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.

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

Okay. Thank you very much.

At the moment, Bill C-23 would require the commissioner to give written notice that a person is being investigated, with some possibility of deciding “I won't do that”, but the primary obligation is that they must. But we also have a provision that makes it very clear that the commissioner cannot provide after-investigation information, such as the kind of summary you've suggested your commission can do on occasion for the benefit of the public. That's actually prohibited by proposed section 510.1.

The other thing is that the standard set out in Bill C-23 for a commissioner to even begin an investigation is an interesting standard. I'm hoping the minister remains open to amending it. It basically says that the commissioner may conduct an investigation if he or she believes on “reasonable grounds” that an offence has been committed. My understanding, at least from other areas of law, is that this is a much higher standard, which I am used to seeing in criminal law areas, for example, to be able to even start an investigation. I understand from your presentation that the simple fact of market condition fluctuation might be enough for you to start an investigation.

Is the standard of reasonable grounds a standard that you would use, or do you have a much lower standard? This is not to compel testimony or anything like that; this is just to start investigating.

[Keith Lanthier]

As I said, I've never been prevented from voting. If I wanted to vote, I have been able to vote. None of the people I know have been prevented from voting.

I guess this is my issue. Canadians, as I indicated, are talking about this. When Canada negotiates a free trade deal, that takes years and years. You're working out details back and forth. But for some reason, for the Fair Elections Act, we have to somehow get it within six months. Somehow we have to do all of this.

From my perspective, I think Canadians are being robbed of their opportunity. I'm here today, but I could have 50 people sitting in this chair who want to express the same kinds of issues. We may disagree, but I'm here because of the process. The process has to be fair, and I don't believe it is.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Let's move on to something else.

Section 7 of Bill C-23 would replace section 18 of the Canada Elections Act by the following:

18. (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...;

(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...;

(e) the measures for assisting electors with a disability to access a polling station or advance polling station...

Perhaps we need another paragraph indicating that the Chief Electoral Officer has an obligation to inform Canadians of their language rights in an election and when dealing with Elections Canada. He could provide them with information on, for example, where they can vote in the language of their choosing as well as any other rights they have.

[Marie-France Kenny, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

Thank you very much.

I would like to take a few minutes to clarify one point and I hope that this time will not be taken off my five minutes.

I am the sole proprietor of two businesses, one of which is a consulting business that has had Elections Canada contracts. When I became President of the FCFA I entrusted the management of my two businesses to a third party. I therefore cannot tell you if that business still has contracts with Elections Canada at this point in time. However, I would be happy to give you any information you require. I can provide you with copies of current or previous contracts if the committee so wishes.

That said, I am appearing today as President of the FCFA of Canada and it is in that capacity that I will be speaking.

Thank you for inviting the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada to appear before you today.

The FCFA is the principal spokesperson for 2.6 million Canadian men and women who speak French in nine provinces and three territories. The federation's mission is to foster the vitality of francophone and Acadian communities, support the promotion of linguistic duality throughout the country and advocate for the rights of French-speaking Canadian men and women in minority situations. The federation also plays a leadership role with the network of organizations and institutions within the Canadian francophonie.

To our knowledge, no one has to date examined Bill C-23 from the perspective of the obligations set out in the Official Languages Act. That is what we will be speaking about today. In that sense, there are two aspects of Bill C-23 that we are greatly concerned about.

I will speak first about section 7 of the bill.

The changes proposed in the bill will put an end to the Chief Electoral Officer's power to communicate with the public in order to inform them about the electoral process. From our communities' perspective, this would mean that the Chief Electoral Officer would no longer be able to initiate information programs in order to promote participation in the democratic process by francophone citizens in minority communities.

That civic education and public information role would be left to political parties. However, contrary to the Chief Electoral Officer, they are not bound by the Official Languages Act. So how will francophones be encouraged to vote in those areas where our communities are either spread far apart or where they are a very small minority? Will anyone bother?

Restricting the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to communicate with francophone minority communities goes against the spirit of part VII of the Official Languages Act. Under part VII, the federal government is committed to enhancing the vitality of English and French minorities in Canada and supporting their development, as well as fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

The FCFA is therefore opposed to the proposed changes under section 7 of the bill. In fact, if any change is made to section 18 to the Canada Elections Act, it should be with a view to strengthening the Chief Electoral Officer's obligations towards official language minority communities. A provision could be added that would clearly define the Chief Electoral Officer's role in promoting civic participation of these communities by exercising their democratic rights. That is what we recommend to this committee.

We are equally concerned about the changes being proposed under sections 18, 19, 21 and 44 of the bill.

Currently, under the Canada Elections Act, deputy returning officers and poll clerks are appointed based on a list of candidates provided by the party that came first or second in that riding during the previous election. This current provision is already very problematic for francophone citizens who wish to receive services in the official language of their choice at polling stations.

Far from resolving this problem, the proposed changes extend this process to other positions, including that of central poll supervisor, and add party associations and political parties to the list of bodies that can recommend candidates for these positions. Neither the candidates, nor the party associations, nor the political parties themselves have any obligations under the Official Languages Act. This means that Elections Canada, a body that is, would no longer be able to ensure that the candidates on those lists for election officers' positions would be able to comply with those obligations.

How will we be able to prevent that situation from getting worse in a context where Elections Canada is not able to ensure that election officers have the ability to provide services in both official languages?

The FCFA is therefore opposed to the measures proposed in sections 18, 19, 21 and 44 of Bill C-23.

The FCFA also recommends that the positions being filled by the same process under the current Canada Elections Act be filled through Elections Canada and not through a list submitted by the candidates, who are not bound by the act.

The democratic rights guaranteed by the charter not only include the right to vote, but also the right to effective representation and the right to play a significant role in the electoral process. In our opinion, Bill C-23 in its current form infringes on the right of electors in francophone and Acadian communities to exercise their rights.

Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Keith Lanthier, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you and this committee for inviting me here this evening.

As I indicated, my name is Keith Lanthier. I live in the riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's in Nova Scotia.

When I heard that these hearings were only going to be in Ottawa, I knew that I needed to do something. One option would have been to discuss it with my member of Parliament, but there was not enough time, and I was not confident that I would even get a response. It was important for me to have a voice.

Fair elections are the cornerstone of any democracy. I must admit that in the past I really didn't give it a lot of thought. I had very few expectations when there was an election. There was always a sense of accomplishment after voting, but that's where it ended.

This changed for me in the May 2011 federal election with the robocalls scandal, and the changed mood intensified with the introduction of Bill C-23 in Parliament. Canadians from across this country are discussing the fair elections act and thinking about the critical role that fair elections play in our democracy.

From my perspective there are two basic questions. Will the fair elections act strengthen Canada's democracy by ensuring that every eligible Canadian is able to exercise his fundamental right to vote? Will it ensure that our elections are fair? While there may be some positive provisions in this bill, from my perspective the answer to both of these questions is no.

First, there are provisions in the bill to remove two methods of voting that have proven to be effective in ensuring that voters who do not have standard ID documents showing their name and current address can vote. These are the voter information cards and the vouching system.

In the last federal election more than 100,000 Canadians used the vouching system in order to cast their ballot. There are many reasons they may not have had the necessary documentation. Every year 13% of Canadians move house, and roughly four million Canadians don't have a driver's licence. There are many groups that may be negatively impacted if these changes are implemented.

The minister has repeatedly stated that these changes are necessary to ensure that there is no voter fraud. Harry Neufeld acknowledged that there were irregularities in 1.3% of the cases but that there was no evidence of voter fraud. He also noted that there are multiple reasons for these administrative errors. Mr. Neufeld made a number of recommendations, and none of them included the elimination of vouching or voter information cards.

It is also extremely important that elections be independent and transparent. One of the problems with Bill C-23 is that it changes the rules by which election officials, including central poll supervisors, are selected. There are concerns that these changes will compromise the non-partisan nature of these roles.

The role of the Chief Electoral Officer will also significantly change. The bill will prevent him and Elections Canada from engaging with the public in the same way with respect to our democracy. This includes engaging with children and youth, who are the next generation of voters. The student vote program reached more than 500,000 students in the last election. The decline in voter turnout is clearly an issue, I think we can all agree, but not reaching the next generation of voters is clearly not the solution.

Finally, when there is suspected voter fraud, there must be the necessary mechanisms in place to conduct thorough investigations. Bill C-23 simply states that an independent investigation will be initiated, if there are sufficient grounds. The investigator will still have no power to compel witnesses to testify. That is the key reason that Canadians still have limited information about the improper use of robocalls in the last election.

This is in sharp contrast to section 11 of the Competition Act, whereby a judge can order someone to present evidence under oath or to produce documents, if the court is satisfied that the information is relevant to the inquiry.

These are just some of the serious flaws with this legislation that I can mention in the time that I have. It is for these reasons and other concerns that Bill C-23 must be withdrawn.

All Canadians deserve to be part of this conversation, and not just those who've been able to make a written submission or appear before this committee. It is too vital to our democracy to be a ball bouncing back and forth between political parties.

It is also my strong belief that any serious discussion of electoral reform has to include the possibility of adopting some form of proportional representation. This way, every vote counts. Canadians want to be engaged in this discussion—I've certainly had many around my own area—and it is necessary to respect this. There can be no legitimacy without a comprehensive and consultative process.

Thank you.

Employees' Voting Rights Act

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to speak briefly to Bill C-525.

I have to say that if the mover of the private member's bill believes that this is so important and is worthwhile, then why does the government not introduce legislation to do what is clearly trying to be done through the backdoor? It is because the government does not have the courage to take its own action and clearly stand up to introduce legislation if it wants to see changes.

Previously we had Bill C-377. Now we have Bill C-525. If government members have some concerns and think that changes need to happen, they should do it the proper way and introduce legislation as a government.

I am happy to have a chance to speak to a bill that according to the government's sponsors is to help empower workers.

Specifically, Bill C-525 would amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act to provide that the certification and decertification of a bargaining agent under these acts must be achieved by a vote-based majority through a secret ballot.

Members will forgive my apprehension, but as this bill does come on the heels of the government's last union-busting bill, Bill C-377, I have to wonder again about the real motivations behind it.

Bill C-525 would affect more than 1.2 million employees working as public servants or for an employer under federal jurisdiction. This would include everyone from my own staff to their own staff to the local postmaster to the teller at my local bank or credit union. This means we need to ensure that we get this right, because the bill would impact on real people every day.

The Conservatives have made it clear from the beginning of their term that they are prepared to smash unions at all costs, even when the cost would hurt middle-class workers. Liberals see this as unacceptable. We will be casting our votes in favour of middle-class workers and their families and in favour of fairness and full consultation. If the Conservatives want to change the Labour Code or anything in it, then they should sit down with the partners and discuss those things and make the changes.

My first concern with Bill C-525 is that it proposes to fundamentally change how a union can be formed and dissolved in the federal jurisdiction, yet the evidence shows there is no need, and the major stakeholders have neither asked for this change nor even agreed with it.

Despite the fact that the federal labour relations system is respected and supported by both labour and employers as a result of a genuine and proven consultative and consensus process that has been followed for decades for amending the Labour Code, the bill clearly ignores all the good work that has been done over the years through discussions between labour and the employer as to what changes need to be made. It seems Bill C-525 is again rooted in ideology rather than in sound policy based upon need.

There has been no proven need for the legislation. Those supporting the bill suggest that the rationale for Bill C-525 was a mountain of complaints regarding union coercion of workers. However, according to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, there have only been two founded complaints against unions out of 4,000 decisions in 10 years, so all of this is about just two serious complaints. Even the chairperson of CIRB stated in committee testimony, “It's not a huge problem”.

For labour relations legislation to be effective, it must be developed and implemented by the stakeholders through pre-legislative consultation based upon evidence, not by backdoor government manoeuvring of private members' bills that are, again, based solely upon ideology. This is not the first time we have seen bills that are clearly based upon the ideology of the Conservatives rather than upon substance or science.

Bill C-525 ignores long-established processes and like its sister legislation, Bill C-377, would impose radical changes that are not supported by the stakeholders or by the facts. The result of the legislation would not be labour harmony or efficiency; it would be an upsetting of the balance and stability in labour relations in Canada. This may be what the government is attempting to spark, but it is not in the best interests of employers, workers, or the Canadian economy in the long term.

However, I am not here just to poke holes today. In fact, as someone who has a strong union base in my own constituency, I have seen the positive contributions made to my communities by organized labour over many years. Indeed, this kind of social benevolence is something that has long underscored the labour movement in Canada, and those of us in the Liberal caucus continue to support these middle-class workers and their families very proudly.

Kicking labour around is tantamount to an attack on our communities, and the government should be ashamed of the approach it is taking. Bill C-377 was bad enough, and now Bill C-525 has appeared on the scene. When will it stop?

The bill is neither about union democracy, nor balanced labour relations. Bill C-525 fundamentally changes the way that workers can unionize, without any consultation or support of the stakeholders, and based on zero evidence for its need.

Rather than this kind of knee-jerk approach, the Liberal Party has called for a certification process that, one, allows workers to make free and informed decisions about whether they want to join a union or not, and, two, that has been created through a fair and balanced consensus tripartite process that is based on fact, whereby the changes to be made come from the stakeholders themselves.

Bill C-525 is yet another example of the Conservative government abusing the private members' bill process as backdoor government legislation to promote its ideology, not the views and wishes of the stakeholders or their constituents that would be affected or when the facts at hand show it is not needed.

What are the Conservatives so afraid of? When they tried this very same thing with Bill C-377, their own senators admonished them for doing it. They stymie debate, curtail committee study, and act like their fingerprints are not all over the document.

For example, the human resources committee only studied this for two and a half hours, and almost every witness, including government witnesses, spoke out against the bill. Somehow it sounds a bit like Bill C-23. Specifically, the witnesses that were heard expressed concern over the bill.

George Smith, a labour relations expert, said:

...we are dealing with a private member's bill to amend a significant section of the Canada Labour Code without any view of how this change will impact overall labour relations policy in the federal sector, without any of the necessary due process and public consultation to examine the intended and unintended consequences to such amendments.

Dick Heinen, executive director, Christian Labour Association of Canada, a union that is often viewed as employer friendly, said this about the current card-check system, “It has worked, and I don't know what the problem is. I don't know why we need to change that”.

Elizabeth MacPherson, chair of the Canada Industrial Relations Board, with respect to the effectiveness of the current card-check system, said, “In our opinion, it is working well. With the board having the discretion to decide when a vote must be held, it works”. Why do we need to change it? Why is the government refusing to listen? Is it anything else but clear ideology?

Conservative abuse of this process has been so terrible in the past that the Conservative member for Edmonton—St. Albert resigned from the caucus in disgust. I see that they have learned nothing from the past.

It has already been said that power over a person's wallet is power over their will. That is what Bill C-525 is really all about. As just one example, research has clearly shown that moving from a card-check-based system to a mandatory vote system reduces unionization rates. This is the true motivation behind the bill. Bill C-525 proposes to abolish the card-check model in favour of a mandatory representation vote in all certification applications. It is no more complex than that.

Labour unions have been defenders of employee rights, and they have a long-standing track record of helping our communities in many ways. Of course, unions are not perfect, and there have been many occasions when I have differed with them. However, I do believe in due process. Bill C-525, like its sister bill, Bill C-377, is a partisan attack on middle-class workers and their families. It is wrong, and as the Liberal industry critic, I will be voting for workers and against this sneaky backdoor legislation.

Democratic Reform

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-23 is an absolute failure. In fact, it is anti-democratic, and, quite frankly, the Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself for the manner in which he is forcing this bill through the House of Commons today.

Today we witnessed the Prime Minister's democratic reform minister verbally assault the Chief Electoral Officer. How shameful it was. We are looking to the minister to do the responsible thing and to recognize that verbally assaulting the Chief Electoral Officer is wrong. He should apologize to all Canadians. When can we—

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

Great.

At the moment Bill C-23 provides that calling service providers have to keep the data they're required to keep under this new scheme for one year. Certain data goes to the CRTC. We're not yet sure how long they have to keep it, because they haven't yet replied to my question on that, but we do know that audio recordings, scripts, and the phone numbers do not get sent to the CRTC under this, so they are subject to one year, after which calling service providers can delete them.

Would it be difficult for audio recordings, scripts, and the numbers called to be sent to the CRTC for them to keep, and for us to then require the CRTC to keep all this data for seven to ten years? Would that be a problem?

[Miriam Fahmy, Director, Research and Publications, Institut du Nouveau Monde]

Thank you.

Hello everyone.

As the chair of the committee mentioned, my name is Miriam Fahmy and I am the Director of Research at the Institut du Nouveau Monde, a non-partisan, non-profit organization that is based in Montreal. Its mission is to increase and support citizen participation in democratic life.

I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to testify about Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act.

I will now provide you with some information about the INM.

The INM organizes public debates in which ordinary citizens are invited to participate. These activities help to strengthen citizenship skills and citizens' knowledge of social issues. The INM also organizes citizenship schools for college-aged youth and young adults in their 20s.

Since 2012, the INM has been working with the chief electoral officer of Quebec in order to develop and implement promotional campaigns to encourage young people and the general public to vote.

Finally, the INM stays abreast of research on democratic life, more specifically, voter turnout. The INM is concerned about a number of aspects of Bill C-23. However, given our practices and expertise in civic education, my speech today will focus on a single aspect of the bill and that is the amendment proposed to section 18 of the Canada Elections Act, which would take away Elections Canada's public education mandate.

As you all no doubt already know, there has been a very strong decline in voter turnout in Canada. However, an even more serious trend has emerged since the 1980s, and that is a consistent, significant drop in initial turnout or turnout among members of a new cohort of electors who are eligible to vote for the first time. This rate went from 70% in the 1960s to 50% in the 1980s and 40% in the 1990s. Since the beginning of the 2000s, this rate has stayed below 40%.

All of the studies show that voters who do not vote the first time they have the right to do so are unlikely to do so later on. Given that, today, so few new voters tend vote when they come of age, the general rate of voter turnout is expected to continue to drop. According to experts, there is no doubt that the drop in voter turnout in federal elections is mainly due to the drop in initial turnout.

That is why the INM believes that an overall strategy, the objective of which is to reverse this trend that is threatening the legitimacy of the electoral process, should focus mainly on young people aged 16 to 24, or young people who are on the verge of acquiring the right to vote or of voting for the first time.

Like the INM, Elections Canada conducted research in order to understand why young people do not vote. The results of this research show that the main reason is that young people are not interested in politics. When young people are asked what could be done to pique their interest, they said that civic education would be the best way of doing so.

Elections Canada took note of this and began working to reverse this trend. In co-operation with civil society organizations, Elections Canada is piloting public education programs, innovative election day voting simulations in schools and campaigns to promote voter participation.

All of these initiatives seek to provide the non-partisan, civic education needed to encourage young people to vote. However, rather than strengthening Elections Canada's role as a non-partisan educator, the amendment to section 18 proposed in Bill C-23 takes that mandate away from Elections Canada.

In light of this information, the Institut du Nouveau Monde recommends that Bill C-23 be amended to not only maintain but reinforce the role and responsibility of Elections Canada as a provider of civic education programs and public awareness campaigns.

It is our belief that more studies should be conducted to further understand what stimulates youth voter turnout, that current education programs should be extended as much as possible, and that new initiatives should be developed targeting the issues that research results point to.

Any and all efforts that can encourage youth to go out and vote should be encouraged and strengthened, not abolished.

I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[Pierre Lortie]

That's not what Bill C-23says.

[Duff Conacher, Co-Founder and Board Member, Democracy Watch]

Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify on this very important bill. I'm especially honoured to be testifying beside Monsieur Lortie.

I really need to practice my French.

There are many technical terms with regard to this proposed legislation, so I will make my remarks in English. I welcome your questions afterwards.

Democracy Watch's position is that there are 10 measures in Bill C-23, the so-called fair elections act, that are of concern that will actually make federal elections more unfair. I'm going to focus on six priorities that we've identified and summarize those. I'll go through a few measures that the bill fails to include, and those measures are needed to make federal elections more fair.

The six really unfair measures in Bill C-23 are as follows.

As Monsieur Lortie highlighted, there's the prohibition of one voter vouching for the identity of one other voter, and the prohibition on the voter registration card ever being certified as a piece of valid ID. Together, these changes will make it more difficult for hundreds of thousands of voters to vote, and so they should be removed from Bill C-23.

Instead, the voter registration card should be added to the list of valid ID. To solve the problem of irregularities with vouching that has been documented, Elections Canada should be empowered and provided with adequate funding to hire and fully train all election workers well before each election, and to also make the voter registration list and ID checking even more accurate. I'm quite sure there is a compromise, as other jurisdictions have found on this issue, that will remove and not increase barriers for hundreds of thousands of people voting.

The second area of concern for Democracy Watch is the failure of the bill overall to democratize the federal political finance system by reducing the annual donation and loan limits to an amount an average voter can afford, and the failure to re-start the annual per-vote funding for parties, which was the most democratic aspect of the political finance system, given that it was based on votes received by each party.

There are still loopholes that are left by the bill on gifts and donations to certain types of candidates. The hike in the donations limit for individuals in Bill C-23 are huge hikes in some cases and hugely undemocratic. An average Canadian cannot afford $3,000 a year. That would be the new maximum limit when you combine the donation to parties and the combined donation that's allowed to riding associations of each party.

Certainly, many candidates will not be able to afford to donate $5,000 to their own campaign, or as a party leadership candidate, $25,000 to their own campaign. If you're going to uphold the fundamental democratic principle of one person, one vote, donation limits must be set at a limit that an average person can afford; otherwise, you're allowing wealthy people to use money to have unethical and undemocratic influence over parties and candidates.

In the area of loans, while the loan limits on individuals are good, allowing banks to make unlimited loans to parties and candidates is dangerously undemocratic, as well. Banks are federally regulated and they will be able to pick and choose candidates to support with loans. That's a huge favour for a candidate, even though the candidate has to pay it back.

If the candidate wins, just the fact that they were boosted by a bank loan will be a favour that will put that MP, if they're elected, in a conflict of interest. It's better if all candidates have to reach out to as many voters as possible and build a democratic base of support, not a base of support from wealthy interests and banks.

The third area of concern is the change, as Monsieur Lortie also highlighted, to not count the amount spent on communications for fundraising purposes in the total amount parties are allowed to spend during election campaigns.

This is the first loophole that has been created in spending or donation limits since spending limits were first established in 1974. Forty years have passed and the trend through the whole 40 years has been to close loopholes. This is the first loophole that has been actually created, and like any loophole, it will very likely be abused to hide millions of dollars of unaccountable spending.

The failure to empower Elections Canada in the bill to appoint the auditors for all the parties, riding associations and candidates, and allowing these entities to choose their own auditors is the fourth area of concern, and relates to the spending loophole because Elections Canada will not have the right to all the documentation needed to ensure that loophole has not been exploited to exceed the legal campaign spending limits. This is essentially allowing the parties, candidates, and riding associations to audit themselves, and in combination with this loophole, is essentially a recipe for corruption.

The fifth area of concern is the failure to empower Elections Canada to appoint all election workers, and instead move in the other direction by extending the dangerously unethical power of political parties and candidates who won or came second in the previous election to force returning officers to appoint even more front-line election workers.

The sixth area of concern is the failure to require that the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Director of Public Prosecutions disclose all of their rulings on all complaints. Instead, the bill requires them to keep all of that information secret. This will make it impossible to hold the commissioner and the director accountable if they make unfair, biased, or improper rulings or enforcement decisions.

Overall, even if these six changes that we're calling for were made, there are other areas that need to be addressed to make federal elections actually fair. We need an honesty in politics law so that parties and candidates can't bait voters with false promises or break promises after elections. We need to change the voting system so that it is more fair and gives parties the number of MPs based on actual voter support, regulate nomination races, have Elections Canada run the debates, and overall give all of the watchdogs more powers, and more clear powers, to ensure compliance and investigate.

I'll leave it at that. I welcome your questions on this very important bill that, unfortunately, includes many measures to make federal elections more unfair, and only a few measures—the registration of robocalls, the limits on loans, and the increasing of fines—that will make elections more fair. There are many more measures that make elections unfair and also fail to address current flaws in our federal elections system.

Thank you very much.

[Pierre Lortie, Senior Business Advisor, Dentons Canada, As an Individual]

Mr. Chairman, first I'd like to thank you for the invitation to testify before your committee.

The Canada Elections Act is one of the few federal statutes that is consulted and used by a large number of Canadians. Whenever elections are held, thousands of Canadians must be able to understand this legislation, which sets out the procedures for the registration of voters, the administration of the vote and the conduct of election campaigns.

The scale and scope of such an operation must not be underestimated: there were 66,146 polling stations in the election of May 2, 2011, including 1,669 mobile polling stations, and approximately 350,000 volunteers and temporary election officers participated in the process.

In my opinion, any amendments to the Canada Elections Act must reflect the values upon which Canadian society is founded and must flow from the fundamental principles that characterize a sound electoral democracy. One of those key principles is guaranteeing and promoting citizens’ right to vote.

During the 1980s, Canada took pride in the fact that the average proportion of citizens who participated in federal elections was 75%—a voter turnout rate far in excess of those reported in many western democracies, including the United States. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case: the average voter participation rate for the five federal elections held since the year 2000 is only 61.9%, which is not much higher than the participation rates for U.S. presidential elections. This is a shamefully low voter turnout rate. Any properly thought out reform of our electoral statutes and regulations must, first and foremost, seek to correct this situation.

The provisions of the bill extending the voting period at advance polling stations constitute a measure that meets this fundamental objective. Unfortunately, other measures, such as those concerning the use of voter information cards as proof of identity and the practice of one elector vouching for the identity of another, are ill advised. This last provision undoubtedly contravenes the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter is unequivocal on this issue. It says: “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote...” It has been clearly established in case law that a right guaranteed under the Charter can only be restricted insofar as an overriding public interest is demonstrated and, in that case, only insofar as the imposed restrictions are justified within the meaning of section 1 of the Charter and have a minimal adverse effect on a fundamental right enjoyed by Canadian citizens.

Banning, for specious reasons, these practices that have not so far been the subject of widespread complaints from candidates across Canada and which the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada considers essential for allowing thousands of Canadians to exercise their right to vote, does not meet the criterion of proportionality and is not consistent with the sense of ethics that must prevail when such matters relating to the very pillars of our democracy are being considered.

The second key principle is ensuring the fair and equitable nature of the electoral process. To ensure that the electoral process remains fair and equitable, the Canada Elections Act imposes spending limits on all who participate in election campaigns, including private individuals and groups who are independent of the candidates and parties. Bill C-23 does not call into question these basic provisions, the just and reasonable nature of which has been confirmed in decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada. However, this goal is undermined when ambiguous provisions, encouraging circumvention of the rules and undermining Elections Canada’s ability to verify and confirm that the practices adopted do not contravene the Act, are incorporated into the legislation. This is the case with section 376(3), which makes it possible to exclude from election expenses the commercial value of services provided to a registered party for the purpose of soliciting contributions from individuals who contributed at least $20 in the five years preceding the date of the vote.

I do not deny that it would be worthwhile for a party to solicit individuals who have previously supported a party or one of its candidates. However, if the cost of this activity is too high to fit under the expenditure ceiling, transparency should be exercised and the ceiling raised by a reasonable amount, rather than undermining Canadians’ confidence in our electoral system by adopting provisions that encourage reprehensible behaviour and imposing additional persnickety rules on our parties.

The third principle is that of bolstering the primacy of political parties in Canada’s political system.

Political parties play a vital role in our parliamentary democracy, in particular through the profound influence they have over access to the House of Commons. The erosion of Canadians’ confidence in political parties, as evinced, among other things, by how difficult it is for parties to recruit new members, does not bode well for the future. Although this phenomenon is only a partial reflection of current social trends that find expression in so many other ways, political parties are not helping their situation by refusing to conform to social standards that are perceived as normal requirements in an advanced society.

Bill C-23 would have made a useful contribution in this regard if provisions had been added to ensure that political parties were required to produce documents in support of their spending reports. Parties received more than $30 million in public funds in 2011. Also, political parties should be subject to rules concerning the protection and use of personal information. Such requirements are imposed on businesses, and rightfully so. No legitimate reason exists to exclude political parties and their associations from a similar requirement.

The final principle is that of boosting Canadians’ confidence in the integrity of the electoral process. In its work, the Royal Commission clearly identified the need for a mechanism that would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to issue interpretation notes and guidelines on the application of that act. Such a mechanism is included in the electoral legislation of many of the world’s leading democracies, and the resulting benefits are well documented. Consequently, Bill C-23’s establishment of such a mechanism is to be commended.

As to the detailed terms and conditions involved, I believe your committee would do well to examine how other democracies, such as the United Kingdom, for example, fared in their implementation of such provisions.

Bill C-23 fills another important gap in the existing legislation by adding provisions concerning elector calling services. Overall, the proposed measures are consistent with the recommendations of the groups of experts who studied this issue, particularly those formulated by the IRPP. You have already heard suggestions for improving the new regime, in particular with regard to the information retention period and the advisability of adding to the list information that must be kept, such as the telephone numbers that have been called. In any case, it is crucial that the mechanism concerning calling services be in force when the next election is held.

The proposed regime does not prevent a third party from signing an agreement with an elector calling service provider; it frames this activity. That being said, I think it would definitely be preferable for the cost of such a service to be expressly recognized in the definition of election advertising expenses.

In conclusion, I would like to say that Bill C-23 concerns several other fundamental aspects of our democratic regime, some of which I could not touch upon in the amount of time allotted to me. I would of course be pleased to discuss them during the question period, should you deem it appropriate to bring them up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I call to order meeting number 29 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, February 10, 2014, for the study of Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts.

We have Monsieur Lortie with us this morning. Mr. Conacher is supposed to be joining us, but I'll let Monsieur Lortie go ahead with his opening statement and if, by then, Mr. Conacher has come, he can give his opening statement. If not, we'll proceed with questions, and put Mr. Conacher on the next panel, I think.

Monsieur Lortie, welcome. It's great to have you here today. If you have an opening statement, we'd love you to give it now.

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

In light of what witnesses have told the committee up to, and including, today, I would like to give a notice of motion. It reads as follows:

That the Committee, in conjunction with the current study of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, request that the Library of Parliament create a summary of the evidence presented to the Committee on this Bill, and that this summary not include any recommendations to the Committee on how to proceed with the legislation, and that this summary be presented to the Committee on or before Tuesday, April 29, 2014, and that this summary of the evidence be subsequently presented as a report by this Committee to the House of Commons

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Jessica McCormick]

I do think that would, in fact, be the case. It's not a bad thing that we are taking a look at the Elections Act. We should be taking steps to improve it and create a more flexible system of voting. The survey that was done after the last federal election cited a number of different reasons why people weren't casting a ballot. Many of them were that they were too busy or that they had obligations at work or school. Having polling stations on campuses eliminates some of those barriers.

We should be trying to reduce those barriers. Having polling stations, having opportunities to use the voter information card, for example, as a proof to cast a ballot, those are ways to reduce the barriers to voting. I think that many of the measures that are contained in Bill C-23 would in fact create more.