Debates of Feb. 6th, 2014

Fair Elections Act

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on my friend's point that there have been subsequent reprints, he absolutely knows full well that is not a condition that gets them off the hook. He knows that the bill as presented to the House of Commons yesterday is the bill that we work with. Correcting it on a website or correcting it in further reprints or in all of that does not actually satisfy the trigger that we have talked about here in this bill.

There are points to the summary and the execution of this bill. First of all, it is up to parliamentarians now to go into a debate on a bill for which briefings happened incorrectly, against the practices of this place, for French and English speakers. Second is to go through a bill that they could not get right in the summary and the main points, in the Coles Notes, as my hon. friend has said. I thought the idea of the Coles Notes was to clarify, not confuse. I thought we were hoping to improve the election system, not sow confusion among those seeking to enter electoral politics.

He should not aid and abet those parties, of which of course he is a member, that have sought to corrupt to the point of breaking the election laws that guide us. They declared Elections Canada to be “wearing the wrong jersey”, was it? Is Elections Canada the enemy now? It seems to me that the minister would be extremely careful in presenting this piece of legislation, in the main body, in the summary, in the title, and throughout. He could have gotten the title right at least, which he did not do either. However, we will deal with that one in debate.

This is serious. These folks cannot seem to get things right. Competency is not something we are going to easily accuse the Conservatives of, but we will ensure that this place maintains the rules that guide us and allow us to do our work on behalf of Canadians with legislation that is written properly.

Would that not be at least the bare minimum of recommendations and requirements for any government?

Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, not more than three further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the third day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There will now be a 30-minute question period pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), and I would ask members putting the questions to keep their remarks to about a minute, and the government response to be of a similar length.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, is it not an irony that the Conservatives find that when they are talking about democratic reform and about bringing in an electoral system that Canadians can trust, their natural tendency is to shut down debate in Canada's Parliament in order to do it? That is exactly what was done. This was the plan as of yesterday. This was the Conservatives' plan as they were drafting the bill. They decided, “Here is what we are going to do. We are going to put 242 pages in front of Parliament; we are going to invoke closure and shut down debate about something like our electoral system”.

I will ask the minister this point directly. He is in such a rush for this that one would think he would have at least written the bill properly, and that he would have actually told the truth in consulting with Elections Canada. Now we have a question in front of us. He said that he consulted the Elections Canada officials who are experts in this, which he is not. He may be an expert in other regards to the Elections Act, and his party certainly is with its in-and-out and robocalls scandals; and appointments to the Senate are a whole other story. However, the current government has shown its tendency to anti-democratic behaviour.

Why invoke closure? Why shut down debate on something so important? Why not allow Parliament to deal with the DNA of this bill properly and get it right, and actually truly consult with Canadians instead of marginalizing them from our democracy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his helpful suggestions with regard to the bill.

I look forward to working with him and his colleagues as the bill proceeds to committee. That is where bills receive an opportunity to be heard and viewed by not only parliamentarians but also by expert witnesses.

What they will find when they review the contents of the bill is that the fair elections bill would ensure that everyday Canadians are the players in the game, that special interests are pushed to the sidelines of the game, and that rule-breakers are pushed out of the game altogether.

The bill would make it harder to break the law. It would close big-money loopholes, impose new penalties on political impostors who make rogue calls, and empower law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, invoking closure on this bill really is the height of hypocrisy.

Here we are, talking about a bill on so-called “democratic reform”, and some of the people we are hearing from are clearly thinking of a way to not get us into debating the bill. Some of the designs of this bill—and we know the government does not like Elections Canada, which has investigated them on many fronts—may be to create less pressure on the government in all the other wrongdoings it has done in every election since 2006.

How can the government invoke closure on a bill about democratic reform? This place is supposed to be about debate and good discussion. The minister is shutting that debate down and, I believe, putting democracy at risk.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are having debate and discussion right now, are we not?

We will have more debate when the bill goes to committee after it is voted on in this place, should it pass on second reading. Further, it will have more debate when it returns here after that.

As we debate it, we will see that the fair elections bill would protect voters from robocalls, from rogue calls by political impostors, with a new mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating elections officials, and increased penalties for deceiving people out of their votes. It would give law enforcement, the watchdog of elections law, sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. Sharper teeth means allowing the commissioner to seek tougher penalties for existing offences. A longer reach means empowering him with dozens of new offences to crack down on big money, fraudulent voting, and rogue calls. A free hand means making the commissioner independent, with control of his own staff and investigations, and a fixed term so that he cannot be fired without cause.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really confused. Often, when the Conservatives moved their time allocation motions, they said it was because the bills had already been debated at length and there had already been numerous studies.

This bill is 242 pages long, and it touches on basic rights such as free expression and the right of constituents in every one of our ridings to vote, yet the government has moved a time allocation motion to limit debate.

The minister has been feeding us all kinds of lines about how great this bill is, but I would like him to explain why he wants to limit debate even though not all members of the House have had a chance to speak. Having the opportunity to express ourselves and share the perspectives of our constituencies is part of the democratic process.

What is the real reason for this time allocation motion to limit debate?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are having a debate now.

I would ask the hon. member to make a suggestion or a substantive argument regarding the bill. In fact, the hon. member talks about all sorts of things, except what is in the legislation. Therefore, I am going to help her with the details of this bill, which addresses electoral fraud by preventing fraudulent votes.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

I find it strange that I am listening to a debate on the bill when we are supposed to be debating the motion on closure. In fact, we would be thrilled to have a full debate on this, spread out over time so that I can confer with the hundred thousand people in my community who are poor and who may be disenfranchised by the bill. However, to have it coming through when we should be debating the motion before us is just strange.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member is correct in that this debate is on the motion before the House rather than the bill itself. Obviously, there are times when members asking or answering questions must refer to the contents of the bill, but he is correct; that is the substance.

The hon. minister of state.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am having a lot of difficulty understanding the NDP's position on debate. First New Democrats said they did not need any debate on the fair elections act. Their critic walked right out in front of the media within about five minutes of the bill's introduction, claiming that he did not need to read its 200-plus pages before announcing that he opposed it, so the first position of the New Democrats was that they did not need any debate at all.

Then they said they wanted lots more debate, so we should send it immediately to committee. We said that was great; let us do that. How do we do that? We hold a vote at second reading, and the bill will automatically go there, where opposition MPs and expert witnesses can have their say, amendments can occur, and the fruits of all that labour can be enjoyed by Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is another way of sending a bill to committee, and the government has chosen never to use that method. It is called “reference to committee before second reading”. After five hours of debate, the bill would have been referred to the appropriate committee for consideration, but with a huge difference, because once we have had second reading, we lock in what the committee can do. If we refer the bill to a committee before second reading, the committee has a much broader scope of work ahead of itself and can amend and correct the bill.

There are good things in the bill. I recognize that, but there are things that are not appropriate as well.

However, forcing second reading through time allocation means the committee will not be able to address positively the things that are not accurate and not good in the bill. Why has the government not, for once, considered to rise above its partisanship approach and refer the bill to committee before second reading?

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

Mr. Speaker, first the hon. member wants to change the normal course of how bills are studied by Parliament. The normal practice is for a bill to be considered at second reading in the House of Commons, then go off to committee for study, review, and amendment, and then come back for yet another debate prior to the third and final reading of the bill in the House of Commons. That is the normal practice.

He also said that somehow the committee's work would be constrained by the bill’s going to that body after having been voted at second reading. There is no such rule. The basic rule of committees is that they are their own masters. The committees can therefore look at this bill in its entire scope. We will welcome many witnesses, all the witnesses necessary to ensure that it gets a fair review and that the necessary changes and improvements are included. Then the bill, the fair elections act, will go from great to fantastic.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House whenever the government uses time allocation. That is the case today. Not only does the government introduce bills riddled with flaws, it also prevents us from carrying out the duty for which we were elected by thousands of Canadians, who want to debate issues that affect them directly.

Today, the government is once again using time allocation, long before the end of second reading. I would like to know whether this government wants to muzzle all members and work alone according to its ideology, or whether it wants to work for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has the floor. This shows that people in this country can express their views. Perhaps we could discuss the bill now. I would like to hear substantive arguments regarding this legislation, but I am hearing nothing of the sort.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the minister responds by accusing those who dare ask him a question on the time allocation motion now before the House. He says we do not want to talk about the substance of the bill while we are debating time allocation.

At some point, he will have to realize that the purpose of those 30 minutes is to understand why the government wants to end a debate on a substantive bill that is 242 pages long. Perhaps the minister should be reminded of the purpose of those 30 minutes and be told to stop saying we do not want to have a debate. That is precisely what we want. We want the 308 members of this House to have the opportunity to express their views in this substantive debate. After these 30 minutes, we do not want them to be stuck with some time allocation to debate this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Once again I would remind all hon. members that all members are to speak to the matter that is before the House. Having said that, I think it is clearly the precedent in this place that when there are procedural motions before this place that deal with a matter of substance, members who are asking and answering questions have the right to refer to the substance of the initial piece of business.

Having said that, I would again remind all hon. members that the matter before the House is the issue of time allocation on the bill, rather than the bill itself.

I will go back to the minister and ask if he could quickly finish his answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the opposition is trying to control what other members are allowed to say in this place. I am merely responding to the verbatim of the member across, who brought up the issue of ideology. In fact, the fair elections act is based on evidence-based policy-making.

For example, we have looked at Elections Canada's own reports, which show that there are irregularities 25% of the time that vouching is used to identify a voter. A 25% rate of irregularities is too high. The Supreme Court has recognized that the irregularities are too high, as did the Neufeld report commissioned by Elections Canada. As a result, the fair elections act would protect the integrity of the vote by ending the practice of vouching as a form of identification.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I really believe that if the Conservatives wanted to be transparent and sincere in looking at the best interests of Canadians and Parliament, they would be allowing for a full debate on election reform.

However, I think the problem here is that they do not want a full debate on election reform because the reform is coming in as a result of what they have done with robocalls and election fraud. They do not want to be reminded of how they have abused the confidence that Canadians have put in them. That, I suggest to the minister, is the reason the Conservatives do not want to have a full debate on this bill in Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we do want a full debate. That is why we would like to see this bill go to committee, where not only parliamentarians but Canadians from coast to coast can be invited to testify on the substance of the bill. They could testify on issues such as allowing small donations in while keeping big money out.

The bill would keep big money from special interests out of the process by banning the use of loans, unpaid loans, to evade donation limits. At the same time, it would allow parties to better fund their democratic outreach with small increases in spending limits while imposing tougher audits and penalties to enforce those limits. In other words, the bill would let small donors in to contribute more to democracy through the front door and block illegal big money from sneaking in the back door.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am always fascinated by the minister of state's defence of time allocation. He tells us what the bill is about and then says that we are debating the bill.

Well, no, we are not. Mr. Speaker, you actually said that we are not. Through you to the minister of state, I say that clearly we cannot debate the bill; we can only debate time allocation.

I find it fascinating that the minister of state is saying that we can debate the bill at committee. I actually do not sit on that committee, and the vast majority of us do not.

Is the minister of state now telling us that he will allow this committee, which has its own rules and is the master of its destiny, to give all of us enough time on that committee to actually have an opportunity to debate, or are there really no teeth in the bill that he is saying has sharper teeth?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Before I go to the minister, I would like to remind all members that when it is time for a question or comment, at that point the members or ministers can stand. However, while one member is speaking, other members should be in their seats, including the person expecting to answer the question.

Further, members who stand for several minutes hoping to be recognized to ask the next question will not be recognized. When we call for questions and comments, it is at that time that people are to stand. That is a habit that I have seen slipping into this place in the last few days.

The hon. minister of state.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel that the member has turned on himself. In the very same sentence he asked if the minister would make the committee open its membership up to all parliamentarians; then, in the same breath, he said that the committee is the master of its own rules. If a committee is the master of its own rules, the minister cannot make the committee do anything at all. Therefore, no, I cannot force the committee to change its rules to his liking, or to mine or anyone else's. It will be its own master in studying the bill.

Second, he attacks me for not allowing enough debate on the bill, but then his colleagues raise points of order when I try to debate the bill. I have a hard time following the logic of the NDP, not only on the substance of the bill but also in its procedural response to it.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nepean—Carleton is as much a fan of history as I am. He should know that for the first 89 years of Confederation, closure was used only two times. However, in the past 58 years, the increasing use of closure has been a nuisance to our democracy, beginning in 1956 with the use of closure by Louis St. Laurent's Liberal government. That government had grown arrogant from being in power for years and years.

Does this member also agree with this use of closure? Has the government become so arrogant that it has broken the rules, given the number of times that closure has been used in this House? Canadians are witness to the use of closure by the current government, and they are not satisfied. I am sure the member's constituents would be upset to know that we are doing nuisance to our democracy. Does he love closure so much that he is going to trumpet the use of closure for his own bill?