Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2014

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

That's where I am.

As we know, the current version of Bill C-23 lists specific measures as the only measures that the Chief Electoral Officer may communicate directly with the public about. It says ''with information on the following topics only''.

My amendment offers a new paragraph 18(1)(f) to extend that new subsection 18(1). It would now be paragraphs (a) to (f), and the (f) would make it, as previous motions from other parties have attempted to do, that the Chief Electoral Officer may also provide the public, both inside and outside of Canada, with:

any other information that the Chief Electoral Officer considers necessary for increasing the participation, in the election and in the political process generally, of any segments of the Canadian public that have been historically underrepresented.

Again, looking over Preston Manning's testimony and that of many other groups, whether indigenous groups, low-income groups, it is strongly supported across Canadian society that the Chief Electoral Officer should have this catchphrase at the end of this list of things that he is specifically entitled to use for educational purposes for those groups that are historically under-represented in the political process.

It doesn't do any significant damage to Bill C-23 in terms of structure. I hope the Conservatives opposite will give it a fair consideration because it would certainly, I think—I can't speak for the official opposition or any other party, obviously—just make the overall reception of this act....

I do want to say on the record that I'm pleased with the government amendments. It's great to have the voices of so many critics and the public in general heard on this matter. It's important for Canadians to know that when they raised their voices and organized demonstrations and did all kinds of things to get the attention of the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, they were heard.

They were heard, and the door opened a crack. Let's open it all the way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Simms, on amendment PV-15.

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

This may be a point of contention to a great degree, and I may be mistaken here, but I think Ms. May does bring up a very good aspect in regard to those who are historically under-represented in this process.

My riding had the second lowest turnout of all ridings across the country in the last election.

[An hon. member]

It's not your fault.

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

Thanks for that.

The worst was northern Alberta, up in Fort McMurray.

It was a 44% turnout. One of the reasons for that is we have a lot of people who work abroad. It is a transient community. I suspect by having this here.... I would like to see the CEO be able to reach out to people who are in a circumstance like this, whether they are as listed by Ms. May, or transient workers, people who work all over the world. For example, they can go to the office of the returning officer to vote at any point. A lot of them don't know that.

I understand they want to talk about their exclusive to how and when they want to vote, but I'm really worried about citizen engagement, because you have to reach out to a portion of the population that is under-represented, which takes a little bit of imagination. Unfortunately, they're being too prescriptive, to the point where I don't think they can do that outreach.

I hope I've done some justice to what Ms. May is saying. I think she has a valid point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Simms.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, briefly, in reading this, I just wanted to underscore how troubling it is that the mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer is being limited from what it is now, bearing in mind that the Chief Electoral Officer is an officer of Parliament, not like any other bureaucrat or staff who ultimately answers to the government of the day. The Chief Electoral Officer answers to all members of Parliament as a single entity, yet one subset, meaning one party, the Conservative Party, that happens to have a majority, is changing the mandate.

I want to underscore how undemocratic and totally unacceptable the process was, where there was no consultation with the opposition parties at all. Yet the government feels that it's quite legitimate for them to use their majority, recognizing that they only got 39% of the some 60-odd per cent who turned out, and here they are unilaterally forcing the change to the Chief Electoral Officer's mandate when the hiring and firing of an officer of Parliament is the purview of Parliament and Parliament alone. Only Parliament can hire, and only Parliament can fire, yet the government feels it's legitimate for them to use their partisan majority to change the mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer.

I would just say this, Chair. They wouldn't dare do that to the Auditor General, but they think they can get away with it with the Chief Electoral Officer, and they are getting away with it. Both are officers of Parliament. This is so shameful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I am calling the question on PV-15.

(Amendment negatived)

We'll move on to amendment BQ-2.

Mr. Bellavance, this is your chance for a short summary of your amendment.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I listened carefully to my colleagues' comments on section 18. The government responded to concerns and even criticisms raised about this provision by moving amendments. The government put a great deal of emphasis on advertisement, but there is still some work to be done here.

That's why my colleagues and I put forward much more substantial amendments that help the Chief Electoral Officer regain his powers. We want the Chief Electoral Officer to be able to implement information programs and thereby communicate to the public any information he deems necessary to ensure that elections are conducted properly and that people participate in them.

As for the amendment I am now talking about, I heard Mr. Scott add a paragraph (f). We did something very similar. We want the wording to be the following:

(1.1) the Chief Electoral Officer may

(a) implement public education and information programs to make the electoral process better known to the public, particularly to those persons and groups most likely to experience difficulties in exercising their right to vote.

We are also adding to that section another paragraph, which I will refer to as (b):

devise and test, in cooperation with the committees of the Senate and House of Commons that normally consider electoral matters—including studies respecting alternative voting means—an electronic voting process for future use in a general election or a by-election.

Let's be daring, let's be modern and help as many people as possible vote.

In closing, I would like to present an important point of view, that of the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand. What he told us is actually very much in line with everyone's concerns. He said the following:

I am unaware of any democracy in which such limitations are imposed on the electoral agency, and I strongly feel that an amendment in this regard is essential.

We are responding to that statement by putting forward this amendment.

As this is probably the only amendment I will discuss this evening, I would like to hear my colleagues' opinion. So I am calling for a recorded division on this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Is there further discussion on BQ-2?

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Yes, very briefly. I know Craig wants to comment on this as well.

I don't think this is the appropriate spot for that. We've had discussions before when Monsieur Mayrand has appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee on the possibility of having electronic voting in a test situation. I think the appropriate method in which to proceed, should we want to proceed, is to have Monsieur Mayrand come, make a distinct proposal to this committee giving detailed information as to how he wishes to conduct the test, and when and where. Then this committee can give it its due consideration and make a decision at that time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Scott.

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

I'll speak very briefly on the second paragraph from Monsieur Bellavance. The Senate does line up with proposed section 18.1 that's coming up, NDP-14, where we're actually trying to get to the same point that Mr. Bellavance is, that the committees of the House of Commons and the Senate should have the same authority over e-voting tests as any other test.

I see this as consistent, although I understand Mr. Lukiwski's point about being a little bit of an odd fit, but the goal is exactly the same. We don't believe it was an acceptable change that this bill has that on this one area of tests or pilot projects for voting that e-voting should now be subject to the full House of Commons' and the full Senate's approval before it can go ahead.

I'd certainly want to vote for this as a way of signalling that we'll make that other change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have nobody else on my speaking list. We wanted a recorded vote on BQ-2.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

We'll go to NDP-12.

You get to start off, Mr. Scott.

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

I'll be very brief and up front about what this is doing. It's effectively—

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Point of order, Chair.

Again, this is so picky, but I mean....

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

I'm going to move it. I'm sorry. I'd like to say it's getting late and I forget these things, but of course, I—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The Chair did too, so I'm not going to.... I'm on your side. Go ahead.

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

I kind of forget them every time.

I would like to move NDP-12.

Effectively what it's doing is what I asked in the House at the time of the first speeches and what I asked the minister when he appeared here.

I continue to say we are open to knitting together the existing section 18 and the government's proposal, getting the best of both worlds. There's absolutely no reason why the targeted information campaigns the government believes will be effective and the more general power of Elections Canada to implement public education information programs in the way they have always had the right to do, not just at schools, cannot sit together.

This is what this is doing. I won't make any bones about it. It's bringing back some of the provisions of current section 18.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

If there is no further discussion on NDP-12, we'll go to a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now return to an oldie but goodie, NDP-7.4.

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

Just to remind everybody, this is restarted and probably came up earlier than it should have, so we stood it. It's to add a final subsection to section 18 that would be another “for greater certainty” clause. The government has one. The amendment states:

For greater certainty, the Chief Electoral Officer may communicate publicly on whatever subject she or he considers appropriate.

There are two things. The record is very clear from the government's side that this is unnecessary, and what the minister had to say on Friday is the case, and this doesn't need to be said. At the same time I'm a firm believer in “for greater certainty” clauses when there has been a controversy and there have been concerns.

I would still move it even though I believe I now agree with the government that the power to communicate publicly as he considers appropriate has not been touched.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We have had some discussion on this already so I'll entertain more speakers if there are any, but other than that I would call the vote on this. It will be a recorded vote on this also.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

That finishes clause 7. We'll have a recorded vote.

(Clause 7 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(On clause 8)

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're on clause 8 and amendment NDP-13.

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

This would modify the proposed new section 18.01. I think it will be helpful if I read what proposed section 18.01 of Bill C-23 says. It's very short:

The Chief Electoral Officer may, at the Governor in Council’s request, provide assistance and cooperation in electoral matters to electoral agencies in other countries or to international organizations.

We heard testimony from the CEO of the Northwest Territories, who actually expressed in quite eloquent terms considerable concern about this, because his view was that, as written it looks to any external agency as though Elections Canada is a foreign policy arm of the Canadian government when it interacts with foreign election commissions or with international organizations' elections operations. The practice tends to be—but I'm not sure it really needs to be stuck in a bill—that the Chief Electoral Officer doesn't go and interact and do missions without having sounded that out and having obtained approval from cabinet.

I think it is a big mistake to include it in the bill, because doing so sends a signal of a compromised independence. For that reason my amendment would delete the words “at the Governor in Council's request” and simply would give him that authority, which he already has.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay, that was amendment NDP-13.

Mr. Lukiwski.