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.

Opposition Motion—Proposed changes to the Elections Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to sit through some of the committee meetings regarding Bill C-23, where it became very clear that the government has been negligent on this whole file. The member accurately portrays the sentiment of a good number of Canadians that Bill C-23 should go nowhere.

There are just too many fundamental flaws in the bill. One of the greatest, in my opinion, concerns the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to compel witness testimony. That is so very important. When the Chief Electoral Officer was before the committee, I had an opportunity to question him directly regarding that. At the end of the day, we would have weakened election laws as a direct result of the bill.

Would the member comment on how badly this legislation needs to be amended. If the Conservative government continues to use its majority to pass the bill, is it not a slap in the face of democracy? Does the bill not, at the very least, need to be substantially amended, if not killed outright?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I stand here among volumes of papers and consultations from the academic world, both national, domestic, and international, as well as editorials, and all of this is piling up against this particular act. The Globe and Mail was so bold as to say this morning in its headline, “Kill this bill”, period. This was following a five-piece editorial submission by The Globe and Mail, which basically takes this bill apart.

In the National Post, there is full comment under the headline, “Don’t undermine Elections Canada”. It was a letter sent in by not just a couple of academics. Sometimes when there is legislation in the House, a couple of academics will write in, saying that they have spent a lifetime studying a subject and write serious papers and dissertations about it. In this case, there were not a couple, not 10, not 20, not even 50, but 160 academics who signed a letter with the headline, “Don’t undermine Elections Canada”, against this bill.

I repeat for the sake of Hansard and everybody watching at home, 160 experts signed this letter saying that this is not the way to go, and what is being purported by the government through the minister, originating from the PMO one can only assume, is that this is a systematic and very clandestine way of supporting voting suppression, at least the beginning stages of it.

I want to quote from The Globe and Mail because it had a couple of good things to say this morning about this, which I think is very pertinent to the conversation. It said:

The government has resorted to defending itself with out of context citations from experts,....

I will address that a little later and it was talked about earlier. It went on to state:

...[the] conclusions are the opposite of what the government pretends. Tightening the rules will prevent many eligible Canadians from voting; those affected are mostly not Conservative voters.

Therein lies, at the base of this, something that the Conservatives are attempting to do in a very clandestine way. There are some provisions in this bill that Liberals accept, such as the transmission of results across the country. Obviously, technology dictates that is something we should do, and other provisions, but at the core of this, as the member who moved this motion today pointed out, are five areas that we consider subtle ways, but as time goes on we realize it is not as subtle as they originally attempted, which was put forward by 160 academics.

I want to quote from the letter that the academics sent in. Remember that these are local academics. International academics have now gotten on board with this as well, saying, “By the way, what Canada is doing is the opposite of what it did in the past”. This is what is called a retrograde policy, as Elections Canada was and, in my opinion, still is a model for global democracy.

Many of us members travel internationally and speak to many our counterparts across the world. I have spent time at the Council of Europe. A while ago, there was a resolution calling on fairer democracies and institutions that uphold fair democracies, but in the report put out by the Council of Europe, the rapporteur also talked about how the intent is to create an independent body that is able to fully investigate situations with potential fraud in the system. I know the minister likes to talk about the independence of this particular office, meaning the commissioner, who is really the sheriff in town, finding out about how election fraud comes about, investigating that with charges to be laid, so on and so forth.

What he has done, though, is made this office independent of Elections Canada and put it into public prosecutions. The independence of this particular office is talked about as being the way to go, but here is the problem. If the tools by which that person can do his or her job are not supplied, then the job cannot be done, whether it is independent or not.

The minister wants to make sure the referee is independent. He wants to make sure that the referee on the ice is wearing the right uniform. The problem is that they did not give him a whistle, so he has to run around shouting to people that they should not do that, which does not make it very effective, does it? The play does not stop unless the whistle is blown, so the referee in this case is ineffective in doing the job on the ice, to carry the analogy further.

I will stop right there with that one, because I do believe that under public prosecutions, the intent may have been there from the beginning, but the follow-up of providing the tools is not there.

The robocalls incident is a perfect illustration of why these tools are needed, and that is why it surfaced through the current CEO of Elections Canada. It was the need to get the testimony to get to the bottom of this issue and find out who was responsible. We all admit in this House that something nefarious was happening, but so far just one person has been charged when we know that more people were involved.

The courts have already cast an opinion saying that the database system used by the Conservatives was at the core of this nefarious activity, but a lot of witnesses were not coming forward with testimony. If the commissioner had the ability to apply to a judge to compel a person to provide the testimony, provided that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is held up, then they would do that.

The Conservatives say that not even police have that authority. That is their argument. However, I would argue that actually the police do have tools similar to what we are asking for.

I use the example of wiretapping. Police can apply to a judge to get permission for wiretapping nefarious activities that have the potential of breaking the law, but they apply to a judge to do that. Lo and behold, a starker contrast would be the fact that there are provinces in this country that already have this ability. Their elections officers have the ability to do it. They do it because it is effective.

Finally, there is federal legislation that says this ability exists within the federal system. It is under the Competition Act. The commissioner there has the ability to apply to a judge to compel testimony in relation to contravening the Competition Act.

The model exists in other jurisdictions. The examples the Conservatives tried to use to refute why they should not have that power are simply not true. Both the CEO and the current commissioner said that the ability to compel testimony is key to finding out who has committed fraud on a massive level, such as in the robocalls situation. In that example, nefarious activity was happening, yet we could not get to the bottom of it for that reason.

I will go back to the letter submitted by the academics. I want to quote from it, because some of the quotes are worth hearing within the context of this debate.

They say:

We see no justification for introducing legislation of such pivotal importance to our democracy without significant consultation with Elections Canada, opposition parties, and the public at large.

Neither of these things was happening.

There was a meeting. I had a meeting with Elections Canada back around late summer. However, in that meeting, specific mention of new legislation was not there. When I spoke to the CEO of Elections Canada as critic for democratic reform, we did briefly talk about the potential of new legislation, so we were talking about it, but I wonder why the minister felt it was not necessary to have that discussion.

I want to quote from this letter again, this time on voter identification, because this is a very important issue.

Because of the ID requirements, a lot of people in my riding in central Newfoundland were not able to vote. They were able to vote later because of the vouching, but certainly it was because they lacked particular ID that mostly those in seniors' residences were not able to do that. There are lots of ID documents that do not have an address associated with them, and since they were living in residences, they did not have utility bills. Those bills would be paid by the residence itself.

Here is what the academics said in their letter:

The use of voter cards is especially important for Canadians who lack ID that proves their current address, such as students, senior citizens in long-term care facilities, First Nations citizens, and those who have recently moved. Although not perfect, VICs are more likely to provide an accurate address than most other forms of ID, including drivers' licenses. We believe that the elimination of VICs as a valid form of ID in federal elections would reduce the likelihood of voting by some citizens.

There is no doubt in their minds that this would happen.

Earlier today, the minister talked about 45,000 incidents that took place with Elections Canada officials when vouching was not recorded. However, as I said in my question, one cannot necessarily draw the conclusion that there were 45,000 incidents of fraud.

Why do we not get to the root cause of this situation? Was there a clerical error that officials were not able to fix at the time? Was it something that Elections Canada officials were not aware they had to do at the time, but the vouching was purely legitimate? These questions were not explored.

We say that the voter identification card, along with the system of vouching itself, does need improving. That is why we are here: to debate amendments that would improve the system. However, we should not throw something out simply because it contains inefficiencies. We should try to fix that system.

Remember, we can say that 45,000 incidents took place, or just over 50,000 incidents of potential fraud, but as has been pointed by the academics and by most people who are against the bill, we could be disenfranchising over 120,000 voters by bringing in this legislation. I know for a fact, because I have seen it myself—and I say that legitimately—that people at the poll were disenfranchised because they did not have ID containing their address.

I assume that at some point before the bill was introduced, the conversation was to fix the system and create efficiencies, but eventually the Conservatives got around to just throwing it out, period, on scant evidence that was just willy-nilly. The Conservatives seem to be saying that because of the so many thousands of people involved in a particular riding, the potential is there for fraud, but they did not investigate further to find out exactly what happened.

Vouching is a system that is used by many democracies throughout the world and, as is pointed out in this letter, by students, first nation citizens, seniors in residence, and people who have just moved.

The academics have also said this:

The Bill also fails to provide the Commissioner with the powers necessary to properly investigate electoral infractions. For example, the Commissioner will not have the power to compel witness testimony, a major stumbling block during the robocalls investigation.

We talked about that earlier.

They talked about campaign finance:

Bill C-23 would make several changes to campaign finance and expense reporting after elections. Taken separately, these changes may seem minor, but together they increase the influence of money in Canadian politics.

Earlier the minister said that Bill C-23 would fix efficiencies in reporting for leadership candidates. He referred to the Liberals, but in fact, what would this have meant for the current Prime Minister in his leadership battle? Nothing was out there—nothing.

I fear that a lot of this is geared toward a particular party or a particular cause and disenfranchises others. It is as though the Conservatives are not gaining something for Elections Canada or taking the opportunity to strengthen Elections Canada in what it does, but are trying to gain an advantage as political players. That is what is most disturbing about this situation.

All of this leads to the same conclusion reached by 160 international academics, The Globe and Mail that I cited earlier, the Toronto Star, major newspapers, and comment in the National Post. The evidence is climbing against this legislation. They are people who are experts in the field who would attack anybody who attacked democracy. They would do it to us, to the NDP, or to the Green Party or the Conservatives. They say that there are egregious attempts within this legislation to isolate voters, when improving the system was there for Conservatives to take advantage of and they chose not to do it.

The motion being put forward today brings up some very important policy about vouchers and voter identification as key stumbling blocks to many people who should be able to vote, but essentially I want to talk as well about how consultation was not there either. That is an incredibly disturbing part of this situation. In terms of putting information out to the average voter to entice a person to vote, the Conservatives talk about how it is up to parties to put out the message to get people to vote for them. It is ironic that a party that spends of millions in negative advertising is saying it is up to parties to convince people to not vote for something, to go to the polls constantly angry, but that is a debate for another day.

Elections Canada has an incredible opportunity to inspire people who have not voted before to go out and vote. There are people in their thirties or forties who have never voted. Motivating people to vote is a key part of Elections Canada, and Elections Canada's ability to inspire people to vote is one of the main reasons the international community cites it as a great international example of democracy.

I have nothing against the idea of putting out more information to tell people where and when to vote, but there has to be another way to inspire them to vote and to give the resources to do it and to communicate with people in an open fashion. If Elections Canada is truly independent, which the minister is now saying it is, he would have no worries about it doing these things, but apparently that is not the case.

Going forward, I hope that we are able to propose, accept, and converse about proper amendments that would fix many of these things that we oppose in the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister. I appreciate the fact that I was consulted in advance of Bill C-23.

In my written submission to the minister, I pointed out that Canada had a crisis of voter turnout and that claims that we had an issue of voter fraud were erroneous and there was no evidence for it. I urged him to further expedite voting by reducing the number of pieces of ID required in various circumstances in changes to the Elections Act that his administration brought forward a number of years ago. He did not give me a hint of what he had planned or I would have been a bit more forceful in my recommendations that the Conservatives not make voting harder for Canadians.

Given that Mr. Neufeld's report and Mr. Neufeld himself have made it very clear that they found no incidents of fraud, and I put it to the minister that the authorities could certainly have investigated it had they suspected it as there is more than enough information there to investigate if there was a suspicion of fraud, there is no suspicion of fraud. I say again that the electoral crisis in Canada is not that Canadians are voting more than once; it is that they are voting less than once, and we must change this bill.

Will the minister consider amendments?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition has reacted with predictable hyperbole to the fair elections bill, yet the bill is full of the common-sense measures that are required for the improvement of our democratic system.

To start with, let us deal with the issue of vouching. The opposition has made a controversy over that question, so let us zero in on the issue at stake. Some people have argued that we should not need photo ID to vote. They are right; we should not, and we do not. With the fair elections bill, people will still be able to vote without photo ID in Canada.

In fact, with the passage of the fair elections bill, people will not even need government ID to cast a ballot in this country. People will have the ability to use 39 different forms of identification when they cast their ballot under the fair elections bill, just as is the case right now. So what is the change? A voter will be required to provide some proof of identity and residence; it will no longer suffice for people to simply have a voucher stand in place and assert who they are and where they live.

The risks of vouching are obvious. It is obviously risky to allow someone to vote without having any documented ID of who they are or where they live. They could conceivably vote more than once or in a constituency in which they do not reside.

What is worse than these mere risks is the fact that the safeguards that are meant to mitigate the risks were violated 50,735 times, or 42% of the time, in the last election, according to Elections Canada's own compliance report.

Supporters of vouching have mistakenly believed that they had experienced an “aha” moment recently, when the author of that report, Harry Neufeld, restated his long-standing support for vouching. That was nothing new, of course, nor had anyone ever suggested anything to the contrary. His support for vouching has long been documented. In fact, it was in his report that has been on the public record for a very long time. Anybody could have looked it up. It was not news that he restated that position.

The fact that a long-standing supporter of vouching was the one who actually reported the violations of the rules and its use should be all the more troubling to all of us. Still, some claim that the enormous number of irregularities were simply record-keeping hiccups.

The Neufeld report, regardless of what the author might now claim, said exactly the opposite. Let me quote from page 5:

Errors that involve a failure to properly administer these procedures are serious. The courts refer to such serious errors as “irregularities” which can result in votes being declared invalid.

If members do not like that, they should try page 14:

Too frequently, the errors are so serious that the courts would judge them to be “irregularities” that violate the legal provisions that establish an elector’s entitlement to vote.

Further, Neufeld noted that the sorts of vouching errors that occurred in the riding of Etobicoke Centre “could contribute to a court overturning an election”. That last clause was a quote from page 10.

Rules exist for a reason. They are the “legal safeguards, in place to ensure each elector is actually eligible to vote..”. That is on page 6. Their systematic violation is serious enough for our court to overturn an election result or invalidate a vote, according to the report.

What are these rules, and why does it matter that they were violated? The rule that was most often violated in the last election was the requirement that the local Elections Canada personnel keep records of who vouched and who was vouched for.

By the way, this can be found on page 64 of the final report.

In 45,000 cases there is no such record, so we do not know who was vouched for and we do not know who did the vouching. If we do not know who vouched, then those individuals could violate the rule that they are not supposed to vouch more than once. That is a rule because, if someone systematically vouches for a large number of voters, then that individual can allow voters to cast more than one ballot or cast ballots in constituencies in which they do not reside. That is why the rule exists. The fact that it was violated 45,000-plus times should be a concern to all of us.

We are proposing a very reasonable solution. Individuals could bring basically any document showing who they are and where they live. That document does not have to come from the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario or any provincial government, or a municipal government. It could come from a utility company. It could come in the form of a student card or an attestation. There are 39 different options. If the opposition wants to focus on a particular category of elector, I am happy to share a form of identification within the existing 39 acceptable examples that would provide those voters with an opportunity to identify who they are and where they live.

Voter turnout is the next issue of debate that the opposition has raised. There are two things that drive people to vote. One is motivation and the other is information. Motivation is what parties and candidates offer to inspire people to vote, giving them something to vote for. Information—the where, when, and how—is the responsibility of Elections Canada.

Election Canada's own data suggests it has done a poor job of providing that information. After the last election, young non-voters reported that not knowing where, when, or how to vote affected their decision not to cast a ballot; 25% did not know where to vote; 26% did not know when; and 19% did not know how to vote. That was one of the factors that led them to make the decision not to cast their ballot.

In the last election, half of our youth in this country did not know that they could vote before election day. Three-quarters of aboriginal youth did not know. If people are busy on election day and are not aware that they can vote early, they miss their chance. That is what led, I think, Elections Canada to write the following in one of its post-election reports, “The most important access barrier was lack of knowledge about the electoral process, including not knowing about different ways to vote...”. The fair elections act would require Elections Canada to communicate this basic information, while the parties do the job of voter motivation.

Finally, the fair elections act would make the law enforcement watchdog, Commissioner Yves Côté, independent from the Chief Electoral Officer. Predictably, the latter does not like that idea. That being said, I think it is completely essential.

First, there are almost three dozen offences in the Canada Elections Act that deal with the conduct of the Chief Electoral Officer's staff. How can the commissioner investigate the CEO's staff when he is one of the CEO's staff himself?

Second, the fair elections act would move the commissioner into the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The director has been responsible for laying charges under the Canada Elections Act for the last seven years, and during that time his independence has never been questioned and that is because it is unquestionable. The director is appointed on the recommendation of a committee of non-partisan public servants, a representative of each political party, and a representative of the law societies of the country. The appointment is then validated by an all-party committee of the House of Commons. After being put in that position, the director cannot be removed except through a vote by the House of Commons. In fact, that removal process is similar to what is required for officers of Parliament, including the CEO of Elections Canada and the Auditor General of Canada. No one would argue that those positions lack independence.

Prior to this debate no one has ever argued—and to my knowledge no one in the House of Commons has ever argued—that the Director of Public Prosecutions is not independent. I have never heard Elections Canada argue that the Director of Public Prosecutions is not independent. He has already exercised that independence as the chief prosecutor responsible for the Canada Elections Act for the last seven years. No charges can be laid under that act without his express sign-off and without the prosecution his office carries out subsequently in the courts.

Section 2 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act specifically excludes the Attorney General, who is an elected politician, from any involvement in prosecutions related to the Canada Elections Act. I have never heard a single example where anyone has even alleged that this provision of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act has been violated. It has been scrupulously and faithfully followed by the DPP, the Attorneys General, and everyone else involved. Not only has there been no finding of wrongdoing in this respect, but I am not aware of even an allegation.

Beyond the independence of the DPP from the government, there is the ongoing independence of the commissioner from the DPP. Allow me to quote directly from clause 108 of the fair elections act. It says:

The Commissioner is to conduct the investigation independently of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

In other words, the prosecutor cannot direct the investigation. That job is exclusively in the hands of the commissioner under the fair elections act. Furthermore, for the first time, the commissioner would have a fixed term, he could not be fired without cause, and he would have control of staffing and investigations. That is real independence.

Canadians instinctively understand that these principles are rooted in both common sense and fairness. That is why they have not joined in the hysteria of the opposition.

The next point of peculiarity in the opposition's critique is related to fundraising. The opposition has come out against the provision in the act that would allow parties to exempt fundraising calls, emails, and letters from campaign expenses. The provision is based on a well-established principle that there is a distinction between raising funds for a campaign and spending those same funds for a campaign.

It is the same reason why people do not put mileage on their car while they are standing and putting gas in it. The mileage only starts to add up when the wheels start turning. The fuel in the car, by itself, does not cause the mileage to grow.

Is this a principle that was invented out of thin air? Actually, it was right in the NDP rule book for its leadership race. Let us look at rule seven, regarding expenses not subject to the party's expense ceiling: 7 d) says, “Any expenses for fundraising...”. Those expenses are explicitly excluded.

In fact, in the NDP rule book, the fundraising exemption is far more vast than what is proposed in the fair elections act. Our bill, by contrast, has clear definitions of what constitutes a fundraising expense. It must be directed at a previous donor of the last five years and it must have the purpose of raising funds, rather than some other purpose.

When the NDP excluded fundraising expenses from its leadership race, it had no such limitations on the exclusion. It was simply the case that anything claimed to be fundraising did not count as part of the party's spending limit. Therefore, for the NDP to now claim that it is opposed to the distinction between fundraising expenses and campaign expenses is a little rich, to put it generously.

We look forward to having continued debate on this bill. I expect there will be a very thorough vetting at the committee, where dozens of witnesses will come and share their points of view. I am prepared, should I be asked to return to the committee, to answer any further questions that the members may have. Although I have not been invited, I put out that offer to the committee.

That being said, this Elections Act reform is fair. It has common sense, and it would ensure that everyday Canadians stay in charge of democracy. It would put special interests on the sidelines. It would put rule breakers out of business. It would close loopholes to big money. It would bring in new penalties for political imposters who use rogue calls to deceive voters.

It would prevent political candidates from using unpaid debts as a way of getting around donation limits, as the Liberals were successful in doing in their leadership race.

These are changes to our electoral system that have been long required. The fair elections act would provide them. That is why I am proud to move the bill and to continue to support it as it travels through the parliamentary process.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr.Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member, and I want to pick up on some of her comments in regard to the manner in which the legislation is before us today.

It is completely unacceptable that the government has chosen to put Bill C-23 before us in the fashion that it has. There was no legitimate consultation done with Elections Canada. There was no consultation done with opposition parties. There was no consultation done with other stakeholders, and this is one of our fundamental cornerstones of democracy in Canada.

It is fundamentally flawed legislation, and I am wondering if the member would go so far as to agree with what the Globe has said in its editorials, that the bill needs to be stopped in its tracks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this motion today.

This motion deals with what is referred to as the new electoral reform bill, which would change many things in our electoral system. Our motion addresses three points in particular: vouching, voter education programming by Elections Canada, and the use of voter cards.

In our opinion, by getting rid of these three extremely important measures the government is harming certain specific groups in particular and I will try to explain why in my speech. Those groups are youth, new Canadians, aboriginal Canadians and seniors living in residences.

Let us begin with vouching. Vouching enables young people who attend school away from home or who are living somewhere where it is very difficult to prove residence to vote by showing identification in the presence of a colleague, a roommate or someone who knows them well and can confirm their identity so that they can vote.

The major advantage to vouching is that the information of both the voter and the voucher is taken down. When people talk about possible or hypothetical fraud in the vouching system, let us not forget that we have all the information from both people who are voting.

Does anyone really believe that someone who is going to cheat the electoral system would provide all their personal information, namely their ID card with a photo, their telephone number and their address? That is absolutely ridiculous. The idea behind vouching is to allow anyone who has difficulty meeting the requirements to exercise their right to vote.

Personally, I was in that situation for quite a while. I am from Montreal and I moved to Rimouski to go to school. I lived there for a number of years without any official proof of address. I lived in residence where electricity was paid for, so I did not have an electricity bill. I had nothing to prove that I lived at that address in Rimouski.

If I could not go to the polling station on election day to vote because I did not have such evidence or documents, I could not exercise my right to vote. That is the reality of the changes to the elections act being proposed today.

My second point has to do with voting using the voter information card, which also specifically affects these groups. As my colleague from Toronto—Danforth just mentioned in response to a question from the government, the 2011 target groups who could use voter information cards to vote were youth, aboriginal people and seniors in residences.

All those in positions of authority who have experience with the electoral system, including the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Neufeld and everyone who was involved in the process, have said that this excellent measure helped people to be able to vote. They also recommended that everyone be allowed to use voter information cards.

What did the government decide to do instead? It decided that even the target groups would no longer be allowed to use these cards. These people will be left to their own devices and will have to find a way to vote. The government is telling young people who want to get involved and who want to vote but who face many obstacles to fend for themselves, to make arrangements and to find a way to navigate the new system and vote. However, problems already exist. For example, voter turnout among youth is abysmal.

Mr. Mayrand said something in committee that really stuck with me because I think it clearly identifies the problem. He said:

It is essential to understand that the main challenge for our electoral democracy is not voter fraud, but voter participation.

With regard to the young people who will have difficulty, I would like to quote the motion that I moved in May 2013 before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs because it is extremely important. It reads:

That the Committee:

(a) Recognize that reports of the Chief Electoral Officer submitted to Parliament from 2010 onward demonstrate that, if Parliament does not modernize our electoral system in order to engage young Canadians, lower and lower percentages of eligible voters will turn out to vote in future federal elections; and

(b) Conduct a comprehensive study before December 2013 on potential mechanisms to enhance youth electoral engagement in Canada, with the view to implement such changes before the next federal election, including: modernizing the online voter registration system; ensuring there are polling stations on university and college campuses across the country; recruiting and training more youth to act as elections officers; raising awareness about how and where to vote, especially among mobile college and university students; considering an electronic voting system; considering automatic registration; and, removing barriers to pre-registering young people at age 16 as prospective voters, in advance of eligibility to vote at age 18.

We thought of such measures because we believed that this issue had to be studied in order to determine how to increase the youth voter turnout rate. Instead of considering these ways to improve youth participation, not only is the government eliminating vouching and voter cards as means of identification, but it is also eliminating all of Elections Canada's voter education programs. Elections Canada will no longer be able to talk to anyone, except to tell voters where, when and how to vote. That is what our dear minister is repeating ad nauseam.

The problem is that encouraging young people to vote is not just about telling them how and where to vote. There are many different things that could be done today to improve the voter turnout of young people. Elections Canada is in the best position to know what to do. It has all the data and the information and the will to improve voter participation. However, it will not have the right to say anything to anyone, other than what it is allowed to say. That really is a problem. I would like to quote the Chief Electoral Officer, who appeared before the committee last week:

I am very preoccupied in this regard with the limitations Bill C-23 imposes on the ability of my office to consult Canadians and disseminate information on electoral democracy, as well as to publish research. I am unaware of any democracy in which such limitations are imposed on the electoral agency and I strongly feel that an amendment in this regard is essential.

The Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Mayrand, was very clear and said that he was not aware of any democracy that has muzzled its electoral organization like this. This gag order is one of the most harmful things in this bill. Our electoral organization should be independent and able to talk to Canadians about the topics it considers important. If it is not allowed to talk to Canadians, this means it will also not be able to talk about potential cases of fraud, since this will not be one of the very limited number of topics the minister will allow the Chief Electoral Officer to talk about.

We believe that these three things have a negative impact on the participation of groups that are already at a disadvantage in the voting process. Meaningful action could be taken. For example, the Chief Electoral Officer made recommendations to address the potential problems with the voter identification cards and the vouching system. He made some excellent suggestions. For example, he suggested that the government give him the power to hire people earlier and that they be better training. If election staff are better trained and better equipped, there will be far fewer errors of this type that can lead to bigger problems.

The Chief Electoral Officer made a number of suggestions that were not reflected in this bill. That is unacceptable.

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

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, proposed changes to the Elections Act that would prohibit vouching, voter education programming by Elections Canada, and the use of voter cards as identification could disenfranchise many Canadians, particularly first-time voters like youth and new Canadians, Aboriginal Canadians and seniors living in residence, and should be abandoned.

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

Let me begin today's opposition day by stating flat out that our electoral democracy is in serious danger as a consequence of a bill before the House, Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which I think almost everybody who knows anything about the act is now calling the unfair elections act. Conservatives and the Minister of State (Democratic Reform) are, frankly, relying on Canadians' busy lives and complacency about the state of our democracy to ram legislation through the House. They are also hoping for media silence in order to pull off what I would call a kind of Westminster-majority-government coup. Effectively, that is what we are looking at.

Let me also remind everyone of a baseline fact, which is that the right to vote is one of the most fundamental rights in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court has made clear that statute law needs to be oriented, not only in its enactment but in its interpretation, to enfranchisement, not to the opposite. The right to vote is not even subject to the notwithstanding clause, whereas other important rights, like equality rights, are. This underlines how very foundational and fundamental the right to vote is in our society.

I am going to state flat out a couple of overarching premises about this bill before arguing about the elements we want Conservative MPs, in good faith, to vote with us on today, namely, to get rid of three elements in this bill that are, frankly, atrocities.

Overall, Bill C-23 is a calculated effort and intricate tapestry to do two things. One, for ideological or perhaps for sound philosophical reasons, is to enact a set of principles that are unfair, frankly. Perhaps not from the perspective of the minister and his supporters, but standing alone, without looking at any partisan advantage, this bill is full of unfairness.

Everybody knows, and we would be blind if we did not notice and remiss if we did not mention, that this is also a bill designed to secure strategic partisan advantage for the party that lies behind the government. The two interact. There is no doubt that a lot of my colleagues in the House have bought certain lines and spin from the government and the minister to try to keep this in the philosophical realm and to try to ignore how much of an attempt this is to hijack democracy. I ask them now, and will ask again at the end of my remarks, to please know that Canadians are watching and will notice what they do on this incredibly important bill.

The bill would do four major things, in clusters. There are tons of points I could draw attention to. However, in clusters, this is what the bill does that is so incredibly unfair.

First, it engages in the result, and now, because that result is so clearly known, by intention, of voter suppression. The primary devices for this would be getting rid of the voter identification methods of vouching and the use of voter information cards as authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Second, it is an active attempt to encourage voter apathy and disengagement, with perhaps the single most important factor being getting rid of Elections Canada's public education and outreach mandate in an incredibly brutal way.

Third, it either does not add the necessary tools to enhance the investigative functions and powers of Elections Canada, in particular the Commissioner of Canada Elections, or it actually undermines the investigative power of Elections Canada while simultaneously flipping to a focus away from organized fraud of the sort we are all concerned about, and have been for years, which we all thought was going to be tackled in this bill. It changes the focus from that fraud to a mythical narrative of citizen fraud. Fourth, and finally, it jacks up big money politics in a big way.

I want to come back to the third point, which ties together the questions of voter suppression and the lack of a serious tackling of schemes like the automated robocall scandal from 2011. Effectively before this bill came down, Canadian society and the House had trained a telescope on the government, demanding a bill that would deal adequately and seriously with the above by giving new investigative powers to Elections Canada to deal with the robocall scheme and anything like it. Instead, that telescope has been turned around. The government is looking back at average Canadians and saying that Canadians are the potential source of fraud, and not just them, but also the 200,000 election day workers who try to do their job as best they can every election and yet are now being blamed for a fictional situation of fraud in this country.

The NDP members have been doing what they can and I think Canadians would expect no less. Once they become aware of the bill and what it contained, almost to a person they were deeply concerned about it. They would never forgive us, and we would never forgive ourselves, if we were not taking the fight to the government on the bill in the way we have been doing because, frankly, as I have said before, some foundational elements of our democracy are at stake.

The efforts have been bearing fruit. Civil society stood up to the plate early on and has continued to do so. Too many organizations and individuals have come forward for me to name. I would say a good number in the print media have as well. Regrettably, that has not been the case yet with the national news broadcasters, but I am hoping that they too will soon see their responsibility to keep the bill in front of Canadians' consciousness.

We held eight town halls over the course of the last two weeks. They were full to the bursting point. I want to come back to The Globe and Mail as one of the examples of the print media. It did an unprecedented thing by writing five editorials in a row condemning the bill, taking it apart bit by bit, to the point that the first one said:

The...government's continued focus on the threat of voter fraud in federal elections is approaching absurdity. Everyone with any expertise who has examined the question in detail has arrived at the same conclusion: There is no threat. And yet the government insists that controversial provisions in its proposed Fair Elections Act are needed to eliminate this non-existent terror—even at the risk of disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters. It makes no sense.

In another editorial, it says simply:

The Fair Elections Act needs a rewrite and a rethink. It isn't good for Canadian democracy.

Today, we see no doubt that The Globe and Mail is aware that the entire day in the House is being devoted to our opposition day motion. In an editorial entitled, “For the Good of the Country: Kill this bill”, the Globe states:

For the government, it is an opportunity to admit error and change course.... This bill deserves to die. The Fair Elections Act must be stopped. Killing it should be Parliament's first order of business.

With that, many of my colleagues will be laying bare the problems with the government's case, the minister's case, which stands on no evidential foundation for getting rid of vouching, getting rid of the use of voter information cards, and gutting public education and outreach.

My task is simply to say that I am speaking to my Conservative colleagues across the aisle. You frankly have been spun by cabinet and the minister. You have a duty to look at this in more detail because, if you do not, you will regret it. You must exert your independence and vote with us today on getting rid of these three elements. If you do not do the right thing, you will be remembered for not standing up for democracy when called for. And if you do not back down, people will remember.

I would end by saying and reminding you that contrary to what the minister has said in his own op-ed today in The Globe and Mail, accusing us and others of hysteria, the fact is that more and more Canadians are engaged, and more and more Canadians are enraged. You should pay attention. If you do not, 2015 will bring a surprise.

Democratic Reform

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer will be able to continue speaking to the media after the fair elections act is passed. That is not an issue.

But the NDP wants to ignore the hard facts around the irregularities related to vouching. The reality is, regardless of what push poll they will send out in the next couple of days, Canadians believe there should be a form of identification so that we know who is voting and that they live in the riding in which they are casting a ballot. That is a bare minimum. It is common sense. That is the fair elections act.

Business of the House

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today the Conservatives broke their own record for shutting down debate by using time allocation for the 52nd and 53rd time since the 2011 election. Add this to six closures—most recently on debate related to the fabricated evidence that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville presented to the House of Commons—and you have 59 instances of the Conservatives using the Standing Orders to shutdown debate in the House. That is quite the record and quite the legacy.

The government House leader's command of the Standing Orders is so exceptional that, today, he forced time allocation of one sitting day on a bill that was slated to pass in less time than that. We were actually in favour of the bill and we could have passed it fairly quickly. This prevented other work from being done. It is incredible what we are seeing in the House right now.

Today, in its latest stroke of parliamentary brilliance, the government tried to sabotage the testimony given by the Chief Electoral Officer in today’s committee hearings on its unfair elections act, Bill C-23. Unfortunately after stumbling out of the gates, the Conservatives were forced to abandon their plan.

The Conservatives' disdain for our democracy and its institutions would be shocking if they did not make such a regular display of it. Canadians deserve much better than a government that behaves as though it is above the law.

My question for the parliamentary leader is this: what brilliant tactics does he have in store for the House after the riding weeks that will further display his dazzling command of the procedures and practices of this place?

Democratic Reform

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the commissioner already has the same investigative powers as a police officer. Furthermore, the fair elections act will increase the commissioner's powers by making him independent and allowing him to impose harsher penalties for offences committed, while Canadians who participate in elections will have to abide by more laws.

This bill will help protect our democracy. I would appreciate the Liberals' support.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Canada Elections already has the same investigative powers as a police force. He can use those powers right now. In fact, those powers are increased by the fair elections act, which gives him sharper teeth and a longer reach, including making it an offence for anyone to obstruct his investigation or give him false information. It also creates tougher penalties for existing offences.

That is what Canadians have asked for. That is what the fair elections act delivers.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, if there is an exclusion that he wants to revisit, like when the NDP excluded all fundraising expenses from its spending limits, for example, first he should contact his party, which makes its own rules for leadership races. Second, I invite him to bring forward any amendments.

However, the fair elections act will close the loans loophole that allowed the Liberal Party to take hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal donations simply by calling it unrepaid debt.

That is a step in the right direction. That is the fair elections act.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I move that members of Parliament, in relation to the study of Bill C-23, who are not members of a recognized party, designate a participant for the questioning of witnesses; that the routine motion with regard to the questioning of witnesses be modified for this study only in the third round in order to allow the designate member the possibility to ask questions; and that the motion, as follows, in the third round, 'For the third round, four minutes be allocated in the following order: members of Parliament who are not members of a recognized party have the first spot, second the NDP, and third, the Conservative'”.

This is consistent with the process that we used when this committee studied BOIE. To the best of my knowledge, it's word for word, other than situation specific.

[Marc Mayrand]

I think it would prevent the commissioner.... In the past where there were serious issues raised by the investigator, from time to time he would issue either a report or a press release indicating his findings and why. I'm not sure that this will be possible under the new provision in Bill C-23.

Sometimes it's very much to reassure the public that what happened was legitimate. A case that comes to mind is several elections back where there were all sorts of allegations. The commissioner thoroughly reviewed all the allegations and satisfied himself that there was no offence or fraud committed in that election.

[Marc Mayrand]

As I said in my opening statement, it's a new exception for a fundraiser to exclude them from electoral expenses. One of the problems with it is whether it's really deserved or justified. Again, depending on the number of fundraisers or contributors you may be able to spend more than others who have fewer. It creates a bit of a barrier or, as I said, an issue with the level playing field for those who have.... Think of smaller parties that start which would significantly be put at a disadvantage there.

The other aspect of it is I don't know how it can be monitored. You don't know when you receive a call whether it's part of fundraising. You don't know whether this expenditure will be claimed or not and how it will be claimed. Electors or people who receive those calls have no way.... I don't have any way, not having access to documents from the parties or anything of that nature. It's not clear to me how we would be able to monitor this provision, certainly in the context of Bill C-23.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

No.

Switching gears, you said in your introduction that you are very preoccupied in this regard with Bill C-23. You went on to say that you are unaware of any democracy in which such limitations are imposed on the electoral agency and that you strongly feel that an amendment in this regard is essential regarding dissemination of information.

Could you give us a good example of why this is going to impede your ability and, as you put it, put limitations on you that you are unaware of in any other democratic nation?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

During that conversation, was there anything about specifics that you see that are considered to be fundamental changes to the act in Bill C-23? Was there anything specific?

[Marc Mayrand]

That may be an option. That would be for parliamentarians to debate as to the proper approach here.

Again section 18 as revised by Bill C-23 would significantly impair the ability of Elections Canada to communicate with electors. Again, all the research that has been used to support various arguments in relation to Bill C-23 comes from research carried out by Elections Canada and research that was published. It informs parliamentarians and Canadians about issues in relation to elections and how we can make them better.

In my mind it's part of a continuous improvement process. Maybe it could be superimposed, but again there may be a misunderstanding of what Elections Canada does. Most of our activities, I would suggest 99.5% of them, have to be specifically to inform electors about how and where and when they can vote and what their options are. We distribute that piece of information to 23 million electors. It tells them where to go to vote. It tells them what is accessible. They get a householder that tells them again basically the same information. It provides them information on ID, the authorized pieces, and that they need to make sure they bring them to the poll.

[Marc Mayrand]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bill C-23 is a very important piece of legislation that touches upon practically every aspect of the electoral process. In this regard, it is the most comprehensive reform of the Canada Elections Act since it was completely overhauled in 2000.

I would be less than transparent, and I would not do service to parliamentarians, if I did not share the full extent of my concerns with respect to the measures presented in Bill C-23, as well as those that, in my view, are missing. Of course, there are positive elements in the bill, as well as a range of technical improvements and clarifications that follow some of my previous recommendations. Unfortunately, the bill also includes measures that, in my opinion, undermine its stated purpose and will not serve Canadians well.

Given the limited time available, I will focus on the aspects that I find most problematic. My officials will be available to provide a more comprehensive technical briefing to members from each caucus.

The government has indicated that this bill will serve three main purposes: first, improving service to electors; second, providing clear and simple rules for everyone to follow; and third, most importantly, ensuring fair elections.

In reviewing the bill today, I propose to look at it from the perspective of these three objectives to see whether and to what extent they are met.

On improving service to electors, when we speak of service to electors, we must be careful not to let this terminology diminish in any way the importance of what is at stake. It is the responsibility of Parliament to provide, and it is my responsibility to administer, an electoral process that is accessible to all who wish to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

Election day should be a time, and it may be the only time, when all Canadians can claim to be perfectly equal in power and influence, regardless of their income, health, or social circumstances. This can only be so if voting procedures are designed to accommodate not only those of us with busy schedules, but also and even more importantly, the more vulnerable and marginalized members of society.

Bill C-23 proposes to modify voter identification rules by eliminating vouching and prohibiting the use of the voter information card, the VIC, as one of the documents that could be used to establish the elector's address. We should keep in mind that it is only since 2007 that the law imposes on electors the obligation to provide evidence of their identity as well as of their address before they are allowed to vote.

Currently, they can do this in one of three ways.

They can present a government-issued piece of ID that includes their photo, name, and current address. In practice, this option is primarily limited to a driver's licence. Approximately 86% of adults in Canada have a licence. This means that approximately four million do not have one, including 28%, or 1.4 million individuals over 65.

Electors who don't have a driver's licence can produce two authorized pieces of ID, one of which must show their current residential address. While there are 38 such authorized pieces of identification, only 13 may include a current address.

Finally, an elector without ID may, subject to certain requirements, be vouched for by another elector who has proper identification.

Experience since 2007 shows that most Canadians do not have a problem complying with ID requirements. For some electors, however, this is a challenge, especially with respect to proving their current address.

Let me give you some examples.

In the case of seniors, it is not uncommon for one of the spouses to drive and to have all the bills in their name. Right now, the other spouse can be vouched for by their partner. Similarly, seniors living with their children often must be vouched for by one of their children in order to be able to vote.

The reverse is also true. Young Canadians often live at home or, as students, move frequently. They sometimes have no documents to prove their current residential address.

First nations electors on reserve also face challenges, as the Indian status card does not include address information.

For many of these electors, vouching by another elector is the only option. Expanding the list of ID documents will not assist them in proving their address.

The Neufeld report estimates that approximately 120,000 active voters in the last election relied on vouching, and we can expect that a significant proportion of them would not be able to vote under the rules proposed by Bill C-23.

It has been pointed out that vouching is a complex procedure and that numerous procedural irregularities were found to have been committed at the last general election in connection with vouching. It is critical to understand that, as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, the vast majority of these were strictly record-keeping errors by poll workers documenting the vouching process, and not fraud or even irregularities that could compromise an election. There is no evidence tying these errors to ineligible electors being allowed to vote.

Of course, vouching procedures should and can be simplified, as recommended by Mr. Neufeld. The need to rely on vouching should also be reduced. This is why Mr. Neufeld recommended expanding the use of the voter information card as an authorized document to establish address.

It is worth noting that the VIC is the only document issued by the federal government that includes address information. The Canadian passport, for example, does not include an address. In fact, with an accuracy rate of 90%, the VIC is likely the most accurate and widely available government document. The VIC is based on regular updates from driver's licence bureaus, the Canada Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and various other authoritative sources.

During the election period, revision activities at the local level also increase the accuracy of the VIC. This likely makes it a more current document than even the driver's licence, which is authorized by law and used by the vast majority of voters.

The VIC was authorized for voters in certain locations in 2011 based on the evaluation of the 2008 election, which showed that for some electors even vouching is not an available option.

For example, seniors who live in long-term care facilities and who vote on site do not have driver's licences, hydro bills, or even health cards, which are typically kept by their children or facility administrators. By law, they cannot be vouched for by other residents in the same poll who also lack adequate ID, and they cannot be vouched for by staff who do not reside there. In most cases, they can only rely on a letter of attestation issued by facility administrators, combined with another document such as an ID bracelet. Some administrators feel that they do not have the resources to issue such letters and in fact refuse to do so. For electors in that situation, the only document establishing their address is their voter information card.

It is essential to understand that the main challenge for our electoral democracy is not voter fraud, but voter participation. I do not believe that if we eliminate vouching and the VIC as proof of address we will have in any way improved the integrity of the voting process. However, we will certainly have taken away the ability of many qualified electors to vote.

I will now talk about the second objective of the bill.

A second objective of Bill C-23 is to provide clear and simple rules for everyone to follow. The importance of this objective should not be understated. Clear and simple rules are critical for Canadians to exercise their rights and be confident in the fairness of elections.

Bill C-23 provides for a regime of guidelines and advance rulings. I believe that this is an improvement to the Canada Elections Act. Such regimes exist in other statutory schemes, including in the context of elections, and they can be of benefit to both regulated entities and the regulator.

That said, I regret to say that the current proposals, as drafted, do not provide a workable approach.

Rulings are required within unreasonably short timelines, and there is little rigour imposed on the process, unlike in other comparable schemes. It is imperative that amendments be made to these provisions to allow them to function effectively and achieve their intended purpose.

Bill C-23 also provides a harmonized and simplified regime for unpaid claims and loans. This is another important improvement. However, I must alert this committee to a technical difficulty that could seriously undermine the regime as it applies to nomination and leadership contestants.

This difficulty relates to the act's definition of leadership and nomination campaign expenses. As drafted, leadership contestants could easily and legally exclude most if not all of their expenses and funding from the statutory regime. Unless this loophole is removed, the new loans regime as it applies to leadership campaign expenses will remain an empty shell.

The third lens through which Bill C-23 must be examined is its impact on the fairness and integrity of elections. Indeed that is referred to in the very title of Bill C-23.

In Canada, electoral fairness has traditionally been understood to mean maintaining a level playing field among parties and candidates by the imposition of strict spending limits. By increasing those spending limits, and most significantly, creating an exception for certain fundraising expenses, Bill C-23 may well compromise the level playing field.

The fundraising exception is of particular concern in this regard. For anybody who has ever seen one, there is no practical way of distinguishing a fundraiser mail-out from advertising, and it takes little imagination to understand that other partisan communications can be dressed up as fundraisers. Just as importantly, it will be difficult if not impossible to enforce in the absence of any obligation to report, or even keep, phone records of the persons contacted.

In terms of compliance, Bill C-23 would subject political parties to an external compliance audit for the verification of their financial returns. External audits are not a bad thing. They may reassure the chief agents of the parties and improve compliance in some instances, as long as proper records are kept to allow for a truly rigorous compliance audit. However, external auditors should be bound by guidelines issued by Elections Canada to maintain the coherence of the system.

Even so, it is striking when looking at provincial regimes that we remain the only jurisdiction in Canada where political parties are not required to produce supporting documentation for their reported expenses. At every election, parties receive $33 million in reimbursements without showing a single invoice to support their claims. This anomaly should be corrected as I have indicated in the past.

Finally, Bill C-23 would make several changes to the enforcement regime. It would create a number of new offences and increase fines, introduce registration and data retention measures for voter contact services, and place the commissioner of Canada Elections within the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

It is not clear to me how this last structural change can improve the commissioner's work or the confidence of Canadians. It is important for parliamentarians as well as for Canadians to understand that under the current regime, the commissioner enjoys complete independence from the Chief Electoral Officer in deciding whether and how to conduct investigations. The committee may want to hear from the current as well as the former commissioner in this regard.

Nevertheless, the most important issue for me is not where commissioners sit, but whether they have the proper tools to do their job in a timely and efficient manner. In previous reports, both I and the commissioner have indicated that this is not the case right now and that important changes to the law are required if we are to preserve the confidence of Canadians in the integrity of their electoral process.

In this regard, the bill includes registration and data retention measures for voter contact services, which reflect in part my recommendations.

I am disappointed, however, that the bill does not require a record to be kept of the actual telephone numbers used in voter calls. Without such information, an investigation will continue to be significantly hampered. Most importantly, under Bill C-23, the commissioner still will not have the ability to seek a court order compelling witnesses to testify regarding the commission of offences, such as deceptive calls or other forms of election fraud.

The response of Canadians in the face of the robocall affair has been overwhelming. Canadians rightfully expect that such conduct, which threatens the very legitimacy of our democratic institution, be dealt with swiftly and effectively. Without the power to compel testimony, as exists in many provincial regimes, the commissioner's ability to carry out this investigation will remain limited. All in all, when looking at the proposed changes in relation to enforcement, the bill does not address the most pressing expectations of Canadians for timely and effective investigations.

I will conclude by reiterating the importance of carefully reviewing Bill C-23. As the Chief Justice of Canada wrote, “The right of every citizen to vote, guaranteed by section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, lies at the heart of Canadian democracy.”

Because amendments to the Canada Elections Act affect the fundamental rights of all Canadians, as well as the rights of all political parties, it is particularly important that to the fullest extent possible such amendments be based on a broad consensus as well as solid evidence.

l am very preoccupied in this regard with the limitation that Bill C-23 imposes on the ability of my office to consult Canadians and disseminate information on electoral democracy, as well as to publish research. l am unaware of any democracy in which such limitations are imposed on the electoral agency, and l strongly feel that an amendment in this regard is essential.

In my remarks, l have highlighted what l see as the main areas of concern and suggest some ways of improving the measures contained in the bill. With the committee's permission, Mr. Chair, l would like to submit a table that sets out in a more comprehensive way the improvements that I have recommended being made to the bill. l trust that this will assist the committee in its review of the legislation.

Thank you.

Bill C-25—Time Allocation Motion

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to that charade, and it confirms something. The hon. member was referring to the fair elections act, which the official opposition stated, before reading the bill, that it would oppose. Now I am tempted to conclude that he has not even looked at Bill C-25 because he is referring to it as relating to a first nations treaty. He is totally wrong.

This is not about a treaty; it is about an agreement entered into between Canada and the Newfoundland first nation, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq. This bill is about protecting the integrity of a process to ensure that the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation is finally constituted according to the agreement that has been reached with the first nation.

Bill C-25 is necessary to ensure that the original intent of the 2008 Agreement for the Recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band is respected, and that the 2013 Supplemental Agreement can be implemented.

The purpose of the legislation currently before the House is to support the implementation of the 2008 Agreement for the Recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band and the 2013 Supplemental Agreement between the federal government and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians.

Clearly, the opposition's partisan tactics and the busy parliamentary schedule mean that we will have to allocate some time to pass this bill, considering our full legislative agenda, which will only become busier in the months ahead.

Statements by Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Reference to Standing Committee

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the third little spot in a row to stand up and talk about this point does not exactly scream diversity, does it?

Earlier, I asked my colleague from Welland a question. As I mentioned, I hoped that I would have a longer period of time because I want to get this out. I want to air this.

What we are talking about here, is my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley moved that there be a prima facie finding of contempt. The Speaker found that the matter merited further consideration by the appropriate committee. We have a motion. We have a decision. The Speaker then invited the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley to move the traditional motion. That is what happened. The Speaker is referring this issue to committee.

I have found it very curious, over the past day and a half, that Conservative members have stood up in the House and by the way they are arguing and presenting the “facts”, which I will put in air quotes, it sounds like they are disagreeing with the Speaker. They are saying that it is not contempt. It was not to mislead. I just heard the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley say that he believed the member meant this, and that he believed that the member did not mean that.

It sounds to me like they are disagreeing with the ruling of the Speaker to send this to committee. I have not understood this argument. I have not understood how or why they would bring this forward.

However, now it is starting to become clear. Procedurally, I did not understand that it was possible to vote against the Speaker's ruling, but I now understand that this is exactly what we have here.

We live in a day and age where communication is instant. I can read media reports well before the newspapers are printed the next day. I will read from a Globe and Mail article by Josh Wingrove. The first paragraph says:

The Conservative government is signaling it will vote down a motion to study whether one of its MPs misled the House of Commons, rejecting a finding by the Speaker that the issue deserves a closer look if only to “clear the air.”

That was my "ahah" moment. Maybe I am slower to get to it than others, but the Conservative government is going to vote against this. That is unbelievable to me.

We have a spokeswoman from the whip's office saying that all of the facts are known on the issue, so there is nothing for a committee to study, and there is little to be gained by sending the issue to committee. There is also a quote from the government House leader, who said:

The question you have to ask is if that is actually going to serve any utility? There’s really no dispute...Certainly, one cannot picture anything that will come of great utility from further discussion of the matter.

They are going to vote against this. I find that pretty unbelievable.

First of all, I heard my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley say he believed that this is what the member meant and he believed that the member did not mean to mislead us. If he believes it, how about we have it aired out? How about we actually talk about it and figure out what is going on? Why did he make these statements? What was the intention here?

Let us go back to what the Speaker said:

...the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements. This is a difficult position in which to leave members who must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties.

Those are not very many words. They are two sentences, but those two sentences have a lot of weight. Members “must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties”. Parliamentary duties. Parlement. We are here. This is a place where we use words, where we talk, and where we have debate. It is a place of words.

I know that in the U.K., where our parliamentary tradition comes from, there is no paper. It is all in the spoken word. We are nothing but our words. We are nothing but our integrity and our words. Parlement.

We have a situation here where someone has diminished not only their own integrity but also the integrity of Parlement, of Parliament, and the ability for us to rely on our words, put weight on them, and believe in them.

I think that the Speaker made the right ruling and I do not know how the vote is going to turn out. Maybe there will be some rogue MPs on the Conservative side, but it looks like they are going to vote it down, and I find that truly outrageous.

There is another thing that I find truly outrageous. I am at what I perceive to be the end of the debate. I was here yesterday at the beginning of the debate. I heard the Speaker's ruling and then the response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is speaking, I would take that to be the words of government. That is not an individual private member speaking on a private member's motion; that is the word of government.

I was sitting in this very chair and I could barely stand to listen to the argument put forward. I have a lot of respect for the parliamentary secretary, I think he is a good guy, but the arguments he was putting forward were really sending me pretty close to the edge. There was one point in the debate where, I do not know if you noticed, Mr. Speaker, I actually threw up my arms and screamed. I do not see it recorded in Hansard, but it happened, because I was overcome with how preposterous the argument was that the parliamentary secretary was putting forward.

Now I have the opportunity to dissect the argument he was putting forward and I have been looking forward to this. He started by saying the following:

A few things have been said this afternoon that I think have not been accurate, and I want to try to set the record straight.

That is a good goal, but did he actually set the record straight? I do not think so, because he went on to say:

The other thing I want to point out, and I do not think it really needs to be pointed out to members, particularly any member who has been here for any length of time...there are opportunities when all members, and I emphasize all members, tend to torque their language a bit, perhaps to embellish or to exaggerate. Is that something we should encourage? Certainly not. Does it happen regularly? Yes, it does.

He talked about torquing language, embellishing, exaggerating, and asked whether it is something we should encourage, “I have exaggerated, I will stand here in the House of Commons and admit that I have exaggerated”, but let us look at what the member for Mississauga—Streetsville said:

I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then—

Maybe he can see through walls:

—walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.

He states again, referring to the minister:

I will relate to him something I have actually seen.

This is not exaggeration, this is not torquing, this is not embellishing. This is saying something that did not actually happen.

I will go back to the parliamentary secretary's speech. He went on to state:

I am suggesting that this happens perhaps all too routinely in this place, but should it then be considered contempt? My friend opposite continues to make the point that it was contempt. Again, that is simply not accurate. The Speaker has merely referred this to committee for an examination.

I am going to go back to what the Speaker said. He stated:

...the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements. This is a difficult position in which to leave members, who must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties.

Members should get ready because I am going to be going back to these two quotes a lot. The parliamentary secretary continued:

The problem we now have before us is that because the member for Mississauga—Streetsville came back to this place and corrected the record, he is now facing possible sanction

That is not the problem we have here. The problem is not that this guy might get his wrist slapped. The problem is that he stood up in the House, not once but twice, and said, “I have actually witnessed people doing these actions”. It is unbelievable.

The parliamentary secretary went on to state:

What the consequence or the net result of this may be is that the truth begins to be pushed underground.

What? How is the truth being pushed underground when the statements were not based on truth?

If somebody comes in and says “I did not actually see that”, how are we pushing truth underground by actually exposing it to light? How would we be pushing truth underground by actually referring this to committee and saying “Hey, member for Mississauga—Streetsville, what happened here? Why don't you tell us in your own words? Were you all excited about things? Did you want to contribute to the debate? Did you want to catch the eye of the Prime Minister?”

We actually have to have this discussion at committee. I do not think the truth is being pushed underground at all.

The parliamentary secretary then goes on, but there is so much material to work with that I am going to go to a point further on in his debate.

He says:

Since the Chair has not found the member to have lied, even though my colleagues opposite keep trying to tell that tale, they perhaps should stand up and set the record straight, because the Chair did not find the member for Mississauga—Streetsville to have deliberately misled this House

In other words, he did not find that he had lied, merely that the committee should take an examination and try to clarify the comments surrounding the member's statements of February 6.

I will go back to the piece of paper in my hand. The Speaker found that there were contradictory statements, and I do not think we can put enough emphasis on the fact that we have nothing but our integrity and the words that we say in this House. Our laws are created based on Parliament, on the fact that we get to stand here and speak and use our words and tell our stories from our ridings. One would hope that those stories were actually true.

The parliamentary secretary then went on to say:

While I know the opposition wants to convince Canadians that there is some nefarious reason behind the comments of my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville, I would purport to you and everyone else in this place that he merely did what so many of us have done previously: in the heat of debate, he had simply gone overboard.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard me admit to exaggeration. I am sure that, under duress maybe, most of us in this House would admit to exaggeration, but we are not talking about being in the heat of debate and simply going overboard. This is not the heat of debate. I am looking at the quotes from the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. This is not a vigorous back-and-forth. This is not a moment in which all of a sudden someone says, “Oops, I didn't mean to say it that way.” This is two interventions, and I will repeat the words.

I have actually witnessed other people....

It was not even something like “This could happen, and, like, I have seen some folks picking up the cards, and maybe this happened.” He said, “I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards”. He said, “I will relate to him something I have actually seen.” This is not the heat of debate. This is not a bit of an exaggeration. This is saying something that was not based on fact.

The member admitted it was untrue. I cannot get over the arguments put forward by government that this is just about a bit of torquing, a bit of exaggeration. The Conservative members are saying that if they exaggerate, they should not be punished for exaggeration.

First of all, it is not an exaggeration. Second, we are not actually talking about punishment. I do not believe that the Speaker, and I have his words here, said “And therefore, we send this man to committee to be punished”. No, not at all. He said we actually have to send this to committee. What we are doing is we are sending it to committee.

The Speaker does have a line in there about at least clearing the air. The member for Mississauga—Streetsville stands up, he says that he did not mean to say what he said, he wanted to set the record straight, and then nothing more. There is no more.

This is what we do. We get to the bottom of things. We air things out at committee. Sometimes we travel. Sometimes we hear from Canadians. Sometimes we hear from expert witnesses. In this case, we have to hear from the person himself who actually said these statements. We need to know why, what was going through his mind, and what was happening here.

The line that made me throw up my hands in exasperation was, “Would I like to see everything said in this place said in a reasoned, sensible manner, devoid of the partisanship that we see all too often?”.

I am going to skip to a little later to where the partisan piece came up in his speech again:

Opposition parties are trying to score some political points here, and I do not begrudge them that. It is what opposition parties do. They opposed Bill C-23, the fair elections act. We understand that. We understand that they are trying to do everything in their power to delay, obstruct, or perhaps even kill that piece of legislation. I get that. However, that is what I believe is truly behind the motion we are debating today.

Really? Then I think the Speaker would have probably seen through that. If the Speaker thought that this was just to delay, I hardly think he would have found this to be a prima facie case.

I want to go back to the scoring of political points, that we would like to see things devoid of the partisanship that we see all too often. The opposite is true here. If we look at the statements that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville made, that is the example of what the parliamentary secretary is talking about. Those statements are an example of someone trying to score political points. Those statements are an example of the partisanship that we see all too often.

The member was trying to score political points, saying things that were not true to support a position after the fact. If we want to talk partisanship, if we want to talk political points, I think we should go back to these statements: “I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards..”.

Why would he say that? Was it being said to cause mischief, to validate the Conservatives' points after the fact, instead of having a hearing on whether we need changes to the Elections Act?

I will finish with the parliamentary secretary saying the following:

In conclusion, I agree, and I believe my colleague the member for Mississauga—Streetsville would also agree, that if one does not speak accurately in this place, records should be corrected. If one does not speak with accuracy on any point, whether it be legislation or during debate, it should not be tolerated. However, when is it right to punish someone for correcting the record? When does one become a victim for speaking what one needed to say, which was to correct the record?

Oh, so the member for Mississauga—Streetsville is a victim here. Right. The big, bad opposition is ganging up and punishing him. Give me a break. That is the wickedest twisting of words that I have seen in some time.

I believe that the Speaker was right in his ruling. I think we need to have an airing out of this. We need to understand what the member was doing. I do not think he was a victim. I do not think we are trying to punish. I think we are trying to get to the bottom of something in Parliament, where we use our words to talk about these issues, to debate these issues, and to represent Canadians.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I found the speech given by my colleague across the aisle interesting. However, it felt more like a speech on Bill C-23 itself, rather than on the question that is before the House and on which the Conservatives will be asked to vote very shortly.

The Speaker of the House had to rule on some very specific points. In order to justify Bill C-23, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville said on two separate occasions that he personally saw an offence being committed. The Speaker of the House stated:

...one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that, in making the statement the member intended to mislead the House.

It was deemed prima facie that the three elements were proven.

Therefore, what does the hon. member think about what his colleague did? Does it fit those three criteria, or one out of three or two out of three? We heard everything he said, but it is all about Bill C-23 and never about the subject of the debate today.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today to discuss this issue; two little Scotch guys in a row.

It is my pleasure to rise today to speak about how the debate before us relates to matters that come back to the subsequent discussion, which my colleague the member for Mississauga—Streetsville was engaged in when he was talking about the issues that started the debate today. He was speaking about a risk that flows from the use of voter notification cards at polling stations as evidence of a voter's identity.

Too often here in Ottawa there is a tendency to lose sight of the bigger picture. Canadians want us to remember that we were elected by them to make laws, so let us make sure we make good laws, because Canadians deserve no less.

We legislate to address known challenges and mischief. The challenge underlying the discussion today that led us here remains real and worthy of discussing. It is one we must not lose sight of when we engage in events like we are debating here tonight.

Let me speak about the issue of vouching. The pitfalls and dangers related to vouching in federal elections are real. We know they are real because of the evidence collected by the commissions initiated by Elections Canada.

According to the Neufeld report, commissioned by Elections Canada, relating to the administrative deficiencies at the polls in the 2011 election, vouching procedures are complex, and there were irregularities in 25% of the cases where vouching was used. That is one in four.

Even with increased quality assurance, the report indicates that the problem would not be remedied. Vouching is risky and subject to high levels of irregularities. This was identified in the Neufeld report, and I am going to quote from that section of the report:

Identity vouching procedures are unquestionably the most complex “exception” process administered at polling stations. The level of irregularities for vouching averaged 25 percent. During two of these elections, quality assurance programs involving Onsite Conformity Advisors (OCAs) were applied. However, vouching irregularities still averaged 21 percent during the OCA monitored elections. This indicates that overly complex procedures cannot be remedied simply by improved quality assurance.

Even though there were people onsite who had been trained as conformity advisors monitoring the election, we still had irregularities of 21%.

Very clearly, the experts have identified a problem that, if left unchecked, threatens the very integrity of what we need to cherish dearly when we talk about democracy in Canada, the very purity of our election process.

My colleague the member for Mississauga—Streetsville has apologized and voluntarily corrected the record for the words he used when debating these issues, but that should not take away from the issues that he was trying to put forward, because those issues are paramount to the discussion we are having tonight. At the heart of his intervention was a sentiment related to what he viewed as a serious concern for the integrity of the voting process.

Former U.S. senator Hillary Clinton once said, “Voting is the most precious right of every citizen, and we have a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of our voting process”.

Regardless of one's political stripe or leaning, we all understand that the integrity of our voting process must relate to our ability to know that our votes as Canadians are counted, one vote each for each known and registered and verified voter.

If we have a system that is open to abuse, then our entire electoral process and our democracy is diluted and rendered less meaningful and less true. This is where Bill C-23, the fair elections act, comes in. It addresses this threat to the integrity of our system.

The fair elections act would end vouching altogether and require in law that Elections Canada communicate what forms of identification will be accepted at the polling station, so that voters will know before they head to the polls what they need to bring with them to cast their ballot.

The Neufeld report chronicles the sheer number of irregularities associated with the outdated process of vouching. However, we also know that these irregularities have led to outright court challenges and controversies, which only further undermine the confidence Canadians have in our democratic electoral system.

Voter information cards are similar to vouching, in that the pilot practice of using voter information cards as identification to vote is also open to potential abuse and a weakening of the integrity of the election process. This was at the heart of the concern raised by my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville.

Other than as a pilot project in recent elections, Canadians have always voted without using a voter identification card as proof of identification and residency. The argument that we have heard that not using the voter identification card to allow someone to vote at the polls would somehow destabilize the democratic system is false. That would mean that all of the elections that had taken place in Canadian history prior to the use of this card were somehow illegitimate, not fair and not true. I would argue that is a false statement.

However, media reports since 2011 have shown that the use of voter identification cards as ID presents proven risks of voter fraud. Illegal voting is not a laughing matter. Voter information cards are regularly sent to electors with inaccuracies that could allow those attempting to subvert election law to use them to vote more than once or in more than one riding.

The Elections Canada website defines the voter information card as a card with one's name and address. It shows that someone is on the voters' list and tells someone where and when to vote. In a Canadian federal election, the returning officer in each riding mails one of these cards to each elector whose name appears on the preliminary voters' list.

This comes back to a serious flaw that my colleague, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, was seeking to bring to our attention. This is why we need the fair elections act, because it would prohibit the use of voter information cards as a form of acceptable identification and would require in law that Elections Canada communicate what forms of ID would be accepted at polling stations so that voters would know before they headed to the polls what they needed to bring with them.

Even with this change, Canadians would continue to have some 39 other pieces of identification to choose from when they go to vote. The options for voters in presenting identifying documents are wide-ranging, and my colleague, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, was well aware of that when he made his statement.

However, I want to make sure that people at home understand the broad range of ID they would be able to use when they go to vote, and that everyone would have the opportunity to cast their vote fairly and legitimately. Therefore, I will list some of the types of ID one could use, including a driver's licence; health card; Canadian passport; certification of Canadian citizenship; citizenship card; birth certificate; certificate of Indian status card; social insurance number card; old age security card; student ID card; provincial or territorial identification card; liquor identification card; hospital/medical clinic card; credit or debit card; employee card; public transportation card; library card; Canadian Forces identification card; Veterans Affairs Canada health card; Canadian Blood Services card; CNIB ID card; firearm possession and acquisition licence or possession-only licence; fishing, trapping, or hunting licence; outdoors or wildlife card or licence; hospital bracelets worn by residents of long-term care facilities; parolee identification card; utility bills, such as telephone, TV, public utilities commission, hydro, gas or water bills; bank card or credit card statement; or vehicle ownership.

I think members are getting the picture that in the next election, after the fair elections act is put in place, people would have a big variety of types of identification they could use. No one would be turned away at the polls, because we would make sure, and Elections Canada would be tasked to make sure, that people would know what types of identification they have to bring to the polls in order to vote.

There would be accurate pieces of identification so that we could be sure that we have verified voters who actually live at the residence they say they do when they go to the polls, and so that we can be sure across this country that we have a fair election where actual citizens of this country vote properly and with proper ID. I think Canadians deserve no less.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually think he should apologize. If one does get caught, one apologizes. We instinctively do that as individuals. For example, I might have been going the wrong speed in the wrong place at the wrong time. Lights went on behind me and the officer came over. I said, “I missed a speed sign? Sorry”. However, I did not expect not to get a ticket. He wrote the ticket and I thanked him for that because he was doing what he should do. I was not obeying the rules.

There is a consequence for not obeying the rules. It does not mean to say he cannot apologize. That is part of it. Certainly, in my upbringing, in my household, that was how my father approached it. He expected me to apologize if I had bent a rule or broken a rule of the house, which my mother had decided would be the rule for the five of us children. However, there was also a consequence. There was not only an expectation that I would say, “Sorry about that; I didn't mean to do that, but I did”, then my father would have a consequence, like grounding me or those sorts of things. The worst thing, at 16, was that he would not give me the keys to the car for a couple weekends. That was always a really heavy consequence, because then I would have to get the bus. No offence to my friends who take urban transit, but when one lives in the country, buses do not come around. Therefore, that was a real consequence if he did not give me the keys to the car.

Clearly, there are consequences in this place as well. One cannot absolve oneself simply by saying, “mea culpa; I am sorry”. We have to face the consequences of our actions in this place. If the Speaker had simply gotten up and said the member has apologized and it is over, we would not be here. The Speaker ruled otherwise, and that is why we are here. The Speaker, in my view, was asking us to get it to a place, get it resolved for all of us, not just for the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, but all of us. That needs to happen.

I implore the government members to allow it to get to committee and let the work be done. They will get back to Bill C-23. They do not have to worry about it. They have the numbers in the House. One thing this little Scots guy can do is count. There are more on that side than on this side.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay, but the point is that whether we're talking about emerging democracies or arguably one of the longest democracies on the planet, both have the same idea about how to address the fundamental questions of how the election laws should work, and what improvements should be made.

A government that got less than 40% of the vote but has 100% of the power should at the very least ask the people, “What do you think of what we want to do?” It really is just “we”, the Conservatives, meaning them, because nobody else got a say.

I know I keep coming back to that. I'm not trying to be repetitive on the point, but it's legitimate to take a couple of basic points and come back to them and underscore them without expanding on them, so I'm constantly coming back to the lack of democracy, the lack of input, the lack of caring what anybody thinks. That's what's going on, folks.

I do not know where Bill C-23 was written, but it was not written with the input of the opposition members or the Chief Electoral Officer. That alone should scare the dickens out of Canadians, that their election laws are being treated this way. By the time Canada Day comes, if the government has their way, the Conservative election law, or rather the election law to elect Conservatives, will already be in place. The next time we'll be talking about this and being seized of it in any way is after the next election, and that's just fine with them.

Back to my point, back to my motion. From the most experienced to the newest, the richest to the poorest, democracies everywhere are showing what it is to be democratic and to give the appearance of being democratic.

That takes me back, I had talked about the referral—I'm shifting gears, as you may have picked up, but I had mentioned earlier about the process of referring from first reading, and I used my own explanation, which is never as good as the bible. As everybody here knows, O'Brien and Bosc, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, is the bible.

Chair, I did mention earlier that the government has the option, if they wanted to, to push a reset button and get us back to first reading. We still could put this back on track. It really could be done. I don't imagine at this stage, with everything we've witnessed, that the government is at all interested, but by unanimous consent the House could turn itself back. I can ask and see if he can do anything.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, usually I would rise and say that I am pleased to join the debate, but I have a sense of trepidation about doing this. The member for Mississauga—Streetsville is someone I have come to know and quite like, so it becomes difficult when one has to stand and talk about his actions in the House.

My preference would have been for the government to simply allow this to go to committee, in which case the committee could have dealt with it a long time ago and dispensed with it. The committee could have ruled on it and brought back a recommendation. This way we would not be, as the government House leader has said, spending two days talking about this particular issue, which the member for Mississauga—Streetsville has ended up being the centre of.

Of course, this is public. It is televised. CPAC carries it. People can watch it on the Internet. Committees can be watched on the Internet, but they are less public than this forum.

Would it not have been collegial of the government, of which he is a member, to send it to committee to have it dispensed with? That is what the Speaker's ruling was intended to do. The Speaker believed that there was a case to have it resolved somewhere else and to have us look at it.

Here we are, looking at it here and throwing all the information out over and over again. It does not help the member for Mississauga—Streetsville to have it recast over and over again, but the government has given us no other opportunity. It has left us with this as the only outlet.

One of the government members said earlier that one may misspeak in the House. I started to think about when that happens. Has it happened to me as a member? It actually happened to me on Monday, during the debate on Bill C-18, the government's bill on agriculture.

It came to my attention in two ways. I did not actually know that I had misspoken. In relation to what is called UPOV '91, I actually talked about 1929, which is actually an international convention on plant protection. I interchanged 91 and 29.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, when questioning me during the debate, said that I had gotten it wrong and was talking about something that had happened a long time ago. It dawned on me that I had misspoken and that I had used the wrong date. That is misspeaking. That is how one actually misspeaks.

The staff at Hansard then emailed me. I have the email here. It said that they would like to clarify the text. The email said:

Can you please confirm whether [the member for Welland] was referring to the 1929 International Convention for the Protection of Plants (Rome), or if he meant to say otherwise (UPOV 91)? Can you advise...?

Clearly we were debating UPOV '91, which is from 1991, not the International Convention for the Protection of Plants of 1929. That was dispensed with long before we were born. We may think that we are long in the tooth sometimes, but we are certainly not that long in the tooth.

That was an example of someone getting a date wrong and misspeaking. There needed to be a correction but not an apology. It was simply the wrong date that needed to be corrected to reflect what we were actually discussing and what the debate was really about, which was Bill C-18, of which UPOV '91 was a part.

Therefore, when the government rises to defend its colleague, which is admirable and I understand why it does that, to suggest that he misspoke, it makes it extremely difficult to comprehend. It stretches credibility, to be truthful.

Here is what the member actually said. I will quote it, because I have highlighted a couple of pieces that I want to put emphasis on to show how it could not have been someone misspeaking.

On February 6, 2014, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville stated, “Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit about this vouching system again. I know the minister represents an urban city. I am from a semi-urban area of Mississauga”, and this is what I want to emphasize, “where there are many high-rise apartment buildings”.

He was adamant about it. He knew that he was from a place where there are lots of apartment buildings.

He further stated:

On mail delivery day when the voter cards are delivered to community mailboxes in apartment buildings, many of them are discarded in the garbage can or the blue box.

He knew it was one or the other. He went on to state:

I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.

I want to highlight that he said that he witnessed it personally and knew that the cards went in either the garbage can or the grey box, because here in Ontario it is the grey box for paper. He said that he saw it at that level of detail and knew the people who took the cards out of the boxes. They were not strangers but campaign workers. I admit that he does not say if they were Conservative campaign workers, Liberal campaign workers, or other campaign workers. He just said “campaign workers”. We did not get any definitive information on that. The committee might be able to ask him who the campaign workers were and what he actually saw.

He then knew that these people went to the polling stations eventually. People vouched for those folks and they voted. He knew all of those things. That is hugely different from what I described earlier about my misspeaking in the debate on Bill C-18 when I got the date wrong. It is important to get the date right, but it was not misleading the House that the agreement actually happened in 1929 when it truly happened in 1991. The two situations are not even the same.

To bring the point home even more clearly, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville said it again. He said it slightly differently but basically with the same intent. He stated:

Earlier this afternoon I asked the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification a question. I think my friend from York South—Weston will appreciate this because, just like the riding I represent, there are a lot of apartment buildings in his riding.

I emphasize his next words:

I will relate to him something I have actually seen. On the mail delivery day when voter cards are put in mailboxes, residents come home, pick them out of their boxes, and throw them in the garbage can. I have seen campaign workers follow, pick up a dozen of them afterward, and walk out. Why are they doing that? They are doing it so they can hand those cards to other people, who will then be vouched for at a voting booth and vote illegally. That is going to stop.

That will be stopped based on Bill C-23. It would put an end to vouching and it would not happen again. People could pick up as many of those cards as they wanted, because it would not matter. They would not be able to vouch for people. We would get rid of the cards and it would not matter any more.

The story was not misspoken, in my view. It was made up, because the member subsequently decided that he should come back to the House and say that he never witnessed it and did not see it. He did not come back to the House to say that he misspoke and that it was not in the apartment building but somewhere else. That would be misspeaking. If he had said, “I didn't know they were campaign workers, but I saw it”, that would be misspeaking. If he had said, “I'm not sure if they were in the garbage can or the grey box, but they discarded them”, that would be misspeaking. He literally laid it out and itemized it. He highlighted that it was in apartment buildings at the mailboxes on mail day, and people discarded them.

The member said he witnessed it, actually saw it with his own eyes, and that means he was actually there. He had to physically be in that place on mail day to see those residents, which meant he had to spend some time there.

After the member said it the first time, one would have thought that if he had truly misspoken, he would have said to himself that it was not really, wholly accurate, so why would he do it again? Well, if he reinforced the story again by saying almost the same thing verbatim, there are only two things that could be.

One is to suggest that one has some sense of speaking notes, and this is not to suggest that one party over another does not do this. Lots of us have notes.

If the member was allowed to go to committee, one could ask if the speaking notes were given to him by someone in the PMO, who told him to relate the story as if it was his when it really was not. Perhaps the member then realized that he had told a story that was not really his, but it was in his speaking notes, and he later knew that he had to retract it because it was not his story. The member might have felt contrite thinking it was something he should not have done, and he decided to retract the story.

I think that is a valid question to ask the member. However, we are not going to get that opportunity because we are here debating it, and the government thinks this is enough.

This brings me to the position of the government House leader. He talked about how telling this story was not misleading in the sense that someone was not being deliberately misled, but it somehow came to that at the conclusion of the story.

It really boils down to what the government House leader said in the House. He said:

It is quite common for us to misspeak in the nature of conversation...

—and I think I have articulated that—

...and I can understand the error made by the hon. member on the question of voting cards, because I think there are probably very few members in this House who have not, at second- or third-hand, heard anecdotes exactly to that effect.

Here we have the government House leader saying that everybody has heard those anecdotal stories about these cards that someone picks up and takes. Everybody has heard it.

He goes on to say:

I personally

—meaning the minister, the government House leader—

...have heard anecdotes from others, not having witnessed it myself. It is different from having heard an anecdote, but having heard it quite regularly, it becomes part of the normal discourse that “this is what happens out there”.

So the fact that we have heard an anecdotal story over and over again now makes it true. It must be true, because we have heard it more than once. If only that were true, because then if my friends across the way said, “We know you are six feet tall. We know you are six feet tall”, then I could actually believe I am six feet tall.

Well, it is not true. The fact that it is an anecdote will not make it true no matter how many times it is said. To base legislation on anecdotes is the worst type of legislation one could craft, by pretending the anecdotes are true and that we must change the legislation because we know this is what happens because we were told a story. Someone told a story that this is what happens, so therefore we must ban that practice altogether because, Heaven knows, we were told a story.

It is quite beyond belief, to be truthful, that somehow the government would come forward with legislation based on anecdotal evidence and that somehow that evidence must be clear, concise, and true. This is a government that will quite often say to us, especially in the agricultural sector, that something is based on sound science. Now it will be based on sound anecdotes. Now, as long as it is a sound anecdote and as long as it is said often enough, it will be taken as a true story.

Aesop's fables, even if told over and over again, will always be fables. They will not be true. They will be fables. Myths, whether urban myths or old-time myths, are simply myths. No matter how many times we repeat the myth, whether it be an urban myth, whether it be another myth, it will be a myth; it will never be true.

As for the member apologizing, I must admit that I do congratulate him for apologizing, but that apology will not take away from the fact that he came in the House and literally laid out a case in detail of what he said he saw and personally witnessed, not once but twice. He stood by it. He did not retract it that day, did not say, “Oh, my goodness. I think I have actually told an anecdotal story here. I should go back to the House and say that it is not a true story. I actually did not see it. It is what I heard.”

He did much later. It is commendable that he did retract, but it does not negate what he did the first time.

Many of us are quite often sorry for actions we have taken, but if we take actions, there are consequences for our actions.

The government always says to us, when it comes to criminal legislation, that it is about people taking responsibility for their actions, and if their actions are such that people deserve some form of punishment, then that is what is deserved by those people. There are times when I have to nod in agreement, although not always, of course. Sometimes there are mitigating factors.

In this particular case, the member should appear before committee. It is what the Speaker expects us to do. It is what the Speaker suggested that we probably should do, in my humble opinion. I will not put words in the Speaker's mouth and would never do that, but in my humble opinion, that is what I think he was trying to say to us, because it is only about what we say to each other and what we say to Canadians.

It pains me to say this, but when professions are put on a scale, unfortunately we are not near the top with the Canadian public. Quite often, unfortunately, the reason we are not at the top is because of what we see here.

Some of it is question period. Quite often it is just question period. However, now it is about misleading the House, which we are now debating. How exactly does that affect those who are watching and those who are looking at it? They shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, what do you expect from them? That's what they do. They don't really tell you the truth anyway.”

Words are what we use. Those are the tools of our trade. The words that we give to one another and share with one another are the tools of our trade. There is only way this place can function, which is for the partisanship and the back-and-forth to be acceptable. That is why the Speaker is sitting in the chair, refereeing: to ensure we stay within those boundaries so that repartee back and forth is acceptable.

What is not acceptable is coming into the House and misleading it. That is why there are rules. They are there for good reason. They are there to ensure that we do not actually do that and have legislation come before us that is backed up by myths, mistruths, anecdotes, or stories of some description that do not exist in real life, stories that we just simply make up, and then say, “We must do this because this is the story”.

The government prides itself on saying it bases a lot of its policies upon sound science, which is evidence-based and all about truthfulness to the best of one's ability and measuring, quantifying, and qualifying. Unfortunately, when it came to qualifying the member for Mississauga—Streetsville's words, they came up short, and the Speaker was very clear about how short they came up.

Now it is incumbent upon us, as difficult and as unpleasant as it may be for our colleague and for us, to send it to committee, where our colleague will then have to face whatever repercussions and decisions are made based upon his, not our, conduct that started this process. Those repercussions and decisions will come back for ratification.

We did not start this process. It is his words in this place that started us on this path, and the path can only come to its final destination, not its hoped-for destination, when indeed we go to committee, where he will have his opportunity to answer questions. From the committee will come some form of resolution. Only then, I think, can this be put to a final conclusion.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question because, indeed, Bill C-23 contains many things. When the hon. member rose to speak to this bill, it was to talk about the vouching system. The Conservatives no longer want someone to be able to vouch for a voter's identity.

I have a little anecdote. I used the vouching system in 2008. I was a student in Sherbrooke at the time. I was living in an apartment with eight roommates. The hydro bill, the phone bill and the lease were not in my name. I moved around a lot, so the address on my driver's licence was my parents' address. I had to have someone vouch for me.

The Conservatives are telling students in this country that because they are students—students are more or less stable, their address is their parents'—they cannot vote. I am sorry, but in 2008, if I had not used the vouching system, I could not have voted. Voting is a fundamental right. It is important. The government keeps alarming everyone by saying that young people do not vote, but the vouching system was a good way to enable them to vote.

A member of Parliament makes up some story in the House because he wants to get rid of this option. I understand, the Conservatives do nothing for young people. If I were them, I would not want young people to vote either. In Canada, everyone has the right to vote at age 18. The Conservatives are trying to prevent that. That is what Bill C-23 proposes.

What we are talking about here is the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, who made up stories in the House. This case must be referred to committee because it makes no sense. If we let this go, there is no telling what this party will do.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. She raised a number of interesting points.

She identified a question that a number of people are asking. Is this a Conservative Party tactic? Why would the hon. member want to use such tactics for Bill C-23? What is in this bill that the Conservatives are so afraid of?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to take part in this debate. I believe that it will have a significant impact on the future of democracy in this country.

On February 6, during a speech he made in the House of Commons, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville stated that he had personally witnessed voter fraud. That is a serious accusation. He said the following:

I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.

In my opinion, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville made a very serious accusation. A few weeks later, on February 24, the member came to and changed his story. He stated that, in fact, he had not personally seen what he had previously reported. He said that he heard such stories when working in the rental housing industry. That is why, on February 25, my colleague, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, raised a question of privilege, saying that the member had deliberately misled the House. I believe that that is exactly what the member did.

What are we to think of these contradictions uttered by a member of Parliament? As the representative of his constituents, he should ensure, more than anyone, that his words and actions meet the ethical standards that all Canadians are entitled to expect an elected member of Parliament to meet.

I would not like to be one of his staff right now. I have a duty to my constituents, whom I represent every day in the House. I am here to defend their ideals and values, to inform the House of their views. If I told false stories to the House of Commons, many people would probably call my office, send me emails or write to me on Facebook. It must be mind-boggling for his staff. The member decided that what he had told the House was no longer the truth. He made that decision two and a half weeks later.

I do not know what happened. The allegation was rather serious. He accused some people of election fraud. Perhaps he realized he had gone too far. However, for the past two days, our Conservative colleagues have been saying that it is no big deal. The member did not tell the truth, but because he apologized everything is swept under the rug, forgotten, and we should move on.

Indeed, I would like to talk about important issues, such as the situation in Ukraine and the economy. Yesterday, we were supposed to have a debate on food safety, which is a very important issue, but we now find ourselves talking about this matter. I too feel that we are talking about it a lot, but it is a very important issue. We are talking about our country's democracy and what is going on in the Canadian Parliament.

Yesterday, on March 3, the Speaker of the House ruled in favour of my NDP colleague. He clearly indicated that the member knowingly made false statements with the intention of misleading the House. The member deliberately told the House something that was false.

We must think before we speak. Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said that if a member apologizes 18 days later, it is okay.

I would like to share a story. A few weeks ago, I learned of an immigration case in my riding. The lady came from Russia. When she arrived in Canada, she was asked about her status. She was asked whether she was married, in a common-law relationship or single. The common-law relationship does not exist in every country of the world. Therefore, she said she was single. A week later, she realized she was in a common-law relationship. She wanted to correct her mistake but was not able to do so.

Thus, there are times when it is important to be aware of what we say and what we do. We are parliamentarians. We speak on behalf of Canadians. I do not understand why that woman was told that she could not change her status. It was a nightmare trying to change the form. Here we have a member who apologizes, says he did not act deliberately, says he is sorry for coming up with this story to help his party, but it is not true. He apologizes, saying “I misspoke”. The Conservatives want to move on.

I think and I hope that we are more serious than that. I think this is a farce, and it is important to talk about it. It is important to explore this in committee, to see why the member did that.

We have been talking about it since yesterday. The member was in the House yesterday. He never stood up to defend himself, to ask a question, to say that maybe we should investigate further. He did not say anything.

I would remind the House that three conditions must be met in order for someone to be accused of misleading the House. The member met all three conditions. The first is that the individual made a statement that was misleading. The second is that the individual knew at the time that the statement was incorrect. Since it was entirely fabricated, the member knew that it was false at the time. The third condition is that, in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House. We have seen this in the past. The member rose here to say that it was not true, because he knew that he deliberately misled the House.

Therefore, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville was in contempt since he said he personally saw what he described, when in fact he was fully aware that what he had just said did not reflect reality.

As was mentioned earlier, he did not say it just once. He said a second time that he had witnessed this fraud. Therefore, this member clearly intended to mislead the members of the House. This is an extremely serious matter that goes to the heart of our democracy and has to do with respect for our country's most important institutions.

The member deliberately chose to present as facts information that he knew was false, to justify the passage of a government bill that would deprive some Canadians of their right to vote.

We could talk about much more serious issues. I would much rather talk about the bill and its content, but that is what happened.

Moreover, the Conservatives are accusing us of wasting time. I am sorry, but it is not because of me that we are discussing this matter. It is because of one of their colleagues who rose in the House at the beginning of February and spouted nonsense. If I rose and began talking nonsense, I hope my colleagues would call me to order and remind me that I represent people and must speak the truth.

The member presented information to justify the government's decision to introduce an electoral reform bill that ends the vouching system, which tens of thousands of Canadians use properly. He did that as a member of Parliament. Therefore, initially, we had no reason to think his statement was not true. In making this statement, the member was fully aware that, in the eyes of Canadians, his status as an elected representative in the Parliament of Canada guaranteed that he was telling the truth.

Why did he show such contempt for Canadians? I do not understand.

I think there is a simple reason. The member for Mississauga—Streetsville invented evidence to support the government's plan to use Bill C-23 to eliminate the vouching system. I think it is sad that the government would use such tactics to pass a bill.

I am sure many people have noticed that the Conservatives are prepared to do anything possible to take the next election. That is what is going on here.

The member spoke about one of the aspects of Bill C-23. He wanted to talk about a supposed flaw that was completely manufactured, in order to manipulate what members of Parliament and the Canadian public thought about the Conservatives' Bill C-23.

The member's only goal was to make the Conservatives' plan to abolish the vouching system more relevant. This system enabled more than 100,000 Canadians to vote in the 2011 election.

In conclusion I want to say that it is very important to send this issue to committee so that we can shed some light on this affair and find out what went on during those 18 days.

During the debate, some members argued that we must not create an environment in which members are afraid to rise and apologize. However, the member did not rise the next day. He rose 18 days later, which is the problem. Therefore, I think this issue should be studied in committee.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Anyway, the point is that they did solve.... By virtue of what we just said, they went everywhere. At least they went to every province and every territory that existed at the time. That's the antithesis of the process that's being suggested here. That's my point, Chair. That's why we've made the motion.

I grant you that we have not done it this way per se, but it is not at all unusual or unacceptable that committees would travel when seized with pan-Canadian issues. What the heck could be more pan-Canadian than our election laws? If you'll accept the notion that our Constitution matters, it makes perfect sense that the Beaudoin-Edwards committee of the day went to every province and every territory. Why? Because it's the Constitution and every province and every territory is a party to it.

Cities aren't, as we know. Cities are not in the constitution. They are creatures of our provinces and territories. It's that legislation that brings them into existence, and there's usually specific legislation for different communities.

But the Constitution, that committee sat there and said to themselves—I'm guessing, but in some way or another, Chair, they said to themselves, “Okay, we have the Constitution. Who's impacted by the Constitution? Everybody. Well we can't visit everybody. The main parties to the Confederation that we have, it might make sense to visit them.” That's what they did. It sounds very democratic: the Constitution, which speaks to provinces and territories in the confederated state of Canada and the relationship powers and authority of said national federal government and those of the provinces and the territories. That's what our Constitution does.

So it would make every sense.... Let me flip it around and come at it the other way. Think how ridiculous it would be to talk about amending the Constitution or changing anything with the Constitution and you wouldn't go and ask the provinces and the territories what they thought. Yes, you could have them come here, but that's not what happened. Why? Because they showed the respect of a confederation. A federated state is different from other states and there is respect that has to be shown to the component parts. In this case, it's the provinces and the territories.

The federal government showed its respect for its equal partners in our Confederation of Canada by going—I suspect they probably went to their capitals. I don't know that for sure, but I'm suspecting.... At least they went to a major population centre in each of the provinces and territories, and said, “What do you think?”

Here we are in 2014, seized with a bill that proposes to amend our entire Elections Act. It's already somewhat controversial. We haven't even gotten to the guts of it yet, and we can't get the Conservative government members to agree that we need to show the same respect to Canadians that our predecessors have done, and that provinces and territories in Canada have done. I've also shown the examples of how other mature, respected democracies listen to their people. I've shown that emerging democracies that don't have the same reputation we do, the good reputation, went out and asked their people about their election laws.

When you look at it in its totality, everything I've been talking about, Chair, all of it taken together, one cannot, I don't care how, have a reasonable person look at this and say that the government is being democratic. There government's not being democratic. They are not being fair, and they really have no interest in hearing what Canadians think. What they care about is rigging the next election and getting the fix in early by getting their election law, the Conservative election law, the unfair elections act.

We have much to learn from those who came before, and I can tell you, Chair, that it cost them in their own time and their own constant dollars just as much money as it would have cost us, and it would have taken just as long, maybe even longer. The jets weren't as fast, but the fact remains that what is at stake here and what is missing is respect.

There is no respect shown for colleagues who happen to belong to other parties or who are independents in the House of Commons. They are showing no respect for Elections Canada by not even asking them to be part of this process. They are sure not showing any respect for Canadians and their right to be heard. It's all very disrespectful. It's a disrespectful bill. It's a disrespectful process. Part of why we're doing this is to give Canadians a chance to be aware.

I had mentioned some of the groups in my motion, in the first part, or at least some of them. This is not exhaustive when we make that statement. This isn't everything. But it was an attempt to provide fair representation of who we would have and why.

I want to return to a subject mentioned here, but not something I've already said about it. Referring to my motion about youth groups, I've talked about some groups, but I haven't said what we want to ask them. What we want to hear from young people is, first of all, what they think about the bill, and second, whether it meets their needs. We hear the minister in question period all the time referring to ID and how students are going to benefit, and things like that, but again, it's a democracy. The dialogue is two-way.

What we want to do is, fine, we'll hear from the minister. We showed that respect. We did that, and it was the official opposition that made sure that happened the way it did by giving a guarantee and honouring it. So we heard from the minister.

What we are asking for is the same respect for Canadians, and in this case, the case in point I am talking about, young people. We know that one of the biggest challenges we're facing is that more and more young people are saying, “A pox on all your houses. I'm not going to get involved at all.” They're throwing the whole system away. By doing that, it skews the results because not everybody is voting, so it's not everybody's opinion.

There are suggestions in this bill that certain educational aspects of the Chief Electoral Officer's job will be limited. Who is that going to affect the most if not our young people? They're the ones on whom we're trying to instill the notion of the importance of citizenship.

My colleague reminds me there are new Canadians who are thirsty to learn about their new country and thirsty to find a way to participate and be participants. Let me tell you, a lot of those new Canadians come from places where democracy isn't even spoken, where you hear a knock on the door at three in the morning, and you're not heard from again.

Now, we're not there. I'll leave it to experts like my colleague, Mr. Scott, to advise how far away we are from that. We are not there, I'm not accusing that, but I have to tell you, when you start ramming laws through that change the elections and you don't give people a chance to have their say, that's dangerous.

We want to give students and young people an opportunity to participate, to also bring out issues that aren't.... As I said before, there are things that need to be raised that maybe aren't in the bill, but that's the point to raise, “You didn't do this,” or “There's this problem over here.”

One of the best examples is the kind of powers that the Chief Electoral Officer has asked for in order to get to the truth when he's searching out fraud in elections. Those powers have not been given to the Chief Electoral Officer. I won't debate the merits of that particular point, Chair, but I will point out that it is part of the slippery slope of losing our democracy. It can't be said too many times how wrong it is to have this bill in front of us, when nobody asked the Chief Electoral Officer what he thought, what his recommendations would be? It's a process we've already done before.

We can bemoan the fact that young people aren't voting, and we do and rightfully so. It's a real concern, but it's not going to change if we don't ask them, because with a few exceptions, and my caucus has probably more than some of the others, we're not young people, and I don't speak for myself, but some of my colleagues are. You know, once you're here, your view of everything changes somewhat, so it would seem to me that someone who was, say, a youth activist at McGill, could make up some kind of crazy idea. A student at McGill maybe suddenly gets elected and becomes an MP. Something like that happens—it couldn't really happen, but say it did. It wouldn't take too long, I suspect—you can answer better than I to my colleague—that your view does shift a bit. I wouldn't call it a full Stockholm syndrome situation, but you start to become part of that world and you understand things differently. Sometimes it's a matter of, “Oh, I get that now; I didn't before,” but nonetheless you're viewing it differently.

What we still need in every democracy is to hear from those who are part of the voices that need to be heard and are those who aren't in the political loop, and by that I include the media. Those of us who do politics every day, an honourable profession, should be listening to the young people and asking them. That's why our motion includes the young people and their advocates, and new Canadians, because we don't know everything. Maybe some walk around believing that, but we don't. Even collectively we don't know everything. We can make mistakes. Sometimes a mistake is not doing something wrong, but the absence of doing what is right. It doesn't mean you've always done that for evil reasons, but even if by exception, or exclusion, or serendipity, you're making those mistakes, they have to be fixed.

We've made the case in our motion that young people, youth groups, their advocates, their representatives should be heard. We said the same thing for new Canadians. There's so much more we could be doing, Chair, rather than just being here defending, trying to get simple democracy, which is the right to be heard. What we should be doing is looking at trying to make this bill and our election laws as good as they can be. We're nowhere near that.

The government can stand up on their soapbox and say, “We're bringing in these great laws; these are the improvements.” Well, that's fine, but that's one voice that happens to be the government, but they won't give anybody else a voice, unless it's under their timeframe, their constraints, their rules, rather than giving people a chance to be heard in the places where they live.

That's why our motion mentions so many different groups, because we need to hear from them. We ought to be listening to them, commenting on proposals that are coming from the Chief Electoral Officer, from the collective experience of those of us who are here as a starting point.

We have such a democratic deficit on this process before we even get to the bill. That is shameful. I'll give the government this: they're consistently shameful when it comes to their denial of democratic rights to Canadians.

Chair, you mentioned to me that normally we don't have motions like this at PROC. Each committee is master of its own destiny, so we all do things a little differently. I would say to you, Chair, that's part of the reason we are where we are, because we were left with no choice but to do it. It's not so much colouring outside the lines, but trying to change where the lines are, to give everybody a say.

At least it's an attempt, because we can't go to every province and every territory. It's just not going to happen, but we could have worked out something. It's a shame because we're rapidly losing any opportunity for that to happen. The government is digging in. We're digging in. People are starting to become aware but not in enough numbers to move the government, not at this point anyway.

That's why we included in our motion as many representative groups as we could to at least start the notion, because it's not exhaustive, it's not exclusive, that there are other people we need to hear from. Our motion gives an example of what some of those groups might be.

On the question of travel, if we don't go out and give students an opportunity to be heard, how is it going to happen? There will be some representatives, perhaps. That will be good. That will be helpful. But it's still not the same as hearing from Canadians.

I know you won't let me read any more e-mails—it's frustrating, but I respect your right to make that ruling—but it is an indication, if you read enough of them, where you start to see.... I didn't have anything to do with that. We're not pushing, at least I'm not. I don't know anything about it. They just come in to me. There's enough evidence that Canadians want to be heard.

We're left with continuing to fight over what we consider to be basic rights of Canadians. Our motion has called for travel. I've given examples of how different jurisdictions have looked at this differently, and I've compared it in my comments as a way to support my arguments and to support my motion.

I can give more.

In the U.K., the mother ship, they now have a select committee on political and constitutional reform and they are doing a study on voter engagement. It's an ongoing study, but they're doing the crazy idea of asking the British people what they think. It sounds like a familiar argument, to give your own citizenry a say in your election laws and voting procedures.

What's interesting is that they're actually focusing—and this is what I meant earlier by the kind of things we should be doing to make our laws better. This is exactly the kind of thing. This is a perfect example to underscore my point, which supports my motion. They want to increase voter turnout. Did they stay in London? No, they didn't. They were giving all the British people an opportunity to be heard, and that's all we're asking.

Listen, I can't go too far, I know, Chair, but I think it's fair for me to give a representation of a couple of the questions they're asking themselves to show how they're tied in to what we're doing.

For instance, under reasons for and impact of low voter engagement, they ask their own people what the main factors are that have contributed to low voter turnout in recent U.K. elections.

We could be asking a similar kind of question. What are the deficiencies in our election laws? What socio-economic factors affect registration and turnout, and what, if anything, can we learn from this about how to improve voter registration and turnout?

I can't go into the specifics, Chair, because it's not part of my motion, but I certainly can make the point that according to our Minister of Democratic Reform, those are exactly the kinds of issues that Bill C-23 is supposedly going to address.

We in the opposition feel there is a really good chance that not everybody is going to see it that way. We'd like to give them that chance to be heard, especially when you have to take into account the geography of Canada.

They also ask how arrangements for British citizens living abroad to register for and vote in elections in the U.K. can be improved. It's not earth shattering, and I don't imagine that alone would generate too many headlines, but those are exactly the kinds of tombstoning questions you would ask if you're going to be looking at changing your election laws.

Rather than all of us sitting here asking ourselves those same kinds of questions and asking how we can get answers to those kinds of questions because we want to improve these things, we're left with having to bring in a motion which, as the Chair has pointed out, is a little bit different from what we normally do, simply because we're trying to force the government to be more democratic than they're prepared to be on their own inclination.

The very questions they're asking in Britain, and remember, that is the mother ship; that is where all these traditions start. When you go to a Commonwealth meeting, you'll find that with regard to all kinds of questions about parliamentary procedure, almost all of them, very quickly they will start by asking what they are doing in Westminster, what they are doing in the U.K., because they've been doing it for so long, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years. But we're not.

Maybe a basic democratic lesson we could still learn from the mother ship is that when you want to change laws that affect people everywhere and that are fundamental to your democracy, your very first starting point should be to ask Canadians, or your own people in a generic sense, what they think.

In the U.K. example, you could tell just from the procedure that they cared what their people thought, so they put together a process that allowed their citizens to have their say. In the U.K. it's the same thing; in Canada, not so much.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

It is true, Mr. Speaker, my grandma would never have done that kind of thing. She had more intellectual honesty than that.

I am trying to understand what happened between February 6th and 24th.

If someone tells the House that he saw people commit illegal acts, why did it take him 18 days to realize he saw nothing of the kind?

No apology will erase the contempt of Parliament committed on February 6. What happened during those 18 days? How is it that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville appears to have suffered hallucinations on February 6 and suddenly had to set the record straight on February 24? We would like to understand.

Basically, this sham, this preposterous story, is supposed to justify the Conservative minister’s electoral reform bill. Constructing public policy and major reforms on baseless statements, smoke and mirrors, is very serious and utterly unacceptable.

We in the official opposition act in a responsible and honest manner. We want to know exactly what happened. Was the member influenced in a way that made him make such statements? Was he subsequently influenced again when he said he had seen no one commit an illegal act? If that is true, how is it that he, as an honest politician, did not notify Elections Canada?

This has nothing at all to do with misspeaking. I might be mistaken about the name of a constituency or a person and then have to apologize, but that is not at all the case here. The member stated on two occasions that he had personally seen such actions.

This brings us back to all the defects in the electoral reform bill. We are told, in an entirely Orwellian tone, that this bill will protect us from the influence of big money, whereas maximum contributions are being raised from $1,200 to $1,500. How can anyone have these two ideas in mind at the same time? This is absolutely inconsistent.

If you want to reduce the influence of big money on elections and political parties, you increase public funding and cut individual contributions. However, the Conservatives are doing the opposite. They probably have more friends than we do who are able to write cheques for $1,500. They are not being serious at all. They are cheating by creating a legal framework that will benefit them in the next election.

This is extremely serious in a representative democracy such as ours, in which people must be able to trust the laws that govern them. Not only do the Conservatives risk preventing tens of thousands of people from voting, but they are raising the limit on individual contributions to a political party to $1,500 and preventing Elections Canada from investigating by stripping it of that power and conferring it on a third party.

What enrages me most about Bill C-23 is that the Conservatives want to prohibit Elections Canada from promoting the right to vote. This is quite disturbing when voter turnout has been declining for years now.

The main body that organizes elections in our country will not be able to tell people that it would be good for them to go and vote, that their votes count and that we need them. No, the only thing it will be able to tell them is the location of their polling station. Elections Canada will no longer be allowed to encourage people to exercise their right to vote and to have a voice in the representation and governance of their country. That must suit somebody. That must benefit people who are not counting on citizen engagement or people’s desire for real change in this country.

It is particularly odious to make false statements in the House to justify an electoral reform bill that has undergone no public consultation, either with the opposition parties or with the Chief Electoral Officer, and even less with the people of our country.

For the NDP, that is unacceptable. We will stand against it.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the extraordinary member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. I would like to congratulate her. It is important that we listen to what she has to say. It will be very interesting, more interesting than what we just heard.

I would like to take a moment to quote the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. I think it will give us some insight into what the word “misspeak” means to the Conservatives, or what it means to them to have misspoken.

On February 6, the member in question said the following:

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit about this vouching system again. I know the minister represents an urban city. I am from a semi-urban area of Mississauga, where there are many high-rise apartment buildings. On mail delivery day when the voter cards are delivered to community mailboxes in apartment buildings, many of them are discarded in the garbage can or the blue box. I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office [I suppose he is following them] of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals [he saw three things there], who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.

He personally saw at least four things happen. He witnessed them.

Later that same day, he said this:

Earlier this afternoon I asked the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification a question. I think my friend from York South—Weston will appreciate this because, just like the riding I represent, there are a lot of apartment buildings in his riding. I will relate to him something I have actually seen.

That same day, he repeated and reiterated his previous statement, and I quote:

On the mail delivery day when voter cards are put in mailboxes, residents come home, pick them out of their boxes, and throw them in the garbage can. I [first person singular] have seen campaign workers follow, pick up a dozen of them afterward, and walk out. Why are they doing that? They are doing it so they can hand those cards to other people, who will then be vouched for at a voting booth and vote illegally. That is going to stop.

Then, 18 days later, the member Mississauga—Streetsville had an epiphany. He suddenly realized that his story was completely fabricated and that he was gravely mistaken when he said that he had seen, with his own eyes, people using voter information cards to commit election fraud. It took him 18 days. I would like to know what went through his mind on February 6. Did he have a psychotic episode? Was he under the influence of drugs? Was he following instructions from his own party to make a dismal and fraudulent attempt to justify Bill C-23, which would prevent people from voting by using the voter information card they receive from Elections Canada and having someone vouch for their identity?

The Conservatives have a problem: they consistently give us public policies based on stuff they make up. Good public policy is usually based on good research and objectivity, on an analysis of a situation supported by facts to back up statements and proposals.

Bill C-23, which would implement voter suppression tactics worthy of the Republican Party, challenges a fundamental right of Canadian citizens—exercising the right to vote—based on arguments that are basically tall tales that misled Parliament.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our party has demonstrated that we vote our conscience. We can point to many times when we have done that in the House. We can point to very few times when that has happened with the NDP over there.

I am very surprised that the hon. member does not see the partisanship involved in this. This is all it is. It is politics by the NDP. The NDP members are using an apology made in the House to try to prolong and continue to filibuster one of the most important pieces of legislation that has been put before the House, Bill C-23, the fair elections act. We know what that is about, and Canadians know what that is about. We look forward to getting on with the job and getting it done.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Really, Zimbabwe, come on. Even they get it that you have to let your people have a say in their election laws. But until the government decides otherwise, we will persevere.

Well that's interesting. I see that now. There's another reference here, Chair. On April 26, 2005—that might be the same one and I don't want to do that; that would get me in trouble. I won't do that.

I will return, however, to.... I was mixing it up and trying to keep it interesting here, because I don't want to lose anybody.

Returning now to why it matters that we go to other cities as I mentioned in the second bullet point of my motion. I read an article into the record that announced to the people of the north that they be given an opportunity to have their say on Bill C-15, so I won't say anything I've already said. However, part of why we want to do this and why it's in my motion is we want the public engagement portion. It's important. I want again to make some reference to the local media having an opportunity to talk about the importance of this national issue as it relates to where they live.

What I'd like to do now, consistent with what I've done so far and I have not read this, is actor the meeting. I talked about what happened with the media and what they said to the citizenry, advising them of what's going on, what was expected, saying, “Hey, come on out.” They had the event, but there's still another piece. When you're interacting with the public, often it's like dealing with the cosmos, you can only go as fast as the speed of light and you've got to leave. You go out there and then you just start going and it continues to go and go and go. The reference to I Love Lucy is still out there somewhere floating around. It's much the same thing when we do media and stuff, we go into a community, we do some stuff and then we leave; or even here in Ottawa when we leave and then the media continues, but what happens then is important. It's part of the process. It's part of the communicating and conveying of messaging to the population, so it's important.

So, how did that play out in the example I gave earlier? I can hear you asking that in your mind, Chair, and I'm ready to answer that question.

Northern News Services reported on February 3, 2014, just a couple of weeks ago, and I have a copy of it, saying why it's relevant, and this is why it ties to my motion:

Northerners had their chance to tell the federal government what they think of Bill C-15 on Jan. 27 and the consensus was strong opposition to eliminating regional land and water boards, and an unhappiness about the federal government's perceived failure to properly consult on the bill.

Sounds familiar.

What's interesting, when I read the one earlier, Chair, if you recall, the article mentioned the fact that one of the things they were doing was looking at eliminating the regional land and water boards. Ordinarily, you'd think when there's a good idea like that it would have a lot of support and you would read an article saying that hey, people loved it and it's a great idea. It turns out that's not the case. They didn't like it. Well, if they hadn't held the public hearings, how would you know what the public thinks?

We're in the same boat on Bill C-23. How do you know what the public thinks if you don't ask them? The article goes on to say:

"Nothing is more important than this," said Tlicho Grand Chief Eddie Erasmus, who signed on to devolution in March 2013.

He called the bill - which will alter two of the territory's founding documents: the NWT Act and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act -- unconstitutional and said that he is prepared to stand up to the proposed legislation in whatever way he can.

Canada has returned to the old colonial ways of thinking they know what is best for us. They are silencing our voice. This is not the constitutional promise that was made in the Tlicho agreement.

Members of the federal Special Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development were in Yellowknife for a marathon meeting—

That we have, but that's it, that's all. They had a marathon meeting and we're having a marathon meeting, but that's it, and maybe the coffee, but that's it.

—where they heard from 33 witnesses over nine hours on Bill C-15.

I won't go into it too far, Chair, because I accept that I would be bumping up against relevancy. I appreciate your letting me read what I did, because I do believe that was relevant. Obviously, you felt the same way, but I won't push my luck with you, Chair. I will set that aside and move along.

I have some quotes here, Chair, but I want to stay consistent with your.... I'm asking you straight up. Do I have any latitude at all in terms of reading comments that are coming in either to committee members here or to my leader that are relevant to what I'm talking about?

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

Mr. Speaker, I find this debate unfortunate. We are having a discussion, not because of the partisanship of the official opposition, but because the Speaker of this House has ruled that there is an issue that should come to the members in order to, quoting the words of a former Speaker, “clear the air”.

An opportunity to clear the air has not been seized by the Conservative benches. I acknowledge that the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville did not need to apologize to the House. He could have perhaps pretended away the incident and never admitted to the incident that he claimed he saw, he had never seen.

I find the events that have taken place here extremely perplexing. As a member of Parliament, I will go back to my constituents and try to explain it. I will be unable to explain how it is that the member told us, two different times, that he saw voting cards being removed in order to stuff ballots by people who did not have a right to vote in those locations. I find that very troubling. I think we should be able to get to the bottom of it.

Calling Bill C-23 the unfair elections act is merely marketing; it is hardly misleading the House. Everyone knows that we are talking about Bill C-23. Some of us, myself included, Preston Manning included, find Bill C-23 going entirely in the wrong direction. We should try to make sure that people can vote, not remove their ability to vote.

My question to the hon. member is, would he not agree that we would have been much better served in this discussion, once the Speaker ruled, to get an explanation as to why these two very contradictory statements came before this House?

I will say that I appreciate the member for Mississauga—Streetsville apologizing. I will thank him for that, but I would like an explanation.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I want to participate in this debate and address the motion proposed by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. The motion proposes that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs study the facts surrounding the statements made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. I propose at the outset that we already know the facts. The question is what we do about it.

A study by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would be redundant and a waste of time, in my submission. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is one of the busiest committees, producing more reports than any other standing committee. The committee already has numerous projects on the go, including studies arising from private members' business and a question of privilege related to Elections Canada. The committee is examining changes to the Standing Orders and is currently studying Bill C-23, the fair elections act.

At the present time, the committee is under siege by an NDP filibuster aimed at delaying the fair elections act, Bill C-23. This is unfortunate because Bill C-23 is a very important piece of legislation. This bill would protect voters from rogue calls and impersonation with a mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating elections officials, and increased penalties for deceiving people out of their votes. It would allow the commissioner to seek tougher penalties for existing offences and empower the commissioner with new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting. It would crack down on voter fraud, make rules easier to follow, allow for small donations in and big money out, respect democratic election results, uphold free speech, and provide better customer service for voters.

Getting back to the motion before the House, I would like to draw everyone's attention to a quick review of the facts that led to this question of privilege. On February 6, during debate on Bill C-23, the fair elections act, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville made a statement in the House about voter identification cards. He rose in the House on February 24 and corrected the record. The next day he added, “...I recognized that this was an error on my part”. He then sincerely apologized to all Canadians and all members of the House for the statement he made. He added that it was never his intention in any way to mislead the House, for which he has the greatest amount of respect.

As we know, it is a long-standing tradition in the House to accept the word of a member and to accept his or her apology. Notwithstanding that tradition, on February 25, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley rose in the House on a question of privilege charging the member for Mississauga—Streetsville with contempt; this, of course, after the member for Mississauga—Streetsville had delivered his apology to Canadians and all members in the House.

The government House leader responded by making the following point. He stated:

...the presumption in this House is that we are all taken at our word, that the statements we make are truthful and correct. That we are given the benefit of that doubt brings with it a strong obligation on us, in the cases where a member misspeaks, to correct the record so that nobody is left with inaccurate perceptions.

In this particular instance, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, has done exactly that. Having misspoken in this House and having realized his comments were in error, he has come to this House and corrected the record.

That is the obligation that exists upon members. That is an obligation to ensure that nobody is left under false impressions. That is an obligation he has discharged. That is the obligation upon all members here, and for that reason I think that alone is sufficient to rebut any concern that there has been a contempt.

I will end the government House leader's quote there.

Also in that debate, the member for Kingston and the Islands recognized that the only reason the House was engaged in the debate on the matter was the fact that it had been raised by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, who took his duty and obligation to correct the record seriously.

Instead of accepting the apology from the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, the NDP House leader chose to raise the matter as a question of privilege, putting the onus on the Speaker to rule.

When the Speaker finds that there is a prima facie question of privilege, the task of formulating the question to the House falls to the member who raised the issue. In this case, it was the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. As we all know, his privilege motion sets aside all business of the House. I believe he could have found another way to express his displeasure, without engaging all of us in the process, debate, and drama of a question of privilege.

The debate on his motion does not only use up the precious time of this House, but it proposes to use up a great deal of the precious time of a committee. This exercise is wasteful and unnecessary.

I will be encouraging members to vote against the proposal from the NDP for three reasons. One, the member who made the misleading statements apologized and voluntarily corrected the record. That is a very important point for all of us to realize. He apologized and voluntarily corrected the record.

Two, there is no merit in a committee study since all of the facts are known. He made a statement and he apologized for it. The real and only question left for the House to decide is how it wants to move forward on this issue considering the facts before it.

This brings me to the third reason to oppose the motion. The one outcome we want to avoid is to create an environment where MPs are punished for doing the right thing. The right thing for this House to do is to accept the member's apology and move on.

However, I am afraid it is too late for the high road at this point. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has the entire House going down his road.

What does the NDP want to accomplish with a committee study? I looked at the procedural references the NDP House leader cited in his presentation to his question of privilege. In his intervention, he cited a reference from page 115 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition.

His citation references a case from December 6, 1978, where Speaker Jerome ruled that a government official deliberately misled a minister and that constituted a prima facie question of privilege. The member for Northumberland—Durham, who raised the question of privilege was invited to propose his motion to the House. The motion was defeated, and the matter was not sent to committee.

The NDP House leader also referenced a ruling from October 19, 2000, regarding misleading statements made in the House. Speaker Parent stated that he could find no support for a claim that the privileges of the House had been breached; so no committee study resulted from that.

He included a ruling of our current Speaker from May 7, 2012. The Speaker did not arrive at a finding of a prima facie question of privilege there either.

There was, however, a committee study that resulted from a ruling he referenced from February 1, 2002, regarding two statements made by the then minister of defence. In that ruling, Speaker Milliken noted the need for clarity in House proceedings and the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. He also stated that integrity of information was of paramount importance since it directly concerned the rules of engagement for Canadian troops involved in the conflict in Afghanistan, a principle that goes to the very heart of Canada's participation in the war against terrorism.

A motion was moved referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and almost a week later, on Thursday, February 7, 2002, it was adopted.

The committee heard from a number of witnesses in that case. It heard from the member who raised the matter, Mr. Brian Pallister. It heard from the Clerk of the House of Commons, and the law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons. It heard from the hon. Art Eggleton, the former minister of national defence; the deputy chief of the defence staff; the deputy minister of the department of national defence; the chief of the defence staff; the deputy clerk of the Privy Council, counsel and security and intelligence co-ordinator; the clerk of the Privy Council and secretary to the cabinet; the assistant deputy minister, global and security policy, department of foreign affairs and international trade; and J.P. Joseph Maingot, former law clerk and parliamentary counsel, House of Commons, and author of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada.

In addition, members of the committee were invited to submit questions in writing for Commodore Jean-Pierre Thiffault, commander of the Canadian joint task force in southwest Asia.

That is an impressive list of witnesses. Obviously, there are some similarities between this question of privilege and the question of privilege in 2002, but I believe members would recognize the many significant differences. There might have been more meat on the bone in the 2002 case than the straightforward facts of this case.

Also, I think it is worth mentioning that the status of the two members involved is significantly different. The 2002 case involved a minister of the Crown. A minister enjoys a special role in providing information to the House.

That said, and despite all that was involved in the 2002 study, and all that was at stake, the committee had to focus on the task at hand, the issue of two contradictory statements made in the House.

The report back from the procedure and House affairs committee stated:

We are not concerned here with the Minister's performance as a minister, nor with the chain of command or lines of communication in the military, the Department of National Defence, or the Government.

The committee also felt it was necessary to point out the following:

Parliamentary committees charged with examining questions of privilege must exercise caution and act responsibly in drawing conclusions. They must guard against allowing partisanship to colour their judgement. The power to punish for contempt must not be exercised lightly. It exists for those rare occasions when Parliament’s ability to function is impeded or compromised.

One could, in the case before us today, connect some dots and come to the conclusion that this is not about statements made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. Other agendas are at play here, agendas that are clouding the judgment of the NDP. I am certain that most reasonable people would agree that the case before us is of a different scale in importance than that in 2002. Even still, the conclusion of the committee in 2002 was simple and to the point. It stated:

After a thorough review of all the circumstances, the Committee has come to the conclusion that the Minister made a mistake....

It concluded that no contempt of the House was committed.

What are the facts surrounding the statements made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville? He made a mistake. He rose in the House and said, “I recognized that this was an error on my part”. He followed that recognition of fault with an apology to the House and to all Canadians. He made it clear that he did not intend to mislead the House.

I submit that a committee study of this case is not necessary. It only makes sense in the mind of the New Democrats, who fervently obstruct anything constructive that comes on the floor of the House and to our committees. I understand that the role of the opposition is to oppose, but in this case, it has crossed the line.

As the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs warned, in 2002, we in the House must also guard against allowing partisanship to colour our judgment in the matter of privilege. We must not execute our power lightly.

The NDP should refrain from using this question of privilege to fight its battle against the fair elections act. It only exposes its fiend, outrage, and phoney crusade in its opposition to legislation that will put everyday Canadians, not big union bosses, in charge of their democracy.

I have a number of quotations from people across the country. I have documentation from Elections Canada, in cases where it has found fraud in past elections in this country.

As well, I hear the words of my constituents, who speak on a daily basis. I can tell members that they do not want election fraud any more than anybody else in this House. Supporting the fair elections act would go a long way to giving back fair elections to Canadians.

We all know that things happen during elections that should not happen. That is what the legislation, Bill C-23, would address.

With respect to the question before us, I encourage all members of the House to see past the partisan colours of their party. Let the House get back to business, and let the committees get on with their agendas. There is no place in committee for this matter. It has been settled. The member stood up and he apologized.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm not stopping you.

To the point, Chair, we would see a group like the Council of Canadians with Disabilities as a primary, specific group we might look to. They are a national human rights organization of people with disabilities working for an inclusive and accessible Canada. You could almost put those words into another sentence about what Canadians want in their election laws.

The priorities of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities include disability-related supports, poverty alleviation, increased employment for persons with disabilities, promotion of human rights in Canada—the right to vote is that—ratification and implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I'll just read one or two, Chair. I won't read the whole thing.

They believe, in terms of citizenship, that people with disabilities “have the same rights and responsibilities as Canadians without disabilities.” My first position ever, when I was 22 years old, I was elected chair of the health and safety committee in the little shop that I worked in. That's when it became clear to me with health and safety, if you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

In terms of citizenship, they're specifically concerned that “socially made barriers, which prevent participation and discriminate against people with disabilities must be eliminated.” Again, it would be obvious things like making sure that polling stations are accessible.

Chair, the other thing I wanted to say about learning early on is that all of us are only temporarily able-bodied. Every one of us will be disabled at some point. The only issue is whether it happens sooner or later. That's the only difference. There aren't just the barriers that we tend to think of, those of us who are able-bodied. There is a whole host of challenges that people with disabilities face in Canada. Our motion is here to ensure that the issues that would affect those fellow Canadians are taken into account when we look at Bill C-23.

Do I know what all those issues are? No, but then I doubt anybody else around the table does either. That's why we would invite them. We would invite them as expert witnesses representing a segment of our population, to ensure that those of us entrusted with passing the laws of our nation understand the implications of either changing the law or not adequately addressing challenges and problems that already exist.

That's why we have included in my motion various groups and organizations and points of view to ensure that we get as good a bill as possible. Would it be perfect? No.

As I said, I'm already aware of some clauses and things that we agreed to in our work a couple of years ago that I would already be looking at differently. That comes from experience. That's evolution of thought. Also, there's just having others look at it and give their opinion. That's why you have consultations.

That's why we were so proud to see a country like New Zealand having all kinds of consultation and that it wasn't being led by a political party. It was led by their version of our Elections Canada. That's how much they trust them. They let them lead the consultation. They let them produce the discussion paper and then they went back out again and said, “What do you think about what we've said about what you said?” This was before it even got to the politicians. We are so far away from anything like that.

In our motion we speak of groups that have been active in our society. In fact the actual words, Chair, that we used were “as well as specific groups which have been active in society on election rules.”

The first one we mentioned was Fair Vote Canada. Fair Vote Canada is a grassroots, multi-partisan citizens campaign for voting system reform. They promote the introduction of an element of proportional representation into elections for all levels of government and throughout civil society. The position of our party is that we should be moving to a proportional representation system as a further refinement of good democratic governance, but that's for another day.

It is worth saying, Chair, that one of the criticisms of proportional representation is that it doesn't usually lead to any one party receiving a majority control of the House, and that's seen as a problem. Yet the best example I can point to in the decade that I've been here—

Statements by Member for Mississauga-Streetsville—Reference to Standing Committee

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for sharing his time with me.

This is a grave matter we are debating here. It goes to the credibility of this place. The comments that I will make at the end, I hope, will give pause to reflect on a situation where we have a majority government.

What is the situation before us? We were debating Bill C-23, which is proposing significant amendments to the Canada Elections Act, with a number of amendments that are facing huge debate across the country, but within a vacuum of ability for Canadians to speak out. In the course of the debate, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville decided to speak twice in this place and to share certain information. As has been raised here previously, it was in the course of debate on a very significant bill to Canadians that sets out the rights to exercise the franchise. The member has now apologized to the House and admitted that he misled this place on observations that he personally witnessed in the use of the voucher system.

Why is this important? It is because of changes to the voucher system that the government wants to proceed with, which is to do away with the voucher. Frankly, right now, hundreds of thousands of Canadians, from seniors to first nations to students, rely on vouchers to exercise their franchise. We are fortunate to live in a country where everyone in society has the right to vote if they are a citizen. I raise this matter because I have received letters. I understand the same letters have been sent to the minister responsible for the new election bill.

I received a letter from the president of the students' union for the King’s University College, the president of the students' union for the University of Alberta, and the student association of Grant MacEwan University. These are all major institutions in my city.

What they relayed to me and the hon. minister is that they are deeply concerned that this move to remove the voucher is going to make it more difficult. Sieger Siderius, president of the students' association for the King's University College said: “...making the ability to vote more difficult seems antithetical to the inclusive democratic system that has developed in Canada”.

The president of the students' union of the University of Alberta, Petros Kusmu, said: “Voter turnout from students and youth is already relatively low in federal elections”. They think it is important that the government move toward making it easier for students to vote, and they are deeply troubled that to remove the ability to vouch may have graver results, lowering voter turnout from students.

The students association for Grant MacEwan University expressed the same concerns. “Students unable to provide [a] valid piece of identification under the Fair Elections Act as currently proposed risk disenfranchisement”. They are calling on me to call for the government to provide expanded consultation so they can voice their perspective.

Given that the government is still refusing to allow a committee to travel to discuss this important piece of legislation, the only opportunity for a person to find out what is in the bill and what the issues are around the voucher system is to view CPAC, or come to Ottawa if they have the opportunity, if they are studying here, and observe the debate.

What did the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville say in this place? He said:

I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.

He said that once. On February 6, he again said:

I will relate to him [he means the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification] something I have actually seen. On the mail delivery day when voter cards are put in mailboxes, residents come home, pick them out of their boxes, and throw them in the garbage can. I have seen campaign workers follow, pick up a dozen of them afterward, and walk out. Why are they doing that? They are doing it so they can hand those cards to other people, who will then be vouched for at a voting booth and vote illegally. That is going to stop.

As is clear in the House, and as the members representing the government side have attested to, almost three weeks later, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville stood up in the House and confessed that he completely misled the House, not once but twice.

How are we to be assured that Canadians following this debate managed to follow every day of it, so that they will have learned that in fact this hon. member had misled the House? This is a serious matter. This is a serious bill we are discussing and it is absolutely imperative that factual information be brought forward. There have been many questions back and forth in question period about proposed changes to the Elections Act, and a lot of concerns raised on behalf of constituents about the plan to do away with the vouching system.

This is a very significant matter. We are talking about the very right of Canadians to exercise their democratic right to vote for the members in this place. We have heard from young people, certainly in my city, who are deeply concerned about this proposed amendment. We had a member testify in the House that he personally had witnessed voter fraud with the use of vouchers, and then admit he never did witness any such thing. This is not simply a case where perhaps somebody had told him third-hand that there might be some fraud with vouching. He actually stood in this place twice and said that he personally had witnessed this and had witnessed voter fraud.

What is important is that, according to our procedures, the House Leader of the Official Opposition raised a question of privilege, the member spoke to it, and the Speaker issued a ruling. In issuing his ruling, the Speaker said that he had to consider three factors based on precedent. One was that it had to be proven that the statement was misleading; two, that it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time of the statement that it was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House. The member himself has apologized that he has done all three. However, aside from that, the reason we are here debating right now is because the Speaker made a ruling in this matter and, as the procedure goes, we do not get into this debate unless there is a prima facie case of contempt in the House.

We have heard a number of members state that we do not bring forward this kind of motion lightly, and it does not happen very often, and it certainly has not happened often while I have been in this place for more than five years. Therefore, it seems appropriate, given the procedures of the House, which are laid down in a chart in our procedural book, which is agreed to by all the members in the House, that there will be a vote in this place.

What happens when we have a majority government? We are having a debate here and we begin to sense how people might vote. It may be that those members on the other side might have a bit of conscience and think that this is reprehensible behaviour and that just standing up and saying, “Oh gosh, I should not have misled the House” is not enough, and that maybe this matter should be referred to the committee and an appropriate response taken. There is no predetermination of what the response is. The member could, for example, simply be asked to come before the bar of the House and apologize to the Speaker. It is not terribly reprehensible. We are not going to lock him up behind bars and so forth.

I am stunned that the members are complaining that we are taking up the time of the House on this. Would it not be nice if instead we were using the time to decide how many communities in Canada we were going to talk with about the proposed changes to the Elections Act, so that we could actually have a debate among Canadians on how we should change the law.

Clearly, my constituents and the youth in my city have expressed their will. They would like to have a voice in this statute. They have a right not to be misinformed on what has happened with the vouching system, and regrettably they have been given misleading information in this House. We can only hope that they have been able to follow this debate and that they know that in fact there is no clear evidence of fraudulent use of the voucher system.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

All right. If I'm that stuck, I may come to you just for you to tell me no.

To continue, I mentioned some of the groups that we would have. I started talking about some of their qualifications. I did not try to read, much more than the first time I did, the entire bio, but I do want to come back, Chair, to the importance of the very first bullet point. The first bullet point we make in our motion is that we “hear witnesses from, but not limited to,” and I gave an example.

If I may, one of those experts would be the Canadian Mental Health Association. Mr. Peter Coleridge is the national CEO. He is also a special adviser to the global economic round table on mental health and addiction, a founding member of the Canadian Executive Council on Addictions, and he has served in many other places in the community sector. He is somebody who can bring some expertise and relevance and put in front of us the situation for what may be not a huge percentage of the population, and we grant that.

For the most part, Chair, when we pass rules, I think most of us are trying to think of what is the best rule for the majority of people and that doesn't hurt anyone. We try to make it as broad as we can. That's why it's important that we start to be more aware of what's at stake. If someone has a mental illness, does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to vote? I'd be shocked if anybody in this room said yes, because I don't think that's the case at all, but if we accept that especially with mental illness....

Very few of us in this room haven't had mental illness affect our families. There are probably a lot of tragic stories right here in this room alone about what some of our families and family members have faced when it comes to mental health and addiction issues.

The point we're making, Chair, is that we could be a lot more sensitive to the voting rights of all Canadians if we had a process that let everybody participate. That's why my motion speaks to the kind of witnesses. That's why I'm taking the time to underscore why we think those witnesses would make a difference, and why it matters.

You know what? It only matters if you really, really, really believe that everybody is equal, not as a throwaway, not as a slogan, but if you honestly believe that every citizen is equal and we accept that having our franchise, the right to vote, that precious vote....

Here, as members of the House, the most precious thing we have is when we go into that House and cast our vote. That goes for here at committee too, but in the House, that precious vote, it's everything.

There are serious concerns—I'll leave it at concerns, because I don't want to start talking about the bill—that certain Canadians will have their right to vote lost, taken from them, or not returned to them by virtue of fixing a bill. The witnesses are to ensure that we don't forget them.

You know, Chair, a clear majority rules. Around here, a clear majority is 50% plus one. That's how we make laws. That's how we get things done in committee. We make decisions that way. A clear majority is 50% plus one. That's what makes laws in this country.

The vast majority of people live in urban settings, and the vast majority probably have no particular problem if they're determined to vote. But that, as a standard, is about as low as you could possibly have.

The idea of reforming our election law supposedly is to improve it. We asked for the witnesses in our motion because we believe they will help us understand the implications of Bill C-23 on the right of Canadians to vote. That's why having the Canadian Mental Health Association, we believe, is an important part of our hearings and therefore an important part of my motion.

Further to that, my motion says that we should be asking for witnesses from groups representing youth advocates and students. There's more than one. This is not easy. Remember, this is all complex. It's difficult, it's expensive, and it's slow, but I say again, if Canada was easy, everybody would have one.

Not only do we want, for instance, student groups and youth representatives and advocates, but they have different groups, and the beauty of democracy is sometimes they have a different view of things. We can get into different subsets of representatives representing Canadians, which is why democracy is not known for its speed.

We can move quickly. We did last night on the Ukrainian question. There was a political will that; notwithstanding the nonsense of last week, we wanted to send a message of unity from our country to theirs, and we did it. The hard work was done in the background by the House leaders and their staff, negotiating the words, but the actual political process was done in a blink: unanimous consent, motion, carried, passed. There's the message.

One of the groups, Chair, that we would think of to put on our list of invitees, if the committee agrees to hear witnesses...because we don't have a motion right now. There's no motion saying we want witnesses. That's why I'm going out of my way to underscore the importance of hearing from witnesses, and as we all know, I'm gaining ground. Remember, I do have Mr. Lukiwski on side with that notion of my motion, so I'm on a roll.

One of the groups we would want to hear from as expert witnesses, as mentioned in my motion—not the bill, my motion—is the Canadian Federation of Students. The national chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students is Jessica McCormick. She represents over 600,000 college and university students. She also served, prior to—a great experience—as the national deputy chairperson and as the chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students in Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, this is someone with a great deal of expertise. I'm noticing that she also has an undergraduate degree. It's an undergraduate degree in political science and English at Memorial University of Newfoundland, where she was the executive director of external affairs, communications, and research of the Memorial University of Newfoundland Students' Union.

Again, she is somebody who has a practical hands-on experience with democracy, albeit at university. I didn't attend university, but I suspect by that age and that level of intelligence, those elections are pretty sophisticated because they probably have a whole campus full of Philadelphia lawyers who are ready to tell everybody why it was wrong.

So they have some experience. The testimony they would give, Chair, would not be just related to their role as the head of this organization, but they would also be able to weave through that their personal experience in running and following election rules, and hopefully trying to make election rules that are fair for everyone, which, unless I misread the rhetoric of the government, is supposedly what they want. But of course their words are not lining up with their actions on that one.

Further, Chair, we made reference in my motion, in the first part, about Canadians with disabilities. Again, this is where democracy can get complex. You either believe everybody matters or you don't. It's either a throwaway line that everybody matters, or they don't.

I don't know if the members opposite have given any thought to where they're going to be in history on this, but I suspect not. They're probably not looking much further than the next election; that's why they're supporting rules that jig the election in their favour. The fact is that all of this eventually will be looked at in a historical context, and when it is, the government's not going to be on the side of the good guys.

This is ugly stuff. Even accusations that are supportable that people are losing their vote, that the Chief Electoral Officer is being handcuffed.... Maybe the members don't care. I would have thought they'd care a little about their legacy, especially on big questions, but when that dark period of Canadian democracy is looked at—and I'm referring to maintenant—they're going to be culpable. Their names will be listed. The votes will be there forever.

It's not to say they don't have the right to pass laws—

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent and enlightening speech. She clearly explained the issue that is before the House today.

If I relied on Conservative Party members on the other side of the House, I would have no idea what the issue is. After hearing the speech by the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, I no longer understood the point of the debate.

I would like to remind hon. members of the topic of debate. In the context of the electoral “deform” bill, Bill C-23, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville rose in the House and made misleading statements. He misled the House.

We therefore asked the Speaker to investigate what had been said in the House to determine whether, prima facie, the member made false statements and misled the House. The Speaker responded in the affirmative. We have three criteria that allow us to determine whether the House was misled, and these criteria were developed by the Speaker himself.

I am going to summarize them. First, it must be proven that the statement itself was misleading; second, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and, third, the member must have intended to mislead the House.

According to the Speaker’s ruling, the situation meets those criteria prima facie. That is why this matter is before us. Will we refer it to the parliamentary committee responsible for examining this kind of issue, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs?

After hearing the speeches of the members on the other side of the House, I believe we have lost sight of the motion. Hon. members will remember that it reads:

That the question of privilege related to the statements made in the House of Commons by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

It is nothing more or less than that. I think that is clear. The member for Mississauga—Streetsville seems to have made two completely contradictory statements. We must go further and examine this issue.

Why must we do so? It is possible that the member spoke with Elections Canada or that Elections Canada communicated with the member. We do not know what happened. All we know is what the member himself said.

Hon. members will recall what he said in his speech on February 6. To paraphrase, he said that he lived in a very urban, very densely populated riding where there are a lot of apartment buildings and blue boxes. He claimed that people had found Elections Canada cards that had been discarded by voters in those boxes, and that they had picked them up so that they could take them to the offices of other parties, claim a new identity and possibly vote illegally.

It is a serious accusation for a member of Parliament to rise in the House and say that he has personally witnessed election fraud in Canada.

Let me go back to the original quote. I would like to do so because I think it is always better quote the member himself. What he said was very specific. That is why we have to wonder what the facts really are.

I would like people to pay attention to the details of what the member for Mississauga—Streetsville told us in the House. In response to a question he was asked following one of his speeches in the House on February 6, he said precisely this:

I will relate to him something I have actually seen. On the mail delivery day when voter cards are put in mailboxes, residents come home, pick them out of their boxes, and throw them in the garbage can. I have seen campaign workers follow, pick up a dozen of them afterward, and walk out. Why are they doing that? They are doing it so they can hand those cards to other people, who will then be vouched for at a voting booth and vote illegally.

A question is being raised in the House. The member for Mississauga—Streetsville did not merely miscalculate. He did not merely conjugate a verb in such a way that we did not know whether it was in the future or the past tense. It was not a typographical error. It was a specific and very detailed error. It would be very difficult for me to be mistaken for about three minutes of a speech. There might be perhaps one or two incorrect words in my speech, and I would definitely rise in the House and apologize for my mistake.

Here we are talking about a complete paragraph from the speech of a member of the House, where he said that he had actually seen a fraudulent act committed against the Canadian electorate. When he was asked to apologize and he returned to the House on February 24—18 days later—he did not do so. He merely stated that some of what he had said might have been inaccurate.

What was incorrect in all that? One specific thing? Everything? We do not know, and that is why it should be looked into by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The hon. member should provide more detailed explanations to Canadian voters, because those given so far are insufficient. He gave a brief apology of a few sentences in the House, whereas he made a 15-minute speech, and what he said over three minutes or so was downright incorrect, according to what he says. That merits the attention of this House.

We must have confidence that what is said in the House is accurate, honest and true. We cannot allow members to come into the House and say things as inaccurate as that. If someone truly saw what the hon. member claimed to have seen, that constitutes fraud. That is a violation of the Canada Elections Act. We are beginning to move into the criminal field. There are serious consequences for witnessing that kind of activity and keeping silent for three years. The member claimed to have seen this in 2011. This is 2014, and for all that time, he said nothing. He witnessed a very serious fraudulent act in his constituency and did nothing.

In this case, it seems to me, a member of Parliament has a much greater responsibility to act than an ordinary Canadian citizen. He knows this very well. He is a legislator. He is very familiar with the consequences of such a serious act. He has to report it. Either he failed to report that act, and today he is trying to hedge and have people believe it was a mistake, or it truly was a mistake.

I would like Elections Canada to tell us if there were any reports and if the member came forward at that time. Do we know what happened? That is deserving of the attention of this House.

Again, in the context of Bill C-23, the electoral deform bill introduced by this government, we want Canadians to vote in elections. For years, the voter turnout rate has been in constant decline. We should bring it up.

According to opposition members, the content of Bill C-23 will unfortunately achieve the direct opposite. It will stop people from voting and decrease the turnout rate even further.

With respect to voter cards, 800,000 seniors and 70,000 members of first nations used them to vote. Under the terms of the bill now before us, they would unfortunately no longer have that right. That is precisely why the member rose in the House. He wanted to condemn a practice that, as we see it, has helped people vote, rather than prevented them from doing so.

If this case is referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we definitely want everything open to the public. That is why I am moving a motion. I do not want this to take place in camera.

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Québec:

that the motion be amended by adding, after the words “House Affairs”, the following:

“, and that all procedures in respect of this order of reference be held in public”.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, coincidentally, this happened just as Bill C-23 was being introduced.

I would like to think that this is not the case, but we cannot help but conclude that there must be a link between what the member said and the goal of wanting to fast track this bill through committee.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

As a parliamentarian, I want to remind all my colleagues, and myself, that we have a responsibility to Canadians, a responsibility to the House of Commons itself, which establishes the procedures and practices of the House, and a responsibility to our colleagues who are elected members who vote on bills.

This question of privilege reminds us that, although we are parliamentarians and have privileges such as freedom of speech, we cannot use those privileges any way we like and deliberately mislead the House and our constituents by making statements we know to be incorrect in order to achieve a personal or partisan objective. What is more, in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, on page 115, it states:

Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.

We also have a duty to earn the trust of our constituents and the voters who vote for us. The practice of making false or contradictory statements in the House needs to end. It can serve only to fuel the public's cynicism about politicians and the disengagement the public has from its civic duty, which is to vote. It is already extremely difficult to get voters to the polling stations.

It is very important to me that we understand that it is in our best interest to faithfully apply the rules and procedures, as set by the House of Commons. We can have a bias based on our political stripes—I understand that—but we must show that the public's interest is our primary concern. We must do so objectively and with integrity, which means illustrating our points of view and the benefits of the bills we introduce without using smoke and mirrors. That is how we will win the respect not only of our constituents, but also of our parliamentary colleagues.

This is what the member for Mississauga—Streetsville said on February 6:

I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.

That is quite absurd because, as we know, when we go to the polling station the card in question is not enough.

When the member for Mississauga—Streetsville said “I have actually witnessed”, he was saying that he had witnessed criminal offences being committed. That is a very serious statement that should be taken very seriously because it refers to election fraud.

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville told Parliament that he had witnessed acts prohibited by Canadian law, acts that constitute election fraud according to Elections Canada. It is not a simple statement or mere speculation or even a misinterpretation. He said that he saw it with his own eyes. He said that twice, on two separate occasions in the House, to his colleagues. The first time, he asked the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification a question, and the second time, he addressed his colleague from York South—Weston.

On February 24, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville once again rose in the House to make a new and completely contradictory statement, saying that he had made a statement that was not accurate:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to debate that took place on February 6 in this House regarding the fair elections act.

I made a statement in the House during the debate that is not accurate. I just want to reflect the fact that I have not personally witnessed individuals retrieving voter notification cards from the garbage cans or from the mailbox areas of apartment buildings. I have not personally witnessed that activity and want the record to properly show that.

That means that what he reported was not the truth.

Here is what I am wondering about: Why did the member for Mississauga—Streetsville change his version of the facts? Why did the member for Mississauga—Streetsville wait 18 days before giving us the new version of the facts?

Is it because Elections Canada contacted the member for Mississauga—Streetsville in the interim? Since this is clearly a case of electoral fraud, a very serious accusation, will Elections Canada investigate?

I think it is unacceptable that those members voted on Bill C-23, which is currently being rushed through committee, on the basis of false statements by one of our colleagues. Some colleagues decided how to vote on Bill C-23 on the basis of unfounded and inaccurate statements. That is a serious blow to democracy and to the integrity of parliamentarians.

Erskine May is even more clear when it comes to a member later admitting that statements he made were false. Page 111 of Parliamentary Practice, 22nd edition, informs us that the Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. It also states that, in 1963, the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former member had been guilty of grave contempt.

We have a duty as parliamentarians to build a relationship of trust with our constituents. I represent the people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles in the House of Commons. My constituents have the right to be able to count on me and the right to know what we are doing here. They also have the right to know where we stand on bills and why we are voting for or against them.

If tomorrow, someone from my riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles asks me why I did not support Bill C-23, based on what this person heard or read in the speech the member for Mississauga—Streetsville made in the House on February 6, 2014, I would think that my constituent had been misled. That is very serious, which is why it is important to act with integrity. All parliamentarians need to understand their duty and responsibility towards the public, towards voters and towards our mandate as parliamentarians.

The statements we make in the House are not limited to the House. They have repercussions on people all across Canada.

When I think about the contradictory statement made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, I realize that the vote on Bill C-23, which is currently being fast-tracked through committee, will be based on erroneous information. The debate on Bill C-23 was not fair and honest. What is worse, it is tainted by an unfounded accusation for the sole purpose of getting the bill passed.

Is that our mandate as parliamentarians? I do not think so. Is that how we should be introducing bills that will affect the lives of millions of Canadians?

I highly doubt it. I want to talk more about our responsibility as parliamentarians. We spend many hours working on laws that affect the lives of Canadian families. If we do not follow the rules that are in place, what impact will these laws have on the daily lives of millions of Canadians?

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville should be questioned by the appropriate committee about what he did, so that we can determine where those allegations came from and why he used them to support Bill C-23.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois will support the motion to refer this question of privilege to committee.

As we have already heard, there are two contradictory statements before the House, and that makes it difficult for members to rule on the integrity and veracity of the statements that were made.

It is important for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the statements and all relevant information that would help them to shed light on this contempt of Parliament. Given the circumstances, it is increasingly difficult to determine what is true and what is false in the debate on Bill C-23.

It is increasingly difficult for the public to understand and assess the credibility of the information they get from the government. We all remember the government's false advertising to promote a training program that did not even exist.

Does the member also disapprove of the increasing amount of misinformation we are seeing from his government?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, I did. You're right. So I'll move on.

What I'll move on to is, again, that I had mentioned making sure that there were anti-poverty groups. We mentioned some of the homelessness issues that exist across our country. Unfortunately I have much too high a concentration in Vancouver east side. We believe that we should hear about how this bill will affect the homeless. They don't tend to vote much, so I'm not sure they go into the government's calculation as much as one would hope.

I'll be honest, too. I'm not sure how many people.... That would bother Canadians and they'd be concerned, but I don't know if that's enough to move them. The point is that any one of these things may not be enough, but taken in their totality we think and hope that they will move a lot of Canadians to at least type out a little email and send it to the government and to their backbenchers to tell them how unhappy they are that the government is doing this.

We want to make sure that every Canadian's vote is a matter of concern for this committee, not just that of the Conservative caucus. That's about the only list I can give, because they're the only ones who had any input. That leaves everybody else out. So we want to have experts who can speak with some authority on how Bill C-23 may directly or even indirectly affect their ability and their right to vote, not so much by an exclusionary clause in the bill. That's not there. You couldn't do that.

But clever people—and no one ever accused the government of being stupid. They're a lot of things, but not stupid. You can't do it through directly and explicitly saying, “You can't vote.” That's unconstitutional. However, you could put in place a whole lot of rules that in and of themselves seem to be okay, even though there may be some questions. But when you add them all up in the whole process, you end up with identifiable groups, demographics within our society, who will lose their right to vote, through frustration, lack of clarity, or lack of information. That's why it matters who wrote this bill, because it wasn't the Chief Electoral Officer.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It does speak to the education that's required. Oh, oh, who's being muzzled in terms of educating Canadians about our electoral system? Ah, the Chief Electoral Officer. And how is that being done? Bill C-23. And how is that being dealt with? Rammed through the House, rammed through the committee. The tyranny of the majority, that's what's going on here.

We're going to keep repeating that over and over, as much as I can, as many different ways as I can find to allow it to be said, because this is a bad bill and it hurts Canadians. We believe it affects the rights of some Canadians to vote. That's why, as annoying as all this is—and trust me, nobody is more annoyed at hearing me than me—

Statements by the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville — Reference to Standing Committee

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

Mr. Speaker, in the course of the debate, ever since the Speaker's ruling that this House is currently aware of two completely contradictory statements before us and that we should, in his view, clear the air by allowing this to go to committee, I have been wondering why the response from the Conservative members, such as from the hon. parliamentary secretary, has been to suggest that this is some sort of punishment and that somehow we will be penalizing people for coming to this place and telling the truth. I would think quite the contrary lesson would be learned, which is that members are at their peril if they try to tell us something when they know it is not true and they later tell us that they are sorry and that it was not true.

I accept that the hon. member has apologized. He is also a friend of mine. I am not interested in destroying his reputation or taking away his voluntary achievements or his accomplishments as a member of Parliament.

However, I would like to know why on two occasions we were told that there was this actual eye-witness evidence of voting fraud, which is the substance of and at the heart of taking away the rights of Canadians in future elections, in Bill C-23, when, in fact, nothing of the sort occurred.

I think we need to get to the bottom of that, and I do not know how we do it by cutting off debate and ending this today.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

An example of a representative of that group would be—I'm sorry, I said Joanne, and I apologize—Jonathan Champagne, who is the national director. Jonathan completed his undergraduate education in business administration at Wilfrid Laurier University. Throughout his academic career he was heavily involved in student government and student representation. There is a good chance that he probably ran for a local election, maybe on the student council, and probably has a good understanding of some of the basics of fairness—which is our issue—including one year as chair and chief governance officer. Clearly, here is somebody who understands youth issues and student issues but also understands administrative matters and governance. He sounds like a perfect kind of person to come to talk to us about how Bill C-23 will either help or hinder students in voting. How could that be a bad thing? That's why we put it in our motion. We said that this is the kind of witness we should hear from. In my view, this just adds more strength to the argument that my motion should be carried. I'm making the case that it's a good idea.

We also make reference to specific groups that have been active in society on election rules and groups representing persons with disabilities.

We mention Samara specifically. The executive director of Samara—this is new news, so I hope Mr. Reid is writing this down—Alison, previously worked at McKinsey & Company and co-founded Canada25, an organization that successfully involved thousands of Canadians under the age of 35 in the development of public policy. For her public service work with Canada25, Alison was chosen as one of “Canada's Top 25 under 30”.

Do you remember those days, Joe?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are convinced that the member misled us. What is more, the Speaker's ruling shows that the Speaker somewhat agrees with our position. As I said, and as my colleague mentioned in his comments and questions, the fact remains that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville did not simply present us with misleading or erroneous information, to put it politely and in parliamentary language. The facts he presented to us are directly related to the bill and were used by the government to support this bill that seeks to change the very basis of our democracy.

As much as I respect my colleagues, the controversial nature of these amendments and the controversy raised by this electoral “deform” bill show that the debate among members may not be enough.

I think that it is therefore all the more important to send this issue to committee to understand the accusations the member made. He retracted his comments, saying that he had heard about this happening, but there is a lot of confusion surrounding the issue. Did he see it happen? Did he hear about it from someone else? Did someone in the Prime Minister's Office tell him to say that? Did the government base the bill on that information? We believe so, but we must really examine the issue and find out more so that we have the correct information when we vote on Bill C-23. As I said, and it bears repeating, we are talking about the very basis of our democracy.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

All right, I'll make sure you have lots of time to do that, Chair.

It seems maybe it's important at this time to read my motion because we're getting points of order about things I'm raising, which as far as I'm concerned any commonsensical, practical, fair-minded approach would say that while I may be giving an awful lot of detail, as I said earlier, there's nothing in the rules that says you have to give a fascinating speech or that you have to be riveting. It has to be relevant, but if it's relevant to the actual motion then it's in order. Even if it's x number of hours.

Again to remind colleagues, a motion can never be out of order, I wouldn't think. To read my own motion:

That the Committee, upon receiving an Order of Reference from the House concerning C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, initiate a study on this legislation....

I guess we could even have gotten cute and said we'll travel as a study, rather than as a bill. Maybe that would have kept us out of some hot water, I don't know, probably not. “...which will include the following”. And there are three points: three, just three, but three. One: “That the Committee hear witnesses from, but not limited to,” and then we go on to mention them and I shall. But right away anything to do with witnesses should be in order. I'm not talking about how to make a widget and I wouldn't be talking about last summer's vacation. I'd be talking about witnesses. And that's the motion. So again, “That the Committee hear witnesses from, but not limited to, Elections Canada, Political parties as defined under the Canada Elections Act, the Minister of State who introduced the bill...”

And it's interesting, Chair, that the government can be oh so ever cooperative when it suits them, i.e., they wanted to get their minister here and we agreed when they said they were going to give some consideration to holding public hearings. We agreed to allow the minister to come without any problems, no procedural things, and that's exactly what happened. The minister came in—

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this motion on the point of privilege regarding the member for Mississauga—Streetsville is such a strange situation. We usually like to start our speeches by saying that it is an honour to rise in the House, and it is an honour, but it is sad to be speaking to a subject like this one.

My colleagues from all parties spend a lot of time going door to door, visiting organizations, participating in events and talking to their constituents. We are no strangers to cynicism and negative comments about the work that we do as MPs and politicians. As elected members of Parliament, part of our job is to change that reputation and show people that we can have a positive impact on our communities and on their daily lives. We hope to earn their trust after an election, regardless of the circumstances of the election, whether we had a hard-fought win or we came in on a wave, like the orange wave in Quebec. We all have a responsibility to earn the trust of our constituents.

It is very troubling when members do things or say things that mislead the House, as in the case before us today. This situation is worthy of being examined, especially since it is related to Bill C-23, the electoral “deform” bill. This bill will change the very foundation of our democracy. Some aspects of the bill are very worrisome, and the public is not necessarily aware of them.

I want to expand on that point. When we rise to speak during debates in the House of Commons, we are not necessarily doing so just to convince our colleagues. We certainly hope to convince some of them, but at the end of the day, we rise to speak not only on behalf of our constituents, but also to them. We communicate ideas, try to help them understand the bill and, in most cases, share our thoughts on the bill and how our party feels about it.

When we debate a subject and try to explain a bill as complex and important as the one that amends the Canada Elections Act, we have to make sure that people know the real story. When a member actually misleads the House, and therefore the people we represent—those from Chambly—Borduas in my case—and all Canadians, that is extremely troubling.

My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley said it well: if we look at the situation, we realize that the intervention by our colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville was clearly made with the intention to mislead the House. First, it has to be said, the statement was made not just once, but twice, at two different times. Obviously we are all aware of the time we are talking about the most, which was February 6, in the House. I was here and we were all surprised to hear such a thing. However, since the member said the same thing twice, the three conditions were met. You, yourself, said so in your ruling yesterday, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member was aware of what he was doing, he intended to mislead the House and this was not really a mistake.

Yesterday, the Conservatives gave some interesting speeches—and that is being kind—and we are hearing the same things again today: the member is fair and honest. He simply misspoke and he has apologized.

As I said in the House yesterday, a mistake is forgetting someone's birthday, someone you have not seen in a long time. Mixing up the name of a riding such as Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, which is long and complex, that is a mistake. It is an easy mistake to make when speaking in the House, especially if one is trying to speak without notes.

However, when someone stands in the House—as a member duly elected by the people, I dare say—and that individual states, with confidence and certainty, that he has seen a crime committed in his riding, that is a very serious accusation.

That is a far cry from mixing up numbers, a name, a date or any other information. We realize that the member was willing to come back to the House and have his remarks corrected in the Hansard. However, I doubt that the government, which proudly claims to be tough on crime, would be willing to forgive other criminals who simply apologized. I am not saying that the member opposite is a criminal, but he did commit an unforgivable act in the House, one that could be considered contempt of Parliament. That is what we are discussing today.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said that there was no contempt, that we have all of the facts and that there is no need to study the issue in committee. However, during question period, when the Minister of State for Democratic Reform was asked how many cases of fraud were the same as those identified by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville in the House, he said that there were some, but he did not say how many or provide any details.

The minister is not able to provide clarification, but it seems that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville can. He corrected his statement, but that led to a lot of confusion. We therefore need to clear things up in committee.

It is essential to say things that are accurate. Nobody should mislead the members of the House and much less the people of Canada. This is very serious, because this is not a routine bill. In the past, the Canada Elections Act has not been the kind of thing that gets changed frequently. The changes proposed by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform are especially significant because they had to be put forward following a series of accusations and deeply disturbing scandals. In this case, we are talking about robocalls, but there was also the in-and-out scandal and the very serious Liberal scandals, such as the sponsorship scandal.

People are worried, and with good reason, about how elections are conducted. This bill was introduced long after a motion moved by the member for Toronto—Danforth, if memory serves. The NDP asked the minister of state for democratic reform at the time to introduce a bill within six months.

Not only has all this time been spent on introducing the bill, but false statements were made that misled members. This illustrates the bad faith shown by this government, which has the gall to defend the member in question.

Ms. Therrien, for instance, stood up to disclose factual things about employment insurance. There are other situations in which public servants may have made mistakes, and this has created a difficult situation for the government. In each of these cases, the government did not hesitate to publicly destroy those people's reputations. The Conservatives did not hesitate to put the blame for a difficult situation on public servants, instead of accepting that they were elected to form a government and assume their responsibilities.

It is interesting that the government is not treating a member of its own caucus the same way, after he acted inappropriately by misleading the House and Canadians. We would have hoped that the government would show its own members the same hard line that it shows public servants and other Canadians who sometimes do difficult jobs. There is a double standard here.

We in the NDP sometimes engage in overheated rhetoric in the House. We are all guilty of that. At the end of the day, however, we are talking about the truthfulness of the facts. We are talking about misleading the House. That is what the member did, and it needs to be studied at committee. It is not an exaggeration to say that our democracy depends on it. After all, this bill aims to deform—or reform, as the minister would say—our election laws. We really need to examine this issue and have a much higher standard for the members of this House.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, thank you.

One of the other reasons I mentioned Bill C-15 is because of the reaction of the....

Well, you check your little marks there, Chair, and that's fine.

But the fact remains that I said at the outset when I mentioned Bill C-15 that I had a number of different aspects of why it was relevant and I think I have done that and I am going to continue to try to do that.

Why do we want the meeting outside of Ottawa? Well, we also want to make sure that the local media have a chance to be present here and talk about how it relates to the particular community that the newspaper or radio station or TV station would cover. I have examples of that.

The Northern Journal wrote this about the meeting, and I think it's germane because this is the sort of thing we're looking for when we travel on Bill C-23. There is nothing in the rules that says I have to give a fascinating speech. It just says that I have to be relevant and I believe I am being relevant when I talk about the media coverage of that meeting and its importance to the work of the committee on Bill C-15 and its relevance to us because we would like to see that same kind of coverage and that same kind of local analysis of how this bill affects every Canadian, even those who live outside of Ottawa.

For instance—and I am quoting from the Northern Journal—about that meeting they wrote, “The GNWT and Aboriginal governments will have their final say on the Devolution Bill during next week's hearings”. It's nice that they're getting their say. Continuing the quote:

A packed agenda of divergent Northern interests promises a long day of hearings for the federal standing committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on the NWT Devolution Act, or Bill C-15, next week in Yellowknife.... Kicking off the meeting will be the Aboriginal parties to the devolution deal, including Tlicho and Sahtu and Gwich'in governments, some of which have expressed their unhappiness with the federal government's move to lump changes to the NWT's regulatory system with devolution. Apart from devolving powers over lands, water and resources to the territory, Bill C-15 also proposes amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, MVRMA, which include amalgamating the existing regional land and water boards established through land claims into one overarching superboard.

That's the kind of coverage they got beforehand. What's interesting is that the follow-up media was just as intensive. I'm going to have to come back to that because I don't have it right at my fingertips. I will come back to that point, Chair, because I know you want to hear the end of that story. I'll ask my staff for some assistance in getting the news articles from Yellowknife for me, please.

I will move along to continue talking about witnesses. We have outlined a number of witnesses in our motion because there are certain people we do need to hear from. As we saw with Bill C-15, these things are best handled in a democratic way when everybody who should be there, is. One of the witnesses we would like to call is National Chief Shawn Atleo, because we believe the bill could have a negative impact on aboriginal people. That speaks to my comments that I have made earlier about how voting is different in different parts of the country.

Certainly, the first nations—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Actually, I got to Yellowknife when I was at Queen's Park, before I came here. It's a very beautiful city and it would be a great place for this committee to go because we now know that if my motion was adopted, this could be one of the places we go to. I want the members of the government to know that it looks like a pretty secure place. I know they were very frightened of going out on the road and having Canadians say impolite things on their placards outside of a meeting. And remember, this is the government that considered the input of Canadians to be a gong show and a circus. I just wanted to mention this, specifically. That's why C-15 provides a great opportunity for me to show direct comparisons between what my motion is requesting this committee do, and exactly what another committee did in the same situation not more than two months ago.

I'm talking about the witnesses. Who did they have, relative to C-15, so that we can be sure the people I've listed in my motion are important and relative to our bill, C-23, in the same way these witnesses were? Right off the bat, as much as it makes no sense for us to be dealing with this without the input of the Chief Electoral Officer, the very first person that the committee.... By the way, the proper name, Chair, is the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and I apologize to that committee for not having it at the tip of my fingers.

The first witness for the government was the Hon. Bob McLeod, who is the premier of the Northwest Territories. He brought legal counsel, James Fulford, and Shaleen Woodward was the assistant deputy minister. There were representatives there: the Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew, former member, chairperson; Frank Andrew, the grand chief; and Daryn Leas was there as his legal counsel. You can see the kinds of people they invited, Chair, are directly related to Bill C-15, and that's why my motion—

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons of what the Speaker's ruling said on this matter.

I think it is important that we remember that we have had a ruling from the Speaker. It is not a matter of opinion. The Speaker said, “At the same time, the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements”.

The Speaker then went on to rule, based on a previous decision from the previous Speaker of the House, the hon. Peter Milliken, who said “...if only to clear the air”. If only to clear the air, the Speaker ruled that we could delve deeper into getting the truth of what occurred.

The last shambles of a discussion was a diversionary tactic. As important as the motion is that the House deal with the report of the committee that looked into the matter of unresolved issues of injustice to Jewish refugees, I agree with members who said that it was a cynical ploy and not worthy of those who have championed the cause of Israel and Jewish refugees in the past.

However, as we look at this issue right now, we have not cleared the air. I have questions, and I am very fair-minded. I have stood in this place and defended the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville. However, I do not understand how such very contradictory statements could be made, particularly on an issue as fundamental as the right of Canadians to vote, the issues raised in Bill C-23, for which we have not a scintilla of evidence that we have a crisis in Canada of voter fraud. The only evidence brought before the House was that from the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville, which he has now admitted was not true. We are left in a conundrum of no explanation, and time is running down the clock.

It appears that the Conservatives do not want us to do what the Speaker said we had a right to, what Peter Milliken said a House has a right to, which is to clear the air.

The air in this place is polluted with diversionary tactics.

41st General Election

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from residents from the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. They are calling on the government to bring forward a full inquiry to get to the bottom of the attempts to defraud voters in the 2011 election. The petitioners point out that each one of these efforts was an offence under elections law. Now that the administration opposite is moving forward on Bill C-23 to have a registry of robocalls, perhaps it would also be interested in getting to the bottom of who caused them in the last election.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The honourable member just broke the hearts of an awful lot of Canadians who thought they would only have to listen to me for a maximum of two hours. So be it. We are where we are. Good thing I made a pit stop on my way, and we'll see where we end up.

We last left off, Chair, talking about of course our motion. I had assured you that I was very much aware of your mandate as the chair to ensure that my comments remain within the parameters of the motion. I've had some people over the last few days ask why I am not talking more about the bill, and the answer to that is, the second I start talking about the content of the bill, you're going to be all over me, Chair, because at that point I would no longer be talking about the actual motion that's in front of us and would have sort of slid into debate.

Being respectful of your mandate and knowing that you want to keep us all on track, I will endeavour...and have laid out my thoughts in a way that I think continues to respect the rules and the boundaries upon which we can speak to any given motion.

So, where to begin. Such an embarrassment of riches in terms of things to talk about. I think the first thing I'd like to do maybe is talk a little bit about the mandate of the committee, because the motion, of course, is always predicated on the work of the committee.

An understanding of the mandate and the rules of the committee is an important part of understanding the essence of what we're trying to do with our motion. And I remind everybody that our motion is actually very straightforward, and the part of it that is giving the government the greatest amount of trouble is the part where we talk about talking to Canadians, going out into the communities and giving people a chance to have a say about their election law in a way that's meaningful. We believe, in the NDP, in the opposition, that we should be getting out of the safety and security of the Ottawa bubble, and that we should be giving Canadians an opportunity to voice their concerns. And many concerns there are, and I'll get to that part later.

I will be speaking about some of the roles of the committee chair. I will also be talking about what took place not long ago in Yellowknife, where there was another piece of legislation. The discussion, in some ways, Chair, is that the House of Commons, as a rule, normal procedure, doesn't necessarily travel on every bill. It's more commonplace when we do studies.

But the fact remains that although it may not be the usual process, it is not unusual to the extent of being rare or an extreme stretch of the rules that a committee would travel on an actual bill. Of course, we have the evidence of Bill C-15. Just at the end of January, on January 27, specifically, they were in Yellowknife holding hearings—wait for it—on a bill. So any argument that what we're suggesting is an extreme aberration or is stretching the rules or the credulity of members in terms of what's normal is specious. It is in fact a permitted, useful, important tool for committees to travel on certain bills when it's necessary.

I remind the members of the government, through you, Chair, that we already tried to do this in a way that was amicable, that would involve everybody with the least amount of politics, and the government refused. What I'm referring to is when we asked that the bill be sent directly to committee after first reading, and the government—again, you know the kinds of games they play—got up and made speeches: “Well, clearly, the NDP doesn't want to debate the bill because they've already made a motion, or indicated they wanted to send it off to committee.”

Once again it's the government playing fast and loose with the truth.

The reality is that it is a mechanism that is in place to permit members of the House of Commons, through their committees, to start discussing a bill without as much politics. Here's why.

Normally what happens is that the first reading, as a rule, is pretty perfunctory; you stand up, read the bill, it's accepted, there are a couple of formalities, and boom, it's in the system. The second reading is where we're voting in principle; it's at second reading where the parties tend to start locking in. The government stands behind their bill; they're not going to stand up at second reading and start talking about problems with the bill or things that need to be changed, that will happen at committee. They're not about to start that kind of a discussion on a bill without recognizing that they have to stand behind the integrity of their bill. After the second reading, that's when it goes to committee. The problem is that we've already locked in politically; the opposition parties have been pressed by the media about whether they are in favour of this. People get asked if they're in favour of a bill sometimes before it's even finished being introduced to the House. Are you in favour of it, or are you opposed to it? It's the nature of politics in the modern-day communications era.

What happens is parties move quickly, oftentimes without the opportunity to do the kind of in-depth research that one would like to, especially if it has you going, later on, that the position we took in the beginning now that we understand it a little better we have to massage it, and so on. There's a whole political thing around that, and it's the normal way of doing things, and it serves us well in most cases. There are times, however, and this should have been one of them, when...much like we finally are doing on Ukraine, after the embarrassment for the government of being so petty last week as to send a non-unity delegation to a country that needs to be united. We will not let them forget that; it was a sad moment in this government.

I hear you, Chair. Thank you.

We're past that now and we're working together. That's my point; now we're where we should be as a House on the question of Ukraine. Whether we stay there or not depends on how we go forward. But I know that we're all going to do everything we can to stay united around that. Why? Isn't it political? Of course, it's political, it's hugely political, it's arguably the most political question on the planet right now. But the fact remains that some things are so important that we have an obligation, as difficult as that is—it seems easy from the outside—and we need to get above that. From time to time, we have to have the ability to rise above the politics of the moment for a bigger cause. In this case, the cause is the freedom that Ukrainians are fighting for in terms of their country. In this case, what we're talking about is revamping all of our election laws.

Chair, it seems to me that if ever there was a useful time for the House of Commons and the members to act in a unified way, and to try to find a set of rules that everyone can live with.... I use the example of the Olympics, and I think it's a perfect example. No one country set the rules for the games at the Olympics. It wasn't the host country, it wasn't the biggest—being the United States—it wasn't those that won the most medals, it was everybody, and everybody got a say and everybody knew the rules were fair when they went into it. It's clear, not only from the bill...and we see that now, and we'll see it more as we get into it, but we also see it in the way the government acted, Chair. The first chance they had in the House of Commons on this bill after they neglected to consult with any of the political parties and even the Chief Electoral Officer.... How outrageous to bring in an election law. It's insulting to bring in a new election law, and the Chief Electoral Officer was not even consulted. It was pretty clear to us from the get-go that this government was not interested in trying to rise above politics, in trying to have a fair, level playing field for everybody.

They talk about that when they talk about trade issues. They don't want to talk like that when we talk about our election laws.

So it was pretty clear to us, Chair, right from the beginning, that this government's only intent is that by Canada Day they want this law. Quite frankly, they're prepared to take any criticism that I can give, that my colleagues can give, that the public might give, that the media may bring down on them. They are prepared to pay that price in exchange for an election law that tilts the rules in their favour. That's where we are.

Our attempt to bring us back to where we should be, if that can be done this late in the game, was to use a mechanism...in fact, the mechanism was so effective federally that when I was at Queen's Park we brought in a similar rule to have that tool available to us. I can remember specifically that we were dealing with mental health reform. We used that mechanism. It was the first time ever. Norm Sterling, a good Progressive Conservative from Ontario, deserves credit. For the longest time he liked this rule, and when he finally became the House leader he brought it in. He adopted it from the rule that we have here. Again, that rule is that once the bill has been introduced at first reading, rather than then moving to second reading—and as I said people start putting political skin in the game—and having to vote, that you send it off to committee before anybody's locked in on anything. Why? Because it gives everybody the latitude to talk about going in any direction because they haven't pre-locked themselves into a position, either deliberately or inadvertently, by virtue of the words that are chosen at the time.

Councillor Brad Clark in Hamilton was the minister responsible. He wasn't minister then, he was parliamentary assistant, but he did such a good job that in the next round of promotions he was promoted from a parliamentary assistant—as they are called at Queen's Park as opposed to parliamentary secretaries here—to a full minister, the Minister of Labour. He did a great job. The process worked. It de-fanged all the politics. It neutralized everything and then when the bill landed, clearly the government was saying by virtue of their words and their actions that they wanted to see if they could build collectively as good a bill as possible, given the issue: it was mental health. There was no desire to play politics with mental health. There was a need to make things better, to fix some things. Everybody felt that commitment, and it was good work.

I still think one of the reasons Brad got into cabinet was because I, and my good friend the late Dominic Agostino, an absolutely outstanding elected representative, were so good at praising him that we convinced the premier. To be fair, part of it was we wanted a regional minister. We didn't have one in Hamilton. The closest was Burlington, and we didn't consider that to be hometown, and we really wanted and needed a minister from the area, so we had an ulterior purpose. Nonetheless, we still couldn't have done it if councillor Clark, then parliamentary assistant Clark, hadn't done such an outstanding job. So we thought this was a great opportunity for this bill. That was our attempt to get the government to agree to send it here after first reading.

That would mean, Chair, that rather than getting all caught up in the politics, where we are right now—we're into the politics of things—rather than that, we would have gotten right into the issues. Why? Because we still had, if we needed them politically, the tools available when you eventually report back to the House, and you still have a second reading debate.

You still have a second reading vote, and you can still send it back to the committee if you want, with instructions, or you can accept the report and forward it to the minister. All of the options that were available before are still there. You don't give up any of them, but what you do is, you send it to a committee without all the politics, in the hope that making a good law would be the priority.

So how should this have been done? There should have been consultations with the opposition parties. There would have been, if it were a minority, I guarantee you. There should have been consultations, as there were in the past, Chair. This is not something new.

In the past when these kinds of changes were considered, the first step would be to talk to the opposition parties and let them know what you're planning, let them know that this is what you're going to do, and make it a collaborative effort. The second thing you would do, one would think, is ask the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada to come in and give you a briefing on what they think. Remember, still no politics.

I know that work can be done, because we've done it before. In fact, I just happen to have with me some of my notes from that work. You'll remember this, Chair. This is like a blast from the past. You probably have one yourself, framed on the wall as a souvenir of all those years when you chaired this. Remember these?

Remember this? This is a spreadsheet. What's fascinating about this is that it's headed up as “Mapping of the Chief Electoral Officer's Recommendations”. That report was on political financing. This gives you—you can see how it's laid out—what it's about. For the value, it says “trust” and then the subject matter, the current status of the law, the recommendations, and the desired outcome.

Committees of the House

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while my colleague seems to be on a bit of a roll this morning, unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand of refugees. He seems to be thinking that this debate happens to be about Bill C-23.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the member to come back to relevance and the issue before the House.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has precious few minutes, but she should probably at least talk about the question of privilege rather than Bill C-23.

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

Mr. Speaker, with great respect to my colleague, the question really goes to the substance of Bill C-23.

My colleague cited a statistic that is part of the tapestry of the lack of evidence. The idea is that one-sixth of voter identification cards are in error. It took us ages to figure out exactly what the minister had been referring to when he used that figure. Apparently, 84%, according to Elections Canada reports, are up to date and accurate in the sense that when those cards are sent out, they reach 84% of the people they are intended to reach.

However, what is the significance of the other 16%? It is that people who would have been alerted to the fact that there is an election do not receive them. That is a problem in the sense that it might mean there is much less of a chance that they are going to vote. However, it has no relationship to the potential for fraud, no relationship whatsoever, because the person receiving it has just moved into the house or apartment and does not know was living there before until maybe seeing this. What is he or she going to do with it? Is he or she going to somehow turn into a citizen fraudster because Elections Canada sent the wrong card and the person is going to forge a second piece of ID to use that with? No. That is why the one-sixth figure coming from the minister is itself inaccurate. It is a figure, but it is deliberately not helping people understand the reality. I will not use another word.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do apologize. I thought the concern was that I was using the rest of the title. I was simply trying to get it on record for the sake of the translators. It was not intentional. I was unfortunately too clear.

I was referencing Mr. Ling in this piece just for accuracy's sake. It basically said the minister has yet to explain why he feels there is a danger of citizen fraud. He said that the minister had not explained, and then he said:

...[the] MP for Mississauga—Streetsville, made an attempt during the debate. He told the House that he's seen campaign workers scoop up piles of voter identification cards and then hand them out to dummy voters, and then take them all to the polls.

...unless...[the member for Mississauga—Streetsville] is a superspy, and was stalking those campaign workers (or, unless it was his campaign that was doing it) that's entirely absurd and made up.

You still need a second piece of ID to use those voter identification cards.... It has not been, nor can it be, the sole piece of identification for a voter.

The government should get props for expanding the list of usable IDs, but they've utterly failed to explain why these two changes are necessary.

It was only in reading this that I realized there were some internal contradictions, because the voter identification cards can be used, and have been in recent times in 2008 and 2011, along with another piece of ID. They are a second piece of ID, and they are there primarily to show the address, but they also have the person's name on them.

Therefore the idea is that all of these cards are coming into some, say, apartment buildings; and people receiving them, living in an apartment where it is addressed to a previous tenant, cannot do anything with it because they would then have to say, “I have just been mailed this. It has Joe Smith's name on it and my name is Jim Brown, and now I'm going to have to go and forge some other piece of identity in order to use that card that I just received randomly in the mail, not addressed to me, and put those two together so I can go vote and commit fraud”. It is just completely implausible. So Mr. Ling has picked up on that.

Then the rest of what my hon. colleague was referring to in a couple of his statements, including later on February 13 in PROC, was speculating, because at that point the hon. member was talking about how this was an anecdote. He had heard this about others. He was no longer referring to it as something he had seen. He was talking about how these people must have been taking the voter ID cards in order to go and vouch.

They are two different things. In fact, the minister in his testimony, in response, maybe to this question or maybe to another person's question, made it clear that there are two different things going on. Voter identification cards would be prohibited by Bill C-23. They need a second piece of ID; they are part of formally identifying oneself. Also, vouching is something that occurs without ID; one person is entitled to vouch for another under certain conditions.

So when our friend from Mississauga—Streetsville was, in both his original statements and later statements, linking voter identification cards to their being used to vouch, it just struck me that none of it was accurate, quite apart from whether the eyewitness part was correct. Therefore, I stopped running around, as I had been doing that afternoon and early evening, trying to figure out how much evidence there was of what our colleague had said. I want to make clear that, in a very real-world way, I was misled because I believed the member.

What I believe is going on is probably best captured by my colleague from Saskatchewan, the parliamentary secretary, when he said something about our all going overboard and then, “That is how we are conditioned”. I have only been here for two years, but I honestly do not believe everybody in this House is conditioned to torque, if that is the verb we are now going to use from our friend from Saskatchewan.

We can make mistakes. We can exaggerate, but when we go to the level of telling an eyewitness tale twice on the same day and not thinking the second time that the first time was not right and asking ourselves why we are saying it the second time, then we are in another universe. The universe we are in is that, one way or the other, the minister sponsoring the bill has a severe deficit of evidence when it comes to his professed concerns about fraud, by way of risk or some actuality, because of the use of voter identification cards and the practice of vouching, he would have us believe. He has not been able to come up with one piece of evidence other than a comedy stunt from Montreal.

Therefore, some of his colleagues came to the rescue and said that we need evidence. What better evidence than anecdotes? If it is not them doing this on their own, it could have well have been that there was some kind of a situation where folks were told that they had been around for a while and if they could not prove it, they should just say it anyway and call it anecdotes. That is what we have been getting. If we go through the record of the very short debate at second reading on Bill C-23, it was not simply my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville who told his anecdote. That is what I am going to call it now. It is an anecdote that he misrepresented initially as an eyewitness account and later at committee indicated was an anecdote.

At some level when we are told to help create an evidentiary basis where there is no evidence, it creates the conditions for someone to step over the line. I went on record before the media a couple times saying I am not prepared to say this was a lie. It was a clear misleading. It was untruthful. I was being fairly harsh, but I said maybe he was just hallucinating, just fantasizing. However, one way or the other he was being stoked by the need somewhere to help the government provide evidence for the fact that it turned Bill C-23 into a bill that makes ordinary citizens a source of fraud in our elections and puts in deep second place organized fraud such as the sort that we do know has happened in our recent history through the activities or databases of at least one political party.

It is indisputable that Bill C-23 has turned everything on its head. The huge focus in it is on somehow cleaning up this problem of irregularities that then get spun as creating the risk of fraud. Initially the minister would have had people believe that irregularities were fraud until he realized that people caught on early that it was not a good connection to make.

My view of the statement that we are all conditioned, from my colleague from Saskatchewan, who I do really respect, is that I will accept that we are conditioned to act in a partisan and sometimes overly partisan way, but I have a very hard time accepting that there is some kind of universal conditioning of us as the elected representatives of Canadians to come anywhere close to uttering the inaccurate words of our friend from Mississauga—Streetsville.

It is very important to know that this is not a minor misleading. I am not here to just talk about the fact that I set off on a path to try to figure out how much truth there was in it. It was partially corrected, 19 days later, because the retraction did not retract everything he said. I will come to that if I have time.

The fact of the matter is that this statement single-handedly would have created the impression, once it was reported, and it was reported among many Canadians paying attention, that there was that kind of problem he presented.

He was an eyewitness, a member of Parliament, to people taking voter cards that had been discarded, probably because they were mis-addressed or someone was so upset with our political system that they had no intention of voting, or something along those lines, and somehow ending up at unnamed campaign offices and handing those out to unnamed individuals. Then, at that point, the eyewitness stuff stops and there is some supposition that they are then used to vote, with the mistaken association between that and using the card for vouching, which I have already explained would be a mistake.

Huge confusion was created by that statement.

I realized this only because I happened to read Mr. Ling's paragraphs that told me that this did not work internally and that it was therefore probably not true. For some 19 days, journalists and Canadians were paying attention to this and wondering how true or not it was. It was serious.

I have to add that it does not make it a whole lot better that two weeks later, 17 days later, our colleague in PROC transformed what had been an eyewitness story into an “I have heard” story. It was really just a matter of saying, “Okay, I'm going to stand my ground. I should have told this as an anecdote. However little evidence there was for it, I am now going to tell it as an anecdote.” He did not just give it a rest and say he had said something extraordinarily inaccurate and step back and not keep digging with his example, especially as a member of PROC, which was considering the bill. He did not.

I think it actually helps to circle back on the fact that, on the government side of House, one way or another, MPs are being encouraged to live in a world of anecdotes to try to give some evidentiary foundations that are not there for a decision by the current government to prohibit the use of voter identification cards and vouching.

It is not a small thing. The figure that everyone in the House probably can recite by heart is that there were 120,000 instances of vouching in 2011.

People may not know there were over 800,000 uses of the voter identification card by seniors and residents of long-term convalescent homes, and by something like 75,000 by aboriginal persons on reserve. Moreover, of the students who were given the opportunity, in a whole series of campus experiments, 62% of them used that opportunity to use the voter identification card as a second piece of ID.

In no instance that I am aware of, and I would love to hear the evidence to the contrary, was there any hint that in any one of those virtually one million there was any fraud. There was not one hint or instance of the one million Canadians using voter identification cards having somehow been involved in fraud.

That goes to what I was saying earlier. Unfortunately, the words of our colleague, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, did have an impact because they made it look as if that enfranchising practice by Elections Canada was subject to fraud. Elections Canada had determined that it would start using, on an experimental basis, in 2008, which it then expanded in 2011, voter identification cards as a second piece of ID because it was the easiest way, in some instances, to show an address.

However, the member, in one fell swoop, undermined that whole system and indirectly created confusion because the average person had no idea that a voter identification card could not be used on its own. He created confusion, as well, when he somehow indicated that the single card had something to do with vouching, which it had nothing to do with.

I will end there by just going back to my original point, which is that the Speaker has made a correct ruling that this does need to go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We are all owed a more fulsome explanation than we have received.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do believe right from the get-go that it is very important to recognize that to intentionally mislead the House of Commons is against our rules and to do so would be in contempt of Parliament.

It is very important that we make it clear what the member stated. I go back to February 6, and this is what the member for Mississauga—Streetsville stated:

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit about this vouching system again. I know the minister represents an urban city. I am from a semi-urban area of Mississauga, where there are many high-rise apartment buildings. On mail delivery day when the voter cards are delivered to community mailboxes in apartment buildings, many of them are discarded in the garbage can or blue box.

I am about to read the important part that needs to be highlighted. This is exactly what he said on February 6:

I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.

That is what the member stated. That is not a misspeak. This is during very important legislation, Bill C-23, in which the government speaks right from the Prime Minister's Office, as much as possible. Things coming from the Prime Minster's Office are consistent, and this particular member perhaps fell a little bit outside of the speaking notes, and he gave what was at that time, he believed, an accurate statement.

Let there be no doubt that it would have misled individuals if it turned out not to be true. He said that back in early February. I found it very interesting that a few weeks later he stood up to apologize to the House. That was on February 24. He stated at that point:

...I rise on a point of order with respect to debate that took place on February 6 in this House regarding the fair elections act.

I made a statement in the House during the debate that is not accurate. I just wanted to reflect that fact that I have not personally witnessed individuals retrieving voter notification cards from the garbage cans or from the mailbox areas of apartment buildings. I have not personally witnessed that activity and want the record to properly show that.

On the following day, a matter of privilege was raised. On behalf of the Liberal Party, I had the opportunity to respond. I will go to exactly what I said when I addressed the issue of the matter of privilege on behalf of the Liberal Party. I said then:

We should get more clarification from the member on why he waited so long to apologize. Is it because Elections Canada approached the member after reviewing what he said? It is a very serious allegation. Did the member share his concerns with Elections Canada prior to raising them here in the House?

It seems to me that the reason the member stood yesterday is he felt that his statement in the House was going to be looked at seriously by Elections Canada and other stakeholders because the accusation that he made during second reading was serious. There was illegal behaviour within that election which the member would have been aware of, if we believe what he said actually took place.

That is what I said in response to the matter of privilege.

The following day, a story appeared in one of the media outlets. I believe we should give credit where credit is due. I will take this as allegations or concerns raised through a media report. It comes from Stephen Best, the chief agent of the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada. He complained to Canada's Chief Electoral Office, Marc Mayrand, about Mr. Butt's claim and was told the case would be referred to the Commissioner of Elections Canada.

I have a quote from that particular article. He said:

“I have asked that EC’s records to be searched to see if the matter of possible fraudulent voting had been brought to our attention either here at HQ or at the Returning officer office for Mississauga—Streetsville. I have also forwarded your information to the Commissioner of Canada Elections for his review and independent consideration of any possible action that may be warranted”, Mr. Mayrand replied, according an e-mail provided by Mr. Best. Mr. Best made the complaint on Feb. 7, the day after Mr. Butt spoke in the House of Commons.

I posed the question to the parliamentary secretary. Straight up, did Elections Canada, the commissioner, or anyone from within Elections Canada, contact the member in question? The parliamentary secretary had indicated that he was not aware of it and that he did not talk about it.

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville should come clean on this issue. We should afford him, as much as possible, the opportunity to approach the PROC committee, on which I sit, in an open fashion and come forward. It would be good to have Elections Canada come before the committee as a witness. It might even be appropriate to ask Mr. Best to come before the committee. What we are interested in is getting to the truth of the matter at hand, which is whether the member for Mississauga—Streetsville intentionally misled the House.

When I look over the information provided to me, with the experience that I have acquired over the past number of years as a parliamentarian, I believe that there are grounds for us to have a thorough look at the matter and ultimately come up with some consensus. I want to underline the word “consensus”. We recognize that the government has a majority. We need to achieve consensus in the procedures and House affairs committee in a manner in which we can deal with this in order to come back to the House.

There is so much more that I could talk about. There is the whole issue of the lack of confidence that Canadians have in what we are currently debating at committee today, regarding the fair elections act. That is the legislation that the member was talking about.

We have some very serious issues. We trust and have to have faith that when members stand in their place, they are in fact reporting accurately. I know that, at times, innocent mistakes will be made. I would suggest that this goes far beyond some sort of innocent mistake. That is what it would appear to be. That is why we in the Liberal Party support the motion going to the PROC committee. We would like to ultimately see this issue dealt with as quickly as possible.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Is it distasteful from time to time? It certainly is. Is it personal? Many times it is. Do the members on our side do the same? Yes, we do.

Since the Chair has not found the member to have lied, even though my colleagues opposite keep trying to tell that tale, they perhaps should stand up and set the record straight, because the Chair did not find the member for Mississauga—Streetsville to have deliberately misled this House; in other words, he did not find that he had lied, merely that the committee should take an examination and try to clarify the comments surrounding his statements of February 6.

While I know the opposition wants to convince Canadians that there is some nefarious reason behind the comments of my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville, I would purport to you and everyone else in this place that he merely did what so many of us have done previously: in the heat of debate, he had simply gone overboard.

There is no excuse for that. We do have a responsibility to speak accurately. However, if there is anyone who can stand in his or her place today and say that in his or her entire career in politics he or she has never torqued a comment, never exaggerated a claim, never perhaps gone a little beyond the pale when it comes to making comments during debate, let that person speak now, because that will be the first person that I have found who could make that claim, and I have been in politics an awfully long time.

That is how we are conditioned. That is what we do. It is not right to do so. The member for Mississauga—Streetsville recognizes that, first and foremost. No one else had brought this forward before my colleague stood in his place in this chamber and admitted to the House that what he said on February 6 was not accurate. He apologized for his comments. He set the record straight.

My friend the opposition House leader said that he should not be congratulated for that. I agree. However, at the very least, he should not be condemned for setting the record straight. He did what every responsible member of Parliament should do, which is that when one misspeaks in this House or says something that is not accurate, the member has an obligation to come back and correct the record. My colleague did that. As I pointed out, he did so earlier at committee, when the Minister of State for Democratic Reform appeared.

How can we talk about motivation? My friend opposite talks about motivation. He wants to explore motivation. It is quite simple. We work, live, act, and react in a hyperpartisan environment. There is certainly enough blame to be thrown around on all sides of the House. The opposition will obviously say that this partisanship, this mean-spirited environment and culture we seem to live in these days, is caused by our government. Arguments can be made to the opposite. Again, the members opposite who seem to be doing most of the heckling seem to be the ones who are most prone to making these personal, vitriolic, sometimes hyperpartisan attacks during question period. That is the environment we live in. It is unfortunate.

As a bit of an aside to this, I recall when Jack Layton, the former leader of the NDP, first came to this place as the official opposition leader. He pledged that his party would bring a new sense of decorum and respect to this place. Unfortunately, that did not last very long. I had great admiration for Mr. Layton, as did most of us in this place, and I wish that spirit of decorum and respect that he talked of was evident today. I think this place would be a better place for debate.

However, on the issue that is before us today, I simply state once again what we know. The member misspoke. He came back to this place and admitted that he had not spoken accurately on February 6. He apologized for his comments and not speaking accurately. All of the facts are now known and before us.

This has happened many times in the past in this place, and there have not been findings of contempt in all of the times that I have been here when a member has stood in this place and apologized.

Apparently that is not sufficient for member of the opposition. I can understand that. Opposition parties are trying to score some political points here, and I do not begrudge them that. It is what opposition parties do. They opposed Bill C-23, the fair elections act. We understand that. We understand that they are trying to do everything in their power to delay, obstruct, or perhaps even kill that piece of legislation. I get that. However, that is what I believe is truly behind the motion we are debating today.

If we want to talk about motivation, let us ask what the motivation is for the point of privilege that was first raised, which is to delay discussion of the fair elections act at committee as long as possible.

Mr. Speaker, as you well know, we have here a debate that is procedurally unlimited. No legislation will be brought forward as long as we are debating this point of privilege.

I was somewhat surprised, frankly, that when the motion was made to refer this matter to committee, the opposition did not put a deadline on it, because that would have perhaps forced this question of privilege to be dealt with immediately at committee, which would then further delay any attempts at examination of Bill C-23. Perhaps they will bring an amendment forward to try and do just that. However, that is the motivation that I see, and that is what is driving this debate today.

In conclusion, I agree, and I believe my colleague the member for Mississauga—Streetsville would also agree, that if one does not speak accurately in this place, records should be corrected. If one does not speak with accuracy on any point, whether it be legislation or during debate, it should not be tolerated. However, when is it right to punish someone for correcting the record? When does one become a victim for speaking what one needed to say, which was to correct the record?

I do not think we will be getting much reasoned debate from members opposite on this point. However, I think it is imperative to at least put on the record what we do know: there was no deliberate misrepresentation in the eyes of Chair; the reference to committee was simply to try to clarify and determine exactly what the member said and why he said it.

On that we agree. However, for anything else to be said or to say that there was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent is simply not the case.

Statements by Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 25, 2014, by the House leader of the official opposition regarding statements made in the House by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

I would like to thank the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House and the hon. members for Winnipeg North and Kingston and the Islands for their comments.

I also want to acknowledge the statements made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

In raising this matter, the hon. House leader of the official opposition claimed that the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville had deliberately misled the House on February 6, 2014, during debate on Bill C-23, the fair elections act, when he stated that he had witnessed evidence of voter fraud firsthand. He further argued that the matter was not resolved by the statements made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville on February 24 and 25, where he admitted that, contrary to his original claim, he had not actually witnessed what he had originally claimed to have witnessed. In his view, this was not a simple case of someone misspeaking; he argued rather that it was a case where the member deliberately chose to take something he knew not to be true and present it as eyewitness evidence—something so egregious, it constituted contempt.

The hon. leader of the government in the House noted that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville had fulfilled his obligation to correct the record so that no inaccuracies persisted. He suggested that in and of itself this should be sufficient to “...rebut any concern that there has been a contempt”.

This incident highlights the primordial importance of accuracy and truthfulness in our deliberations. All members bear a responsibility, individually and collectively, to select the words they use very carefully and to be ever mindful of the serious consequences that can result when this responsibility is forgotten.

In calling on the Chair to arrive at a finding of prima facie in this case, the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition cited my ruling of May 7, 2012, where at page 7650 of the Debates, I reminded the House that, before finding that a member had deliberately misled the House, three conditions had to be met:

...one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making in the statement, the member intended to mislead the house.

Arguing all three of these conditions had been met, he concluded that a breach of privilege had occurred.

It was with these criteria in mind that I undertook a thorough review of all relevant statements made in the House on this matter, focusing particularly, of course, on the statements made by the hon. for Mississauga—Streetsville.

Originally, on February 6, he stated:

I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.

Later that day, he added, “I will relate...something I have actually seen.”

It was only on February 24 that he rose to state:

...on February 6...I made a statement...that is not accurate. I just want to reflect the fact that I have not personally witnessed...[fraudulent activity]...and want the record to properly show that.

On February 25, he returned to the House, characterized his February 6 statement as “an error on my part” and apologized “to all Canadians and to all members of the House”, adding that, “It was never my intention, in any way, to mislead the House”. The Chair takes due note that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville has admitted that his February 6 statement was not true and that he has apologized for his mistake.

As was noted by the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, we all recognize that there is an enduring practice here of giving members the benefit of the doubt when the accuracy of their statements is challenged. It is often the case that questions of privilege raised on such matters are found to be disputes as to facts rather than prima facie questions of privilege, primarily due to the high threshold of evidence that the House expects.

Speaker Parent stated on page 9247 of Debates on October 19, 2000:

Only on the strongest and clearest evidence can the House or the Speaker take steps to deal with cases of attempts to mislead members.

From what the member for Mississauga—Streetsville and other members have revealed, it is quite clear that the House has been provided with two narratives that are contradictory statements. At the same time, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville stated that he had no intention of misleading the House.

Speaker Milliken was faced with a similar set of circumstances in February 2002 when the then Minister of National Defence, Art Eggleton, provided contradictory information to the House. In ruling on a question of privilege raised about the contradiction, Speaker Milliken stated on February 1, at page 8581 of Debates:

I am prepared, as I must be, to accept the minister’s assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House.

In keeping with that precedent, I am prepared to accord the same courtesy to the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

At the same time, the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements. This is a difficult position in which to leave members, who must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties.

Accordingly, in keeping with the precedent cited earlier in which Speaker Milliken indicated that the matter merited “...further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air”, I am prepared in this case for the same reason to allow the matter to be put to the House.

I therefore invite the hon. House leader of the official opposition to move the traditional motion at this time.

Bilingualism in Canada's Legislative Process—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 6, 2014, by the member for Sherbrooke regarding a technical briefing offered by the Minister of State in relation to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke for having raised this matter, as well as the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, the hon. House leader for the official opposition, and the members for Ottawa—Vanier, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, and York South—Weston for their interventions.

The member for Sherbrooke explained that, at the technical briefing he attended on Tuesday, February 4 on Bill C-23, the interpretation provided was often inadequate and, as he described it, “[a]t times, there was little or no interpretation or it was of poor quality.” This, he felt, had the effect of preventing parliamentarians from participating fully in subsequent debate on the bill.

The member went on to note that the protection of official languages in the House is fundamental to ensuring equality among all members.

For his part, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform recognized that no professional interpreters were present for the briefing, but claimed that parliamentarians had been provided all information in both official languages, including the presentation, information sheets, press releases, and the bill itself.

As has been pointed out by the member for Sherbrooke, the guarantee of access to and use of both official languages in parliamentary proceedings, in the record-keeping of those proceedings and in legislation is no less than a constitutional requirement—a cornerstone of our parliamentary system. As your Speaker, it remains one of my principal responsibilities to ensure that members are not impeded in their ability to carry out their parliamentary functions and that their rights and privileges are safeguarded.

In the case of official languages, the House has a long-standing practice of ensuring the availability of professional interpreters during House and committee proceedings. Indeed, this practice extends to many other activities, such as caucus meetings, briefings or any number of parliamentary activities and events. In such cases, if interpreters are not present, the activity is delayed until they arrive, or, if they are not available, the activity is rescheduled. Likewise, if a technical problem arises with the equipment, proceedings are suspended until the issue is resolved. Members will be familiar with this as it has sometimes happened here in the House.

To the Chair's knowledge, during government-sponsored activities, similar norms are observed. This is illustrated in a case brought to the attention of the House on October 23, 2013, when a technical briefing on a budget implementation bill was organized but cancelled when it became apparent that no simultaneous interpretation was available. In the Debates for that date, at page 303, the government House leader apologized to the House, and stated that:

...arrangements have been made to reschedule this meeting and to hold it properly in both official languages with that capacity available for everyone. It is certainly the expectation of this government that all business be properly conducted in both official languages.

Clearly, in that case, the government viewed the absence of professional simultaneous interpreters as a serious matter.

When a situation is brought to the Chair’s attention, it must be assessed within the somewhat narrow confines of parliamentary procedure and precedents. In this case, the member for Sherbrooke is asking the Chair to find that problems with interpretation prevented members from being able to access departmental information and that this constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege.

To arrive at such a conclusion, the Chair must assess whether the member has been obstructed in the discharge of his responsibilities in direct relation to proceedings in Parliament.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2nd Edition, at page 109, states:

In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member's claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament.

In addition, at page 111, it indicates that:

A Member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means. In ruling on such matters, the Speaker examines the effect the incident or event had on the Member’s ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary responsibilities.

The question before the Chair is simple: does attending a departmental briefing that was delivered without full interpretation meet that litmus test? Speaker Parent's ruling of October 9, 1997, is very instructive, when he states at page 688 of the Debates:

...activities related to the seeking of information in order to prepare a question do not fall within the strict definition of what constitutes a “proceeding in Parliament” and, therefore, they are not protected by privilege.

Today's case is analogous in that, whether a member is seeking information in order to prepare a question or to participate in debate on a bill, the same fundamental definitions and principles apply. Whether a member who is preparing to participate in proceedings—whether through a technical briefing or some other means—is not participating in the proceedings themselves. While such preparation is no doubt important, it remains ancillary to, rather than part of, Parliament's proceedings.

Furthermore, in this case a government department is responsible for the situation which the member decries. On this point, Speaker Bosley stated on May 15, 1985, at page 4769 of Debates:

I think it has been recognized many times in the House that a complaint about the actions or inactions of government Departments cannot constitute a question of parliamentary privilege.

My own ruling of February 7, 2013, reached the same conclusion, when at page 13869 of Debates, I stated:

It is beyond the purview of the Chair to intervene in departmental matters or to get involved in government processes, no matter how frustrating they may appear to be to the member.

The Chair must respect the strict confines of parliamentary privilege in reaching its decision. Therefore, while it appears that the hon. member for Sherbrooke has a legitimate grievance, the Chair cannot conclude that this situation constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege.

That being said, this decision does not diminish members’ need for full and equal access to information about legislation nor does it discount the value placed on the provision of such information in both official languages.

While I cannot provide the member for Sherbrooke a privilege-based parliamentary remedy to his grievance, he may wish to explore other means at his disposal by direct discussions with the minister or raising the matter with the Commissioner of Official Languages.

I thank the House for its attention.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, people I spoke with about the unfair elections act expressed deep concerns that Conservative changes could make it less likely that new Canadians will vote. Instead of empowering immigrant communities, the proposed changes in Bill C-23 to remove the ability of Elections Canada to educate risk disenfranchising these Canadians.

Why will the minister not listen to these kinds of concerns and abandon his plan to gut the ability of Elections Canada to educate and engage?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, according to the former chief electoral officer, the bill is an A minus. The committee, of which all parties have some membership, can work together to turn it into an A plus.

As to the issue of the investigator, he is the watchdog, and the fair elections act would give him sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. That is what Canadians have asked for. That is what the fair elections act would provide.

Business of the House

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise on behalf of the official opposition to ask the government what it has planned for the House for the remainder of this week and next week.

Specifically, this week we are continuing to see the government's refusal to allow the committee studying Bill C-23, the unfair elections act, to travel, consult, and meet with Canadians and hear from them about their own democratic process. The homeless, first nations, seniors, and new Canadians are all groups that will have their ability to vote limited.

We now see the spectacle, as you have witnessed, Mr. Speaker, and we look forward to your ruling, of the government backbencher who tells tales about the phantom menace of vouching, in a ludicrous effort to give his government some backup on this bad bill. He also, at one point, suggested that Canadians could use death certificate identification to vote. That was one of the suggestions he had. These are strange conclusions. I will leave it at that, because this is the Thursday question.

When will the government actually put the member for Mississauga—Streetsville away on this file? He sits on the committee studying this bill, which is worrisome to all or many Canadians.

Finally, New Democrats are willing to confirm committee travel for all parliamentarians studying legislation and doing committee investigations if the government House leader is willing to confirm today that one of those committees, it could be the procedure and House affairs committee, could study and consult with Canadians on their democratic rights in Canada.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to budget 2014. The government's budget document was over 400 pages, but I must say that it is very thin on ideas and solutions.

The Minister of Finance speaks of returning to a balanced budget, yet this is the government that has created the largest deficit in Canadian history and has delivered eight deficit budgets in a row.

Under the watch of the Conservatives, more than $100 billion has been added to our national debt over the past six years. Their corporate tax cuts have resulted in over $200 billion in foregone revenue over the past six years. At the same time, they are failing to address high unemployment, especially among youth, and record levels of personal debt.

When we talk about managing the economy, Conservatives and Liberals like to sling mud at the NDP, but when we look at the actual numbers, New Democrat governments have the best record of delivering balanced budgets.

New Democrats have a progressive vision for our country, one that promotes a strong economy without compromising social or environmental prosperity. We believe in creating good quality jobs, protecting public health care, providing affordable child care, and protecting our environment. We believe that seniors should not have to work an extra two years before they are eligible to retire. Our vision is affordable and inclusive.

Government revenues would increase by reversing the Conservatives' corporate tax cuts, by creating value-added jobs here at home instead of shipping our jobs and resources overseas, and by ending subsidies to highly profitable oil and gas companies. It is about priorities and prosperity for all Canadians, not just the ultra-rich and well-connected.

This year's budget has been criticized as a Conservative re-election strategy: Do nothing this year, then roll out the goodies before next year's election. It contains many re-announcements of previously committed funds, especially on infrastructure.

My riding has one of the highest commuter rates. Traffic congestion is a daily reality, and infrastructure has not kept pace with our transportation needs. I fought hard to ensure that the Evergreen Line would finally be built, but more work remains. Sewers and waterlines need upgrading, bridges need replacing, and we need more sidewalks and walking paths. The government continues to expect cities to do more with less, to pay for transit infrastructure with uncertain and limited gas tax revenues.

Our region is one of the most unaffordable places to live in Canada. I am disappointed that the government is not addressing affordable housing in this budget. Housing is a basic need, and affordability affects us all, from mortgage rates and property values to the limited supply of quality rental suites. I am concerned about those living in co-ops who rely on a federal subsidy to help pay the rent. Many of these subsidies will soon expire, leaving residents with limited options.

Community groups that provide housing for the homeless and other vulnerable members of society are concerned that the new criteria for the homelessness partnering strategy may prevent them from accessing federal funding.

Housing for those who require mental health care is a concern for many in my riding. We cannot continue to let Riverview Hospital deteriorate before eyes. We need a vision for this site that preserves the land for public use and that addresses the lack of mental health housing in the region.

In this year's budget, the Conservatives continue their assault on public servants and labour unions. They are going after employee compensation through bargaining, focusing on disability and sick leave, despite a PBO report confirming that public sector sick leave is actually in line with the private sector.

Just before Christmas, many Canadians were shocked to learn that Canada Post intends to end door-to-door delivery service, increase the price of stamps, and lay off thousands of employees. These cuts will certainly affect seniors and people with reduced mobility. They also raise mail security issues.

Conservatives seem to think that this is a great idea. Canada Post's CEO even suggested that it would give seniors a chance to exercise more. Only a New Democrat government would defend workers, the middle class, and our most vulnerable.

British Columbia has the unenviable distinction of having one of the worst rates of child poverty in this country. It is not acceptable that one in five children lives in poverty.

This callous response by the government is on the record: “Is it my job to feed my neighbour's child? I don't think so”.

Adopting a poverty reduction plan with targets and a coordinated set of policies is the only proven way to eliminate poverty. However, this requires political will. The government could wipe out poverty among seniors with the stroke of a pen by simply increasing the guaranteed income supplement. Instead, seniors face rising costs on everything from prescription medications to electricity bills.

Last weekend, a team of volunteers joined me in a neighbourhood canvass to talk with their neighbours about affordability issues. People told us that they are feeling nickel-and-dimed to death.

The NDP has put forward simple, practical solutions to help make life more affordable. We believe that the government should regulate outrageous credit card processing fees that eat into small business profits. It should cap ATM fees, which are among the highest in the world. It should crack down on predatory payday lenders and prevent companies from charging customers a monthly fee just to receive a paper copy of their bills.

Many Canadians are unaware of the existing benefits available to them. After hosting a seminar on the disability tax credit, my office helped one family claim $5,500 in a tax refund it was entitled to.

I have also assisted small businesses in accessing government funding for innovation. Small and medium-size enterprises drive our economy and create the majority of new jobs in this country. However, with nearly 300,000 more people unemployed today than before the recession, the government is simply not doing enough. It should be helping SMEs to succeed, not hindering them.

Another NDP proposal for this year's budget asks the government to reinstate the popular ecoENERGY home retrofit program. This program is a win-win. It saves families money, creates good quality jobs, reduces energy consumption, and more than pays for itself in economic spinoffs and tax revenues.

Last weekend I was on the doorsteps. I had several conversations with constituents about Bill C-23, the unfair elections act. They are alarmed by the Conservatives' cynical approach, which they feel will bring American-style politics north.

The Conservatives' scheme to overhaul Canada's Election Act reeks of a government that puts political interests ahead of the national interest. Bill C-23 aims to make it harder, not easier, to vote by scrapping voter information cards and eliminating the vouching system. It restricts Elections Canada from promoting the very act of voting, leaving that responsibility to political parties.

At a time when voters feel alienated from the democratic process, the Conservatives are moving to disenfranchise even more people from their right to vote. Canadians are asking for real electoral reform, not blatant partisan attempts to tip the scales in one party's favour.

I have long held the position that Canada should adopt an electoral system of proportional representation to ensure that voters' expressions are better represented. I was speaking to concerned citizens in my riding last week from Fair Vote Canada, who raised this very issue.

I also continue to hear loud and clear from constituents who are fed up with paying for an unelected, unaccountable, and still under-investigation Senate. New Democrats believe in abolishing this archaic institution and focusing on making Parliament work for all Canadians.

The NDP's vision for our country is one that promotes economic stability without sacrificing social or environmental prosperity. We need a government that understands the realities of today and that is willing to tackle the tough challenges of tomorrow. We need a government that agrees that it is our responsibility to ensure that future generations have clean and safe drinking water, healthy rivers and oceans, abundant wild salmon, and a stable climate.

In conclusion, while there are some positive elements in this budget, I cannot support a budget so thin on ideas and solutions.

Democratic Reform

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the fair elections act gives voters the option of using 39 different types of identification. We will obviously work with voters to ensure that they are able to vote.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During debate on Bill C-23 on February 6, I stated in the House that I had witnessed an event that had taken place with respect to voter information cards.

After reviewing the transcript in the blues, I recognized that this was an error on my part. Today, as I did yesterday, I withdraw those comments from the debate portion of my opportunity to speak on Bill C-23 on February 6.

I was referring to information that was relayed to me many years ago when I worked in the rental housing industry, but it was not first-hand knowledge; it came from second and third parties. I raised this at the earliest opportunity yesterday when the House resumed after its week-long break.

I would like to sincerely apologize to all Canadians and to all members of the House for the statement that I made. It was never my intention, in any way, to mislead the House, for which I have the greatest amount of respect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Great. Often we have the Clerk and the Speaker. Our supplementary estimate would be for Parliament, usually. I haven't read the supps, so I can't tell you for sure what it is this time, but it usually is that.

That's the best advice I can give you at the moment. I look forward to your talking with each other and coming back.

That's pretty much all of the committee business I wanted to get out there. We will return the floor to Mr. Christopherson on Tuesday, after we return from this weekend, and we'll hopefully get to scheduling this committee's work on Bill C-23 at that time.

[Marc Mayrand]

Again, that's provided by the legislation. I guess it's reasonable in the context that these workers work in pairs. They are appointed by.... There is a check and balance built in.

I would point out something which I will raise in another forum. Bill C-23 goes much further. That's the bill that proposes to reform the Elections Act. That would be a concern for me because, from now on, under the new bill, poll supervisors will be appointed by the party that won the riding in the last election. Poll supervisors oversee what's happening at the polls, and they are resource persons to those workers who work in teams. Again, I'm not sure, in reading this in the context of this piece of legislation, how they would fit with one another.

On one hand, this bill requires the utmost non-partisanship on my part and the part of all agents of Parliament. On the other hand, another bill builds an element of partisanship into the system. I'm not sure how we're going to deal with that in the future.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you. Metaphorically. Mr. Reid is such a help.

To help you, I want to restate, for probably the umpteenth time—but I'd rather be restating this offer than my version of hammering my shoe in my hand to get the attention of this government—that I, or another representative of this party, am available 24-7 to respond to an overture from the government to sit down and try to negotiate a fair compromise.

Now, when I say the word compromise, as someone who is an old—you know, that used to be just an expression, now it's more descriptive—negotiator from way back, I get the fact that we're not going to get everything we're asking for because that would be a different approach, and we could have taken that one: we're going to stand on this, and it's this or nothing. But, no, my leader was very clear. My marching orders were to do everything possible to get a fair process in place. We were not only to do that, but were to be seen to do that, which is why I have put every card on the table along the way, no games. I haven't spun anything.

When the parliamentary secretary and I began our discussions off-line, as people knew we were doing, they started very positively. I've done other negotiations with the parliamentary secretary and I can't think of a time we didn't find a way through a dilemma, a compromise we could both live with, and the other parties as well. Then it stopped. I don't know why. Obviously I wasn't told, but it certainly felt like the iron curtain of the PMO coming down and saying, “This is over”. So in negotiations, I entered those negotiations and I didn't think I'd come out of here with everything. I had no expectation at all that I'd be going back to my leader and saying, “There you go. Got it all signed, sealed, and delivered. Won everything.” No, I didn't expect that at the beginning of those discussions. Neither should the government, however, believe that a negotiation means that they get their way and we stay here, hidden in plain sight in the capital. No. The purpose of negotiation is that everybody gives a little bit.

Would we get all that we wanted, even though we're fighting for Canadians' rights everywhere? Any time you make a compromise, you run the risk that one of the opposition parties is going to come after you because they accuse you of not staying the course, and not being strong enough, and strident, and principled, yada, yada, yada. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

It's not as important as this bill. We are prepared to take that hit, if you will, by not getting all that we're asking for. But, Chair, that kind of an approach requires two parties, not just one. So the government would have to accept, for at least some of the time, that this committee studying Bill C-23 would be outside the safety and security of Ottawa and would be in the communities where people live.

What is that number? How many? That's what we would negotiate, Chair.

This is my dilemma for you, Chair. Unless and until the government indicates that they're prepared to be reasonable, it's hard for me to give you the reasonableness, as you see it from your perspective, that you would like from me, which is to just shut up, stop talking, and let things go on. But you see, Chair, the problem right there is that the government is insisting that it's their way.... I was going to say, “It's their way or the highway”, but actually they won't go to the highway, so maybe you can think of something more clever than that. But it's their way or no way.

You want me to hurry? Are you serious?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

My colleague is telling me I could teach logic. That makes my heart sing. I hope my mom is watching. She'd be thrilled to know that someone like you would think that, because she still hasn't gotten over the fact that I left high school in grade nine. Well, it's my mom, and I don't blame her. It's a good thing my daughter wasn't that stupid.

However, back to the point. I have to stay on the point. I want to play, Scott, but the chair is going to keep me on the point.

I think the point was, if I can remember that complex formula again.... I'm not very good at this stuff. There was a bill about the Northwest Territories. The committee studying the bill went to the Northwest Territories to give the people who live there and who are affected by it a chance to have their say. By extension, we're suggesting that BillC-23, being studied by PROC, should actually go out into the country and give the people who are affected by the bill their say. I think that was it. That was the complex, radical, over-the-top, obstructionist idea that those maniacs over in the official opposition came up with. I think that connection can be made. Then again, I could be wrong. But it seems to me that there is a direct connection.

Where does that leave us, as we get down to less than the last half-hour of this fun meeting? Where does that leave us? Maybe it's time for a recap, Mr. Chair.

A recap would suggest that we have a motion in front of this committee. The witnesses we've asked for—I'd be shocked if that's controversial. I may eat those words, but my assumption is that if we can get a process nailed down, then that's the toughest part. Usually, at this committee, and at most committees I've been on, Mr. Chair, under your leadership, once we've crunched where, when, and how long, who is usually fairly straightforward. Reasonable people come to a reasonable conclusion, and fairness guides it. It works. Imagine that—Canadians, eh?

That really is not the key part. I put it in there because I worry about what they might do if we don't. But that's really not the key focus today. It's not the controversial part. It's the next part.

Just to remind us all, what was that request again? This is in the motion:

That the Committee request to travel to all regions of Canada, (Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Northern Ontario, the Prairies, British Columbia and the North), as well as downtown urban settings (such as the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver) and rural and remote settings, and that the Committee request that this travel take place in March and April 2014.

If we were to do that, Mr. Chair, here's what could happen. I know you've been putting the pressure on me as the spokesperson for the process on this, with my colleague Mr. Scott being the key lead on the bill. You've asked me to get us to the business part as quickly as possible. You're doing everything you can within the rules to cajole and encourage. I know that if you could, you'd reach out and bat me one on the ear, just to try to get me to....

I respect that, Mr. Chair. I understand where...except the bat on the ear. I wouldn't respect it that much. But it was a nice turn of phrase, I thought.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We will call our meeting to order, meeting number 17.

We are here on the orders of the day of Bill C-23, which is before the committee.

I will remind the members that we are televised today and we are doing committee business of course. Mr. Christopherson has the floor, but before he takes it I would like to ask if we can get to committee business today, please. We are here as a steering committee trying to plan our study of Bill C-23, and I ask Mr. Christopherson to start but remember we'd like get to this piece of legislation one day.

Mr. Lukiwski, on a point of order, we're starting early today.

Statements by Member for Mississauga—Streetsville

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the chamber when the original comments were made a few weeks ago and then yesterday when the member stood in his place to provide clarification.

It is important to recognize that members often stand up and make accusations that someone has misrepresented the facts. Over the years of being a parliamentarian, I could safely say that on at least a dozen or so occasions a member has said one thing, with the intent to leave an impression, but then had those comments thrown back at the member and raised in a matter of privilege to say that the member originally misled the house.

I want to go back to the specific statement on February 6 that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville made, and I will quote directly from the document, which states:

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit about this vouching system again. I know the minister represents an urban city. I am from a semi-urban area of Mississauga, where there are many high-rise apartment buildings. On mail delivery day when the voter cards are delivered to community mailboxes in apartment buildings, many of them are discarded in the garbage can or the blue box.

However, the following is the important part, which I think we have to take note of, and I am quoting the member directly:

I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.

This is not just an off-the-cuff comment. This is a very serious allegation.

We know that there is a great deal of debate on Bill C-23, the fair elections act. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that you will likely find that Elections Canada, among others, is following the debate. Therefore, as the NDP House leader has already articulated, and which I will reinforce, one could question why a couple of weeks later, yesterday, the member stood up inside the chamber and stated:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to debate that took place on February 6 in this House regarding the fair elections act. I made a statement in the House during the debate that is not accurate. I just want to reflect the fact that I have not personally witnessed individuals retrieving voter notification cards from the garbage cans or from the mailbox areas of apartment buildings. I have not personally witnessed that activity and want the record to properly show that.

I would like to highlight two things.

One is that, having commented on many matters of privilege related to misrepresentation, I have heard numerous Speaker rulings, which say that all members are hon. members and one has to be able to clearly demonstrate that the misrepresentation was intentional.

It is very difficult to narrow down what would be a privileged issue on this particular point of misrepresentation. A member of Parliament would have to intentionally mislead or lie and then admit to intentionally misleading and lying, and to say both, inside the chamber, in order to qualify as a violation of our rule of misrepresentation, which is in fact what we have here. It is unique in terms of the privileges that I have seen raised over the many years I have been a parliamentarian.

Let there be no doubt that it was not an offline comment. This was seriously articulated by the member. He stated that he saw individuals with take-out voter ID cards who then used them in an illegal fashion. It is very clear. I understand that he implied that on more than one occasion. We should be looking seriously at that.

Let me add a second aspect to this. Earlier I made reference to Elections Canada. We should get more clarification from the member on why he waited so long to apologize. Is it because Elections Canada approached the member after reviewing what he said? It is a very serious allegation. Did the member share his concerns with Elections Canada prior to raising them here in the House?

It seems to me that the reason the member stood yesterday is he felt that his statement in the House was going to be looked at seriously by Elections Canada and other stakeholders because the accusation that he made during second reading was serious. There was illegal behaviour within that election which the member would have been aware of, if we believe what he said actually took place.

I am very curious, and I am sure many members are curious, about what the member actually saw. He tried to correct the record, but he did not provide very much detail. Did he see some of the voter cards in the blue bins and just left them there? Did he see anyone approach the blue bins? Did he see some people pull out the cards and throw them in the garbage? Did he follow to a campaign office the individuals who pulled out those voter cards? A lot of questions need to be answered.

I would suggest that this issue is a matter of privilege. I would also suggest that the member come forward and articulate more details or appear before PROC to answer a series of questions on whether he violated our rules.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do rise on a question of privilege. I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 48(1).

It has been demonstrated that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville has deliberately misled the House. Given the seriousness of the matter, it is my duty as a member of Parliament and House leader for the New Democrats to bring the matter to the attention of the Chair and to the House. Members of the House are well aware of the rights and immunities afforded to parliamentarians, so that they may carry out their duties as members of Parliament. However, for the sake of clarity, let me remind my colleagues that on page 65 in Erskine May' s Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, “parliamentary privilege” is defined as:

...the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively...and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions....

What I believe we are looking at here is a contempt of Parliament, one that is an offence against the authority and dignity of this House, one that chips away at the foundation of our parliamentary democracy and the requisite for healthy and honest debate. This is a serious charge. We take it seriously. We would insist that the government also do so.

Let me take a moment to provide the House with an account of what has taken place. In hearing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will ask you to find that the grounds exist that this is a prima facie contempt of Parliament, at which point I will be prepared to move a motion to have the matter referred to the appropriate committee for further study.

Yesterday morning, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville rose in the House and said the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to debate that took place on February 6 in this House regarding the fair elections act.

I made a statement in the House during the debate that is not accurate. I just want to reflect the fact that I have not personally witnessed individuals retrieving voter notification cards from the garbage cans or from the mailbox areas of apartment buildings. I have not personally witnessed that activity and want the record to properly show that.

Let us take a look at what it was that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville said in the debate on February 6 while the House was debating the government's unfair elections act at second reading, under time allocation imposed by the current government. It seems clear-cut to me and to others that the member was providing misleading statements in the House, given what he told the House just yesterday. In a question for the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville said:

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit about this vouching system again.... On mail delivery day when the voter cards are delivered to community mailboxes in apartment buildings, many of them are discarded in the garbage can or the blue box. I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.

Does the minister not believe this kind of thing will get cleaned up properly with this bill?

Later in the day, the member rose again to mislead the House during the questions and comments portion of his own speech. He said:

Earlier this afternoon I asked the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification a question. I think my friend from York South—Weston will appreciate this because, just like the riding I represent, there are a lot of apartment buildings in his riding. I will relate to him something I have actually seen. On the mail delivery day when voter cards are put in mailboxes, residents come home, pick them out of their boxes, and throw them in the garbage can. I have seen campaign workers follow, pick up a dozen of them afterward, and walk out. Why are they doing that? They are doing it so they can hand those cards to other people, who will then be vouched for at a voting booth and vote illegally. That is going to stop.

The context of this, and why this is equally important to the fact that the member misled the House, is that he misled the House to justify the reason his government has brought in its unfair elections act. He has brought evidence forward as a member of Parliament, whom we take on faith as telling the truth when he does it, saying this is the reason the government has brought in this bill, to end the vouching system that some tens of thousands of Canadians use properly, by claiming there is evidence of voter fraud that he has seen and witnessed and brought forth as evidence to this House. That is a serious charge. It is a serious charge and may sway members of this House to, in fact, support the government's legislation, when they ought not to if it were not the truth.

Members must know that they have the information needed to do their job well, which is to represent their constituents. The government wasted no time in passing Bill C-23 in the House at second reading by using a time allocation motion. Now, it is fast-tracking it through the committee stage without having heard from interested Canadians and members of civil society from across the country.

To think that it is somehow acceptable for members of the government to come into the House and make up stories as justification for the supposed merits of this terrible bill is totally ludicrous and should not be allowed to simply pass, by having the member rise more than two weeks after the fact, during a private member's business hour, and reveal to the House that this was all, in fact, untrue.

In his ruling on February 1, 2002, on a similar matter, Speaker Milliken stated:

The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House.

The authorities to which Speaker Milliken was referring include, but are not limited to, the following: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which states, on page 115:

Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.

Page 63 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May states:

...it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.

Erskine May is even more precise when a member later admits that the statements he or she made were not true. On page 111 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 22nd edition, it states:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of grave contempt.

Mr. Speaker, on May 7, 2012, and in a handful of rulings since, you have stated the following regarding the conditions that have emerged surrounding misleading statements in the House, which I will cite:

It has become accepted practice in this House that the following elements have to be established when it is alleged that a member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House.

That is a clear and high bar to prove all of those three conditions in order to find a contempt of Parliament: that the statement has to be untrue, that it has to be established that the member knew it at the time to be untrue, and that when making this untruthful statement to the House, the member was intending to mislead the House. This seems to me a very straightforward case, and I am sure all members of the House would agree.

The first of these conditions has been met, since the proof that the statement was misleading comes directly from the member himself when he admitted that what he said on February 6 was false. The second condition has been met since the statements in question have to do with what the member of Mississauga—Streetsville did or did not personally witness. On February 6, he told the House that he was relating something to the House that he had actually seen and then yesterday told us he had in fact not seen these things at all. What we are talking about is voter fraud, something very serious and not casual.

The third of these conditions has been met since there can be no other explanation as to why the member for Mississauga—Streetsville made the misleading statements that he did over two weeks ago, other than to deliberately and intentionally mislead the House on an important piece of legislation that affects all Canadians. He clearly intended to mislead the House by fabricating a story and then tried to use it to justify why members should be voting in favour of the Conservatives' unfair elections act.

Members of the House will remember a case in 2001-02 in which my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, among others, argued that Senator Eggleton—who was defence minister at the time—had deliberately misled the House. It happened during question period, when he was responding to questions regarding how much he knew about when exactly prisoners captured by Canadian troops in Afghanistan were transferred to the Americans.

Speaker Milliken ruled that there was a prima facie case of privilege and referred the issue to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for further study.

After hearing a former clerk of the House, Bill Corbett, testify about the issue, the committee indicated the following in its 50th report to the House:

...it is not uncommon for inaccurate statements to be made in the course of debate or Question Period in the House. The issue is whether the statements were made deliberately, with the intent of misleading the House or its Members. In the case where a Member later admits to having knowingly provided false information...the issue of intent is clear.

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that last sentence because it is important in satisfying the conditions you have set out.

In the case where a Member later admits to having knowingly provided false information...the issue of intent is clear.

We are at the point in the life cycle of the current Conservative government where it seems to be out of gas and spinning its wheels. Bill C-23, the unfair elections act, is creating solutions to problems in our voting system that do not exist, when the real problems of our electoral system have often been the ones the Conservatives have perpetrated on the Canadian public.

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville went so far as to make up a story to try to persuade members to vote a certain way on this flawed bill. Time and again, the Conservatives' lack of judgment and these types of dirty tricks are exposed. However, despite all of this, instead of changing their behaviour to fit the rules of the game, they are changing the rules of the game in order to fit their bad behaviour.

In a ruling on October 19, 2000, regarding misleading statements made in the House, Speaker Parent stated:

Only on the strongest and clearest evidence can the House or the Speaker take steps to deal with cases of attempts to mislead members.

Mr. Speaker, with the strongest and clearest evidence at out disposal, I would urge you to find that a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament has occurred, at which point I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion to have this case referred to the standing committee.

This bill is a contempt on the voting public. The member for Mississauga—Streetsville has performed a contempt in this House. It is a sad and perhaps tragic irony, but it is a fact. The conditions that this House has laid out—you yourself included, in your statements and rulings to guide all members in the way we conduct ourselves—are the conditions we have applied to this case. It is clear in all three of those very precise indications and tests that the member has misled the House knowingly, which is a prima facie case of contempt. The fact that he did it in a bill that is meant to disrupt and perhaps further erode the confidence of Canadians about our electoral system is tragic.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the only thing the Conservatives have managed to do today is avoid saying anything about the content of the motion.

The motion is not Bill C-23. The minister prevented us from spending more time debating that bill. Then he had the nerve to rise while we were talking about a motion to let the committee do its work properly after preventing us from engaging in further debate in the House. Maybe if he had been there when I expressed my opinion, or if others had had more time to say what they think about this issue, he would have the answer to his question.

I would advise him to read the motion, since he likes to tell us to read his bill. Our motion is a little shorter than his bill. He should read those ten lines and then tell us that what the motion proposes is anti-democratic.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to have the opportunity to speak to our opposition motion. First, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for York South—Weston.

I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion because I have already had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-23. I believe that it is important to point out that this motion is being brought forward on an opposition day.

It is an opposition motion, as the previous speaker, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, pointed out, and it concerns some very specific points in the very specific context of Bill C-23. Time allocation has been imposed to prevent discussions from continuing and to shut down debate. A time limit has been imposed in order to send the bill to committee as quickly as possible, which will prevent many of our colleagues from expressing their views on this matter.

Based on what I have heard today in the House, what is about to happen in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs may not be what I would call a great example of democracy.

When I arrived in Parliament for the first time, in 2004, I had the great pleasure, as a new MP, of sitting on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I recognize that there was a minority government, but that was another reason for us to work together.

I heard the member, who is the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tell us that the committee members usually work together quite well. I think it is important to explain why to the people in the House.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs belongs to all of us. This committee is responsible for ensuring that our democracy is healthy and is working well. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs deals with questions of privilege or the various issues that the chair is sometimes called upon to consider. In general, the members who sit on this committee realize that they have the very important job of ensuring that ours is a true democracy and that this democracy and our ability to speak in the House are not undermined. Our rules and procedures already do enough to enable the government to play hardball when introducing its bills.

We need to put this bill in perspective. It is not a matter of repeating speeches similar to the ones we heard on Bill C-23. I am sure everyone here had the pleasure of reading that brick of a bill.

I agree with the member who spoke before me. He said that the bill contained a lot of technical aspects. However, there are also a lot of substantive elements in this bill. I was shocked to hear them say with a straight face that the bill was all technicalities. I certainly do not think that figuring out how we can get people to exercise their right to vote is a technicality. Figuring out who will oversee how Canadians exercise their right to vote, how our elections are carried out and so on, is not a technicality. I think it is important to point that out.

Now we have a motion that was moved by my colleague from Hamilton Centre. As I was reading the motion, which starts with, “That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that...”, I could not believe that we were forced to move a motion in the House to obtain a right that I think should have been a sine qua non in Bill C-23.

I read the motion and saw what it was about. Sometimes, during discussions that take place in the committee I sit on, I have concerns about the daily exercise of a real democracy. When I hear speeches like the ones I have heard today and there is such a lack of discussion, I am extremely worried that this will extend to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

We all know how important consultations are. I realize that I can use Skype and my computer to consult people. However, absolutely nothing beats meeting people in person. It is not true that anyone who wants to voice their opinion of certain decisions that are about to be made can come to Ottawa and speak their mind.

Earlier, I heard my colleague talk about a trip taken by the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I was probably the only member of the committee who refused to go along. Is it right to travel to Australia, New Zealand, England or Ireland to study the changes in the electoral system, when we could read about them in a book by the wonderful Law Reform Commission of Canada?

It seems to me that, instead, we should go see what impact Bill C-23 will have on certain communities in Canada and certain groups that are targeted by some of the measures. We should talk with different groups, not just about the issue of vote suppression, which is extremely important and a major concern of the NDP, but also about the fact that this Conservative government thinks low voter turnout is a result of Elections Canada failing to do its job to promote the elections.

Last week, I went to my riding and talked with some people, including some young people from Nicolas-Gatineau composite school. There was a fundraising activity organized by Alexandre Guindon, a bright young guy in his final year of high school. We talked about the current state of Canadian democracy and how young people are not interested in voting.

If youth are disinterested, it is not because Elections Canada is not doing its job. It is because this kind of issue has been treated with such a cavalier attitude. We are faced with a government that does not pay much attention to the existing rules and then changes other rules. That raises some questions. The public is becoming somewhat cynical, and I am seeing that not just among young people, but among seniors as well. They are saying that voting is becoming increasingly complicated, that they no longer know what is required and that they have no desire to go vote. We need to meet with these people in their communities and reach out to them.

It is impossible to be against the idea and possibility of meeting with groups if none of them have made that request to the committee. It concerns me to see that the Conservative majority on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is standing in the way of openness and the full and appropriate exercise of democratic rights.

I am gravely concerned to see that this has spread all the way to this committee, because this is the committee that protects our privileges. If it is unable to protect Canadians, I wonder how capable it will be of protecting those who represent Canadians in the House.

Everyone should reflect on that for a minute. We were told to read the bill and we read it. Now, the Conservatives need to read the motion and realize that it will not bite. It simply says that Canada, a democratic role model for other countries on how to exercise the right to vote, should start by looking in the mirror.

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

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my hon. colleague for his intervention. I have been working with that member on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs from the very beginning.

When he speaks, he often raises excellent points. I heard many in his speech here today. I think some elements need a little clarification.

He told a lot of anecdotes, so I will also use a bit more of an anecdotal approach. Personally, for several years—I mean about four or five years—I lived far away from my parents while I was in school, and I never changed my address. I did not have any of the things that students are asked to have in order to vote where I was. I therefore always used vouching in order to be able to vote, since I lived a 10-hour drive from my parents' place.

I wonder if the member could explain how he can justify the fact that someone like me who is interested in politics would not have been able to vote in federal elections if the measures proposed in Bill C-23 had been in effect at the time.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to join the debate here. I have listened with considerable interest to the foregoing discussions, some of which, to be honest, seem a bit histrionic given the nature of the subject matter we are dealing with.

I have spent over a decade on the procedure and House affairs committee. Normally, people ask me how I manage to pull through on such an uninteresting committee and how I keep myself awake. However, as members can see, there is fun, travel, and lots of histrionics involved in all of this stuff, apparently.

The motion proposes to have the committee do three things with regard to Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

First of all, the motion proposes to hear witnesses, and it provides what I think is a very reasonable list of them:

…witnesses from, but not limited to, Elections Canada, Political Parties as defined under the Canada Elections Act, the Minister of State who introduced the bill, representatives of first nations, anti-poverty groups, groups representing persons with disabilities, groups representing youth advocates and students, as well as specific groups which have been active in society on elections rules….

It is all good, and I can think of others that I would add to that list.

The motion has three things, and I will drop down to the third, which is:

…proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill after these hearings have been completed, with a goal to commence clause-by-clause consideration for May 1, 2014.

This is probably a reasonable timeline more or less, and one could quibble over that. However, in general, I do not think it is an unreasonable timeline.

Then, in the middle of the motion, is to have the power

…to travel to all regions of Canada, (Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Northern Ontario, the Prairies, British Columbia and the North), as well as downtown urban settings… and rural and remote settings, and that the Committee request that this travel take place in March and April 2014….

As a member of the committee, I would get to join in on this road show. Putting aside the small quibble that I never considered northern Ontario to be a separate region of Canada on a scale with, say, Quebec, I find it to be a fairly reasonable layout of the different parts of the country we could go to. The trouble with travelling around this way is that it would not improve our ability to hear from witnesses who have worthwhile, intelligent things to say.

I had the good fortune to be on the last travelling road show of the procedure and House affairs committee about a decade ago. I think I am the last person still on the committee who was on it at the time we travelled, in that case, all over the planet to hear about ideas for electoral reform. We divided the committee into two groups. Some of us went off to Australia and New Zealand while others went off to Germany and Scotland to look at their electoral systems. We were looking at alternative electoral systems to what Canada had at the time, and still has.

I wrote about my experiences in an article, which I happen to have a copy of here, called the “Road to Electoral Reform” from the Canadian Parliamentary Review in the autumn of 2005, in which I made the following observation:

On February 1, 2005, committee members (including me) voted a travel budget of $289,695 for the European and Antipodean trips. Later, while the committee was abroad, one committee member…complained to the media about the large size of the travel budget.

It was not I who complained but a member who at the time was sitting as a Liberal and who now sits as a New Democrat. However, I concurred at the time and I still concur with the assessment that we did not get value for money on that occasion. I assume we can travel more inexpensively this time, were we to do so, than we did travelling all over the world.

For one thing, the committee insisted on travelling business class. I am sure we could all agree to travel coach, at best, and perhaps by some other means of locomotion. There was a fair bit of expense, partly because, as all such committees do, we had to ship translators, clerks, and all kinds of people, to make sure that we could function as a committee wherever we happened to be. However, it seems to be a lot of expense for not much benefit.

In the intervening years I have chaired the international human rights subcommittee. We hear frequently from experts who come from all corners of the globe by means of video conference. We have seen video conferencing vastly improve from where it was 9 or 10 years ago. We have people, not just from first world countries, but from other countries, who come in loud and clear. The fact is that we can hear from people from more or less anywhere without the need to travel, and we can provide them with simultaneous translation and so on.

Now, this is significant because we regularly hear from two different witnesses. In fact, the week before the break, we heard from one witness in Ottawa and another witness by video link at the same time We got two for the price of one in the allotted hour. We cannot do that when we are on the road, unless we also have video links on the road with us, which would be an additional expense. I cannot see how we would improve our efficiency with that.

The fact is that when we are dealing with issues like problems relating to urban groups, downtown areas, or remote areas of the country, we are going to get a lot of common issues. We are going to get distinctions too, and we will best see what those issues are if we have an interaction of the sort that can be done electronically. All of this can be done better without travelling than it can be done when we are travelling.

For example, there could be a goal to look at some form of infrastructure. If we were going to consider whether a new tunnel had to be blasted through the Rocky Mountains to accommodate a rail line, I could see the point of travelling. I cannot see the point of travelling for this sort of situation.

There was a very interesting case before the Supreme Court about a year and a half ago, in which a former Liberal member of this place, Borys Wrzesnewskyj, challenged the election of a current member of this place, the member for Etobicoke Centre. The Supreme Court heard the case, which had to do with whether it was legitimate for individuals at a seniors' residence that has closed access—these are the very elderly who have 24-hour care—and who voted in the absence of someone vouching for them, ought to have had their votes counted.

Interestingly, in that election it was the Liberal position that they should not have been allowed to vote because no vouching had taken place. That is the opposite of the position that is being taken today.

However, the interesting thing about this is that the Supreme Court of Canada held hearings in Ottawa and it was able to do so without having to travel to the site. Now that court and other courts have, on very rare occasions, travelled on location. Courts might do this sometimes for murder investigations, for example. However, in this case it did not feel the need because there was no need.

The issues that we are dealing with are issues that can be dealt with best by doing it here in Ottawa. That is a very clear example.

In the midst of saying this, I overheard a member pointing out that it was a split Supreme Court decision. That is correct. In fact, there was a majority and a minority. I am not sure how that relates to the question of whether it had to travel. First, good Lord, if we could not allow split decisions, nothing but unanimous votes could occur in this place, let alone the Supreme Court, so I cannot imagine what the member's objection is.

However, no one objected. No one on the Supreme Court, or anywhere else, objected to them holding these hearings in Ottawa. It was the best place to listen to these arguments.

I sometimes hear people using such extraordinary language in this debate that one would be left with the impression that they are talking about the kinds of civil rights abuses and voter rights abuses that took place in the American south prior to the 1960s.

I am looking at a petition that is available online where people are encouraged to write in about Bill C-23. It has made incorrect assertions.

Under Bill C-23, Voter ID cards will no longer be accepted. This will prevent thousands of students, seniors and Aboriginal people from voting.

Actually, under Bill C-23, the card that reminds people to vote will not be accepted as ID. That is very different from what is being implied here, that somehow people's identification would no longer be accepted. Of course, this would not prevent anybody from voting.

In the example I just gave of Borys Wrzesnewskyj saying that the current member for Etobicoke Centre should not be allowed to sit here, what he was saying is that we insist that individuals be deprived of their right to vote if they do not meet up with the highly technical definition, and highly restricted version, of their right under section 3 of the charter to vote. That is the position that the NDP has defended. The broader position that one has a right to vote has not been taken into account.

The NDP uses this kind of language. Here is another example from the same petition:

Bill C-23 makes it much harder for students, seniors, aboriginal people, and low-income Canadians to prove their right to vote, and will prevent many thousands of Canadians from voting.

The fact is that many people have distinct issues that can make it difficult to vote. These people include seniors, some of whom do not have the kind of ID that we often think of, such as a driver's license; students; aboriginals; and, I would mention, disabled people, particularly people with mobility issues.

I would add other groups to the list as well, such as people who have recently moved. The NDP motion makes no reference to people in suburbs. I guess I can see why the NDP has forgotten that the suburbs even exist, given the amount of electoral success it is having there. Recently constructed suburbs across the country have not been properly enumerated. In every election, this is where there are the greatest problems.

When I was first elected, I remember very distinctly that in Kanata, a suburb of Ottawa, Morgan's Grant was an area that had just been built. It is not new anymore, but it was in 2000. One polling station was set up, which included something like five or six times as many voters as any of the other polling booths at that location. The result was that after the poll shut, it took over an hour for everybody to go through and vote, simply because Elections Canada had not been aware that so many people were living in the area, which on their maps was still empty fields.

All of these people have genuine problems related to exercising their ability to vote. What these people need to know is how to exercise their franchise. How can they learn that? They can learn that if Elections Canada runs advertisements advising them how to exercise their franchise, for instance, if they have just moved into a location and have not received a voter card, or if they have been asked to go and vote on the voter card at an address that is wrong. That happens a lot. We hear all kinds of talk about how the Conservative Party was ostensibly trying to send people off to the wrong locations.

Let me tell the House about what happened in my constituency. When the riding of Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington was set up in 2004, people who lived in the town of Perth were told to go and vote in Perth Road Village, which sounded good. The local returning officer was unfamiliar with Lanark County, which had been added to the riding. However, Perth Road Village is the road from Kingston, Ontario, to Perth. Perth Road Village is an hour's drive from Perth. Therefore, residents were told to go and vote in a place that they literally could not get to.

What do people do in a situation when Elections Canada has told them to go and vote in the wrong place? What do people do if they go to the polling station they are used to going to and there are no forms to fill out so that they can vote at a location other than the one they normally vote at? Are they deprived of their ballot, their right to vote and their franchise? Those are the kinds of questions they should be answering for people, but of course, they do not do that.

Their advertising right now is all about why people should vote. We have all seen these ads from various elections. I suspect that they are extraordinarily ineffective at getting people out to vote. The ads are all about why it is people's fault that they are not getting in a vote, why they are not motivated enough to get out and vote, and why they should be motivated. If they were better human beings and better citizens, they would be out there voting. That is nonsense.

The primary reason for people not voting is that they do not know how to.

The Chief Electoral Officer does not go around knocking on doors, but during elections I do. We have all had this experience, I suspect. We knock on the door, but the person does not come down, at least not immediately. Then we realize that the reason it did not happen is that the person is an elderly shut-in on the second floor who cannot get down until a son or stepson or whoever comes and carries him or her down the stairs, or perhaps someone was changing a diaper. How are those people going to get out and vote? Letting those people know how they can vote at advance polls or how they can vote by mail, et cetera, can be an enormously valuable exercise. That is being offered.

I mentioned the highfalutin rhetoric suggesting that somehow people are being deprived of their right to vote and that somehow we face a civil rights crisis of the sort that existed in the American south. I find this deeply offensive, and I took the time to go and look up a couple of examples of the abuses that went on in that part of the world in that era to make the point that nothing of the sort exists here.

I have with me a couple of Louisiana literacy tests from the 1950s and 1960s. These were collected by a man named Jeff Schwartz, who is a former volunteer with the civil rights group Congress of Racial Equality. He has been collecting and archiving and putting online some of the forms that were used in various southern states in order to ensure that African-American voters could not participate.

The courts had agreed in the United States that it was reasonable that people had to have at least a grade 5 education or had become knowledgeable to that level in order to exercise their citizenship rights. By the way, no such rule exists in Canada. There is no requirement that a person be literate in order to vote. That is a very important distinction.

However, that requirement could then be manipulated. Local authorities could test and see whether an individual was fit to be registered to vote. The authorities would exercise these tests in a highly arbitrary manner designed to ensure that every white voter, no matter how ignorant or illiterate he or she might be, would get to be registered, and that every African-American would be excluded, no matter how intelligent, articulate, or well educated that individual might be.

Having looked at some of the questions on this test, I can say we can forget about a grade 5 education. I have been in five degree programs, including two Ph.D. programs. I have taught university and I have published two books, and I cannot figure out the answer to some of these questions.

For example, here is a question from the Louisiana form:

Write every other word in this first line and print every third word in the same line, (original type smaller and first line ended at comma) but capitalize the fifth word that you write.

What is the right answer to that question?

Question 9 from this list states, “Draw a line through the two letters below that come last in the alphabet”, and there is a series of letters.

Question 10 states, “In the first circle below write the last letter of the first word beginning with “L” , and there is a series of circles.

Another question is “Cross out the number necessary, when making the number below one million.” That is interesting. Does it mean the number below 1,000,000, which is 999,999, or does it mean to take the number with all these zeros and scratch them all out to get 1,000,000? Of course, this was designed to ensure that if I were a white guy and got it wrong, it would be right, and if I were an African-American guy and I got it right, I would be wrong anyway.

By the way, the literacy test mentions that “This test is to be given to anyone who cannot prove a fifth grade education” and “Do what you are told to do in each statement, nothing more, nothing less.” That is an important caveat that makes sure someone will fail. It continues: “Be careful as one wrong answer denotes failure of the test.” Imagine if that was on a driver's test. We would have no drivers in Canada. It then states, “You have 10 minutes to complete the test.”

I could go on and on. If I get the consent of the House, I would love to table these items so that members can examine them. If not, I can provide the email address.

My point here is there have been genuine abuses of the rights of voters. I have given an example from the United States, but we can find examples from other countries, including this one.

No such abuse is being considered or has been considered by any party that is here. The fact is that we have a good system, but we want to make it better by doing a series of technical amendments to how elections run in Canada. It would benefit the country and it would benefit democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. I really enjoyed working with him for many years as part of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

When we were working together in committee, we were always able to come to a consensus and move forward without constantly butting heads. However, I find his question a bit sad. I would like to remind him that during the last committee meeting, we spent an hour asking the minister questions and there was no stalling or anything of the sort. Well, that is where the committee is at right now.

During the first committee meetings about Bill C-23, the government very clearly stated that it was not completely closed to the idea of holding public hearings. That was what we proposed in exchange for our collaboration, and the government said it would look into it. In the end, the government slammed the door in our faces and said that it was out of the question.

I am wondering what happened to discussion, co-operation and understanding. I do not think that the NDP is the problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion today. It is absolutely crucial that we examine Bill C-23 properly. Not only is our motion—which calls for public hearings on the matter to be held across Canada—entirely reasonable, but these hearings are absolutely essential in order to better understand our Canadian democracy and improve the Canada Elections Act as much as possible, as it should be.

I am fortunate to be a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the committee we are discussing here today, the one being asked to conduct these consultations. As vice-chair of the committee for a little over a year now, I have had the opportunity to take part in many debates. For instance, at the beginning of this period, the committee was tasked with examining the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer. The committee also had to produce a report on what it thought of those recommendations and on the changes that he recommended that the government make to the Canada Elections Act.

After the 2008 election, the Chief Electoral Officer made about 50 recommendations. Some were minor, while others were quite significant. They would have corrected the major problems with the Canada Elections Act. When the matter came before the committee, the process was quite long and a great deal of discussion took place.

However, the tremendous advantage of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs—and one of my colleagues here today can confirm this—is that it is one of the committees that operates most effectively on the Hill. That is my opinion. Most of the time, things are dealt with by consensus and by mutual understanding, and we almost always manage to find common ground that everyone can agree on. That is the advantage of dealing with matters that are usually non-partisan.

As for the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, at the time, I thought we had an excellent discussion. In the end, we were able to produce a report that most committee members agreed on. They found many of the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations to be worthwhile

We now have before us a bill that we have been waiting for for a very long time. It has been a long time since these changes were requested. It has been a long time since the committee tabled its report. It has been a long time since the NDP, in response to major election fraud issues, had a motion unanimously adopted in the House, outlining the specific changes that needed to be made to the Canada Elections Act as quickly as possible. This is urgent. The Chief Electoral Officer was very clear. These changes must be made as quickly as possible so that they can be implemented in time for the 2015 election.

If we wish to prevent other cases of major fraud, such as the robocalls, and other issues that emerged during the 2011 election, such as voter suppression, then yes, significant changes need to be made as quickly as possible. However, Bill C-23 contains all sorts of measures that come out of left field and do not solve anything. That is a problem.

For example, the Chief Electoral Officer made an excellent recommendation with regard to vouching: election workers should be hired in advance in order to prevent as many problems and administrative errors as possible. Right now, the Chief Electoral Officer does not have that authority. He was therefore asking to be able to hire election workers earlier in the process so that he would have more time to give them the proper training and did not have to hire workers too quickly and at the last minute. This would considerably reduce the number of administrative errors made on election day. Is this measure included in the bill? No. Instead, the government decided to completely eliminate this system, which allowed some groups of people, namely young people, people living in rural areas and others, to vote. This bill will completely deprive them of that right.

It is thus absolutely essential to go and get the opinions of the people who will be most affected by this bill, meaning people with reduced mobility, seniors, members of first nations and students.

I would like to focus on youth and students, because they are very important to me. Last spring, I tabled a motion before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study voter turnout among young people.

We know this is a major problem because fewer and fewer young people are voting. The numbers are quite alarming. During the 2011 election, the 18 to 24 age group had the lowest turnout by far at 38.8%. That means that barely 38% of young people between the ages of 18 and 24 came out to vote on election day. Those who did vote used the voter card or vouching. Youth voter turnout is currently at a catastrophically low level. What is more, some of those who voted in 2011 would not have been able to if these measures had been in place.

The minister keeps saying that his bill will contribute to improving youth voter turnout. The problem is that this is not 1984 and ignorance is not an asset. Just because the minister says that the bill will improve youth voter turnout does not mean that it will magically be so. The truth is, if the Conservatives were truly interested in improving youth voter turnout, then why would they get rid of the voter card as a form of identification for voting, and why would they get rid of vouching? No other measure has made it easier for young people and students to vote.

To come back to the heart of the motion, if the Conservatives are so convinced of the merits of their measure, if they are so convinced that it will truly help young people vote more, then why would they not consult them? Why would they not go across Canada, meet with the groups most affected and ask them whether they really think that these measures will contribute to improving voter turnout at every election?

When I hear what the Conservatives have to say about how they have no intention of consulting or desire to consult, that tells me they know exactly what they are doing. I think they are perfectly aware that these measures will make it harder for young people to vote. That is their goal. That is what they are trying to achieve.

Consulting—going to see people to ask them what they think about an issue as fundamental as our democracy—is not complicated. It is something committees do all the time.

Two years ago, I participated in a diplomatic mission of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I went to Ukraine with an all-party group of MPs to hold public consultations. All day long, people from all over came to talk to us about democracy in Ukraine, about how it works, about what could be improved, about major problems and obstacles to democracy in Ukraine.

We did not stay in Kiev. We went all over, to all the regions. We went to Kharkiv in the east and Lviv in the west. We travelled around. We went to see people. That gave us a complete picture of the reality over there. Had we stayed here in the basement of the Centre Block, had we told the Ukrainians to Skype us and tell us what was going on in their country, I do not think we would have been able to understand the situation as well as we did.

It was an extraordinary opportunity. It is something that Parliament must do, and it is fantastic. Why can we not do the same thing here, in our own country? Why is it so hard to say that this is something very important that needs to be done? We need to go to every region across the country to meet with people and talk to them about the state of our democracy and the proposed changes. We need to ask them what they think and find out what their reality is.

We need to go to downtown Vancouver, where homelessness is an issue. We need to go up north and talk to aboriginal communities. We need to go anywhere where there are major issues. That is not too tall an order if we want to do our best to improve democracy in Canada.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to see the committee take direction from the House rather than see what we know is going to happen, which is that the Conservatives, who are in the majority on the committee, will take their direction from the parliamentary secretary. We know that is what happens on all committees.

We heard a lot of the government spin on Bill C-23 from the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, but we heard nothing on why he is opposed to engaging Canadians in their own communities. When he was talking, I almost had a vision. That vision was that the Conservative backbenchers in this place would actually stand up for democracy, break ranks with their government, and allow a committee to travel across the country and hear from Canadians. I ask the member opposite if he thinks it might even be three or four.

I hear Conservative backbenchers get up and talk about how they are members of the government. They are not; they are members of the governing party, and they have a responsibility to their constituents to stand up.

Does the member think that one or two or three might stand up for democracy, rather than the usual situation of being puppets on a string, taking their direction from a parliamentary—

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much for that interpretation, Mr. Speaker.

I have been here all day listening to the debate. Just about every single speaker on both sides of the House has talked about elements contained in Bill C-23 as part of the debate today. Obviously, the member for Malpeque was not paying attention.

The bill would also make it harder to break elections—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion before us today is not about the fair elections act. The government already invoked closure on the fair elections act in this chamber. The motion before us today is about whether certain witnesses should appear and whether the committee should hold cross-country hearings. That is the motion. I submit that the member is out of order in his remarks by talking about the fair elections act. We are not talking about it.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on today's opposition day motion. The NDP is asking the House to direct the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, of which I am a member, during its consideration of the fair elections act.

While I wholeheartedly support the need to consult with stakeholders and Canadians about the important issues raised in the fair elections act, I believe that it is the responsibility of our committee to decide how it will conduct itself and how it will structure its hearings. I am confident that the committee will ensure a thorough and comprehensive hearing of the fair elections act and will make every effort to hear all who are interested in this important matter.

The communications technology available makes it possible to hear from a wide range of individuals, wherever they may be. I will, therefore, be opposing the motion and encourage other members to do the same.

Let us talk a bit about the fair elections act. The act is a vital piece of legislation that proposes comprehensive changes to the Canada Elections Act. 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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, people all over Canada are concerned about what the Conservative government is doing with respect to Bill C-23. In fact there were 3,000-plus delegates at the Liberal Party convention, and one of the priority resolutions was on this issue.

If I could quote directly from it, it says:

Whereas, instead of correcting these problems, Bill C-23 will amend the Canada Elections Act by: Further restricting access to voting by disallowing vouching for voters, thereby preventing approximately 120,000 Canadians from voting; Threatening the independence of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, by making this position part of government rather than leaving it with Elections Canada, which is independently answerable to Parliament; Prohibiting the Chief Electoral Officer from communicating broadly with Canadians;

This is my personal favourite:

Hampering investigations into election breaches, by failing to give the Commissioner the power to compel witnesses to answer questions or provide documents;

This issue is very serious. The question we really need to get answered is why the government opposes taking this committee to Canadians by taking it to different cities in Canada in different regions so that Canadians have an opportunity to express their concerns directly to the government on a fundamental law that affects one of our principle foundations, that being democracy.

Why does the member think the government is so tough in not wanting to go outside Ottawa to hear what Canadians have to say?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today because I want to help protect something that is very precious to Canadians: our democracy.

The motion moved by the member for Hamilton Centre is a reasonable response to the Conservatives' misguided efforts with respect to democracy. As my colleague from Sherbrooke said earlier, this is electoral “deformation”.

What we are asking for is not complicated. We want Canadians and stakeholder groups to have a chance to express their views on these significant changes to our election legislation. When I say Canadians and stakeholder groups, I mean Elections Canada, the minister, of course, first nations, anti-poverty groups, people with disabilities, youth and students from all parts of the country, urban, rural and remote alike.

The committee has to travel. It cannot stay here in the ivory tower in Ottawa. No one can deny that Ottawa is an ivory tower. When we are here, we do not know what is going on in the rest of Canada.

Many committees travel in the course of their duties. Going to see people is essential. We have no choice. I do not see why the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would not travel in this case. The government will say that it would be an expense, and I agree. However, some expenses are essential to democracy, and consulting the people is one such expense.

I think that, in devising this reform, the Conservatives did not pay much attention to people's reality. I think they could not care less. They are not spending money on the right things, if you ask me, and this is a serious threat to our democracy.

Since we are talking about democracy, I would like to take a little step back. The word “democracy” means “power to the people”. We all agree on that. I think the government is afraid of the people. The Conservatives are well aware that because they came up with such a bad bill, consulting people who are worried about this kind of reform might not go well. People would put the Conservatives in their place. That might be what happens.

I have not had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-23, the subject of our motion. I would like to provide a brief overview to illustrate how essential our motion is and how badly the government has botched this bill.

To start, this bill will strip Election Canada of its investigative powers. The Commissioner of Canada Elections will now be under the Director of Public Prosecutions. That would be like removing the RCMP's ability to investigate Criminal Code offences. It makes absolutely no sense. This is a serious change that will prove to be completely ineffective.

Furthermore, the government also wants to take away the Chief Electoral Officer's power to engage in public education, but public education is essential. This will in no way contribute to increasing voter turnout. The Chief Electoral Officer will not be able to talk to people about aspects of the electoral process or work to prevent electoral fraud. This is especially problematic.

The Chief Electoral Officer will also have to seek Treasury Board approval to hire experts. This is serious interference in the work of a senior official. That is not so unusual around here, as we know that the government enjoys that type of thing. However, this makes our electoral system less effective and again threatens our democracy.

The bill will also eliminate the ability of electors to prove their identity through vouching. This may seem minor, but it is a very serious issue. Some people will no longer be able to vote. Let us take for example an elderly woman who does not have a driver's licence and whose accounts are all in her husband's name. She will not be able to vote. Another example is a student who has a student card but does not have a driver's licence. That person will not be able to vote.

I would also like to add that voter information cards will no longer be able to be used as proof of identity. This creates the same problem.

The bill also increases the maximum threshold for individual donations from $1,200 to $1,500. This means that the electoral process would continue to favour people with money. Why are we doing this when Quebec did just the opposite? Quebec decreased the maximum amount of donations. I therefore do not see why we are doing the opposite. It does not make any sense.

The bill will also make it possible for candidates to contribute $5,000 to their own campaigns. I would like to give a very specific example. When I ran for my party, I had little to no money. If this bill had been in effect at that time, I could not have run for office and I would not be here right now. However, my constituents tell me that I am living up to their expectations. This bill would therefore rule out quality candidates who do not have the money to contribute to their campaign. Money is always being put first and foremost.

As I was saying earlier, many committees travel in the course of their duties and that is essential. I do not see why committees should be prevented from going to consult with Canadians. I want to reiterate that I believe that the government is afraid of what might come out of those consultations. To reassure my colleagues, I would like to add that I often hold consultations in my riding on anything and everything. I like consulting my constituents and finding out what they think about many topics.

The government should start doing that because it is essential, particularly since this bill has a direct impact on various segments of the population that need to share their opinions. Consulting these people will only help us to do a better job, and of course, we should go to them rather than making them to come to Ottawa. It is really important.

As I was saying earlier, good things do not come cheap. We need to move forward and improve our electoral system. Electoral reform would be a good thing, of course, but not in this way. This is not the right approach. That is my opinion and that of all my colleagues here at this time. You cannot impose things on people in this way, by ramming them down their throats and telling them that this is how it will be from now on. We do not do that in our country. We have a democratic country that is a great place to live. We want to keep it that way. That is not what the government is doing at this time.

This government is jeopardizing a number of things, and that is very problematic. If the Conservatives were to accept this motion, it would be a good start, because consulting people and implementing real electoral reforms together with the people is a step in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I am pleased to speak today to the very important motion moved by the NDP. It has come to this with the debate on Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts.

This involves a law that is vital in a democracy. The Canada Elections Act is the most important law for our democracy. It is considered to be almost constitutional. We must examine the proposed changes with the greatest respect for democracy and Parliament, because the latter is responsible for this act.

The act was amended in the past. However, this is the first time, if my memory serves me well, that a government wants to amend it in such a cavalier manner. The government has not even bothered to consult or approach the other parties in this House, even though the other political parties participate in all elections and the democratic process.

Not only have the Conservatives failed to consult the parties, but they are also introducing legislation that will make draconian changes to the Canada Elections Act. I will not go into the details of the bill because I have already done so at debate on second reading.

However, I do not think that this is how the government should have gone about changing the Canada Elections Act. From the outset, the government has been trying to move forward with this as quickly as possible. Why? The reason is simple. The government is trying to hide things. The bill contains things that the Conservatives do not want to spend a lot of time talking about.

In fact, the government wants to move on to something else as quickly as possible, as is the case with most of the bills it introduces. The government tries to expedite the process in order to ensure that bills are passed very quickly before the public has time to realize what is happening. Once the Canada Elections Act has been amended, there will be no going back, unless we want to go through the lengthy process of amending the law again.

I am clearly very concerned about this issue. The bill makes significant changes that could affect certain segments of the population, namely young people. We have heard this during today's debate and at other times as well.

In Sherbrooke, there are two universities, one of which is located in my riding. There are also a number of colleges and CEGEPs. I therefore feel quite strongly about this issue.

As an MP, it is my duty to represent the interests of the people of Sherbrooke when it comes to this bill and today's motion, which deals specifically with consultations.

The committee should hold consultations across Canada, including in the Eastern Townships and Sherbrooke, which are areas that could be affected by this bill. It is the committee's duty to do so.

We are often asked why the House should tell a committee what it needs to do. I think the reason is quite simple: all the resources available to the committee have already been exhausted. The request has already been made and all the possibilities have been exhausted. As the chair of a committee, I can attest that the committee will continue to control its own destiny and agenda, no matter what happens.

If the House votes in favour of this motion, that would put pressure on the members of the committee in question. They would practically be forced to move forward and abide by the decision of the House as a whole.

I think that is what it has come to because we have already exhausted all the other avenues with the requests made in committee that were rejected by the Conservatives. We hope that this time, because all MPs will vote, some from across the way will see the light and vote with us on this motion that we have moved. We hope to be able to hold the consultations that we have been calling for since the bill was introduced, so that we can go directly to the people this affects. I think that is the key in all this.

I think this is the least we can do, given how important this law is for our democracy and how much respect we have for it. This has been done in a number of other files, for a number of other bills. Consultations have been held across Canada for various things. Earlier, other members gave examples of bills that were before parliamentary committees. Those committees decided to travel and hold consultations on those various bills.

Today, we have a bill to change the Elections Act, and the government is refusing to hold any consultations and talk to Canadians about this. It makes us wonder how important the Canada Elections Act is to the government when it cannot accept a request as simple as holding consultations like the ones that have been held for many other bills in the past.

It makes us wonder what the Conservatives are afraid of. That is the question that comes to my mind when I see the Conservatives opposing the idea of talking to Canadians. They must be afraid of something. We already heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say in committee that it would be a circus, a ridiculous spectacle. I do not remember his exact words, but he seemed to be ridiculing the idea of consulting Canadians. The parliamentary secretary seemed to be saying that it was ridiculous, there was no point and we should not consult Canadians.

We completely disagree. I think that we would see the complete opposite. It would be even more helpful for the committee members who will study the bill. After several consultation sessions, the committee members would be able to go through the bill clause by clause, taking into account what they heard in the various communities across Canada, whether it was on aboriginal reserves—which we think will be significantly affected—on university campuses or in seniors' homes. These are examples of places the committee could visit to make a better study of this bill.

I think this bill has a number of shortcomings, and I think that consultation is the best way to make improvements. I may be naive, but even after three years here, I have faith that it is possible to improve this bill. Maybe I am kidding myself, but I still think it is possible.

The best way to improve the bill is to consult the people who will be affected by the changes to the Canada Elections Act. This may involve some amendments to the bill, because we will truly know what kind of impact these changes will have and how we can improve the bill. I hope that will be possible.

I ask my colleagues in all parties to support this motion to consult all Canadians across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have read Bill C-23 carefully. It is important for all members to note that it does not list what forms of ID would be acceptable. The process would be much harder than my hon. colleague seems to understand; for instance, I'll turn to some of the examples he used. Could a student with a student card vote? No. Imagine that student has a student card and a transcript? Could that student vote? No. Imagine that student has a student card, a transcript, and a birth certificate, all IDs mentioned by my hon. friend. Could that student vote? No. Students could not vote unless they were responsible for the utility bills at their place of residence and they had a bill to prove their residence. This is a complicated area and could eliminate the right to vote.

My friend asked if it is a privilege or a right to vote. He just needs to look at section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which says that voting is a right.

We do not have a fraud scandal in this country. We do not have any evidence that Canadians are voting more than once. We have evidence that people are trying to confuse voters by sending them to the wrong polling stations. We have a lot of evidence that Canadians are losing trust in the system and are not getting out to vote. We do not have any evidence of the idea that Canadians are voting more than once. Our problem is that they are voting less than once.

Proportional Representation

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

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to present a petition gathered by citizens of Canada who want to see our electoral system reformed, and want to see proportional representation. The signatories of these petitions are primarily from the Winnipeg and Brandon areas, appropriate today as we debate Bill C-23, which would fail to make our elections fairer.

Democratic Reform

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, voters can already use any of 39 forms of identification accepted by Elections Canada. In addition, the fair elections act will require Elections Canada to inform voters about the pieces of identification needed to vote in an election. Yes, voters need more information, and that is what the fair elections act will give them.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' bill will deprive many young students and low-income seniors of their votes, and it will make life harder for people who do not have ID or who have a disability. The Conservatives are always coming down hard on the most vulnerable people in society. Today we are offering the minister a chance to get out of the Ottawa bubble. Will there be a free vote on the NDP motion for public consultations on C-23?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are upset about the unfair elections act, upset about changes that would suppress the vote of youth, first nations, the homeless, and even seniors.

Changes to elections rules should be non-partisan. Instead, Bill C-23 would in effect rig the Canada Elections Act to give the Conservative Party an unfair advantage.

Canadians want to be heard and they must be heard, so when will the Conservatives do the right thing and agree to cross-country hearings with the Canadian people?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have spoken. They have asked for a bill in the House that would keep everyday Canadians in charge of democracy by putting special interests on the sidelines and rule breakers out of business altogether.

That is why we have brought forward the fair elections act, which would close loopholes to big money, especially the use of unpaid debts. It would prevent fraudulent voting and it would provide increased opportunities for law-abiding, honest Canadians to cast their ballots.

The NDP announced its opposition to this bill before even reading it. It is time that the NDP read it, studied it, and, we would hope, supported it.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, I hope he knows the difference, because the reality is that his own party announced its opposition to the fair elections act before even reading it. I am not sure how New Democrats could know the differences between the status quo and the act without reading it.

Let me focus on the issue of section 18, which the member referenced. The fair elections act would amend it to require the agency to inform people of the basics of voting, including where and when, the ID to bring, and the special tools available to help people with disabilities cast their ballot. Beyond that, it would require the agency to inform people of how they can register to vote and correct any misinformation that might incidentally be on the existing voters list.

These are all things that Canadians need as basic tools to vote. Unfortunately, Elections Canada's own data shows that they do not have it. About 60% of non-voters said they did not vote for reason of everyday life issues. They said they found it inconvenient or difficult, or that they were busy. The fair elections act would ensure that this same 60% of people would be aware that they could vote early through an advance ballot, by mail or at their local Elections Canada office.

How could the member across possibly be opposed to that information being provided?

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

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that I have a very different understanding from the minister of the relationship between causation and correlation.

The minister has spent a lot of time on this, and he is now paring back. Criticism has shown him the error of his way, not on this point, but on the Neufeld report. He was constantly citing irregularities early on, as if they amounted to fraud, or even the serious risk of fraud. Gradually he has begun to nuance because he knows that people have read the report and understand that is not what Neufeld said.

There is the same thing on this score. Causation is not correlation. I asked the minister in our earlier debates why we cannot have the new section 18, as written in Bill C-23, alongside the old section 18. The two sections are not in conflict. The new section is a kind of marching order to Elections Canada to engage in the kind of targeted information-giving that the minister has made the case for being beneficial. However, he has made no case that public education and democratic outreach themselves are not beneficial. That is the difference between causation and correlation.

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

Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada accepts 39 forms of identification, including student cards. That is just one example; Elections Canada accepts many other documents. However, we are changing the legislation to compel Elections Canada to inform the public of the types of identification required. Young people should have this information before the election so that they can go and vote with the proper identification in hand.

The fair elections act will make that happen.

I should also point out that we need to help disabled Canadians cast their ballots. The fair elections act would require that the agency inform disabled Canadians of the special tools available to help them cast their ballots. For example, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind has stated:

Voting is a democratic right for all Canadians. We are happy to have the opportunity to work hand in hand with Government representatives to increase accessibility and awareness of elections amongst the blind and partially sighted community. We need to empower all Canadians to participate in the democratic process and make choices about their leadership....

We could not agree more.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry you had to suffer that speech by being in the chair.

The reality is that this particular piece of legislation has yet to have a minute in committee. We know that when Bill C-23 was first introduced, the New Democrats, before even reading the bill, had said they would not support it. That was painfully obvious when the critic for democratic reform admitted in front of the press that he had not read the bill and said the NDP was still not going to support it.

Moreover, we had some debate in the House and heard two areas of concern. One was with respect to vouching. I note that on page 25 of the bill, it states that subsection 143(3) would be modified but still provides some leeway for the polling officer with respect to people's addresses. I have yet to hear from the NDP what it would propose. We also know the Minister of State for Democratic Reform has clearly stated that the Chief Electoral Officer would still have the mandate to go out and speak to people.

In the absence of hearing anything from the NDP on what it would do differently in the bill, outside of those two areas, would the hon. member agree that we should start committee hearings on this and get further debate going?

Election of the Speaker

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed interesting that we are debating this particular motion at this time. One of the things I have noticed in sitting on the PROC committee is that there is a great desire from individual members to talk about principled issues related to democracy.

I made reference to a different motion, Motion No. 431, in the form of a question to the mover, which I did to highlight the fact that we have another motion dealing with another issue, but they are all about the idea of change and how we can improve the system. It makes me wonder what else we could be doing and having the PROC committee take a look at.

We are talking about the important principle of electing a Speaker, and how the Speaker should ultimately assume the responsibilities of the chair. After we debate that this morning, later on today we will be debating Bill C-23. Tomorrow morning, I will sit in the PROC committee, and we will debate Bill C-23.

I say that because, at the end of the day, I do not question the level of interest members have with regard to the important issue of the Speaker and how the Speaker assumes the responsibilities of the chair. However, we have to recognize that the interest in this goes beyond the chamber. There are many academics, other stakeholders, and average Canadians who take an interest, because it has a significant impact.

One member made reference to the fact that this is, in essence, one of the fundamental principles of our democracy. The legislation we have in Bill C-23 is a greater piece of legislation, I would argue, in terms of the responsibility of members of the House before the PROC committee today. Members need to be aware of what is taking place in the PROC committee today because of the profound negative overall impact it would have, and because of everything that has taken place in the bill's coming before the committee. This is something members need to note.

I just wanted to highlight this issue before I made my comments related to the Speaker, because it is important for us to recognize this whenever we can.

Having said that, as part of a provincial legislature I have had the opportunity to go through both worlds. These are the world where a Speaker is appointed and the world where the Speaker is elected by peers. I would like to share a little bit on that point.

I can go back to 1989 and 1990, when we had an appointed Speaker in the Manitoba legislature. Denis Rocan was the Speaker. Gary Filmon was the premier who appointed him. One of the early decisions that had to be made was with regard to Meech Lake. Members of the chamber might recall how important that decision was. It had a profound impact on the entire country. In essence, it defeated the Speaker recognizing an individual who sat in a third party. By using the word “no”, he was ultimately able to prevent the Meech Lake accord from passing, denying Canada that constitutional reform.

I was there at the time. Speaker Rocan, in looking over and watching Mr. Harper because it was a very difficult situation at the time, played a critical role—

Committees of the House

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of State for Democratic Reform called cross-country hearings on the fair elections act a “costly circus”, and his colleague called them a “gong show”. Yet the Conservatives are happy to propose spending $600,000 on other committee travel.

Could the Minister of State for Democratic Reform tell us why some committee travel is acceptable to him, but travelling across the country to talk about democratic reform is not worth the effort?

Intergovernmental Affairs

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, arising out of question period, the Minister of Transport raised a serious concern about the ability of the transportation committee to travel, to hear from Canadians about rail safety.

She did not express those consultations as being a gong show or a costly circus, as her colleagues have done, so I would seek to move the following motion that I believe will remove the impasse and allow the minister to have the hearings that she so desperately wants. It would allow Canadians to also have hearings that they so desperately want about our Elections Act. I move:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that in relation to its study on Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, that it have the power to travel to all regions of Canada: Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, northern Ontario, the Prairies, British Columbia, and the north, as well as downtown urban settings and rural and remote settings, in the winter-spring, 2014, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Good stuff. I just want to be sure.

First off, I appreciate the understanding that we were able to come to at the beginning today. That's good. It would be nice if that kind of goodwill would continue and we could actually get somewhere.

Chair, if I may, I think it would be appropriate to restate the motion that's in front of us so that we could provide some context for my remarks.

I move:

That the Committee, upon receiving an Order of Reference from the House concerning C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, initiate a study on this legislation, which will include the following: That the Committee hear witnesses from, but not limited to, Elections Canada, Political parties as defined under the Canada Elections Act, the Minister of State who introduced the bill,

—which we've just done—

representatives of First Nations, anti-poverty groups, groups representing persons with disabilities, groups representing youth advocates and students, as well as specific groups which have been active in society on elections rules, including Fair Vote Canada, SAMARA, Democracy Watch and the BC Civil Liberties Association; That the Committee request to travel to all regions of Canada, (Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Northern Ontario, the Prairies, British Columbia and the North), as well as downtown urban settings (such as the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver) and rural and remote settings, and that the Committee request that this travel take place in March and April 2014; and That the Committee shall only proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill after these hearings have been completed, with a goal to commence clause-by-clause consideration for Thursday, May 1, 2014.

That, Chair, is the motion.

On the components of the motion, let me jump to the last point first, because I think it's important.

Normally an official opposition wouldn't box themselves in by putting an actual completion date, but we did that for that very reason, to show how serious we are about this proposal. We're not looking to hijack the process or to be obstructionist per se, or to lull the government into some process where we don't get a bill passed in time for the next election. None of that is our objective at all. That's why we took the unusual step of saying that if we can travel in March and April, which we believe there is plenty of time to do, then we would be quite comfortable committing ourselves to starting the clause-by-clause study on May 1.

Once we get into that process, for those who are watching, the government majority control then takes over. Once we start getting into clause-by-clause study, the ability of the opposition to do anything from a procedural point of view is very limited, notwithstanding extraordinary measures. By and large the government's majority at that stage in the process pretty much assures them that they can control all the way through to completion. We know, because we can do math, that in a majority government the government's going to win votes 10 times out of 10. We get that. We're not trying to take away the government's ability to govern. We are trying to minimize their ability to reign. Governing is one thing; reigning is another.

I have to say, Chair, that watching the government in the House bringing in the hammer of closure within a day or two—a day or two—of the bill being introduced did not suggest to us that the government was interested in allowing real democracy to take place, as you would under a governance structure, but rather they just want to ram through whatever they think the rules should be for all of our elections. There's not much democratic about that.

Let me also say, Chair, that I've been in politics a long, long time. People who know me know that not only will I not avoid a political fight, like my friend from Winnipeg Centre, but from time to time, I enjoy a good political battle. I see my colleagues laughing. It's my understated point. Mr. Reid is questioning it, of course, tongue in cheek, and I knew that would be the reaction. Fair enough.

The fact remains that we'd much rather be fighting over the content of the bill given its importance. I appreciate that nobody is heckling that point because we have gone out of our way to try to keep the focus on what matters. What matters is, ultimately, the election laws that we have in this country. As I said in my opening remarks to the minister, it's not just the content of the bill that defines a democracy, but the process around which you bring that bill into law and give it the force of law in the land. That's important in any case.

Chair, we would submit that it means even more when it's our election rules, our election laws. In the past, this is how far we've gone away from what parliamentary democracy is supposed to be. It used to be back in the day that a government, majority or otherwise, wouldn't dream of, would never dream of, introducing wholesale massive changes to our election laws without consulting with the opposition. Yes, as shocking as that sounds, back in the day, our democracy used to be so healthy that when it came to deciding the rules of the game, it was understood that we can't have a fair game if we don't all agree on the rules.

I mean, we're watching the Olympics which are happening right now. The first thing that happens before anybody puts on one piece of equipment is they agree on what the rules are going to be. The people who host the Olympics didn't get to set all the rules. It wasn't the Russian Federation that came in and said “here are the rules of the Olympics”. It was done through a process. I'm not an expert on the committee, but the International Olympic Committee, I believe, ultimately has the say, but lo and behold, that's made up of component parts of the countries that participate in the Olympics. They would no more allow one country or the host country to ram through rules than they would consider cancelling the Olympics.

Of course we have to agree. Yet here's the Conservative Minister of State for Democratic Reform defying democratic gravity by saying that he's going to have a fair elections act with an unfair process. That's why there's resistance from us, Chair. It really isn't because we want a fight around process. Quite frankly, it doesn't take too long before the public's eyes just kind of glaze over and they say, “Here they go. Inside baseball.”

I see my colleague, Mr. Butt, agreeing that when it comes to process people aren't that engaged. However, I do think it's fair to say, and I hope Mr. Butt would agree with this, Chair, that Canadians like to think there's fairness happening in this process. Because we have representative government, they aren't sitting around this table to express their concern. That's our job. That's our job as the opposition, to make sure the system is as fair as possible, the process. I say right now, Chair, at any time in this process until we have some kind of an agreement, if the House leader wants to talk publicly, offline, send a text or smoke signals, anyway he wants to convey that they're prepared to compromise, then I'm signalling we are receptive to that, because this is not the fight that's important. It's not the primary fight as we see it.

The primary fight, as we do see it, are the issues that we're raising and the concerns that we have about the damage that will be done to our democracy.

However, we can't have that kind of fair discussion or fair fight, if you will, if we don't have rules and a process. What kind of extraordinary, unbelievable, horrible demand are the official opposition and the other opposition representatives making? All we want is the opportunity for Canadians to have their say.

The government has said no. They marched into the first meeting and said no. They marched out of that meeting saying maybe. Three hours later we were back to no. We sit here again receptive and willing to negotiate. Somewhere between no and our motion there should be the ability to come to an agreement. We are flexible. I said that and I'm not going to breach confidentiality in terms of discussions I had with the deputy House leader, but I do think it's fair to say that what we were outlining was a willingness to engage in a discussion. I knew that we were going to have to stand down from where we are a little bit, put a little bit of water into our wine, but in order for that to work, the government has to do the same thing.

That's kind of where we are right now, Chair. As yet, the government is not being fair. Let's remember, the minister consulted with nobody. I didn't have a lot of time to go back after the minister on his answer, but you can only puff up a one hour “Hi, how are you” meeting and call it a consultation so far before it starts to look utterly ridiculous. That's how the minister looked, absolutely ridiculous.

I used to be a minister provincially. I remember what you do in the early days and you do a touch base and a “Hi, how are you” with all the various components that make up the portfolio that you have responsibility for. I'll tell you that the first time I met with the OPP commissioner and had our little “Hi, how are you” I didn't consider that to be a strategic goal-setting meeting to decide where the future of the OPP was going. It was “Hi, how are you” and getting to know each other. That's all that happened with the Chief Electoral Officer.

Think about it. In one of the most progressive, modern, mature democracies on the planet, a country that's held up as a model by many others in terms of what they want to evolve to, we have a complete, 244-page—help me, professor. I mean look at this bill. It's massive. It's 244 pages of changes about our election laws. I think it's reasonable that most Canadians would look at that and say that they're not in politics, and they're certainly not a minister and have never made bills, but it does make sense that if you're going to change the election laws, the foundation of our democracy—it's hard to find something that's more important than the foundation of our democracy—the first step for a new minister in particular would be to have a serious, comprehensive consultation process with the Chief Electoral Officer.

That's what we did here at this committee. I want to remind members, Chair, and you were there through thick and thin, at every meeting. We spent two or three Parliaments, I don't know, three or four years, going through recommendations—wait for it—from the Chief Electoral Officer. It was a huge document, very detailed, very comprehensive. We looked at that. That was in a minority situation, and that's the stark lesson here. In a minority situation the Conservatives had no choice but to cooperate; otherwise, they couldn't do anything because the rest of the parties held the balance of power.

What did a real, comprehensive review...? By the way, there's a report of the Chief Electoral Officer coming out of the 41st general election. I'd be shocked if that was even referenced in the “Hi, how are you” meeting.

My point is that at that time when we were looking at changes, the first place we started.... In fact, Chair, correct me if I'm wrong, but the document we used as our reference point, and if you remember, we had a lot of documents because there was so much detail.... This stuff is complex. You need legal opinions. You need experts in the field. The document that was the centrepiece of our work was the report and recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer. It took us multiple Parliaments and multiple years of goodwill, negotiation, and discussion to conclude that report. I think we did finally conclude it. Yes, we did, but it literally—I'm not exaggerating—was two or three Parliaments and then almost as many years. That's the report. That was the starting document.

This is from the Chief Electoral Officer. What does it say at the top? it says, “Mapping of the Chief Electoral Officer Recommendations”, and then it goes on. There's the value, and it talks about the subject, the current status, the recommendations, and the desired outcome. It's page after page after page, and we spent hundreds of hours. There were goodwill discussions that were some of the most interesting, challenging, and enjoyable debates that I've had since I've been here. Why? I would say in large part because we didn't have one party with a majority that considered it to be a nuisance to listen to the other members of Parliament from the other parties. That's the way it seems right now.

But back in the day, when we were doing real work and really working together, we went through this piece by piece, and this is the beginning document. I can show you files this thick, multiple files of documents. We would have the Chief Electoral Officer come in. We would have legal experts come in. They would go away, we would talk back and forth, get to some stuff, then get to a finer point, and we'd bring them back in to get into the detail of all that. We did really good work. Hansard is full of my compliments to my colleagues in terms of the approach, the maturity, and the really good political parliamentary work that was being done.

So what happened? Well, what happened was that the government got a majority, and it turns out that a lot of their talk about wanting to clean up politics coming off the heels of the sponsorship scandal that the Liberals were embroiled in.... This government ran on a platform of “We're going to be clean. We're going to be accountable. We're going to be transparent. We're going to have all kinds of accountability, and Canada will never have had it so good under a Conservative government in terms of the strength of our democracy”. They got elected on that platform. Since then, all they've done is insult and degrade our democratic process, step by step by step by step, until now we have a bill that in our view allows serial cheaters to pre-cheat the next election.

Now, the government is saying that's not the case at all. That's not an unusual dynamic. That's when the issue of a fair process kicks in, when the opposition members have very strong feelings and concerns about what is in a bill.

The government is responding to the opposition by saying, "No, no, no. You're fearmongering. You're exaggerating” or “You're just simply wrong. Your arguments don't hold at all." Well, you know, there are some countries in the world where that really is the end of the debate, where there is no further discussion. Should you start expressing your disagreement, you find, after a knock at the door at three o'clock in the morning, that suddenly you are no longer around.

Now, one might say, “Come on, we're so far from that”. Yes, we are. We are so far from that, but why? Not just because we're Canada, not just because we say so, but because we pass laws and conduct ourselves in a way such that our citizens believe they are part of a democracy, and not just any old democracy, but one of the best in the world.

Remember, if democracy were easy, everybody would have it. A parliamentary system, unlike a presidential congressional system, let alone any autocratic system, is not a governance structure of reigning and ruling over people, which is the sense we have had ever since this government got a majority.

It's like they're saying, “We got a majority government and that means we can do whatever we want, any way we want. We're the government and anybody who gets in our way is clearly the problem, and whatever we do to get them out of the way is okay because we're doing all the right things.” That is not the attitude of a democracy, and certainly not a parliamentary democracy. We have gone so far away from the basic foundations of how a parliamentary democracy works that in some ways it's working against us.

How many times, colleagues, have we heard, in the day, the sitting president of the United States of America say that he would give anything to have the powers of a majority prime minister in Canada? They run everything.

Let's remember, that this is a government that got less than 40% of the vote and 100% of the power. Where's the basic democracy in that? I won't go down that road, Chair. I'll save you that speech for another day, but it does speak, at the end of the day, to proportional representation being the next step in an evolved, mature democracy.

That's one we're still struggling for, but boy, we're so far away from that kind of progressive thinking in terms of just defending decent, fair rules right now that it remains a dream, which hopefully will start to unfold after the election in 2015 with an NDP government that will bring in proportional representation. But I digress—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll call the meeting to order.

This is the 16th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

We're here today pursuant to an order of reference of Monday, February 10 to study Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts.

We're fortunate to have the minister with us today. We will be having an hour of questions and answers with the minister.

The committee will then have some committee business to do.

Mr. Christopherson will have the floor on his motion, in public, after we finish with the minister, for the start of the second hour.

Mr. Lamoureux.

41st General Election

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to present two petitions.

The first relates to the ongoing investigation of the calls that were made, generally referred to as robocalls, in 2011.

It is a timely petition because, as we know, Bill C-23 actually has a good regime. One part of Bill C-23 that I like is the part that deals with regulating robocalls.

The petitioners in this case are from the Ottawa area and some from British Columbia. They are calling for a full inquiry to get to the bottom of what occurred in 2011.

Fair Elections Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be able to speak to Bill C-23 today. I want to pause and say that when we have these rushed processes with closure on debate and an abbreviated time to look at a critical bill, it is rare for me to have a speaking opportunity. Therefore, I want to thank the Liberal Party for giving me a speaking slot today. I do not know if I agree with them in every aspect of their objections to this bill, but I agree with many of them.

When I look at what we need in Canada to fix democracy, I remember a clever little ad put together by Fair Vote Canada. Don Ferguson of Royal Canadian Air Farce, one of my favourite icons of Canadian comedy, starred in it. He wore a white lab coat and started talking about the serious tragedy of electoral dysfunction in Canada, the failure to perform well when it came to elections.

I will not go down the double entendres that went through that Fair Vote Canada ad, but as members can imagine there were many of them. However, it did bring to mind the need for a prescription to fix an unhealthy system. The ad pointed to the issue of getting rid of first past the post, which is fundamental to fair elections in Canada, and having election results which are then mirrored in the composition of our house of commons.

We need reform. We need a fair elections act. We need to deal with the unhealthy level of hyper-partisanship, the non-stop attack ads, and the fact that we have not gotten to the bottom of the robocall scandal of the last election. However, this bill is not it.

A real prescription for a healthy democracy is in our grasp and instead we get this bill that would weaken our electoral system, weaken democracy, and further reduce voter turnout. We had an opportunity to sideline the cynical politics of non-stop attack ads that function as a “deliberate mechanism,” which is the language used by political spin doctors, of voter suppression. The goal of non-stop negative advertising is to reduce voter turnout in the interests of another party.

A lot of things now pass for political prowess, for which anyone who loves democracy should hang their head in shame and be condemned from ever standing for election again. This is not about every party getting out and urging everyone to vote, as we have heard people from across the aisle say all day. Over and over again, we have examples of efforts to do exactly the opposite. I am afraid this bill is in that spirit of reducing voter turnout.

We could have, with this bill, pursued the reforms found in private member's Bill C-559, put forward by the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. That would have led to fairer elections. We could have levelled the playing field for financing so that members of Parliament who come to this place as independents have a fair chance to raise the funds they need to run for re-election. However, we did not.

The ways in which this bill would reduce the potential for a healthy democracy and worsen voter turnout need to be reviewed. Many of my colleagues in this place have given very eloquent, articulate, and full reviews. In particular, I have to give credit and homage to my friend, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, whose work on this bill was brilliant.

Let me point out what I would agree with. I may be a minority on this matter, but I do not really think it is a problem to create a commissioner for elections who operates out of the office of public prosecutions. I see that as an independent place. The problem is the government has not given that office any tools. It has not given that officer subpoena powers. What is worse is, for some reason, it has created a “black box” surrounding the work. It would amend the Access to Information Act to remove, from access to information, anything going on in the work of the commissioner for Canada's elections. They would also remove in the Elections Act the requirement to give any information about investigations.

What I also would agree with in this bill is the scheme to deal with the robocalls, to have a way of tracking who buys this kind of automated calling service. That is not bad. I would have voted for that.

However, the bill also includes a big new loophole for the spending of money. It now will not be considered an elections expense to spend money on activities that are considered fundraising for nomination candidates. That is an open door to abuse.

What is the worst part of this bill? This cuts to the core of democracy. This is a charter issue. I turn to a most recent statement by the Supreme Court of Canada on the right of Canadians to vote. It was a decision of October 2012. We are all familiar with it. It is in the name of the current member for Etobicoke Centre, so I will not say the name of the case. However, it was a strong decision written by Mr. Justice Rothstein and Mr. Justice Moldaver.

They had this to say:

The right of every citizen to vote, guaranteed by s. 3 of the Charter, lies at the heart of Canadian democracy.

In this instance, they did not find that those rights had been trampled upon, but that was because a lot of the provisions this bill would remove were in place. Therefore, I think this quote from the Supreme Court is timely and informs us, as my friend, the member for Victoria, recently pointed out, that this bill is probably unconstitutional. The following is what the Supreme Court had to say at the bottom of page 98 of the decision:

Our system strives to treat candidates and voters fairly, both in the conduct of elections and in the resolution of election failures. As we have discussed, the Act seeks to enfranchise all entitled persons,...

A voter can establish Canadian citizenship verbally, by oath.

That cannot happen any more, not with this bill.

The court went on to say:

The goal of accessibility can only be achieved if we are prepared to accept some degree of uncertainty that all who voted were entitled to do so.

The Conservative members of the House and the minister have utterly failed to provide any evidentiary background for the notion that we have a crisis of voter fraud in this country. There is no evidence for the notion that Canadians are covering themselves up through creating false IDs and voting more than once. The crisis in Canadian democracy is not that Canadians are voting more than once, it is that they are voting less than once, and this bill would worsen Canadians' trust in the system and increase cynicism.

As for the treatment of the Chief Electoral Officer, talk about sharper teeth: they are all sharpened in the direction of going after Marc Mayrand. I find this shocking. He is a public servant, he is doing his job, and the job that was being done is now essentially going to be stifled.

When I worked on my last book, which was on the crisis in Canadian democracy ironically, I wanted to try to get to the bottom of why young people were not voting. Where could I find good research that informed that discussion? I found that good research because it was commissioned by Elections Canada. It started to inform political parties what we should do to ensure civic literacy and political understanding from the earliest possible moment.

I think it undermines political responsibility and civic understanding to refer to voters as customers. There is something fundamentally wrong with an Elections Act that talks about customer service when we are talking about voting. It is a right. It is not shopping, and every Canadian must be allowed to vote.

I cannot tell members how heartbreaking it is to hear from people, particularly young people, who have been turned away at the polls because they found that multiple forms of ID did not work. I remember hearing from a young woman in Dawson City when I was holding a town hall there on democracy. She said that she had tried twice. I asked her if she would keep trying and she said she did not know if there was any point, that they did not want her to vote.

I remember the tears in the eyes of an older man in Pictou County who had voted in his polling station during his 75 years until these new changes were brought in by the current administration and he was denied the right to vote because he could not produce a photo ID. He did not have a driver's licence. His sister in law was working at the polling station, but under the rules she was not allowed to vouch for him because she had not gone there for that purpose. Under this new act, we would see more and more Canadians turned away, disenfranchised by the false notion that we have a crisis in voter fraud. That is not our crisis.

We need to do everything possible to restore faith among the Canadian public in the health of our democratic system, and this bill takes us in the absolute wrong direction. Why would a governing party do this? Why is there such a rush to disenfranchise Canadians? Is there an election coming right away that we do not know about? Do we have to have all these new rules in place for first nations, seniors, young people, the poor, and the groups that advocate for those parts of our society that are more disenfranchised by having to produce government-issued photo IDs? Is that the point?

I am baffled and appalled and deeply shocked and troubled by this bill. The things in it that are good could have been so much better, but the things that are bad are unforgivable in a democracy.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to speak to Bill C-23, the fair elections act.

This legislation would ensure everyday citizens are in charge of democracy by putting special interests on the sidelines and rule breakers out of business. It would also make it harder to break election laws. The bill would close loopholes to big money, impose new penalties on political imposters who make rogue calls, and empower law enforcement.

The fair elections act would protect voters from rogue calls with a mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating election officials, and increased penalties.

The bill would give more independence to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, allowing him or her control over staff and investigations, empowering him or her to seek tougher penalties for existing electoral offences, and providing more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting.

This legislation would crack down on voter fraud by prohibiting vouching or voter information cards as acceptable forms of ID; make the rules for elections clearer, predictable and easier to follow; ban the use of loans used to evade donation rules; repeal the ban on premature transmission of election results; and uphold free speech.

Bill C-23 would provide better customer service to voters and establish an extra day of polling.

Finally, in the case of disagreements over election expenses, an MP would be allowed to present the disputed case in the courts and to have judges quickly rule on it before the CEO seeks the MP's suspension.

What I really want to focus on today is something that I know my colleagues in the House are also concerned about, the way in which Canada's election rules would be enforced.

I would like to run through how the bill would increase the powers and the independence of the Commissioner of Canada Elections and how it would give the commissioner sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

I would remind the House that it is the duty of the commissioner to ensure that the provisions of the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act are complied with and enforced.

Let me move quickly to the ways in which the bill would provide the commissioner with sharper teeth to uphold Canada's election laws.

Sharper teeth means tougher penalties for existing offences. Take the penalties for impersonation, providing false information, or obstructing an investigation. These would be new offences with significant penalties: a maximum fine of $20,000 or imprisonment for up to one year on summary conviction, or a maximum fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for up to five years on indictment.

Candidates and official agents convicted of this offence would be prohibited from being a member of the House of Commons or holding any office in the nomination of the Crown or of the Governor in Council for seven years.

The maximum fines would also be increased for serious election offences, such as taking a false oath or making a false or erroneous declaration to election officials. For summary conviction, the fines would be increased from $2,000 to $20,000, and for indictment, they would be increased from $5,000 to $50,000.

In a similar manner, the maximum fines would be increased for a wide range of offences, including failure to appoint an agent or auditor, failure to register as a third party, failure to provide quarterly returns and financial transaction returns, and transmitting advertising during a broadcasting blackout.

The bill before us would also eliminate the limitation period for offences requiring intent. The commissioner would be able to go back further in time to catch deliberate law-breaking.

All members would agree that the provisions of the bill would give the commissioner sharper teeth with which to enforce the current provisions of the Canada Elections Act.

Just as important is the longer reach the bill would give the commissioner. Longer reach means empowering the commissioner with more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting.

At the outset, this legislation would make it illegal to impersonate political agents or election officials. This was a recommendation of the preventing deceptive communications report issued by the Chief Electoral Officer.

It would also make it an offence to make false or misleading statements relating to qualifications as an elector or registering as an elector when not qualified. New offences for breaches of the political financing rules have been created as well, including knowingly making indirect loans to a campaign.

As members are aware, this bill would also give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, the responsibility to administer the new voter contact registry. Under the longer reach provisions of this bill, there would be new penalties relating to non-compliance with the voter contact registry, as well as offences for failing to keep scripts and recordings used in the provision of voter contact calling services. Once again, I think it is clear that in addition to providing the Commissioner of Elections with sharper teeth, Bill C-23 would give him a longer reach.

Finally, let me outline how the bill gives the commissioner a freer hand.

A freer hand means the commissioner would have full independence, with control of his or her staff and investigations, and a fixed term of seven years so that he or she could not be fired without cause.

Under the current system, the commissioner reports directly to the Chief Electoral Officer and relies upon the support and resources of the CEO. The Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Elections have fundamentally different roles and responsibilities. The former administers an election; the latter enforces the rules. Both are vitally important functions in a democracy, but it makes no sense to have one of these officers report to the other. In fact, it is inappropriate to do so.

That is why, consistent with separating the administration of an election from the enforcement of election law, the fair elections act would house the commissioner within the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. To ensure the independence of the commissioner, the commissioner's powers and functions would remain the same, but he would make his own staffing decisions and direct his investigations independently of the Director of Public Prosecutions and Elections Canada. As well, all future appointees would hold the position for a non-renewable seven-year fixed term.

While the investigation and prosecution functions would be administratively housed in the same office, the Director of Public Prosecutions would have no role in the commissioner's investigations. To maintain the integrity of the position, those individuals who have previously been a candidate, an employee of a registered party, exempt staff of a minister, or staff of a member of Parliament, or an employee of Elections Canada would not be eligible to be appointed commissioner.

To ensure continuity, the fair elections act proposes that the current Commissioner of Canada Elections remain in his role. This will allow for all current investigations to continue uninterrupted.

Bill C-23 would remove the provision that provides that the Chief Electoral Officer can direct the commissioner to carry out investigations. However, the Chief Electoral Officer would be able to ask the commissioner to investigate an allegation. As well, any Canadian would be able to ask the commissioner to look into irregularities.

Finally, the commissioner would have the ability to initiate his own investigations. The fair elections act would provide the commissioner with all the tools he would need to initiate investigations against all those bound by the Canada Elections Act, including Elections Canada officials, and investigate any matter if he believed there had been a possible violation of the law.

The bill before us would give the Commissioner of Canada Elections a freer hand in enforcing Canada's election laws. The bill before us would both fine-tune existing rules and provide new laws to govern practices that have come to the fore in recent elections.

It also sets out new rules that would provide for the effective enforcement of those rules by giving the Commissioner of Elections sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand to uphold the integrity of our election system. I hope all hon. members will join me in supporting this bill.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-23, the so-called fair elections act, at the second reading stage. I wish to say at the outset that I am strongly opposed to this initiative on both process and substantive grounds, which I would like to address in turn.

On the process side, it is very difficult for me to explain in my riding of Victoria just how a bill of over 240 pages could be introduced on a Tuesday and the Conservative government would seek to invoke time allocation, or closure, on Wednesday, after only two speeches.

There was a 17-month delay from the month the Conservatives committed to table this bill. It was promised for September 2012.

There was no consultation with Elections Canada or with other parties or MPs, which I understand has been the tradition in this place, before this foundation statute, this quasi-constitutional law, came forward. One day a 244-page bill was dropped on the table. Debate was forced to begin the next day.

The government refused to agree to an NDP motion to send the bill to committee after first reading, which would have allowed wholesale changes to the bill, unlike what is going on at present.

Let us not finally forget that, surprise, surprise, this unfair elections act arrived in the House just before the budget comes out and at the same time as Canadians are naturally focused on the Olympics. That is what is really going on. I know that Canadians understand what is going on.

I just met with a number of students at the flame. They presented us with 30,000 signatures on petitions that were gathered in one weekend. Canadians understand what the government is trying to do, and we are not going to let it get away with it, if we possibly can.

The Globe and Mail asks today the question I wish to ask. It is simply this: Why the rush to get this through? Is it because perhaps the Conservatives expect Canadians not to know the content of the bill, so if it is pushed through, they simply will not notice? That is a very serious allegation I am making, and it basically demonstrates something I hoped I never would have in this place, which is utter cynicism about the way the bill has been dealt with.

Again, there were two speeches, then they moved to closure and rushed it through as quickly as they could. Even Canada's national paper understands what is going on. Canadians do too.

The minister of so-called democratic reform, who has been so aggressive at warding off criticism of Conservatives' elections wrongdoing, which were later proven to be well founded, now defends this as a fair and judicious measure. Well, there may be some things in the bill we like, but in typical Conservative fashion, there are many things pushed in there that are going the opposite way a democracy should function.

Let us call as spade a spade. Forget the Orwellian language, the title of the bill. Let us call it what it is. It is an unfair election act. I am going to explain why, on substance, I believe that is the case.

First, we are not dealing with a regular bill. We are dealing with a bill like the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act, which are essentially quasi-constitutional in nature. These are the foundation rules for how we govern our democracy.

My brilliant colleague from Toronto—Danforth spent many hours pouring over this complicated law. He reckons that there are at least 30 serious deficiencies in it. I only have time to talk about two, but two that I think are quite dramatic. To be talking about this with the closure gun pointed at our heads is simply inexcusable. I am frankly saddened and ashamed to be here in this context.

It is shocking that the Conservative minister for democratic reform failed to consult with the Chief Electoral Officer about these changes and then made misleading statements during question period suggesting that he did.

The new bill would restrict the ability of Elections Canada to communicate with voters, narrowing the legal authority of the Chief Electoral Officer and eliminating provisions that allow Elections Canada to promote voting to “persons and groups most likely to experience difficulties in exercising their democratic rights”. All he can do is tell people who can vote and where to vote. He cannot talk about promoting democracy, which he finds an affront to democracy. I agree with our Chief Electoral Officer. We are fortunate to have officers of Parliament like him and the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner, who are shielded and can speak their minds on behalf of Canadians. I am proud that he is doing so, as we are today.

To talk about two issues of substance alone, I would like to focus on, first, the weakening of Elections Canada and, second—again calling a spade a spade—the voter suppression mechanisms in the bill.

The minister has been attacking Elections Canada for many years. Shortly after the bill was introduced, he accused it of being biased and “wearing a...jersey” when it comes to prosecuting the Conservatives for rule breaking. The bill clearly attacks Elections Canada, by gutting its powers.

The Chief Electoral Officer had asked for more powers, as did the NDP, including the ability to request financial documents related to the election. The Conservatives have failed to include these measures in the bill.

Rather, the Chief Electoral Officer would be appointed and responsible to Parliament, but the bill would have another agency, the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, appointed by the Attorney General and accountable to the government, where the Commissioner of Elections would be housed. We are supposed to be happy about that, I think. Well, no one in the office of Elections Canada is happy about that.

Consider what the Conservatives could have done.

We have a number of securities commissions around this land. We have the Competition Bureau, which is a federal agency. It is an independent law enforcement agency that ensures Canadian businesses and consumers prosper in a competitive environment. The Supreme Court of Canada has applauded the way in which that agency operates. Why can we not be there now?

I invite people to look at the Chrysler Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Competition Tribunal) case, in which the 1992 decision of Mr. Justice Gonthier from the Supreme Court of Canada was complimentary about the way in which that enforcement agency proceeds with both civil and criminal remedies.

We could have had that. We had that before, but now we are supposed to be happy with the changes to weaken Elections Canada by sending the commissioner somewhere else to be accountable to the government. It just does not make sense. I know Canadians will see through this.

What is the key problem with this? It is that the bill refuses to enact perhaps the single most effective measure that would enhance investigations. What is that? It is giving the same powers to compel testimony to the commissioner to investigate; the same safeguards as currently exist for Competition Act investigators.

However, that is not good enough for the Conservatives. It seems to work fine for competition, according to the Supreme Court, but we are supposed to try something different in this bill.

Why? Is it because the Conservatives have a personal vendetta with some of the people at Elections Canada? I will let Canadians decide.

Bill C-23 also ignores that part of the NDP motion that Conservatives voted for in March 2012, which called upon Elections Canada to have the power to request and receive national political party documents to enable Elections Canada to assess whether the Canada Elections Act had been complied with. It is not in the bill.

The second part of the bill's major deficiency is voter suppression. The Conservatives, as Canadians know, have a track record of breaking election laws with their in-and-out scheme, robocalls designed to suppress opposition votes, and rule-breaking overspending by Conservative ministers.

Bill C-23 would also disallow the process of vouching. I am proud to say that one of my constituents, Rose Henry, an aboriginal activist who works with the homeless, went to the British Columbia Court of Appeal to say that it was one of the elements critical to the voting process. The court said that it was a critical part of the voting process and upheld the constitutionality of what she had sought to strike down on the basis, among other things, that vouching was part of the fabric of voting in Canada. However, the Conservatives would take that away.

I invite Rose to go back to the courts and vindicate her rights as a voter, because this time I predict she will win because this proposed law will be found unconstitutional.

This proposed law is a travesty. Canadians are getting to understand it, and I am hoping they will rise and call it what it is: an unfair elections act.

[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.

[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.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour to speak to Bill C-23, the fair elections act.

It is remarkable that I should find myself here in this hallowed chamber speaking to this very bill. As many people know, my parents hail from eastern Europe and greatly suffered under Communist regimes. It is difficult to imagine, but within one generation they lived an onerous lifestyle, one in which they could not simply go to the local coffee shop and have an open discussion about local politics. It was forbidden to disagree with the local administration. People worried that their careers would be hampered. It was an era when jealous colleagues or even people's in-laws could report them for fictitious reasons to the secret police. It was a terrible way to live.

They were fortunate enough to come to Canada. Deeply entrenched in my brothers and me is an immense love for the democracy that we enjoy in this nation, as well as a true passion for politics, for elections, and for the concept that we can disagree openly and say, “I don't agree with this policy. This policy actually hurts me and my family. It hurts my colleagues at work.” We can go about in Canada and speak openly about that. We can try to effect change and try and bring about better public policy. They revelled in something as simple as that, and they entrenched a deep love for it because it simply was not available to them. It was not available to millions of people across Europe under Soviet-era tyranny.

Here we are today in very different circumstances. I am an ESL student. As somebody who did not speak English until I first entered school, I now find myself in this chamber debating a piece of legislation. How remarkable is that? How remarkable is it that we are allowed to freely debate this type of legislation?

I want to commend my colleague, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, who has brought forward a wonderful bill that I believe improves our electoral system. It will bring additional transparency and fairness to the system. He has gone through recent complaints, a number of reports, and the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations to try to bring about a comprehensive series of recommendations that will address the deficiencies he has found over recent years. I really do need to commend him. It is a sweeping set of improvements to our current electoral system.

I have been involved in politics with many people in this chamber on all sides of the House. A lot of us share a great passion for politics. I started when I was 14, stuffing envelopes and colouring maps. I have been involved in municipal, provincial, and federal campaigns. I have had the great pleasure of working with a number of people on this side of the House and against folks on the other side of the House in these campaigns over the years, and I can say that we are passionate.

Many individuals are rather competitive, but at the end of the day there is no honour and certainly no sport in running in an unfair election. People want to ensure that the election they run in has a fair outcome. It is okay to concede defeat, but we want to make sure that any defeat occurs because of the failure of the candidate or the party, not because some type of voter fraud took place. That is critical to ensuring the transparency of elections for our voters, those Canadians who take the time to leave their homes, go to a polling station, and stand in line in order to vote and to bring forward the change they are hoping for at the national, provincial, or municipal level.

The bill before us makes a number of changes. Allow me to speak to what I think is one of the best improvements the minister has brought forward, which is enhancing customer service by removing some of the obstacles to voting.

The fact that an additional advance polling day will be added is of immense service.

I come from the GTA, an area where people commute to and from work. They spend their day at work. It takes them the better part of an hour, or even more than an hour, to get home. They prepare a meal for their family. They might throw in a load of laundry. That is pretty much the day. It is now 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. They get up the next morning and do that all over again, just because commuting times are so dramatically long.

Therefore, when we ask individuals to come and vote, it is truly imposing on them. I have been there. I have worked here. I have obviously been a candidate. We see these long line-ups at polling stations. I think everything we can do to minimize the impact and the inconvenience for voters will encourage voting. Nobody wants to be hassled. Nobody enjoys waiting in line. The more we can do to shorten these lines, the better.

This piece of legislation would also allow for more individuals to be hired and for their hiring to take place earlier on so that they are better trained. Many people who show up on polling day have found there is a certain level of confusion. That is certainly not reassuring to voters or to anyone who is a part of the process. We hope for a more professional solution to these things, so I think that is a much-needed improvement to our system.

However, our electoral process must be accessible to all eligible Canadian voters. It needs to be accountable and transparent, yet voter fraud continues to be a problem in our system. Each time someone votes fraudulently, they cancel out the ballot of an honest voter.

Elections Canada has commissioned studies on this subject. Its own study suggests that there are massive irregularities in the use of vouching and high rates of inaccuracy on voter information cards. I know a number of my colleagues have actually spoken to this issue. Certainly members from the Mississauga community have. I can tell members what has happened with those voter information cards and what I have witnessed first-hand happen in my community.

There a number of high-rises. People move with high frequency in the GTA, and in some areas we have 30% turnover in our communities from one election to the next. People will receive a voter identification card in the mail. Of course, that individual has now moved, so this mail is just dropped in at a high-rise, out on the counter or into the recycling bin, and piles of it accumulate. Individuals will just scoop up all of these voter ID cards and utilize them for purposes that all members in this chamber can certainly guess.

I have also had individuals come forward to me during a campaign, saying, “Hey, I have these additional cards. These people no longer live in my home. Can we send other people to vote?”

While I smirk at the enthusiasm, I am very quick to point out that it would absolutely be inappropriate, unacceptable, and, frankly, against the law, and that it is simply not tolerable.

I think the fact that these voter ID cars would now be eliminated would be a dramatic improvement, and much needed for our system.

Of course, there has been much discussion over the forms of ID that would be acceptable. It is a rather comprehensive list. Over 39 pieces of ID would be acceptable at a voting station, including a library card, which is something that most folks have access to.

The list includes a series of things. It includes utility bills. It includes any correspondence from a school to an individual, so students obviously would be able to come out and vote. It includes student ID cards.

I think the real emphasis here is ensuring that we reach out, engage voters to get them to come to elections, and ensure that they understand how vitally important it is that they actually do cast a ballot. However, at the same time, we do not want to permit individuals to make a mockery of our system, to go about in some nefarious way and cast ballots that are not theirs.

Speaking for myself and, I hope, for all members, what we really ought to do is engage voters. I hope people are passionate when we show up at their door and talk to them about issues of concern.

I am one of these people who love door-knocking. I love to go, whether it is snowing outside, whether it is hot and humid outside, and actually engage with our constituents and hear their priorities. I want to know what they would like me to fight for when I come to Ottawa. It is not about relaying information from Ottawa to the voter; it is about standing up for the values and the priorities of our constituents, the ones who were kind enough to send us here so that we could articulate for them. That really is a priority.

I think it is incumbent upon us all as politicians to engage voters, to encourage them, and to have public policy exciting enough that they are looking forward to coming out to vote for us, actually looking forward to showing up, standing in line, and voting for our political party.

I do not want us ceding that to Elections Canada. I think each and every party has to encourage and excite that type of debate. We need to come forward with different initiatives that actually help the average middle-class Canadian family to want to come out and vote so that hopefully this Parliament reflects their values and priorities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-23, which was introduced last Tuesday. The bill is 242 pages long and was introduced less than a week ago. Today is the last day for debate at second reading of this bill.

As I said, the bill was introduced seven days ago, including the weekend. Of course, there is no debate in the House on the weekend. This 242-page bill was introduced less than seven days ago. The second reading vote is already happening this evening, as though we the members have had enough time to carefully analyze the bill and debate it here in the House. The bill will very soon be sent to committee. Members first saw this 242-page bill about a week and a half ago. The whole process has been very quick.

This is not the first time this has happened. In fact, since the Conservatives won a majority, this is unfortunately what has happened with every bill they introduce in the House.

It is interesting to know the background of the minister who introduced Bill C-23. The minister of state was one of the biggest defenders of the recent in and out scandal. He was the most partisan member and staunchly defended electoral fraud, as revealed by the Elections Canada investigation. Today, the same member is introducing electoral reform. It is a little clearer why he is so familiar with the elections act. He was the one who defended his party when it circumvented this very act. We understand why he knows it so well. His party acted very much against this act.

The minister of state also has a long history of attacks against Elections Canada. The Conservative Party is still conducting a vendetta against Elections Canada. It seems that Elections Canada is the Conservatives' arch-enemy. When anyone says the words “Elections Canada”, the Conservatives blanch and wonder what will happen. Will Elections Canada attack in the night to prevent the Conservatives from forming the government next time? Elections Canada is a completely independent entity. As soon as someone dares utter a criticism, however mild, the Conservatives see them as an enemy of the nation. As soon as anyone criticizes the Conservative government, even for a single second, that person becomes an arch-enemy. It is clear to the Conservatives that that person belongs to another political party and is engaging in hyperpartisanship. However, we know very well that Elections Canada is an independent entity. We do not have to prove that today.

The bill contains many measures, but I will not have time to talk about each one. I will talk about those that most surprised me when I read the bill. Some of my colleagues mentioned that there will be no more vouching at polling stations. A voter can get on the list of electors the day of the election. In fact, a voter can go to a polling station with a witness or voucher who can prove that the voter does live in that riding.

Furthermore, if the bill passes—which is not yet the case—the voter card will be refused. Voters receive this card in their mailbox and can use it when they go to vote. Voters also have to show a document as proof of identity. The Conservatives tend to forget that a voter cannot vote with just the red and white card.

A voter may have this card and present it to the person at the table at the entrance. When he or she goes to the polling station, the voter must also show a piece of identification that has the same name as that found on the voter card. That is how we prove our identity. It is not just the card that allows a person to vote, as some Conservatives seem to have been saying during today's debate.

In my view, this will prevent or certainly deter many people from exercising their right to vote. It will make it more difficult for voters, especially young people, to exercise their right to vote.

Students in Sherbrooke are a perfect example. It depends on when the election takes place. Let us take the example of a September election. Students are just arriving on campus and, for many of them, it is their first semester at university. Naturally, their primary residence is their parents' home, in a city other than Sherbrooke.

They have just arrived to start their studies, they may not have proof of residency and the election is being held in September. It is possible to use a hydro or telephone bill, or tenant or automobile insurance, or something else. It is possible to show proof of residency to Elections Canada, which designates 39 pieces of identification that can be shown in order to vote.

If the government eliminates the possibility of having someone vouch for you and using the voter card, many young people who want to vote will be unable to do so, including young people in Sherbrooke. They will not be at home, at their primary residence, at their parents' house. They will be in Sherbrooke, on campus, and will have no way of voting unless they return home.

If a communications student at the Université de Sherbrooke, whose primary residence is in Chicoutimi, wants to vote, the only option he would have would be to go home, a seven-hour drive from the university. This kind of situation may be rare, because I know that there is a good communications program in the Saguenay region. I think we can all imagine that this student will not end up voting on election day, since he will not make a 14-hour return trip to go vote, especially if he was not able to travel for advance polling either.

Many young people will not be able to exercise their right to vote, even though I am sure that everyone here in this House wants young people to be able to vote. The same goes for other members of society who are at a disadvantage with this bill, such as the homeless. How will they be able to vote? We have heard a lot about aboriginal people. People who live on reserves do not always have the necessary pieces of identification. This will prevent them from exercising their right to vote.

In asking questions of my colleagues earlier, I also commented about the fact that the government wants to keep big money out of politics. However, I feel that the opposite is going to happen with this bill. The bill is going against the current trends we are seeing everywhere in various jurisdictions, including Quebec, where the limit for political party donations is being reduced. The opposite is happening in the bill we are debating today.

The government wants to increase the limit for donations to political parties, which goes against the current tendency to try and eliminate the influence of money in politics as much as possible. Saying that the bill will keep big money out of politics is completely at odds with the measures included in the bill, measures that increase parties' election expenses and the donations that parties can receive. I do not understand why the government says “big money out of politics”, when the measures in the bill run counter to that statement.

I will oppose this bill at second reading, like most of my colleagues, I hope. At the very least, if the bill makes it to committee, I hope we will be able to improve it. However, at this stage, I will vote against it.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I admit that I find the comparison a bit clumsy. Obviously all the comparisons are a bit clumsy, but here the hon. member was talking about customer service as it relates to a civic right, that of voting to determine who will lead the country. I think that one important thing that has not been mentioned is the fact that a large part of the population does not vote because they have become quite cynical about politicians and politics. That is what we should be focusing on.

However, Bill C-23 before us today is something that will help fuel this cynicism. Once they see such measures as increasing the annual contribution ceiling, those who feel that elections are bought will wonder whether there is any point in voting, given that the elections are bought by those with the means to do so, in any case. What we must do—and Bill C-23 does not do—is show each and every Canadian how very important their right to vote is. By eliminating the prerogatives of the Chief Electoral Officer, this bill would reduce the opportunities for education.

How is the right to vote a customer service? It is civic right. I would like the hon. member to explain that one to me. It seems that the comparison does not hold water.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to stand today to speak to Bill C-23. I am going to go back in history a little and talk about my background.

I had parents who were good enough to speak at the dining room table about things like elections, so my six brothers and sisters and I learned about elections that way. We learned from them the importance and duty of Canadians to go vote when it was time to vote. Sometimes we talked about the issues, even before we were old enough to know some of them. I had that ability in my past life. Then I became a small business person who had a very busy life. Twenty-four hours a day 7 days a week I worried about a business I had to run. However, I am proud to say I do not remember ever missing an election: municipal, provincial, or federal, because my parents had instilled in me the duty of Canadians to vote.

Long before politics I never thought about the actual running of elections. I never thought about the rules that are there to make sure Canadians vote fairly and accurately. I did not think of them, but I certainly went to polling booths, gave them my name, showed my ID, received a ballot, and made my choice based on the work that the parties or the candidates had done during an election.

Fast forward now through a whole pile of life to 10 years ago when I decided I would become a candidate. I became a little more interested in what was happening with elections: how elections were run, what Elections Canada did, who made sure people got to the polling stations, who generated the lists, and who made the rules as to what days we could or could not vote. I still ran into some of my peers, small business owners and other very busy people, who would have loved to have more time, who wanted to exercise their duty as Canadians to vote, but sometimes the hockey practice or a scout meeting got in the way. We know how that is: life gets busy and that happens.

Move forward now into this Parliament. I have been here almost 10 years. Now, as the chair of the procedure and House affairs committee for a good number of years, five I think, I have been dealing with Elections Canada during that time. I now know more about elections and Elections Canada than I care to know. After each election, the Chief Electoral Officer writes a report and sends it back to Parliament. The procedure and House affairs committee gets to review it and from that comes up with elections legislation. The Chief Electoral Officer is one of the people from whom we get most of our ideas for changes to the legislation. We certainly have had many discussions at committee.

It is a fun committee. I see some of the members here in the House today. We tend to get a lot done, but elections are one of the things we are responsible for. We tend to work on a good, consensus basis without a great deal of argument. We have had many witnesses over those times looking at the Chief Electoral Officer's report and other pieces in our discussions about elections. We have had many briefs come to us from those witnesses. This is where this piece of legislation has come from. It has come from answering those questions.

I am going to say something from a business point of view. First, if I am trying to attract more customers, as a business person I need to first find out why customers are not coming to my business and where else they are going. We have done the same thing with elections. If people are not going out to vote, let us find out why and then we will know where to go to find those people.

As the speaker before me said, why a person votes, why they are making that urgent visit to the voting booth, has to do with the parties. It has to do with the candidates. However, the who, what, when, and where the polling station is, what time it is open, and how many of them there are is set by Elections Canada. Most non-voters told Elections Canada in a survey that practical reasons were what prevented them from voting in 2011. Travelling was cited by 17%, as they were away from home. Work or school scheduling accounted for 13%. Also, being too busy was cited by 10%, and lack of information was mentioned by 7%. That is just to name a few.

Over the past several elections there has been a steady rise in the proportion of electors identifying everyday life issues as the main reason for not voting, and a steady decline for political reasons. That is according to Elections Canada, the “Report on the Evaluations of the 41st General Election of May 2, 2011” by the Chief Electoral Officer, which we have discussed thoroughly at committee.

Better customer service will remove some of these practical issues, some of the reasons like, “I can't make it because it's the middle of hockey practice, it's the middle of my business meeting and I had to stay at work”.

We are offering more voting days. During the 2011 general election, more than two million Canadians cast their ballot on an advance poll day. Two million Canadians took into account the fact they were not going to be able to be there for voting day and went to an advance poll. We are adding an extra advance poll on the seventh day. So the tenth, the ninth, the eighth, and the seventh days before election day will now all be advance poll days, the seventh being a Sunday.

My pastor knows where I should be on Sundays but he also knew that I operated a business seven days a week and that sometimes I was not always able to be there, which also opens up the opportunity that afternoon of my going to an advance poll. That in itself offers something to the percentage of people that I said, from a customer service point of view, were not able to find a day to vote.

Let us go from attracting those customers to the poll to the point of view of my being a business person trying to attract more people to our business. In that case, the other step I would take is to tell them where I was. I would tell them what time my business was open. I would tell them when I was available to give them the service they were looking for. That is all we are asking of the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada, to please tell people where and when they can vote. Please tell Canadians how many days are available to vote and that, by special ballot, it is almost the whole 35 days of an election. There will now be five advance polls days plus a full day of election day voting at each of the other polls.

This is a tough business to run with 308 ridings across this country, soon to be 338, and about 200 polling stations in each of those ridings. Imagine turning that on and off from an Elections Canada point of view. I admire its ability to turn that type of service on and off and the way it is done, but let us use our time to tell the people of Canada when and where they can vote. Let us as politicians, as members of parties or not, give the reasons why people want to go to the polls. It is up to Elections Canada to tell them when and where. It is up to us to get them there and tell them why.

I will recap quickly. It is about customer service. There are many other parts of the bill that I know, when it gets to committee, the committee will be happy to deal with and talk about. We will have a great discussion. We will certainly see lots of lots of witnesses. In summary, I just wanted to talk about the customer service side of an election and the customer service side of Elections Canada.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few comments about Bill C-23, which is before the House, unfortunately, for far too short a time for debate, thanks to the closure motion put forward yet again by the government.

Conservatives are acting as though issues of democracy and the very way we elect our representatives in Canada are not important issues. They are acting as though the kind of detail and complexity of a bill of over 200 pages can be commented on, debated, and discussed in literally a few hours. Unfortunately, that is symbolic of the cynicism that underpins the bill and some of the very concerning elements that are in it.

I would like to start by talking about the importance of democracy to Canadian citizens. I was reminded of that in my constituency of Vancouver Quadra, not just this past weekend, where I had organized several events to engage with voters, but the previous weekend, where I had organized a town hall on the subject of democracy. One might think this is a topic for academics or a handful of people who are interested in theories around our electoral system and political framework in Canada, our democracy. In fact, at the town hall that I hosted 10 days ago, 200 people turned out. We were not able to fit everyone in; we were not able to provide chairs for everyone.

What I heard again and again, and what I have been hearing in Vancouver Quadra, is that this is one of the key concerns that voters have today about the direction the Conservative government and Conservative Prime Minister are taking Canada. There are many other concerns as well. There are the kinds of breaches of trust with Canadian citizens when environmental regulatory frameworks are virtually eliminated with the stroke of the pen, in a way that is misrepresented to the public. I could list many of the changes that the Conservatives have made, including to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, and others.

That is a concern to people in Vancouver Quadra. There are also issues around immigration policy. There are issues around access to employment insurance. There are issues around government spending on advertising that crosses the line into partisan advertising. This is advertising done to advantage the Conservative Party and Conservative government, but using taxpayer dollars. There is a huge range of issues that concern people in my constituency in Vancouver Quadra. However, underpinning those is the erosion of democracy. That is what I hear about time and time again.

For example, the government cancelled the mandatory long form census, with a supposed explanation that there was an invasion of privacy, while at the same time the government brushed off concerns around the collection of metadata and the tracking of people's movements through their devices that are using Wi-Fi. The government brushed off concerns of that invasion of privacy, an invasion that the Ontario Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian considers to be very dangerous for the future of our democracy and takes Canada down a totalitarian path.

It is these concerns about democracy that I hear again and again.

The other changes being made are also being made in a way that is anti-democratic.The more we shrink our democratic principles in Canada, or the more the Conservative government shrinks access to true, open, and accountable democracy, the more it is able to rush through omnibus budget bills that have major policy changes embedded in them without the ability of members of Parliament to adequately debate them, and without adequate public consultation or respect for the concerns of the public.

Bill C-23 is focused on the issue of democracy and, unfortunately, is a further erosion of our democracy. Bill C-23 is an opportunity for the government to strengthen some of the fundamentals of our democracy through our electoral processes, in a way that would be non-partisan and could be respected and appreciated by Canadians. It could begin to reverse the increasing reputation of the Conservatives for their dictatorial and highly partisan actions on behalf of their voters and to the detriment of our democracy. This is an opportunity to address that distressing tendency of the government, and it has failed to take it.

I want to confirm that there are several minor provisions in the bill that the Liberals do support.

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the ban on transmitting election results before polls close infringes on freedom of speech. The fair elections act will repeal that ban and ensure respect for freedom of speech.

Having a limit on early election results is not practical, and eliminating that necessity is a positive.

The bill also provides an extra day of advance polling. This change will give Canadians four days to vote in advance polls.

Having one more early advance voting day is positive. Again, it is minor.

For almost two years now, the Conservatives have been promising a bill to reform the Canada Elections Act. Instead, they have torpedoed reform by gutting the enforcement provisions.

That is damning. The Chief Electoral Officer, who was appointed by the Conservative government itself, has called the bill an affront to democracy. That is a very strong statement, by someone who is not given to partisan statements. Canadian citizens need to stand up and take notice. It is an affront to democracy, rushed through by the Conservative government to reinforce its benefit and partisan gain.

What are some of the principles we need to consider here?

First is voter participation, which is important in a democracy, and access for all Canadians to the right to vote. Second is respecting the rules; in other words, no cheating. For that, we need effective compliance and enforcement. Third is non-partisan party input.

This bill has undermined all of the principles I have just mentioned. It is intending to suppress voters by making it more difficult for 4% of Canadians who have the right to vote but may not have the kind of photo ID that would be necessary. It would marginalize remote first nations reserve residents, the poorest Canadians, and seniors who no longer have a driver's licence and might not have a passport. This bill is making these things worse.

On the topic of respecting the rules and no cheating, I have a laundry list, which I will not be able to get to, of all of the cheating that has been done by the Conservative Party and its members. This would be an opportunity to plug the loopholes.

Bill C-23 is going to make compliance and enforcement much more difficult. It makes it much more partisan.

It is a shocking and shameful bill that the government is putting forward. I would call it the “voter suppression with impunity” bill. We need to see changes to this bill at committee.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-23, the fair elections act.

The bill proposes a substantial reform of many basic aspects of our elections act. Moreover, it contains measures aimed at giving investigators more powers, measures to protect voters from rogue calls, measures aimed at protecting politicians from the corrupting influence of big money, measures to combat election fraud and measures to ensure predictable application in line with the rules in the elections act. These are very important measures.

However, today I would like to highlight the aspects of the bill that provide better service to voters. As we are all aware, there has been a significant drop in voter turnout in the last 30 years. This is a serious problem that could threaten our democracy.

In fact, the legitimacy of our democracy depends on the fact that Canadians choose their government through free and fair elections. We must try to stop the drop in voter turnout and encourage people to vote so that we can protect our democracy.

I am pleased to see that the government has answered the call with this bill and that it is proposing measures designed to increase access to voting. Indeed, one measure in the fair elections act adds another day to advance polling: the eighth day before polling day, a Sunday. This will make for a continuous block of advance polling days, from Friday to Monday in the week before the election. The measure will lead to real results.

Studies done by universities and by Elections Canada show that the most common reason that people do not vote is that they do not have an opportunity to go to a polling station. Our modern lifestyle is increasingly hectic and it is often difficult to find the time to vote. During the 2011 election, more than 2 million Canadians exercised their right to vote at advance polling stations. This clearly shows that, if people are given the opportunity to vote, they will do so.

I am also pleased to see that thefair elections act proposes measures designed to eliminate congestion at polling stations. When voters come to polling stations, the very least we can do is to make sure that they can vote quickly and efficiently. I note that the bill follows up on a recommendation in the Chief Electoral Officer's report after the 40th general election. It provides for the appointment of additional election officers in order to reduce congestion at polling stations.

At the risk of repeating myself, everything must be done so that the voting process at polling stations moves quickly. More election officers in busy polling stations will make for a better voting process.

I also understand that election officers at polling stations will be able to spend more time serving voters, since the bill will eliminate the need to swear in candidates' representatives at each polling station they are responsible for in an electoral district.

With fewer oaths to administer, election officers will be able to let voters cast ballots more quickly, without interruptions. Furthermore, the bill will require candidates, parties and riding associations to submit the names of individuals who have the skills required to perform the duties of election officers earlier in the electoral period.

Right now, the names must be submitted no later than the 17th day before polling day, but in future they will need to be submitted a week earlier, no later than the 24th day before polling day.

This reform is important, because those people can be trained earlier and will have more time for their training. A better trained election officer will be able to make sure that the voting process is more efficient and quicker.

I am sure that a more efficient voting process will enable voters to cast ballots despite the pressures of their daily obligations.

Finally, I am happy to see that the fair elections act will require the Chief Electoral Officer to focus his communications on voters in order to provide them with the information they need to be able to vote. The Chief Electoral Officer will be required to provide information on how to vote, including the times, dates and locations for voting.

The Chief Electoral Office will also be required to provide voters with disabilities with information on the measures designed to help them exercise their right to vote. Everyone with special needs must know about the help that is available to them.

The fair elections act emphasizes the importance of making this information accessible to voters.

To conclude, I would once again like to voice my support for Bill C-23. The fair elections act will ensure that voters are better served when they go to the polling stations.

Given that the first duty of any Canadian citizen is to exercise their right to vote, and for all the reasons mentioned earlier, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to support Bill C-23 at second reading.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Fair Elections Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on February 6, 2014, by the hon. House leader for the official opposition, regarding the form of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts.

I would like to thank the hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue for their comments.

The opposition House leader claimed that a significant error had occurred in the tabling and the drafting of the bill, namely that there was contradictory information provided in the French and English versions of the summary of the bill. More specifically, he explained that the notion of exemption, though central to that section of the summary, was absent in the French version.

In claiming that the bill is, therefore, in imperfect form, the House Leader for the Official Opposition invoked House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, which states on page 728 that:

In the past, the Speaker has directed that the order for second reading of certain bills be discharged, when it was discovered that they were not in their final form and were therefore not ready to be introduced.

As well, he noted that Standing Order 68(3) states that, “No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape” and asserted that the correction of errors on websites or through reprints of bills does not remedy such cases.

The hon. government House leader countered that the summary of a bill is not, in fact, considered to be a part of a bill and, thus, even grievous errors in the summary would not constitute grounds to find a bill to be in improper form. He cited precedents to demonstrate that previous Speakers had withdrawn bills only when they were not finalized or even drafted, and he noted that, on May 17, 1956, Speaker Beaudoin determined that a bill has to have blanks to be considered to be in imperfect form.

The hon. government House leader also noted that the wording was correct in both the version now before the House and in the version found on the Internet.

In drawing the attention of the House to the inconsistency found in the summary of the advance copy of the bill, the Opposition House Leader has reminded us all of the importance of proper drafting. This is recognized in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, on page 720, which states:

The enactment of a statute by Parliament is the final step in a long process that starts with the proposal, preparation and drafting of a bill. The drafting of a bill is a vital stage in this process—one which challenges the decision makers and drafters to take carefully into account certain constraints, since a failure to abide by these may have negative consequences in relation to the eventual interpretation and application of the law and to the proper functioning of the legislative process.

It is therefore comforting to know that members take their responsibility seriously and scrutinize the bills that come before the House.

Having said that, I must inform the House that in the official version of the bill, the one printed and found on our website, the concept of exemption has not been omitted. In other words, the inconsistency the opposition House leader noticed has been caught and corrected in the version of which the House is officially seized. On that basis, it would seem that the issue has been resolved.

But, I also want to take the time to add that the summary of a bill is not, per se, considered part of a bill. This is quite clear in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, on page 733:

The summary is a comprehensive and usually brief recapitulation of the substance of a bill. It offers “a clear, factual, non-partisan summary of the purpose of the bill and its main provisions”. The purpose of the summary is to contribute to a better understanding of the contents of the bill, of which it is not a part.

In addition, procedural authorities and precedents have provided us with a clear understanding of what constitutes an incomplete bill. O'Brien and Bosc, on page 728, states:

A bill in blank or in an imperfect shape is a bill which has only a title, or the drafting of which has not been completed.

In the present circumstances, the Chair is satisfied that Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts, is in proper form.

I thank all hon. members for their attention and I trust the references provided will assist members as they proceed to study the bill as it wends its way through the legislative process.

41st General Election

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the question was about the powers of the existing election commissioner. Let us clarify.

First of all, he can compel testimony before the courts after charges are laid through something called a subpoena. He can compel documents by seeking a warrant from a judge, and all of his powers of investigation are the same as those of police officers investigating the most heinous of crimes.

Furthermore, under the fair elections act he would have sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand, including total independence so that he can make his own decisions about investigations and staffing, and he will not be able to be fired without cause.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to shut down debate on legislation that would change the way elections are run in this country.

It is shutting down debate on a bill that is supposed to combat electoral fraud but that instead would target Elections Canada and ordinary Canadian voters. It would also give Conservatives an unfair advantage.

Would the government at least allow Canadians to have their say on it? Will it support the NDP's proposal for cross-country hearings on Bill C-23, the unfair elections act?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members have not read the Canada Elections Act. Sections 533, 534 and 535 already require the Chief Electoral Officer to testify and submit a report before Parliament, which automatically becomes public. These sections are not being changed in any way in the Fair Elections Act.

Fair Elections Act

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives claim that Bill C-23 will enable citizens to take democracy into their own hands.

However, several measures in the bill will do the exact opposite, since they put citizens—or at least certain groups of citizens—on the margins of democracy.

Under the existing act, voters who have a hard time providing proof of address on voting day, such as aboriginal people living on reserve, students who live far from home, seniors who live in residences and the homeless, can use their voter card as proof of identification. That will change with this bill.

Right now, if someone who has the right to vote does not have valid identification, he can ask a friend or relative to confirm his identity under oath. The government wants to change that. Thousands of voters used this vouching system to vote in the last election. This method of identification is strictly enforced and helps ensure that everyone who has the right to vote is able to do so.

Bill C-23 seeks to put an end to that. The Conservatives' bill would put an end to the vouching system and, as a result, voter cards would not longer be accepted as a form of identification. With these amendments, the Conservatives are going to complicate the voting process for many Canadians who might find it difficult to obtain the pieces of identification they need to vote.

The Conservatives are saying that these measures are designed to reduce the risk of fraud. My question is this: can my colleagues opposite prove that there is a real problem of electoral fraud with the vouching system? Do they have any evidence? The answer is simple. They cannot prove it because there is no real electoral fraud problem with the current system.

In addition, there is no indication that the system is broken. Fraud may occasionally take place, but it is not a major problem right now. As my colleague from Vancouver East said in this debate, fraud exists, but we already have a system in place to combat it and the system works well.

That makes me wonder about the real reason behind the government's decision to make these changes to the rules. The answer is troubling. With these measures, the Conservatives are trying to reduce the participation of certain categories of voters.

According to the Chief Electoral Officer, if the government puts an end to the vouching system, over 100,000 voters might not be able to vote in the next federal election. One hundred thousand people. That is an entire riding. My riding has about 105,000 voters. With this new system, the equivalent of an entire riding would not have the right to vote. The majority of those people are aboriginal people who live on reserves. This is a real affront to democracy.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a threat to democracy. I am making my appeal directly to you.

The Prime Minister is often said to be an incrementalist. The viewers who are watching this at home may ask what incrementalism is. It means to make small changes. There is a big goal or vision at the end of the road and small changes are made toward that big goal. We have to ask what those small changes are and what the big goal is that the Prime Minister is going after. What are we inching toward? What is it that the Prime Minister wants to achieve, what goal? The answer is troubling because it looks like the Prime Minister is trying to reduce democratic privilege in this country.

Mr. Speaker, my appeal is directly to you because we are debating this under time allocation. I have said before when the motion for time allocation has come up that it was used three times in the first 70 years of Canadian history. From the beginning of this Confederation until 1956, it was used three times. It was used for a specific purpose, that being matters of urgency.

The first time it was used was during the First World War. They needed these things done quickly because it was a wartime regime, and sometimes people need to do things quickly during a war.

In 1956, when Speaker Beaudoin invoked closure during the pipeline debate, there was an urgent reason. It is questionable whether it was truly urgent, but there was a deadline for an agreement between TransCanada Pipelines and the Canadian government. There was also the need to consider the steel supply and the construction season. It was a question of urgency.

As I pointed out earlier in this debate, there is no urgency to changing our electoral system. There is no reason that closure should have been invoked.

My appeal is to you, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to listen to me. This has to stop. This use of closure has to stop during debates. You, Mr. Speaker, are the one who upholds the traditions in the House. It is up to you to uphold the traditions of this fine place, this House of Commons, which means the House of the common people. Your role is not just one of timekeeper; it is to uphold the traditions of this House.

This being the House of the common people, our role here as MPs is to debate legislation and to get to the bottom of legislation and its purpose. Whether our role is to debate whether it is perfected or whether we can craft a better bill, invoking time allocation impedes our privilege as members to properly debate this bill.

This is a large bill. It is a big bill. There are a lot of pages in it. Anyone can read it, but we have many pieces of legislation to review. Government members often accuse us of not even reading a bill; I am sure that there are a lot of members in the government party who have not read the bill either.

I ask the question: what is the rush? Why can we not have a proper debate about this bill? What are we inching toward?

It troubles me greatly that we have limited the debate in here, that we have limited the consultation with Canadians outside the House, and that we are passing a bill that would reform our electoral system. This bill would reform the way that elections are done and the way that the public franchise is done.

We have to look at this bill properly. We have to go over the clauses that are not good and improve them. We have to get rid of the horrible clauses and make the good clauses even better and even more powerful.

We are often asked what the Prime Minister is going toward. I can see, from my time in the House, that the Prime Minister is inching toward a system of trickle-down economics whereby we end up with a plutocracy in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The Prime Minister now wants to give us trickle-down elections in which only the well off can vote. The ones who are more disenfranchised, because of poverty and their living situations, will not be able to participate in elections.

As a result of trickle-down economics and trickle-down elections, we will receive a trickle-down democracy. It will be a democracy for fewer people to achieve fewer aims and offer fewer services, and as a country, we will suffer.

Mr. Speaker, I am making a direct appeal to you. You are the guardian of the traditions of this House and, in effect, of our democracy. I implore you to please stop allowing the use of closure during debates on bills that are not of urgency. We are not in a war.

On this side, at least, we do not feel that we are at war with anyone. Perhaps someone on the government side feels that they are at war with poor people, aboriginal people, or democracy. Perhaps they are afraid that they will have difficulty getting re-elected in the next election. Certainly with the policies that they are bringing in, their favour with the Canadian people is going down every day, so I understand why they are fearful.

However, as representatives in the House of Commons, we have a duty to uphold our Canadian democracy. I implore you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask for your assistance. Stop allowing the Conservatives to use the tactics that have been used during the drafting of this legislation, putting in poison pills and invoking the use of closure in debates.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to take part in this debate. I will not presume to be as eloquent or as passionate as the previous two speakers, but I will do my best to speak on Bill C-23, known as the fair elections act. It is a bill I strongly support.

At the start, I want to commend the minister who has introduced and is shepherding the bill through the House of Commons. I think he has done an outstanding job in presenting the details and facts of the bill, which respond, frankly, to many of the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer and others in addressing the deficiencies of our electoral system in Canada.

However, we should all note on both sides of the House that we have one of the best electoral systems in the world here in Canada. We should be very proud of it, but we should never shy away from making improvements to it. I want to recognize the minister's work in this area as someone who gave one of the most impressive presentations to our caucus that I have seen in years, and I speak here as a member who has been here for over 13 years.

I want to return to the substance of the bill. As I mentioned, there are many issues that do need to be addressed. Frankly, this very comprehensive bill would do and implement 38 of the Chief Electoral Officer's past recommendations. I would like to go through them in detail.

I would caution members on both sides to stick to the substance of the bill. I know there are a lot of charges at Elections Canada, and I emphasize that they are “charges”. We should leave them to be investigated, but as legislators we should stick to the text of the bill itself.

First of all, the bill would protect voters from rogue calls and impersonation with a mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating elections officials, and increased penalties for deceiving people out of their votes. All of these issues, such as impersonating elections officials and voter suppression, are addressed and taken very seriously in this proposed legislation.

I speak as someone who has been a candidate in five elections. My local election officials with Elections Canada have done an outstanding job, with some 90% and more being volunteers. They do an excellent job and need all the help they can get, and this proposed legislation would do that.

This bill deals with the so-called robocalls issue, involving the impersonation of others using these types of technologies. However, it should be noted that these types of technologies can be used legitimately if, obviously, the person calling identifies themself and the purpose of the call. Many members of Parliament on both sides use them to do electronic town halls, as I have done. It is a very good method, but I obviously identify who I am, why I am calling, and engage citizens in that way. The bill would deal with impersonation, the first item I want to emphasize.

Second, the bill would give law enforcement sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. It would allow the commissioner to seek tougher penalties for existing offences and empower the commissioner with more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting. A freer hand means that the commissioner would have full independence with control of his or her staff in investigations and a fixed term of seven years so he or she cannot be fired without cause.

The bill would crack down on voter fraud by prohibiting the use of vouching and voter information cards as replacement for acceptable ID, something one would presume the opposition would strongly support.

Studies commissioned by Elections Canada demonstrate mass irregularities in the use of vouching and high rates of inaccuracy on voter information cards. It is important to note, as the minister just pointed out in response to a question by the member opposite, that voters would still have 39 forms of authorized ID to choose from to prove their identity and residence. In order to ensure that election results are legitimate, especially in ridings where the vote is very close, I think it is entirely reasonable for us to require voters to present ID to show they are in fact eligible voters, as the parliamentary secretary to the House leader pointed out earlier.

Next, the bill would make rules easy to follow for all. Since the last election, the commissioner has had to sign 15 different compliance agreements with those who have breached elections law, some due to honest mistakes. Members of all parties have noted that the rules can be unclear. Complicated rules bring unintentional breaches and intimidate everyday people from taking part in democracy. That is why the fair elections act would make the rules for elections clearer, more predictable, and easier to follow.

Parties would have the right to advance rulings and interpretations from Elections Canada within 45 days of a request, a service similar to one provided by the Canada Revenue Agency. Elections Canada would also be required to keep a registry of interpretations and provide for consultations with notice to parties before changing them.

This is important and here I will point to someone who has been my official agent for a number of elections and the financial agent for the electoral district association in-between elections. He is a very reputable chartered accountant with Deloitte and Touche in Edmonton. He says that one of the things that is challenging as an official agent is that there are some grey areas. When he is not exactly certain what the rules are, he contacts Elections Canada and asks what exactly the rule is, and they always err on the side of caution. However, this is something that this legislation would help improve, by ensuring that all electoral district associations in all ridings across the country have one set of very clear and consistent interpretations.

We all have to recognize as members of Parliament that we may have an office manager, a campaign manager, and some people who may receive compensation. They do not in my campaign's case, as our official agents are typically volunteers. I am very fortunate to have someone who is very qualified, but these people are typically volunteers and need very simple, clear, and consistent rules so they know exactly what they are doing and can be sure they are following all the rules and regulations.

This legislation would also allow small donations and keep big money out. One of the changes we made as a government that I am most proud of was to ensure that corporations and unions and organizations would not control political parties. Individual donations are set to a maximum amount. That is one of the biggest changes that our government has made. Obviously, the previous government made some changes along those lines with Bill C-24, but our government made some further changes to ensure that citizens themselves would be the ones who controlled elections. As we all know, special-interest money can sometimes drown out the voices of everyday citizens. That is why this act would ban the use of loans to evade donation rules. It would also allow parties to better fund democratic outreach, with small and reasonable increases in spending limits while imposing tougher audits and penalties to enforce those limits. It would let small donors contribute more to democracy through the front door in a very transparent way, and block illegal big money from sneaking in the back door. The modest adjustments in the donation limit, up to $1,500 from the current $1,200, and election spending limits of 5% would let parties raise their own funds to reach out to Canadians. A total ban on union and corporate money would remain in place, as I mentioned earlier.

It would also respect democratic results. Members of Parliament and the Chief Electoral Officer sometimes disagree on an MP's election expense. This has happened in the past and will happen in the future for people from all parties. When that happens, the Canada Elections Act provides that the MP can no longer sit or vote in the House of Commons until the expense return is changed to the CEO's satisfaction. However, the removal of a democratically elected MP reverses the decision of tens of thousands of voters. The fair elections act would allow an MP to present the disputed case in the courts and to have judges quickly rule on it before the CEO seeks the MP's suspension. Again, this is a very fair, reasonable change that the minister is seeking to make.

Next, it would uphold free speech. The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the ban on premature transmission of election results infringes on freedom of expression. I can say as a westerner that it is interesting to be in Alberta waiting for the election results when various people are testing that, especially via social media today. The fair elections act would repeal this ban and uphold free speech.

It would provide better customer service for voters by focusing Elections Canada advertising on the basics of voting: where, when, and what ID to bring. Also, the fair elections act would explicitly require Elections Canada to inform disabled voters of the extra help available to them to vote. The act would also establish an extra day of advance polling. The proposed change would give Canadians access to four advance polling days: the 10th, 9th, 8th and 7th days before an election. This is one thing that I have supported very strongly and asked to be included in this legislation, because, depending on when the election is held, in our constituency I have an area where there are a lot of people who are working in and out of the country and in and out of the constituency. I have a very high seasonal population, especially in the Nisku area. So it is important to allow Canadians as much time as possible and as much access to voting as possible. We in Edmonton—Leduc have one of the highest advance polling numbers across the country. This follows along the lines of encouraging more people to vote.

I hear some of the comments and criticisms that the bill may be used in a partisan way. Absolutely not. In fact, I encourage Canadians and parliamentarians to read the bill and see what it is. Expanding the number of hours and days of voting is explicitly designed to increase the percentage of people who vote. Ensuring that we get as much information as possible out to people so that they know when and where they ought to vote is designed explicitly to allow more voters to have more opportunity to vote.

Another thing we would be doing along these lines is reducing congestion at the polls. The fair elections act proposes a number of practical changes that should make the voting process more efficient. It would streamline the process for appointing election officers and providing for additional resources for Elections Canada. It would allow for additional election officers to be appointed to ease the congestion of polling stations, which has been a problem in the past.

My time is up. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand in this place today and speak in favour of Bill C-23, the fair elections act, for a number of reasons. We finally have a governance model that would give Canadians even more confidence that elections are being run in a fair manner, but there are also provisions in Bill C-23 that would seriously impede those who wish to perpetrate election fraud by bringing down stricter penalties and even jail time in some cases for those fraudsters who want to try to unduly affect the outcome of an election.

Before I talk about specific elements within the bill, I do want to spend a few moments of my time dispelling some of the myths that have been propagated by members of the opposition, particularly the members of the NDP.

Without question, it is fair to say that the NDP has absolutely no credibility when it comes to presenting opposition to this bill. Let me give two examples.

The first example is that, the day the Minister of State (Democratic Reform) introduced Bill C-23 in Parliament, the member for Toronto—Danforth, who is also the democratic reform critic for the NDP, went outside this chamber and said that he and the entire NDP caucus would be opposing Bill C-23, but he had to admit that he had not read the bill.

The fair elections act is a comprehensive analysis, and it presents quite specific proposals on how to make the Elections Act stronger and fairer for all Canadians. However, the member for Toronto—Danforth, who is the point person on the NDP side to criticize any democratic reform initiatives, had not read the bill. He is a former law professor at Osgoode Hall Law School. I wonder whether or not that member, when he was teaching law to his students, would advocate that type of approach: to disagree with testimony in a legal proceeding without reading the testimony, or oppose contracts without reading the contracts. Of course he would not. However, that is the approach the New Democrats always take. They are simply not credible.

There is even one more hypocritical example I will point out, which is laughable, and every time I think about this I have to break out in laughter. That is the position the NDP takes with respect to the time allocation on Bill C-23.

In debate, the NDP continually states that five days of debate is not long enough to debate this bill and that somehow our government is trying to suppress the democratic rights of parliamentarians to adequately debate legislation. That is the position it has taken. I heard the member for Newton—North Delta making that very argument at the start of this debate. On Friday afternoon, I heard the member for Vancouver East advance that same argument.

The hypocritical nature of that argument is that, the day after this bill was introduced in Parliament, the aforementioned member for Toronto—Danforth, the democratic reform critic for the NDP, stood in this place and presented a motion to limit debate to five hours and then send it to committee. How can the New Democrats argue that five hours of debate is proper and good but five days of debate is somehow suppressing democracy? It is so hypocritical and so over the top that it is laughable, yet every NDP speaker who has stood up in this place makes and advances that argument. The NDP has no credibility on this issue whatsoever.

If we may, let us turn our attention to a couple of elements within the bill that illustrate why this is a good bill and a governance model that we should have had long ago in this country.

The first provision I want to speak to is the fact that, when this bill is finally given royal assent and becomes law, the Commissioner of Elections will have the tools at his disposal and the independence to properly conduct investigations of election violations. For some reason, the members of the opposition seem to think this is a bad thing. However, here is the current situation. This is why it is untenable as it stands right now.

Currently, both the Commissioner of Elections and the Director of Public Prosecutions answer to the Chief Electoral Officer. That is untenable as it, in effect, makes the Chief Electoral Officer the judge, jury, and prosecutor of all flagrant allegations of abuse, either real or imagined, and that simply cannot be allowed to continue. The Commissioner of Elections, by gaining total independence, then would have the ability to independently and impartially conduct investigations.

Frankly, any Canadian would be able to make or lodge complaints with the Commissioner of Elections, suggesting that investigations occur if they feel a violation has occurred, but they would be conducted independently of the Chief Electoral Officer. That is a good thing. One would think that the Chief Electoral Officer would welcome that because it demonstrates clearly to Canadians that his office is independent and the Commissioner of Elections, a separate arm, is independent as well. Unfortunately, it appears neither the Chief Electoral Officer nor members of the opposition feel that is an appropriate distinction. It is certainly one that I feel is appropriate.

Let me point out what the bill also would do. It would ensure that the democratic will of Canadians is respected. I point again to a recent example we have seen and talked about in the last few days, where the member for Selkirk—Interlake was subject to a lot of criticism by members of the opposition and in the media. Frankly, some accused the member of cheating in the 2011 election—

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on Bill C-23. I would like to ask him a very specific question about a point that he did not have time to talk about. That will let him talk about it a little.

The bill runs the risk of affecting voting in Canada, because it completely eliminates Elections Canada's educational mandate. Between elections, Elections Canada was able to conduct campaigns to raise awareness, especially among young people, of their right to vote. During the elections, Elections Canada also did election simulations. That was all part of Elections Canada's educational mandate, which allowed it to use resources to make people aware of their duty to vote.

The bill seems to exclude all that. Elections Canada will concentrate only on certain things. Everything else, including its educational mandate, will be eliminated.

What does he think of that? How will this impact voting in Canada?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot forget the context in which we are debating Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, here in the House.

This bill comes after a long wait. It took the government two long years to introduce this bill, as though it cost the government a great deal to do so. This long wait was then followed by a suspicious haste to rush the bill through, to speed up the parliamentary process, as though the government had something to hide. It wants to rush through a 252-page bill that has to do with electoral democracy.

The current context also includes the fact that the Prime Minister has chosen a Minister of State for Democratic Reform, the minister sponsoring this bill, who just happens to be the member who has attacked Elections Canada, an honourable and essential institution, more than anyone else in the history of Canada. This is a member who has spent the past few years defending the indefensible every time the Conservative Party has been involved in shady schemes. This is a minister who, in just the last few days, has accused Elections Canada of bias, without any evidence whatsoever. This is a minister who falsely said that he had consulted the Chief Electoral Officer on this bill, forcing the Chief Electoral Officer to set the record straight.

This bill comes at a time when the ethics of this government and the Conservatives Party are being called into question by many troubling facts.

We remember the in-and-out scandal, when the Conservative Party, having finally admitted to election overspending and to submitting inflated election returns, had no choice but to pay the maximum fine under the Elections Act.

We remember the Peter Penashue scandal, when the former Conservative minister had to resign his seat due to wide-scale election overspending.

We know that Conservative MPs from Saint Boniface and Selkirk—Interlake both entered into a compliance agreement with Elections Canada.

We know that the MP for Peterborough was kicked out of the Conservative caucus and is facing charges under the Elections Act.

We remember the worst of these scandals, the fraudulent election robocalls scandal, where Federal Court Judge Richard Mosley noted that electoral fraud did occur during the 41st general election. Justice Mosley stated:

I am satisfied, however, 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].

Let us look at that scandal for a moment. According to the Federal Court, the Conservative Party database was the most likely source of the fraudulent calls that were made to mislead voters and keep them from voting in the 2011 election.

What should an honest political party do under such circumstances? It should alert the police so that it can be determined who, in the party or otherwise, used the database for fraudulent purposes.

If the party does not do that, if the Conservatives do not do that, is it because someone in the party already knows the truth and does not want it to come to light?

The Conservative Party has stood in the way of the search for the truth in this sordid affair. Under the pretext that the judge had not determined with 100% certainty that the Conservative Party database had indeed been misused, the party declared itself innocent and refused to launch any kind of investigation. The party does not really seem to want to find out what happened.

What is worse, the Conservatives' election workers completely refused to speak with investigators about the mystery fraudulent telephone calls in Guelph. Too bad if the guilty parties, the fraudsters, are still at large. Too bad, or all the better, if the Conservative war room's real goal is to protect those who are guilty. The party clearly wanted to protect them or it would have acted differently.

That is why we are legitimately suspicious about the government and the Conservative Party, which is finally coming forward with a bill that set outs the rules that this government would like to see govern the next federal election in the fall of 2015.

If the government wants to dispel the suspicion surrounding its electoral honesty, why does the minister's bill ignore the main recommendation made by the Chief Electoral Officer, which received strong support from the Commissioner of Canada Elections, namely to facilitate investigations and the ability to uncover election fraud?

This is what that recommendation says:

In order to make the enforcement of the Canada Elections Act more effective, it is recommended that the Commissioner of Canada Elections be given the power to apply to a judge for an order to compel any person to provide information that is relevant to an investigation. ...the inability to compel testimony is one of the most significant obstacles to effective enforcement of the Act. The Chief Electoral Officer strongly recommends that this power be given to the Commissioner to facilitate and accelerate the manner in which allegations are investigated. [...]

The Commissioner of Canada Elections strongly supports this recommendation.

The minister rejected this recommendation and is refusing to give the commissioner the power to apply to a judge for an order to compel any persons to provide information that is relevant to an investigation. Why? Is the minister satisfied with the current situation? Is he trying to protect reluctant witnesses? Is he pleased or reassured that proper investigations are being impeded today, as was described in the 2012-13 annual report of the Commissioner of Canada Elections? The following is a quote from the report:

...investigators often face reluctant witnesses. Frequently, key individuals will simply refuse to be interviewed or they will initially accept, only to later decline. In some cases, they will participate in interviews but will provide only partial information and incomplete answers, often citing a faulty recollection of events or the inability to retrieve key documents. In other cases, a potential witness will profess a complete willingness to cooperate, but the process will take time – resulting in information being provided slowly and in an incomplete fashion. Under the legislative regime as it currently exists, potential witnesses (e.g. candidates, official agents, representatives of political parties) do not have any obligation to cooperate with or assist investigators.

In a CBC interview on February 8, this past weekend, the Chief Electoral Officer said that the investigation into fraudulent calls was impeded by the fact that it was difficult to obtain witnesses' co-operation:

Many people [in that investigation] refused to talk to the commissioner even if they were not suspects. I'm afraid to say this is happening more and more in files investigated by the commissioner.

He is constantly confronted with this obstacle.

Can the minister confirm that his bill protects witnesses who refuse to co-operate with the justice system? Why is there this protection? Is this related to the robocall scandal?

Indeed, the bill would eliminate the limitation period for offences that require intent. That means that the commissioner can go back in time to catch deliberate lawbreakers. However, the Conservatives refuse to give the Commissioner of Canada Elections the authority to go to a judge to compel testimony from witnesses to election crimes. Is it because it would blow open the robocalls investigations?

The minister argues that witnesses are already required to testify in court once formal allegations have been made, but everybody can see the problem with this argument. If the Commissioner of Canada Elections cannot get witnesses to co-operate during the investigation phase, the crucial step during which evidence is sought, how can the commissioner obtain the evidence required to make such formal allegations? The minister points out that the commissioner can already seek a warrant to obtain documents from a judge, but what the commissioner needs, as much or more than documents, is witness co-operation.

The minister says that his bill introduces a new penalty for those who obstruct an investigation or provide inaccurate information to investigators. However, obstructing is not the same thing as refusing to speak or co-operate. The minister very craftily straddles that line.

Furthermore, the minister states that the elections commissioner currently has all of the same investigatory powers as police officers. However, what the Chief Electoral Officer or the Commissioner of Canada Elections are asking for is a power that the police do not have but the Commissioner of Competition already has, and that is the power to apply to a judge for an order to compel any person to provide information that is relevant to an investigation. The question the minister must answer is, why does his bill not provide the Commissioner of Canada Elections with the power already held by the Commissioner of Competition under section 11 of the Competition Act? Will the minister answer this simple question?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it may be more appropriate for the Commissioner of Canada Elections to be appointed by the Minister for Democratic Reform or Parliament, rather than have the appointment left to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but I leave that consideration for the minister and this House.

When our Conservative government brought in the Federal Accountability Act, one of the steps we took was the elimination of the appointment of federal crown agents as partisan political appointees. A problem is that a number of Chrétien-era partisan political appointees may still be corrupting the system. Changes that we would implement through Bill C-23 are intended to prevent the abuses of the past that the minister speaks of.

Under the current legislation, the chief returning officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections are under the same roof. Prosecutions happen in consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions. Our amendments in Bill C-23 would make the Commissioner of Canada Elections independent of the Chief Electoral Officer and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, it is a privilege to rise in the House and participate in this debate on a bill that would contribute to the integrity of the democratic process in Canada.

I congratulate the Minister of State for Democratic Reform for the excellent job he is doing. Our minister has demonstrated with this legislation that he is listening to Canadians, and it is a pleasure to work with such a knowledgeable and hard-working member of our Conservative government.

The Canada Elections Act reforms that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform has presented to Canadians are well thought out and reasonable. I have listened very carefully to the criticisms of the opposition and have yet to hear a valid point that gives me pause for consideration. Canadians have complete confidence in the minister. If substantive reasons are presented that would improve the fair elections act, our government welcomes the input.

By way of today's discussion, I intend to focus on the proposed amendments in Bill C-23 that would remove the Commissioner of Canada Elections from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer and place that individual in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. While this step is absolutely necessary, I draw the following sequence of events to the attention of the minister as a caution with regard to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

In practice, I encourage all parliamentarians to share their election experiences as a means to give the voice of practicality to our proceedings in the House. The minister has done this by making some very practical recommendations to improve the way elections are run in Canada.

While we as parliamentarians try to do our best when we propose legislation, accounting for every scenario is a difficult challenge. In the aftermath of the 2011 general election, my office was contacted by outraged voters regarding the blatant political activity conducted by the law firm McCann, Sheppard. The law firm received a political patronage appointment to be the federal crown agent for Renfrew County when Chrétien was in power. The recommendation to appoint this law firm came from the Liberal candidate I defeated in the 37th general election while he was an MP. This defeated candidate, whom I handily beat, ran again in the 2011 election.

A member of the McCann, Sheppard law firm acted as the official agent for the defeated candidate in the 2011 election. The law office prominently displayed a sign on its front lawn for the defeated candidate. In the election return, the law office address is even identified as the campaign office, and it charged the campaign $5,000 for miscellaneous expenses.

The Terms and Conditions of Fixed-Term Agreements of Agents of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada that are signed by all agents are clear. Under section 3.9 of that agreement, agents are prohibited from political activity, specifically being an official agent, with penalty of suspension or termination. They are required to inform their agent supervisor without delay of any involvement or proposed involvement in political activities.

The law firm of McCann, Sheppard had been acting in the capacity of official agent for over a year, as the defeated candidate had declared well before the dropping of the writ and was actively campaigning.

I wrote the Director of Public Prosecutions to relay the concerns of my outraged voters, asking why the law firm of McCann, Sheppard had not been suspended or terminated as agents of the crown. I then found out that a very flawed process had taken place, resulting in the five-year reappointment of McCann to the position of federal crown agent for Renfrew County. This was done even though the Director of Public Prosecutions had been made aware of the blatant partisan political activity in the office where the crown prosecutor works.

Making matters worse, lawyers in Renfrew Country who would have applied for the position of federal crown attorney were denied a fair opportunity to apply for the position of crown agent.

When I wrote the Director of Public Prosecutions, I reminded him of his own words in the annual report:

Prosecutors must be of absolute integrity, above all suspicion of favouritism....

To the detriment of the administration of justice in Canada, the Director of Public Prosecutions failed to do the right thing and terminate the McCann, Sheppard practice as crown agents. Once McCann, Sheppard admitted their guilt, which the Director of Public Prosecutions confirmed to me in writing, it should have been case closed. The decision to reappoint McCann was wrong.

Members of Parliament can rightly ask where the accountability of the Director of Public Prosecutions is. Any reasonable individual can see the clear conflict of interest in this case.

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that a performance audit by the Auditor General on the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions would have identified problems with how agents are hired, which is what was suggested as the next course of action.

I outlined the bare details of this case for several reasons.

Members of the Public Prosecution Service prosecute, on behalf of Elections Canada, the offences of election law. How are Canadians going to have confidence in the administration of justice, knowing that political partisans are able to conduct political witch hunts after an election?

It also begs the observation that it seems that Conservatives are held to a different standard by Elections Canada than other political parties. This was made very clear by my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake. I was shocked, as I believe most fair-minded Canadians were, when, earlier in this debate, he shared with the House his experience with Elections Canada.

I know what it means to be the object of a political vendetta. That was the case after a previous election campaign when, under bullying from an employee in Chrétien's office during his time as prime minister, Elections Canada was pressured to conduct an inquisition into my election campaign. Under Jean Chrétien, the Liberals pushed the line of what is considered fair game for partisan politics. Adscam, the sponsorship scandal, is evidence of that. Canadians may never know if the $40 million in taxpayer money that was handed out in brown envelopes to Liberals will ever be found.

Prior to 2006, the Commissioner of Elections was responsible for both investigations and prosecutions. The then Commissioner of Elections made no effort to prove political pressure was not a factor, as he was asked to prove. This only results in the consequence of bringing that office into disrepute in the eyes of the public, which is what happens every time something like that occurs.

Using the Canada Elections Act to try to subvert the will of Canadians over whom they elect is an old trick of those who do not respect the democratic process. Had the Commissioner of Elections been independent of Elections Canada at that time, as our Conservative government is proposing in Bill C-23, the commissioner would have had the independence to say “no” to political partisan persecution, if he had the integrity to do so.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really want to say that it is a pleasure, but I am really pleased that I have the privilege to speak out very strongly against the bill that we are debating here today, Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts.

When we take a look at this piece of reform, it is something that the House has been waiting a long time for. Ever since 2011, as long as I have been here as an MP, we have heard over and over again that the government was about to bring forward amendments to the Canada Elections Act in order to improve accountability, transparency, and so on. What a big disappointment, then, when this bill was tabled.

First of all, let us take a look at the process. A bill that is many pages in number and not without insignificant changes is tabled, and before debate has even started, there is already a move from my colleagues across the way to shut down debate.

We suggested that the bill, after its first reading, should go to committee stage so that all parties could work on something this significant in a non-partisan way and come up with something that works for all Canadians. However, the Conservative government shut it down.

We then started the debate in the House. Before two speakers had finished their speeches, we had a motion. What a surprise. We had a motion to shut down the debate.

I am so proud to be a Canadian. I am so proud that I live in a country that has a parliamentary democracy, but right now, I fear that our parliamentary democracy is at risk. We cannot take those kinds of comments lightly. It takes a lot for me to say that.

The reason I say that parliamentary democracy is at risk is that there is a role for parliamentarians. When a bill is produced, parliamentarians representing ridings right across this huge and diverse country get to take part in a debate and put forward their perspectives. These perspectives are the ones they hear from their constituents, as well as those that they have garnered from their own experiences.

However, once again, the Conservative government has a lot to hide. When a government tries to shut down debate, it has something to hide. Once again, the Conservative government has moved time allocation. It seems so ironic that the very bill that purports to address parliamentary democracy and the elections of parliamentarians is where the government chose to use this tactic of shutting down debate. It is just so wrong.

Not only is it wrong, let us also look at the timing of this bill that we have been waiting months and years for. When did the government decide to table it? It decided to table the bill during Olympics week. One would think it would be enough with people preoccupied with watching and supporting our athletes at Sochi. That was not enough of a cover, so the government needed the time allocation, the Olympics, and the budget a few days later, to absolutely suppress debate of critical issues.

It is, as I hear my colleagues saying, very disturbing. More than disturbing, this is a deliberate act by a government that speaks about accountability and transparency. Now that it has a majority, it feels that it does not have to be transparent or accountable. Now, we are seeing the arrogance of the majority, trying to push through legislation without giving parliamentarians the chance they need to debate the issue.

I have many colleagues in my caucus who are very disturbed that they will not get the time to speak, that they will not get to put forward their perspectives on what is absolutely flawed in the bill.

I want to get down to the content of the bill. First, let me say that there are some minor improvements in the bill. We are not saying everything in the bill is bad, but these minor improvements are buried in a fundamentally flawed bill. For example, we are delighted that there would more advance polling days, which could help to increase voter turnout. The bill also helps to modernize the online voter registration system by indirectly allowing e-signatures, which is a good thing, but on the other hand the bill also has a number of flaws, and I want to get to a few of those.

First, I do not know what the government has against the Chief Electoral Officer. Over the last few years I have been impressed by how he has been doing his job in a non-partisan way. However, my colleagues across the way do not like that, so they are removing power from the Chief Electoral Officer instead of increasing the powers of his office, and they are making an unnecessary separation between Elections Canada and the commissioner.

Once again, the Conservatives have absolutely no evidence that the Electoral Officer has been anything but non-partisan. Just because the Electoral Officer found some misdeeds by colleagues across the way and some technical difficulties with things that were being done by members in the House, it does not mean he is not doing his job. He should not be punished personally and his reputation put at stake, but neither should his office have its power limited because my colleagues across the way are too scared about what it could mean for the future if his office retains its powers and who do not want that kind of oversight of their actions.

The other part of the bill I find most disturbing is that it makes voting more complex for our most vulnerable Canadians. This is a form of voter suppression that reminds us of what we have seen south of the border. I never thought I would see it in Canada. We have the kind of policies being put forward in the bill that would absolutely disenfranchise our most vulnerable, including the low income, transients, and our youth. All of this is very disturbing at a time when we should be engaging more people in a debate and the electoral process. We have a government that is absolutely suppressing the voters who might have the most complaints against its policies and who are very disturbed by how they are being marginalized more and more.

The bill also makes it difficult by changing some of the political financing rules in ways that absolutely favour my colleagues across the way. The bill does not actually increase a person's tax rebate. I did not really hear a clamouring anywhere in the country to the effect, “Please allow us to give more to the political process because we want to”. It is a cash grab by the Conservative Party. All of this will benefit that party.

In other parts of the bill the Conservatives are trying to clarify what is already there. The act already states it is wrong to commit fraud, yet now we are having that being spelled out again. I have some concerns about that. Is this a cover up so they can then go out and say that this provision did not really exist? Let me assure the House that it did exist.

This is a travesty and I urge my colleagues to take their time and that we be given the time to be parliamentarians and to debate important bills.

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House resumed from February 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Supporting Non-Partisan Agents of Parliament Act

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a spirited debate on Bill C-23, the fair elections act, I believe in under an hour. I would ask my colleague to entertain us with some relevancy to this particular piece of legislation.

Fair Elections Act

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-23, the fair elections act, introduced by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

Let me start by saying that the fair elections act would ensure everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, by putting special interests on the sidelines and rule-breakers out of business.

The bill would also make it harder to break election laws. It would close loopholes to big money, impose new penalties on political impostors who make rogue calls, and empower law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

The fair elections act would, among many things, protect voters from rogue calls, with a mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating elections officials, and increased penalties.

Second, it would give more independence to the Commissioner of Elections Canada, allowing him or her control over staff and investigations, empowering him or her to seek tougher penalties for existing electoral offences, and providing more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting.

The act would also crack down on voter fraud by prohibiting vouching or voter information cards as acceptable forms of identification.

It would also make the rules for elections clear, predictable, and easier to follow.

The act would also ban the use of loans used to evade donation rules.

It would further repeal the ban on premature transmission of election results, thereby upholding free speech.

It would provide better customer service to voters and establish an extra day of advance polling.

Also, in the case of disagreements over election expenses, it would allow a member of Parliament to present the disputed case in the courts and to have judges quickly rule on it before the CEO seeks a member of Parliament's suspension.

This last provision, ensuring that democratic elections are respected, will be the focus of my remarks today.

Members of Parliament and the Chief Electoral Officer sometimes disagree on an MP's election expense return. When that happens, the Canada Elections Act provides that the MP can no longer sit or vote in the House of Commons until the expense return is changed to the CEO's satisfaction. The removal of a democratically elected member of Parliament reverses the decision of tens of thousands of voters. No one should have the power to reverse a democratic election without first convincing a judge.

Subsection 463(2) of the act currently provides for the following:

An elected candidate who fails to provide a document as required by section 451 or 455 or fails to make a correction as requested under subsection 457(2) or authorized by 458(1) shall not continue to sit or vote as a member until they are provided or made, as the case may be.

In other words, if an MP has not provided his or her election expense return within a prescribed deadline or has failed to make a correction to the return requested by the Chief Electoral Officer, the act states that a member cannot vote or sit.

A provision requiring that members not be eligible to sit if they are late in filing a return has existed in the act since at least 1920. Provisions governing corrections to returns were first introduced in 2000, at which point the provision in subsection 463(2) was extended to cases where members have refused to make corrections requested by the Chief Electoral Officer.

All members will agree that this is an extraordinary provision, as it can prevent an MP from exercising his or her parliamentary duties and from representing his or her constituents. This provision provides a powerful incentive for MPs to ensure their returns are filed in time and to ensure their returns are accurate. However, we have to keep in mind that the suspension of a democratically elected MP reverses the decision of tens of thousands of voters.

It is essential, therefore, that the law be clear on how such a suspension should be applied. Any ambiguity from the process ought to be removed. Unfortunately, as we saw in two cases this spring, it is not clear how this aspect of the law ought to be applied.

Mr. Speaker, on June 18, 2013, you ruled that there was considerable ambiguity in both the act and in the procedures of the House of Commons.

The Speaker ruled as follows:

The current situation—and the various interventions on the matter—points to a serious gap in our procedures here in the House in cases where an impasse is reached in a dispute between a member and Elections Canada. The Canada Elections Act provides that the Chief Electoral Officer inform the Speaker when key milestones have been reached in the course of a dispute. Thus, as I explained earlier, I received a letter from the Chief Electoral Officer informing me that a member had not complied with his request for corrections and informing me of the suspension provision of the act applicable in the circumstances. Also, while elsewhere in the act there are provisions for a member in those circumstances to apply to the courts for relief, the act is silent on the effect of such an appeal on the suspension provision.

He continues:

I am not the only one left with questions about how to respond to this situation. Some argue that the provisions in subsection 463(2) demand immediate action—namely, the suspension of a member who has not complied with the Chief Electoral Officer in his application of subsection 457(2) of the Canada Elections Act—even as they acknowledge that there is no procedure for operationalizing such a suspension. Others hold that since the Canada Elections Act provides for an application for relief from the provision in subsection 457(2), any suspension is held in abeyance until the court makes its decision.

It is clear that there is considerable ambiguity as to how the provision of the act ought to be applied. The procedure and House affairs committee has been reviewing this issue and may come forward with proposals to change the Standing Orders to clarify how the House deals with such issues.

While the fair elections act cannot propose procedures for the House to apply this provision, it could seek to remove the ambiguity in the law. The fair elections act would allow an MP to present the disputed case in the courts and to have judges rule on it before the CEO seeks the suspension of the MP.

To avoid long delays in resolving disputes, the MP would have just two weeks to apply to a judge to resolve the matter. The courts can treat such cases through an expedited hearing, which would allow the case to be heard on a priority basis. The MP could still be removed if the judge determines that he or she has failed to make a necessary correction to the return.

Proposed subsection 477.72(3) would provide that where a correction to an election return was not made within the prescribed timeline, an elected candidate would not be not entitled to continue to sit or vote as a member of the House of Commons as of the end of the two-week period after the deadline to make the correction. This is the amount of time the candidate would have to apply to a judge for an order to relieve the official agent from the obligation to comply with a request from the Chief Electoral Officer to make a correction to his or her return. If after this two-week period the candidate has not made an application to a judge, it could be presumed that he or she would not be challenging the Chief Electoral Officer's proposed corrections in court.

Alternatively, if the candidate or his or her official agent applies to a judge for an order to relieve him or her from the obligation to comply with the request from the CEO to make a correction to his or her return, the elected candidate would not be entitled to continue to sit or vote as a member of the House of Commons, as of the day on which the application was finally disposed of so as to deny the member's application to the court. As a result, with the fair elections act, it would become clear that a member is not to be suspended solely on the basis of a dispute with the Chief Electoral Officer. If the member has brought the dispute to court for a resolution, he or she could only be suspended if the court upholds the Chief Electoral Officer's position.

The fair elections act would also provide that if an elected candidate has challenged the CEO's proposed correction in court, the judge would hear the matter without delay and in a summary manner. This is provided for in the new subsection 477.68(7) of the act.

Should there be any dispute that calls into question the ability of an MP to perform his or her parliamentary duties, it is only appropriate for the court to consider the matter in an expeditious manner.

Mr. Speaker, are we running out of time?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech and point out that the Conservative Party is hurting our democracy. There have been over 50 time allocation motions, and one of them is for Bill C-23.

My colleague talked about the new voter identification rules that will prevent thousands of people from voting. Because of this bill, a person willing to vouch for someone they know and who is entitled to vote will not be able to do so.

Can my colleague explain to the government how this bill can possibly be democratic and protect the rights of those who are far away?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to join the discussion on a bill that is very important to all Canadians. Bill C-23, purportedly the fair elections act, seems to improve in some ways the electoral system for all Canadians, but in other ways there are some significant shortcomings.

The good news is that after repeated calls by our party, repeated promises by the government, and repeated pleas from Elections Canada, the government has finally tabled a bill. We hope the bill will proceed and that it becomes law before the next election. Of course, only the Prime Minister knows exactly when that will be.

We are pleased that the bill is finally before us, but what we are not pleased with is that the government has called closure on this very extensive bill. The current Canada Elections Act is over 300 pages long. These amendments are comparable in length. It is clearly a complex bill and one of great importance to all Canadians in ensuring that they have equal rights to vote and that any voter fraud is prevented, first and foremost, and then responded to.

Now we have this fast-tracked debate. I will do my best in my 10 minutes to raise some of the issues that have been raised by Canadians.

What is equally important, though, is that it is one thing to pass a law but another thing to put in place the administrative system so that the law will be in place and that Canadians will actually be supported to vote.

There are a number of measures in the bill. As a former enforcer, I am pleased that the government has chosen to increase the penalties to $50,000. We had proposed $500,000 because there are some egregious potential offences under this law, and Elections Canada had called for $250,000. It is nice to have an increase, but regrettably, the proposed penalties remain too low.

Some of the proposed measures that are causing concern are the changes to the powers and the mandate of Elections Canada. One of those areas is the power of Elections Canada to promote electoral engagement, to encourage and enable Canadians to vote.

The bill would significantly narrow the education mandate of the head of Elections Canada. Right now, that mandate is very broad. For example, he can implement public education information programs in order to make the electoral process better known to the public, particularly to persons who experience difficulties in exercising their voting rights.

He may also use any means to provide the public, inside or outside of Canada, with information on the electoral process. That is being removed. As well, the educational mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer would be significantly reduced. It would be reduced to simply letting people know where, when, and how to vote. It is definitely a step backwards.

One of the most important measures we need to take is to encourage Canadians to vote and to tell them ways that would make it easier for them to be enumerated. Then, when they get to the polls, they have to be able to exercise their right to vote.

I am very concerned about this backpedalling.

Voter disengagement is a very serious problem as well. The government, in its wisdom, because it had found a relatively higher error in vouchers, has therefore decided it will just throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, we are told that the reason some vouchers were judged invalid was simply that elections officers lacked experience, not that the person seeking the voucher support was unqualified to vote.

As a result, we are very deeply concerned. That measure would potentially disenfranchise more than a hundred thousand voters, particularly youth and first nations. At a time when we are trying to get youth more engaged in elections, we should not be increasing barriers to their voting rights.

I can certainly testify to the many incidents we found in my own riding when I ran for office. Not only students but also many long-time residents found that they had not been enumerated or had been put on the wrong list. They spent the day running from voting poll to voting poll. Some just gave up and were not able to vote.

With regard to students, in many cases advance polls are held during exams, which makes it difficult for students to get to those polls, or are held in places with no bus service. My volunteers actually set up a votemobile that helped students, no matter how they were voting, to get to those polls.

Therefore, there are a lot of very pragmatic measures as well as legal changes that the country really has to dedicate itself to.

The government in its wisdom says it is going to add additional days to vote, but student exam time, as I am sure the parliamentary pages will testify, spans quite a long time period. They will be so preoccupied with trying to get the best marks possible and a good job when they graduate that they may be distracted. We need to make sure that those advance polls are readily available to students who are studying and can vote.

One area that I want to speak to in particular is the enforcement regime. In speaking to this legislation, government members have said that it would implement a system that would ensure a more effective enforcement compliance regime. Nothing could be further from the truth. The government is going to move the office of the commissioner into the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but strangely, this will be the only enforcement office reporting to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I fully applaud the government for understanding the important concept of separating the administrative and the permitting functions of a government regulatory agency from the enforcement and compliance functions. The norm in this country for quite some time has been for the enforcement and compliance entity to report to the relevant minister, and in this case it would be the Chief Electoral Officer. There is absolutely no rational reason for moving this office to the office of the public prosecutor.

I would like to point out that the mandate of the Director of Public Prosecutions has not been changed whatsoever. His mandate already includes advising law enforcement agencies or investigative bodies in respect of prosecutions. He does not advise them in the course of investigations; that is still the duty and function of the investigative unit of Elections Canada.

Personnel in an enforcement office should be well informed on the legislation they are going to enforce, in this case the elections act, and also well informed and trained in investigative and enforcement mechanisms. In this case, we would be separating the commissioner for elections completely from the office of elections. As I understand it, the government wants to make sure that the commissioner has not been employed by Elections Canada. This is possibly a big mistake. We need to make sure there is a closer linkage. That is a deep concern to me.

In addition, this legislation would not deliver the new enforcement powers that the Chief Electoral Officer has understandably called for. As a former enforcement officer, I fully understand why he has asked to have the power to compel witnesses to come forward and to provide testimony, and the power to demand financial documents from political parties. It is absolutely absurd that investigators, in order to do an effective investigation, will need to seek a court order each time they want information or approach someone to provide important information. That barrier is not in place for any other regulatory enforcement agency. The government is taking a step backward rather than a step forward to ensure effective enforcement.

Secondly, the government is not talking about having an enforcement and compliance strategy and policy for more effective and consistent delivery of its powers. We heard a Conservative member complaining about how he felt he was being prejudicially treated by Elections Canada in its exercise of its powers. The best remedy for that is to have a public and consistent enforcement and compliance policy.

[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.

[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.

[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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to debate Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which would make it easier to vote and harder to break the law. It is a bill that would close loopholes to big money and give law enforcement sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. This bill is another step in the proud legacy of Canadian democracy. Step by step and generation by generation, Canadians have fine-tuned their electoral practices and procedures to make our system more representative, more responsible, and fairer.

I am delighted today to discuss the steps our government is proposing to improve the fairness of Canada's elections and how the rules are enforced. The fair elections act is a comprehensive bill designed to protect the integrity of federal elections in Canada by making the rules clearer, by reducing the influence of big money, and by giving real strength to the authorities that enforce the rules.

This bill would assure Canadian citizens that their votes count. Their votes and their contributions will not be nullified by the actions of cheaters who try to take advantage of loopholes in rules. The contributions of ordinary citizens will also not be diluted by the presence of big money from special interests or individuals who have been able to funnel great wealth into political campaign financing through existing loopholes.

Let me emphasize this. The bill before us would strengthen the penalties against those who abuse the system. When Canadians are cheated out of their votes through fraudulent acts or the system is abused when votes that had no right to be cast are counted, the integrity of democracy itself is put into question. Sadly, we have seen too many incidents in which that integrity and the strength of the foundation have been questioned.

The fundamental right of a citizen is the right to vote. One might even call it a responsibility to vote, or a duty to vote. It is a right, a responsibility, and a duty that was earned in blood during the world wars and during the constant vigilance to maintain freedom and the rule of law in the decades since then.

However, the voter turnout numbers tell us a different story. A generation ago, a large majority of voters went to the polls. In 1988, for example, 75% of eligible voters cast their ballots, or about 4 out of 5 voters. In the most recent election, in 2011, that number had dropped to 61%, or about 3 out of 5 voters. Most troubling is the decline in voter turnout for youth aged 18 to 24.

The bill before us introduces a series of amendments designed to restore confidence in the electoral system and provide voters with the assurance that their votes will count. It would introduce a response to changes in technology that have provided challenges that previous generations did not face, but which, if left unacknowledged, could undermine confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. This bill would give enforcement powers that send clear signals that cheating the system will not be tolerated.

Let me provide the House with an overview of what this bill contains. I will leave it for my colleagues to provide further information on the precise details.

Broadly speaking, this bill would bring fairness to Canada's federal election in eight areas.

First, it would protect voters from rogue calls and political impostors. There have been serious allegations that telephone and telemarketing technologies have been abused in past elections, and we are taking steps to put a halt to the practice. The bill would establish a mandatory public registry, administered by the CRTC, for those who want to use robocall technology. At the same time, it would provide prison time for those who abuse the technology, including those who impersonate election officials. It would increase penalties for those who deceive people out of their votes, plain and simple.

Second, this bill would give law enforcement sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. By sharper teeth, I mean that it would allow the commissioner of elections to seek tougher penalties for existing offences. A longer reach means empowering the commissioner with more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting. A freer hand means that the commissioner would have full independence, with control of his or her staff and investigations, and a fixed term of seven years.

Third, this bill would keep big money out of politics. It would prevent the use of loans to evade donation rules, and it would allow parties to fund democratic outreach with small increases in spending limits while imposing tougher audits and penalties to enforce those limits. It would make it easier for small donors to contribute more to democracy through the front door and harder for illegal big money to sneak in through the back door.

Fourth, the bill before us would crack down on voter fraud. It would prohibit the use of vouching and voter identification cards as replacements for acceptable identification papers. Elections Canada has found irregularities in the use of vouching and a high rate of inaccuracy in the National Register of Electors, which is used to create the voter information cards. I think my colleague earlier made this very clear with the example of his own personal situation. The bill would put a stop to the potential for these irregularities.

Fifth, the measures in the bill would make the rules easy to follow. Members on all sides of the House have complained that the current rules can be unclear. Complicated rules lead to unintentional breaches and intimidate everyday people from taking a more active part in democracy. The bill would make the rules for elections clearer, predictable, and easy to follow. In a fashion similar to the service provided by Revenue Canada, parties would have the right to advance rulings and interpretations from Elections Canada, which would keep a registry of interpretations and provide consultation with and notice to parties before changing any of these interpretations.

Sixth, the bill would enable the system to respect democratic election results. When members of Parliament and the Chief Electoral Officer disagree on an item on an MP's election expense return, the act would make it clear that MPs are able to present the disputed case in the courts before they are deemed ineligible to sit and vote as an MP.

Seventh, the bill would uphold free speech by repealing the ban on the premature transmission of election results. In the Internet age, this is as much a reflection of reality as anything else.

Finally, the bill before us would bring better service to voters, while focusing Elections Canada advertising on the basics of voting: where, when, and what ID to bring. It would explicitly require Elections Canada to inform voters with disabilities of the extra provisions available to help them vote.

Those are eight key areas in which we can build the democratic ideals that our country is known for around the world; the ideals that our soldiers in two world wars and since then have so sacrificed for.

I have served on the international human rights subcommittee of this House and listened to the testimonies of victims of various regimes in other countries that our freedom, democracy, and human rights are a big part of what makes Canada great.

Many people from across the political spectrum have underscored the importance of reforming our electoral laws and restoring confidence in Canada's democracy. I am confident they agree with me that these reforms are needed before Canadians return to the polls next year.

In fact, the bill would implement 38 of the recommendations that the Chief Electoral Officer made in his report on the 40th general election, which was tabled in 2010.

I urge hon. members—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to return the attention of the House to some of the valuable aspects of this proposed piece of legislation, which would go a long way toward improving the quality of elections in this country.

Listening to some of the histrionics in what has been said earlier, one would think that Canada is a third world country in which elections are wildly abused. My hon. colleague for Guelph suggested that in 200 separate ridings there were investigations relating to people being misdirected to the wrong polling stations. If this were the tip of some giant iceberg, he would be right; we would be unfit to be considered a part of the family of developed and democratic nations. However, on its face, that is a ridiculous assertion.

One of the ridings the member was referring to was my riding, in which an allegation was made by at least one person phoning the Chief Electoral Officer, which is what actually accounts for the 200 different ridings. I do not know if the member is suggesting that my riding, where I defeated the Liberal candidate by more than a three-to-one margin and the NDP candidate by more than a two-to-one margin, was one in which our party was attempting to misdirect voters because we were afraid we would otherwise lose the seat. If that is what he wants to assert, then he should come out and assert that, as opposed to using this sort of ridiculous innuendo and suggestion, when a clear counterfactual is the case.

Let me deal with three real benefits to the new legislation.

The first is a mandate to Elections Canada as to how it would direct its advertising revenue during and prior to writ periods. This is to be found in proposed section 18 of the legislation. I will read this legislation and then comment on it. Proposed section 18 would now read:

(1) The Chief Electoral Officer may provide the public, both inside and outside Canada, with information on the following topics only:

(a) how to become a candidate;

(b) how an elector may have their name added to a list of electors and may have corrections made to information respecting the electors on the list;

(c) how an elector may vote under section 127 and the times, dates and locations of voting;

(d) how an elector may establish their identity and residence in order to vote, including the pieces of identification they may use to that end; and

(e) the measures for assisting electors with a disability to access a polling station or advance polling station to mark a ballot.

Proposed subsection (2) of that section says:

The Chief Electoral Officer shall ensure that any information provided [above] is accessible to electors with disabilities.

The Chief Electoral Officer has spent a great deal of money on advertising, but very little on these practical issues. This is despite the fact that many Canadians turn up at the polls, in some cases, as in a rural area, having driven a great distance, and discovering they do not have the necessary identification and are therefore unable to vote. Or, they find themselves in a situation in which they cannot vote at an advance polling station because they were not on the voter's list. This is a real problem.

I asked the Chief Electoral Officer in a meeting of the procedure and House affairs committee how big a problem there is with the voter's list. He hummed and hawed and did not want to answer the question. The answer is that there is a 20% rate of errors; one Canadian in five is not on the list or is on the list in the wrong way. That is a problem.

This legislation is designed to help people correct these problems for themselves. They can get on the list. They can find out how to vote. They can find out the methods available to them with whatever disability they may have, be it a mobility impairment, a visual disability, etcetera.

The CEO has to put in an effort to find out how to get those pieces of information to those communities, which is a challenge. I might add that this challenge has attracted no interest from the CEO until now, but now he will have to do that. That is a good thing.

Secondly, I want to talk a bit about voter identification and the issue of fraud. We have put in a lot of effort in this Parliament, and the previous one, into designing legislation in order to reduce electoral fraud. One of the key reasons this electoral fraud can exist is because Elections Canada has had to loosen the criteria for allowing people to vote and to identify themselves, given that Elections Canada has done such an unsatisfactory job in determining who is actually permitted to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have just been passed a note. I am supposed to remind you that I am splitting my time with the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale and not, despite his helpful suggestion, the member for Malpeque. He no doubt will have fascinating things to say when his time comes.

The situation with voter identification is a mess in Canada. We recently had a case adjudicated between the current member of Parliament for Etobicoke Centre and the former member. They were disputing whether people had voted validly in the election. In the end, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in favour of the present Conservative member and against the former Liberal member in that case. What was striking was that the issues revolved entirely around problems associated with voter identification, with the fact that people were not on the list properly. It all could have been resolved with better rules. Bill C-23 attempts to provide some of those rules.

One of the things that the bill would do is to specify that the voter identification card sent to a voter by the Chief Electoral Officer may not be used as a piece of identification for the purpose of voting. That is stated in proposed subsection 143(2.1):

The Chief Electoral Officer may authorize types of identification for the purposes of [voting]. For greater certainty, any document—other than a notice of confirmation of registration...may be authorized.

Why is this important? Let me give an example. My name is Scott Jeffrey Reid. In the 2004 election, I received three voter ID cards at my address. One was addressed to Scott Reid, one to Jeffrey Reid, and one to Scott Jeffrey Reid. Of course, all three voters are me. I can legally vote at the returning office at almost any point during the writ period. I can vote at the advance poll. I can vote on election day, in my case at a school near my house. I could have gone to all three of those places and voted, and there would be no record. They would take the voter ID card, but there would be no record that I had voted in multiple places.

I raised this matter with the former chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, when he appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee. I said that this was not a very effective kind of identification. He responded that given the fact that I could go to these multiple places and engage in fraudulent voting anyway, what did it matter? I think that is not a very satisfactory response. Attempting to bring the issue of identification under control is very important. The elimination of vouching is a very important aspect of that.

I want to bring attention to, arguably, one of the most important aspects of the bill, which is the rule that from now on when the Chief Electoral Officer makes a ruling as to how the law is to be interpreted—and in some areas the law is ambiguous and will be found to be ambiguous in the future—he must apply the same rules to everyone. When we listen to the other side talking about the in-and-out scandal, they mean that a practice that was legal at the time was found afterwards by the Chief Electoral Officer, retrospectively, to be illegal in the preceding election. However, it was not found to be illegal in the election preceding that one, in which the other parties, not the Conservatives, had engaged in the practice. If we engage in that kind of retrospective ruling, we create a very unfair, unlevel playing field. That can no longer happen. No longer can retrospective rulings be imposed, and no longer can a ruling be imposed that does not apply universally.

A compliance agreement under the law is where a party violates the law. The New Democrats did this when they allowed sponsored advertising at their national convention, thereby allowing union contributions. It must be made public. They cannot keep it secret. When it is kept secret there cannot be precedents developed. There is no guarantee that the law will be enforced equally. That is a huge step forward. It is astonishing that Elections Canada did not undertake this on its own without encouragement from outside. However, having failed to do so, it will not be required to do so, and that is a very good thing.

The House resumed from February 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to provide further supplementary submissions to those I made earlier, as I indicated I would, on the point of order raised this afternoon by the hon. House leader for the official opposition.

I have had a chance to consult the cases that were cited in footnote 99 associated with the passage from which the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley quoted on page 728 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition.

In one of those cases, on May 16, 1978, at page 5461 of the Debates, Mr. Speaker Jerome directed that a bill be withdrawn after introduction because, “...while the document in respect to the motion was prepared, the bill itself had not been finalized and therefore is not ready for introduction”.

Second, in another case on December 15, 1980, at page 5746 of the Debates, Madam Speaker Sauvé directed that a bill be withdrawn on the same basis. Indeed, the bill in that case had not yet even been drafted.

These are in very stark contrast to the situation at hand.

Unlike those cases, we do have a bill. We have been hearing about it in the House all week long. The hon. House leader of the official opposition even quoted, from the summary of the bill, an explanatory text accompanying the clauses of the bill. Of course, we have had many people in the debates today and yesterday referring to parts of the bill.

In my earlier submissions, I spoke to the relationship between an explanatory note and a bill. Members will recall that the House leader was saying the difficulty was with the explanatory note, that there was a difference in the translation between the French and the English, and therefore the bill was not in its proper form.

I will add to my earlier citation by quoting from the treatment O'Brien and Bosc give to bill summaries at page 733.

The purpose of the summary is to contribute to a better understanding of the contents of the bill, of which it is not a part. For this reason, it appears separately at the beginning of the bill.

Once again, there is another citation that demonstrates that the summary, which is what the member was referring to, is not part of the bill. Even if there were an error in the summary that was grievous, that is not a reason to say the bill is not in its proper form. It is not part of the bill.

I do have a few other precedents that I would like to offer in relation to these supplementary texts of an explanatory nature, which get appended to bills.

I will start with a ruling of June 14, 1938, at page 450 of the Journals from Mr. Speaker Casgrain. He said:

The explanatory notes do not form part of the bill proper and they do not have to be approved by the House. They are only given as reasons for the text and to facilitate discussion.

That was a long time ago; 75 years ago or more.

Next, I have Mr. Speaker Beaudoin's ruling, which is much more recent, May 17, 1956, an interesting time, at page 568 of the Journals.

...explanatory notes are not part of the bill nor are the marginal notes....The bill consists of the various clauses that are there. In order to judge whether a bill is blank or in an imperfect shape, it had to have blanks when it was introduced and given first reading.

Later, he said in relation to what is now Standing Order 68(3): “No bill may be introduced either in blank or in imperfect shape”.

He continues:

Therefore at that moment the hon. Member cannot raise the point of order because he does not have a copy of the bill. The bill has not been printed. It is my duty, however, to satisfy myself. He was referring to his role as Speaker.

Mr. Speaker Beaudoin's ruling was sustained at the time upon appeal by a vote of 152 to 57.

On March 29, 1972, at page 1268 of the Debates, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux also confirmed the courtesy nature of the supplementary content that gets printed with bills.

As the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley pointed out, there was a translation error in the text from which he quoted. That text was prepared by the Department of Justice and bore on its cover the following note: “Advance copy to be formatted and reprinted by Parliament”.

The proviso was added to the courtesy copies of the government bills that were provided to MPs following the point of order by the hon. member for Kings—Hants, which was also cited today, and I think some of us remember that debate.

The official version of Bill C-23 of which the House is seized was ordered by the House on Tuesday to be printed. That motion is recorded at page 493 of the Journals. That copy of the bill, the official copy printed by order of the House and as published under the purview of our law clerk, can be viewed on the Internet, and there the House can see the corrected text in the bill’s summary.

In conclusion, I will briefly recap my arguments. First, the test for the application of Standing Order 68(3) takes place prior to introduction under the authority of the Chair, not at this stage. Second, explanatory notes and summaries do not even form any part of the bill; it is simply a courtesy measure to assist hon. members in performing their jobs. Finally, the wording issue of which the NDP has complained is not even in the version of Bill C-23 before this House.

I think we can see that there is no merit to the point raised.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today determined to outline our party's perspective on the difference between making changes to the Canada Elections Act to allow more people to vote and increasing the franchise for people.

Bill C-23 is really about the Conservative Party and about the problems it has had over the last number of years. We outlined some of them earlier.

I want to speak about our vision of a fair voting system and how we could improve voter turnout, not just for young people but for those individuals who find it difficult to vote. I want to speak about how we might do a better job.

I have previously quoted Alfred E. Smith, a former well-known governor of New York and a populist. He was a reformer in the area of child labour. He believed deeply in the idea of democratic development and was very passionate about it. He was a passionate advocate for the poor. He pushed for more democracy. One of my favourite quotes is, “All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy”. I believe in that.

We feel that we can address these issues in a better way than what we see in this legislation. The bill contains layer upon layer of technical aspects.

The Conservatives had a lot of problems. I will not go over all of them, because they are well known.

We hear from the government that this would open up opportunities for more people to vote. It would increase voter turnout. The problem is that the legislation would take away the very powers required by Elections Canada and its agents to encourage more people to vote.

In 2006-07, I was the NDP critic for democratic reform. I was responsible for providing our party's critique on Bill C-31. That was the last time we looked at changing some of the provisions in the Canada Elections Act. Photo ID was one of the provisions.

One of the provisions in that bill at the time, which we fought vehemently, was the addition to the voters list of birth dates. My colleagues and I had to enlist the support of the Privacy Commissioner to kill that provision. The other parties thought it was a great idea. They thought it was okay to have one's date of birth on the voters list. At the time, I called it a voter ID theft kit, brought to Canadians by their government. As we know, all that is needed for fraud is having someone's date of birth, address, and some other information. That is what the government wanted to provide. Thankfully, that was taken out of the bill after a lot of persuasion.

Another part of that bill was also interesting to me. When we were pushing the government on the issue of the introduction of photo ID, it had to acknowledge that many people do not have access to that kind of information. There was a huge hue and cry from people on low incomes, from seniors, and from transient people.

The government suggested that the provisions being put forward would be okay. One of those provisions was on vouching. The government changed the vouching system so that not just anyone could vouch for someone. It would have to be someone within the riding, and only one person could vouch. We came up with a suggestion we thought made sense. We suggested having a vouching system whereby the citizen could vouch for who he or she was and the ballot would be put aside if there was any concern and could be tracked.

The most disconcerting part of that legislation was that the Conservatives decided to continue what the Liberals had done in 1997, and that was to end universal enumeration.

I have listened carefully to the speeches. There is a lot of rhetoric from the other side about young people who are not voting. They said that with this legislation and by promoting the idea of voting, and the minister talked about telling people where to vote and how to vote, they will vote.

All of that has been done in the past. We have seen it. What has not been done and has not been acknowledged by the government, and which the minister and one of his colleagues acknowledged was a good idea, is having universal enumeration, meaning going out and making sure that every single person who is eligible to vote in every election is given that opportunity. We do not have that anymore.

Growing up, Mr. Speaker, you and I looked forward to when we would turn 18. A person would come to our door and enumerate us for the election. Our names would go on the voters list. We would know for certain that our names would be on the voters list, because we were enumerated.

We are asking that this provision be brought in. Let us go over what the government has said this bill will do. It has said that it will bring more people to the voting stations, because they will know where the voting stations are, and that more people, such as young people and others who are typically under-represented, will participate because of more publicity.

One thing is missing in that equation, and that is giving people the opportunity to vote because they have actually been enumerated. The sad thing is we put that idea forward previously, when I was the critic in 2006-07 when we debated Bill C-31, and the government rejected it.

Everyday people, as the government likes to call citizens, think it is common sense. It makes sense for everyone to have the opportunity to have his or her name on the voters list. What would that do for people who are students? I have a couple of universities in my riding. In the last election, they were caught between voting here, where they were at school, or where they reside in the summer. Their names did not show up on either list. If we had a dedicated process for universal enumeration, and not just in certain areas, as we do now, we would actually deal with that.

Seniors who might be moving from their residences into care homes or who have been in the hospital and have moved back home are another huge demographic that is left off the voters list.

For first nations, what we found out last time was that the requirement to have a photo ID also meant that people had to have an address. Well, when we look at addresses for people living on some of the reserves and in first nations communities, that was not the case. They did not have the address provisions. Tweaking was needed there. If people were there to do the actual enumeration, that would take care of it.

Those are what I would call common sense ideas, along with doing some other things that we have seen the Government of Manitoba do. It provides voting in places where we see actual activity, such as having young people voting in shopping malls. I think that makes sense. We could extended the opportunity to vote by extending the number of days for early balloting.

If we did those things, we could also promote. However, what the government has done in this bill is say that it would take the tools and the power away from Elections Canada. The idea of putting it in the Office of the Prosecutor is an interesting parlour trick. We saw what the government did with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The government tried to put the Parliamentary Budget Officer away so that no one could actually get the accountability we needed. Despite that, the PBO was able to do the job.

The government would try to shut those things down. Make no mistake, at the end of the day, this bill is not about opening the franchise to more people or increasing the opportunity for more people to vote. In fact, what this bill is about is the Conservative Party trying to deal with all of the challenges it has had in the last number of years. I will not go through the list with the in-and-out and the other issues around how its databases were abused for nefarious purposes.

At the end of the day, the NDP is saying a couple of clear things: Give Elections Canada the power it needs; give Elections Canada the resources it needs; and, finally, let us make sure every single Canadian who is eligible to vote has an opportunity to vote by bringing in and re-establishing universal enumeration for all Canadians.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that, fortunately, being ridiculous is not a contagious disease; if it were, the Conservative Party would have been decimated at an alarming rate.

I would also like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member forOttawa Centre.

Why is this ridiculous? Because we have here a bill that, among other things, targets our democratic system, our electoral system. I think that deserves careful attention, especially with the scandals we have recently experienced.

With such an important bill before us, what does the government do? It introduces a closure motion to prevent us from discussing it. Right from the start, the way in which the Conservatives are acting is totally ridiculous.

I would like to take some time to remind my colleagues of some statistics about voter participation. At the 34th general election in 1988, the turnout rate was 75.3%. A few years later, in 2000, it was 64.1%. At the last election in 2011, only 61.1% of the population voted. So it is not hard to understand that the problem with voting is not that people are voting when they have no real right to do so. The problem is that people with the right to vote are not doing so.

At the last election, out of thin air, people in ridings that were considered tight for the Conservative Party received calls telling them that polling stations had been changed, among other things. That turned out not to be true. Therefore there were people who had the right to vote but could not do so. In the last election, the problem was that people were prevented from voting; it was not that people were voting without the right to do so. That was absolutely not the case. It is quite simple to understand. Unfortunately, with this bill, the Conservative Party seems not to have understood.

Courts have handed down major decisions involving Elections Canada, such as, for example, Hughes v. Elections Canada. In February 2010, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered a series of measures to improve accessibility at polling stations. One of those measures was to allow the voter identification card as proof of identity and address for groups of voters who were likely to have difficulty providing the necessary proof.

Bill C-23 makes it clear that the government is going against the recommendations set out in the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 41st general election of May 2, 2011.

It is completely ridiculous to tell aboriginal communities, young people and seniors—who often do not have many pieces of identification—that we are going to make their lives more complicated and that they can only vote with a voter identification card or with someone who takes an oath.

In my riding, there are small communities with 300 people, where everyone knows everyone. If John Doe goes to vote and does not have any acceptable pieces of ID or there is no one to take an oath, he cannot vote. However, everyone working in the office, living in the town or standing in the room has known him for 40 or 45 years. They know exactly who he is. We can see how ridiculous this is.

Another major flaw in this bill is that the Chief Electoral Officer is prohibited from encouraging people to vote. All he can do now is say where, how and when to vote.

When I go to my riding and ask people why they did not vote, they say, “Why would I go vote?” We try to convince them that it is worthwhile. There is no lack of technical information.

If you think voting is worth it, you will go vote. In any event, people already receive the technical information. We need to convince people who are not voting to do so by explaining why it is useful to vote.

It is also important to ensure that it is not too complicated. Because of address changes, young people living in student residences often get discouraged and are not on the voters' list for the first time. They need to understand why voting is important. Now, unfortunately, this power will be taken away from the Chief Electoral Officer. We are setting aside the opportunity to increase voter participation.

Provincial legislation covers this aspect as well. There are a number of ways of approaching it. It is not obvious, but we need to keep fighting to increase voter participation. It is the very basis of our democracy. Someone had the power to do so, but that is now being taken away, which is completely ridiculous.

The government says it wants to use this bill to prevent big donors who have some control in the elections, but in perspective that makes no sense. In fact, this bill will increase the maximum threshold for individual donations from $1,200 to $1,500. That makes absolutely no sense. The Conservative Party knows very well that this will help it, meaning this is a bill made by the Conservatives, for the Conservatives, that gives them the means to get a head start in future elections.

While a serious problem with election fraud and problems in our electoral process need to be fixed, the government is only offering a partisan response that only the government will benefit from. It makes absolutely no sense.

The thorny issue of contributions to parties was addressed recently in Quebec. After some thought and consultations, it was decided that contributions would be significantly reduced. As a result, the practice of funnelling money through straw men is now practically ineffective because it takes too many people to generate a significant donation.

If the amount donated per person is $1500 and you find 10 people who want to be straw men, you are already up to $15,000. If you find 20 people, you are at $30,000. However, if contributions were limited to $200 or $300 per person, things would be much more complicated. You would need to find a lot more people to fill a party's coffers.

This line of thought was not pursued in the consideration of the bill. In fact, the minister said that he had met with the Chief Electoral Officer, which is absolutely not true. We have no idea why they came up with this bill, other than the fact that they just wanted to find a way to have a head start in the next federal election.

I am extremely disappointed, especially since the NDP had a motion passed unanimously, calling for action within six months. The only thing the government was able to produce in six months is this. It makes no sense that the government took so long to come up with a bill that will overwhelmingly favour the Conservative Party. This bill does not even honour the principle of improving our electoral system. That is a real shame.

We could have done a lot better. Canada routinely monitors the elections of foreign countries to ensure that the democratic process is followed. However, when the time comes to improve our electoral process, the government tries to come up with bills filled with flim-flam to favour the party in power. That is unacceptable. The attitude of the Minister of State for Democratic Reform is irresponsible and quite ridiculous.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, everyday citizens want to know how Bill C-23 is going to crack down on, for example, the member for Peterborough over-contributing to his campaign and accepting illegal donations from his brother. Everyday citizens want to know how the bill is going to crack down on the former member from Labrador, Peter Penashue, who accepted corporate contributions and over-contributed to his campaign, then quit, and then was allowed to run again. Everyday citizens want to know exactly how the in-and-out scandal that the Conservatives did in the 2006 election would be penalized through this piece of legislation. Those are the questions everyday citizens want answers to.

Perhaps the member could elaborate on how the bill would crack down on that kind of behaviour.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak today to Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which has been 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 bill also makes it harder to break the elections law. It closes loopholes to big money. It imposes new penalties on political impostors who make rogue calls, and empowers law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

The fair elections act would protect voters from rogue calls, with a mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating elections officials, and increased penalties. It would give more independence to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, allowing her or him to have control over their staff and investigations, empowering the officer to seek tougher penalties for existing electoral offences, and providing more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting.

It would crack down on voter fraud by prohibiting vouching or voter information cards as the only acceptable forms of ID. It would make the rules for elections clear, predictable, and easier to follow. It would ban the use of loans which are often used to evade donation rules. It would repeal the ban on premature transmission of election results, upholding free speech and the realities of technology and communications in the 21st century. It would provide better customer service to voters and establish an extra day of polling.

In the case of disagreements over election expenses, it would allow a member of Parliament to present the disputed case in the courts and to have judges quickly rule on it, before the Chief Electoral Officer seeks the MP's suspension.

What I want to focus on today is something that I know my colleagues in the House are concerned about. We have all seen how big money can influence elections in other countries, and that is something that our government, this government, is committed to preventing in Canada.

Our government is pursuing a principled agenda to strengthen accountability and democracy in Canada. It was our Conservative government that instituted a ban on union and corporate donations to political parties, and this total ban will remain.

The fair elections act would reduce undue influence, both real and apparent, of wealthy interests in the political process. The current rules on political loans do not meet the high standards of accountability, transparency, and integrity that is expected by Canadians.

With the introduction of the fair elections act, we are building on our flagship Federal Accountability Act by bringing greater accountability and transparency to political loans. Everyday Canadians are expected to pay back their loans under strict rules, and the same should apply to politicians. Big money from special interests can drown out the voice of everyday citizens. That is why Canada's laws strive to keep it out.

The fair elections act would ban the use of loans to evade donation rules. It would allow political parties to fund democratic outreach with small increases in the current spending limits, while imposing tougher audits and penalties to enforce those limits. It would also make it easier for small donors to contribute more to democracy through the front door and harder for illegal big money to sneak in through the back door.

Some have used loans that are never repaid to get around the donations limit. If adopted, the fair elections act would put a stop to that by banning the use of loans to get around donation rules. It would do this by requiring uniform and transparent reporting for all political loans. This includes having to disclose the terms of the loan and the identity of the lender. It would bring the practice of issuing loans to political candidates and to parties out into the light. It would make the limit for total loans, loan guarantees, and contributions by individuals equal to the annual contribution limit.

A person with deeper pockets cannot get around the contribution limit by making a loan that they never intend to have paid back to them. It will ensure that if a candidate needs a bigger loan than the individual annual contribution limit, that candidate will have to go to a financial institution or political entity, not just a friend with money. The loan that they receive will have to be at a fair market rate of interest. There will be no more favours in the form of sub-market loans from political friends. That day is over.

It would tighten up the rules on unpaid loans. Candidates will not simply be able to walk away from loans that they have not repaid, which in reality turns that loan into a donation after the fact. If a candidate's loan is written off by the lender, the riding association or the party of that candidate will be held responsible for the unpaid loan. It would also put the political financing rules for party leadership contestants on the same footing as for other political entities.

The current timeframe, which is pre-event, would be changed to a per calendar year basis.

In addition to closing political loans loopholes, the bill would also make sure that political parties are being diligent about ensuring they comply with the law for political financing. The filings that parties have to make regarding their financial affairs should go farther than simply giving the appearance that a party is in compliance with the rules. Canadians should know that the information is accurate and reliable. An auditor should confirm that this is the case.

These audits are important, as some electoral expenses by parties can be reimbursed, but Canadians should have better assurances that taxpayer money to support our democratic system is only being spent under the right circumstances, and only when the expenses are in full compliance with our electoral laws.

The bill would increase the responsibility of the external auditors of political parties. It would require that they also conduct a compliance audit to assess the party's compliance with the political financing rules. The Chief Electoral Officer would have to consider the auditor's assessment of whether a party has complied with the political financing rules in the Elections Act before he or she could certify that the party's election expenses are eligible for reimbursement.

Canadians should also know what their political parties and candidates are spending money on, particularly when they are using voter contact services. The bill would create an obligation for political parties, registered associations, and candidates to identify any expenses in their returns for voter contact services.

Finally, the bill includes a strong financial deterrent to prevent political parties and candidates from exceeding the expense limits.

The potential reimbursement would be reduced for every dollar they overspend by $1 for every $1 that exceeds the maximum amount by less than 5%; $2 for every $1 that exceeds the maximum amount by 5% or more, but less than 10%; $3 for every $1 that exceeds the maximum amount by 10% or more, but less than 12.5%; and $4 for every $1 that exceeds the maximum amount of 12.5%.

I expect that colleagues in all parties can agree that penalties based on the idea that the more one overspends, the more it could cost in the end would indeed be an even greater incentive to ensure that the rules were followed.

I have just spent a fair bit of time outlining the bill and how it would crack down on illegitimate election spending and close financial loopholes, but the fact of the matter is that campaigning in an election does take money. I know that. We all know that. My colleagues in this place certainly know that.

This bill would ensure that money comes from the right place: from individual Canadians. It would help parties and candidates to fund their campaigns by appealing to Canadian voters. Increasing the annual contribution limit for individuals to $1,500 would also make it easier for small donors to contribute more to democracy through the front door.

The bill would also increase the overall spending limit for national and local campaigns by 5% each.

In conclusion, this bill is about ensuring that the interests of Canadian citizens are at the forefront of our election rules. That means not only ensuring fair access to the electoral system and ensuring fraudsters and tricksters are caught, but also that there is no place for big money to exercise undue influence. It means ensuring that political parties and candidates are complying with the political financing rules. It also means making it easier for Canadians who want to contribute financially to our democratic system to do so. This bill puts Canadian voters first.

As we are at second reading of the bill, I encourage members to support the bill at second reading to get the bill before the procedure and House affairs committee, of which I am pleased and honoured to be a member.

I suspect many organizations and individuals will come forward to speak to the bill. I look forward to their input. I look forward to their ideas and suggestions. I look forward to ensuring that when we pass the final version of the fair elections act, it will stand up for fairness and transparency and it will be a great act to ensure that the voting rights and the democratic rights of each and every Canadian are respected.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments, although his introduction seemed a little far off topic. There was a lot of speculation.

More seriously, we in the NDP believe that people should have the maximum opportunity to vote, to participate in civic matters, to take part in an election campaign and perhaps even to donate to the political party they support. These are all things that we would like to see further action on. We want voter turnout to go back up. We do not believe that this bill takes us in the right direction.

However, one of the good points in Bill C-23 is to create a registry that would contain all the information on robocalls. Perhaps that would prevent the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party from misusing such calls in the future.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to BillC-23, dealing with the reform of the Canada Elections Act.

First, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member from Gatineau for her excellent remarks and for so kindly sharing her time with me, which allows me to contribute as well. She is really considerate.

In terms of democracy, however, the Conservatives are less considerate. I cannot help but start with the reminder that we are now under the 46th gag order from this Conservative majority government. It is really incredible. After one hour of debate, the Conservatives announced their intention to prevent members of Parliament from talking about the reform of the Canada Elections Act. After one hour!

That was enough for them. They did not want to hear from us any more. I am sorry, but, outside this House, we are going to continue to talk to Canadians and to Quebeckers and to tell them that there are dangers in Bill C-23 that this government is presenting to us and—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent point. It brings us back to what I was saying at the start. My impression is that by introducing Bill C-23, the Conservative government is basically saying that Canadians are criminals and that they are the ones breaking the law. That is part of the Conservatives' strategy. They will never admit that they made a mistake, that they were in the wrong or that one of their own could have broken the law. They always shift the blame to someone else because diversion works so well.

It is kind of sad. As the member for Vancouver East said, it is like taking a sledgehammer to a fly. Many people are being denied their right to vote. It is unfortunate, it sends a bad signal and it provides no hope at all for seeing an improvement in this country's democracy.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the fine member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I would have liked to see the minister who just spoke answer the following question, which is perhaps more appropriate: How can a government become a majority government with barely 39% of the votes of the 61% of Canadians who voted? Clearly, there is a serious problem with the way we do things.

I agree with the minister that members of Parliament should not be the only ones wondering what is really happening with the elections process and democracy in our great and beautiful country. That also concerns me.

Furthermore, I am proud to say that, with 62% of the votes in my riding, I felt I was in the driver's seat. I felt I was representing my people. However, I am not proud that only 63% of the people of Gatineau exercised their right to vote. That means that 37% of the population chose to stay home rather than to exercise a fundamental right.

In some countries, people kill each other for the right to vote. They make huge sacrifices for this fundamental right.

We have a rather worrisome problem on our hands and it is not improving. With a bill like this, it is quite cynical to say that we are debating it. As my colleague from Vancouver East said, the title of the bill is the Fair Elections Actfair elections act. In French, it is theloi sur l'intégrité des élections. The intent is to make people believe that it will solve a lot of voter participation problems.

I think the message that the government is sending to Canadians and voters is a message of sheer mistrust.

In their speeches, the Conservatives make much of the fact that people cheat at election time. We heard that a few minutes ago right from the mouth of the minister of state. People are fraudulently vouching for people who have no identification. That fact alone is justification for disenfranchising masses of people who may have no easy access to pieces of identification, with due respect to the minister and all her lists.

It is already complicated enough for Canadians to understand the system and to find out where they have to go to vote. Some people have voted in the same place all their lives and then, suddenly, the polling station is not there any more.

Everyone who has been part of an election day knows what I am talking about. They know just how many questions they are asked that day. It does not matter that people have received their voter card or that they have seen newspaper ads about the date of the election and where they have to go to vote. Our volunteers get a lot of calls. We have a problem getting information to people.

What is the government's solution? It is to take away one of the ways people had to become informed and that was working very well. The Chief Electoral Officer and the institution we call Elections Canada are neutral and non-partisan, with all respect to our friends opposite. The institution is all about exercising democracy.

I remember sitting on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in 2004 and meeting Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the chief electoral officer at the time. Members of Parliament were very proud to see the respect given to the chief electoral officer and the institution we call Elections Canada. For several years, there has been a kind of incredible tug-of-war going on under the noses of all Canadians concerning actions and investigations linked to the Conservative government.

Suddenly Elections Canada is biased. The chief electoral officer the Conservatives appointed is wearing a uniform, but not in their team's colours. Therefore, the Conservatives are responding with this bill.

We cannot help but be cynical when once again we are up against time allocation. We keep being told to read the bill and that it is not complicated, but it is 244 pages long. I started reading it carefully and realized that some parts of it are very technical. There is no logic to it; it is a mishmash. It is not entirely clear. Given the motion of the House Leader of the Official Opposition, not only did I look at the French, but I also checked whether the English said the same thing because I now have some doubts about that.

I see there is a discrepancy between the two titles: Loi sur l'intégrité des élections in French, and fair election act in English. Perhaps my English is not the best, but in my mind “fair” in English would be “juste” in French. Next, the French word “intégrité” would be “integrity”, which relates to honesty. There are also mistakes in the summary. It is a bit worrisome, just as it is to impose time allocation to debate a bill that affects a fundamental right to vote, namely, how to get it and how to access it. Many of my colleagues have asked questions, which the government members have done an incredible job of evading.

I am old enough to remember the good old days when people knocked on your door to find out how many voters lived in your house. The people asked you questions and wrote down the answers on the voters list. Next, they did the enumeration and revision of the lists in order to make sure that all the names were written down correctly. That method was eliminated, as though democracy had a price and the government wanted to show how good it is at managing public funds. It is particularly shameful to cut things that affect democracy.

This creates huge problems. I understand my colleagues who are from large rural ridings, especially my friends from Beauce and other areas in the interior of Quebec and Canada's far north. They have to cover huge territories over which small pockets of people are spread. Their situation is certainly different than that of a large city like Gatineau, the fourth largest city in Quebec. In Gatineau, the problems have more to do with the number of new developments. There are people who are not on our voters lists at all and are difficult to track down.

I will refrain from characterizing the comments made by the minister of state, who said to just do the work. I would love to take my scooter or my car and drive through all the streets, which I do anyway in an election campaign, but it is a bit much to suggest that we go and knock on all the doors and count everyone.

I am not saying that we should not do so; on the contrary. I think everyone in the House would do well to encourage their constituents to vote. Besides, no one is more active than I am on Facebook. While I was debating, I was communicating with the people of Gatineau on Facebook to hear what they think of the bill. The Conservatives might not be so happy to hear some of the comments I am receiving. However, that is normal, because they are probably from party supporters.

Am I the right person to encourage all voters in my riding and to do the work of the Chief Electoral Officer? I really like myself and I am confident that I can be impartial, up to a point. However, I have to admit that I do not know who I would encourage to vote if I had to choose between someone who would vote for me and someone who would not vote for me. I do not think that a Conservative would encourage an NDP supporter to go and vote.

The major fault of this bill is the lack of balance. For those listening, I repeat that this bill is 244 pages long. It is not simple. We have to really digest it. It is in the Conservatives' interest to broaden the debate as much as possible.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I am excited to speak on this topic today because it is an issue we all wrestle with. I want to spend my time today on a few areas of this bill, such as the voter education component, the vouching issue, access to voting facilities, and some of the measures set out for money and corporate donations, as well as some of the robocall issues in here.

I will start with the education component because it has come up in question period and in debate quite a bit. We should all be concerned with this, as parliamentarians, in a good way.

I asked my colleague opposite why young voters in his riding do not vote and why he had a low turnout. Did members notice that he could not answer? I have asked myself this question for the last three years I have been in my first term of Parliament. I have asked myself this in areas where I have seen lower voter turnout as I analyze the election results. How can I get out and encourage people to vote in this area? I see that as my responsibility as an elected official. I am certain that other people and other parties should be asking the same question.

Moreover, it is not just our job as someone running in a campaign; it is our job as parliamentarians. If we are not asking what issues motivate people to vote, we are not doing our job. Therefore, to make the argument that a government institution is responsible for finding out why people vote is an abdication of our responsibilities as parliamentarians. I cannot believe we are having the argument that we should be somehow divesting that voter persuasion, that issue engagement, and that policy engagement to a government entity. It is false logic. It degrades the democracy we are built upon.

Every day we should be talking to our constituents and asking them what issues motivate them, what makes them want to vote, what they care about, and where they want our party to be on an issue if they care about it so much. Not only is that the policy development process, that is what voter engagement is.

We can talk about social media and websites. I love the Apathy is Boring campaign. Members have talked about using art in terms of encouraging people to vote. Those are tools. That is the how people vote. It is not the why. We cannot shift the responsibility for an inquiry into why people vote to Elections Canada. That is our job. Therefore, every time I hear that come up in question period or whatnot, I want people to look inward and ask themselves why the youth in their riding are not voting.

Moreover, when we talk about why people do not vote, there is an issues component, but sometimes it comes down to a traffic jam, a school dance recital, a lack of child care coverage or transportation to the polls, or a big snowstorm.

I have talked to friends in data visualization. When they look at emergency response around an accident, for example, they look at how people move. It is a behavioural choice to make a decision to go somewhere or do something. Voting is going somewhere and doing something. As parliamentarians and candidates, we also have to look at what behavioural choices people make to go out and vote. That is not a static thing. When we are talking about why people vote, the issues change and what motivates someone changes, so we have to be on top of that. However, we also have to look at what behavioural impacts affect a person to vote on that night and at that time, which is why I find this bill so cool. I will get to that in a minute.

In researching and preparing for this speech, I looked at a paper prepared for Elections Canada in January 2011 entitled “Youth Electoral Engagement in Canada”. It is a fairly robust paper. I note that line one of the executive summary of this report states:

Youth electoral engagement in Canada is declining. Despite this, we do not know much about the causes of this decline.

It is a fascinating paper. It talks about many different reasons that could potentially have an impact on why people do or do not vote. At the end of the day, it talks about the possibility that we may need more data. To say that why people vote could be somehow impacted by a static snapshot in time is a bit of false logic too.

Therefore, when we are looking at who is best positioned to educate voters, it is not just a government department. Should we be entrusting voter persuasion to a government department? I am not sure. I think that is dangerous territory. What we should be asking is how do each of us here better reach out to different demographics in our riding. Do we understand what those demographics are? Do we understand what they care about and why? How do those issues change over time? How does the policy change over time?

On election day, I have to persuade people to go out to the polls, based on the job that I have done and the stands that my party has taken on these issues. Voter persuasion is not an election campaign issue. Elections Canada cannot just go out and persuade people to go vote. It is a term of office. It is a constant thing. Now, all of a sudden we are making an argument that a government institution should be taking the role of a parliamentarian, an NGO, or an educational institution. No, that is wrong. That is the sort of debate that allows us to considerably reduce the efficacy of our democracy in Canada, and I am strongly opposed to it.

I mentioned tools. What do we need to get people to go vote? How do they go out and vote? Let us educate people on where they vote. Let us look at some of those behavioural issues I talked about, like the snow storm, the traffic jams, the school recital. Let us give them more options on when and where they can vote. No one likes to stand in a long line. I know I do not. As my friends know, I am a very impatient person. As my staff members are watching this, they know that as well.

Therefore, for impatient people, how do we reduce the congestion in voting stations? That is what Bill C-23 does. It offers more advance polling days. It offers solutions around staffing, such as in areas of congestion, we would be able to reduce that. We should be tasking an administrative department with the how, with the tools. I really think that by legislating and enshrining that, in a very focused and specific mandate within the bill, we would be doing a great service to Canadians. However, we are not doing a service if we abdicate our responsibility as parliamentarians for understanding why people vote.

My colleague could not answer that. He could not understand why people do not vote in his riding. That is something we should all be concerned about. I am sure that if we got into a debate about how this group or that group feels about an issue, that would be interesting. I could not answer all of that, but I have some data. I have a good sense, based on the survey mechanisms I use in my riding. I do telephone town halls, town hall meetings, surveys, and social media. I try to communicate as many ways and with as many tools as I can, but at the end of the day, identifying what is going to persuade people to vote is my job. It is not Elections Canada's job.

On the vouching issue, I have been involved in politics for over a decade. I feel old saying that, but I spent much of my teen years and 20s spending vacation time learning how to campaign and doing something called “scrutineering”. That is watching people come to the polls and making sure there are no irregularities. I have seen irregularities happen. One just knows when something is happening. I have to think that the ability to identify someone, to take on the privilege of voting in our country, is something that we should not take lightly. Bill C-23 strikes the right balance.

Bill C-23 is saying that one should have the responsibility to identify oneself, but that let us try to provide as many forms of identification as possible to make that easy to do. For those who have been following this line of question in question period and in the House, I encourage them to go to the Elections Canada website, look at option 2 for what voter pieces of information are eligible, and read the list of eligible pieces of ID.

We talked about transient populations, aboriginal people, students who might be in homes, and seniors. Here are some things they can use as ID: attestation of residence issued by the responsible authority of a first nations band or reserve; one of the following, issued by a responsible authority of a shelter, soup kitchen, student or senior residence, or a long-term care facility; an attestation of residence, letter of stay, admission form, or statement of benefits; correspondence issued by a school, college, or university.

We are adding extra voting days through the advance polling days. We are saying there are a lot of different identification components in here. I see it as my job now to go out and make sure that people know this list exists. I had to do a little bit of Internet searching to find this. It is not front and centre.

I do not necessarily agree with all of her opinions, but I respect the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who has been a very active voice on this file. In the press release her party issued on February 4 when we released this bill, she said, “To improve voter turnout, we should repeal all the changes, including the photo ID requirement, that make it harder for young people...to vote.”

Right now people do not actually have to present photo ID. They can have two pieces of ID on the list I just went through, and that was not exhaustive. I did not read it all. I believe there are 30-plus different forms of identification that are still valid. If someone as educated and civically engaged as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands does not know that we do not just have a photo identification requirement, maybe a lot of Canadians do not know what they can bring to the polls. That is the education component that we need. What the bill would do is to make it crystal clear in Elections Canada's mandate that it has to provide that service. It needs to educate voters on what they need to bring to the polls.

There should also be a component in there to make sure that political parties are educating people on what they need to bring. It is my job as a candidate to tell people what they need to bring to the polls in order to exercise their franchise. I do not see that as disenfranchisement. I see it as a collective responsibility to educate people on what they need to bring to the polls to exercise their right to vote.

I think this can be overcome. The research that my colleague, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, has cited about irregularities relating to vouching provides a good impetus for us to address the issue in the bill. If the data were showing there were zero irregularities with this, we would be having a different debate, but the fact is that it is not. We would be remiss as parliamentarians if we did not even talk about the issue and that there is perhaps a problem here.

I was reading some of the background research that was provided on the bill and I believe that it has been shown that even with increased training for Elections Canada staff, there was still about the same level of irregularities related to vouching. This is a positive step, but having that education mandate focused on Elections Canada to tell people what identification they need to bring, having it front and centre on its website and in its communications, would be a very good and positive thing for the Canadian democratic process.

One thing in the bill that I think everyone will agree on is repeal of the ban on premature transmission of elections results. I was reading my Twitter feed when the bill came out and someone jokingly said that Canadian democracy has entered the age of the telephone. So it goes without saying that given the way that we now consume information as a country, the repeal of the ban speaks to the fact that we are acknowledging free speech rules and that this is just common sense. I am not sure if that has been talked about in debate, but it really is important and should be highlighted in the coverage of the bill.

The other very positive aspects are the rules to be in place around the public registry for mass calling, the prison time for impersonating elections officials, and the increased penalties for deceiving people out of their vote. Some of the measures we are putting in place are very positive for protecting electors when it comes to the information they are receiving about the election, including the creation of a registry of new voter contact services by telephone, and requiring registration with the CRTC of telephone service providers engaging in voter contact and any person or group engaging in the use of telephone service providers for voter contact purposes.

I encourage people to go to the democratic reform website of the government, as this particular component, as well as all of the other components of the bill, are clearly outlined there. It is very important for voters to know what the bill would do in strengthening the rules around robocalls. As well, the fact that we have to keep scripts and a record of how we have communicated to voters is a very good thing.

Another great thing is the increased disclosure requirements for political parties, candidates, and electoral associations, with a specific disclosure line in the election return for expenses incurred under the voter contact purposes by telephone.

The last component I want to speak on today is the financing component.

I often get asked, as we all do, why I ran for office. We always have issues or personal motivation, but part of why I ran was because I could.

When we compare the Canadian political system with the American system, where I believe there was over $6 billion spent on its last presidential campaign, we have a really good system that limits the amount of influence that corporations, NGOs, and any individual can have on our policy deliberations. Everyone in this room has the ability to spend time on policy without being subject to undue influence, because we are not beholden to people beyond a level of materiality that we have legislated in the House. Some of the things that we have talked about in the bill, including closing the political loans loophole, I think are very good for accessibility.

When we look at barriers to women running for office, the ability to raise funds is often something that comes up. Anything we can do to level the playing field and entry barriers for different demographics, who perhaps do not normally participate in the political process at a candidate level, I think is a very good thing. However, I have not heard anyone talk about that today. I have not heard anyone talk about how it is a very positive thing to make sure that people are on the same playing field as others who have access to a wealthy benefactor or lender. We should celebrate this measure.

I also look at the tougher penalties we are putting in place for people who are not in compliance with some of these rules. My colleague, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, talks about sharper teeth, which are so important. When people break our democratic rules there should be penalties for that. When we look at the elements in the bill to address that, they are a very positive thing.

Also, the clarification of the rules of interpretation of the Canada Elections Act is a good thing for all of us who stand here. We all believe in a system where one is innocent until proven guilty. Knowing what the procedures would be around an Elections Canada ruling and having the ability to sit in this place while those occur is something we have a responsibility for back to our voters. People put us in this place based on exercising their franchise, which has been talked about so much in other components of this debate. To remove someone without concrete cause, I think, is something that we should be very concerned about. It could happen to any one of us here in any party. We are not condoning bad behaviour; far from it. We are saying that the rules associated with the Canada Elections Act need to be stated in a very clear and public way and applied equally in a non-partisan way. I think that is a very positive thing.

One of my purported constituents said, “Stand up for your constituents...and tell [the Minister of State for Democratic Reform] to think hard about what democratic reform really looks like...”.

I think he did. I think it is in this bill, and I commend him for all his work.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

I have the honour of rising in the House to represent the people of LaSalle—Émard in the Parliament of Canada and ensure that their voices and objections concerning certain clauses in Bill C-23 are heard.

The government has been attacking Elections Canada for years, and this bill is the final blow in that fight. The minister of Conservative reform, or rather the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, feels that this agency is prejudiced and biased in its criticism of the Conservatives' non-compliance with election laws. This bill is an obvious attack on Elections Canada, as it aims to limit its powers.

Instead of limiting the Chief Electoral Officer's role in implementing public education programs, the government should be working with Elections Canada to develop a strategy to increase voter participation. Fewer and fewer Canadians are voting. In 2011, only 61% of eligible voters participated in the election, which is one of the lowest percentages in our country's history. The lowest participation rate was in 2008, when only 58% of Canadians went to the polls to elect a Conservative minority government. That shows that Canadian voters are not particularly drawn to that party.

In most modern democracies, the institution responsible for administering the electoral system is also responsible for promoting public awareness of the importance of voting. Bill C-23 limits the role of the Chief Electoral Officer. From now on, this officer will only be able to discuss certain aspects of the voting process, such as where, when and how to vote.

The Chief Electoral Officer is an expert on democracy. He is independent and non-partisan. He and his team develop campaigns to encourage people to vote. The Chief Electoral Officer does an excellent job promoting awareness and educating the public, which is a very important part of a healthy participatory democracy.

This reform will have a significant impact on educational activities, such as Canada's democracy week, which was organized by Elections Canada, and the civic education program, which aimed to help students learn about the electoral process. All of these initiatives will be eliminated.

Canadians need to understand that this measure is a direct attack on the very foundation of our democracy. It will not increase voter participation, particularly among young people and groups who are less likely to vote.

Fortunately, the media and society at large are condemning this attack on our institutions. Allow me to quote an article published in The Globe and Mail that starts with this:

The Conservative government is stripping Elections Canada of its authority to encourage Canadians to vote in federal ballots [...]

The Montreal Gazette qualified this measure as “decidedly self-serving” for the Conservative government.

Canada is a world example on democratic participation and strong democratic institutions, but the Conservative government is working hard to change our values for its own electoral benefit.

How can we go to other countries and guide them on strengthening their democracy when we are not protecting our own institutions? How can our democracy be a model when the government is cancelling the programs aimed at teaching our youth and newcomers about the importance of electoral participation?

The amendments proposed in this bill will have negative consequences for all Canadians because the voting process will be more difficult, especially for vulnerable Canadians. These vulnerable people will be affected by another measure in Bill C-23 that appears to be an attempt to suppress votes from certain segments of the population.

The bill would put an end to the practice of vouching, and if it passes, the voter registration cards sent out to voters will no longer be accepted as proof of registration. These voter identification cards are important to people, like some of my constituents, who have moved or are newcomers and have a hard time providing proof of address when they want to vote. This can also be an issue for others, such as students, seniors and aboriginal people. Elections Canada uses these cards to validate the information provided by voters through the Canada Revenue Agency or provincial agencies.

At the polling station, voters must present another piece of ID in addition to their voter identification card. My riding of LaSalle—Émard had 57% voter turnout for the May 2011 election. Only 42,500 of the 74,500 eligible voters turned out. Among those who did not vote are the groups that have the most difficulty participating in the voting process.

More than 40% of my constituents are considered to be low-income earners. Furthermore, 50.4% of those 65 and over have an income of less than $20,000 a year, and 51% of them have no certificates or diplomas. This population is often isolated. I see it when I meet my constituents. They feel isolated, have low incomes and are more likely to move and not to be informed of their obligation to vote. Young people represent 27% of the population, are mobile, and will be affected by this new measure.

In LaSalle—Émard, as well as in other Quebec ridings, many people do not have a driver's licence or another identification card. Quebec's health card does not show the person's address. If Canadians do not receive these voter information cards, and have only a health card as the only valid piece of identification, they may be discouraged from voting because now it will be harder to verify their information.

It is the responsibility of every government to make voting easier for its citizens. They should not be encouraged to refrain from voting. With this measure, the Conservatives are targeting certain demographic groups. Unlike the Conservatives, I represent all the people in LaSalle—Émard. I am not here to defend access to voting only for those who voted for me. I am here to defend all Canadians, no matter their political affiliation. We have been elected to represent all our constituents and not to promote measures that will limit the participation of those opposed to the government, as the Conservatives are doing.

I would like to conclude on this measure by stating what an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen had to say:

One might have thought that when the Conservative government finally got around to reforming election law, it would be to try to prevent the kind of voter suppression and electoral fraud Canada saw in the 2011 election. But when they said they would make it harder to break the rules, it seems they were talking about cracking down on homeless voters, not party bagmen.

Here is another quote. This one is from the Toronto Star:

...[this] government is more inclined to see a higher voter turnout as a threat than as an ideal outcome.

The House resumed from February 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue to the second of our four days of second reading debate on Bill C-23. I do want to draw attention that debate is on the fair elections act because that is significantly more than the five hours that the NDP critic yesterday proposed that the House should have as a debate at this stage.

We think that four days is better than five hours. We want more debate. Unfortunately, we did lose the debate this morning because of the delay and obstruction tactics from the opposition. However, we are optimistic that we will be able to proceed and have further debate today.

In fact, we would hope to have it also tomorrow and on Monday. The fair elections act, as we have all heard, will ensure that everyday citizens, everyday Canadians, remain in charge of Canadian democracy. Of course, it has had strong reviews, including an A minus from a former chief electoral officer for Canada.

Tuesday morning will see the ninth day of consideration of Bill C-2, Respect for Communities Act. It has now become painfully clear that the opposition will not agree to these common-sense rules that allow communities to have a say in whether a drug-injection site should be opened in their midst.

Mr. Speaker, the highlight of next week will be the budget presentation, with the hon. Minister of Finance delivering that in this chamber at 4 p.m. on Tuesday.

Wednesday and Friday of next week will be the first and second days of debate on the budget in the House.

I understand that Bill C-15, Northwest Territories devolution act, will be reported back from committee shortly. We will see that it gets considered at report stage, and hopefully third reading. At the moment, I am setting next Thursday aside for that purpose.

Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member acknowledges there are some positive aspects to the fair elections act, and I look forward to working with him, or whichever delegates the NDP sends to the committee, to ensure that the fair elections act is even better.

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, not more than three further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the third day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bilingualism in Canada's Legislative Process

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 4, I went to 2 Rideau St. for the recommended technical briefing that had been set up by the Privy Council. This was not their first time. These are people who are supposed to be well prepared and have a well-equipped translation service. We have it all the time in committee. We should be entitled to it.

Bill C-23 is very important and showed up out of nowhere. It is also very long. I need the technical information in my first language, which is French. When someone recommends that we go to these meetings, they should automatically ensure that there is simultaneous English and French interpretation. We do not want people beside us or at the front to try to translate the information for us.

MPs and senators were invited to this meeting. The briefing was organized by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, the member for Nepean—Carleton. There were a number of interpretation problems, from the very beginning of the session. Several times, there was no interpretation at all. This is not a criticism of the public servants who were there and who did their best.

As a French-speaking member of Parliament, it is absolutely necessary for me to receive technical information on a bill as important as Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act in my mother tongue, as this is something that affects every one of our ridings.

As the member for Sherbrooke said, it is very serious when MPs are prevented from doing their job because one of the official languages is treated as a secondary language.

In conclusion, I would like to share a quote from O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice. On page 61 of the 2009 edition, they state, “The privileges of Members of the House of Commons provide the absolute immunity they require to perform their parliamentary work...”.

A technical briefing must be given in both official languages in a way that is not just so-so, but perfect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Absolutely.

My colleague beside me says that people don't understand procedures. I understand agreements. I understand that on this particular piece of legislation...and as I say, I have some very strong thoughts. I would have loved to have brought forward motions and be able to debate that bill today. Trust me, I'd love to debate it. I was under the understanding that there was an all-party consensus that we wouldn't be doing something of this nature. Having said that, if we are going to be doing things of this nature, I would have liked to have been forewarned for the simple reason that I too would have liked to have been able to bring forth some motions in regard to Bill C-23.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Just a moment, Chair.

I don't know what you're going on about here, but all I did was submit a notice of motion that I'm entitled to do on any subject without expecting to be editorialized and attacked by the chair for exercising my right. I am honouring our commitment on Bill C-23 totally, and my notice—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

There was an agreement, from what I understand, on Bill C-23. Because I am exceptionally opinionated, as all members are on that particular piece of legislation. We all have things we would like to see done with that piece of legislation. Even though on the surface it sounds like a good motion. I would look to you for some guidance to the committee as to whether or not it's appropriate for us to be dealing with that, or sticking with the agenda, because I do have some more questions on the agenda items.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I am. Thank you very much, Chair.

Now having the floor, duly and properly, I'd like to exercise my right to introduce a notice of motion.

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, upon receiving an order of reference from the House concerning C-23 amendment to the elections act, initiate a study on this legislation which will include the following:

Hearing witnesses from, but not limited to, Elections Canada, Political Parties as defined under the Canada Elections Act, the Minister of State who introduced the bill, representatives of first nations, anti-poverty groups, groups representing persons with disabilities, groups representing youth advocates and students, as well as specific groups which have been active in society on election rules, including Fair Vote Canada, SAMARA, Democracy Watch and the BC Civil Liberties Union;

And that the committee request to travel to all regions of Canada (Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Northern Ontario, the Prairies, British Columbia and the North), as well as downtown urban settings (such as the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver) and rural and remote settings, and that the committee request that this travel take place in March and April 2014;

And that the committee shall only proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill after these hearings have been completed, with a goal to commence clause-by-clause consideration for May 1, 2014.

I will duly deposit that with the clerk.

The only thing I would then have is to afford Monsieur Mayrand an opportunity to say anything that he hasn't yet had a chance to say.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have risen on a question of privilege, and I am somewhat saddened to have to do so.

I care deeply about official languages. I rise today in the House to follow up on a recent incident by raising a question of privilege that warrants an official response. I believe that the Speaker is best equipped to deal with this matter.

Questions of privilege are of paramount importance to the democratic institution of Parliament, and the Speaker has ruled on these questions many times. I will try to explain what happened last Tuesday. I believe that the delay in raising this question of privilege is reasonable as this incident occurred just recently.

Members and senators were invited to a technical briefing on Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, organized by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, who is also the member for Nepean—Carleton. As we know, debate on this bill began yesterday and will undoubtedly continue today.

I will try to explain what happened last Tuesday and attempt to convince you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. I am referring to the privilege of receiving, in both official languages, information about bills introduced in the House when they are drafted and debated.

Briefings are crucial. They help members to prepare before debating and voting on a bill as complex as the one in question, which is 242 pages long. It goes without saying that technical briefings are very important for such massive bills that contain so many elements. It is not mandatory that ministers provide these briefings. However, this one was offered, and we noticed many issues with the interpretation during the briefing.

It seems that no one contacted the interpretation service in advance. The interpreter who arrived had not received the documents he needed to do his job. The interpretation was often inadequate, whether it was from English to French or vice versa. The interpretation from English to French was particularly poor. At times, there was little or no interpretation or it was of poor quality.

Many of the issues with the interpretation surfaced when the members were asking questions. Some of my colleagues were there. When members and senators used the microphone in the middle of the room to ask questions, the interpreter could not hear them. Obviously, he was not able to translate the questions.

That said, the Speaker will have to ascertain the facts to determine, based on the information he obtains or he receives from other members, whether there was a prima facie breach of privilege.

I would like to remind everyone of the classic definition of parliamentary privilege. I am sure you know it, Mr. Speaker. However, I will repeat it for the benefit of my colleagues. I am quoting from Erskine May:

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively...and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions.

This is a fundamental principle of our institution, as I mentioned at the start of my speech. The privileges of each individual parliamentarian as well as the collective privileges of the House of Commons must be respected at all times.

Today, the question of privilege is very important because it is entrenched in the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 133 sets out certain legislative guarantees for parliamentarians when it comes to the use of Canada's official languages. These include the right to use either language in legislative debates, the use of both languages in the official records and minutes of Parliament, and the use of English and French in printing and publishing acts.

While departmental briefings are not specifically covered by the Constitution Act, University of Ottawa law professor André Braën notes that the purpose of section 133 is to grant “equal access for anglophones and francophones to the law in their language” and to guarantee “equal participation in the debates and proceedings of Parliament”.

This leads me to conclude that this protection of official languages in the House is fundamental to ensure equality among all members. It means that those who do not understand French or English can be on the same level as other members.

For example, if we give a technical overview of a bill in English to a member who only understands French without providing interpretation, this member is at a disadvantage in the legislative process compared to others who understand English perfectly. He or she is not getting the same quality of information. I think that is a fundamental issue in Canada's legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will conclude this is a prima facie violation of privilege. This Latin expression, which means “on the face of it”, is of course commonly used.

To summarize the events, members attended a briefing on Tuesday morning, at 10 a.m. The session included paper documents that, I must admit, were properly translated. Members had been promised a briefing session to help them better understand this legislation before debating it here. However, they barely had 24 hours to review 240 pages. That is not a lot of time. However, as I said earlier, there is no requirement to provide such briefings.

The officials from the Privy Council Office who were present acted in good faith. They tried several times to correct the situation and accommodate the participants in both official languages, but they failed to do so. Even my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who could perhaps elaborate on her own experience, had to leave during the information session because there was simply no interpretation service. Accordingly, she did not have the same rights as other MPs who understand English, like myself, since I understand it pretty well. Although there was no interpretation service, I understood what was being said in English. I can understand it pretty well, but not as well as I would have understood the French.

This has been examined in various cases, including Att. Gen. of Quebec v. Blaikie et al. Chief Justice Deschênes of the Superior Court of Quebec upheld the obligation to use English and French at the same time throughout the legislative process. Any disruption of that practice violates both the letter and the spirit of section 133. This substantiates my comments.

In October 2013, my hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley also raised this question regarding Bill C-4, the budget implementation bill, for which a similar information session was held for the members. Unfortunately, the interpretation services were inadequate. If I remember correctly, there was no interpretation at all. As a result, the meeting was cancelled and held the next day. In that case, the breach of privilege was avoided.

In this particular case, which is very similar, there was a major difference that might prove there was a breach of parliamentary privilege. The meeting continued despite the fact that the interpretation service was having a lot of trouble. As I said earlier, one MP even had to leave because of the poor quality of the service. I am not saying that the people there were not acting in good faith; they tried to make the situation better, but it did not work.

The bill in question deals with electoral reform, and it is very important to Canadians. The least the government could have done was to provide a technical briefing in both official languages to ensure all the members of the House are on a level playing field when they have to debate the issue. That was obviously not done.

I think a situation like that is unacceptable because it prevents parliamentarians from doing their jobs and fully participating in debate. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to make a ruling confirming that this is in fact a breach of the privileges of members of Parliament.

I would be willing to move an appropriate motion if you ask me to do so. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to your decision on the prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege that may have taken place last Tuesday.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, I appreciate your intervention. I think it helps clarify the point I was making, and that is that, since the only thing left of the two pieces is any changes, the question for us is whether we should take the time of this committee, recognizing we've got other work, to look at a part of a bill that is being overhauled in a major way under Bill C-23 that either will or could capture that issue there. That's why I'm suggesting we should fold it into Bill C-23, but we can have that discussion.

But the issue about Mr. Bezan is over. We've heard from the person who raised the first concern that it's now concluded. I don't know what more there would be for us to do. We have met the Speaker's request, and I'll say again, on the second point, the only thing left for us to determine is whether we, as PROC, want to continue reviewing that legislation in light of this case and make any recommendations, or whether we want to then just say that this matter will be subsumed by Bill C-23, which, coincidentally, is coming to this committee anyway.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—Mr. Mayrand has now confirmed that indeed the government's contention that the matter's resolved is true. Because it was Mr. Mayrand's letter that started all this, I've asked Monsieur Mayrand if are there any outstanding issues, and I'm advised by him that the matter is resolved. Therefore, as far as I can see, Chair, unless someone can point out to me what unresolved work we have, the instant case in front of us is resolved and we can put “done” on that file.

Then what's left is the question of any potential changes that we might want to make to the legislation as a result of this, and we need to determine whether we're going to do that on our own and continue, and offer a resolve to the Speaker or recognize that these matters are touched on in Bill C-23, and let this be subsumed by that discussion.

To me, what's left to be resolved, Chair, is the issue of any recommendations or changes and when we might look at those. But as to the case that's in front of us, it's old.

Second Reading

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the member is celebrating the Quebec Winter Carnival and is wearing the appropriate attire today for the occasion. I compliment him on that. It seems as though we often have exchanges in the House of Commons, which I always enjoy.

I find it unfortunate that the member and the New Democratic Party do not seem to see the value in some of the things we are talking about doing here, such as protecting voters from rogue calls with a mandatory public registry; giving more independence to the Commissioner of Canada Elections; cracking down on voter fraud; and simply making the rules for elections clearer, more predictable. and easier to follow. These measures would make the electoral process more efficient, make it harder for people who seek to break the elections rules, and make the electoral process more attractive and feasible for the honest people looking to take part in democracy, whether candidates or voters.

I find it unfortunate that the NDP will not support measures that would make our election laws fairer, simpler, clearer, and more transparent, and that would give better customer service to voters. These all seem to be very laudable goals. The fair elections act would go a long way to achieving all of them, and so it is unfortunate that the NDP is not supporting them.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-23, Fair Elections Act, which has been introduced by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

In the most recent Speech from the Throne, our government committed to bringing forward changes to Canada's election laws that would clearly uphold the integrity of our voting system.

The fair elections act would make our laws tough, clear, and easy to follow. It would make life harder for election lawbreakers and put the focus back on honest people taking part in democracy.

The bill implements 38 of the Chief Electoral Officer's past recommendations, and it also brings to light concerns raised by Canadians, by various groups and think tanks, Elections Canada, and parliamentarians.

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 bill also makes it harder to break elections law. It closes loopholes to big money and imposes new penalties on political impostors who make rogue calls. It empowers law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

The fair elections act would give more independence to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, allowing him or her control over their staff and their investigations, empowering him or her to seek tough new penalties for existing electoral offences, and providing more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting.

Let me expand a bit on some of those tough penalties and new offences. What the fair elections act proposes is tougher criminal penalties for elections offences, such as setting a maximum fine of $20,000 on summary conviction, or imprisonment for up to one year; and $50,000 on indictment, or imprisonment for up to five years, for the following offences: obstructing an election officer, voting more than once, offering a bribe, making false statements to have a person deleted from the register of electors, or applying for a ballot under a false name.

It is also very important to note that candidates or official agents who are convicted of these offences would be prohibited from being a member of the House of Commons or holding any office in the nomination of the crown or of the Governor in Council for seven years.

It increases the maximum fines for the more serious election offences, such as taking a false oath, or making a false or erroneous declaration to election officials. It increases the maximum fine for all strict liability offences, such as failure to appoint an agent or an auditor. It increases the maximum fine for third parties that are groups or corporations that fail to register as a third party.

It also increases the maximum fines for offences applying primarily to broadcast corporations, such as advertising during a blackout. It increases penalties for political financing offences that do not require intent, and also severely increases those offences, such as failure to provide a quarterly return or a financial transactions return.

It also provides for a number of new offences, which I will highlight. One of them relates to registration on the list of electors. These are things like compelling, inducing, or attempting to compel or induce, any other person to make a false or misleading statement relating to their qualification as an elector. It relates to political financing rules, such as knowingly making indirect loans, or registration on polling day, such as registering when not qualified to vote.

It relates to non-compliance with the proposed voter contact registry, such as failing to keep the scripts and recordings used in the provision of voter contact calling services. I will focus on some of those provisions in a little more detail further on in my speech.

It also proposes new offences relating to voter deception. There are actually no provisions in the current act that would make it an offence to impersonate political agents or elections officials. The bill would amend the Canada Elections 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 behalf of the Chief Electoral Officer.

There are some very serious new provisions in the bill in relation to getting tough on those who would look to cheat and defraud our election system.

It also cracks down on voter fraud by prohibiting vouching or voter information cards from being used as acceptable forms of ID. The Neufeld report, which was commissioned by Elections Canada relating to administrative deficiencies at the polls in the most recent 2011 election, indicated that there were irregularities in 25% of the cases where vouching was used.

What the fair elections act would do, as I indicated already, is that it would end vouching and require that Elections Canada communicate what forms of ID would be accepted at polling locations, so that voters would know before they head to the polls what they need to bring.

As I have already said, it would prohibit the use of voter information cards as a form of acceptable identification. However, it would very clearly outline what forms of ID are acceptable. This would allow Canadians to continue to have 39 authorized forms of ID to use when voting. There is a very comprehensive list of ID options that could be brought to the polls. That would be very clearly communicated to voters so they are well aware of what those forms are for identifying themselves in order to exercise their voting rights.

It would also make the rules for elections clearer, more predictable, and easier to follow. Complicated rules can often bring unintentional breaches. Unfortunately, that could intimidate people from taking part in democracy. That is why the fair elections bill would make the rules for elections more clear, more predictable, and easier to follow.

In order to follow the rules, parties must know what they are. That means the fair elections act would seek to ensure that the Chief Electoral Officer provides a 30-day comment period to members of the advisory committee of political parties that would be established under the act before publishing a proposed guideline or interpretation note.

Following a comment period, an additional 30 days would then be provided, in terms of notice for regulated entities, of the new interpretation. After both the comment and the notice period, which is a total of 60 days, the CEO would then formally issue the guideline or the interpretation note. It would also publish a proposed advance ruling or written interpretation of any question related to the Canada Elections Act within 45 days of a request from a registered party, and then provide a 30-day notice period before it is formally issued as well.

The advance ruling would be issued by the CEO and would be binding on him and on the commissioner. This is very important. It would also maintain an online registry, which would be available to the public, of the complete text of final guidelines and interpretation notes that have been issued, as well as of any written opinions containing advance rulings that have been issued. That would allow access by parties and individuals of interpretations and guidelines so they could be applied equally and fairly to all involved.

The fair elections act would also ban the use of loans that have been used in the past to evade donation rules. It would repeal the ban on premature transmission of election results, which would uphold free speech. It would provide better customer service to voters and establish an extra day of polling.

In the case of disagreements over election expenses, it would allow an MP to present the disputed cases in the courts and to have judges quickly rule on it before the CEO seeks the MP's suspension.

It would also protect voters from rogue calls, with a mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating elections officials, and increased penalties.

What I will do now, Mr. Speaker, is devote the remainder of my time to describing these particular measures, beginning with the creation of a registry for voter contact services.

In respect to telemarketing and automated dialing that would take place during an election period, the fair elections act would take the very important step of creating a new registry for voter contact services. The bill would require registration with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC. Telephone service providers that are engaging in voter contact, or any other person or group engaging in the use of telephone service for voter contact purposes, would be required to register in the voter contact services registry contained at the CRTC. Moreover, any person or group using internal services to make automated calls for voter contact purposes, would also have to register with the CRTC under this legislation.

The bill would require any person or group using a telephone service provider for voter contact purposes, or making automated calls for these purposes, to have their identity verified by providing identification to both the CRTC and to the telephone service provider. Third parties who are groups or corporations would have to register with the CRTC for any calls that they make as well.

In addition, the bill provides that registrations would be made publicly available 30 days after polling day, and that registrations must be available to the CRTC officials within 48 hours of a call being made for voter contact purposes. The bill would also require recordings of messages that are sent by using automated calls and scripts of live messages used by telephone service providers to be kept for one year from the date of the election. The dates of these calls would also have to be maintained in that registry.

In addition to the strict requirements of the new registry, the disclosure requirements for political parties, candidates, and electoral district associations with respect to expenses incurred for voter contact services by telephone would also be strengthened. In particular, the bill provides a new obligation for political entities to specifically identify expenses for voter contact services by telephone, and to include the name of the company and the amount of the costs incurred on their election returns. The proposed amendments would enhance transparency and consistency in reporting such expenses, and would have the further advantage of assisting with enforcement of the Canada Elections Act.

To encourage compliance with the rules, the fair elections act would strengthen the penalties regime by first increasing, by 10 times, the penalties for preventing or attempting to prevent a voter from voting. Penalties for doing so would increase from $2,000 currently, to $20,000 on summary conviction; and from $5,000 currently, to $50,000 on indictment. It would also increase the maximum fines for the more serious election offences, such as taking a false oath or making an erroneous declaration to election officials, again, from $2,000 to $20,000 on summary conviction, and from $5,000 to $50,000 on indictment.

The fair elections act also proposes tough new offences, including a new offence for impersonating election officials or political entities. It would be an offence for a person to falsely represent that they are a candidate, a representative of a candidate, a representative of a party or a riding association, a chief electoral officer, Elections Canada, or any other election officer. The maximum penalty for this offence, if prosecuted on indictment would be $50,000, five years in prison, or both. This is in line with other increased penalties provided for in the bill. It would be considered a corrupt practice if the offence was committed by a candidate or an official agent. A person who is found guilty of a corrupt practice would be prohibited for seven years from being elected or sitting in the House of Commons, or holding any office in the nomination of the crown or the Governor in Council.

In addition, the fair elections act proposes other new offences, including for providing false information to an investigator, or obstructing an investigation, and for non-compliance with the proposed voter contact registry, including for providing false information or failing to provide identification when registering.

I would also note that the fair elections act proposes a further measure to assist elections officials with their important work relating to the potential misuse of automated telephone calls. It will clarify in law that neither Elections Canada nor elections officers make unsolicited calls to voters.

At this point, it would be appropriate for members to recall that on March 29, 2012, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs heard the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, on allegations of misuse and abuse of auto-dialed calls during the 41st general election. During that meeting, the Chief Electoral Officer expressed the view that the enforcement mechanisms provided for by the Canada Elections Act could be improved. That is precisely what the fair elections act would achieve.

I would also like to quickly highlight the fact that the fair elections act would provide for better customer service for voters. Many people in the House and elsewhere have often expressed their concern about our voter turnout levels. One of the things that most non-voters told Elections Canada in its survey was that there were practical reasons preventing them from voting in the last election. For example, 17% said it was due to the fact they were travelling; 13% said it was their work or school schedule; 10% said they were simply too busy; and 7% cited lack of information. That is just to name a few of the reasons. I believe that better customer service would help to remove some of those practical obstacles expressed by voters.

For example, one of the things the fair elections act would do is to provide more voting days by increasing the advance polling days. It would help to reduce congestion at the polls by providing for more elections officers to be appointed, and by appointing liaison officers to facilitate communication between his office and returning officers in the riding. The act would also allow registered parties and electoral district associations, rather than simply candidates, to recommend names for elections officer positions at the polls, and those nominations would be required to be earlier to allow more time for training, which hopefully would allow better customer service and more efficient voting at the polls.

Obviously our government is fully committed to addressing the current shortcomings in the Canada Elections Act that stand in the way of cracking down on the misuse of mass calls. The proposed changes I have mentioned are significant measures that would help clean up such alleged abuses and prevent potential future abuses. The proposed new rules would be enhanced by the additional requirement to outline expenses incurred for voter contact services by telephone, and by strengthened enforcement of the Canada Elections Act through strong penalties for violations of the act, and by tough new offences. Additionally, our government's proposed voter contact registry would be an essential tool to investigate any telephone calls that attempt to obstruct the electoral process, and would comply with the March 2012 House of Commons motion calling for action on this very subject. These important measures represent a clear move forward in strengthening Canada's election system by helping to ensure that elections officials have the necessary tools to both investigate effectively and to punish appropriately any abuses of automated telephone calls in our electoral processes.

The initiatives in this bill would also encourage greater compliance with the rules of the electoral regime, thereby helping to restore any loss of confidence in the integrity of our elections system.

For the reasons I have described today, I believe that the reforms proposed in this legislation would have positive effects for our electoral system, and I call on all members to support the swift passage of the fair elections act.

Bill C-23--Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or Standing Order 78(2), with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts.

As a result, 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 the said stage.

Fair Elections Act

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to answer a question of the member's Liberal colleague from Kingston and the Islands, who asked whether the bill would address the impersonation of a candidate or a candidate's representative. I am happy to report that, in fact, the fair elections act would create a new offence for impersonating a candidate or a candidate's representative. Likewise, it would be an offence to impersonate a registered party or association. Of course, as the member for Kingston and the Islands acknowledged, it would be an offence under the fair elections act to impersonate Elections Canada. That answers the question the member for Kingston and the Islands posed earlier to the NDP critic.

As for the speech that the Liberal critic just presented, he expressed a concern that there might be a barrier of information flow between Elections Canada and the newly independent commissioner, who would be the law enforcement watchdog. I want to assure him that we thought very carefully about that problem and that is why there is nothing in the fair elections act that would prevent Elections Canada from sharing information with the independent commissioner or to prevent the commissioner from sharing information with Elections Canada. There would be no barriers to communication between them, merely a separation of power between them.

My question to the Liberal critic is this. What additional legal assurances would he need inserted in the bill to give him comfort on this point?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the House and all the members within it for elevating debate over the past hours. As my colleague for Kingston and the Islands has pointed out, there have been some very interesting facts put out there, and it has been a very good debate. We have talked a fair amount about how we would fix the problems we have seen in the news headlines over the past three or four years and how we would address these issues. I want to thank all members, including the Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

I want to start with a summary of what the bill proposes, as it is quite extensive in many respects.

Bill C-23 would protect voters from rogue calls and impersonation. There would be mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating election officials, and increased penalties for deceiving people out of their votes.

The bill would give law enforcement sharper teeth and allow the commissioner to seek tougher penalties for existing offences. The commissioner would have full independence, with control of his or her staff and of investigation, and a fixed term of seven years so that he or she could not be fired without cause.

The bill would also crack down on voter fraud by prohibiting the use of vouching and voter information cards as replacements for acceptable ID. Studies commissioned by Elections Canada demonstrate mass irregularities in the use of vouching and high rates of inaccuracy on voter information cards.

According to legislation, there are 39 forms of identification. However, a question earlier talked about how some identification does not have the required information on it, such as addresses. We have experienced this problem in some rural areas, and many seniors especially do not have the right amount of information. I am hoping that the government would accept an amendment that would allow the practice of some sort of vouching in an official manner to take place. I guess we will have to study that in committee, if indeed the bill manages to get to that stage.

The bill would also make rules easy to follow for all, which was pointed out earlier as being in section 18. The commissioner has had to sign 15 different compliance agreements with those who have breached election laws, some due to honest mistakes. Members of all parties have noticed that the rules can be unclear.

Complicated rules bring unintentional breaches and intimidate everyday people from taking part in democracy. As my hon. colleague pointed out, this relates to youth engagement, those with disabilities, and others.

Of course, in this particular case, there are people who find themselves disenfranchised from the entire system of voting and feel that their vote is not necessary or does not mean much in the long run, but I would say to the government that we need to come up with a plan to bring out the best in our democracy, which is to say that we need to bring up the turnout rate.

It used to be high many years ago. I have to admit that in my own riding, the voter turnout was at a dismal 44%, which was the second-lowest in the country. We managed to finish just ahead of the Fort McMurray area. That is often the case where we have transient workers.

In many respects, I agree with what the minister is saying, because we need to reach out to transient workers who may not be aware that they are able to vote in other ridings. The facilities are there for them to do that. The only problem is that some of these people work in oil fields and that sort of thing. However, they can, even in their own ridings, vote at any time whatsoever. They can go to the returning officer and do that at any point. That, to us, proved to be the most effective way to communicate to people who travel a lot, and not just to the oil fields in western Canada, but those who work in oil and natural gas fields around the world.

The bill would also increase the level of donations from $1,200 to $1,500. I am not really sure if that would go a long way, other than allow some people who can afford it a little more room. I do not see anything wrong with the measures that were currently in place, the $1,200 and the incremental formula that was already there. In the meantime, I must say that with the personal contributions, there are some positive steps in the right direction when it comes to the election and the leadership.

The Commissioner of Canada Elections is the one that has been causing some headaches within our party as to how we are deal with the independence that is being bandied about by the government. I would like to talk about how this works in the sense of the commissioner himself.

Several of the requests that the commissioner made to Elections Canada were basically that he wanted to have the power to go to a judge to get people to comply with the seeking out of information. At the time, we thought that it was a reasonable thing to ask, given what has happened over the past little while, certainly when it comes to some of the byelections that we have witnessed and the general election before that.

However, I am not certain whether the Commissioner of Canada Elections' investigative tools have been increased within this, so I do not know if the effectiveness has increased for that particular person. That concerns us. If we make this person independent, that is one thing, but if we do not give the increased ability to seek out the information he is looking for in order to conduct his investigation, all we are really doing is shuffling the offices. I will get to that part in just a moment.

The commissioner did endorse the recommendation made by the CEO that the Commissioner of Canada Elections be given the power to apply to a judge for an order to compel any person to provide information that is relevant to an investigation, which is what I just spoke of. There was some debate today as to whether he does have those tools or not. Throughout the course of this debate, I hope that more light will be shone on that subject and that it will perhaps come up again in this debate at second reading.

Regarding the lack of flexibility when dealing with the conventions of the Canada Elections Act, the commissioner suggested that more tools are needed to deal with the breaches of the Canada Elections Act that are too severe to be handled through compliance agreements but not serious enough to be dealt with through prosecutions. The commissioner pointed to recommendations contained in the CEO's report on the 40th general election: candidates and political parties that exceed their authorized expense limits should see a dollar-for-dollar reduction in their elections expense reimbursement, and when a candidate or political party fails to file a report by the applicable statutory date, they should forfeit up to 50% of their nomination deposit.

All of this is to say that some of this stuff has been addressed, and we applaud the minister for putting these measures into the bill.

However, let me just go back to one of the key tenets of this, which is the ability of the commissioner to do his or her job. In this case, it is his job. If we look at the chain of command and look at the commissioner himself, by this route, through Elections Canada, he is ultimately answerable to Parliament.

A flag went up for me when I looked at all of the testimony and news stories that dealt with election irregularities and possible and actual violations over the past three or four years. A lot of this work was discovered by auditors. A lot of the violations were discovered by people on the ground within Elections Canada. What they were able to do was advise the commissioner on a continual basis because they were within that sphere. They simply went down the way and told the commissioner what was going on. The commissioner, if given the right tools, would have been able to investigate that further, we believe, in a more effective way. Separating those people and putting them in a different office altogether, in public prosecutions, makes the gap just a little too wide for the information-sharing process that was taking place. That is what I fear.

I know the government will argue that these people had the ability to go to whomever they wished, but being together in that one area certainly would have allowed a freer flow of information that would have allowed the commissioner to do a better job, given that he had the tool that was suggested about compliance.

When it comes to public prosecutions, they are ultimately answerable to cabinet, so certainly we have reservations about that as well. I am sure the minister will address that also. I am hoping he will convince us it is not necessarily the case.

What is causing a great unease among us is the ability of the commissioner to do that investigation. If sharper teeth are required to do an effective job, I am not sure the teeth the Conservatives are seeking would be obtained within this legislation.

A code of conduct for political entities was also suggested some time ago, after the 41st general election. Then there is the idea of extension of the application of privacy protection principles to political parties and new requirements governing telecommunications with electors. If I could go to that point for just a moment, the robocalls, as we affectionately call them around here, have been a topic of discussion for quite some time. They have certainly been a topic of derision for some time as well.

Judge Mosley said in his judgment, seemingly, that it was obvious to him that the origins of some of these robocalls that are called into the question of nefarious activities point to the database that is used exclusively by the Conservative Party, known as the CIMS database. There is no relation.

I want go back to the robocalls situation. We feel some of the measures will be quite effective, and we applaud the minister for them. As an example, the bill says:

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission shall, on the request of the Commissioner, disclose to the Commissioner any document or information that it received under this Division that the Commissioner considers necessary for the purpose of ensuring compliance with and enforcement of this Act, other than this Division.

We agree. We are into an electronic age. Robocalls, as we call them, have proliferated in every aspect of society, not just politics but in commerce and marketing as well. Therefore, the legislation needs to keep up to standard. A lot of this goes a certain way, so we commend the Conservatives for that.

Every person or group that enters into an agreement with a calling service provider under which voter contact calling services are provided shall keep, for one year after the end of the election period,

(a) a copy of each unique script used in live voice calls [...] (b) a recording of each unique message conveyed by an automatic dialing-announcing device [...]

This is great for the investigative tools necessary in order to cut down on this practice. We commend that as well. It is certainly overdue as far as updated legislation is concerned.

I also want to talk about contributions. I touched on this point briefly earlier, the $1,200 to $1,500, but also, subject to proposed subsection 405(4.2), contributions that do not exceed $5,000 in total would permitted to be made by a candidate for a particular election out of their own funds for their own candidacy, and for leadership it would be up to $25,000. Some of this is necessary to be updated.

The bill also says that contributions made under proposed subsection 405(4.2) do not have the effect of limiting the amounts that the candidate or leadership contestant, as the case may be, may contribute under proposed subsection 405(1) to the other candidates.

I would say that updating this legislation is necessary. I do not know why the contribution limit went up to $1,500. I think the current regulations and rules in place certainly do suffice.

I talked about the commissioner and about some of the other instances that took place over the past little while that raise alarm over how we need to fix our system. The in-and-out scandal took place. The Conservative Party admitted to election overspending and submitting inflated election returns and had to pay the maximum fine under the Elections Act. There were fraudulent election robocalls, which I just touched upon.

We know of individuals such as Peter Penashue, formerly of this House, who also over-contributed. Whether he was actually asked to leave or quit before all that happened, there was a huge fuss about it altogether. He did not seem to know the rules of the game.

How do we get out there and tell society that we want to explain to people the rules of how to function in elections when we have trouble bringing that information to our own candidates? It is somewhat ironic, but nonetheless that is water under the bridge, as some people say.

As for increased fines for Elections Act violations, Liberals are supportive of raising the fines for violations of the Elections Act. My hon. colleague from Beauséjour put forward legislation in the House that did just that and was voted on, Bill C-424, so we agree with that as well.

One of the other things we are in agreement with is the additional advance polling day. I live in a rural riding, as I mentioned, and a lot of people commute back and forth. I commute within my own riding to vote, which is two or three hours away, and the extra day is certainly advantageous. Of course, there is the premature transmission of election results, which is also necessary given the fact that everybody has the Internet, if I could use a colloquial expression.

In summary, there is a lot of unease about this bill, despite some of the elements of it that Liberals fully support. For us, the unease is created from things such as what is happening at Elections Canada, with the commissioner in particular; and other measures within this bill certainly cause unease to the point where accepting this bill in principle would be difficult for us to do.

I hope that over the course of the next little while the debate will be elevated to the point where, if this bill passes, is accepted in principle, and goes on to committee, the government would be accepting of some of the amendments we have discussed here today. Until we reach that point, I am thankful for this time.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his very good speech. I look forward to working with him in committee on studying the measures contained in the fair elections act.

The national youth survey indicates that close to half of Canadians aged 18 to 34 knew of no other way to vote than to go to the polling station on election day. That means that half of all young people are unaware of the voting methods that are available before election day, when many of them are working or at school.

Why does the hon. member not support the measure we are proposing, which would require Elections Canada to provide more information on voting methods to all Canadians?

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

That is a very good point. I think the former chief electoral officer is, unfortunately, an extraordinarily easy grader.

All of Canada knows that the imperative behind this bill eventually appearing and the central challenge was to rein in the kinds of election fraud discovered in 2011. There were the fraudulent election calls and other kinds of fraud that we know occurred in 2006 with what we called the in-and-out affair.

Instead, the Conservatives, through the minister, launched a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland detour by turning this exercise into some kind of indirect and sometimes rather pointed flogging of the institution that has been trying to rein in electoral fraud, against considerable Conservative Party resistance and manipulation. That includes Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer, with his associate, the Commissioner for Elections Canada.

This whole exercise started with the unanimous vote in March 2012, and now that trajectory has either been submerged, or to some extent hijacked, in order for the Conservative Party, through the government, to start to portray itself as a victim of a non-partisan agency. The metaphor of “not wearing a team jersey” was carefully chosen and has been repeated by the minister. We all know what is intended by that. We all know the tarnishing of the institution that was intended by that, for Elections Canada and in particular the Chief Electoral Officer. Marc Mayrand and Elections Canada are being portrayed as non-neutral players on some team versus being the neutral referees that we all know they are. This inversion then drives the so-called logic behind so much of what is in Bill C-23.

On top of that, there is a second, rather topsy-turvy move in Bill C-23. After years of examples of fraud and constant brushes between the law and the Conservative Party—-when I say the law, I mean Elections Canada as the embodiment of seeking to enforce the law—what we get from the minister and the government in the bill is a focus on ordinary Canadians as somehow the main concern when it comes to fraud. The government has removed two means of voter identification.

The first is the voter's ID card, which can be presented along with another piece of identity, which has been developed on a kind of rolling pilot project basis by Elections Canada to enfranchise more Canadian voters. The second one is the practice of vouching, for which there were 100,000 Canadians in the last election. Effectively, the government wants to lure, or to some extent sucker, the press and Canadians into thinking this is somehow about fairness and preventing fraud.

This has to be called what it is: voter suppression. These tactics have been building over the past decade, since around 2006, when changes to the law made it harder and harder to prove one has the right to vote in our country. Colleagues of mine will provide overviews of this trajectory and also examples of real-world impacts and who would be disproportionately excluded by these changes. Voter suppression is the result, but I personally will need to be assured that this is not also, frankly, the intention, an intention informed by the deliberate strategies patented south of the border by the Republican Party.

A third feature of this upside-down world is how the government engages in the kind of night equals day, war equals peace, doublespeak by claiming that it gets big money out of elections with Bill C-23, when there are cumulatively a number of measures that keep big money in play in ways that are likely to benefit one party most. I will leave it to everyone's imagination to know which party I am referring to.

Fourth, Orwell would be smiling now—maybe smiling with a grimace, but smiling—if he were listening to the minister talking about adding “enforcement teeth” to the Canada Elections Act, when the single most important measure requested by both the commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer, the power to compel testimony in the face of delay and recalcitrant witnesses, was omitted.

Mr. Speaker, let me now turn to more detail on these very general points, all the while noting, and this is important, that my colleagues, in the days and weeks to come, will deeply elaborate on every one of these points. The caucus is extraordinarily engaged with the problems relating to this bill, and a lot of expertise will be brought to bear that I hope the minister will listen to and that will inform the committee stage.

I will first comment on my concern and claim that the result is voter suppression. We have to know of, and put into context, an active effort by Elections Canada, which in the last election used voter identification cards in a number of different contexts to try to increase enfranchisement of people in our society who, as the minister rightly pointed out, tend not to vote in greater numbers than others: aboriginal voters on reserves, youth on campuses, and seniors in residences. The method that is now being abolished, the voter identification cards along with another piece of ID, was used successfully in this experiment with an extraordinary amount of positive feedback.

I will move on to the vouching issue. I think that the minister wants to tap into some intuitive problem Canadians might have with one person vouching for another. However, we live in a society that would not function without certain bonds of trust and a degree of procedural stricture.

What happens with vouching is this. There were 100,000 people vouched for in the last election. A person who is already confirmed as a legitimate voter at the poll in question may vouch for one person. If that vouching is believed by the election-day worker, then that person may vote.

Here is an example. Two parents show up with two teenagers, who in a previous election were aged 16 and 17, but when the last election came, they were missed by the enumeration. That is a process that almost does not exist any more. They show up at the poll and do not have the right kind of ID, or may well have it but have not brought it with them. Each parent can vouch for one of the teenagers, who are at least age 18 at this point in the story, and both teenagers can vote. It happens a lot with seniors, persons with disabilities, and other groups.

The minister wants us to understand that somehow or other vouching, and some of that evidence came out of the Etobicoke Centre case, suggests that irregularities are kissing cousins to some kind of massive fraud, or that there is a serious danger of it. However, there is no evidence of that. Even the 25% figure of irregularities does not come close to proving that the people who were not sworn in properly or for whom the vouching was not done properly did not have the right to vote. The Supreme Court of Canada emphasized exactly that. It will be important for us to hear from expert witnesses on that at committee stage. Indeed, I would love to see any reports, or other information I do not know about, tabled by this minister as real evidence that there is a problem.

Here is an example of why I think there likely is not a problem. In 2006, before we went to the newest system, which requires more ID than ever before, there was a controversy. One party claimed that because 11,000 people had registered to vote on election day in the riding of Trinity—Spadina, it somehow meant that something was amiss, that there had to have been all kinds of problems, and that surely a bunch of those people could not have been valid voters. Elections Canada took that concern seriously. It hired a whole team in order to track every one of the people who had registered on election day through a couple of different methods at the time. By knocking on doors, it found all but two. It found no evidence that anyone had voted who was not entitled to vote.

If that was the case before we got into this system, I am not exactly sure why we should have any serious concern that the methods being taken away now, the voter identification card with another piece of ID and vouching, are somehow tied to the risk of fraud, let alone fraud itself.

This is why I want the minister to understand that the result is voter suppression, and it needs to be looked at in that light in terms of who will be affected. My colleagues will go into more detail on this aspect.

With regard to big money, I am not sure that big money is going to be taken out of this. The biggest problem we have in the bill, and there are three or four other points on the big-money point, is that there is a new head-scratching provision. It basically says, as the minister said in the House, that any money spent through communications, including most email, mail, electronic communications, and phone calls, to raise money from existing donors who have given as little as $20 in the last five years is not an expense during the election period.

Any party that has an extensive database system, has the capacity to phone ad infinitum, and has a huge donor base would benefit from that measure. They would also be able to invest the money up front to pay for that excludable expense. It would also add, de facto, to the overall spending limit, which already is going up 5%, and thereby would also benefit any party that is raising a lot of money.

Here I have a grave concern. This could turn into an end run around the expenses involved in the whole pulling-the-vote exercise. All that might have to happen, in the current wording of this provision, is that a phone call is made, saying “We hope you are still interested in voting for us; we understand that you have indicated that. Do you have any questions? By the way, we know you are a donor; could you possibly also donate $50 more during this thing?” That whole exercise then gets shoved into another expense universe and does not get counted as an election expense. The potential for abuse of this provision is huge.

Also, $5,000 donations by candidates are now permitted. How is that getting big money out? The $1,200 limit on donations has now been increased to $1,500. That may seem small to many people in the House. To average Canadians, $1,200 is already a lot. Adding $300 is a huge amount. Who can afford to do that when there is no consequential amendment increasing the tax credit? The tax credit stays at the level it was before, so that extra $300 is only for people who can afford it without worrying about any portion of it as a tax credit.

I will not get into the problems in bringing forward the old political financing act bill that creates an impediment on getting loans to start up a campaign for somebody who does not have even $5,000 of their own. They would have to go out and get $1,200 or $1,500 guarantees from other people to back any loan that they now can only get from a bank.

I know a conscientious effort was made by the former minister, and I am assuming by the current minister, to try to make the political loans systems as fair as possible, but this also will potentially have a serious detrimental effect on any candidates who do need to borrow versus those candidates who do not need to because of fundraising or because the party transfers money to them.

No new powers to compel testimony is a huge issue. The Competition Act provides a clear example, and that is all that is being asked for by the Commissioner of Elections Canada and by the Chief Electoral Officer: the ability to compel testimony in this regulatory context with safeguards that also include that one cannot be charged for whatever one's testimony is.

This has been ignored and I fail to understand why, when we have a working example with the Competition Act. What is good for clean competition should be good for clean elections. It is really befuddling to me that the single most important change that would allow better investigation of what happened with the fraudulent election calls scandal in 2011, the single most important change that would allow that to be investigated better against all kinds of obstruction that has occurred on behalf of the Conservative Party and indeed even its lawyers, would be this amendment, this reform.

If it were included, it would apply retroactively, because it would be a procedural provision that had nothing to do with any new crimes. There are already enough crimes listed in the Elections Act and in the Criminal Code to cover this. We do not need a new crime of impersonation or obstruction to cover, as my leader said in the House today, under the existing act. Enhancing procedural powers could reach back in time and reinvigorate the Elections Canada investigations that are looking to be stalled.

Finally, one way or the other, whether it is a certain philosophy or antipathy toward the office, this is an attack on the Chief Electoral Officer. The gutting of the public education and promotion of democracy function, especially for disadvantaged sectors of the population, found in section 18 of the current act, and replacing it with a very workmanlike technical role of signalling how to vote, et cetera, is a serious undercutting of the function of the Chief Electoral Officer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

The fair elections act will ensure that Canadians are always in charge of our democracy. It includes several elements.

First, we are making the commissioner responsible for investigating allegations under the Canada Elections Act more independent. The commissioner will be able to investigate without being influenced by other authorities. Second, we are addressing the issue of fraudulent voting. Lastly, we are addressing the issue of fraudulent calls.

These three steps will help strengthen the integrity of our democracy and ensure that Canadians remain in charge of our system.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

moved that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced the fair elections act. It keeps everyday citizens in charge of democracy by pushing special interests out of the game and fraudsters out of business.

The bill would make it harder to break the law and easier to vote. It would close loopholes to big money and would impose new penalties on political impostors who make rogue calls. It would empower law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

The fair elections act would make our laws tough, predictable, and easy to follow. Life would be harder for election lawbreakers and easier for honest citizens taking part in democracy.

Law enforcement begins with the Commissioner of Canada Elections. The fair elections act would give him sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. Sharper teeth means allowing the commissioner to seek tougher penalties for existing offences. Longer reach means empowering him with more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting. It would let him get to the truth by making it an offence for anyone to deceive or disrupt his investigation. Finally, a freer hand means the commissioner would have full independence, with control of his own staff and his own investigations, and a fixed term of seven years, which means he could not be fired without cause.

Consistent with separating the administration from enforcement, the fair elections act would house the commissioner with the Director of Public Prosecutions. He would maintain his powers and functions but gain status as a deputy head, allowing him to make his own staffing decisions and to direct his own investigations. Although the two would be housed in the same office, the director would have no role in the commissioner's investigations.

To ensure impartiality of the position, those individuals who have previously been a candidate or an employee of a political party, a minister, Elections Canada, or an MP's office would not be eligible to serve as commissioner. The referee should not be wearing a team jersey.

The fair elections act proposes that the current commissioner, Yves Côté, and his staff would remain in their roles, and all existing investigations would continue uninterrupted.

One of the responsibilities of the newly empowered watchdog would be to prevent impostors from making rogue calls. The fair elections act would do this by providing a mandatory public registry for mass calling. It would impose prison time for impersonating elections officials, and it would increase penalties for deceiving people out of their votes.

However, it is just as bad to vote illegally as it is to deny someone else's vote. Each fraudulent vote cancels out an honest one. To avoid this, we currently have identification requirements under the Canada Elections Act. Voters can choose from one of 39 acceptable forms of ID. When they fail to bring any of those, someone can vouch for their identity.

Elections Canada commissioned a study last year that found irregularities in one in four cases where vouching was used. Having irregularities 25% of the time constitutes an unacceptable risk.

I want to spend some special time on this particular issue, because these are the findings of the Neufeld report, which was commissioned by Elections Canada. According to that report, as I said earlier, there was a 25% error rate in the use of vouching. That means that every four times Elections Canada used vouching, there was an irregularity once. I will quote directly from the report:

...the audit showed that errors are made in the majority of cases that require the use of non-regular processes.

Vouching is a non-regular practice. It went on to say:

...inadequate or ineffective training carries significant negative implications for procedural compliance.

That is on page 21. Furthermore, and I quote directly from the report at page 26:

Public trust is at risk if the rate of error is not significantly reduced by the next...election.

Finally:

Without amendments to the Canada Elections Act, procedural compliance cannot be significantly improved in the 42nd general election.

If I can quote one more time:

Identity vouching procedures are unquestionably the most complex “exception” process administered at polling stations. The level of irregularities for vouching averaged 25 per cent.

It goes on. In a review entitled “A Review of Compliance with Election Day Registration and Voting Process Rules”, this audit showed that errors are made in the majority of cases that require non-regular processes. Then it takes a global view of Canada and the practices that happen in the 308 ridings. It says the following, “Averaged across 308 ridings, election officers made over 500 serious administrative errors per electoral district on Election Day”. That is 500 serious administrative errors per riding, and multiply that by the 308 ridings across the country.

To quote from the report again, “Obviously, this is unacceptable. Aside from legal concerns, public trust in proper administration of the electoral process is at serious risk if these error rates are not addressed”. And address them, we will. The fair elections act would put an end to the use of vouching on election day.

Similarly, Elections Canada recently experimented with the use of the voter identification cards as a form of ID. Before these pilot projects, Canadians voted for years without using cards to identify themselves, and for good reason. A report by Elections Canada recently showed that roughly one in six eligible voters does not have a correct address on the national registrar of electors, which is used to produce the voter information card. In other words, one out of six electors may get a card with the wrong address. That allows some to vote in a different riding than they live in, or to potentially vote more than once.

In fact, the Quebec comedy show Infoman did an interesting exposé on this. Two Montrealers received two voter information cards each, so they both went and voted twice each. They called it the “two-for-one special by Elections Canada”. This level of error, one in six, is also too high. As a result, the fair elections act would end the use of the voter information card as an acceptable form of identification.

To protect against fraud and to uphold the integrity of our electoral system, the fair elections act would not only instill these new rules, but it would also require in law that Elections Canada inform Canadians, through the advertising function, of the required forms of identification. In other words, embedded in the law would be a provision by which Elections Canada would be obliged to inform electors of the following:

(b) how an elector may have their name added to a list of electors and may have corrections made to information respecting the elector on the list; (c) how an elector may vote under section 127 and the times, dates and locations for voting; (d) how an elector may establish their identity and residence in order to vote, including the pieces of identification that they may use to that end;

That is the basic information that Elections Canada should advertise, so that when people get to the voting booth they already know what identification they will be required to present. The good news is that there would continue to be roughly 39 different pieces of identification that would be acceptable. That number presents Canadians with plenty of options, as long as Elections Canada educates them of those options.

It is just as important, though, for political parties to follow the rules, as it is for voters. With a 370-page Canada Elections Act, much of the challenge is determining what those rules are. All parties fail at that from time to time, often while trying their best to comply. Since the last election, the commissioner has had to sign 15 different compliance agreements with those who have breached elections law. Some are due to honest mistakes.

Members of all parties have complained that the rules are unclear and complicated. Complicated rules bring unintentional breaches and intimidate honest, law-abiding people from participating in democracy. The fair elections act would make the rules clear, predictable, and easy to follow. Parties would have the right to an advance ruling and interpretations from Elections Canada within 45 days of a request, a service that the Canada Revenue Agency already provides. Elections Canada will also keep a registry of interpretations, and consult and notify parties before changing them.

However, even with clearer rules, members of Parliament and the Chief Electoral Officer will sometimes disagree on an MP's election expense return. When that happens, the Canada Elections Act provides that an MP can no longer sit in the House of Commons until the expense return has been changed to the CEO's satisfaction.

Now, remember, the removal of a member of Parliament from the House of Commons overturns the democratic decision of tens of thousands of electors: Canadian citizens. No one person should have the power to do that without providing due process. To that end, the fair elections bill will allow an MP to present the disputed case in the courts and to have judges rule on it quickly, before the CEO seeks the MP's suspension. Expedited hearings and strict timelines will ensure that these cases do not drag on.

Free speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The government is therefore following through on its commitment to repeal the ban on the premature transmission of election results. According to the Supreme Court, this ban is an infringement on freedom of expression. It is also completely impractical to suggest that merely banning broadcasting of results from eastern Canadian constituencies to the west will prevent that information from travelling westward. We live in a modern era where everyday Canadians have the ability to transmit information via social media and other means, so this provision is unenforceable, even if it were not a violation of our basic principle of free speech.

Voting is to democracy what free speech is to liberty. Unfortunately, Canadians are doing less voting these days. Since Elections Canada began promotional voter participation campaigns, turnout has plummeted, from 75% in 1988, to 61% in 2001. A Library of Parliament analysis shows that between 1984 and 2000, right in the middle of which Elections Canada began mounting its promotional campaigns, voter turnout among youth plummeted by 20 percentage points. Somehow this is not working.

Why is it happening? The truth is that there are many reasons, but some of them are actually very practical. Elections Canada's own report on the last election said that in 2011, 60% of non-voters cited everyday issues as the reason for not voting. These included being too busy and lacking basic information.

The same report showed, “The most important access barrier [to youth voting] was lack of knowledge about the electoral process, including not knowing about different ways to vote..”.

The national youth survey revealed that nearly half of all Canadians aged 18 to 34 were unaware of the three options for voting other than on election day. That means that roughly half of our youth in this country do not know that they can vote at advance polls, by mail, or through special ballot. Students who happen to be busy on election day, studying or working, do not have the knowledge right now that they can vote in other ways. That level of awareness is incredibly low, and it is much lower amongst aboriginal youth, whose turnout we need to see increased. Therefore, we are proposing an increase in the information that voters receive about the options available for them to cast their ballot.

There is more evidence, though, to support the view that that is the kind of information they need. The survey that I just cited indicated that roughly a quarter of young non-voters expressed that not knowing where, when, or how to vote played a role in their decision not to cast the ballot. That is why Elections Canada correctly listed its top priority on youth turnout to be, “increasing awareness about when, where and how to vote, by providing information in formats suitable for youth”.

The job of informing voters is even more important for the disabled. Consultation and data show that Elections Canada does a good job of providing the tools that special needs voters require, such as wheelchair ramps, sign language, and braille services. Where the agency falls short is in making these tools known to those who need them.

To address all of these problems, the fair elections bill will bring better customer service to voters, with an extra advance voting day and more elections officials to relieve congestion at voting stations.

The bill goes further than that. The bill would amend section 18 of the Canada Elections Act to focus all of Elections Canada's promotional campaigns on two purposes: informing people of the basics of voting, where, when, and what ID to bring; and informing disabled people of the extra tools available to help them vote. It would be left to aspiring candidates and parties to give people something for which to vote and to reach Canadians where they are in their communities.

I look to the example set by our former immigration minister, now Minister of Employment and Social Development, who went out to new Canadians who perhaps were not entirely familiar with our democratic process because they came from countries that did not share those processes. He exposed them to democracy, and interested and inspired them in the process. We have seen similar activities that have been done by President Obama, who inspired a whole generation who did not traditionally vote to come out and cast a ballot. All of this shows that political candidates who are aspiring for office are far better at inspiring voters to get out and cast their ballot than our government bureaucracies, which is exactly how we will change the law.

However, that costs money. We live in the second biggest country in the world, with 10 million square kilometres. We are a nation that is twice the size of the entire European Union, and 95% of the countries in the world have a greater population density than we do. That means we have to travel long distances to reach our fellow Canadians. To do that, Canadian political parties and candidates spent $120 million in the last election in total. It sounds like a lot, until one considers that we spend $2.5 billion on cosmetics and fragrances in one year. Our nation spends 20 times more on products like cologne and makeup every year than we spend contesting democratic elections once every four years.

It is fair to say that special interest groups can use big money to drown out the voices of everyday Canadians, but that is why our nation's laws try to block that money. During campaigns, parties should rely on the money of small donors, not powerful special interest groups. Donations, like power, should be dispersed among the many rather than concentrated with the few.

As a result, the fair elections act would ban politicians from using unpaid loans to evade donation limits and maintain the absolute interdiction on corporate and union money. It would also allow a modest increase in the spending and donation limits while imposing tougher audits and penalties for those who exceed those limits. At the same time, the goal of the elections act is to allow small donors to contribute more to democracy through the front door and to block illegal big money from sneaking in the back door.

I would like to take this moment to thank the now Minister for Multiculturalism, who played a seminal role in crafting the proposals that I have brought before this House today. He and his staff have done tremendous work and have served their country well. I am very proud; in fact, I am very privileged, to have inherited that work.

We have before us a fair elections act that would further protect the basic principles that guide our democracy: that power should be dispersed in the hands of the many rather than concentrated in the hands of the few; that Canadians should be in charge of their democracy; that special interest groups should be on the sidelines; and rule-breakers should be out of the game altogether.

This is yet another occasion for us to celebrate the democracy that has brought us to where we are as a country today, to make it better, to further instill it in the foundation of our country, and to move forward into the future of Canadian democracy.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, immediately after the reading of the order of the day for second reading of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, a motion that the said bill be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be deemed moved and be subject to provisions of Standing Order 73(1).

Democratic Reform

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the Fair Elections Act will allow donations of small amounts and will exclude those from the wealthiest.

We will also eliminate the practice of using unpaid loans to get around donation rules. I want to add that a small increase in the limits will enable small donors to contribute a bit more to democracy, all the while ensuring that checks and stricter legislation protect Canadians against the undue influence of money.

Canada Elections Act

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)