Debates of March 24th, 2014

(Return tabled)

Question No. 292

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

With regard to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, specifically the Sept-îles regional office: (a) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests; (b) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests in the past 10 years; (c) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests implemented; (d) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices; (e) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (f) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices implemented; (g) what is the complete list of meetings between MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs; (h) what is the complete list of meetings between representatives of MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs’ representatives; (i) what is the complete list of meetings between former MPs and employees and directors of the regional office on a subject other than a former MP’s business, in the past 10 years, broken down by year; (j) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by phone from MPs’ offices; (k) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by phone from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (l) in which month of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by phone from MPs’ offices implemented; (m) what is the complete list of phone communications between MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs; (n) what is the complete list of phone communications between representatives of MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs’ representatives; (o) what is the complete list of phone communications between former MPs and employees and directors of the regional office on a subject other than a former MP’s business, in the past 10 years, broken down by year; (p) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by email from MPs’ offices; (q) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by email from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (r) in which month of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by email from MPs’ offices implemented; (s) what is the complete list of email communications between MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs; (t) what is the complete list of email communications between representatives of MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs’ representatives; and (u) what is the complete list of email communications between former MPs and employees and directors of the regional office on a subject other than a former MP’s business, in the past 10 years, broken down by year?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 294

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

With regard to government funding allocated within the constituency of Laurentides–Labelle for each fiscal year from 2004-2005 to 2013-2014: (a) what is the total amount of funding by (i) department, (ii) agency, (iii) other government entity, (iv) program; and (b) how many jobs have been created as a direct result of this funding, including both (i) full-time jobs, (ii) part-time jobs?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 295

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

With regard to Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: (a) what is the current policy of the government, particularly the Department of Justice, about the use or invocation of Section 33; and (b) since 2006, how many times has the government directed, suggested, contemplated or requested an analysis, examination or consideration from departmental officials within the Department of Justice, the Privy Council Office, or any government department, about the possible use of Section 33?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 296

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

With regard to the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement and the associated Independent Assessment Process: (a) how much money did the government spend in total, to date, on the recent Ontario Superior Court case regarding the government's refusal to disclose police and court evidence of abuse at St. Anne's Residential School to the Independent Assessment Process, (i) how much money is the government projecting to spend, including court penalties, on this court case in the future, (ii) with regard to money spent on this court case, including court penalties, from what budget and what department is this money coming; and (b) for the Independent Assessment Process, for each year from 2006 to 2013, (i) what is the number of applicants, (ii) what is the number of settled cases, (iii) what is the average number of days taken to settle each case, (iv) what is the number of personnel adjudicating cases, (v) what is the average caseload per adjudicator?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, last, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, and I will hear her now.

Advertisements by the Member for Westmount—Ville-Marie

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to raise a question of privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 48. At the end of my speech, I would ask you to determine whether this constitutes a prima facie breach of my privileges as a member of Parliament.

This issue was recently brought to my attention, so I decided to raise it in the House today, at the earliest possible opportunity.

My question of privilege has to do with advertisements that the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie recently put in local newspapers to invite his constituents to come talk to him. These advertisements were clearly paid for out of the member's budget, which comes from the House of Commons, as evidenced by the House logo that appeared in the ads.

There is nothing unusual about inviting constituents to talk to their member of Parliament. In fact, these kinds of discussions are an essential part of the work that we do as MPs. I regularly host events to meet with the people of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and talk to them about issues of concern to them, such as affordable housing.

The problem in this instance is that the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie's advertisement explicitly invites “...people in the riding of Westmount—Ville[-Marie], the borough of NDG and the city of Montreal West”.

Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and all of Montreal West are in my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. The member for Westmount—Ville-Marie's advertisement implies that he is the MP for the people of NDG and Montreal West, even though that is clearly my role. Why might the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie have done this? I will get to that in a few moments.

Mr. Speaker, I worry that by trying to falsely present himself as the member of Parliament for the people of NDG and Montreal West, the member is interfering with my work as a member of Parliament in my riding.

According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice by O'Brien and Bosc:

Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its Members free from intimidation, obstruction and interference.

It also states that even though it is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as interference, they must be considered by the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, there have been breaches of MPs' privileges in the past when people falsely claimed to be the MP of a riding when they were not.

For example, in 2004, a question of privilege was raised concerning a leaflet for a fundraiser. It contained an ad showing the former member for Beauharnois—Salaberry as the sitting member. The Chair found that there was a prima facie breach of privilege.

I realize that in the current case, the situation is not so cut and dry. The member for Westmount—Ville-Marie did not write in black and white that he was the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount. However, it seems clear to me that by deliberately and specifically mentioning the people of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and Montreal West, he is trying to present himself as their MP and implicitly suggesting that they can turn to him when they have any concerns or need any help, instead of turning to me, their actual MP.

In 1985, during a similar issue, Speaker Bosley said:

It should go without saying that a Member of Parliament needs to perform his functions effectively and that anything tending to cause confusion as to a Member's identity creates the possibility of an impediment to the fulfilment of that Member's functions.

The fact is that the actions of the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, in this particular case, could cause confusion, create an impediment to my work and harm my constituents. For example, imagine that a constituent from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce needed help from her MP on a citizenship matter. After seeing that ad, she might falsely believe that she must turn to the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. She might go to his office and waste precious hours or days before being referred to her MP. I am very concerned about this situation, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to come back to what motivated the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. Why would he want the people of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and Montreal West to believe he is their MP? Unfortunately, I think the answer to that question is rather obvious.

As you know, electoral boundaries were recently readjusted across the country to account for new demographic realities.

Accordingly, during the next general election in 2015, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and Montreal West will be in the new riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount. These boroughs will henceforth be part of the riding for which the current member for Westmount—Ville-Marie will surely campaign to represent.

Mr. Speaker, it seems clear that with this deliberate reference to Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and Montreal West in his ad, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie is trying to target future voters in the riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount.

Working on community relations in one's own riding and outside of it is certainly part of a political representative's job. The problem here is that the member used his House of Commons' advertising budget, funded by taxpayers, to target future voters who are actually in my riding.

I am not an expert and it will be up to you, Mr. Speaker, to decide. However, it seems that using the House of Commons' resources for election purposes—this is definitely a case of preparing for the next election—is a breach of the rules of the House of Commons, which usually allow members to use their budgets to contact constituents in their own ridings.

I believe that there are grounds for raising a question of privilege and that the situation should be studied further in committee. However, should you decide otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I believe that all members would like a clarification of the rules on the use of members' budgets for the purpose of targeting future voters.

Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the honourable member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine for raising this question.

Are there other members wishing to rise on this matter?

The hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the arguments presented by my colleague.

The advertisement clearly pertains to a neighbouring riding, but nowhere in the ad does it mention that this person, this member, does not represent the communities in question. I am talking, of course, about Montreal West and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.

Archived rulings include that rendered by Speaker Milliken on November 23, 2004. He had to rule on the same type of situation. At the time, the member for Montmorency-Charlevoix-Haute-Côte-Nord saw a misleading advertisement in his riding. The ad made it seem that a former MP was still a member of the House of Commons, even though he had been defeated in the previous election in June 2004. On November 23, 2004, Speaker Milliken ruled on the issue stating that the ad made it look as though the individual was a member of the House when in fact he no longer was. In that case, an individual was trying to attract people from a riding he no longer represented. The case before us is similar in that it infringes on the privileges of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

I hope that you will rule on this matter, Mr. Speaker, and that you will share your ruling with us.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize that this is the first time we have heard these allegations and that we have had this type of discussion. Clearly, we feel very strongly about any issue involving compliance with the Canada Elections Act. This is also a very important issue for my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie.

At this time, he is unable to explain the context of this allegation, which we believe is completely unfounded. However, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie the opportunity to explain and reflect on the member's comments before you provide a definitive ruling on the issue. If necessary, we will explain exactly why our NDP colleagues' accusations are unfounded.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I look forward to further submissions on this question.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Changes to the Elections Act

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on today's opposition day motion. The NDP is asking the House to consider several important aspects of the fair elections act. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and to demonstrate how the fair elections act would strengthen our democracy. I will therefore be opposing the motion and encouraging other members to do the same.

In their motion before the House today, New Democrats ask that three elements of the fair elections act be amended through the end of vouching, the use of voter information cards in place of legitimate identification, and the refocusing of Elections Canada's education function.

I will address each of these provisions of the bill, but they do not exist in isolation. They are pieces of a broader piece of legislation that proposes comprehensive changes to the Canada Elections Act.

The fair elections act would ensure everyday citizens are in charge of democracy by putting special interests on the sidelines and rule breakers out of business. The bill would also make it harder to break elections laws. It would close loopholes to big money, impose new penalties on political impostors who make rogue calls, and empower law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

The fair elections act would protect voters from rogue calls with a mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating elections officials, and increased penalties. It would give more independence to the Commissioner of Elections Canada, allowing him or her control over staff and investigations, empowering that individual to seek tougher penalties for existing electoral offences, and providing more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting.

It would ban the use of loans to evade donation rules and would repeal the ban on premature transmission of election results, upholding free speech. It would provide better customer service to voters and would establish an extra day of polling.

In the case of disagreements over election expenses, it would allow MPs to present the disputed case to the courts and have judges quickly rule on it before the CEO would seek the MP's suspension. It would make the rules for fair elections clear, predictable, and easier to follow. Finally, the fair elections act would crack down on voter fraud by prohibiting vouching or voter information cards as acceptable forms of ID.

This last provision, cracking down on voter fraud by eliminating vouching, is an area of disagreement between the government and the NDP. I am not sure why, frankly, because each time someone votes fraudulently, that person cancels out the vote of an honest citizen. How many honest votes would the NDP accept being cancelled? In other words, what cancellation rate does it consider to be acceptable?

This is a vitally important question. It is not just good enough for legitimate voters to say, “As long as I can cast my ballot, why should I care if other illegitimate voters cast theirs?” The reason is that illegitimate votes cancel out legitimate ones. Every time a fraudulent vote is cast, a legitimate vote is not counted.

How seriously, then, should we take the issue of fraudulent voting?

Voter fraud is not a victimless crime. Its victims are legitimate voters who cast a ballot believing that they should have the same voice in the decision as their neighbour, but whose votes are stolen by voter fraud.

The NDP is fond of saying that there is no voter fraud. New Democrats say we have to prove it. They say we cannot point to anyone ever having voted fraudulently, but we have and I will.

The television show Infoman showed that two Montrealers were each able to vote twice. It demonstrated how easy it was to use voter information cards or identity fraud. The case is even documented on Elections Canada's own website, where the individuals in question had to sign compliance agreements.

Although no one condones these actions, the example is illustrative, and it shows just how easy voter fraud can be. The fair elections act would stop fraud of this kind by eliminating the use of inaccurate voter information cards as a replacement for acceptable forms of ID. The statistics on irregularities in the use of vouching and the high rates of inaccuracy in voter information cards are well established. I do not need to repeat them here.

I just want to remind honest, unsuspecting voters that their vote is denied every time a fraudulent vote is cast. In fact, there would be little difference between a fraudulent voter casting a ballot and a legitimate voter being turned away. Why will the NDP not take this threat seriously?

Voter fraud and developing ways to combat it are important, so I would like to focus the remainder of my remarks on another element of the NDP motion: Election Canada's education function.

Just over 20 years ago, in 1993, the Canada Elections Act was amended to give Elections Canada its current mandate to educate Canadians on democracy and to encourage voter participation. What was the budget for this mandate? It was limitless. You heard me, Mr. Speaker: Elections Canada was not given a specific budget for this activity. Instead, it was told to spend whatever it needed, drawing directly from the fiscal framework in order to educate Canadians about democracy, just as long as it reported back to the procedure and House affairs committee after the fact.

How has this approach, without a budgetary limit, been working? What results do we have to show for it? Surely voter turnout must have increased. Surely Canadians must have had an excellent grasp of the basics of voting, including what ID to bring.

Unfortunately, this has not been the case. Canadian voter turnout has plunged in the past two decades, and Canadians cite the lack of information as a reason for not voting.

In 1988, the last general election before Elections Canada had its current education mandate, voter turnout was 75%. In a previous election in 1984, voter turnout was also 75%. In fact, voter turnout in Canada dipped below 70% only twice between the end of World War II and the time when Elections Canada was given its current mandate to voter education. Voter turnout in the last general election was 61%. This is actually an increase of 3% over the previous election in 2008. If that is success, I would hate to see what failure looks like.

The opposition and Elections Canada often point to declining voter turnout around the world as a justification for continuing the current approach to voter education. Now let us examine the statistics a little more closely.

I have just shown the record of declining voter turnout in Canada. Is it a similar story in presidential elections in the U.S.? The 2008 election that made Barack Obama president saw the highest voter participation since 1968. That is worth repeating. It was the highest voter turnout in 2008 in the U.S. since 1968, but in Canada, it was the lowest in our history. That hardly proves that declining voter turnout is a global phenomenon.

Some might suggest that the election was unique and historic, given that it was the first time an African American was a nominee for a major party. If that is the only reason, then what explains the fact that voter turnout in the next presidential election, in 2012, was actually higher than in the election in 2008?

Again, voter turnout in the last two presidential elections in the United States was the highest that it has been since 1968. Not only does this not support the suggestion that decline in voter turnout is a global phenomenon, it absolutely disproves it. Voter turnout in Canada has declined since Elections Canada began its current approach to voter education. The facts prove that.

After the last election, young non-voters reported that not knowing where, at 25%, when, at 26%, or how, at 19%, to vote played a role in their decision not to vote. Half of Canada's youth and three-quarters of aboriginal youth were unaware that they can vote early if they are not available on election day. The same report states:

The most important access barrier

—to youth voting—

was lack of knowledge about the electoral process, including not knowing about different ways to vote...

This is a result of Elections Canada's current approach to voter education: spend, spend, spend, and hope there will be something to show for it. It has not worked.

Young people are not the only ones confused by Elections Canada's ID requirements. In fact, I would like to quote a press release from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. This press release, incidentally, is still on her party's website. In it, the leader of the Green Party states:

To improve voter turnout, we should repeal all the changes, including the photo ID requirement, that make it harder for young people, First Nations, the poor, and seniors to vote.

That sounds a lot like the motion we are debating today. There is just one problem: no photo ID requirement exists in the current Elections Canada Act, and the fair elections act does not propose it.

Have members heard a media outcry demanding the leader of the Green Party retract this factually inaccurate information? Have they heard the opposition demand that the record be corrected? Of course not, because it plays into a deliberately misleading narrative that critics of the bill are seeking to advance.

Today voters have 39 forms of authorized ID to choose from to prove identity and residence, and government-issued ID, photo or otherwise, is not required. The fair elections act would not change that in any way.

In fact, it is understandable that Canadians are confused about what forms of ID are acceptable in order to vote. After all, if an elected member in this House and the leader of a national party do not know which forms of ID are required and which are not, then how would we expect Canadians to know?

The fair elections act would respond to this by requiring the Chief Electoral Officer to communicate to Canadians the forms of ID that are acceptable in order to vote. That is a change we are proposing to the education function. It is a return to the basics.

If Canadians knew that they could vote using a bank statement and a student card, would they be concerned about the end of vouching?

In my time in the military, one thing we always returned to in training was the fundamentals. The fundamentals absolutely work, and this is something we should absolutely focus on here.

If Canadians knew that they could vote at a long-term care facility using a health card and an attestation of residence, would they be concerned about the end of vouching? I do not think so.

Education is essential, but Elections Canada has not met the grade. It is time that the current approach to education be replaced by a return to the basics.

In conclusion, Canadians must have confidence in the democratic process. Not only do they need to know how to cast a ballot, but Canadians also want to be sure that legitimate votes are not cancelled by illegitimate ones. As I demonstrated today, the fair elections act would go a long way to ensuring that Canadians would have the confidence in the electoral process that they want and deserve.

With the measures to eliminate vouching and communicate the many types of voter identification that are acceptable at the polls, I believe that the risk of voter fraud would be greatly reduced. Together, all of these initiatives would advance the voter identification process significantly from what it was a decade ago.

It is for that reason that I will not be supporting the motion, and, once again, I call upon all members to oppose the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my Toronto neighbour, but once again the government has focused, apparently, on something about fraud. He, above all, should know that fraud was not an issue. He was the one person whose election results were threatened by the notion that there were some discrepancies in the voting that took place in Etobicoke Centre in 2011, where there was only a 26-vote difference between the winner and the loser. That was where we discovered that the training for the elections officers was not sufficient to allow them to maintain the data properly. However, I would remind the member, and maybe he would comment, that there were zero cases of fraud in both of the court cases involving his election.

Would he like to comment on how many cases of fraud the government can actually bring forward?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member rightly points out the issues that occurred in my riding. The Supreme Court upheld the results four to three, and I remain in my seat.

My riding is not all of Canada. Right now, there are 307 other ridings aside from my own. As I pointed out in my speech, there are already incidents captured on TV of individuals in Montreal, and Elections Canada has a compliance agreement in force with those particular individuals. There will be other statistics, but those are the two that I used today to highlight the fact that this is an incident that does happen across Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member suggested that we go back to the fundamentals of Bill C-23. The government likes to call it the fair elections act. Nothing could be further from reality. For all intents and purposes, it is a Conservative elections act, and I do not say that lightly, in the sense that we have received very little. The only support I have detected for this legislation comes from the Prime Minister's Office and members of the Conservative Party. There is no other political entity in Canada that I am aware of that endorses this legislation. Elections Canada has very real problems with this legislation. It is weakening our elections laws. There was no consultation done. This deals with a fundamental pillar of our democracy and the government is forcing this legislation through using its majority.

Does the member not see the irony of a majority Conservative government forcing through changes to elections laws, given the many other events taking place around the world, especially when academics and others around the world are saying that what the government is doing with the elections laws is wrong? Why does he not recognize that what is happening to the fundamental principle of democracy with this piece of legislation is wrong?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree with my hon. friend more. This government has an obligation to all Canadians to ensure that elections across this land are fair and free, and that those who violate the principles and laws of our Elections Act are punished to the full extent of the law. It is important to do that.

We have looked around the world at what has occurred in other places and have taken those lessons into account. This government has shown tremendous wisdom. The minister is a considerate and thoughtful minister who has put a great deal of time and effort into looking into all of aspects of this.

The fundamentals and the basics are important. Dealing with the fundamentals of voting, of educating voters with respect to where to go, how to vote, when to vote, what their abilities and options are when voting, is what will allow a higher voter turnout in Canada. It will allow all members, especially our youth, to understand that they have a role and a responsibility. With citizenship go responsibilities. One of those is to vote. That is a basic fundamental that we need to communicate to all Canadians. This government is doing that in a comprehensive way that will reach all citizens of Canada. This will be implemented in the next general election, which will allow for a far better election.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave the example of the voter turnout for the 2008 presidential election in the U.S. People might say that it is absolutely crazy to compare the Canadian system with the American system because they are quite different.

For example, the way voters register is not the same. Under the American system, political party volunteers participate in the voter registration process. That is not something Canadians want. They do not want the parties to be the ones to determine how easy it is for people to vote. That is one of the problems with the bill.

Take the example concerning young people. Everyone keeps quoting Infoman. We all saw the news report, but when it comes to reasons for changing fundamental aspects of democracy, there needs to be more to it than a single report. We need to do research and find other examples. It is important to see that report, but does my colleague have other examples? Speech after speech, we keep hearing about this one and only report. Does my colleague have any other supporting examples or statistics for us?

A news report from a half-hour show that is on once a week is not enough reason to make such significant changes to our democracy. What is more, we are not the only ones to say so. The Chief Electoral Officer and all of civil society say so.

What does the member have to say to that?