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

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the minister for bringing back vouching for address. The pressure that Canadians mounted over the total gutting of vouching under Bill C-23 eventually caused someone in the government, for reasons to be seen, to return vouching for address.

I would also like to indicate that for all of the times that the minister tried to convince people that voter information cards can be a source of fraud, he has never once been able to show one example, and all his general examples never worked. The fact is that people need a second piece of ID and if they have received a voter information card that is not their own, in order to vote they have to forge a second piece to do so. How many Canadians would even think about it, let alone do that?

Why did the government not agree to the amendments from the official opposition to require that calling service providers send audio recordings and scripts to the CRTC and that calling service providers have to keep phone numbers? At the moment, they do not even have to keep them, let alone send them. Finally, why did he not agree to require the CRTC to keep all data received for at least seven years?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the leader of the Green Party. I think she hit the nail on the head with her last comment, “This is a dark day for democracy”, in terms of the possible passage of Bill C-23.

The member outlined a number of examples in her remarks, and I would add to that with two areas that the Conservative government has undermined. Canada at one time was seen as a model to strive for in terms of how we held elections, Elections Canada, and so on. The same thing with Statistics Canada; we used to be seen as one of the best in the world, but under the current government, we are seen as one of the worst.

I have two questions for the member. One, given how seriously Bill C-23 undermines our ability to police elections and investigate foul play, does it make it possible for a government to either buy or steal an election? Two, should we be calling for United Nations observers in Canada for the next election?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in report stage to speak, initially, to my two amendments. I had hoped to have substantive amendments at report stage, but members will recall that the committee was allowed to violate its own rules by rejecting my right to speak to my amendments as they were all gavelled through, all being rejected.

I want to express thanks to the minister for being willing to listen to the extraordinary course of denunciation for Bill C-23 at first reading. Unfortunately, even with the number of government amendments that were accepted at committee, the bill falls far short of being what is required to go by the name of a “fair elections act”.

Briefly speaking to the amendments I put forward at committee, which were defeated, it is a shame that we missed the opportunity to open a discussion on getting rid of first past the post and moving to proportional representation. I think most Canadians would be shocked to find that the leaders' debates are not controlled by anybody, and that the opportunity to create a fair system, as presented at committee by Democracy Watch, was not supported by any party other than the Green Party.

On the requirements for people to bring so many different kinds of ID, we still do not have the kind of system that is as reliable as the election system before the Conservatives' first round of amendments back in 2006. I wish we had ensured non-partisan poll workers.

There were numerous amendments from the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Greens on many of these points, for fairer financing and to take steps to increase voter turnout. I also put forward an amendment in the committee to shift the day of advanced polling from a Sunday. I will try again with the amendments I have before you, Mr. Speaker.

All the amendments from any opposition party were defeated at committee, with one exception, which was one when the Conservative leader on the committee pointed out that the Conservatives had been prepared to do that themselves had they had the chance.

My two amendments would do one thing, which would be fantastic, and that would be to remove the name of the political party from the ballot next to the name of the candidate. This would do a lot to reduce the excessive control of political parties over the electoral process. We used to have elections with just the name of the candidate, right up until about 1970.

I want to devote the rest of my time this morning to why we had the demand for a fair elections act, and how this bill falls far short. The initial attempt, and this was mentioned by other members in this place, the initial cry for reform of our electoral process, was in response to efforts at electoral fraud.

The amendments I put forward at committee, among those of Liberals and the New Democrats as well, called for giving Elections Canada the investigative tools it needed, such as subpoena powers, the ability to look into efforts, or deliberate efforts or actually successful efforts, at voter fraud and electoral interference that changed the course of elections. These amendments were defeated.

People have been very quick to assume that the so-called robocalls affair is now settled and nothing untoward took place there. Because the bill remains inadequate to the task of investigating electoral fraud, we can continue to have events like the 2011 robocall scandal without the tools of Elections Canada to respond.

In the time I have remaining, I want to ensure that it is understood we have not once, not twice, but three times seen quite scandalous interference in our electoral process, that if we had heard of these stories from some third world country, with some kind of tinpot dictatorship that ran fake elections, we would just shake our heads and say, “I guess that is how it happens in other countries”.

The first example was the 2005-06 election, when we had the deliberate interference in the election by our state police, the RCMP. We never got to the bottom of why Commissioner Zaccardelli broke all RCMP protocol and issued a press release during that election. According to a finding of fact by the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP, Paul Kennedy, the interference of the RCMP both violated its normal procedures and changed the course of the 2006 election. We had no investigation because there were no subpoena powers to call Mr. Zaccardelli to explain himself.

Second, we had an event that took place in Saanich—Gulf Islands in the 2008 election. I was not personally involved, but it was very clear, and there were multiple complaints to Elections Canada and the RCMP, that a robocall effort targeting NDP voters changed the course of that election and allowed a Conservative to be re-elected when all evidence suggested that he would not have been.

The Liberal candidate was neck in neck with the Conservatives. There was no NDP candidate on the ballot as he had withdrawn. An election eve round of phone calls went out spoofed as though they were from the NDP. The spoofing term is one I have learned. It is the technical term for using the home fax number, as it turned out, of an NDP volunteer to make it appear the calls originated from the NDP, urging people to get out and vote for a candidate who was no longer capable of election because he had withdrawn from the race. That changed the course of the election. Elections Canada was asked to investigate, but basically threw its hands up and said that it could not find anything, that there was nothing to see, so we should move on.

If members detect in my presentation that I am critical of the failure of Elections Canada and the RCMP to get to the bottom of that, everyone can bet I am critical. They utterly failed to defend the integrity of the election process in Saanich—Gulf Islands in 2008, and they did it again in 2011 with the robocall scandal. Thank goodness, The Council of Canadians took the matter to court. Other than Federal Court judge Mr. Justice Mosley, we would not have somebody as a finder of fact going over all the evidence and giving us clear foundational information of what occurred. Right now, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, Mr. Yves Côté, in his report of last month, once again told us that there was nothing to see, so we should move on.

Let me review what Mr. Justice Mosley found, because it is important to put it on the record to understand why this bill is so inadequate and why it should have the powers of investigation to ensure that crimes like this are properly investigated. Mr. Justice Mosley found as fact that “...there was a deliberate attempt at voter suppression during the 2011 election”. That was at paragraph 177.

At paragraph 224, he wrote:

I am satisfied that it has been established that misleading calls about the locations of polling stations were made to electors in ridings across the country, including the subject ridings, and that the purpose of those calls was to suppress the votes of electors who had indicated their voting preference in response to earlier voter identification calls.

At paragraph 246, he stated, “I find that the threshold to establish that fraud occurred has been met...”.

At paragraph 253, he said:

...I don’t doubt that the confidence rightfully held by Canadians has been shaken by the disclosures of widespread fraudulent activities that have resulted from the Commissioner’s investigations and the complaints to Elections Canada.

As well, he stated at paragraph 256:

...[the...] calls appear to have been targeted towards voters who had previously expressed a preference for an opposition party (or anyone other than the government party)...

On the matter of a smoking gun and who is responsible, essentially in this case we have a smoking gun. We know that thousands of calls were made, including in my own riding and across the country. I wrote Elections Canada with my concerns about these widespread attempts at voter suppression immediately following the May 2011 election. Who was responsible? I have made no accusations as to who I believe is responsible, but Mr. Justice Mosley found as fact the following, at paragraph 245:

I am satisfied...that the most likely source of the information used to make the misleading calls was the CIMS database maintained and controlled by the Conservative Party of Canada, accessed for that purpose by a person or persons currently unknown to this Court....the evidence points to elaborate efforts to conceal the identity of those accessing the database and arranging for the calls to be made...

What kind of democracy is this? We have the evidence of a Federal Court judge, thousands of complaints from Canadians across the country, a Commissioner of Canada Elections who says that there is nothing to look at here and everyone should move on, and we have a bill before us that would do absolutely nothing to prevent the illegitimate use of robocalls in future elections.

I concede to the minister and support the part of the bill that sets up a robocalls registry within the CRTC, but it is not sufficient to deal with the illegitimate use of robocalls and to protect Canadians, Canadian democracy and the integrity of our electoral process. This bill falls far short. This is a dark day for democracy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I like the way the member said that it is misnamed. It is not the fair elections act. Bill C-23 is far from that. One has only to look at the process by which the bill has come before us, whether it was the conception of the idea; no consultation with the many different stakeholders; the manner in which it was introduced in the House, where there was again no consultation; time allocation at second reading; or committee stage, where there were numerous amendments made that were never addressed in full because of time allocation or restrictions that saw many of the amendments voted on but never commented on. Here we are today, where again, time allocation has been brought forward.

We change one of the pillars of our democracy when we change laws. The government did not work with opposition parties or with Elections Canada, a true independent organization. Rather, it has forced the bill through.

We are calling for the Prime Minister, at the very least, to allow a free vote in the House on this issue, believing that parliamentarians will put democracy ahead of their own party's interests on this issue. It is an appeal to have a free vote.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, great remarks they were by the member for Winnipeg North outlining fairly strong criticism of Bill C-23, misnamed the fair elections act. It is the foundation, really, of how we elect people in our country. It is a bill that really should be opposed.

I have two questions for the member. Would he explain the importance of having a free vote on Bill C-23? That has been talked about by quite a number of players, and I wonder if he could expand on that. Could he also expand on the government's decision not to compel witnesses? That will certainly impact the ability of Elections Canada to do its job.

If he could answer those two questions, it would be helpful.

The House resumed from May 7 consideration of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think it is appropriate that perhaps it shall be nominated for a fiction award, perhaps for the Governor General's award under the category of fantasy. It bore little relation to anything I have heard or seen anywhere around here in the past week.

However, I am prepared to provide some factual responses on what we will be doing in the week ahead.

This afternoon we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act. If we wrap that up before 6:30, we will resume this morning’s third reading debate on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act.

Tomorrow, the House will not sit in order to accommodate the events of the National Day of honour. Hon. members will recognize those Canadians who served in Afghanistan and, particularly, those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Those ceremonies on Parliament Hill will be the cornerstone of the nation's commemorations. There will be significant events all across Canada, in which all Canadians are welcome to participate.

Next week, on Monday, we will conclude the report stage of Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act. Tuesday will see third reading and final passage of the bill. Wednesday and Thursday shall be the sixth and seventh allotted days. On both occasions, we will debate New Democratic motions.

Friday, May 16 will see Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, debated at second reading.

Finally, Wednesday, May 14 shall be the day appointed, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), for the consideration of the main estimates related to Finance for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, last week and this week, we saw a host of unprecedented attacks by this government. It makes us wonder what is in store for next week.

The government and the Prime Minister attacked the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Before that there were attacks on Kevin Page, the Chief Electoral Officer and even Sheila Fraser. The Chief Justice has now joined the group of eminent Canadians who have been criticized by this government.

Now, as we saw earlier, the government is even attacking our democracy. It is limiting MPs' speaking time after 10 minutes of debate on the electoral “deform”, Bill C-23. After 10 minutes of debate, the Conservatives informed us that they would be reducing MPs' speaking time. Thus they have cut the speaking time of 290 MPs representing 290 ridings across the country.

After the attacks this week against the Chief Justice and the attacks we have seen in the past against Kevin Page and Marc Mayrand, and even Sheila Fraser, a Canadian hero; after the attacks on democracy that we saw this morning, with the government imposing, after 10 minutes of debate on Bill C-23, the unfair elections act, time allocation of closure and forcing that through this morning; after these deplorable attacks, the question is very simple. Will the Conservatives stop their attacks on eminent Canadians who happen to disagree with them and what will the government do in the next week to restore badly shattered public confidence in the government?

Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I have many questions I would like to ask the minister because this bill is so problematic and contains so many elements that will undermine our democracy.

A little earlier on, the minister mentioned the number of hours we had to examine this bill in committee. The reality is that all of the witnesses who came to talk about Bill C-23 pointed out the various problems with it and spoke about how it would be a real problem for our Canada Elections Act. In their opinion, there are many provisions that will not have the intended effect.

I think it is terrible that the minister is quoting the Chief Electoral Officer to justify the fact that he is now limiting the debate, because the Chief Electoral Officer himself came to committee to talk about just how many problems this bill will cause if it is passed.

As a result, I would like the minister to explain how he plans to continue introducing this type of bill when Bill C-23 does not even make any improvements to the Canada Elections Act. None of the requests made by the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Chief Electoral Officer regarding this bill were granted, and I do not understand why.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is complaining that I am repeating my answers. I do not change them because the truth does not change. I keep repeating the truth.

The debate is on the issue of identification. Under the fair elections act, we will require people to show some ID in order to vote.

The NDP believes that people should be able to vote without showing any ID. None whatsoever. They think that people could simply vote by getting someone to vouch for them.

That does not make sense, and Canadians agree with us on that. Vouching will no longer be an option. People will have to show ID in order to vote, and Canadians overwhelmingly agree that this makes sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely disgusting. This is the 63rd time they have used time allocation or closure to shut down debate. As we know, the government cannot seem to come up with bills that hold water.

In the past six weeks, the Supreme Court has rejected four government bills. I think that we are heading the same way with Bill C-23. I think the people will reject it, and so will the judicial system.

We are talking about 130 amendments that have been tabled to this bad bill, 130 amendments that were supposed to be considered by Parliament, and we got notice of time allocation after 10 minutes of debate for 130 amendments.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the result of this closure, this steamroller that the government is putting in, because it realizes now just what the reaction has been from the public across the country, is that 290 members of Parliament will not be permitted to speak on the bill. For those who choose to vote for this motion, Conservative MPs are muzzling themselves. They are muzzling 290 ridings across this country.

My question is very simple. What kind of disdain comes from a government that invokes closure after 10 minutes of debate and why is the government muzzling 290 members of Parliament on this bill?

Bill C-23--Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, after committee filibusters, points of order, today's spectacle of slow voting and, of course, 145 report stage amendments being presented, it is not surprising that I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

Motions in Amendment

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are at report stage on Bill C-23, and it has been a long odyssey to this point; one of considerable resistance to the bill on the part of the official opposition; many sectors of Canadian society, including organizations who have engaged in the fight, academics and so on; and also, we suspect, considerable pushback from some Conservatives who themselves felt the pressure from the opposition and civil society.

It is worth recapping how we came to be where we are at.

In March 2012, the NDP tabled a motion, which then received unanimous support from everybody in the House, to call on the government to table within six months—that is, by September 2012—a bill that would address the issue of prevention of prosecution of fraudulent election calls and also add to the powers of Elections Canada, including the power of the Chief Electoral Officer to require receipts and documentation for national parties' election expenses, which, believe it or not, currently the Chief Electoral Officer does not have access to.

Well, six months later, by September 2012, a bill with that sort of focus to clearly deal with this kind of fraud and the need to enhance the powers of Elections Canada to investigate had never appeared.

By October, it was clear the government was not dealing with the priority it had promised to deal with in voting for the motion in March 2012, and so I tabled a private member's bill with a proposed, and I would say very minimal, system of voter contact registry to deal with fraudulent election calls, as well as a couple of provisions that also went to beefing up the penalties for that kind of fraud.

I told the minister at the time, which is prior to the current minister, that this was effectively to just prod the government and also help it to begin thinking about this issue, because it was clearly having trouble meeting its deadline. I said that I was available to consult as needed and also that I expected that the government, with its resources, it would be able to come up with an even more effective system.

Well, by April 2013, we still had not seen a bill, despite any number of times I stood in this House and asked when we might.

Suddenly the former minister announced to all, in a highly organized press conference on a Tuesday in April, that he would be tabling the missing bill two days later, on a Thursday. The next day we heard rumours, which were confirmed on that Thursday, that this announced bill would not be tabled after all. We will never know exactly what revolt occurred in the Conservative caucus to lead to that result, but we do know that there was a revolt, and the then-minister was replaced with the current minister shortly thereafter.

We had to wait almost a full year after that event, to March of this year, for the bill to finally be tabled, two years after the March 2012 motion when the government had agreed that it would be tabling a bill within six months and 18 months after that deadline passed.

All that time was spent coming up with a bill that we have dubbed “the unfair elections act”, which explains why the first motion at this report stage is to delete the title of the bill, which the government has called “the fair elections act”. We can think of no more Orwellian a title. The government has come close to titles that were equally unrepresentative of the actual contents of bills in the past, but this one, frankly, takes the cake.

The fact of the matter is that the bill was tabled and within 18 hours, as the critic for democratic reform, I had to be on my feet, having read, analyzed, and formed first views on a 242-page bill to reply to the minister at the start of second reading.

Within very short order, the House leader was on his feet and gave notice of time allocation; time allocation came very quickly thereafter, and very little debate on second reading was permitted.

We then went into the committee stage, where there was an effort on the part of the official opposition, the NDP, to convince the procedure and House affairs committee to allow for hearings across the country in order to hear what Canadians thought. My colleague from Hamilton Centre put on a strong filibuster in order to convey to the government how serious we were about this, but ultimately, after 10 hours, he had to concede that the arguments had not penetrated the brick wall.

We went on in committee to have 71 witnesses, only one of whom was completely in support of the bill. It was one out of 71. Most of the others were critical of large swaths of the bill, and where they were focusing only on one or two things, they were extremely critical of what it would do. They included the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, the previous chief electoral officer and commissioner, the former auditor general, and indeed Preston Manning, and the list goes on.

Then we found ourselves in a clause-by-clause process that ended up having an artificial end date. We had 10 hours of clause by clause, and by the time the guillotine came down at five o'clock last Thursday, we had gotten through only one-fifth of the 242 pages in the bill, one-half of the bill in terms of the clauses, and only half of the opposition amendments. In terms of the amendments that had actually been debated and, after clause-by-clause study, voted on, not a single official opposition amendment was voted in favour of by the government. This was a total farce of a process.

We looked, in a constructive spirit, at the government amendments, voted for those that made sense, tried to amend as it made sense, came up with some proposals that we thought were absolutely impeccable from the government's perspective, and the Conservative members still decided not to vote with us.

For example, when it was clear that the government was not going to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to authorize the use of voter information cards as a second piece of identification, when it was clear that we had lost that fight, we tabled an amendment simply saying that the Chief Electoral Officer had to ensure that the voter information cards were prominently marked with a message to say that this card cannot be used for purposes of identification on voting day, something that was designed to prevent chaos that might occur in 2015 because of the hundreds of thousands who were able to use VICs in 2011. It was the simplest of amendments and the most constructive of amendments.

The government had an entire night to reflect on it, because the amendment was moved at two minutes before closing hour the day before. The government members took overnight, came back, and said they were sorry, they could not vote for that. This was the atmosphere that we worked in.

It has to be said that the efforts of the official opposition and civil society resistance produced some major accomplishments in terms of the government standing down. The fundraising exception that was criticized across the country was removed. The central poll supervisor provision that would allow the first place party in the last election to appoint central poll supervisors was also removed.

Vouching for addresses was restored in the bill because of the pressure that we put on. Retention of documents—some documents, in any case—under the voter contact registry went from one year to three years. Public education by Elections Canada was now permitted for students in schools, even though for everybody else it remains prohibited, and we at least got on record, although the government refused to put this in text in the amendments, that the Chief Electoral Officer will be permitted to communicate freely on any subject that he wishes.

These are major accomplishments, and everyone in Canadian society who pushed back with this effort to resist this attack on our democracy, as Sheila Fraser called it, deserves credit for that.

Nonetheless, the remaining issues in the bill are huge. The bill is much worse than the current Canada Elections Act. For that reason, we will be voting against the bill and seeking, as much as possible, to move at report stage the few remaining amendments that are available to us as the official opposition.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There are 145 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of C-23.

Motions Nos. 55, 58, 60, 63, 86, 87, 90, 92 to 95 and 100 will not be selected by the Chair because they were defeated in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note in Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 to 54, 56, 57, 61, 62, 64 to 85, 88, 89, 91, 96 to 99, and 101 to 145 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 54, 56, 57, 61, 62, 64 to 85, 88, 89, 91, 96 to 99 and 101 to 145 to the House.

Before I do so, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Malpeque, National Defence.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, as reported with amendment from the committee.