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

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with this bill is that it is being put forward as a bill to deal with election fraud. It is true that it includes a number of recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer, but contained within the bill are some terrible provisions that would actually make it much more difficult for people to vote, and I want to ask the member about this aspect.

In my community, where there are homeless people and people who do not have ID, the vouching system has been very important, and it is very strictly applied.

In Bill C-23, the vouching system would be eliminated. I do not know if the member is aware, but in a riding like mine, that is going to disenfranchise thousands of people. I feel very suspicious about what this bill is actually about. It seems to be more about stopping people from voting and disempowering people than it is about encouraging people to vote.

I wonder if the member would respond by explaining why the vouching system was eliminated.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we have to understand is that we have an obligation not only to make it easy for people to vote but make it secure for people to vote as well, in the sense that someone does not cast a vote that is not eligible and thereby cancels out somebody else's vote that is eligible.

In this case, vouching is one of the areas for which we have very serious empirical evidence. In vouching, errors happened 25% of the time, and even when there was extra effort put toward that situation, errors happened 21% of the time.

There are 39 different items that can be used for identification when people go to the polls and capitalize on their franchise to vote. The bill would also implement measures that would make it easier for people to vote, such as an extra day of advance polling, and would have Elections Canada focus on outreach to disabled people so that they know how they can vote and can go to places where it will be easy for them to do that.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

I have seen a lot of legislation come and go in this House in almost 17 years. I have participated in vigorous debates in the House where we have opposed legislation, and some occasions where we have supported government legislation.

However, I have to say that this particular bill before us today, Bill C-23, the so-called fair elections act, is something I feel angry about.

First of all, it is being debated under a closure motion. We have now had over 50 different times in this House that the Conservative government has used closure, in effect to limit and gag debate. That, in and of itself, is very offensive.

However, what I find very problematic about the bill is that Canadians are being told that it is a fair elections act and that it would deal with, for example, the election fraud that was so widespread in the last election.

Let us remember that it is the Conservative government and the Conservative Party who have the worst track record on breaking election laws in this country, whether it was the in-and-out scheme, or the robocalls that were designed to suppress opposition votes.

The guise of the bill is to deal with elections fraud. However, when we examine the bill, we can see that there are so many other elements of the bill that are designed to undermine the role of Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer.

I have dealt with Elections Canada many times over the years, in six different elections. I have often heard criticisms about how the voting worked, particularly in my community, in the Downtown Eastside, where people are sometimes turned away from polls because they do not have ID. I have had an ongoing relationship with Elections Canada and have pointed out concerns about lack of training and issues in my local community. I have always found them to be responsive to those issues when I have raised them after an election.

In fact, Elections Canada has a worldwide reputation as a first-rate organization and is used as a model globally of what an independent electoral organization can be.

It is very dismaying and concerning to see that the bill would in effect undermine the power of the Chief Electoral Officer. It would create a new entity. It would remove general public education.

In fact, in questions in the House this week, even today, we heard the minister for democratic reform blaming Elections Canada for a lower voter turnout.

This is a complex issue. To have this simple fix by removing the role of education and talking to voters about voting, whether it is young people, first nations, students, new Canadians, from the role of Chief Electoral Officer, it is inexplicable in terms of the rationale. One can only come to the conclusion that the current government has basically brought forward a bill—it did not even consult the Chief Electoral Officer, by the way—that would undermine the role and mandate and the foundations of Elections Canada.

That is one element in the bill that I think is hugely problematic.

The other element is that the bill would remove a number of provisions whereby people who are not normally on the electors list and have difficulty voting, because they do not have the proper ID, would now find it very difficult, if not near possible, to vote. I am speaking in particular about what is called the “vouching system”.

This is something that various organizations in east Vancouver have used extensively. For example, we had lawyers on East Hastings Street who would help people determine whether they were on the voters list. They would help them figure out whether they had enough ID, and if they did not, they would help them in the process of what was called an “affidavit vote”.

All of that would be removed.

We used to have the vouching system, where somebody who knew somebody in the community who was homeless or on the street but eligible to vote, a Canadian citizen, living in Vancouver, who was 19 years of age, would make sure that information was provided to people.

There were many organizations that did an incredible service in vouching for people, by saying, for example, “Yes, we know that person. They come to the Carnegie Centre at Main and Hastings every day. We know who that person is, and they should be able to vote”. On that basis, a person was able to demonstrate their eligibility and would be able to vote. Sometimes there were problems, and the deputy returning officers would turn people away. There were issues and we did follow them up. However, the system of vouching has been an important democratic tool for people in my community to be able to vote.

In a previous Parliament, Bill C-31 severely restricted the vouching system. I fought tooth and nail against that. I thought it was a terrible proposition. Again, it was designed to hurt people, particularly those of low income.

Now we get to Bill C-23 and the vouching system is completely eliminated. I feel extremely worried about the impact that will have in the next federal election, in 2015, as there were about 100,000 people who used the vouching system in the last election.

We have just heard from one member that there was a 25% error rate and therefore it is a terrible system that has to be thrown out. However, if one reads the details, one would find that most of the errors occurred because there was a lack of adequate training for poll clerks and deputy returning officers in administering the vouching system. Therefore, it is a question of better training.

The bill would throw out the whole system. I feel we are now setting up an election process that has two-tiers. If one is a property owner, one is guaranteed to be on the voters list, to get a voter card in the mail. A property owner would probably have a driver's licence or some other identification, and there would not be an issue. However, in Vancouver, 50% of residents are not property owners. They are tenants, students, low-income families, seniors, and people who may move because the housing costs are so high people. People are always seeking more affordable housing. Those people end up not being on the voters list, not getting the information they require. Therefore, having provisions that would allow people to be eligible to vote on election day, even if they are not on the list, is extremely important.

I am very distressed about Bill C-23.

If we look at this historically, we have come far on a spectrum of disenfranchising people. I do not know about other members in this House, but I remember the days when people could walk down their street and see the voters list tacked up on the telephone poll. People could look at the list and see if they were on it. I remember the days when an enumerator would come door to door asking who lived in the household, who was eligible to vote. They would go through the criteria and people would get registered. All of that is gone. However, it was not the current government that did that; it was a Liberal government.

I want to make this point because I think it shows us how much our electoral system has been eroded in terms of its primary function, which is to enfranchise people who are eligible to vote, and to make sure they have the information, tools, and the system in place to make that process smooth and as accessible as possible. The key word is “accessible”.

We have come so far along that road. Here we are debating the bill on the opening day of the Olympics. Who the heck is even going to be watching this debate? The Conservatives brought in a closure motion yesterday, so we have a few hours of debate and the bill will be rushed off to committee. Before Canadians even know what is happening, the bill will be approved, yet it would impact every single voter in this country.

I am very glad that as many members of the NDP as possible are taking the opportunity to speak about the bill, to get the information to the public, and alert people that Bill C-23 is not a fair elections act. The bill is actually about voter suppression. It is about gagging the Chief Elector Officer. It is about undermining a democratic election system.

This is a thoroughly bad bill, and we will do everything we can to stop it.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for standing on a Friday afternoon to defend democracy. When we look at Canada, we are like a referee around the world. We monitor elections.

It is with great shock that we saw what happened in the last election. It happened in my riding. People were told to go to the wrong polling booths. We had misinformation, and it was quite shocking.

Does the member perceive that what the Conservatives are doing is hypocritical? Is it a smokescreen to take the heat off what happened in the last election? Is this legislation going to do anything to stop what happened in the last election, in my riding and many ridings, across the country?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the member has some of the same concerns I have, that the bill is not going to stop the kind of fraud we have seen in terms of robocalls. We hope that it does. The problem is that within the bill there are so many elements that are going to suppress voters. I would agree with the member. Elections Canada has a fantastic international reputation; it does monitor elections around the world. However, we are here undermining the very institution that other people try to model.

Yesterday in the debate some of the Conservatives members said they wanted to have a truly independent commissioner and investigator, as though we do not have that now, as though Elections Canada is not an independent organization. What causes us so much concern is that the bill is designed to give a government, with its conservative ideology, more control over the electoral process. That has to be bad. This is not about a temporary change; this is a permanent change that would to take place in this country in terms of the way Elections Canada operates and the way voting takes place. That is why it is such a serious debate.

[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, 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—