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

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, when I first went to the briefing on this piece of legislation, I was very impressed. I looked at the opportunities to move the issues around compliance to the Director of Public Prosecutions, which made perfect sense. I looked at the issues around robocalls and moving that under the CRTC. I heard the interview where the former chief electoral officer gave it an A minus. I want to congratulate my hon. colleague, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, for the very excellent work he has done on this piece of legislation.

I think my colleague who just spoke has not looked at the piece of legislation in terms of the whole picture of what it would do for fairness in our system. I would like her to talk about the issue of voter fraud and how important it is that we have 29 pieces of ID, I believe, that would be acceptable. Could the member speak about the important role that maybe she will have as a member of Parliament, as will I, who perhaps will run in the next election, in partnership with Elections Canada, to let people know where they can vote, how they can vote, and the pieces of identification they will need.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would point out that the former chief electoral officer who gave it an A minus has moved off that now that he has looked at the bill in detail. When he comes to committee, it might be a different story.

However, let us talk about election fraud. There is election fraud. There is fraud everywhere, whether it is in the banks, in the insurance companies, wherever it is. We have systems in place to deal with that. However, when we bring in a sledgehammer and knock out a whole group of people from voting, in effect, then we are not dealing with fraud; we are actually disenfranchising people.

That is the problem. It is something that underlies so much government legislation from the Conservatives. They perceive a problem and they take this sledgehammer approach that ends up causing harm to people's rights and accessibility, whether it is health care, voting, or whatever it might be. That is the problem. There is fraud, but the system is there already to deal with that, and there is nothing wrong with it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, this will be quick. Right from the very beginning with this bill, we have been getting something that has become customary from the government over the years. When I walked by where the announcement was made, over a blue background was written "Fair Elections Act". Even the naming and propaganda is entirely wrong in the way the government has approached this.

This is the Government of Canada and it should be seen as such, rather than trying to propagandize the way it does. Would the member not agree?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree. The government has a responsibility to bring in legislation based on the public interest, but here we have a government that has an unfortunate pattern of bringing in legislation based on its own partisan political interests.

Nothing more clearly demonstrates this than this particular legislation. It is not about a fair elections act, it is about voter suppression and undermining Elections Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-23.

To begin, I would like to point out that as soon as the minister introduced his bill, all potential for non-partisan debate went out the window. I will explain why.

The minister is trying to justify the relevance and validity of his bill by casting doubt on the impartiality of a democratic institution that is accountable to Parliament and that, by its very existence and creation, must be impartial.

When the minister said that the Chief Electoral Officer should not wear a team jersey, that not only made Canadians question whether there are some flaws in the bill, but it also made them question the impartiality of the electoral system as a whole.

It is unacceptable that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform is treating Canadians and our democratic and electoral institutions so condescendingly.That is no way for a minister to act. Despite my respect for him, I want to make my point because a minister must show respect for our institutions, not attack them.

After hearing the minister's comments, the Chief Electoral Officer gave this response:

Listen, the only team jersey that I think I'm wearing—if we have to carry the analogy—I believe is the one with the stripes, white and black. What I know from this bill is that no longer will the referee be on the ice.

This bill should be making the electoral system more democratic and transparent. My speech will demonstrate that, instead, it will completely destroy all of our institutions. I acknowledge that the bill includes some interesting points that we do not object to. I will not talk about those aspects, however, because I believe my colleagues have already done a good job of highlighting them.

Canadians deserve better. The Conservative Party's problem is that it has lost Canadians' trust. The record of its nine years in power goes something like this: in and out scandal, fraudulent calls, Senate scandals. The people of Canada and Quebec no longer trust this government.

This bill once again shows that the Conservatives have absolutely no intention of improving our democratic system or making our institutions more transparent. As the official opposition, it is our duty to highlight the flaws in the Conservatives' bill.

The minister can rhyme off all the statistics he wants. His job was to consult the opposition parties and the Chief Electoral Officer. Statistics Canada does not give him licence to hide or shirk his responsibilities.

Let us not forget that there was a cabinet shuffle. We have been waiting for this bill for two years. It is finally here, but there was no consultation. The minister can try to have us believe that there was. That is true, but I do not think he engaged in the type of consultation that should have been done to make such radical and important changes to such a fundamental aspect of our Canadian democracy as our electoral system. I do not need to tell you how extremely important this is.

In 2015, I know that Canadians and Quebeckers are going to vote for change and kick out this government that is worn down by fraud and scandals. This bill shows that the government cannot even let people decide for themselves anymore. They want to control the Chief Electoral Officer and Canadians. It is atrocious. I am outraged as I stand before the government to tell Canadians that it is time for a change.

Unfortunately, the government is refusing once again to allow Canadians to decide for themselves. The Minister of State for Democratic Reform tells us that young people do not vote, which is true. He shared statistics showing that fewer and fewer young people have been voting in recent years.

Why, then, prevent a democratic institution known by all Canadians from encouraging people to exercise their right to vote?

None of the minister's statistics can justify this measure. This is nothing but nonsense and lies, because the fundamental role of Elections Canada is to encourage people to vote, to exercise their right to vote.

Why are the Conservatives taking away Elections Canada's investigative powers? They are not happy with how Elections Canada's decisions and investigations have affected them. It is as simple as that. They can say that my speech was lacking facts and statistics, but there are no facts or statistics to justify this bill and this reform of the electoral system.

Every time I rise in this House, my colleagues accuse me of being too partisan and not presenting any actual facts in my speech. That is the only thing they can find to fault me for, because there are no facts or statistics that justify taking away the Commissioner of Canada Elections' investigative powers.

No matter what they say, they cannot justify that the Commissioner of Canada Elections will no longer be part of an independent democratic institution, but will instead be under the Attorney General of Canada. The government appoints the Attorney General of Canada. That is fine, but why take an impartial investigative body that was transparent, democratic and accountable to Parliament and have it report to the Attorney General, who is appointed by the government? Is there a reason that is not ideological and completely partisan?

We have known for a long time that the government really likes to emulate the underhanded tactics of the Republican Party in the United States. Several Conservative members are enrolling in Karl Rove's summer school. Karl Rove is George W. Bush's American strategist, known for his master strokes in committing election fraud. Perhaps it is time to let go of the “Rovian” ideology that brought our Pierre Poutine into the world.

I will not talk about the team jersey, as did the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, who is trying to make us believe that there are plots everywhere. We must look at the Prime Minister's Office first, because that is where the plots come from.

Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley said that striking at the integrity of the electoral process by attempting to dissuade voters from casting ballots for their preferred candidates is a form of vote suppression. The Conservatives can go ahead and call me names and say that I have no evidence. That is what they are doing.

I would simply like to ask Canadians who are watching today to understand that the sole intent of this partisan piece of legislation is to favour the Conservatives. Regardless of the statistics the Conservatives might get from Statistics Canada, those numbers cannot in any way justify the destruction of a democratic and transparent institution.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I am listening to my colleague's speech, and it strikes me that it is not the bill that is partisan, but a speech like that is partisan. It would be more profitable to the House and to Canadians if the member actually made some well-reasoned suggestions on how to improve the act, rather than just launching ideological attacks.

Just as an example, the commissioner, whose responsibility it is to enforce the law, would now be under the public prosecutor. He would be completely independent and he would act accordingly to enforce the law. That is not a partisan move. That is actually a good move, and a move toward accountability. We would like the Chief Electoral Officer to focus on the administration of running elections and ensuring that Canadians have the information they need to vote and to vote properly; so they know where to vote, when to vote, and what identification to bring when they vote.

That is not ideological either. These are very practical, concrete suggestions that are contained within this bill, and I would like to hear her comment on that and the fact that this would improve elections here in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the government really wanted our opinion and that of the Chief Electoral Officer, it would have consulted us before introducing the bill.

We made some proposals, we had some motions adopted and my hon. colleague from Toronto—Danforth introduced a bill before Parliament. Unfortunately, the Conservatives will not listen to anyone else. I am sorry, but that is no excuse.

The member asked me a question, so I would like him to listen to my answer. The Chief Electoral Officer himself has even said that he laments the loss of his freedom of expression.

Why is it that he will no longer be allowed to speak to the media or inform the public about an investigation into fraudulent activities? Why is the government no longer allowing the freedom of expression of an impartial, democratic institution?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, in the first of the member's remarks, she accused the government of being infused with scandal and fraud, and I would definitely agree. There was the in-and-out scandal, and the Conservatives paid a fine in that one; and there is the electoral robocalls scandal. That is just to name two.

However, the really serious part of the act relates to basically cutting the legs out from under Elections Canada itself, by separating the commissioner and putting it under public prosecutions. Let us not fool ourselves; that is really under the Attorney General.

To give an example of what could happen, a few years down the road it might be a different Attorney General. It could be somebody named Pierre, or something like that. Can members imagine the commissioner calling? He might say, “Yes, hello, Pierre; we have one of your members who sits three rows back behind you there, who we believe may be caught in election fraud. Should we press charges?”

Come on. What would happen here, under this, is that they would put the fox in charge of the chicken coop, if I could put it that way. The people who are involved in the wrongdoing would have a say as to whether there are charges laid. That is not the way to protect our election system in this country. Could the member confirm that?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member might table the section of the act specifically that states what he just said. I wonder if he would table that for us, so that we could have better—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. That sounded a bit more like debate. I believe the bill is before the House, so there is no need to table it. Perhaps the section is contained in the bill. It is probably a good point for a future question and comment, or for another opportunity to debate, but not on a point of order.

The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

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

Mr. Speaker, investigations by the Chief Electoral Officer will no longer necessarily be a priority. This is like taking away the RCMP's power to investigate Criminal Code offences.

Not only will the Chief Electoral Officer no longer be transparently and democratically accountable to Parliament, but he also will no longer be able to talk about potential investigations or fraudulent activities. He is being stripped of not only his integrity, but also his freedom of expression.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to stand and address the House today on the fair elections act.

I want to inform the House that there are a lot of great things in the fair elections act. All of us have been talking about the need to crack down on rogue callers, impersonations, and people who have committed fraud, and we want to make sure those things are cleared up.

We also want to talk about modernizing, making some minor increases in donations, again focusing on those small donations and keeping out unions, businesses, and big corporations, so they do not take over the financing of political parties, local candidates, and their campaigns.

We want to make sure we continue to uphold free speech, provide better customer service, and increase voter opportunities to participate in the electoral process.

I do want to focus on my recent ordeal with Elections Canada, which I had to go through over the last 14 months. As I have said right from the beginning, my legitimate right to take my place here in the House of Commons as the elected member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake was never in question. The writ came in. It is secure. I was overwhelmingly supported by the constituents of Selkirk—Interlake.

We have to remember that the dispute was about my campaign election return and the financing of that campaign. It came down, specifically, to my member of Parliament highway signs. At the get-go, I just want to say I am a member of Parliament who represents a riding that is geographically larger than Nova Scotia. It is necessary, as members of Parliament, to try to reach out to our constituents in every way possible.

I used highway signs, large billboards that I own, paid for with my operating budget. These signs were built over a number of years, going back to 2005. We used different contractors and different materials. It creates a little confusion about the invoices: who did what, what sign is in what location, and which sign is made out of what? That became a bit confusing for everyone involved: Elections Canada, my campaign, and even my office, in trying to provide all the details and going over that timeframe.

Elections Canada knew about those signs. In 2008, we claimed those signs in our return on a formula that had been discussed with local Elections Canada officials and through the audit process. Not only did Elections Canada know about those signs in the 2008 general election, but it determined that they were not a campaign expense and moved them out of our return into a non-contribution expense to the campaign.

That, in itself, provided us with some idea of what Elections Canada was thinking about member of Parliament signs back in 2008.

In 2011, we used the same formula because we thought it was okay. It had been audited and approved in our official return of 2008. Then there started to be some questions, back and forth, with Elections Canada.

While we were able to provide Elections Canada with the information detail it needed, all of sudden the Chief Electoral Officer made the decision that it wanted all production costs in, even though the other formula we had before was approved in the past.

This speaks to why we need to have a rule system that everybody can follow and that cannot be changed on a whim. If it has been accepted in one election, then there needs to be proper notification if it is going to be changed in the future. We thought we were within the rules.

Based on hearing it was not applicable, we looked at the Elections Canada campaign handbook. In there is the guideline that says:

Some signs can be used for more than one election. If a campaign...in a second or subsequent election, the amount that the official agent shall record as a non-monetary contribution or transfer from an election expense is the current commercial value for similar signs. If the campaign refurbishes, restores or repaints used signs, the value that the official agent should record is the amount it would cost to purchase a sign similar to the restored sign.

That is right out of the handbook. The Chief Electoral Officer said no, even though we were able to prove what a commercial sign would cost using our own experience from recovering and refurbishing those signs and having those production costs right there. He refused it, even though that is what I filed in our corrected return on May 5.

That subsequently resulted in his writing to you, Mr. Speaker, saying that I should not be allowed to sit for a vote in the House of Commons.

It is an affront to democracy when the Chief Electoral Officer tries to take away the voice of the people of Selkirk—Interlake. He tried to quash the democratic will of the constituents of Selkirk—Interlake. That should never be allowed to happen unless something extremely fraudulent arises that tampers with the election result. When we are having a dispute over accounting practices, an interpretation of guidelines, and the act, that should be resolved in a formal discussion process between Elections Canada and our campaigns.

Let us remember that our campaigns are run by volunteers. The local Elections Canada staff are temporary staff. They are there just during the writ period. It becomes quite difficult to have a discussion with Elections Canada in Ottawa when it is overturning everything that is happening at the local level.

Just to make things clear, we were able to settle this dispute out of court. Even though I did exercise my right under the act to pursue this in a court of law, we were able to resolve it out of court.

Elections Canada accepted the commercial value of my signs, which we submitted on May 5, at $518 per sign, and I was under my expense limit. The difference between the return I filed on May 5 and the return we filed last month was only $458.

Let me repeat that. For $458, and when I was below my Elections Canada allowable expense limits for my campaign and for me personally, I would have been removed from this House of Commons because of a cynical question of privilege that was dealt with through the procedure and House affairs committee.

The bill is about making a change, through the fair elections act, to respect democracy and respect voters wishes and to try to resolve these administrative issues without having to be bullied or forced into embarrassing situations. This is about tarnishing one's reputation, especially when other members in this place and in the media start making accusations that have no basis whatsoever. We want to make sure that changes.

One of changes, which I think all of us should support, would be modernizing Elections Canada. Right now Elections Canada is the only government agency where all the powers are concentrated in the hands of one person. It is very monolithic.

Elections Canada is the administrator, the educator, the adviser, the adjudicator, and the enforcer. I do not know of any other government agency that has everything wrapped up in one monolithic structure without an appeal mechanism. In every organization we have, whether it is CRA, government departments, ombudsmen, who are independent, appeal boards, tax courts, and things like that, people have their rights protected, but not under Elections Canada.

I really feel, through my personal experience, that some of my rights were not respected, not just here in the House but in the course of due process and the rule of law.

The bill would split the elections commissioner from the Chief Electoral Officer and make two independent bodies. We have to remember that currently not only does the Commissioner of Canada Elections have to report to the CEO but his staff, for all actions, are under the control of the Chief Electoral Officer. It is important that we provide independence and a situation whereby they work not only independently but without bias and that they are able to make the correct decisions on enforcing these rules.

We would be providing more power to the commissioner to punish true fraud and rule-breaking. As the Minister of State (Democratic Reform) has said, the legislation gives sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand to the commissioner.

I want to close by saying that we should look at what I have gone through and why it is important that we need to change it. It can happen to any one of us over a dispute about something as small as $500. It should never happen that any one of us could be taken out of here and the will of our constituents not be respected.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I found my hon. colleague's speech quite revealing. It seemed that he was using the opportunity to in some way defend himself against the letter written by the Chief Electoral Officer.

I am not sure why he believes that taking the commissioner of elections out of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer and putting him under the ministry of justice is suddenly going to change the situation he has described. The reality is that when elections occur, there are rules. The Chief Electoral Officer was ensuring that everyone followed those rules, and he had cause to be concerned that those rules had not been followed and was perfectly within his authority to send a letter to the Speaker.

What is really required are the teeth that my colleague is talking about. That is where the government has singularly failed to come up with the kind of legislation we need. What matters is not moving the commissioner out of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, but giving him more teeth.

What are those teeth he is talking about?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that the Chief Electoral Officer was just following the rules. Yesterday, the Chief Electoral Officer appeared at the procedure and House affairs committee and was asked by the member for Winnipeg North on a number of occasions how many times he had had to send a letter to the Speaker requesting that the House not allow a member to sit or vote. He revealed that he has only done it a couple of times. He says it is a common practice and something that has been going on since this rule came into effect in 2001.

I can tell the House that his answer is revealing. It has only been done twice, with me and the member for Saint Boniface. That was revealing, as it only happened in one month out of that entire 14 years. That is disturbing in itself.

Usually, Elections Canada—