadians living abroad follow the same rules as those living in Canada. It is only fair that non-resident Canadians be required to comply with the same rules that are followed by other Canadian voters.

I would now like to address the concern that has been raised about potentially disenfranchising voters as a result of the new identification rules set out in Bill C-50. The amendments contained in Bill C-50 would simply ensure that the same clear identification rules that apply to voting in person would apply to voting by special ballot.

I understand that there are now 47 approved identification documents listed on the Elections Canada website, some of which were added recently. The website lists 28 pieces of approved identification providing a voter's name, including, to name a few, a health card, a Canadian passport, a birth certificate, an Indian status card, a Veteran's Affairs health card, a student identity card, and an identity bracelet issued by a hospital or long-term care facility.

The list of pieces of identification providing both name and address currently includes 19 items. Examples on that list are a utility bill; a bank statement; a credit card statement; a residential lease or sublease; an income tax assessment; a letter from a public curator, public guardian, or a public trustee; a letter of confirmation of residence from a first nations band, reserve, or Inuit local authority; a letter of confirmation of residence from one of several designated establishments, including a student residence, a seniors residence, a long-term care facility, a homeless shelter, or a soup kitchen, and the list goes on. This demonstrates the sheer number of pieces of identification that may be used as voter identification, and the breadth of options which are captured by this list. The Chief Electoral Officer is always at liberty to authorize further pieces of identification for the purpose of voting as he sees fit.

I recall an empirical study, conducted by Professor Ian Lee of Carleton University last year, in which he examined the numbers and types of identification that are accessible by Canadians. He concluded that there are identity cards well in excess of 200 million for 18 million voters, and that excluded millions of monthly utility bills. Apart from these sheer numbers, the list that has been approved demonstrates that a lack of identification should not be a barrier to voting in Canada. None of these would change because of the provisions of the citizen voting act.

To conclude, the citizen voting act is designed to reinforce the integrity and fairness of the electoral system for all voters, resident and non-resident voters alike. The new measures will help ensure that non-resident voters have a direct connection to Canada and are subject to similar voter identification rules that all other voters must also follow.

The right to vote is at the very foundation of our democracy. It embodies a responsibility and duty on all of us to familiarize ourselves with the voting process. In that spirit, I encourage all Canadians to become familiar with the identification rules and to ensure that they have the proper ID to vote, whether at the polling station or through a special ballot. It is incumbent upon all of us to support integrity measures aimed at ensuring that ballots are legitimately cast by eligible voters.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this new way of doing things will cause people a lot of problems.

Having worked at polling stations myself, I know that lots of seniors, among others, come with just their voter card. They do not bring anything else. They are asked to go get some ID because their home is usually right in the same building, and they go get a bill or something. However, their health insurance card does not have a photo. They need photo ID, and many of those people do not have any. They do not drive, so they no longer have a driver's licence.

How can the government justify excluding those thousands of people from voting in the next election?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that we have integrity within our democratic system. During an election, we must ensure that people are rightfully and dutifully casting a ballot, and that they have the integrity to cast that ballot in a fair and democratic manner. That means that Canadians in Canada who come to vote must be able to prove their residence and identity. That is the very fabric of a democratic system. Literally millions of Canadians have voted in subsequent elections, both provincially and federally, and have produced the appropriate ID to do so.

We continue to expand the list of authorized identification so that seniors, young people, middle-income Canadians, low-income Canadians, and Canadians from all walks of life, are able to cast their ballot. To do so, they must be able to demonstrate that they are rightfully on the voters list and live in the electoral district where they are casting their ballot. That is the integrity of the system.

A number of lists and the flexibility have been provided by the Fair Elections Act, and now, through Bill C-50, we will ensure we have an equal and level playing field for Canadians voting in Canada and Canadians voting abroad. We must ensure that there is integrity in both systems, domestically and internationally.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague. One of the fundamentals is that the international voters list has been eliminated, which was something that was updated on an ongoing basis. It served the international community well for Canadians living abroad. I wonder if he could give the logic as to why that particular item was eliminated. To get rid of it seems to be a solution looking for a problem that did not exist.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the process being put in place is to ensure that people who are voting abroad through a special ballot will have their vote count in the electoral district where they last resided in Canada. That requires some proof of when they actually emigrated to another country to reside in a different place internationally.

By providing identification which shows their previous address, that makes sure that their ballot and vote is being counted in the right electoral district. This stops anyone from trying to game the system by collecting a lot of international votes from many citizens abroad and putting them all in one single or a very few electoral districts.

This way, if an individual left a certain electoral district in Canada, went abroad and cast a ballot, which they are rightfully able to do, it will count in the same electoral district where they used to reside.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite refers to the notion that people will somehow have an ability to change the electoral district from which they came. I have two questions.

One, does he have any evidence that this is actually happening anywhere in the world? Two, he stated in his speech that the Chief Electoral Officer would have the discretion to determine what pieces of identification would be necessary, and yet the bill does the exact opposite; it limits the type of information that the Chief Electoral Officer can use to determine someone's identity. How is it that he can say on the one hand that we are giving him discretion, but on the other hand the bill does something completely opposite?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, it is an extensive list of identification that can be used by Canadians, both domestically and internationally, to make sure they can prove who they are and where they live, or where they used to live when it concerns citizens abroad, so that their vote will be counted in the electoral district where it rightfully deserves to be counted.

In addition to the extensive amounts of different identification, attestations, oaths, and also declarations that can be written and sent in, the Chief Electoral Officer does have the flexibility to add other pieces of identification he sees as necessary to ensure that all Canadians, both domestic and abroad, would have the ability to vote in the election.

We also need to have integrity in the system. As I mentioned, the way that the rules are now, there is the ability for people who are casting their votes internationally through a special ballot to name the district where that vote should count. That would open up the opportunity for an abuse of the system. That is a loophole that this legislation seeks to close.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. He was a long-time member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The way our government handles various bills that amend the Canada Elections Act is problematic. Most of the problems with this particular bill boil down to the same things we have seen in other bills. The changes the Conservatives make are never motivated by anything other than their own interests. In this particular case, the court was very clear. I can go into more detail in a little while, but the point is that we have no idea what the real reasons driving these changes are, other than the fact that the Conservatives are not really interested in increasing voter turnout and helping people cast their vote. They are more interested in making the process as complicated as possible.

When this bill goes to committee, which will probably be soon, does the member think the government will be open to considering the amendments proposed by the opposition and amending parts of the bill that need amending?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, committees are masters of their own destiny, so when the report goes to committee and comes back to the House, we will have to see what the committee suggests and recommends.

It is incumbent on the Government of Canada, and all Canadians, to ensure we have integrity within our democratic system of elections. The way the legislation is currently worded, it does open up loopholes where people could attempt to game the system, and we are closing that loophole to stop that potential.

I was asked what the intent of the government is and why we are doing this. We are doing these changes to make sure that all Canadians have the right and ability to cast a democratic ballot in all federal elections, whether they reside within Canada or they currently reside outside of Canada.

We also have to ensure the integrity of that vote. That is the very basis of our democratic system. That makes sure that the elections can be reflected as being democratic, fair, and also having the integrity that all Canadians deserve.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is fairly straightforward. Does the member believe that the government has a responsibility to work with other political entities, particularly opposition parties, on the best manner in which to proceed in making changes to election laws?

Election laws are one of the fundamental issues we deal with in terms of our democratic principles. Would he not agree that there is an obligation for governments to work with opposition parties when they want to change institutions or things like our election laws?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, all pieces of legislation take input from anyone in the House of Commons. Legislation is brought forward, either by the government or by private members in this institution. If it is passed by the House of Commons, it goes to committee, where all recognized parties have the ability to put forward amendments that can be debated there. When it returns to the House, it is once again open to debate by all members of the House.

There is a set process for legislation. It is a long and gruelling process to make laws in Canada, as we all know in the House of Commons and in the other place.

However, to say that there are is no option or opportunity for opposition members to comment on legislation is false. They have every opportunity in the House, in the Senate, and at committee to comment on and make recommendations and possible amendments to legislation.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to say that I find it very unfortunate that this is the 95th time the Conservatives have imposed a time allocation motion. I think it is positively shameful that in our democracy, in 2015, the Conservatives will not let us have an honest discussion in the House of Commons on something like closure motions and time allocation motions.

Many of the solutions proposed could help us create a more vibrant democracy. The Conservatives have always rejected the solution proposed by the NDP to have limits on when time allocation motions can be used. I find that unfortunate. Ironically, when the Liberals imposed too many time allocation motions, the Conservatives were the first to denounce it, saying how wrong it was and how limiting debate was an affront to democracy.

Now the Conservatives have set a new record. I think there is an explanation for this. The Conservatives have realized that this is no longer making headlines. Early on, when they began moving closure and time allocation motions, that got a reaction out of people. People wondered why the Conservatives were doing that, and they were not happy about it. Now, 95 time allocation motions later, people are sick of it. There is a certain point where people stop talking about it, because it becomes redundant and there is nothing more to say on the matter. Saying that the Conservatives are attacking our democracy elicits responses like “Yes, but that is the way it is and the way it has always been”. This is nothing new, and people eventually ignore the situation. However, the reality is that we are once again faced with closure on debate. I truly believe that the Conservatives must have some sort of goal to move 100 time allocation motions before the end of the 41st Parliament. It is really unfortunate, but that is just the way it is.

Today I will be sharing my thoughts on Bill C-50. It is yet another bill to amend the Canada Elections Act. This time the amendment has to do with voting from abroad.

Bill C-50 is the solution the Conservative government is proposing in response to the legal problem caused by the Ontario Superior Court ruling in Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada.

I would like to take a bit of time to go over the events that brought us here in order to help those watching at home who may not have all the facts they need to properly understand our discussion today.

Summing things up like that will make it easier for me to explain why I refuse to support this bill. At the same time, I will have the opportunity to share with my hon. colleagues a few suggestions for improving this bill.

First, as I was saying, the impetus for introducing this bill last December was the decision by Justice Michael Penny of the Ontario Superior Court to nullify a part of the Canada Elections Act, specifically paragraph 11(d) regarding certain restrictions on voting applicable to Canadians living abroad.

Up until that verdict was handed down a year ago tomorrow, Canadian citizens living abroad for more than five years would lose their right to vote. Justice Penny held that this loss of the right to vote violated a constitutional right guaranteed by section 3 of the charter, which states that “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.”

This prescribed time limit was contrary to the spirit of the charter because it could not be justified under section 1, which guarantees the right to vote in a free and democratic society. Justice Penny further held that voting is an inalienable right under the charter. That is what is at the heart of the discussion we are having today, and it is this key point that informs my entire understanding of the problem.

We must say it over and over again: every Canadian citizen has the sovereign right to cast a ballot during an election. It is simple. However, this statement has two logical consequences. First, anyone who would attempt to hinder or prevent a Canadian citizen from voting is guilty of very serious wrongdoing. Furthermore, and this is the impetus for the bill, as a moral entity, Canada must do everything in its power to ensure that its citizens can exercise their right to vote during an election. In other words, the state administration must adjust to its citizens and not the opposite. Best efforts must be made to facilitate, encourage and honour the citizens' democratic exercise.

This view of the right to vote that I just explained will be upheld by all the courts in the land, no matter what happens.

I do not believe that I am mistaken when I say that, in addition to the courts, the people themselves will confirm this interpretation of our constitutional rights and defend it. It would seem that the only person who has not understood this is the Minister for Democratic Reform. However, I am not here to argue with and insult the government. I would like all of us to work together to find a solution to this problem.

A consideration related to what I said earlier should be addressed here. We agree that the right to vote is an inalienable constitutional guarantee. The right to vote is also a civil responsibility. A citizen has the right and the duty to vote. However, he or she does not have an obligation to vote. Refusing to exercise one's democratic right is, in my humble opinion, also guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because abstaining from voting or spoiling one's vote constitutes a valid democratic gesture. A vote does not have any qualitative aspect. A spoiled ballot is still a ballot. I am dwelling on these details, these facts, because I want to be clear and I want to properly identify the essential nature of the right to vote. I would like my colleagues to correct me if they believe that my definitions are incorrect.

I would like to come back to the judge's verdict. This Superior Court decision took effect immediately and struck down the five-year limit set out in paragraph 11(d). After all—and I am asking those who are listening this question—why five years? What was the rationale for that timeframe? Why not 6, 10 or 20 years? I am sure that some thought went into that decision when the Canada Elections Act was reviewed in the 1990s, but this number still seems rather random to me. I am not sure when this provision was added to the Canada Elections Act, but perhaps migration was less common or more permanent at that time. When a person left for more than five years, it was only logical to assume that they were never coming back. After all, international travel was not always as easy and common as it is now.

I think that this is one of the shortcomings of the decision to quantify the loss of the right to vote at five years, a flaw that remains in the bill despite the fact that the bill is supposed to fix it. Everything I am about to say now should be taken with a grain of salt. I am going to try to describe the perception that Canadians have of themselves when they take shortcuts. In their minds, Canadians are not the sort of people who tend to emigrate. People leave for a year or two, but then they come back. They may go to the United States or Great Britain to go to school, or they may move for a diplomatic post or because they are in the military and they are stationed abroad. Otherwise, being an expat is not very serious and is more an act of social rebellion than anything else. That is basically the stereotype we have about ourselves. However, it is quite close to the reality of many Canadians. Some Canadians do a lot of travelling. Many of them have dual citizenship and share their time between two countries. These people follow Canadian politics, talk about Canada in their second country and keep up with current events in Canada. These people are full citizens and they have the same constitutional guarantee to the right to vote as every other Canadian.

This was confirmed by Justice Penny in his ruling. If a rose is a rose is a rose, then a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. No matter where a Canadian may be—even on Mars—they have a right to vote. The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer quickly responded to this Ontario Superior Court ruling, and it announced that it would no longer apply the parts of the Canada Elections Act that had been invalidated. In theory, the right to vote was thus expanded to a pool of about 1.5 million newly enfranchised voters. This was a historic decision. An entire group of people had once again been vested with the most fundamental right in our Constitution. It was anachronistic, but still exciting. Just last week we celebrated the anniversary of women obtaining the right to vote in Quebec. Need I remind members that aboriginal people just obtained the right to vote in their own country in 1960?

The five-year period set out in the Canada Elections Act was a remnant of an bygone era, and this ruling appears to have completely eliminated this exclusion.

Although this speech will soon take a more negative tone, I am very happy that the last restriction on enfranchisement in Canada has been eliminated.

With respect to selective inclusion, I would like to share a quote from David Smith of the University of Saskatchewan:

Voting is the hallmark of citizenship, both symbolically and practically....

....at different times, the House of Commons admitted and the House of Commons excluded, but in each instance, the House of Commons defined Canada.

The value of the right to vote as a guarantee of the legitimacy of this House demands absolute respect on our part.

However, this decision creates a big problem. These 1.5 million citizens who will now be able to exercise their right to vote will be added to the approximately 2.8 million other expats who were already eligible to vote.

Electoral logistics need to be properly set up so that these millions of people can vote. After all, as I said, the state is responsible for facilitating the process and collecting ballots everywhere in Canada.

This is where things get a little less fun because we are getting right into the frustrating world of political calculation.

Let us start with the good ideas and the brilliant initiatives. In February, my colleague from Halifax introduced Bill C-575, which presaged Justice Penny's decision and attempted to ensure that absolutely all Canadian citizens residing abroad would have the right to vote.

The thinking behind Bill C-575 is self-evident. In the interconnected and instantaneous world of globalization, it a good thing for Canadians to live and work around the world. The House must take immediate action to confirm these citizens' right to vote.

I would imagine that everyone agrees with the member for Halifax's ideas on this, but of course, such a historic and generous initiative from the opposition could not be tolerated, much less endorsed, by the government. The Conservatives would rather die than take the lead and accept a perfectly acceptable opposition proposal.

Hubert Aquin wrote:

Political partisanship is a means of action, not a mode of thinking.

A year and a half later, the Conservatives are finally taking action. Bill C-50 is the Conservative proposal for dealing with the consequences of Justice Penny's ruling.

However, the minister's response goes much further. In response to a clear legal decision regarding an even clearer problem, we have a vague proposal that is like a reflection dimly seen in a mirror, as St. Paul put it.

When you take a closer look at the proposals in Bill C-50, it becomes very clear very quickly that this bill is not about empowering citizens.

This bill accepts the basic premise that Canadians abroad have the right to vote, but it does so in a backwards way. Expanding the constitutional right that is the very essence of the bill and should be showcased does not actually appear in the bill and can only be read between the lines. It is an odd masterpiece of inversion, like a photographic negative.

In his speech introducing the bill, the minister showed no signs of excitement. This bill is not about the right to vote, nor is it about righting a historical wrong, far from it. Rather, it is about tyring to combat electoral fraud.

The minister said, and I quote:

The citizen voting act has three principal objectives: the first is to help prevent non-citizens from voting in federal elections; the second is to require voters living abroad to provide proof of identity, past residence, and citizenship; the third is to create one set of rules for all Canadians voting from outside the country.

The main focus of the bill is the fear of these so-called collateral misdeeds, which are presented as going hand in hand with the privilege that the government is taking such great risk to provide to Canadians living abroad.

From the outset, the government makes it clear that there is the risk of serious abuses, which are listed and may be impossible to prevent. The government's message is that it is full of goodwill, but the electorate abroad is asking for the impossible and, accordingly, the privilege to vote will come with very strict measures.

It is as though the government were saying that it was giving us the right, but in order to exercise that right, we would have to jump backwards through rings of fire in a hoop skirt. We might go so far as to say that the government is completely disregarding Justice Penny's ruling and not really giving Canadians who live abroad for more than five years the right to vote.

The government did not welcome the decision with great enthusiasm and appealed the Frank ruling. Let us not forget that it also tried to impose a moratorium on the coming into force of the ruling. Clearly, the Conservatives were hoping the problem would go away.

Nonetheless, as I said earlier, no court in this country can justify restricting a Canadian citizen's right to vote. This is the new reality, and we must implement the necessary means to ensure that everything works as it should.

In my naivety, I thought this democratic progress would be heralded for what it says about the maturity of our country. However, I again forgot that I was living in one reality whereas the Conservatives were living in a world of Stalinist paranoia where having a passport is a betrayal.

Under the guise of harmonizing the procedure—creating one set of rules, according to the minister—the Conservatives are turning what they consider to be a reversal of legal fortune into a win. Not only are they not really giving the right to vote to Canadian citizens who live abroad for more than five years, but they are also taking it away from the other 2.8 million Canadians, with a few exceptions, such as people in diplomatic postings and members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

As my colleague from Toronto—Danforth wrote in an article published in the National Post on February 3:

In fact, Bill C-50 uses the court’s rights-expanding ruling as an excuse to actually undermine the voting rights of all Canadians abroad, regardless of how long they have resided outside of Canada. It does this by generating delays that could easily prevent voting in time for election day and that creates disincentives for voting by making it unreasonably difficult.

This is what Bill C-50 is proposing to do: Canadian citizens living abroad who want to exercise their right to vote during an election will have to prove two things. First, they will have to provide proof of citizenship, which goes without saying. Second, they will have to provide proof of address for the place where they last resided before leaving Canada.

To better understand all that, we can propose a hypothetical scenario. Suppose that in 2011, I decided not to stand as a candidate in the federal election, and I decided instead to live happily somewhere abroad. Had I done that, I would have remained the same citizen I was, with less contact with the political world than I have now, a normal citizen with concerns other than the legislative changes debated in the House of Commons. Furthermore, being abroad, I would work regularly to maintain my ties to Canada. I would make an effort to consult the Canadian media and keep abreast of what is happening.

Say I want to vote in the October 2015 election. I am sure that, if I have to go through a whole process to be able to vote, it is better to get started earlier rather than later, so I go online to see what that process involves. If I search for “voting from abroad, Canada”, the first hit takes me to a Government of Canada website. On that website, it says:

If you live abroad, you may apply to be added to the International Register of Electors and vote by special mail-in ballot in future federal elections at any time.

That is no longer true because of Bill C-50. It goes on to say:

To apply, complete an Application for registration and special ballot for Canadian citizens residing outside Canada, available online through Elections Canada, in person at any Canadian government office abroad, or by calling Elections Canada...

Send your completed application and copies of your supporting documents to Elections Canada in Ottawa. Once your completed application has been approved, your name will be added to the International Register of Electors. When a federal election, by-election or referendum is called, Elections Canada mails a special ballot voting kit to all eligible electors whose names appear in the International Register.

In order to remove inaccurate information from the register—according to the government, there are 40,000 non-Canadians on the list—voters who are living abroad are going to be asked to reconfirm their place of residence.

Canadians living abroad generally believe that they will be able to just pick a riding in which to vote, but in reality that is not how it works. Canadians who are living abroad and who have not lived in Canada for a number of years sometimes have difficulty obtaining tangible evidence that they lived at their last place of residence before moving abroad.

Seeing this measure in the bill gives me a feeling of déjà vu and reminds me of the discussions that we had about Bill C-23 last year. It is very simple. Under the guise of improving the accuracy of voter identification and combatting election fraud, the Conservatives are actually making the rules as complicated and as difficult to follow as possible. In a way, they are doing as much as they possibly can to interfere with Canadians' right to vote. As I said, it gives me a feeling of déjà vu and reminds me of Bill C-23.

I do not need to remind the House about all the bad provisions that were passed by the Conservative government in its reform of the Canada Elections Act in Bill C-23. There were so many measures aimed at simply lowering voter turnout, such as no longer allowing the voter information card or vouching as a means of identification, that we can no longer trust this government when it tells us that it is doing good things or that it wants to help Canadians; we know that the underlying philosophy of undermining Canadians' right to vote as much as possible is always there.

That is why I obviously cannot support Bill C-50. We will make a number of suggestions to amend and improve this bill. With Bill C-23, we barely had enough time to debate half of the amendments proposed by the NDP.

I hope that this time we will be allowed to carefully study this bill for real in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that the government will be open to improving it as much as possible.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her great speech. It was a good summary and many of the aspects in her speech were well done, because these are the problems we are experiencing. I even had a slight chuckle over the Stalinist reference as well. However, I would like to talk about the issue of the bill coming into force.

We have an election coming very soon and we have heard from Elections Canada officials that they are not quite sure if they are going to be ready for this in addition to the Bill C-23 changes that took place.

Would the member like to comment on that ?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for his question. He has been very involved with us on this issue and he spent a lot of time studying Bill C-23 with us. When we were studying the bill in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, he proposed a number of amendments that ultimately could not be debated.

He asked an excellent question. We knew that was a problem with Bill C-23. The Chief Electoral Officer told us many times that these were massive changes.

There are the changes from Bill C-23, the changes to electoral boundaries, the addition of 30 new members to Parliament and some very complicated voting restrictions for millions of Canadians living abroad. In addition to all of that, Elections Canada is not receiving any kind of additional assistance to implement all these measures.

Indeed, the fact that the government is introducing bills to amend the Canada Elections Act less than six months before an election causes major logistical problems. I think we will notice an extreme drop in voter turnout as a result of these rules.

This is a serious issue that we need to look at. I hope that this will come up in committee and that we will be able to discuss it in depth.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent's speech. I would like to ask her two questions. I hope that she will have time to answer both of them.

First, can she share her thoughts on the fact that Canada has not recognized extraterritorial constituencies since 2008? Canada forbids other countries from conducting elections in embassies and consulates even though they are territories that are supposed to be independent.

Second, it looks like this bill would end up erasing the names of the voters currently on the international register of electors. Another register, an ad hoc register, would be created. Voters will have a relatively short period of time to get their names on the list of voters once the writ is dropped.

This is a double standard. Some Canadian citizens will have rights and will not have to re-register for every election because they live in Canada, but others, who live abroad, will have to re-register for the same list they have been on for years.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for those two excellent questions.

This is a real problem for voters living in Canada who are citizens of other countries. I do not know whether my colleague is aware of this, but it would seem that this government has double standards.

The government systematically refuses to allow citizens of certain countries to vote, while in the case of other countries, it acts as if this does not happen. We get the impression that there are certain countries it would not dare oppose and others that it wants to intimidate. This is very odd behaviour, given that it is common practice in many countries to have members that represent their diaspora. The government's behaviour is very odd.

As for my colleague's second question, this is one of the biggest problems with this bill. It would be quite simple to have an ongoing registry that people could add their names to when they move abroad or when their situation changes. They could renew their registration at any time, not just during an election period.

We know that Elections Canada is completely overwhelmed during election periods. What is more, voters are often asked to provide documents that can be quite difficult to obtain in less than two or three weeks. This measure will only hurt the right to vote.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, there is another issue that has come to light. If someone living in Abu Dhabi or somewhere in China wants to vote, in the process by which the list is created, as my colleague from the NDP pointed out, the list is created when the writ is dropped and time is of the essence. The minister said that it can be scanned and sent in that way, but in many places around the world, that type of technology just does not exist.

I would ask the member to comment on that.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually a major problem because basically, access to different information or resources is not the same around the world, and as my colleague mentioned, that is especially true in China.

If someone happens to be in an area where access is extremely difficult and where very few electronic resources or even telephones are available, how can that person have all the information required in time to be able to vote in an election, given that an election campaign lasts no more than four or five weeks?

How can we reach the millions of Canadians living abroad if we do that just in the period mentioned in Bill C-50?

I believe that is completely unrealistic.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech, which, quite frankly, was very instructive. After listening to her, we really understand the challenges with this bill.

Listening to the speech by the Conservative member and then that of my colleague, we realize right away that we have a major problem. Quite simply, and this is typical of the Conservative government, it wants to first control everything and then fix the problems. This has already occurred with several types of bills. One of the current problems in our democracy is encouraging voter turnout.

Would my colleague like to comment on this deep philosophical divide between the opposition and the government? What is really important today is to make it easier to vote, not to create obstacles.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Hébert for his comments and his question. He raises a fundamental issue in the debate we are having here today on Bill C-50 as well as the debate we held last year on Bill C-23.

Right now, the biggest threat to our democracy in Canada is low voter turnout. That is our biggest problem and that is what we should be trying to fix, by whatever means necessary. We as politicians should be joining forces to try to address the problem of voter apathy and low voter turnout. It is a truly serious problem.

However, the Conservatives have become paranoid about massive electoral fraud by people who use vouching, although that is not at all the reality. There is no evidence whatsoever; nothing like that has ever been documented.

Faced with the immense problem of very low voter turnout, the Conservatives simply shrug their shoulders. They are not worried about it because, ultimately, they know that with fewer people voting, they can hold on to their little powers and their small majority, given to them by a minority of Canadians.

The only thing that matters to them is being able to hold on to power and control. They really do not care whether democracy is advanced in any way.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly my pleasure to address the House of Commons today at second reading of Bill C-50, the citizen voting act.

As was already explained, the bill proposes electoral reforms and aims at strengthening Canada's democracy by doing two things. One, it would reinforce the integrity of the special ballot voting system. Two, it would ensure fairness for resident and non-resident voters alike.

Despite these laudable goals, which should command the consent of the House, we have heard criticism from members of the House directed at the bill. Some have alleged that this reform could create chaos with voting in Canada. Nobody understands why we would create chaos in Canada with this kind of legislation, but the opposition would allege it. One member suggested that the bill created an administrative nightmare for non-resident voters. These allegations are fabrications and certainly, overstatements of the facts.

The proposed electoral reform was carefully developed and its impacts were apprised. In truth, the reforms are more in nature procedural adjustments than a substantive overhaul of the special ballot system.

I would like to use my time today to review the new rules from an operational perspective. By this exercise, I wish to demonstrate that the concerns of certain members of the House should be allayed. I therefore propose to review the steps that non-resident electors would have to follow in order to vote in a general election under the new rules.

As is known by every member in the House, an election begins with the issue of the writs. The Governor in Council issues a proclamation that directs the Chief Electoral Officer to issue a writ to the returning officer for each electoral district, fixes the date of the issue of the writ, and then fixes the date for voting. This date must be at least 36 days after the issuance of the writs.

After the issuance of the writs, non-resident voters need to apply for a special ballot. I wish to point out that this is currently what resident electors must do if they plan not to be in their electoral district on election day, either because they are vacationing abroad or for another reason. There is no administrative nightmare here, I would suggest. I do not see why applying the same requirement to non-resident voters would make it one.

The special ballot application should be available on the website of Elections Canada, at any Canadian embassy, high commission or consulate, or by calling Elections Canada. Non-resident voters would have to include with their application proof of identity and proof of residence. Proof of prior residence in Canada is currently not required for non-resident voters.

I would hope members would agree that it is reasonable to require non-resident electors to prove that they have previously resided in Canada. I think most Canadians would think that just makes eminent sense. Such proof of residence is already required from resident electors. We are only asking for the same for non-resident electors.

Non-resident voters would have various options to prove their identity and last place of residence in Canada. They could provide copies of a single piece of identification issued by a Canadian government or an agency of that government with a photograph, name and address. For example, a driver's licence would be accepted, even if it has expired. A second option is to provide two pieces of identification from the list provided by the Chief Electoral Officer, one with an address and both with a name.

I invite members of the House to view the list of the types of ID that have been authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer. They will see that more than 45 types of identification are currently accepted. Perhaps at this point I might address a specific suggestion from the member for Toronto—Danforth that the proposed paragraph 143(2.11)(b) would exclude private leases—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair must interrupt at this point. The hon. member for Oxford will have 15 minutes remaining in his speech when this matter next returns before the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Oxford had 15 minutes remaining in his address.

The hon. member for Oxford.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, picking up where I left off, subsection 143(2.11)(b) provides that the Chief Electoral Officer can only authorize the type of identification that has been issued by an entity that is incorporated or formed in Canada. It applies only to entities and not to physical persons. Therefore, private leases would be acceptable as I.D. to prove a Canadian address, even with an individual landlord who is not a Canadian citizen.

There is a third option available to non-residence electors who cannot prove their last place of residence in Canada with documents. These electors would have the opportunity to provide two pieces of authorized identification confirming their name and an oath or declaration as to residence, together with an attestation by another elector from the same electoral district.

The attestation form would be available online, and the attestor would be able to send the attestation to the non-resident elector with copies of their own identification documents by electronic means.

Additionally, proof of citizenship would have to be provided with the application. This should not pose any problems to non-resident electors who would have a Canadian passport or birth certificate. What is more, Elections Canada already requires proof of citizenship for non-resident voters, so nothing would change in that regard.

In terms of applying for a special ballot, this could all be done in an expeditious fashion. Once the writs are issued, a non-resident elector would download the application form, fill it out, copy the required piece of I.D. and proof of citizenship, print scanned copies of the attestation form, if necessary, and then fax or perhaps email the package to Elections Canada.

In my view, these are not unreasonable steps for someone to take in order to have a ballot for a Canadian election mailed to them outside of the country.

Some might ask how the identification requirements would differ between voting by mail and voting at the polls. The citizen voting act would create one set of voter rights identification requirements for all voters. However, minor changes to the requirements are necessary for the attestation of residents reflecting the different situations that apply to non-resident voters. When attesting to prove the last address of a non-resident elector, the attestor can be any eligible voter from that electoral district, while those attesting in Canada must live in the same polling division as the elector.

In addition, either a note or a declaration of residence would be acceptable as part of the attestation process when voting by special ballot, given that oaths administered out by Canada are only accepted as valid in Canada if administered by someone within a limited class of persons abroad. The prohibition on serial and multiple attestations in the Fair Elections Act would continue to apply to all electors.

Canadians support the identification requirements established in the Fair Elections Act, and it is important that Canadians in fact do support those identification requirements that were established in the Fair Elections Act.

According to an Ipsos Reid poll done in April 2014, and this is important because it is very recent, 87% of those polls said that it was reasonable to require someone to prove their identity and address before they were allowed to vote.

The other part of this whole thing is the issue on how many people it affects outside of the country. I heard people talk about trying to prevent folks from voting. This is nonsense. In the 2011 general election, 10,733 Canadians were registered on the International Register of Electors. Of that 10,733 Canadians, the ballots of 6,069 non-residents were counted. That is about average with the returns in all of Canada.

Upon receiving an application for a special ballot, Elections Canada would review the application form, the pieces of identification submitted, the proof of citizenship, and the attestation of residence, if applicable. Upon approval of the request for a special ballot, Elections Canada would update the national register of electors and the list of electors and mail the special ballot voting kit to the non-resident elector. It all seems pretty simple and straightforward. That is similar to what happens now for resident electors applying for a special ballot, as well as for first-time non-registered residents.

Upon receiving the special ballot, the non-resident elector would mark the ballot and send it back to Elections Canada in Ottawa. To be counted, the ballots must reach Elections Canada by 6 p.m. eastern time on election day. Special ballots may also be submitted to the care of Canadian diplomatic and consular offices.

Looking at these rules, I cannot help but ask where the administrative nightmare lies. Not only are these rules clear and easy to follow, but they would provide more tools to verify the eligibility of voters and to instill greater confidence that the ballots are being counted in the right district as non-resident voters would only be able to apply for a special ballot in relation to their last place of residence. That seems to be common sense, but it seems to be of great difficulty for some members on the opposite side. Just to be clear, non-resident voters would only be able to apply for a special ballot in relation to their last place of residence in Canada. Further, they track, in many respects, the rules already in place.

Under the bill, non-resident electors would now have to apply at each election to obtain the special ballot. Yes, that is a change, but a requirement that currently applies to resident electors who are voting by special ballot. There should be no difference between those living in Canada and those living abroad.

Non-residents would have to provide proof of identity, past residence in Canada and citizenship with their application. Apart from providing proof of past residence in Canada, this is already required when non-resident voters wish to register on the international register of electors.

Another change is the clear identification rules including the attestation procedure. This was adopted in the Fair Elections Act and is available to people if they are not in a position to prove their past residence in Canada. The rest is virtually the same.

Are the detractors of the bill being fair when they talk about chaos or administrative nightmare? As far as I am concerned, the answer is that they are obviously not.

The government has strived to ensure our electoral process is fair. Our electoral law is strong, but that strength must be maintained at all times. Bill C-50 is intended to further reinforce the integrity and fairness of our electoral system. It would do so notably by creating one set of rules for all Canadians voting from outside the country, and by ensuring that non-resident voters prove their identity and past residence when they wish to vote from abroad.

There may be questions, either in the House or by people watching today, regarding how the bill would apply to special forces personnel outside the country. A completely separate set of rules contained in division 2 of part 11 of the Canada Elections Act provides comprehensive procedures for voting by the Canadian Forces members at locations where they are stationed. This reflects the unique circumstances faced by Canadian Forces personnel.

As I have already indicated, I believe that this would bring fairness to it. It would also bring credibility to it, and it would make it fairer to every citizen of the country: those who live and vote in the country and those who are living abroad. It is not a difficult and onerous system, but is something that all Canadians could abide by, and believe in the truth and the honesty of the system.

I hope the members of this House will come to see the merits of this reform.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague across the way for a considered speech. It seemed to respond to various critiques that have been offered already.

First, as to the administrative challenges point, the chaos or nightmare scenario actually has nothing to do with voters voting from outside Canada. One thing the government is not acknowledging is that the new subsection 143(2.11) would change the rules for identity within Canada. The government may not realize this, but with regard to some of the criteria, such as, “an entity that is incorporated or formed by...an Act of Parliament...otherwise formed in Canada”, Elections Canada's view is that this is incredibly difficult to interpret with respect to complex structures of corporations and what the words “formed by” mean, because it is not a legal term known under Canadian law at the moment.

The chaos has to do with how this would actually change the identity rules for what the Chief Electoral Officer is able to authorize in Canada. That is my only point. When we hear from the Chief Electoral Officer and his officials, it is at that point when we will hear whether this is going to be a problem. It is not about the other side of things. Our concern there is the increased difficulty—not chaos, but just difficulty—of being able to vote after the writ has dropped.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is also a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. He is a learned individual and I appreciate his comments. I look forward to this matter going to the procedure and House affairs committee expeditiously. I am hopeful that it will be in committee very shortly and I hope the committee will hear from Elections Canada officials as to what they perceive to be or do not perceive to be the issues related to this. I think we will spend our time in PROC studying it appropriately. If Elections Canada and others bring that issue to the fore, it will be up to the committee to make its decision.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question concerns members of the Canadian Armed Forces abroad. I understand that a provision in Bill C-50 exempts serving military members outside of Canada from the extra steps, more the difficulties, in voting from outside of our country, and I appreciate that exemption. That shows respect for the men and women in uniform and it recognizes that this bill would make it harder for Canadians to vote.

What the bill would not do is exempt family members of the military. Often, military members serving abroad have family members and a spouse with them. The spouse is treated differently than the military member while being in the same situation outside of the country and potentially unable to go through the bureaucracy and extra paperwork to vote.

Why are the Conservatives showing such disrespect for the family members of the military in that they exempt military members themselves, but put their spouses through all of the extra hoops that this bill would apply to Canadian citizens voting from abroad?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to accept the member's statement about disrespect for military families. No government in this country has ever shown more respect for the members of the military and their families than this one has. This bill does not show disrespect to anyone.

These are rules that would be in place. They are not difficult to follow. I can tell the member that military families would not find it difficult to follow the rules in the bill. The process would not be significantly different than what occurred during the time the member's party was in government. This is a good bill. It has to be something that Canadians can respect. I believe this bill is one that Canadians will see as respecting the integrity of voters.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of respect, the member across the aisle mentioned in his speech that it is just common sense that non-resident voters should only be able to apply for a special ballot in relation to their last place of residence. It is not just a question of common sense, given that many countries have decided to have representatives for their diaspora. It is just a legislative decision by Canada. We must not assume that Canada's legislative decisions are more intelligent or more reasoned than those of other countries.

However, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on another point. Bill C-50 will create two categories of citizens: one category of people who live in Canada and do not have to register for every election and another category of second-class citizens who will have to register every time there is an election in order to vote.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I understood the logic to the question.

This legislation deals with Canadians who live outside of the country. Obviously, when someone lives outside of the country, there may be different standards required. However, in this case, they are very similar to the standards that are required here. In this country, people have to vote in the district in which they live, not in a district where they want to vote.

All this is doing is saying that the district from which people left, where they were formerly resident, is where they will vote. Most Canadians would find that to be the most realistic of requirements for people who live outside the country.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have one point on the last note the member mentioned.

Why eliminate the permanent list, if the listing is so essential? I do not understand why getting rid of the permanent list of international electors was so necessary. That was by way of comment.

Now by way of question, the member said that military spouses should not have any problem being able to vote, despite the fact that they have to go through these new rules. If that is the case, why are military members exempt anyway? Why do they have that exemption?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do believe the military does possess a different place in Canadian society.

For many of our military members, it is easy to look at them when they may be in some location where the members are living together, but in many cases, our military are stationed overseas in combat locations. They are not in the same place and do not have the same opportunities to do some of these things.

I have had family members overseas in the military. For some of them, it is very difficult. It would be difficult to do these things if they are in a combat theatre. It is a whole lot different when the families are with them, but in a combat theatre, the families are not there.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on that a little. I just want to make sure that the government is at least open to seeing scenarios that could be a problem. For example, one of the most frequent sources of Canadians going abroad for up to two years, sometimes three years, is graduate students. They often go abroad, to London, Paris, or wherever, after having been at a university. Their last place of residence is only defined as where they were at university, versus picking up on the fact that the last place of residence could be either there or where their parents reside. The problem is a lot of their compatriots will have gone. They will not have anybody who is able to vouch for their previous address.

The question is whether we can make sure that in those kinds of circumstances, and it might only affect a couple of dozen or a couple of hundred people, these special cases that can easily be imagined, are taken care of in the committee. I am just hoping that my colleague who is a member of the procedure and House affairs committee will be able to assure me that this kind of situation will be looked at closely.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is the reason we have committee meetings.

Members opposite will have a list of people they wish to present at the committee, as will the government side. I am sure that we will hear all about those issues that he and others have raised.

This bill needs to get to the procedure and House affairs committee as soon as possible so that the committee can deal with it and get it back to the House.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to stand to speak to this very important issue today. What I will do is focus on some important measures and how Canada is, in many ways, similar to other countries.

The relationship works both ways. Canada's electoral process serves as a model for other countries to emulate. Our electoral system is deemed to be one of the best in the world. One of the reasons we have this enviable reputation is that we strive to improve how our elections are administered. We review our electoral procedures and laws. We study the recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer to Parliament and the various studies and reviews of election procedures conducted by parliamentary committees. We listen to our constituents, and of course, we all live through elections.

We learn from these experiences, and we build on them to improve the processes in place, particularly the procedural safeguards against irregularities or impropriety that could call into question the validity of electoral results. If there is room for improvement or we find that existing procedures are deficient, we need to respond with new procedural safeguards. This is the responsible thing to do, and that is precisely what we would do here with the citizen voting act.

Election procedures must include the checks and balances that ensure that elections are conducted fairly and with transparency and accountability to instill confidence in the electoral process. At the same time, any new procedures must be developed with a view to ensuring that voting remains accessible. This legislation would achieve both of these aims. It strikes the right balance between procedural safeguards and the accessibility of the voting process.

When we review how other mature democracies, particularly those in the Westminster tradition, structure their voting rules, it further supports this conclusion. Reviewing procedures from other jurisdictions also enables us to assess how well our own electoral processes measure up internationally.

How does the citizen voting act compare with the way non-resident voting is administered in other jurisdictions?

To start, I will talk a little about the United Kingdom. Non-residents must have previously registered to vote in the 15 years before leaving the U.K. To register to vote, the voter must provide the U.K. with the equivalent of a social insurance number, called a national insurance number, which is matched or cross-referenced against various trusted sources of data. If the voter cannot or does not provide the national insurance number, proof of identity may be requested. Failing these options, the voter must provide an attestation from an eligible registered elector living abroad who is not a spouse, civil partner, or immediate relative. All voters, including non-resident voters, must confirm their election registration details each year.

International voters cannot choose the electoral district for which they cast a ballot. The ballot is cast for the electoral district where the voter actually last cast a ballot.

It is very important to see how similar that is to what we are proposing with respect to the attachment voters would need to have to their place prior to leaving.

Another country we could look at that is very similar is Australia. Its rules for non-resident voters have identification and residence requirements. Non-resident Australians may vote only if they have not lived abroad for more than six years. They must register to vote by providing their driver's licence and passport number. If they cannot provide either of these pieces of identification, a registered voter may attest to their identity.

A non-resident voter may not choose the electoral district in which to cast a ballot. People may only vote in the last electoral district in which they last voted. There is no separate register of international electors, like the measure proposed in the citizen voting act. There is only one register of electors.

New Zealand takes a slightly different approach. It has the most specific jurisdiction requirements. New Zealand voters residing outside the country may vote in national elections provided they have lived in New Zealand for more than one year at some point in their lives, have not been absent from the country longer than three years, and have visited the country in the past 12 months.

New Zealand non-resident voters may not choose the electoral district for which they cast a ballot; they may only vote in the electoral district in which they have resided for one month or more. Finally, non-resident voters do not automatically receive ballots. Like the measure proposed in the citizenship voting act, they must apply for a ballot at each election.

Notably, Ireland does not permit voting by non-residents unless they are officials of the Irish government who are posted abroad, or their spouses.

If we look closer to home, there are further examples of different approaches to non-resident voting. For example, Ontario's rules for non-resident voters incorporate elements from many of the international jurisdictions I have reviewed. Ontario non-resident voters may vote in an election for the provincial legislature if they lived in Ontario for at least 12 consecutive months before leaving the province, have not been absent from Ontario longer than two years, and intend to return to Ontario. Members of the Canadian Forces, federal and provincial government employees, students, and the families of these voters are exempted from these particular time limits.

The rules in Quebec similarly impose requirements on non-resident electors. Non-resident Quebec voters are entitled to vote in elections for the Quebec National Assembly provided that they have resided outside Quebec for no more than two years and that they resided in Quebec for a period of at least 12 consecutive months before their departure. Voters must apply for a mail-in ballot by providing two documents that establish proof of identity, date of birth, and residence in Quebec.

I would like to say a few words about France, which has come up in debate in this House. It is important for members to be aware that France has a different approach than Canada or the other Westminster systems I have mentioned. French citizens residing abroad are entitled to vote either in an extra-territorial overseas constituency, sometimes referred to as a consular constituency, or in a domestic constituency. To vote in an extraterritorial or consular constituency, non-resident voters must register in a separate registry of French citizens living outside France. To do so, they must provide proof of identity, citizenship, and address abroad.

As hon. members are aware, Canada does not have extraterritorial constituencies, although I think many of us could think of some wonderful places we might like to live that would provide that extraterritorial constituency. Our system is based on democratic representation based on territoriality, meaning geographic constituencies in Canada, with each domestic constituency returning a member to represent that community.

In France, non-resident voters may also apply to register on a list of electors in a domestic constituency in France. This requires proof of identity and citizenship by means of a French national identity card, a French passport, or a driver's licence accompanied by proof of citizenship. Registration on this list must be renewed every five years, and no later than three months before the expiry of the registration. Failure to do so results in the voter being taken off the register and potentially the register for consular constituencies.

There are two main lessons we can take from the survey of international practices on non-resident voting.

First, all jurisdictions, importantly, impose procedural safeguards to ensure that the integrity of the process is not compromised, and many go further, with limits on the time a citizen can reside abroad.

Second, and as important, the approaches vary widely, reflecting that each democracy must decide for itself how to structure its rules to instill confidence in its own elections.

There are variations in the nature of the procedural safeguards across jurisdictions, variations in how proof of citizenship and identification are established, and variations in residency requirements to maintain the right to vote.

What Bill C-50 is proposing for Canada is not out of line with the approaches of other jurisdictions. Indeed, what is proposed measures up remarkably well with what other jurisdictions have done to construct procedural safeguards for non-resident voters.

We are also seeking to ensure that safeguards do not act as barriers to voting.

In conclusion, the procedural reforms in the citizen voting act are aimed at improving the integrity and fairness of the special ballot process. By strengthening the procedures required to receive a special ballot, we would strengthen our confidence in the integrity of the ballots. By establishing common application and identification procedures for non-residents and non-resident voters, we would reinforce the fair application of rules for citizens, regardless of where they vote.

These provisions of the citizen voting act would accomplish both of these goals. I certainly encourage all members in this House to support it.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill would actually make it very difficult for persons living abroad to actually register and vote. Currently people living abroad who have registered to vote stay on a list. All they need to do is change their address, if their address changes.

This would require them to wait until a writ is dropped before they could even apply to vote. That would do two things. First, it would discourage people from putting themselves on the list. Second, it would make Elections Canada's job that much more difficult if it only had 35 days to receive all the applications, check to see whether they were accurate, check all the data that would be submitted with those applications, and mail a ballot back, which according to this law, would have to be received in Ottawa before six days prior. Therefore, there would really only be 29 days to do all of this work.

Would the government be assigning more resources to Elections Canada to accomplish all this extra work during an election period?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks I outlined the many different countries and approaches, and there are some approaches that are very similar to what we are proposing in this act. I certainly have every confidence that Elections Canada would be able to process these people who are living outside the country and who are so committed to our democratic process and really do take the time. Of course, we always hope that as many Canadians also take the time, when elections come, to exercise that incredible responsibility and opportunity we enjoy in Canada in our democratic system.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, there are several problems outlined, and they have been directly addressed, in some cases, but in other cases not so much. One of the problems arising from this, which I asked about earlier, was the coming into force, which the Chief Electoral Officer has told us is going to be very problematic, given the changes in Bill C-23 and now changes here.

Does the member agree that this would be overly problematic for Elections Canada, which does not have the resources for that?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although this is early in the process, we anticipate that it will move its way through committee. It is already, very importantly, signalling the structure and the mechanisms that would need to be in place. Obviously, the committee will be reviewing it in detail.

I have every confidence in Elections Canada and its ability to do what is required in terms of the appropriate structure and mechanisms. Certainly there are some pretty good signals about what those are going to be so it can start to do some planning now.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her remarks on this very important debate that is taking place today. I recognize that part of the process will be that the bill will be referred to committee for further study. However, for the purposes of today's debate, I am wondering if she would advise the House why our government has introduced the bill.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a really important bill. Elections Canada estimates there are approximately 40,000 non-citizens on the national register of electors, and the accuracy of the register is very important for the fairness and integrity of elections. Certainly, we must ensure that people who are registered to vote are Canadian citizens. The bill would help to create and maintain more direct communication between the non-resident voters and the specific electoral districts in which their votes are counted.

This is a very well structured and important bill for supporting those 40,000 folks who are currently living outside Canada in terms of their ability to exercise their democratic rights.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out something that is remarkable: this is the 95th time we have had a gag order imposed on us.

My colleague spoke earlier about some other major countries' practices. There are many interesting practices used elsewhere in the world that we could adopt here. Under the current conditions, however, we cannot even discuss them here, let alone in committee, where the Conservatives have the same attitude as they do here. There is no way to discuss them.

This bill only complicates matters for Canadian citizens living abroad. Just look at the situation in Nepal, where the government cannot even seem to locate Canadians in order to evacuate them. We can only imagine its indifference to their desire to vote.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it a little ironic. On the one hand, we have the opposition saying there is not going to be enough time for Elections Canada to implement the changes and we need to move this rapidly so it is ready for the election in 2015. Then, on the other hand, we have the opposition saying not to move so fast, as we need to debate this.

Time allocation has given us a very important opportunity to ensure that the bill will move through the process that is required so that Elections Canada will have time to implement the changes and move forward in the 2015 election with some good, solid processes and structures in place that would not only ensure the integrity of our system but allow great opportunities for Canada and for Canadians to exercise their democratic rights.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is not exactly correct. Basically, what happened was this was dead on arrival. The Chief Electoral Officer said that this would not come in time, before this debate even began. I suspect the Conservatives should have known that. If they did not know that then they did not have that essential discussion with Elections Canada to get advice from it as to when this comes into force and whether it is to be effective. That is the unfortunate part.

My question though goes back to that permanent list again. It seems to me that the narrative they are putting forward is always the case where they have a solution in search of a problem that does not exist, like eliminating the international voters list. What was so wrong with it?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to go back to my original comments where we looked at international jurisdictions and the processes that were in place in international jurisdictions. What we have here is a system that has been put in place that is going to ensure the integrity of our system and the opportunity for those Canadians who are living abroad.

Again, this is not by any means a piece of legislation that is unusual or outside what many other countries similar to Canada have done.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as is the case when we are dealing with time allocation, usually that means that because the number of speakers is limited, York South—Weston is not represented in the debate on any particular bill.

By the way, I will be sharing my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Usually York South—Weston does not get to be represented when there is time allocation because it limits the number of speakers in total to something like 5% of the members of Parliament and that is essentially what is happening here, although today, I happened to be here during the one day that the government has allowed for debate on the bill. On the 95th occasion, I think is a record for any Westminster parliamentary democracy in the world in terms of the number of times that debate has been curtailed or stopped in a sitting of Parliament.

The notion that we are dealing with this under time allocation means that a total of six and a quarter hours will have been spent on debating the bill over the course of its life in the Houses of Parliament and the bill has some serious flaws. We have mentioned already that the bill has eliminated the ability for there to be a permanent list of electors and that list is how people who live outside of Canada could remain on the voters list without having to go through hoops each time.

When asked why the bill was coming forward, the member opposite said it is because there are 40,000 non-Canadians on the list of electors, so estimates Elections Canada. That is not why the bill is coming forward. It is coming forward because the courts have told the Conservatives that it is illegal under section 11(d) of the Canada Elections Act to deny Canadian citizens the right to vote, which is what the law did. It denied the right to vote to Canadian citizens who happened to live abroad for more than five years.

We put forward Bill C-575, a good bill that would have repealed section 11(d) of the law in such a way that we would have done away with the requirement to be outside of Canada for less than five years. The Conservatives did not like that and brought forward their own bill and I think it is telling that the member opposite suggested that is not the reason for bringing the bill forward. The Conservatives are continuing with their appeal of the Frank decision to appeal the court decision that says that it is the right of any Canadian citizen to vote in an election. I agree with that right. I think it is the right of any Canadian citizen to vote regardless of how long they have lived outside the country.

However, the Conservatives, as is the case every time the courts tell them the laws they created were wrong, have created a system that makes it worse, that makes it more difficult and is going to apparently live up to the spirit of the decision, but not the letter of the decision because it will become incredibly difficult.

I asked the member opposite whether, given that Elections Canada will now have the responsibility in every election to process all persons outside Canada every time, it will be given extra resources to do that because it will not be able to spread that out over the period between elections as it now does. It has to do it only when there is an election. As a result, I do not believe Elections Canada is going to have the resources to do it, but the member opposite would not confirm or deny. All she said was they think Elections Canada has lots of resources. That is not a proper answer.

We believe that this change in legislation is going to make it more difficult for all persons living outside Canada, not just those people who are out there for more than five years, but all persons living outside Canada. The effect of that will be to further reduce the number of people who actually vote in an election. It seems to be the Conservatives' mantra to keep people from voting because if people vote maybe they will not get elected. That is apparently what drives a lot of what the Conservatives have done.

I am going to give the example of my brother who is a dual citizen. He was born in Canada to American parents, so the U.S. has determined he is an American citizen as well. When he was living in Canada some 15 or so years ago, he was a lawyer working for a big multinational firm that decided to move his job to the U.S. After much internal wrestling, he decided he had to go with that job and he has lived in the U.S. ever since. For the first five years, he was able to vote, but he has not been able to vote for the last 10 or so years. He would have been on a list of electors for some time.

Now, he would have to prove where he last lived 15 years ago. If I know my brother, he may have kept his rent receipts but I do not know. I certainly would not have. He has to prove it, and if he cannot prove it, if he has no documentation that shows his previous address, he has to find someone who lives where he last lived to swear that he or she knows him and that he did live there. That was 15 years ago and he lived in a small apartment building in downtown Toronto. I doubt very much that he knows anybody in that riding who can vouch for the fact that he lived there. The Conservative answer to the court decision is to make that become the necessary step by which someone would need to become registered to be a voter.

I come back to the problem that it has to all be done within the writ period. He cannot get the form until after the writs. He gets the form, finds somebody who remembers him when he lived in an apartment building in downtown Toronto 15 years ago and gets that person to swear out an affidavit because it has to be an oath. I am not 100% certain whether the person has to swear out an oath in front of a justice of the peace in Canada or if it can be somewhere else, but it is the Canada Evidence Act that the Conservatives are using. Those two hoops alone would eat up the first 15 days after the writ drops.

He has 14 days left, so he fills in the form and sends it off to Elections Canada by mail, or maybe by courier if it will accept things by courier. Assuming that there are 14 days left, because he only has 29 days to act on this, then Elections Canada has to put his application into its queue. There is no obligation on Elections Canada to process it in a timely manner, it just has to process it. The only requirement is that once Elections Canada has sent him the ballot he has to return it, such that Elections Canada receives it six days before the actual election day.

It is not likely going to happen that my brother would be able to meet all of these requirements in that 29-calendar-day time period, given the vagaries of Canada Post. There is no indication in this bill that Elections Canada would have to find some fast way to get the ballot to him either. If he needs to get a ballot within a short period of time, the most appropriate way would be to courier it to him but I doubt very much that the current government thinks highly enough of the voters living outside Canada to use couriers to get them the ballot.

It is a problem that is being created by the government to suppress votes again. That is what we have seen time and again from the Conservatives whenever they have talked about election reform and voting reform. It is to ensure that people do not have the ability to vote, that for people who are on the margins of society or, in this case, on the margins of Canada, who live outside of Canada, it would become extremely difficult for them to vote. I would be willing to bet that very few people who live outside Canada would be able to cast their ballot in a meaningful time frame and would therefore be disenfranchised by these rules.

That comes back to the court decision, which says Canadians, regardless of where they live, have a right to vote in a federal election. If the Conservatives put forward a law that would deny them that right through timing or other extraneous means, it would be in violation of the charter again, of the Constitution of this country. That is why Mr. or Mrs. Frank went to the courts in the first place.

I welcome any questions.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is definitely the only party in the House that is prepared to defend the right of every Canadian to vote in a general election.

Can my hon. colleague speak briefly to the previous bill, Bill C-23, which dramatically limited Canadians' right to vote?

Would he also comment on the NDP's position and proposal regarding Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the matter of the court case that gave rise to this bill, we think, although the minister did not say that, that court case said, or the end result was that every Canadian, regardless of where he or she lives, has a constitutional right to vote and it cannot be taken away by means of an artificial time limit. The government, with the other hoops that it is putting in this bill, would appear to be taking away that right to vote, not just for the people who have lived outside of Canada for more than five years, but for all persons who live outside of Canada, because it will now become effectively impossible for them to properly cast their ballots in a reasonable timeframe.

With Bill C-23, the government also made it more difficult for persons who are on the margins of society, those who do not have documentation, who do not have access to myriad personal information because sometimes they are homeless or not living in a place that is permanent and as a result, it will become almost impossible for them to cast ballots.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a trend happening from Bill C-23 until now where consultations have not taken place, to the point where members in committee find themselves struggling to fix some of the mistakes that were made initially, which have been pointed out by many in the House earlier. The lack of consultation is certainly alarming. We were expecting this to address the Frank decision directly; instead, we got what was a different piece of legislation in addition to the challenge to the ruling that was made.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

It is true, Mr. Speaker, that committee deliberations to try to fix bills are challenging at best and impossible at worst. When a flawed bill goes before a committee in the current Parliament, it is almost impossible for opposition parties to have any say in trying to correct it. The exception is when there is something so egregious it is absolutely clear on its face that it will be a problem, and even then sometimes the Conservatives do not listen. That has been my experience until now.

We have gone through the same thing with Bill C-51, which is another extremely flawed piece of legislation and ought to be withdrawn entirely. The Conservatives have not accepted a single one of any of the amendments put forward at committee.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

A number of groups live abroad and we do not talk about that enough. One group in particular is very important to me: the students who enrol in long study programs abroad to bring back their expertise to Canada.

I am rather astounded by the content of the bill. It seeks to further control a process instead of encouraging people to get out and vote. It is already hard enough to inform our citizens outside Canada.

I would like my colleague to say a few words about the fact that instead of working to inform people on the many ways to vote outside the country, the government is trying to control those who might try to vote.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is clearly part of an overall plan. Suppressing votes is key to extremism in Parliament, and that is what the government is doing. It is suppressing votes at every stage of the way. We learned through various court cases that there was an active attempt to suppress votes in the last election and I expect this is just part of the same pattern.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. He eloquently presented our position on Bill C-50 and the reasons why we are opposed to An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

This bill basically deals with the right to vote of Canadians living abroad. This bill is very important because it directly affects one out of three Canadians. Unfortunately, I see that we are debating this bill under a time allocation motion. In fact, it is the 95th time allocation motion that the Conservative government has imposed on the House since 2011. Despite the fact that we have raised a number of concerns with this bill, the government does not want to have this serious debate in the House, which I find disappointing.

I am also disappointed by this government's approach in terms of the bills it has introduced in the House concerning Canadians' right to vote. A few years ago, it introduced Bill C-23, and I was able to voice my concerns about it in the House. It restricted the right to vote of many Canadians, especially marginalized Canadians. In fact, the bill actually prevented them from voting. Bill C-23 primarily prevents young people from voting, as it does aboriginal people and vulnerable citizens, such as the homeless. Basically, the voter card will no longer be accepted as a form of identification when people go to their polling station to vote in an election. With this bill, 120,000 Canadians who had to have someone vouch for them during the last federal election may not be able to vote in the next election. Bill C-23 is extremely problematic.

However, today, we are debating Bill C-50, which could prevent another cohort of Canadians from voting. I am talking about the 1.4 million Canadians who live abroad. We know that there are many reasons why Canadians choose to live abroad. Some of them are going to school, while others are working and are very mobile. I am the NDP deputy science and technology critic. I therefore talk with many scientists who find very interesting jobs or contracts that require them to live abroad for several years. I am also thinking of some of my constituents who often travel to the United States, including retirees who choose to spend their final years there. They are still very attached to Canada and they feel as though they are 100% Canadian. They would like to have the right to vote in Canada's general elections.

I would like to give a little bit of background to explain why this bill was introduced in the House and why it is so necessary. The bill is before the House because of an Ontario Superior Court decision. That court ruled that paragraph 11(d) of the Canada Elections Act, which prevents Canadian citizens who have been living abroad for more than five years from voting, is unconstitutional. We therefore have a problem. The court forced this government to take action. The decision was rendered in the case of Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada. It is a case that will be quoted often in this debate.

At first glance, the bill seems to harmonize the legislation with the court's decision. However, we need to be careful. We on this side of the House did our homework, and we found that that is not the case.

In fact, the bill does not bring the act in line with the Ontario Superior Court ruling. Bill C-50 does not repeal subsection 11(a) of the Canada Elections Act, and the government has still not withdrawn its appeal of the Frank ruling.

The government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It talks about this ruling and claims to want to find a solution to the problem, but it has introduced a bill that is not consistent with the Ontario Superior Court ruling. In fact, it has introduced a bill that will cause even more problems for Canadians living abroad.

Bill C-50 will make it more difficult for all citizens living abroad to vote, whether they have been abroad for more than five years or for less. Furthermore, the bill provides for new prohibitions on the types of identification that the Chief Electoral Officer will accept from any citizen living in Canada or abroad, which could seriously compromise the votes of many Canadians come election day.

Before going into detail about the problems with this bill, I would like to talk briefly about Bill C-575, which was introduced by my colleague from Halifax. The bill is clear and unequivocal. It is the NDP's response to the decision in Frank et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada.

This bill, which was introduced in good faith, gives all Canadians living abroad the right to vote. I would like to know why my Conservative colleagues did not simply accept and adopt the bill introduced by my colleague from Halifax, which is in line with the court's ruling.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives' bill ties Elections Canada's hands and makes voter identification requirements so complicated that Canadian citizens living abroad will have a much harder time voting. They are doing this for no reason at all.

I listened to my Conservative colleagues' speeches, but I did not hear one single citation or study showing that the measures in this bill are necessary and valid. Back when the Conservative government was advocating for Bill C-23, it was also unable to quote one expert who thought the measures in the bill were a good idea.

Since I have only a minute left, I would like to go into more detail about the provision that removes the Chief Electoral Officer's discretionary power to determine what forms of identification are acceptable under certain circumstances. For example, under clause 143, the Chief Electoral Officer will no longer be able to accept a foreign driver's licence as a main form of identification or even a secondary form of identification to corroborate a main one. We have to wonder how many Canadians living abroad keep a driver's licence that is no longer valid.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, April 30, 2015, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 4, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will the consent of the House to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

There is no consent.

Before I go to the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth on a point of order, if it relates to what just happened, I want to remind all hon. members that there is a requirement for unanimous consent to see the clock. If the member has a point of order, I would encourage him to promptly make reference to the rule or Standing Order to which he is referring in that case.

The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reason I am raising this point of order is that the failure of government MPs to give unanimous consent to seeing the clock at 1:30 p.m. compromises the integrity of the Thursday statement and of the organization of House business that relies on it.

Let us look at pages 488 and 489 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, by O'Brien and Bosc, which I will refer to for the rest of the intervention. Mr. Speaker, it is very important that I indicate what it says about the Thursday statement in order for you to understand the point of order. With regard to the Thursday statement, it states:

Each Thursday, after Oral Question, the Speaker recognizes the House Leader of the Official Opposition, or his or her representative, to ask the Government House Leader, or his or her representative, about the government orders to be considered by the House in the succeeding days or week. The Government House Leader then proceeds to outline for the House what business the government intends to bring forward. This practice is commonly known as the “Business Statement” or the “Thursday Statement”. The Weekly Business Statement is not referred to in the Standing Orders but is permitted subject to the discretion of the Chair....

A bit further along, it says:

The Weekly Business Statement was inaugurated on September 23, 1968, when the then President of the Privy Council, in announcing the business the government intended to call the following day, stated that a new practice would begin whereby on every Thursday the government would outline its intentions for the forthcoming week and then respond to questions. Prior to this, it had been the custom of the Government House Leader to announce, at the close of each sitting day, the business to be considered the next day.

Finally, in O'Brien and Bosc:

The Speaker has stressed on many occasions that the time provided for this Statement should not be used by Members as an opportunity to engage in negotiations or debate. The Speaker has also not been inclined to consider the question of House business at any time other than on a Thursday during a week of regularly scheduled sittings. On occasion, the Government House Leader has used this period to request the unanimous consent of the House to propose, without notice, motions related to the business of the House.

With that rule, effectively that practice, in mind, it is important to note what the House leader said yesterday in the Thursday statement. It is very key to know what he said, because it is completely contradictory to what is happening right now in the House. He said:

After this statement, we will—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. What is happening right now in the House is that a request for unanimous consent to see the clock has been denied. I think we are all in agreement that unanimous consent is required for that.

I presume the member is presuming what will happen next, as opposed to what is already happening. An order has not been called. There is no government order before the House at this point. The Chair had not had the opportunity to call orders of the day yet. For clarification for the member, there is no business before the House right now because an order has not been called. He is presuming what is about to be called, I presume.

If the member could be clearer in his reference and could come to a conclusion, that would be appreciated.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to be as clear as I can on this. When I say “the business before the House”, I do mean the giving of unanimous consent in a way that is contrary to the rules of the House. I am trying to make the point that in fact—

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

You are trying to filibuster. That is what you are trying to do.

[An hon. member]

It is nonsense.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not nonsense.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that I am asking you to rule that unanimous consent cannot be given in these circumstances. That is the matter before the House. In order for—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. A request was made for unanimous consent to see the clock. That was denied. The proper process was followed. This has nothing to do with the statement that was made yesterday afternoon or with what may follow.

Clearly the rules were followed related to the business of seeing the clock. Unanimous consent was denied. There is no argument that, given other circumstances, it changes the rules related to the unanimous consent requirement.

Again, I am going to go back to the member. The point that he is making is not valid. If he would like to make his point, I encourage him to do it succinctly.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the issue of whether or not my point is valid cannot be ruled on in advance of me making the point. I am trying to argue that the Thursday statement and the practice that surrounds it is directly relevant to the vote that has taken place.

Therefore, if I cannot continue to explain that, I do understand and will accept your ruling. However, I need to explain the argument in order for you to understand why I do believe it is not the case that unanimous consent simply being given in these circumstances is in and of itself valid.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair has said twice, and I will repeat it a third time, that it is the opinion of the Chair that the procedure for unanimous consent was followed properly and that there are not extenuating circumstances that caused those rules to change. Consequently, the request to see the clock has been denied, as it should have been.

In the opinion of the Chair, there is no argument that this member can make that would suggest that different rules ought to apply in this situation, whether it relates to the Thursday question or what might happen next. On that question, the Chair is clear.

As always, any member of this place has an opportunity to challenge the ruling of the Chair if they so wish. However, I think in this case it is quite clear that what has just happened is unusual but is not outside the rules of this place.

Is the hon. member for Saint-Lambert rising on the same point of order?