Bill C-23 (Historical)

Fair Elections Act

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act (“the Act”) to require the Chief Electoral Officer to issue interpretation notes and guidelines on the application of that Act to registered parties, registered associations, nomination contestants, candidates and leadership contestants. It also requires the Chief Electoral Officer, on request, to issue a written opinion on the application of provisions of the Act to an activity or practice that a registered party, registered association, nomination contestant, candidate or leadership contestant proposes to engage in.
The enactment also modifies the Chief Electoral Officer’s power under section 17 of the Act so that the power may only be exercised to allow electors to exercise their right to vote or to allow votes to be counted. It also limits the Chief Electoral Officer’s power to transmit advertising messages to electors and requires the Chief Electoral Officer to ensure that any information so transmitted is accessible to electors with disabilities.
The enactment further amends the Act to permit the Chief Electoral Officer to seek approval from parliamentary committees to test an alternative voting process (but where such a pilot project is to test a form of electronic voting, the Chief Electoral Officer must first obtain the approval of the Senate and House of Commons). The enactment also eliminates the mandatory retirement of the Chief Electoral Officer at age 65 and replaces it with a 10-year non-renewable term. It provides for the establishment of an Advisory Committee of Political Parties to provide advice to the Chief Electoral Officer on matters relating to elections and political financing. The enactment also amends the Act to provide for the appointment of field liaison officers, based on merit, to provide support to returning officers and provide a link between returning officers and the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. It also enables the Chief Electoral Officer to temporarily suspend a returning officer during an election period and provides for the appointment of additional election officers at polling stations. Finally, it empowers registered parties and registered associations, in addition to candidates, to provide names of individuals for election officer positions and changes the deadline for providing those names from the 17th day before polling day to the 24th day before polling day.
The enactment also adds to the Act Part 16.1, which deals with voter contact calling services. Among other things, that Part requires that calling service providers and other interested parties file registration notices with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, provide identifying information to the Commission and keep copies of scripts and recordings used to make calls. That Part also requires that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission establish and maintain a registry, to be known as the Voter Contact Registry, in which the documents it receives in relation to voter contact calling services are to be kept.
The enactment also replaces Part 18 of the Act with a new, comprehensive set of rules on political financing that corrects a number of deficiencies in the Act. Notably, the enactment
(a) increases the annual contribution limits for contributions to registered parties, registered associations, candidates and nomination and leadership contestants to $1,500 per year and by $25 per year after the first year;
(b) increases the amount that candidates and leadership contestants may contribute to their own campaigns to $5,000 and $25,000, respectively;
(c) permits registered parties and registered associations to make transfers to candidates before their nomination is confirmed by the returning officer;
(d) requires a registered party’s auditor to complete a compliance audit in relation to its election expenses return indicating that the party has complied with the political financing rules;
(e) requires registered parties, registered associations and candidates to disclose details of expenses for voter contact calling services in their returns;
(f) reforms the rules governing unpaid claims, making it an offence for claims to remain unpaid after three years and strengthening the reporting of unpaid claims;
(g) reforms the reporting requirements of leadership contestants;
(h) permits higher spending limits for registered parties and candidates if an election period is longer than the 37-day minimum;
(i) includes new rules on political loans; and
(j) defines “capital asset” for the purposes of reporting the distribution cost of advertising or promotional material transmitted to the public using a capital asset, so that the expense is reported as the corresponding rental value for the period in which it was used, and for the purpose of the disposal of the campaign surplus.
With respect to voter identification, the enactment amends the Act to require the same voter identification for voting at the office of the returning officer in an elector’s own riding as it requires for voting at ordinary polls. It also prohibits the use of the voter information card as proof of identity, eliminates the ability of an elector to prove their identity through vouching, allows an elector to swear a written oath of their residence provided that their residence is attested to on oath by another elector, and requires an elector whose name was crossed off the electors’ list in error to take a written oath before receiving a ballot.
The enactment also amends the Act to provide an extra day of advance polling on the eighth day before polling day, creating a block of four consecutive advance polling days between the tenth and seventh days before polling day. It requires a separate ballot box for each day of advance polling and details procedures for the opening and closing of ballot boxes during an advance poll. Finally, it gives returning officers the authority to recover ballot boxes on the Chief Electoral Officer’s direction if the integrity of the vote is at risk.
The enactment also amends the Act to, among other things, establish a process to communicate polling station locations to electors, candidates and political parties, to provide that only an elector’s year of birth is to be displayed on the lists of electors used at the polls, instead of the full date of birth, to permit candidates’ representatives to move to any polling station in the electoral district after being sworn in at any polling station in the district and to establish a procedure for judicial recounts.
The enactment further amends the Act to change how the Commissioner of Canada Elections is appointed. It establishes that the Commissioner is to be appointed by the Director of Public Prosecutions for a seven-year term, subject to removal for cause, that the Commissioner is to be housed within the Director’s office but is to conduct investigations independently from the Director, and that the Commissioner is to be a deputy head for the purposes of hiring staff for his or her office and for managing human resources.
The enactment also amends the Act to add the offence of impersonating or causing another person to impersonate a candidate, a candidate’s representative, a representative of a registered party or registered association, the Chief Electoral Officer, a member of the Chief Electoral Officer’s staff, an election officer or a person authorized to act on the Chief Electoral Officer’s or an election officer’s behalf. It also adds the offences of providing false information in the course of an investigation and obstructing a person conducting an investigation. In addition, it creates offences in relation to registration on the lists of electors, registration on polling day, registration at an advance polling station and obligations to keep scripts and recordings used in the provision of voter contact calling services.
The enactment further amends the Act to provide for increases in the amount of penalties. For the more serious offences, it raises the maximum fine from $2,000 to $20,000 on summary conviction and from $5,000 to $50,000 on conviction on indictment. For most strict liability offences, it raises the maximum fine from $1,000 to $2,000. For registered parties, it raises the maximum fine from $25,000 to $50,000 on summary conviction for strict liability political financing offences and from $25,000 to $100,000 on summary conviction for political financing offences that are committed intentionally. For third parties that are groups or corporations that fail to register as third parties, it raises the maximum fine to $50,000 for strict liability offences and to $100,000 for offences that are committed intentionally and for offences applying primarily to broadcasters, it raises the maximum fine from $25,000 to $50,000.
The enactment amends the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to authorize the Chief Electoral Officer to provide administrative support to electoral boundary commissions. It amends the Telecommunications Act to create new offences relating to voter contact calling services and to allow the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to use the inspection and investigation regime in that Act to administer and enforce part of the voter contact calling services regime in the Canada Elections Act. It amends the Conflict of Interest Act to have that Act apply to the Chief Electoral Officer. It also amends the Director of Public Prosecutions Act to provide that the Director of Public Prosecutions reports on the activities of the Commissioner of Canada Elections.
Finally, the enactment includes transitional provisions that, among other things, provide for the transfer of staff and appropriations from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to support the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

Fair Elections Act

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no doubt the member opposite would love to discuss the error that caused my riding association to pay a fine to the CRTC. It was about a third of the fine his own member, the member for Wild Rose, had to pay for the same infraction. It was much less than the fines the Conservative Party had to pay for similar infractions under the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications legislation. Those errors, repeated by many in the House, were a result of accidental omissions. They did not put a name, address, and phone number on their calls.

However, that pales in comparison to the fraudulent day calls on May 2 made by that party to people in my riding telling them to go to the wrong place to vote. It was not just in my riding; it was in 200 ridings across this country. This matter was brought before the Supreme Court, and what did Mr. Justice Mosley say? He said that while he could not definitively make the connection, because there was not absolute evidence, he knew that it was Conservatives who did it, because they had access to their information system.

He dares stand in the House and accuse others of violations when that was the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on Canadians in election history.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear the member for Guelph on the situation in 2006, when the Conservative Party was involved in the in-and-out scheme. Do members remember the in-and-out? The Conservative Party sent money to our ridings. It wrote cheques, and the cheques were returned to the Conservative Party, the national party, where it used $1.5 million more of its funds that it could use during the election. It took Elections Canada to court, because it felt that Elections Canada was not fair to it. It fought with Elections Canada.

The Conservative Party has been fighting with Elections Canada since 2006 because of everything Elections Canada has done to try to have fair and honest elections. The Conservative Party is always putting sticks in its wheels.

This is really a bill to crucify Elections Canada. That is what the Conservative government is doing. It is putting a lock on the discussion we are having today, because it does not want the public to hear.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member's comments entirely. The Conservative Party is like those soccer players or hockey players who are indeed guilty of infractions who feign falling to the ice. They pretend that they have somehow been victimized and that it was someone else's fault.

I regret that the Conservative Party has avoided, not just missed but intentionally avoided, the opportunity to give this legislation the teeth and tools Elections Canada requires to find, convict, and punish perpetrators of fraud during elections. The omission is quite intentional.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to share my thoughts in regard to the fair elections act and the need for us to address what I believe is a fading confidence that Canadians have in Elections Canada's ability to properly investigate and ultimately come up with tangible consequences when there are violations of the election laws.

I listened to the minister's question to my colleague from Guelph and was blown away that he would have the tenacity to try to give the impression that the member for Guelph in some way tried to do something inappropriate in terms of an election law violation, to disenfranchise.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Let us take a look at the reality of the need for election laws and how important it is that we beef up the resources to Elections Canada. We can talk about the robocalls. The core issue of the robocalls is the unethical behaviour, which has been alleged by the Conservative Party in different ways.

One example is the mysterious calls being made, telling people that although it was voting day, they should be voting elsewhere. Who originated those calls? There is a huge question mark around that.

Then we have the calls that were being made late in the evening, past 11 o'clock and sometimes at 2 o'clock in the morning. Where were the targets of those phone calls? Liberals would not have been contacting Liberal supporters at 2 o'clock in the morning. That was an attempt to get Liberal supporters upset with the Liberal Party, maybe with the suggestion that they would not support the Liberal Party.

Those were the types of unethical phone calls being made. Where was that data bank that was being used to make those calls? The very serious allegations pointed to a political party, and it was not the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party that the finger was pointing at.

There was the in-and-out scandal. What kind of joke was that, in terms of a fine? The maximum fine that could be levied was $50,000, and that is what the Conservative Party ultimately had to pay. It got off awfully lightly on that particular issue.

It was the Conservative Party that was caught this time and fined for inappropriately breaking election laws. There are candidates who overspend, some more than others. There have been consequences. In one situation, a member of the Conservative Party resigned and then ran again in a by-election. We know what happened in that by-election. It did not turn out well for the Conservative Party.

The Liberals and the New Democrats do not have to take any lesson at all from the Conservative government in terms of ethical campaigns. We need to watch what the Conservative Party is doing during elections.

That is why it is so disappointing, in terms of the manner in which we have seen this legislation brought in, which we are debating today. When it comes to election laws, given how important they are, and given that we should never take our democracy for granted, one would think that there would be some responsibility for the government of the day, which happens to be Conservative, to do the right thing when it comes to changing them.

It should be done on a consensus basis. The government of the day should be working with Elections Canada. It should be far more apolitical in terms of working with opposition parties, not only the Liberals and the New Democrats but also the Green Party and any other registered political party.

It should be based on consensus and consultation. There are many different stakeholders out there who have opinions on electoral reform and ways in which we could have improved democracy in Canada.

Why is it that we have a majority Conservative/Reform Party that feels it is the only party that knows how to change the election laws, when in fact it is likely the single greatest violator of the elections laws? It is the party that is responsible for bringing in this legislation, and then to add insult to injury, it brings in time allocation to prevent members of the House from being able to express themselves. That is the reason I only get 10 minutes as opposed to what would normally be given, 20 minutes, for members to speak. There is no lack of interest. Members, especially in the opposition parties, want to be able to express their concerns with regard to what the government is doing to our elections, and they are being denied that through time allocation.

We have a democratic bill that is supposed to be debated, but after three members have stood in their place to speak to the bill, the government has moved time allocation. The Conservatives are very good at time allocation. No other government in the history of our nation has introduced time allocation as much as the current government has done. Shame on the government.

If we look at the legislation itself, we see there are some positive aspects. We do see some increases in fines. That is a positive thing. There are some changes that are encouraging, but there are also some areas that are discouraging. If I look at this in a very simple manner, I would suggest that we want to see an Elections Canada that has the power to ensure that there is a consequence when there is a violation of an election law.

If I were to add something to that, I would suggest that it should be done in a timely fashion. It is not appropriate that we had a violation of an election law three years ago and it is still not resolved today. This is especially true in a number of areas, areas such as over-expenditure. If a campaign spends more than it was entitled to spend, that issue should be resolved in a timely fashion. If there has been inappropriate behaviour by a particular campaign or a party, there needs to be a consequence in a timely fashion. I would suggest that this does not happen today.

I was sitting at a PROC committee meeting yesterday and I had an opportunity to question Mr. Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer. One of the questions I put to him was if he believes he has the laws that are necessary to ensure that there is a timely processing of consequences for election infractions. The answer in essence is no; it is not there. The Chief Electoral Officer does not have the type of authority that is necessary to ensure that the integrity of our election laws is being maintained. This is where I believe the greatest flaw of the legislation is. It does not address that issue.

I asked the Chief Electoral Officer to what degree he was consulted. Imagine, this is the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada, which is respected throughout the world by hundreds of different organizations and governments. It is a truly independent body. He said he was not consulted appropriately in dealing with this legislation.

I say shame on the Conservative government for not doing its homework, shame on the government for not being able to bring forward this legislation in a timely fashion, and shame on the government for not allowing members of Parliament and Canadians, through their members of Parliament, to be able to contribute to the reform of our elections laws.

I see my time has expired. I am grateful for the opportunity to share a few thoughts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the hon. member this. He pointed out a few items in the bill that raised some concerns with him. I wonder if he might comment on why he does not believe that taking the elections commissioner outside of the realm of the Chief Electoral Officer is a positive step. It would allow Elections Canada to focus specifically on running proper elections, on making sure elections are done with the highest of standards, so that people can get to the polls and access the vote quicker and in an easier fashion. Why does he not believe that is the most paramount function of Elections Canada? Why does he not see it as a positive step to review the investigative function and make it a separate and distinct unit, giving it the authority it needs to do these investigations properly?

I wonder if he might also comment on the provisions of the act pertaining to a cap on the amount that leadership candidates are allowed to raise and borrow on their own, so that we do not have the unfortunate instance, which we currently have within the Liberal Party, where hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal contributions sit unpaid and the candidates themselves are saying they have no intention of ever repaying those.

I wonder if he might also comment on the CRTC becoming the guardian of voter identification when it comes to telecommunications with voters.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, how wonderful it would have been if the government had sat down with opposition members to talk about some of these ideas it is now imposing. At the end of the day, when the Conservatives talk about this commissioner and they see that as a positive thing, they are wrong. It is not a positive thing. Canadians need to be aware that what the Conservative government is doing is saying, “Trust us. We will determine whether or not we want to prosecute an election violation. We are going to have more control over the independent commissioner. We're taking it away from Elections Canada”.

Quite frankly, I have more trust in the Chief Electoral Officer ensuring that our system is fair than I do in the Prime Minister's Office and those guys running around in short pants. I say the government has made a mistake on this issue, and if it saw the error in its ways it would make the changes necessary and allow for an amendment that would put it back with the Chief Electoral Officer. That is the right thing to do.

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

You are actually lying to Parliament.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt is rising on a point of order.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if you check the blues you will find out that the government member called my good friend a liar. If I heard right, the expression he said is, “You are lying”. I would ask the member if he would get up and apologize to my colleague from Winnipeg North. That is the only right thing to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was simply pointing out the fact that the member was not adequately or correctly talking about the act as it is written. He was misrepresenting the facts of the act, and I think that is inappropriate.

If the word “lying” is an inappropriate use of terms, then I will withdraw that term, but I will still stand with the fact that the member was completely misrepresenting the act and perhaps should do a better job and maybe might want to read the act.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I can assure the hon. parliamentary secretary that the word “lying” is unparliamentary, so I appreciate the fact that he has withdrawn it.

The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I find the tone of today's debate regrettable. After all, we are talking about democracy in Canada, how it should be implemented now and in the future and how it can be reformed. I am very disappointed to hear such partisan debate.

I am especially interested in public awareness about the right to vote, and in raising awareness among young people in particular, since that segment of the population is the least likely to vote. It worries me to see that that education will be scrapped. After all, a government is elected for the future, not just the present.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the necessity and paramount importance of educating our youth about democratic rights.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has just 30 seconds.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I sat on an election reform committee in the province of Manitoba and dealt with Elections Manitoba. We talked about how we could empower people to vote. We came up with ideas, such as allowing individuals to vote in malls, providing proper and adequate resources for advertising dollars, and so forth. We could have done many things with regard to the issue of empowerment and encouraging more people to vote.

I want to go back to the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister because I am disappointed in them. I would suggest that he read the bill. If he wants to respect our—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am afraid the hon. member has run out of time.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Lanark--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington.