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.

[Leslie Remund, Associate Director, RainCity Housing and Support Society]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee members, thank you.

Thank you for inviting RainCity Housing and Support Society to speak to the committee. l'm Leslie Remund. I have worked for RainCity Housing for 18 years. I'm currently in the role of associate director, responsible for the day-to-day operations of our programs.

Here's a little bit about our organization.

RainCity Housing is a service delivery organization, incorporated in 1990. We offer a wide range of housing and support services to the people in Vancouver. We have over 500 supported housing units, 100 emergency shelter beds, and a variety of specialized support programs, including outreach and clinical health services. Our primary operations are located in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, one of the most vibrant and yet poorest neighbourhoods in Canada.

I'm going to talk a bit about the community, because that's what I have to offer here.

The Downtown Eastside of Vancouver is unique in its concentration of low-income housing, most of which is operated by non-profit organizations like ours. The overwhelming majority of the 18,000 residents live below the poverty line. Eighty-eight per cent of our community members are renters. In terms of housing security, one-third of those live in single-room occupancy hotels, one-third live in non-market rental suites, and 6% live in community care facilities. We have over 1,600 people who are homeless, living either in shelters or on the streets in Vancouver.

As mentioned, single-room occupancy hotels comprise a substantial stock of low-income rentals. These units are small rooms, most often with communal bathing and shared cooking facilities. It is an intimate environment, with strong internal communities, yet these hotels often lack the security afforded to those who live in their own apartments. In the emergency shelter system, many people share a common large space with mats on the floor and little privacy.

We have a significant seniors population, making up over 21% of our community, and urban first nations peoples, who constitute 10% of our community.

RainCity Housing and Support Society has issue with two aspects of Bill C-23, the fair elections bill. These are the removal of vouching and the removal of the use of voter identification cards as a means to verify a person's address. My following statement will focus on the practicalities of voter identification for our community members, as this is the grounds for which we have expertise.

There are currently 38.... I've been hearing 35. But I went to the website and counted. So I might be off a few.

[Carolann Barr, Executive Director, Raising the Roof]

Thank you, everybody.

My name is Carolann Barr. I'm the executive director of Raising the Roof. We're a national charity focused on long-term solutions to homelessness. We do that through partnerships with front-line agencies, research, and public education.

I want to thank the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for inviting me today to speak on Bill C-23 to amend the Canada Elections Act. There has been lots in the news, and I was watching some of you being interviewed by Evan Solomon just a little while ago. A lot of what I'm going to speak about, I think, is what a lot of people are saying around this issue. I'm going to focus my comments around my expertise around working with vulnerable populations, and specifically the homeless.

I have over 20 years of experience working in this sector, working in front-line agencies, managing programs. I'm in different health and social service sector environments. I've worked with a diverse group of people—youth, adults—who are facing different issues, from mental health to addictions to homelessness to poverty. Really, I have devoted my career to helping reduce barriers that people who are disadvantaged face.

In fact, I was part of the original consultations; I remembered that as I was being invited here. I believe it was in early 2000. It was by Elections Canada and it was round table discussions about how to help people who were struggling with accessing their identification for various reasons, and how to help them vote. So I'm very pleased to be here today.

Elections Canada accepts the voter identification cards as proof of residence in specific locations, such as long-term care facilities, on campuses for students, and it really is a common-sense initiative that has worked. Certainly, I feel very proud to live in a country where you can support your neighbour in this way to help them vote.

Ensuring that all Canadians can exercise their right to vote is what makes the voting process a legitimate process. As we all know, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 3, guarantees that all citizens have the right to be involved in the election of their governments and the right to vote in federal, provincial, and municipal elections.

Bill C-23 proposes to get rid of the cards and disallow them as proof of identity or residence. This would certainly have a serious repercussion, potentially, and infringe on the rights of individuals under the charter. Some groups of electors, as I've mentioned, seniors, students, first nations, people who have recently moved, the homeless.... There's a recent report that estimates there are 200,000 homeless people in Canada. We know many of them struggle to keep their ID and maintain their ID.

The government claims that eliminating the cards will cut down on electoral fraud. I think we heard you talk about that, Wosen, and it certainly is much more of an issue around voter participation. My understanding is that there really isn't clear evidence about fraud. My question, then, is: why, if this is working, is this being put forward at this point?

At Raising the Roof we work closely with our partner agencies and work directly with the homeless. From my experience in working with these agencies, I know that we all feel that individuals who face losing their housing should not be further marginalized by being unable to exercise their right to vote. We need to ensure that the voter information card is maintained as proof of identity.

The bill also revokes vouching. We know that 120,000 people in the 2011 election relied on that to vote. So it was a significant amount of people. Also, considering the number of homeless, we know it's significant. The Chief Electoral Officer has indicated that there was a 90% accuracy rate in evaluating these. So we don't want to, as the chief is saying, take away the last safety net for those who do not have the necessary documents.

I'll just quickly talk about homelessness.

Homeless Canadians were denied the right to vote, but measures were put in place over the years whereby they could use a shelter as an address. In terms of where we've come today with the voter information card and vouching, I'm really hoping the government will listen to everyone's comments and keep this in place.

People don't have ID because they're struggling with issues, not because they don't want to follow the rules. I think it's really important that we not revert to a time when the most marginalized in our society were denied the right to vote. People who are otherwise disadvantaged have already lost a great deal, and they should not lose their charter right to vote.

[Wosen Yitna Beyene]

Thank you very much, Chairman

Good evening, everybody.

My quick presentation this evening will focus basically on one major element of the bill itself, Bill C-23. I will focus on civic participation in the electoral process and particularly refer to the experience of Ethiopians in Toronto. This is all based on my observations and my engagement within the community.

My role in the community is president of the association. I'll just give you a quick briefing about the association. It has been serving Ethiopians and other newcomers for the last 34 years. It was established in 1980, and we have been providing services for settlement, crisis, for seniors, for youth, HIV/AIDS, and all other types of community initiatives within the community. Although our capacity has been significantly reduced recently, that's part of our mandate and focus, the community service we provide, and again, we are not limited to providing service to Ethiopians. We provide service to all other eligible newcomers as well, based on the specific program or service we offer.

To give you a quick profile of the Ethiopian community, although we don't have a very clear number, we estimate that about 50,000 Ethiopians reside in Toronto and the GTA. Some of the challenges in the community, based on some of the research, are the huge unemployment and underemployment in the community and some barriers in terms of access to services and programs in very specific areas.

The community is relatively new to Canada, here for the last 30 to 40 years. As a community, although we are trying to address the specific needs of the community, there is a huge gap, and there are a lot of areas that still need to be addressed, one being the active participation of community members—Ethiopians—in the electoral process of different levels of government in Canada, the municipal, provincial, and federal governments.

So on this line, I will just quickly go through my presentation about the bill itself. I would like just to quote the remarks given by the Chief Electoral Officer to this committee, I believe, the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs on March 6:

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...have taken away the ability of many qualified electors to vote.

So with this quotation from the Chief Electoral Officer, I would like to emphasize the key wording about voter participation. I will quickly go through my points: one, how we can engage a community like the Ethiopian Association to be actively involved with voting and the whole electoral process; two, the community engagement that we already have—we engage our community members—could be an opportunity to disseminate and educate the community members with civic education about the Canadian political arena; and three, how we can encourage voters. I don't have concrete data or figures to use here, but from my understanding and observation, I would assume not that many Ethiopians really vote, again, because of factors like social exclusion or inclusion elements, employment, time spent with the family, and time spent at work in support of families.

These are generic features that we hear of in other ethnocultural groups or ethno-specific groups, but again, this is true also in the Ethiopian community. So we need to have a strategy here, along with Bill C-23, which I understand has quite a broader scope than what I'm trying to present here.

But in the participation of our community, the community engagement work can really be done through another organization like the Ethiopian Association in partnership with the electoral office and other relevant organizations. For example, Canada's democracy week in September could be an opportunity where we can educate our community members in the electoral process.

I was involved in training with the Maytree Foundation here in Toronto. It started in 2011 to educate community members on how the different levels of government work. That type of model is also very important in tapping into the existing resources.

I know there are a lot of documents and resources in civic education but there also needs to be access in appropriate language and cultural ways because one of the elements here is the experience of new Canadians. For example, Ethiopians in their home country or in the country of origin and their political culture...political participation has oftentimes a negative impact on the participation of these new Canadians in the Canadian political system. Their experience may not have been a positive one. That will leave them in a situation where they always behave indifferently to the political system. They think their voice wouldn't make a difference or generally they are more reluctant to be part of any political engagement.

The education process has to be customized in a way to address the uniqueness of each community, and each voter as an individual or as part of a group or community. It is at that level that an organization like the Ethiopian Association could be a resource or a potential partner with other existing resources to disseminate education.

Again, first-time voters are also an issue. We need to work at the early stages in engaging parents and young voters within the community to get this education and awareness. That's actually another element. We know that parents and schools are playing a very significant role in the decision-making of their young children in the voting process. So we need to spend resources and effort in educating parents because it will have a compound effect. Although children can get some basic civic education in the schools, which also has an effect in educating their parents, we need to work at both ends to make it really significant and meaningful.

I am aware of the time so this would be my opening remarks.

Thank you very much.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, we think it is reasonable to expect Canadians to bring ID when they vote. Now, it is not necessary to bring photo ID. Canadians can choose from 39 options. The fair elections act will require Elections Canada to inform voters of these options so that they can all vote.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, too many Conservative ministers have a casual relationship with the truth on Bill C-23. The Minister of the Environment is claiming that she was in the provincial cabinet in 2001 and helped to solve a crisis with identification following the September 11th attacks. Yet, she was not even elected until 2004.

The minister claims that every hamlet has photo ID, yet the MLA for South Baffin said that his constituents have to fly to Iqaluit.

Will the Minister of the Environment come clean on voter ID cards for northerners and agree to stop reinventing history?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is doing no such thing. He is simply requiring, through the fair elections act, that people present ID when they cast their ballot.

It is not necessary to bring government-issued photo ID, though that is an option. There are 39 different forms of ID that are accepted when people show up to vote. We think that is reasonable, and Canadians agree with us.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the leader of the NDP thinks it is indefensible to ask people to bring ID when they vote just shows how out of touch with reality he has become.

There are 39 different forms of acceptable ID that Canadians can use when they cast their ballot. We think it is reasonable in a democratic society for people to bring ID when they vote. That is all that the fair elections act requests.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today to assist us in our study of Bill C-23.

I'd like to raise a particular point about the powers of investigation, which hasn't yet been raised this evening. There's another provision that has been ignored in Bill C-23. The CEO and a number of experts have for a long time been calling for the power to require political parties to provide documentation on election spending in order to ensure compliance with the Canada Elections Act.

Currently, Elections Canada can require this documentation from the candidates of political parties, nomination contestants and leadership contestants. However, they cannot require it from political parties.

It has been shown that something along the lines of what a number of experts are calling for could really help Elections Canada to combat fraud and, in general, to investigate various situations.

Do you have any idea why this provision is not in Bill C-23?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you very much.

I have a couple of quick points for Ms. Fraser. I read, and I'm assuming this is correct, it was regarding your testimony today at the Senate, where you talked about the provisions of the bill and said your daughter under the current provisions of the bill would not be able to vote.

I take it from your comments that she's a university student living at home, so she gets all her correspondence or utility bills, whatever, via email. A couple of things, obviously there are 18 months before the next election. I would assume she would be able to get the proper identification or at least confirmation of address by that time. Second, even though she's getting perhaps all of her information by email, I know you can request written transcripts, hard copy transcripts from the university, which would be sent to her home, would they not? Would that not be able to comply with the regulations contained in Bill C-23?

My point is that when you say she wouldn't be able to vote, with all the greatest of respect, I just can't agree with that, because there are certainly ways that she would be able to vote. She would just have to go that extra mile by asking for a hard copy rather than electronic.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Manning, Ms. Fraser, and Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, for being with us today.

My first line of questions will be directed to both Mr. Manning and Ms. Fraser, and it deals with the provisions contained in Bill C-23 to remove the commissioner of elections from Elections Canada and place him within the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, because our contention is that this would give far more independence to the commissioner of elections.

Currently, although the commissioner himself thinks he does have independence, under questioning from myself at his appearance here, it was ascertained that in fact the Chief Electoral Officer—Elections Canada, in other words—can hire and fire the commissioner of elections. Elections Canada controls the commissioner of elections' budget; Elections Canada can direct and compel the commissioner of elections to conduct investigations whether or not the commissioner himself wants to; and the CEO of Elections Canada can stop an ongoing investigation by just requesting that the investigation be halted. To me, that's not independence whatsoever.

What we are suggesting is that the commissioner of elections be removed from that, so then he would have, number one, the ability to control his own budget, to hire his own staff, to determine what investigations he wishes to conduct, but he is not compelled to do so. I think by anybody's common-sense examination, it would be very apparent that this gives the commissioner of elections far more independence than he has now.

Mr. Manning, I know you suggested that you like that part of the provisions of Bill C-23 and I think, Ms. Fraser, you disagree, so I would like to hear both your comments on why you support your particular position and the position as advocated by the government in Bill C-23.

Mr. Manning, you first.

By the way, Mr. Manning, I should start off by asking a question. Ms. Fraser has voluntary disclosed her remuneration by being on the advisory board for Elections Canada, and I should ask you the same question. Mr. Manning, are you being remunerated by Elections Canada?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Former Member of Parliament, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I'd like to address the issue of preventing electoral fraud. The assumption that organized electoral fraud happens elsewhere in countries we send Canadian observers to, and not in our Canada, can no longer be assumed. The Neufeld report states that in Etobicoke Centre there was judicial agreement that, despite the presence of irregularities, there was no evidence of fraud or ineligible voters being provided ballots.

I support all the recommendations in the Neufeld report; however, the above statement would have been more accurate if it had added that there are legal limitations to the Canada Elections Act and the Privacy Act that practically limit evidence of fraud from being admissible or proven in court—in fact, they make it impossible. As an example, the table in annex C of the Neufeld report points out that, in statistical analysis of three byelections, the incidence of ballots being handed to people not on the voters' list and no registration certificates being completed occurred in 0.4%, 0.5%, and 3.8% of cases. Yet in the court sampling of 10 polls in Etobicoke Centre, the number was 48.2%, almost 1,000% higher.

I've been an electoral observer overseas and have organized electoral observer missions on behalf of NGOs, Canada, and the OSCE, since 1991. When we have found such patterns of statistical anomalies, we've concluded the likelihood of fraud. However, the Canada Elections Act precludes statistical findings of fraud. The standard is to prove that individual ballots are fraudulent. However, the Canada Elections Act and the Privacy Act prevent us from questioning the voters who cast those ballots, nor could we compel election officials to answer questions—a legal Catch-22.

In June of 2011, after being given an anonymous tip that ballots were being handed out in one poll without IDs being shown, we followed up with a statistical analysis of all Etobicoke Centre polls. We found disturbing results. For example, in poll 31, voter turnout increased by 70%, and the Conservative vote percentage increased by 50%. When poll 31 documents were examined at Elections Canada's secure facility, 20% of all votes were by registration certificate, 1 in 5, whereas the overall Etobicoke Centre and Canadian averages were 5%, or 1 in 20. Of the 86 RCs, a majority turned out not to live in the poll. Towards the end of the Superior Court hearing, Elections Canada tabled emails in which both the DRO and registering officer in poll 31 made contradictory and false statements as to whether non-eligible voters were allowed to vote. Has Elections Canada investigated these officials?

There were significant numbers of other similarly problematic polls. To maintain the public's confidence that those elected by the narrowest of margins are in fact a reflection of the people's will, statistical evidence must be allowable and the legal standard ought to be the balance of probabilities and not beyond the shadow of a doubt.

In addition, I disagree that the office of the commissioner of elections' independence be jeopardized by putting it under the wing of a government department. However, I also believe that an arm's length investigative unit should be foreseen in legislation in cases of serious allegations of administrative failures or fraud against Elections Canada officials. Both investigative bodies must have the powers to subpoena and to compel people to give evidence. I also suggest that there be a legal requirement to bring resolution to cases within a one-year timeframe as opposed to the decisions rendered five or more years after the fact, making them moot, as by then the next federal election has occurred.

In Etobicoke Centre, alleged vote additions occurred in an atmosphere of vote suppression, including the disruption and shutting down of two of the strongest Liberal polls by identified Conservative campaign team members, including the campaign manager. Consequential penalties need to be applied in cases of direct vote suppression. Campaigns whose team members engage in such tactics need to face the penalty of having their candidate's election disallowed. A democracy's foundational social contract is that we all have a voice. Young or old, it's one person, one vote. Rich or homeless, it's one person, one vote. White or aboriginal, it's one person, one vote.

If the rules that provide the framework for the act of voting are overly restrictive, the representative nature of a government is questionable. If rules are not followed by officials due to lack of training and resourcing, we have no confidence in the results. If rules are broken by vote suppression or vote addition, a government's legitimacy is called into question. If the government introduces Bill C-23 without serious amendments, it will have facilitated all of the above.

[Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General of Canada, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to be here and would like to thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee with regards to its study of Bill C-23.

I would like to emphasize that my comments are mine alone. I do not represent the Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada nor the advisory committee to that organization, which I co-chair.

In the interest of full disclosure, I would like to advise the committee that I have received an amount of $2,450 for my participation to date on that advisory committee. I have also been engaged as a member of boards of selection for various positions within Elections Canada, and was paid $976 in 2013 and $3,240 in 2012 for those services.

As you are aware, I had the privilege of serving as the Auditor General of Canada for a 10-year term, which ended close to three years ago. The Auditor General is one of seven officers of Parliament who play a very important role in our democratic system.

The Privy Council Office refers to these officers as agents of Parliament, and states:

Agents of Parliament are a unique group of independent statutory officers who serve to scrutinize the activity of government. They report directly to Parliament rather than to government or an individual Minister and, as such, exist to serve Parliament in relation to Parliament's oversight role. Agents normally produce a report to Parliament to account for their own activities, and their institutional heads are typically appointed through special resolutions of the House of Commons and the Senate. To maintain the independence of the Agent, the degree of influence exercised by the executive arm of government is minimal.

The independence of the officers of Parliament, both in fact and appearance, is critical to their credibility and their ability to carry out the mandates entrusted to them. I was very pleased that government recognized the importance of this independence in 2007-2008, when a number of administrative policies were amended.

These amendments recognized that it is the officer of Parliament who is responsible for implementing these policies and ensuring compliance with them, rather than, as was previously stated, a minister. For example, some requirements of the government communications policy do not apply to officers of Parliament. The Treasury Board Secretariat worked very cooperatively with the officers at the time to address our concerns.

In light of that, I am very concerned with two provisions of this bill that would affect the independence of the Chief Electoral Officer and his organization.

The first is proposed section 18, which restricts the Chief Electoral Officer’s communications with the public to certain specified, limited information. Outreach activities, encouraging people to vote, and educational initiatives would no longer be permitted. An independent officer of Parliament should be able to bring any issue that he or she believes important to the attention of Parliament and the public.

The second is proposed section 20, which will now require the Chief Electoral Officer to obtain Treasury Board approval to “fix and pay...[the] remuneration and expenses” of “persons having technical or specialized knowledge” engaged on a temporary basis. This is clearly an infringement on the independence of the Chief Electoral Officer.

In comparison, the Auditor General Act explicitly states that the Auditor General does not require the approval of the Treasury Board. In addition, the government's contracting policy specifically exempts the officers of Parliament from obtaining Treasury Board approval.

I am also concerned that should this article be adopted, it could create operational difficulties for Elections Canada in managing an election, given the hundreds of people with specialized assistance that it requires.

In 2005, the Office of the Auditor General conducted a performance audit on the operations of Elections Canada. At that time, we concluded that Elections Canada plans, manages, and administers the federal electoral process well, according to applicable authorities, and that it plays a key role in supporting the fairness and transparency of the electoral process.

I encourage the committee to ensure that this proposed legislation does not alter that.

In closing, Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the clerk of the committee and House staff for their assistance to me in preparing for this hearing.

I would now be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have. Thank you.

[Preston Manning, President and Founder, Manning Centre for Building Democracy]

Thank you first of all for this opportunity. I should make clear that I'm speaking solely on my own behalf and on behalf of the Manning Centre for Building Democracy. I'm not speaking on behalf of the advisory committee to the Chief Electoral Officer of which I'm a member. I want to just confine my remarks to four points. I think you've been given a one page brief from me.

First, I do think this is a commendable democratic initiative, Bill C-23 in particular, because it seeks to eliminate those practices like robocalling that discredit elections, parties, and candidates associated with them. So that would be the first point that I'd like to make.

Second, I do think there is merit in separating the administration of the elections from the enforcement of election law. I just think that this would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to focus solely on the election administration and allow the independent commissioner to focus entirely and independently on the law enforcement.

The one area where I'd like to suggest the bill can be improved, and I know you've heard a lot of suggestions for improvement, is this. I would like to see the role of Elections Canada and Chief Electoral Officer strengthened with respect to the promotional and educational activities needed to increase voter participation. It seems to me that the biggest challenge that we have with the Canadian electoral system is not its fairness, although one has to address that, but it is this declining participation in elections generally. If we profess to be democrats and I think no matter what our ideological or party divisions are, that we are all democrats here that everybody, Elections Canada, the parties, the candidates, the NGOs should do everything conceivable to get that participation rate up.

I suggest adding a section to the bill where it lists the only topics on which the Chief Electoral Officer can provide information. I suggest adding a fifth clause that says, public education and information programs to make the electoral process better known to the public and increase voter participation should be one of his duties.

The last point I'd make is this. As some of you know, ever since I got out of Parliament, I've been a strong advocate of getting more training and preparation for people seeking elected office, not just themselves but the constituency organizations, campaign managers, anybody that's actively participating in the process. The old idea that we can learn on the job has been the conventional wisdom for a long time. I think in this age of rapid communication it's just not workable.

I've been involved in trying to persuade people to take training if they're going to get into the political arena. When you run into prospective candidates and campaign managers, there is some confusion as to whether investments in training prior to the election might be considered an election expense or a contribution in kind.

To eliminate that confusion, I'd propose an amendment to the bill that simply says that training course expenses, including expenses for education on the subject of the act or on election campaigns, are not election expenses, personal expenses, or electoral campaign expenses under the act.

I do think that one change would make it crystal clear. Our lawyers say that actually these things are not expenses now, but it is unclear. I think that one change would make that crystal clear.

So those are my four points, Mr. Chairman. I won't take longer and I'd be happy to elaborate on any of those or to answer any other questions that you might have.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you for that.

The reason I'm bringing that forward, of course, is because the opposition continuously says, and I've heard it from some of our witnesses as well, that if the commissioner of elections had the power to compel testimony then we could have gotten to the bottom of the Pierre Poutine case already by merely getting witnesses forward. You could not use that information in court afterwards. That's why that would never be used. I'm glad you confirmed that.

This may be an unfair question, but I'll ask it anyway. If you were analyzing Bill C-23 comparatively, the issue about the ability to compel testimony, do you believe the ability you currently have would enhance the ability of the commissioner of elections to receive the type of information he would need in the course of his investigations, or do you have any opinion?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you very much.

I have questions for our representatives from the Competition Bureau.

I'm trying to get some clarity here because we've heard from members of the opposition throughout this examination of Bill C-23 that they believe the commissioner of elections should have the power to compel testimony, something that you currently have in the Competition Bureau.

My point is simply this. The power to compel against an individual that the commissioner of elections is trying to pursue, or is pursuing, couldn't ever be used because any testimony that came out of that wouldn't be accepted by the courts afterwards.

My understanding, in your particular case, is that the power to compel testimony is mainly due to, or for, administrative issues. Would that be a correct assessment? Or have you used this to try to compel an individual to come forward and provide testimony?