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

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the NDP cannot support this bill, and one of the reasons is that it will prevent thousands of Canadians from exercising their right to vote. Furthermore, it diminishes the Chief Electoral Officer's powers. I read the bill very carefully and I would like to point out a problem I found: the Chief Electoral Officer will have to seek Treasury Board approval before hiring technical experts. As we know, the Chief Electoral Officer occasionally hires external companies to conduct investigations or to write reports. Having to ask for Treasury Board approval means that the government will be interfering in the work of an officer of Parliament, and I see that as problematic.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why she did not support the NDP motion to give the Commissioner of Canada Elections the power to compel testimony and the ability to order the release of financial documents. That motion would have increased the commissioner's powers, which would have boosted Canadians' confidence in the electoral system. Why did she not support the NDP motion?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that wonderful question.

The bill before us is rather comprehensive. My hon. colleague indicated that it disenfranchises a number of voters. I have looked through this bill rather thoroughly, and it certainly does not do that.

In fact, it seeks to ensure that people can come out and vote. As I indicated, it adds an additional day of advance voting. That will allow far more people to come out and exercise their franchise.

When Elections Canada sought to explain why people are not coming out to vote, it reported the reasons were normal everyday circumstances, such as people being late at work, attending a child's recital, or it not being convenient. With an additional day, more people can come out and vote and affect the electoral outcome.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner had both asked for the authority to ask a judge to compel evidence.

This is an absolutely critical request of the government, to incorporate it into legislation. The government, for whatever reasons, ultimately denied that particular request. It would have provided substantial teeth for Elections Canada to deal with issues that the government has been challenged on. All one needs to look at is the in-and-out scandal the government was involved in, the robocalls, or Conservative overspending in campaigns.

Why did the government not allow for this particular recommendation, which would have allowed Elections Canada to thoroughly investigate and ensure consequences when election laws are broken?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that even a police officer is unable to compel evidence. However, once a charge is laid, obviously, the information is to be provided.

The proposed legislation goes further. It says that one cannot thwart an investigation and one cannot provide misinformation. I think the issue is being addressed through this legislation.

However, that was an excellent question. We absolutely want to ensure that everybody does comply with this type of investigation.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments. I will indicate that there are some good parts to this bill.

However, there are also some bad parts. The worst part is the fact that it would discourage people from voting. That is exactly what this would do.

If the government were serious about voting, it would ensure that the voucher system were still there. Over the years, the problem with the lineups has not been because people are vouching. It is because people are not on the list, and they are being told to go and vote somewhere else. Some are on a list in an area where they have not lived for many years.

Does the member not think that having the Elections Canada list updated would make more sense? Taking people who are deceased off the list would make even more sense.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question about vouching. I am from the GTA, and we have certainly seen some interesting shenanigans when it comes to vouching. Many people on this side of the House have been scrutineers, and we have been candidates in those elections. It is rather reasonable to have to come and cast one's ballot and bring some form of ID. As I indicated, there are 39 pieces of ID that would be acceptable.

I certainly have the experience of my family, and it is an honour to be able to cast a ballot. The least we can do to ensure that there is transparency and fairness to the process and that everyone is only voting once is to bring a piece of ID that says we are who we are. It is a pretty simple thing to do. I hope we are not discouraging anyone in any way. There are four opportunities now to come out and vote.

However, the hon. member raises a really good point in saying that there are some great aspects to this bill. I was very much heartened to see that the former chief electoral officer would give this bill an A minus if a master's student had written it. That is high praise indeed.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am lucky to have this opportunity to speak to the bill, considering the latest gag order that has been imposed. In fact, there have been so many that I have lost count. Therefore, I am privileged to be able to speak to this bill, since most of my colleagues will unfortunately not have the same opportunity.

I also find it ironic that we are debating a bill that is supposed to improve democracy. Does it really achieve that? I will talk about that in a moment. Imposing a gag order after such a short time for debate makes a mockery of democracy.

I find it even more ironic that we are debating a Conservative bill, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, also known as the fair elections act, when that party has been accused of voter suppression. What is more, charges have been laid against that party in relation to its fundraising campaigns. In fact, the former parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, who is supposed to defend ethical issues, was the one charged.

It is indeed very ironic that those who likely do not have the highest marks in ethics are now presenting us with a bill that they think is wonderful and designed to reform democracy and encourage people to vote—while they stand accused of doing exactly the opposite.

I am going to talk about the content of this bill. Many times during question period, my colleagues pointed out the effect that this bill will have on young people's ability to get involved in the electoral system. I claim to have some experience in that area.

When I was at university, for example, I would always ask my friends whether they were going to vote. I saw that most of them were not. I have to emphasize that I was studying political science, an area where students usually engage in the electoral system. But when I talked to them about upcoming elections, they would tell me that it was too complicated. This bill is now going to complicate things even more.

Young people have also told me that they do not know about the voting process. Actually, a significant number of people have never had an opportunity to learn about it. Some school boards in some provinces have civics programs, and that is good. However, those programs are not everywhere. Students who may have done very well in school do not necessarily remember what they learned in their early years as students. It is therefore important to repeat that education.

With this bill, the Conservatives are prohibiting the Chief Electoral Officer from providing that education to students through specific programs. When I was 15, I remember that my high school held mock elections, as part of the chief electoral officer's educational programs.

In those days, all the students became involved. They looked at the different parties and each party's campaign promises, and they went to vote. That first experience made them realize that they would be able to do so in the future. Those were mock elections, of course. The students were not old enough to vote, but they learned about the process of doing so. I have to say that, at my school, the NDP won.

From time to time, I teach politics 101 in my riding, particularly to women, in order to involve people in the electoral process. It is shocking to see how little young people know about who they are voting for. They wonder if they are voting at the municipal, provincial or federal level. They also wonder what each of those levels of government is responsible for. It is quite confusing. At their age, it is a bit embarrassing to raise their hand and ask their neighbour how elections work.

Limiting education hurts our democracy. When 61% of Canadians vote and 65% of young people do not vote, we have to think of ways to encourage a better turnout. I agree that adding a day of advance polling is a good idea. However, registering on election day is becoming more difficult.

It is good to have an extra day of voting, but if voters cannot identify themselves because vouching can no longer be used and the voter identification card has been eliminated, then that extra day does not do us much good. The act of voting in person is being made more difficult. This make no sense. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to draft bills that make sense.

I just want to point out that during the last election, 100,000 people used the vouching system to vote. They may have been seniors who did not have the energy or were too sick to renew all their identification cards, or even young people who were voting for the first time and were accompanied by their parents as witnesses. Many people need this system, which this bill would abolish. If we take that number, then the government is taking away the right to vote from 100,000 people. It is a fundamental right. We should all be opposed to such a measure.

After the fraudulent calls managed to suppress the vote of some Canadians, the Chief Electoral Officer made some recommendations. Can we do something to correct this system that allowed all that to happen?

This bill does do one little thing. It requires companies that make robocalls to register with the CRTC. That is a good start, but the government forgot to include all of the other recommendations, including the one to give the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to require production of financial documents. I know the parties hire auditors, but that is not the same thing.

The power to compel people to provide information is another thing left out of this bill. That could have fixed a problem or, at the very least, ensured that it never happened again. The government could have put forward these preventive measures to improve the electoral process.

The worst part is that the Chief Electoral Officer was not even consulted, even though that would have been the obvious thing to do. He is the one responsible for studying the elections act and advising candidates. The government did not even consult the expert on the subject before drafting a bill that has a direct impact on people's ability to vote. That is a huge problem. I would urge the Conservatives to go see him. Let us hope that, at the very least, they will be able to make a few amendments to this bill.

I do not have time to talk about all of the problems with this bill because there are so many, but I want to emphasize that the right to vote is a basic right. We all have a responsibility to oppose bills like Bill C-23, which could take people's right to vote away.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a problem following the logic of the opposition. Members who spoke before, including this member, were complaining about time allocation, but the first thing they did after the motion was to introduce their own motion to go home, to close the debate. I do not understand how this works.

There is a lot of talk about civic rights, but how about civic duties? Do we not have a civic duty toward this country? Do we not have responsibilities?

I go to many citizenship ceremonies. When people who become Canadian citizens raise their right hand and say the oath, part of the oath says “I will respect the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen”. It is our duty and right to vote.

I ask the member what she has to say about that.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to become a Canadian citizen and to vote for the first time. There are celebrations in my riding, too, and I have met many new Canadians. Their smiles when they get their citizenship certificates and when they tell me who they are going to vote for and when they will vote, make it clear just how thrilled they are.

What this bill is telling people is that it will be much more difficult to vote the next time. Voting is a thrill for people who have never voted before, but once they get to the polling station, if they cannot identify themselves, if they do not have all of the right ID, they will be very disappointed. This bill eliminates two identification options.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we do recognize there are certain measures within the legislation that are positive, but we believe the overall bill being proposed has fallen significantly short and could have done a lot better.

One of the biggest problems we have with the legislation is that the government appears to have ignored what we believe are some important recommendations from Elections Canada.

I ask the member to emphasize the importance of some of Elections Canada's recommendations that it brought forward to the government and how important it is that the government respond by allowing amendments to succeed, to attempt to get support for the legislation into the future.

One of the more significant amendments that would be required, I suspect, is that we need to enhance the investigation procedures. For example, the Province of Manitoba, and other provincial jurisdictions, can demand an investigation and has more authority to investigate. Elections Canada requested to have the power to investigate and to demand information through a judge if the government said no to that.

The hon. member might want to provide some comment on that issue.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. The Conservatives did not even consult the Chief Electoral Officer, so I understand why his recommendations are not part of this. They excluded him from the entire process.

As for enhancing investigation procedures, that is exactly what the NDP proposed in its March 2012 motion, which the House voted on. We felt it was important and we took action. We moved the motion in the House of Commons and everyone voted in favour of it. It is somewhat disappointing to see that the Conservatives are not following through with how they voted.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to express my support for Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which was introduced by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform. The fair elections act would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy by putting special interests on the sidelines and rule breakers out of business.

The fair elections act would implement 38 of the Chief Electoral Officer's past recommendations.

One of those changes is the repeal of the prohibition on the transmission of election results. I would like to focus my remarks on this change. The fact that Canada extends over six time zones, representing a time difference of four and a half hours from coast to coast, has an impact on polling hours in Canada and how election results should be released. In the early days of Confederation, the release of election results was not a concern, since communication technology did not allow for the transmission of results during voting hours. This changed with the introduction of telegraphic service.

In the 1930s, parliamentarians reported concerns about eastern results being telegraphed to western parts of the country, and extra newspaper editions being distributed to voters on their way to the polls. At that time, uniform voting hours, 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. local time, were observed across the country, which led to a real-time difference of four hours between the closing of polls in the Maritimes and the closing of polls in British Columbia. In response to these concerns, the Dominion Elections Act, adopted in 1938, prohibited releasing election returns in electoral districts where the vote was ongoing. Accordingly, section 329 of the Canada Elections Act currently prohibits the transmission of election results in electoral districts where voting is ongoing. Anyone who wilfully violates the ban is guilty of an offence and liable on a summary conviction to a fine of up to $25,000.

Since the ban's implementation, practical and philosophical objections have been raised. From a practical perspective, the ban is difficult to effectively enforce in the age of modern communication technology and social media. Moreover, the ban could have the effect of penalizing Canadians for their normal communication behaviour. Philosophically, the ban is an infringement on freedom of speech.

In 1991, the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, more commonly referred to as the Lortie report, declared the ban obsolete and difficult to enforce, due to the developments in broadcasting and communication technologies such as the telephone and fax machine. As an alternative to the ban, Lortie recommended the adoption of staggered voting hours, highlighting that polls must not be open too early or close too late in any region. Hours were not to be too disruptive for voters or election workers, and conclusive results from Ontario and Quebec, which might be determinative of the election, were not to be known before the close of polls elsewhere in the country.

Parliament adopted staggered voting hours in 1996. This reduced the difference in time between the polls closing on the east and west coasts from four and a half hours to three hours. With these staggered voting hours, there was no longer any time difference between the closing of polls in Ontario, Quebec, and the three prairie provinces. There was only a 30-minute time difference between the closing of polls in central Canada and the Prairies, and the closing of polls in British Columbia. Thirty minutes was not deemed enough time for conclusive results from Alberta to Quebec to be determined and released by the media before later B.C. voters cast their ballots.

As a result of the staggered voting hours, conclusive results from only 32 Atlantic Canada ridings were available to later voters west of New Brunswick. The Lortie report noted that the release of results from the 32 ridings would not constitute a major problem.

At the time the report was released, there were only 295 seats in the House of Commons, meaning that the 32 ridings made up 11% of the seats in the House.

Simply put, staggered voting hours address the underlying rationale for the ban, which is that knowledge of which party will form the government could have an impact on voter behaviour in western Canada.

The ban has also been the subject of litigation. Following the 2000 general election, Mr. Paul Bryan was charged with an offence for having posted results from Atlantic Canada on his website while polls were still open in the rest of Canada. Mr. Bryan challenged his conviction on the basis that the ban was contrary to freedom of expression, guaranteed under our charter. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of Canada, which released its decision in 2007. While the court was unanimous that the ban limited freedom of expression, a majority of the court found the limitation to be reasonably justified, as it promotes voter information parity and public confidence in the electoral system.

Even though the court upheld the validity of the prohibition, Parliament is still free to repeal or alter the ban. One of the majority justices who wrote a set of reasons for the judgment went so far as to note specifically that “...Parliament can of course change its mind. Within constitutional bounds, policy preferences of this sort remain the prerogative of Parliament, not of the courts”.

The constitutional validity of the ban is again before the courts. During the 41st general election, the CBC and Bell Media launched a challenge to the ban, arguing that in the era of social media, it no longer promotes information equality.

It is useful to consider the effectiveness of the ban, since the Lortie Commission concluded that the ban was obsolete.

As I have noted, the original purpose of the ban, adopted in 1938, was to prevent western voters from knowing the formation of the government prior to casting their ballots. This justification has been eclipsed by the staggering of voting hours adopted in 1996. This ensures that only election results from Atlantic Canada can be known to late voters west of New Brunswick.

No evidence suggests that voters would lose confidence in the electoral system if these results were communicated to them. This appears to have been confirmed during the 2004 general election, when the Chief Electoral Officer suspended the ban on the premature transmission of election results. The British Columbia Supreme Court, in R. v. Bryan, had declared the ban unconstitutional, while the British Columbia Court of Appeal had agreed to hear an appeal. Its judgment upholding the ban would not be rendered until after the election was held. Therefore, the Chief Electoral Officer relied on the existing state of the law and suspended the ban, which allowed media to communicate results from Atlantic Canada to late voters west of New Brunswick.

There is no indication that the results from the 2004 election were tainted by the suspension of the ban. The ban was once again enforced during the 2006, 2008, and 2011 general elections and subsequent by-elections.

In the 2008 general election, there were reports that Yukon's cable provider, Northwestel, prematurely let the east coast telecasts through to the territory's customers.

During the 2009 by-election, Elections Canada asked a newspaper to remove from its website a story that revealed initial results from a constituency, but it did not take measures to prevent discussion of by-election results on Twitter.

In 2011, an error caused the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to briefly broadcast results from Atlantic Canada 30 minutes before the polls closed in central and western Canada and an hour before the polls closed in British Columbia.

There is other evidence that the ban is often contravened. In a nutshell, with Lortie in mind, the right of Canadians to communicate and engage with one another about elections is essential for Canadian democracy.

A ban on the premature transmission of election results is an unnecessary restriction on freedom of speech in an era when social media and other technologies are widespread. A ban on the early transmission of election results is outdated.

Our government is also following through on its commitment to Canadians to repeal a ban on the premature transmission of electoral results in the fair elections act. This change reflects the ruling of the Supreme Court and our government's commitment to uphold every Canadian's right to freedom of speech.

For these reasons, I encourage all members to support the elimination of this provision in the act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my colleague a question. He delivered his speech, but in my opinion, he failed to mention one important point: excluding funds collected by third parties from the election expenses, that is, fundraising among donors who have already donated more than $20 to a given party. That spending is no longer part of the allowable expenses limit, which is approximately $85,000 per candidate.

I have to wonder what the reason is for that change. Indeed, there is usually a reason behind a legislative change. Why did the Conservatives decide to make this change to the Canada Elections Act, which means that certain expenses normally included in the election spending limits will no longer be included?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my remarks, my particular submission focused on the transmission of election results. That is what my speech was all about.

I agree with the government's position that section 329 of the Canada Elections Act, which currently prohibits the transmission of election results in electoral districts where voting is ongoing, should be repealed. It is unconstitutional.

We would like to ensure Canadians' freedom of speech, even during elections.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, while I realize that the focus of the hon. member's speech was the transmission of election results, we believe that a serious flaw in this legislation is the failure to answer the call of Elections Canada officials for more power to investigate electoral fraud, and in particular, the power to compel witnesses to testify under oath to aid an investigation.

This is a power that resides with the director of competition in a corporate context. One offence under the Competition Act, strangely enough, is deceptive telemarketing. Presumably, the director of competition can compel someone to testify under oath to aid an investigation for deceptive telemarketing. However, if that deceptive telemarketing is an electoral fraud case, that power is not available. Elections Canada has asked for it, but it is not in the act.

I would have thought that the government would be quite interested in giving additional powers, certainly powers equal to those of the director of competition, to find out who the bad people were who got into its database and participated in the robocall scheme. If that is, in fact, the case, why have these powers not been included in the act?