Debates of May 12th, 2014

Fair Elections Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but having said that, it bears repeating that it is important to recognize that we are changing election laws. When election laws are changed, there is a certain expectation that the public as a whole has of the government of the day; that is, that it is being perceived as being done properly, and the process is in place that ensures it is not just one entity, in this case the Conservative Party, that is pushing through amendments.

What would the member think if we heard of another country where the governing party was the only party forcing changes to election laws? I suspect the member would speak out against that, believing that if we are going to change election laws, that there is a responsibility of the government of the day to work with different stakeholders, including opposition parties; the election authority, in particular Elections Canada, which is world renowned in terms of its true independence; and the Commissioner of Canada Elections. There are stakeholders who should have been consulted prior to the legislation coming into the House. At the very least, the government should have shown a clear demonstration of consensus building before bringing in legislation and then using its majority government ultimately to pass it.

Content aside, strictly on process, does the member not recognize that there is something wrong in terms of the process? With hindsight, Conservatives could have done a much better job in bringing the bill to the House.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of the greatest democracies. We follow procedures according to our rules and our laws. I do not think we need to delay the implementation of the fair elections act. We are evolving in time. We are doing the right things, and we have the procedures for that.

I do not think we ever break any rules of the Parliament of Canada. We can use the rules which are enshrined in the 1,294 pages in O'Brien and Bosc. I think we advance forward with these procedures. I do not think that we are in an undemocratic country or are using undemocratic procedures.

I do not like hon. members trying to show our procedures in Parliament as being like other countries, dictatorial countries. In this country, we have the best laws, and Parliament is improving them in the best manner.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague probably knows, often the people who take the Canadian Forces recruits' course are in limbo. They do not have a permanent assignment and so they do not have an address for a certain period of time.

Does my colleague believe it is fair that Canadian Forces recruits cannot vote because they are temporarily unable to provide an address, yet they will spend the rest of their lives defending the government decisions that are imposed on them?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned the armed forces. Both of us served in the armed forces, and we know that if someone wants to enter a base, that person needs to have identification at least. Another individual cannot vouch for them to enter an institution.

This common sense legislation asking voters for identification is commonly used everywhere in the country if an individual wants to access any kind of institution. I do not think this is a great issue. People need to show identification. Then comes the address. People going to a polling station will be able to show somebody proof, who will vouch for their address and verify it. The amendment that was proposed and then accepted by the committee responds to the hon. member's question.

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

Mr. Speaker, almost two years ago the NDP tabled a motion demanding more powers for the Chief Electoral Officer, and for the government to present a bill within six months. This motion was unanimously adopted by the House.

In the fall of 2012, in response to the Conservatives' non-action on the bill, my colleague, the member for Toronto—Danforth, presented Bill C-453, which proposed changes to the Canada Elections Act to prevent and punish electoral fraud carried out through fraudulent phone calls. Many of the provisions he suggested are now included in Bill C-23. There is no denying that those concessions by the Conservatives prove the effectiveness of a strong opposition by the NDP and by Canadians, who came together and stood up for our democracy.

Yes, as a result of this strong opposition, the Conservatives have backed down on some of the fundamental aspects of the unfair elections act. Unfortunately, they have also shut down the study of this bill with half of the NDP's common sense amendments still under debate. In good faith, the NDP proposed close to 100 ways to improve this widely denounced bill, but the Conservatives rejected all of them.

The Conservatives have a track record of breaking election laws. The Minister of State for Democratic Reform has been attacking Elections Canada for many years. Bill C-23 clearly attacks Elections Canada by cutting its powers, and this is unacceptable.

Removing powers from the Chief Electoral Officer instead of increasing his power is a huge mistake. Placing the Commissioner of Canada Elections under the Director of Public Prosecutions and rejecting NDP amendments that would have given investigators the tools they need to crack down on electoral fraud is another huge mistake.

With Bill C-23, the commissioner would no longer be part of Elections Canada. The reality is that there is a necessary working relationship between the commissioner and Elections Canada, which includes daily consultation. This change would cause a great loss of expertise and knowledge transfer. Sharing information is vital there, and I am glad that after the NDP pushed back, a government amendment at committee would now allow information-sharing between the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner.

The minister has been misleading Canadians into thinking it is a requirement of independence that the commissioner be separated from the Chief Electoral Officer. It is entirely appropriate that the commissioner be integrated within the structure of Elections Canada. In Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, and Quebec, the chief electoral officers assume all functions.

Thanks to the strong NDP opposition, the government also scaled back its attack on the Chief Electoral Officer's ability to engage in public education, though the government amendment only half removes this new muzzle. The Chief Electoral Officer is now limited to advertising only certain aspects of the electoral process, those being when, where, and how to vote. He is also limited to participating in voter engagement programs only at the elementary and secondary levels. Elections Canada is still prohibited from partnering with other groups, such as university-level programs to engage youth aged 18 to 25 to vote. Some reports suggest that a significant number of young people who pass on voting the first time they are offered a chance are likely not to vote, ever, in their lifetimes. Limiting the Chief Electoral Officer to engage in public education is certainly not a way to increase voter participation, especially among young new voters and demographics that tend to have a lower turnout, such as first nation communities.

The Chief Electoral Officer would also need to seek Treasury Board approval to hire technical experts for conducting research and delivering reports such as the Neufeld report and the IRPP report on fraudulent robocalls in the 2011 election. This is sheer government interference with the work of an officer of Parliament.

Thanks to the NDP and civil society opposition, the Conservatives have amended the bill to allow vouching for addresses. However, this bill still prohibits the voter information card to be used to prove addresses as one of the two pieces of ID.

Voter information cards benefit those people who face challenges in establishing their address when it is time to vote: youth on campus, seniors, and aboriginal people. Prohibiting the voter information card from being used as a piece of ID in an election would deter electors from voting, as indicated by the Chief Electoral Officer.

In fact, the Conservatives should have looked into the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations for prevention measures, such as providing more training and information to elections staff and volunteers and the need for better recruitment and advance recruitment of election workers. Instead, the Conservatives rejected an NDP amendment on this.

I would like to underscore the fact that some key elements are missing in Bill C-23. This bill would not give more power to the Chief Electoral Officer to request financial documents to ensure political entities comply with their obligations. This was in our 2012 motion. Instead, the bill would grant more power to the auditors hired by political parties.

The Elections Canada commissioner had asked for powers to compel witnesses. The commissioner, who would now be under the Director of Public Prosecutions, would not be granted such powers. Several provincial election laws grant chief electoral officers or commissioners the power to compel persons to appear before them and provide information or produce records. This laws are in place in Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, and Yukon.

Canadians should not trust the Conservatives to stop fraud. Canadians deserve better.

I would like to share some very interesting facts and quotes from witnesses who were questioned by my colleagues in committee.

To put this in context, only 70 people were able to speak against Bill C-23 in committee, and only 22 committee meetings were set aside for an issue as important as changing our elections act. It is sad that the Conservatives think that reforming our country's democracy is only worth 22 committee meetings. We were given just 40 hours or so to study such an important bill.

There are plenty of quotes from people who shared our opinion. They said that major changes needed to be made to the bill. There are good things in the bill, but as parliamentarians, we have to pick bills apart to make sure that they will improve people's lives and democracy in our country. There are already so many people who do not vote. We have to ask ourselves whether this bill will enable more people to exercise their right to vote. Unfortunately, I do not think that we will be able to answer that question.

Just outside my riding, there is an Indian reserve. I would like to quote Teresa Edwards, who was asked about aboriginal voting. When the subject of vouching came up, she was told how great it was that people could use any of 39 pieces of ID to vote. Here is what Teresa Edwards said about that:

...it shows the amount of privilege that's in this room that people have no comprehension of how difficult it could be for aboriginal people to obtain identification.

...This will only further put up barriers for aboriginal people and it can't help but make someone wonder, is that the intent? Is this really democracy or is the intent to actually limit aboriginal voting in the next election?

It is a shame, because we are wondering the same thing about this government. We get the impression that the government does not like some people and that it is trying to prevent them from voting. That is what Ms. Edwards was suggesting in her comments to the committee. To me, that is serious.

As I said in my speech, right now, most young people in our country do not vote.

Last weekend, I met some young people in my riding and most of them told me that they were not sure whether they were going to vote and that they do not trust the current government. They wondered whether things would be different with another government.

I tried to explain to them that the NDP is different. We are not here for politics, power, money or success. We were all elected on a wave. No one knew we were going to be elected. We are here to defend values. That is what I tried to explain to them. It is interesting to note that these are people who did not vote. As I was saying, there are many studies.

Apathy is Boring is a group I have met with often and they tell me that the danger is that people who do not vote when they first become eligible to do so will likely never vote. It is therefore crucial that the government realize how important it is to get young people and first nations to vote and why this type of bill is sad for our democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was excellent.

I have a question. My colleague was a teacher before becoming an MP. This bill would prevent the Chief Electoral Officer from implementing public education programs.

Does she think that the government should reconsider its partnership approach with youth groups? She mentioned Apathy is Boring. Other groups would like to partner with Elections Canada to teach young people about voting. Perhaps she could comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question because that is where I was going with my speech.

It is vital for young people be able to vote. First, their vision for our country and their future is not at all that of the government that currently represents them. Second, we have to educate people. Many seniors vote today because they were taught to vote. It was important and it was a fundamental value of society. They voted the first time they had the opportunity and they continued to vote.

It is important to partner with groups that have that mission. Apathy is Boring is one such group. There are many others that believe that young people do not vote today mainly because they are not asked to vote. When the NDP youth caucus met with them, they said that if you want young people to vote, you have to ask them to vote. That is the first condition. Creating projects that interest them is the second condition. There has to be a platform for youth. However, I repeat that the first condition is to ask them to go and vote.

If we do nothing and do not partner with groups on the ground, who seek out young people and can talk to them and understand how to get them interested in democracy, unfortunately we will be headed towards a decline in voter participation. That is dangerous for our democracy and for our future. If we brag about being the best democracy in the world, it is because people vote. If there are no groups to encourage them, young people may no longer vote. It is important to maintain our partnerships with groups that focus on young people.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the point of democracy and focus in on the issue of process, putting the content of the legislation to the side for now.

In the context of what I indicated to a Conservative speaker, which is if we observed a country, another democracy outside of Canada, where we saw a governing party not working in any fashion whatsoever with any of the other stakeholders and proclaiming itself to be a democracy changing election laws, I suspect we would be outraged. We would be outraged at how a country would go about changing election laws and not having any real consultation with other political entities, whether they are parties, or independent election authorities and so forth.

Would she provide her perspective on how she believes other countries look at the process of how Canada, using a majority Conservative government, is pushing through legislation?

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

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

I think it is disgraceful that the government is using its majority to change laws as fundamental as those associated with our democratic system. What is even more regrettable is the fact that it is not surprising.

Since I became an MP in the House, I have seen the government use its majority again and again to push through bills that Canadians do not want. If every opposition party disapproves of a bill, at some point, the government should begin to wonder. It is not a question of ideology; it is about changing our laws for the better.

However, this government uses so many time allocation motions that it has set a record. It is not even taking the time to listen to the amendments we put forward.

During the clause-by-clause study of this bill, half of the clauses could not be debated because the Conservatives decided that they did not want to take the time.

That is frustrating, and I think that the international community could easily say that we are not truly democratic.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-23, the fair elections act.

The bill would fulfill a commitment made by our government during the last Speech from the Throne and in it our government committed to bringing forward a comprehensive election reform proposal that would protect the votes of Canadians at the polls.

The fair elections act would ensure that constituents in Etobicoke Centre, along with all Canadians, would be in charge of democracy by putting special interests on the sidelines and the rule-breakers out of business.

It would also make it harder for people to break the law. It would close loopholes in big money. It would impose tough new penalties on political imposters and those rogue calls and it would empower the Commissioner of Canada Elections with sharper teeth, a longer reach and a freer hand.

The fair elections act would make our laws clear and easy to follow. It would make life harder for election law-breakers and easier for the honest people to take part in democracy.

I believe Canadians agree that our current system can be improved. For example, 87% of Canadians believe it is reasonable to require someone to prove his or her identity and address before voting. Based on my conversations with constituents in Etobicoke Centre, I would also submit that a majority of my constituents would agree with this view. This is why I am proud that our government is committed to enhancing our electoral laws and protecting the integrity of each and every ballot.

What I would not support is the NDP's suggestion that people should not require any ID to vote. The fair elections act would prohibit the use of vouching and voter information cards as replacements for acceptable ID.

Studies commissioned by Elections Canada demonstrate mass irregularities in the use of vouching and high rates of inaccuracy on voter information cards. Under the act, voters would continue to have 39 different forms of authorized identification to choose from to prove their identity and to prove their residence.

Our government has also recently announced that under the fair elections act, electors with no identification that proves their residence would be allowed to vote with two pieces of identification that prove their identity and a written oath as to their residence provided that another elector from the same polling division, who proves his or her identity and residence by providing documentary proof, would also take a written oath as to the elector's residence. These changes are abundantly fair and reasonable.

Stopping possible election fraud is just one of the many positive changes that the fair elections act proposes to make. The act would protect voters from rogue calls and from political imposters by punishing those who would attempt to deceive Canadians. For example, Bill C-23 would create a mandatory public registry for mass calling and impose prison time for impersonating election officials. It would also increase penalties for deceiving people out of their votes.

The fair elections act would give the Commissioner of Canada Elections sharper teeth, a longer reach and a freer hand to ensure we would have strong elections law enforcement.

The bill would allow for small donations coming in and keep big money out of our elections by ensuring donation limits could not be circumvented. Big money from special interests can drown out the voices of everyday citizens, like people in Etobicoke Centre, who have supported me, and those constituents who come to my office often looking to discuss current legislation or seeking assistance on a variety of issues. Theirs are the voices that should be reflected in the House.

Lastly, the bill would provide better customer service for voters by adding another advanced poll day and ensuring Canadians would know where to vote, when to vote and what ID to bring with them.

The fair elections act would also explicitly require Elections Canada to inform disabled voters of the extra help available to help them vote.

I believe the majority of my constituents would agree with me in that the fair elections act would make life harder for election law-breakers and easier for honest people to take part in our democratic process.

I do want to address something about our youth. I reach out to schools and to various groups in my constituency and beyond when I am asked to speak for a variety of reasons. I tell people, including at citizenship ceremonies, that citizenship comes with duties and responsibilities. One of those duties is to vote. I have said that before and I have said that often. I tell that to school groups, to youth, and to people frequently when I speak in front of public groups. It is very important that people understand that, to make sure that our democracy works as it has.

Make no mistake, Canada is a heaven on earth. There are people clamouring to come to our country because of what we have, because of the strength of our democracy, and how hard we work to ensure that each and every person is enfranchised with their vote.

I am very proud of the bill. I am very proud to stand for it. I am very proud to speak for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a very simple question. In 2011, the Chief Electoral Officer allowed voter information cards to be used as proof of address. However, to supplement that, individuals also had to have a piece of ID with their name on it.

Now that voter cards cannot be used any more, people will have to have two pieces of identification: one with their address and another with their name. Of the 39 acceptable pieces of ID on the list, only a tiny percentage include an address. It is extremely difficult for the most vulnerable segments of our society, such as students, seniors and aboriginal peoples, to obtain that type of ID.

What will he say to the Canadians who are listening and who may be denied the right to vote? I know that there are a lot of people listening, including some from his riding. What will he say to those people who will not be able to vote in 2015?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member partially answered the question herself. There are 39 different forms of ID that can be used. The vast majority of people in our country agree that valid forms of ID should be applied. It is reasonable. There are all sorts of other things that we do in life to prove our identity and where we live.

The accommodation made in the bill to allow an oath to be signed and proof provided through the two pieces of ID is very reasonable. It came out of hours and hours of testimony before committee. The minister was very broad-minded in looking at the bill and making changes that accommodated these issues that were brought up in testimony before committee.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise again in the House to speak about the bill on electoral reform. Unfortunately, the bill quickly got on the wrong track. Furthermore, there has been no real consultation on this bill.

The bill affects the quality of democratic life and the rules that ensure fair representation of constituents in Parliament. The bill was written on the back of an envelope and in line with purely partisan interests. No time has really been taken to speak to Canadians or Quebeckers about it, to hear from experts or to hold public consultations on the bill.

In fact, they have pulled a rabbit out of a hat. Even the person who is the most knowledgeable about elections in Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, has not been consulted. This is a uniquely Conservative bill, made by Conservatives for Conservatives.

A number of colleagues mentioned today that if this kind of process were going on in a foreign country, we would be asking ourselves a number of serious questions about the validity of an electoral reform package that appears tailor-made to suit the party in power and favour it. There has been no consultation with the opposition parties nor with Canadians. Right from the start, the whole process has been flawed. What was the result? Work that has been entirely botched.

It is sad to see, perhaps for the first times in Canadian history, a bill that is close to what we call voter suppression in the United States. In the U.S. they take steps to try to prevent people from exercising their right as citizens to choose the people who will be passing legislation over the next four years, if there is a majority government.

It is an attack on democratic rights and on clearly targeted and vulnerable groups, such as seniors, students and first nations peoples.

The NDP, the official opposition, has stood up. It is a rare thing in this Parliament, but we have managed to bring enough pressure to bear on the government for it to back down from some of the most deplorable aspects of the bill. As the leader of my party said, what was at the beginning a very bad bill is today only a bad bill.

The bill is not a good bill, but for some situations we have been able to prevent the worst, specifically with regard to allowing certain people to vote with someone to vouch for them. There is still the issue of a personal relationship with the registered voter; we will see how that turns out on the ground on election day or on advance polling days.

Members of the NDP believe it is important not to prevent the 120,000 people who voted through vouching in the last election, three years ago, from exercising their right to vote. The NDP can take credit for this, because we showed the Conservatives that this was clearly absurd and unnecessary, since it was not based on any evidence or proof of fraud—apart from the imaginary fraud in the mind of a Conservative backbencher. We managed to save this system.

However, the bill is an attack on democracy and on the principle of equality among citizens. Earlier today, I heard my colleague proudly say that they would be keeping big money out of elections. I agree with the principle that money should not be able to have undue influence over politicians or the outcome of an election. If they want to keep big money out of elections, they should reduce the limits on electoral contributions, not increase them.

By raising the maximum annual donation to $1,500 from $1,200, the Conservatives are going in the exact opposite direction from what they say. My colleagues opposite probably have a number of friends who are able to write cheques for $1,500. I have the feeling this may benefit the Conservative Party. Moreover, if a candidate can invest $5,000 in their own campaign, that will give people who have the ability to do that an unfair advantage.

The rules of the game are being interfered with and twisted in favour of people who have financial resources that are well out of reach of the average Canadian and Quebecker.

This is one of our serious concerns. This is one of the reasons why, as progressives, we are going to fundamentally oppose this election reform, or “deform”.

Given that there was no consultation, that a gag order was imposed in the House, that a gag order was also imposed in committee, that not all of the opposition’s amendments could be considered, and that the Conservatives wanted to go at top speed and botch the job with a bill that in fact changes the fundamental law of our democracy, there are things we were not even able to discuss. The public might have wanted to hear some discussion of proportional voting.

I think people who are frustrated with having a majority government that was elected with only 38% of the votes cast might think about the possibility of having a proportional voting system that would result in representation in the House that is closer to the will of the people.

A first past the post voting system produces such distorted results that the winner’s bonus is truly disproportionate. A large majority of Canadians voted against the Conservative Party three years ago, and they ended up with a majority Conservative government. There is something broken in this system. Canada is one of the rare countries in the world that still use this old voting system.

It might have been worthwhile to discuss a regional mixed-member proportional voting system, something like what there is in Germany. The NDP proposed an amendment in committee that was struck down because the Conservatives did not want to hear anything about it. This is extremely worrisome and it is a shame, because this is a missed opportunity. Reforms of the Elections Act are rare. It is not something we do every year.

How could the Conservatives have failed to understand that people could use the voter identification card issued by Elections Canada and delivered to us in our mailboxes as proof of residence, when it is accompanied by another identity card that does not show the address? That is extremely practical. It is widely used, particularly in senior citizens’ homes where people are able to go down the stairs or take the elevator to go and vote, because the polling station is in their building. Those people often do not have driver’s licences or the documents on the long list the Conservatives have given us. The same thing is true for aboriginal populations.

Let us read what Mr. Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, had to say last March about the accuracy of the information on the voter identification card:

It is worth noting that the VIC is the only document issued by the federal government that includes address information. The Canadian passport, for example, does not include an address. In fact, with an accuracy rate of 90%, the VIC is likely the most accurate and widely available government document.

I see no reason why we would deny ourselves that. Mr. Mayrand goes on to say:

During the election period, revision activities at the local level also increase the accuracy of the VIC. This likely makes it a more current document than even the driver's licence....

It is essential to understand that the main challenge for our electoral democracy is not voter fraud, but voter participation. I do not believe that if we eliminate vouching [at the time, vouching was still prohibited] and the VIC as proof of address we will have in any way improved the integrity of the voting process. However, we will certainly have taken away the ability of many qualified electors to vote.

Once again, the particularly scandalous thing about the bill we have before us is that it makes it harder for people who would like to go and vote in good faith and would like to keep using the little card distributed by Elections Canada.

There are many other things that should have been changed or amended in this bill. How can Elections Canada have lost the power to investigate? How can the Commissioner of Canada Elections be moved under the jurisdiction of the Director of Public Prosecutions, when everything was working well and in sync? Elections Canada is being stripped of its investigative powers. As well, the act is not getting enough teeth and strength to give Elections Canada the ability, as part of an investigation, to compel a witness to come answer questions from Elections Canada in order to find out what really happened. Why not give Elections Canada sufficient powers to be able to shed light on what happened?

If Elections Canada had had the power to compel witnesses in the robocall scandal, I think we would have found out exactly what happened.

Today, Elections Canada has hit a wall because the Conservative minister is refusing to give the agency the tools it needs to do its work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his speech.

I want to talk about something very specific that happened in committee and that I would like to hear his thoughts on. He spoke in detail about the use of the voter information card. He even quoted the Chief Electoral Officer, who explained why the voter information card was very accurate and was a very good document in general.

The Conservatives did not want to agree to our amendments to reinstate the voter information card as an accepted piece of ID. Then, in committee, when we realized that they would not change their minds on using the voter information card, we proposed a new amendment to write in bold on the voter information card that voters could not use the document to vote. That way, people would not assume that they could use the card to vote and they would make sure they had the right pieces of ID.

I do not think there is any downside to that and I am still dumbfounded by the fact that the Conservatives voted against that amendment.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I was not aware of this detail, which is actually more than just a detail.

It is indicative of the primary purpose of the bill, which is to prevent people from voting and to throw up roadblocks in front of them. In real life, if average Canadians are used to going to vote with the card that comes from Elections Canada and then all of a sudden, once they are at the polling station, they are told that it is not sufficient and that they need other ID, then they are going to return home and I would be very surprised if they went all the way back to the polling station again to vote.

That is a shame because this will likely happen to thousands or even tens of thousands of Canadians who will not have been properly informed, as this amendment would have made it possible to do, by indicating on the card at least something about the identification they may need. Although the voter information card can no longer be used for the purpose for which it was created, it could have still been used to tell Canadians that the procedure and the rules have changed.

It is also a great pity that, with the exception of certain groups, Elections Canada will no longer be able to spend money or conduct campaigns to encourage people to vote, even though voter turnout in Canada has been plummetting for decades. It means we are denying ourselves a major voice that could encourage Canadians to exercise their right to vote. I do not understand why the Conservatives are going down this road.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech.

It was very beneficial to hear the Chief Electoral Officer's quote about voter cards. It would have been even more beneficial if the Chief Electoral Officer had been consulted. The Conservatives could have learned something. However, that is a topic for another time.

Does my colleague think it is possible to trust a government that was found guilty of several counts of electoral fraud? There was the in and out scandal, of course, but we also know that many government MPs were accused of electoral fraud in relation to their spending. Then there were also the robocalls.

Is it possible to trust a government that does not obey the law or uphold democratic tradition? Why does this government always try to push ahead even though it knows full well that, according to our country's democratic tradition, electoral reform is usually agreed upon by the majority, out of respect for all Canadians?

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this government, which has been found guilty of fraud and could not care less about democratic tradition.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question, but I do not think the answer will surprise anyone.

I do not trust the Conservative Party in general, and especially not when it comes to reforming the Elections Act. They are repeat offenders. They have been caught red-handed many times. Here are some examples: the minister for the Labrador region who had to resign, the member for Peterborough who had to leave his caucus because there were problems with his election spending, the in and out scandal, and the robocalls saga—in which a Federal Court judge proved that the Conservative Party database had been used to trick people into going to the wrong polling station.

No, I do not trust the Conservative Party to manage the economy, to take care of people, to manage our health care system or to reform the electoral system. Letting them make the laws is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the fair elections act.

The fair elections act is a bill that would make significant changes to Canada's election laws. It would close loopholes to big money, impose new penalties on political imposters who make rogue calls, and empower law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. The bill would also implement 38 of the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations.

As a member of the procedure and House affairs committee that studied this bill in great detail, I can say that through the committee process, we were able to make a great bill even better with a number of amendments made at committee through the work that we did there. A very thorough study was done and a very thorough debate happened around the bill at committee and in the House of Commons.

There are two particular elements of the bill that I would like to address in my brief remarks here today.

The first is a key change that the fair elections act would make in putting in place a very clear process that the Chief Electoral Officer would have to follow when issuing changes to the rules governing elections.

Everyone in the House has obviously been through an election or two, and in some cases many more than that. Some of us have probably encountered situations in which the rules were not as clear as we would have hoped. Complicated rules can certainly bring about unintentional breaches. They can even intimidate everyday Canadians from taking part in democracy. That is unfortunate in a democracy. We want to encourage more people to get involved, make it easier for them to stay involved, and reduce the risks of transgressing the rules.

The bill before us would make the rules for elections clear, predictable, and easy to follow. Just as importantly, it would provide a system whereby the Chief Electoral Officer could help citizens avoid making mistakes.

The bill contains provisions that would improve the transparency and consistency of election rules. It would do this by drawing on the successes of other government agencies in improving their own regulatory regimes through more communication and greater transparency. They have put in place a system of notices to advise regulated entities on how the law applies to them. These generally take the form of guidelines and interpretation notes or bulletins. For example, the Canada Revenue Agency routinely publishes bulletins to advise taxpayers on how it will interpret and apply specific provisions of income tax law.

These procedures help to clarify the rules. They establish an accessible and transparent body of information to help interpret the rules. They enable interested parties to make preliminary inquiries without prejudice to explore how the rules are likely to be interpreted.

Under the bill before us, a registered party would be able to request from the Chief Electoral Officer an advance ruling or a written interpretation of questions regarding the Canada Elections Act. The Chief Electoral Officer would be required to respond within 60 days of the request. The bill would provide a further 30-day notice period before the ruling or interpretation would be formally issued. This would enable all parties to respond to the new rule.

Advance rulings issued by the Chief Electoral Officer would be binding on him and on the commissioner of elections. In the interest of consistency and transparency, the Chief Electoral Officer would maintain an online registry, available to the public, of the complete text of final guidelines and interpretation notes, as well as of the written opinions containing advance rulings that have been issued.

This system would be far superior to what is currently in place, because currently political parties and campaigns can only guess at how their actions might be interpreted.

I would also point out that under the fair elections act, a mechanism would be put in place whereby the Chief Electoral Officer and the representatives of registered political parties would have a forum to help guide such interpretations. The forum is not new, but it would be put to better use.

The Advisory Committee of Political Parties was established to share information, to foster good working relations, to consult on legislative changes, and to resolve administrative issues.

Looking back at the reports of the Chief Electoral Officer following each general election, one finds a quick summary of the advisory committee's work. In the report on the 40th election in 2008, we learn that advisory committee members were generally satisfied with Elections Canada's services and the overall administration of the election, but there was discussion on candidate debates, the candidate nomination process, and voter identification. In the report on the 2011 general election, the advisory committee discussed the effectiveness of Elections Canada's information services. We think the practical knowledge that the advisory committee members have can assist in crafting future guidelines, interpretations, and advance rulings.

Under the fair elections act, the Chief Electoral Officer would turn to the advisory committee for guidance and advice on interpretation notes. The committee would have 15 days to weigh in and determine whether it thinks the guideline is fair. The Chief Electoral Officer and the parties can help ensure that the rules are clear and fair.

While the advice of the advisory committee is not binding on the Chief Electoral Officer, it should help to ensure that future rules are informed by the realities that political parties face.

The changes that I have referred to thus far in my speech deal with matters that most Canadians may not know about, but they are very important. They make the rules clearer and help prevent the unintentional breaking of the rules. They are, I would suggest, of vital interest to all members of the House, and I certainly trust that we will have them in place in time for the next election.

The second element that I would like to discuss today is the provision in the bill that would require voters to prove their identities when voting. This is clearly something that the vast majority of Canadians wholeheartedly support. They understand it is a very reasonable requirement that people should be able to prove their identities when voting. In fact, in a recent poll, 87% of Canadians indicated that was something they believed was a very reasonable thing that they supported. I can confirm that from anecdotal evidence and through conversations I have had with constituents and other Canadians. It is something that many people feel quite strongly is an important part of ensuring a fair democracy.

I would note that during the committee process there was a lot of discussion regarding those particular provisions. There were some amendments made in relation to voter identification aspects. As it currently sits, there are 39 different forms of ID that can be used to prove one's identity when voting, and there are 13 pieces of ID, besides one's driver's licence, that can be used to prove people's addresses.

Obviously those are very important changes. In committee, there were some amendments made in order to provide for any potential concerns, but we are still very much requiring that people be able to prove their identities when voting. There is provision for a written co-signed oath, signed by both the elector and another elector who is able to produce the proper identification, in order to swear to an elector's residence for those who may not have their residential addresses on their identification. That would ensure compliance with the rules and ensure that people can verify who they are in order to vote.

The committee heard many times from the opposition about hypothetical voters who would not be able to vote with these changes. I would note that during the committee process, every time I heard about one of these hypothetical voters, I would think about it. I do not have time in my remarks, but hopefully I will get a chance in the questions to go through what those hypothetical voters could do to prove their residences and identities. In all cases, I was able to come up with a solution that would allow someone to vote in that hypothetical situation.

One thing I did note is that at no time during the committee hearings, and there were very extensive hearings, did I hear any one person say he or she would not be able to vote should these changes be put in place, nor did I ever hear anyone say that he or she knew of anyone who would not be able to vote.

It is quite clear to me that there is full support for those changes. What it will do is ensure the sanctity of the election process and ensure that all Canadians are eligible to vote who are in fact eligible to vote.

I look forward to questions.

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

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

I will ask him one very specific question. I feel like asking him two questions, but when you ask more than one, you often get no answer at all because it is too complicated. I will therefore ask him just one, very specific question.

The hon. member is a member of the committee. He therefore studied the bill. Let us come back to one amendment in particular, which still gets to me. My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent also mentioned it a few times.

This amendment was on the voter information card, which can no longer be used as ID at the polling station. As we were unable to keep the amendment in question, we tried to propose an amendment that would add information to the voter card making it very clear that it can no longer be used as identification at the polling station. Otherwise, this might cause problems for people who are unaware of this change and for years have been voting with this card that they suddenly can no longer use from one election to the next.

Why did the Conservatives reject this very sensible amendment? Since my question is very specific, I hope to get a specific answer.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to provide a specific answer to his question. However, I will point out first of all that he should get his facts straight when asking a question. From listening to the preface to his question, the member was misinformed in terms of what the facts actually are.

The voter information card is not an identification card. It is an information card. It has never been a piece of identification. In the last election, on a test basis, it was something that was allowed.

It has never been one of the 39 forms of identification that are acceptable. In fact, what I can confirm to the member is that there are 39 forms that continue to exist to prove one's identity.

I can also confirm to the member that during the committee hearings and committee discussion, we did, in fact, make some amendments to the provisions about voter identification to ensure that where people are able to prove their identity, which is very important, because people must be able to prove who they are to vote, they are able to co-sign an oath with another elector who can confirm their residence. This would be in instances where the residential address does not appear on their identification. People would be able to use that process prove their residence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that my colleague who just spoke spent many hours on the committee. I was wondering if the member could speak to a question that has come up in the House many times about there being no sort of consultation on this bill.

Knowing that the member spent dozens of hours on this committee, could he speak to the committee study? Who was consulted, who came in front of the committee, and how was the amendment process undertaken?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I can confirm that the committee did in fact have dozens and dozens of hours of testimony.

We had a very significant and detailed debate about the legislation over quite a period of time. We were able to look at a number of different suggestions that were given to us. We heard from the Chief Electoral Officer, past chief electoral officers, and many other electoral officers across the country. We heard from many academics and Canadians of all types who were there to express their thoughts on our election law, a very important subject.

We were very appreciative of all the testimony we heard. We were able to make a number of amendments that I think make a great bill even better.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak close to the end, if not the merciful end, of this debate. This has been a long and contentious bill, and we are about to enter into a marathon voting session as various motions and amendments are put forward at the end of this debate.

I have one piece of advice for the government, which of course, it is not going to accept, but that is another thing altogether. It is that the Conservatives could have saved themselves a lot of grief had they introduced this bill or a form of this bill at first reading and then sent it off to the committee, because of the unique nature of this bill. This is not a government bill. This is not a party bill. This is not an opposition bill. This is a bill for the people of Canada, and it should have been presented as a first-reading bill to the people of Canada and sent off to committee.

Then we would not have had this gong show that has been going on for the last six weeks, where we had the Minister of State for Democratic Reform going through this process of pretty well ridiculing anyone who had anything to say about our democracy in this country, starting with the Chief Electoral Officer, who was accused of wearing the team sweater; the former chief electoral officer; and all the commissioners, both current and former commissioners. Throw in the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, for goodness' sake, just as an attack diversion, then go back to Justice Gomery, then go on to various other officers of Parliament.

It seems to be the modus operandi of the Conservative government to attack everyone and everything, no matter how significant the institution, no matter how important their dedication and their service to this country, if they are not marching to the drummer put forward by the current government.

As I say, we probably could have saved ourselves, and the government probably could have saved itself, a lot of hits to its credibility had the Conservatives introduced this bill at first reading and put it before the committee. Then it could have been legitimately argued that they were consulting the people of Canada and the people who represent the interests of Canadians and that their voting system, not the party's voting system, not the government's voting system, not the opposition party's voting system, but the Canadians' voting system, is as fair as it can possibly be.

The government has taken a huge hit on its credibility, because there is an enormous suspicion that this bill is loaded in favour of the government party. That suspicion, once it set in, took on the force of almost being set in stone. It did not really matter how many amendments, the character of the amendments, or the quality of the amendments that were eventually passed by the government members on the committee. It did not matter. There was a fierce sense that this bill was flawed from the beginning, that it was stacked in favour of the Conservative Party, and that Canadians actually did not get a real say.

When they attack the various people who act as our institutional bulwark against bias in our electoral system, they set up a result that is entirely predictable. The result is that at the end of our time of voting here tonight, there will be a deep-set belief among the people of Canada that the Conservative Party has stacked the system in its own favour. That is ultimately very regrettable.

They could simply have made it so that the Chief Electoral Officer reports here, not through the director of prosecutions. It would be a very simple thing to do. However, the perception of unfairness and the perception of bias is loaded into the system when they create that procedural inequity. It is hard to see how a Chief Electoral Officer is going to be representing what he or she perceives to be the best interests of the Canadian public when he or she has to go to the justice minister, who is a member of a particular party, in order to initiate a particular prosecution. I do not know what the analogy is, but it does not seem to be fair, and it simply does not pass the sniff test.

With respect to the opportunity to report the commission's activities, instead of reporting the commission's activities to the people of Canada through the Parliament of Canada, it will now report through the Government of Canada. The issue is not so much that it is this government or any other government; it is that the people of Canada are entitled to that level of objectivity and neutrality.

I know that there has been a lot of discussion about vouching, and in some respects, it is going to take on a life of its own. There have been endless numbers of question periods devoted to the issue of vouching. What is it that is really at the core? In the greater scheme of things, it is not a lot of voters, but at the core of that issue is the sense that each and every Canadian citizen is entitled to vote. Unfortunately, not all citizens are created equal as far as their ability to identify themselves at the relevant period of time. Some, frankly, do not have documentation that would be acceptable in many circumstances. It speaks to the core issue that each and every Canadian citizen is equal before the law, and because he or she is equal before the law, the person is absolutely entitled to vote and the system needs to bend over backwards to assure itself that this person is in fact a Canadian citizen.

We have a whole variety of issues, almost all of which could have been dealt with by the introduction of the bill at first reading. It could have been dealt with in a fashion that was not only fair but that was perceived to be fair. That is the issue here. The bill may actually have some merit, but at this point of the debate, prior to the vote, there is a deep-seated view that the merits are stacked in favour of the government party. Once that perception sets in, it is almost game over as far as the faith Canadians have in the fairness and equity of their electoral democracy.

As we are about to launch into our voting period, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your time and attention.

Grouping of Amendments to Bill C-23—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before we move on to questions and comments, if there is time, I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the hon. House leader of the official opposition regarding the voting pattern for motions in amendment for Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts.

I would like to thank the hon. opposition House leader for raising this matter, as well the government leader in the House for his comments.

The hon. opposition House leader objected to the way in which the Chair proposes to apply the results of votes taken on motions to delete clauses. The hon. member pointed out that members of his party had proposed 110 such motions in relation to this bill and that other members had also submitted some of the same motions, as well as others. He argued that each motion constituted a distinct question and that members should have the fundamental right to pronounce themselves on each question separately. By applying the result of a vote on one motion to a large number of other motions, he feared that the Chair would force members to vote against clauses they in fact support or vote in favour of clauses they oppose.

In response, the government House leader said that the grouping of votes is in keeping with the recent precedent and that it is not unusual for the results of the vote to be applied in this manner.

The Chair takes seriously its responsibility to select and group motions for debate at report stage. It is often challenging to arrive at a grouping and a voting pattern that all members will find satisfactory, and this is particularly true in cases where there are a large number of motions proposed.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 307, states that it is the duty of the Speaker:

...to ensure that public business is transacted efficiently and that the interests of all parts of the House are advocated and protected against the use of arbitrary authority. It is in this spirit that the Speaker, as the chief servant of the House, applies the rules. The Speaker is the servant, neither of any part of the House nor of any majority in the House, but of the entire institution and serves the best interests of the House...

The hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition is asking that each motion be voted on separately. A similar argument was made by his predecessor in 2012 with respect to Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. In the decision of November 29, 2012, found on page 12,611 of the Debates, I reminded the House that:

This would diverge from our practice where, for voting purposes where appropriate, a long series of motions to delete are grouped for a vote. Since the effect of deleting a clause at report stage is, for all practical purposes, the same as negativing a clause in committee, to change our practice to a one deletion, one vote approach could be seen as a repetition of the clause by clause consideration of the bill in committee, something which the House is specifically enjoined against in the notes to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5) which state that the report stage is not meant to be a reconsideration of the committee stage.

The Chair acknowledges that each clause in a bill represents a unique question. That said, it is also clear that our rules and practices foresee circumstances in which the Speaker combines several different questions in a single group for debate and where the vote on one question is applied to others. This is done so that the time of the House is used efficiently and so that the House does not repeat at report stage the work done by the committee that considered the bill.

In the case before us, the Chair has grouped all of the motions to delete proposed by a party or by a member into a single vote. I believe this is in keeping with recent precedents where there are large numbers of motions at report stage.

In fact, to do as the opposition House leader has suggested would be a marked departure from our practices, would be contrary to the very clear direction included in the notes to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5), and is not something the Chair is prepared to entertain since, as all members know, we are not here to repeat committee stage.

Absent any other direction from the House, I intend to follow those precedents and to maintain the voting pattern I proposed to the House when I rendered my decision last week. I thank the hon. member for having raised this important matter.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.