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.

[Élise Demers, Advisor, Citizen Engagement and Training, Table de concertation des forums jeunesse régionaux du Québec]

Good evening and thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am here today on behalf of the Table de concertation des forums jeunesse régionaux du Québec—round table of regional youth forums of Quebec. Our name is difficult to pronounce, even for francophones. Today, I will bring forward the concerns of regional youth forums with regard to Bill C-23.

Among the mandates of regional youth forums is to encourage the civic engagement of young people and to play an advisory role with regard to youth. We are funded by the Secrétariat à la jeunesse du Québec—Quebec's youth secretariat.

During provincial and municipal elections, we also have a financial partnership with the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec. I want to point out that we have never had a formal or informal partnership with Elections Canada. We are also helping organize an electoral simulation in Quebec. That initiative is called Voters in Training, and it is also funded by the youth secretariat and the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec.

For the federal elections, the Voters in Training project is undertaken in partnership with Civix's Student Vote. Similar programs exist in a number of countries, including the United States, where the program Kids Voting has been around since the early 1990s.

Youth forums are engaged in activities throughout the year to increase young people's interest in politics. During an election, we have outreach activities for young voters to stimulate their vote and inform them of the various terms and conditions of voting.

At the latest federal election, 37.4% of young Canadians aged 18 to 24 voted. Individuals aged 25 to 35 did a bit better, with a turnout of 48%. It is of the utmost importance to work on youth voting because studies show that young people who vote as soon have they become eligible for the first time are likely to continue going to the polls throughout their life. So working on youth voting is akin to working on the voting habits of all Canadians.

Why are young people not voting? Two types of factors need to be considered. There are factors related to motivation, such as political interest and relevant knowledge. There are also factors in terms of voting access, such as being on lists, lack of an ID or unfamiliarity with voting procedures.

The National Youth Survey measured the relative impact of all those factors on the decision to vote. That survey concluded that obstacles related to motivation had as much, if not more, of an impact as obstacles related to access.

Currently, at Elections Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer is already providing information on the technical aspects of the vote. So it's a bit difficult to understand the desire to legislate to prevent him from doing that, either through citizenship education, vote promoting public campaigns, or information on the main barriers to voting or aspects related to motivation.

Elections Canada must continue to be able to provide citizenship education because that is an effective approach. Elections Canada has commissioned an external review of the Student Vote program. The study shows that the program has a positive impact on many factors associated with voter turnout. Among other things, the program increases the young participants' knowledge, their interest in politics, and their perception that voting is a civic duty.

Of course, some young people can use the excuse that they did not receive information on where, when and how to vote. That's probably true for those who are living outside their home region, especially for studies.

However, we need to be a bit careful with those figures. We could put up posters all over the country, but if someone is not interested in politics, they could still say that they did not know where, when and how to vote. Claiming that information was not received sometimes conceals a feeling of incompetence or disinterest. After all, young people and people in general who have voted said in 98% of the cases that they thought the voting process was straightforward.

Vote promoting public campaigns also play an important role. They help create a healthy social pressure to vote. Here is what I mean by that.

Research indicates that people are sensitive to their environment when deciding to vote. Young people are especially susceptible to influences from their family, peers or society.

In Quebec, the Chief Electoral Officer has assessed those vote promoting campaigns. According to the results, 34% of people said that advertisement encourages them to vote. The fact that over a third of people are influenced by an advertisement is quite significant. The federal government itself uses those social ads, as they are called. For instance, an advertisement against cyberbullying is currently being aired.

I will now present our conclusions with regard to the bill.

We share the government's concern over providing quality information to voters and its willingness to make the actions taken as effective as possible. However, we think it is entirely possible and desirable to continue working on both the obstacles related to motivation and those related to voting access.

First, it's important to revert to the original wording of section 18 of the Canada Elections Act. That way, Elections Canada would maintain its flexibility to independently carry out campaigns more focused on motivation, information or both, at its discretion.

Second, we feel that the organization's research component is crucial, and that its findings must continue to be accessible to the general public and to organizations that, like ours, are working on the country's democratic health. That research helps ensure that the actions taken are effective and consistent with the known causes of participation or lack thereof.

Finally, education must remain at the heart of Elections Canada's actions, be it through projects carried out by the organization itself or through the funding of other non-partisan organizations dedicated to education and citizenship. I remind you that we are not part of that group of organizations.

The promotion of voting and democracy—be it through friends, family members, teachers, independent organizations or political parties—is critical for avoiding the free fall of the participation rate among young people.

We sincerely hope that the parties will be able to agree to amend this bill in order to work together on the country's democratic health.

Thank you for listening.

[Calvin Fraser, Secretary General, Canadian Teachers' Federation]

Mr. Chair, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to present our brief and our opportunity to share our concerns about Bill C-23 before this committee.

The Canadian Teachers' Federation is an alliance of 17 organizations representing nearly 200,000 teachers from coast to coast to coast.

While we agree in principle that the Canada Elections Act should be updated to address issues such as robocalls and unsolicited phone calls, we're concerned that this bill goes well beyond what is needed to support democratic participation.

Throughout Canadian history we've seen many amendments to the elections process to make voting easier, not harder, and to encourage more Canadians to vote in a federal election; however, Bill C-23 is the first that aims to restrict voting rights and discourage people from voting. If passed, Bill C-23 will end Elections Canada's civic literacy program in Canadian schools, undermine electoral participation, and stifle public debate.

Many of our teacher members have been involved in preparing their students to participate actively in their democracy through the student vote program organized by CIVIX. Teachers are also involved in national democracy week, in which CTF is a partner with Elections Canada.

In the 2008 and 2011 elections, Elections Canada provided 100% of the funding for the student vote program. In the last federal election, 15,000 Canadian teachers engaged 563,498 students in student vote in 3,750 schools. Since 2003, CIVIX has engaged 9,000 schools and three million students from across Canada in a parallel election process.

Based on this unquestionably successful program, why is Bill C-23 intent on preventing the promotion and education of students about their democratic right to vote? What message does Bill C-23 send teachers and students as it includes barriers, obstacles, and restrictions for so many Canadians?

Furthermore, we also ask why Bill C-23 is being rushed through the House of Commons without proper debate and consultation with the people of Canada whose rights are being affected. Democracy works best through debate, consultation, consensus building, and respect for diverse voices. The right to vote is at the heart of our democracy. Any attempt to change legislation governing voting rights must be done fairly and with great care in a non-partisan manner. As teachers, we welcome and invite the diverse voices of children, parents, and families in the education community.

Here are the recommendations of the Canadian Teachers' Federation:

We recommend that Bill C-23 be referred to a non-partisan committee consisting of equal representation from each political party with representation in the House and that the committee use a consensus decision-making model.

We recommend that Bill C-23 be amended to ensure that Canadian elections are a transparent process and that Elections Canada's educational programming, including full funding in support of civic education, the student vote program, and other public education outreach initiatives be maintained.

We recommend that Bill C-23 add the voter information card, VIC to the current list of valid ID and provide the authority and funding to Elections Canada to enable it to hire and fully train all election workers for elections well before each election, and to make the voter registration list and ID checking even more accurate.

If passed, Bill C-23 will build potential partisanship, create an unbalanced elections process in Canada, and will further alienate an electorate whose participation rates are already low. We therefore invite the committee and the government to either amend the bill as we and others have suggested, or withdraw it in its entirety and then initiate a fair process for reform.

Thank you.

[Jessica McCormick, National Chairperson, Canadian Federation of Students]

I'd like to thank the committee members for allowing me to testify this evening.

My name is Jessica McCormick. I'm the national chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students, Canada's largest and oldest student organization, uniting more than 600,000 students across the country.

Since Bill C-23 was tabled, students have been clear in their calls for substantial amendments to the bill. The elimination of vouching will directly disenfranchise many young voters.

Additionally, new restrictions on Elections Canada's ability to do outreach and promotion are of great concern.

Changes to voter identification regulations that will eliminate the use of vouching will serve as a barrier in accessing the polls for many groups, especially students. More than 100,000 Canadians used vouching in the last federal election. In fact, I am one of those thousands of voters who had many pieces of identification that are accepted by Elections Canada, but none that also included the address of the riding where I was living and voting. Luckily, Canada has a system in place to ensure that I wasn't denied my right to vote. However, if this bill is passed and vouching is eliminated, I know that many Canadians like me will be blocked from the ballot in the next election.

Under increasing debt loads, young Canadians are less likely to own a car and therefore less likely to have a driver's licence, one of the few pieces of identification accepted that includes both a photo and an address.

Students also move surprisingly frequently between home addresses with their parents, on-campus housing, or subletting an apartment for the summer, for example. Maintenance of one's current address on official ID is difficult and costly. In fact, Elections Canada noted in a survey of electors, following the 41st general election, that 40% of youth had moved at least once in the two years prior to that election.

Many young Canadians live with roommates, and while they are paying for utilities, the accounts may be in a roommate's name. For those with bills in their names, it is common to receive bills and notices online now rather than in the mail, and since electronic bills that are printed out at home are not acceptable forms of ID, proof of address becomes difficult.

Broad sweeping changes are being proposed with the argument that they will prevent voter fraud. However, evidence that links voter fraud to the vouching system has been greatly exaggerated and often refuted by the investigators of the reports cited by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

Despite low voter turnout, Canada's youth are highly politically engaged and deserve an electoral system that empowers us rather than suppressing our vote. Eliminating vouching and requiring strict proof of address is simply not a system that supports young Canadians' right to vote.

I warn you that if Bill C-23 is adopted in its current form, then the government will purposely deny students across the country our fundamental right. Currently under section 18 of the Canada Elections Act, Elections Canada is empowered to strengthen our democracy through public education and meaningful partnerships that enhance voter participation, as well as conduct research to improve voting.

When compared to peer nations, Canada already has some of the lowest voter turnout. In the last election, only 38.8% of youth ages 18 to 24 cast a ballot. In other words, 1.8 million young Canadians did not vote.

Since the last election, Elections Canada has been making efforts to better understand why turnout among this group is so low, and to develop and promote evidence-based strategies to increase youth voter turnout. For over a year the Canadian Federation of Students has engaged in a series of consultations and meetings with Elections Canada to expand and promote voting possibilities for youth. However, due to Bill C-23, a pilot project to expand polling stations on campuses, targeted engagement and advertising campaigns for youth, and mock elections to foster habits of young voters to cast a ballot may all be eliminated.

The changes contained in Bill C-23 will only serve to further cement the notion that politicians do not care about issues that affect youth. This decline in democratic participation is a clear threat to a healthy democracy and must be meaningfully addressed, not enhanced.

Studies have shown that electors who vote in their youth are more likely to vote throughout their lives. By eliminating current programs and efforts that address low youth voter turnout and curtailing options for new programs, the government is encouraging a generation of uninformed and disengaged citizens.

One must ask what the intent of this fair elections act really is. If the intent truly is to protect our democracy, then you must listen to the nearly 100,000 Canadians who have already added their voices to the opposition, and seek to understand the realities of students' lives. If our goal is to protect our democratic institutions and let people vote, then our efforts should be focused on reducing the barriers to voting, and not creating more.

Thank you.

[Danis Prud'homme, Chief Executive Officer, Réseau FADOQ]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, let me begin by thanking you for inviting the Réseau FADOQ to participate in this consultation on Bill C-23.

The Réseau FADOQ is Canada's largest volunteer-based organization representing people in the 50-plus age group. With more than 300,000 members, it is active throughout the province of Quebec. Its mission is to safeguard and enhance the quality of life of seniors.

The Réseau FADOQ has submitted a brief to the committee concerning Bill C-23. Allow me to present the main conclusions of that brief.

The Réseau FADOQ is shocked by the implications of several of the provisions in this proposed reform by the government. In our opinion, several key elements of this bill will have serious implications for Canadian democracy. Since we are fervent defenders of the “one citizen, one vote” principle, we are asking the House of Commons to reject Bill C-23.

Firstly, we find the provisions that would no longer allow certain pieces of identification or voter information cards to be used as proof of residence particularly upsetting. This would have a major impact on seniors and would systematically restrict their right to vote, since many seniors no longer have a driver's licence, have not renewed their passport, do not have a lease in their name, and so on. There are 45,000 seniors in nursing homes, and 110,000 individuals in seniors' residences in Quebec. Consider the case of those seniors. Or consider the case of seniors living with peer caregivers, who are mostly women aged 60 and over.

How can their right to vote be fully protected under these provisions? This fundamental right would be taken away from thousands of Canadians by the changes in this bill. The government must adopt mechanisms to facilitate access to ballot boxes for these people, not make such access more complicated.

Secondly, we feel the government must obtain a consensus on political fundraising rules so as to guarantee a fair and level playing field for the various political parties and eliminate the possibility of financial fraud in politics. It seems entirely logical, in our view, that such rules should not be unilaterally decided by the party in power without a consensus from the other players in the political arena.

Lastly, we wish to emphasize how incongruent it is to want to limit so-called election fraud and to increase election spending and political fundraising, while at the same time limiting the authority of the only body with the power of oversight in these areas—Elections Canada. What brand of logic is the government applying to justify such a reform? We have to wonder.

The Réseau FADOQ is strongly opposed to limiting the disclosure, communication and oversight powers of the referee charged with safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process. Elections Canada must absolutely be able to encourage people to participate in the voting process so as to guarantee a representative election. It must also be able to disclose the details of investigations that are in the public's interest. And it must be able to oversee the democratic character of our elections, and by the same token, of the elected government.

How can such a reduction in Elections Canada's powers of oversight be justified?

In short, we want a democratic system that is transparent, unbiased and consistent; an electoral reform that takes into account public consultations; enhanced protection of Canadians' right to vote; and an equal voice for everyone. Those aspects do not seem to be a priority in this government's bill.

To summarize, we are asking that the government conduct an adequate consultation of Canadians before adopting amendments to the Canada Elections Act that will affect the rights of Canadians. We are asking that the government amend the relevant provisions to continue to allow the use of previously accepted forms of identification and the use of oaths in order to vote. We are also asking that, as is the tradition, the government obtain a consensus from the parties in opposition as to what amendments should be made to legislation governing political fundraising. Finally, we are asking that the government amend the provisions that reduce the powers of Elections Canada.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you.

[Pat Kerwin, President, Congress of Union Retirees of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Congress of Union Retirees of Canada, whose affiliate membership represents a half a million retirees and their spouses, welcomes the opportunity to present our views to the committee tonight.

Voting is an important right and indeed a duty to seniors, as they see it. It is therefore not surprising that retired people have the best rate of turnout to vote of all age groups. We do not want to lose that right. We are concerned that changes proposed in Bill C-23 will mean that some seniors will lose that right. If we, as Canadians, really believe in encouraging and enabling people to vote, we should make it easier for people to exercise their franchise. Instead Bill C-23 will make it harder for some seniors to vote, specifically those who have moved since the last election.

There was a time when the government actually did enumeration when elections were called. I’m old enough to remember that. This didn’t produce a perfect list, but it did always get seniors on the voters list because they would be there when people came around. The governments, though, decided they would save money and they’d do it by having people do something on their tax form. The problem there is that not everyone will check that spot off. Also, those tax forms are probably filled out in February, and if the election comes in October, someone may well have moved in between those two dates. This is especially true as people grow older. They often have to move out of their homes at very short notice when health issues come upon them. They often move in with their family, their son or their daughter, or into, as Susan talked about, a residence of assisted living.

A senior in his or her late eighties is not likely to have a driver's licence, probably doesn't have a passport anymore, and a health card in some jurisdictions has your picture on it, but in Ontario at least doesn't have your address. The bills that they would get for gas, electricity, or whatever go to the son or daughter—that's who has their statement—or the residence they're living in, so they're not going to be able to produce these other sorts of identification.

Our basic question to members of the committee is: why should not a daughter or son be able to vouch for their parents to vote if that's who they're living with? I think it just doesn't make sense. The rationale offered by the minister for this change is the need to eliminate serious voter fraud. From what I read—in the press and that—about the study he quoted to prove it, the author says that's not true.

There are also these stories about the bogus collection of vote-at cards that are being used incorrectly. That also appears not to be true. In fact, under the current act, Elections Canada doesn't allow me or you to go in and vouch for 50 people. You have to be in the riding and you're limited to one person. It's not as though somebody can go around doing this with vote-at cards without limit.

To us retirees, the removal of the right to vouch is a solution looking for a problem that has not been found. If concern of future fraud was the real issue, we would think you would increase the powers of Elections Canada to deal with this. Instead, unfortunately, Bill C-23 seeks to lessen the role of Elections Canada down to the point—it's already been mentioned—that they can no longer run programs to encourage people to vote. In every democracy it's important that the rules be set fairly and with due consultation. Indeed, Canadians are often found around the world trying to ensure that elections are fair.

It may have taken radicals to get the vote for everybody in Canada, but the thing that's interesting today is that frequently the criticism of this bill is coming from sources that would normally support the Conservative Party. The Globe and Mail hasn't supported the Liberal Party since George Brown left, but they've been very adamant about how they see this bill as being the wrong way to go. On the fraud argument, they said:

As for fraud, Canadians are more likely to think about political insiders misdirecting voters with robocalls than about voters trying to cast ineligible ballots.

They talked about a number of issues, but the really important one was about Elections Canada. This is what they wrote:

The legislation seems to be trying to make it harder for him—

—the Chief Electoral Officer—

—and his agency, Elections Canada, to do their jobs – a non-partisan job that is essential for the health of our democracy.

It just baffles my mind why the government's so intransigent to everyone coming forward saying that there are problems here. Frankly, it doesn't even make sense for you as a Conservative. Seniors tend to vote more for the Conservative Party than any other ones, yet you're going to limit them in voting. It betrays common sense and even political sense to me.

I'll conclude with one last quote from what The Globe and Mail said about the bill:

On a matter of democratic principles, which should be above partisanship, the government feels no need to work with the other parties, to consider proof or to provide it, to consult experts or, god forbid, to listen to them. It is government disconnected from the rules of evidence, and it points the way to government disconnected from the rules.

I would hope this committee would take the opportunity to amend this bill and not leave it to an unelected chamber to do it.

[Susan Eng, Vice-President, Advocacy, Canadian Association of Retired Persons]

Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee on Bill C-23, the fair elections act.

CARP is a national non-profit, non-partisan organization with 300,000 members across the country in its 56 local chapters. The average age of our members is about 69. Like most Canadians in this demographic, they vote regularly and have a deep commitment to our democratic institutions, especially something as important as the electoral process.

In preparation for my remarks today, we polled our members for their reaction to some of the major provisions of the bill. Over 3,600 members responded with a very clear message. The vast majority of CARP members, 80%, disapprove of the fair elections act, fully two-thirds in the strongest terms. They see it as a diminishing of democracy, and they want it withdrawn or amended significantly.

On specific provisions, CARP members see reduced voter participation as a bigger problem than voter fraud by a factor of 4:1; 72% do not think vouching is a source of voter fraud; 75% think banning vouching will suppress voter participation; and 80% disapprove of prohibiting the Chief Electoral Officer from promoting voter turnout, and reject the notion that such promotion can lead to bias.

It's worth noting that the specific part of the mandate that is being eliminated is in section 18 of the Elections Act:The Chief Electoral Officer may implement public education and information programs to make the electoral process better known to the public, particularly to those persons and groups most likely to experience difficulties in exercising their democratic rights.

We recommend that this mandate be properly restored.

Among our members, 83% think the bill does not do enough to deal with robocalls. We recommend that records be kept of the script, as well as to whom the robocalls were directed, for five years, not for just one year.

As well, 89% disapprove of allowing political parties to nominate polling officials and allowing the party with the most votes to nominate the central poll supervisor. Given the strong reaction to the proposal, we recommend that all elections officers be appointed based on merit, and not be nominated by the candidates' electoral district associations or parties. A full 75% disapprove of raising the campaign contribution limits.

On the specific issue of voter identification cards and vouching, one-tenth of all members actually themselves either had to have somebody vouch for them or knew of somebody who had to be vouched for. One-third of them used the voter identification cards.

Given the commitment to voting from CARP members and older Canadians generally, I think it's reasonable to suggest that CARP members themselves would be inconvenienced by the elimination of vouching and the use of voter identification cards but not disenfranchised. They would find the necessary identification to allow them to vote. However, they are clearly concerned with the impact on others, especially those in seniors homes or long-term care.

I'm going to mention a person who sent a letter in to a chapter of CARP in Edmonton. She wrote on behalf of her 97-year-old mother who is in long-term care now. It was a letter the content of which she asked us to convey to this committee.

The mother is frail, but fully capable of voting, and has done so regularly with the home's workers vouching for her. She no longer has a driver's licence. The Alberta health card does not have her address. Her daughter handles all of her banking and other needs, so all her mail goes to the daughter. To be able to vote now, she has to ask the home to issue her an attestation of residence, which will also be necessary for all the other residents in the home who wish to vote.

The option of vouching in such a case has the obvious advantage of leaving little to no opportunity for voter fraud, especially as many nursing homes and seniors residences have polling stations right in the building.

We recommend that vouching be reinstated and the use of voter identification cards be made permanent. Having well-trained and non-partisan polling officials will protect against any irregularities.

CARP members are avid voters, and clearly see this bill as detrimental to voter participation and detrimental to a fair and transparent electoral process and to democracy itself. As such, we believe that at a minimum the bill should be amended to reverse the provisions highlighted above. Otherwise, Bill C-23 should be withdrawn.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll call ourselves to order, please. It's seven o'clock. We're here for meeting number 28 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, under order of reference of Monday, February 10, on Bill C-23.

We have three witnesses in the first hour tonight. We have Susan Eng, from the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. We have Pat Kerwin, from the Congress of Union Retirees. We have Danis Prud’homme, the chief executive officer of Réseau FADOQ. All will be giving us an opening statement, but I think we decided we'd start with Ms. Eng.

There's a point of order.

Democratic Reform

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Sheila Fraser believes that the electoral reform bill would limit the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer to hire the staff needed to hold elections.

Under Bill C-23, the government will have to give its approval before election staff are hired. This is another impediment to Elections Canada's independence that the Conservatives have slyly imposed.

Does the minister feel that the former auditor general's criticism is valid or will he continue to reject constructive criticism?

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comments on the rationale that was used by the minister of state just now.

I think that in a sort of free of context way, it makes sense to say that all of the consultations that went in to the intellectual property section help to validate why they should move forward as legislation, although not necessarily in the middle of a huge omnibus bill.

The question for my colleague is that if we use that standard, how much of the rest of this omnibus bill would be on solid ground? I am thinking of the FATCA provisions. It seems very clear there has been absolutely no consultation with Canadians who are both American and Canadian citizens.

I also wonder whether or not the minister of state might want to talk to her colleague, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, to suggest that standard of consultation might well have prevented him from getting into trouble, as he is now on Bill C-23.

Election of the Speaker

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Motion No. 489 which requests that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs study the possibility of adapting a first past the post preferential ballot for the election of the Speaker of the House.

I would like to congratulate the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for this motion, which I am supporting.

I would also like to thank the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for all his hard work, on this and other issues. He is an outstanding member of Parliament, and I am very proud to call him my colleague.

I am glad to say that I support this motion, and I support it for two reasons. First, the motion itself has considerable merit. Second, it adds to the spirit of reform that is about this place these days. There are a number of discussions, as the previous speaker mentioned, that are being considered in the House and at the procedure and House affairs committee, and this motion adds to that debate in a positive way.

It is an exciting time in the House of Commons. I am a first-term MP, proudly representing Burnaby—Douglas. It has been a great pleasure to be part of the debates about reforming or abolishing the Senate, changing our electoral system to perhaps proportional representation, establishing electronic petitions, changing our committee system in how we choose committee chairs, and giving members more power over their leaders.

It has been a great pleasure to be part of these debates. However, I must say that my excitement does not extend to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act. It is an abomination by my count, roundly denounced by all election experts and democratic protectors right across the country.

However, I will not dwell on Bill C-23, but will focus more on the positive efforts that are before us today. As mentioned by the previous speaker, Motion No. 489 proposes that the PROC committee study the possibility of adapting a first past the post preferential ballot for the election of the Speaker. This would change us from our current practice of having members vote several times, with each round having members with the least of votes being eliminated, and one member receiving the majority of vote eventually elected.

This motion proposes a preferential balloting system in which members would only have to vote once, except in the event of a tie. They would do so by voting for the candidates of their choice in order of preference. This is a common system that is used around the world, and there are plenty of examples for us to draw upon, whether it is through an electoral system or through a selection of speakers.

This morning I was reading the hon. member's speech from the first hour of debate, and was very interested to note that between 1867 and the 1980s, Speakers were elected by an open show of hands, with the Speaker being chosen by the prime minister of the day. It was only in the mid-1980s that the Speaker was elected by a secret ballot vote by members of Parliament.

When we think about how large a change that was, from the prime minister of a majority government essentially hand-picking a Speaker, until now, where we have lessened the power of the prime minister and broadened it to all members of Parliament electing a Speaker by a secret ballot, that is a much better way to go.

That spirit of what was happening in the mid-1980s, to where we lessened the power of the prime minister and put more power in the hands of regular members, is what is creeping into the discussions we have been having in the House during the weeks and months that we have been debating various motions and bills coming before Parliament. Members are proposing adjustments to our parliamentary procedures in an attempt to improve the process, and in some cases lessen the concentration of power in the hands of a prime minister.

I think there is a range of bills and motions that are being discussed here. Some are more on the housekeeping side, making sure that we tidy up our procedural matters, and some are much more radical in nature. I will get to those in a second.

I noted from the speech by the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington in the first hour that he feels these changes are necessary because the current process takes too long, there is no mechanism currently on the Standing Orders for resolving ties, and he thinks it is important to destroy ballots to preserve the dignity of contestants who do not happen to win the contest.

These are all very good reasons for why we should support this bill. It is a tidying sort of measure, and of course procedure and House affairs committee will go through it to make sure that we get the details right. However, from first glance, it does look like a good thing to do. It is something that would tidy our procedures here, save time for the members, make sure that we have written down the procedures for resolving a tie, and make sure that we preserve the dignity of all people who put their names forward to stand for leader.

However, also in his speech, the member mentioned Motion No. 431, the motion that was put forward by the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. He does not say that he supports the motion outright. Rather, he said that if both motions survive a vote in the House, which Motion No. 431 did, that they would not only draw upon the same pool of experts to discuss the preferential ballot proposals before us today, but also as to how we might select committee chairs. The member suggested that we should study efficiency, which is what is on his mind here, because he suggests that this pool of experts could be used to look at both motions to inform the procedure and House affairs committee as to whether they should go ahead. It is a good suggestion that we draw upon the expertise that we develop for one motion to look at the other and perhaps save some time.

I would like to make a larger point. The motion before us is not only similar in nature to the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt's efforts to reform how committee chairs are elected, but it is also similar in spirit to my motion, Motion No. 849, with respect to electronic petitions, and perhaps Bill C-559, the reform act, put forward by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I look at these as a kind of range in terms of how much they would change the structure of how we do business in the House of Commons.

The motion before us, Motion No. 489, is probably the most modest change that we could make. My idea for electronic petitions, which is currently in front of the procedure and House affairs committee, would adjust our processes a little more radically. Then, when we move to Motion No. 431, with respect to selecting committee chairs from Parliament, that again changes things a little more radically. Finally, Bill C-559, the reform act, would make the most change. Therefore, I would put my motion, Motion No. 489, more in the category of what the member is suggesting here today, a minor change to modernize our processes and make them more efficient.

One of the questions is on why we do these things. Why do we take the time? I only have one motion or bill that would come forward for a vote in the House, as does the member who is putting this motion forward today, as do the other members I have just mentioned. What we are trying to do is to think of ways to make this place better, how we can improve our processes, and how we can make our democracy better for Canadians. Then we look at what is feasible in the House.

The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington has hit the nail on the head. He has suggested a change that would be palatable to all members of the House, providing it has proper study. I think it is wise of him to do so. What I tried to do with Motion No. 489 with respect to electronic petitioning is to pick something that would perhaps please many members of the House. Hopefully, the procedure and House affairs committee will see that through.

As we move to the other motions and bills that I have mentioned, they are more radical. We will require considerable debate on those motions in order for them to pass.

What it shows is that there is a genuine spirit of reform in this place. We are trying to figure out how we can debate these things and come to a consensus, more or less, on what changes are appropriate. I support this motion because the member has correctly calculated that his changes would more than likely be adopted. He would succeed in reforming this place, maybe not quite in the current form that his motion suggests, but after a discussion at the procedure and House affairs committee there is something that would happen.

Again, I feel positive vibes in this place from various speeches. I am hoping that the member will assist the rest of us who are interested in reform in this place, just as we are assisting him. It is only through this co-operation that we can move the democracy of Canada forward. I think we are all interested in making Canada a more democratic place.

I thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak to this motion.

Democratic Reform

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, across the country, first nations communities run into serious problems when it comes time to vote. As we heard in committee, it is hard for many members of these communities to obtain the type of ID card that will be required under Bill C-23.

Why is the minister refusing to amend his bill to prevent thousands of Canadians from losing their right to vote?

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

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of State for Democratic Reform know Sheila Fraser? If so, has he read her position on Bill C-23? If so, what does he think about the former auditor general's criticism of the electoral reform?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Native Women's Association of Canada provided an eloquent reminder of the significant barriers to the electoral participation of aboriginal women.

By eliminating Elections Canada's education and awareness initiatives, Bill C-23 will exclude even more aboriginal women who are already wary of our electoral system and a government that does not care about their needs.

The government should withdraw its bill and come up with a totally new approach to reform. Will it?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada's former auditor general, Sheila Fraser, who exposed the Liberal sponsorship scandal, feels that Bill C-23 is an attack on Canadian democracy.

When it came time to go after the Liberals, with good reason, the current Minister of State for Democratic Reform mentioned the former auditor general's name 65 times in the House. Today, he is acting as though she does not even exist.

Will the minister listen to Sheila Fraser and withdraw his bill?

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let me indicate at the beginning that I will be sharing my time. Unfortunately, I do not have much of it, but being a team player, I am sharing my time with the member for Gatineau.

Let me say how disappointed I am that once again debate on this important measure has been limited. We may get 10 hours altogether in debate at second reading on the bill, which means that the vast majority, two-thirds of the members in the House, will not have an opportunity to stand and represent their constituencies. It is shameful.

We are talking about a budget implementation bill of 350 pages, almost 500 clauses, and it amends dozens of bills. The budget for the department that I am the shadow critic for, Fisheries and Oceans, has a budget of $1.6 billion, and I am being given 10 minutes in the House.

The other day we had the opportunity to talk to the minister at committee on the main estimates, and I had 10 minutes that I had to divide among my colleagues in our caucus. The level of accountability by the government is absolutely shocking, frankly. We continue to see it.

One of the things that the Conservatives are changing is something that affects the region I am from, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Not only are they getting rid of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation altogether, which is losing that voice, that on the ground voice, but they are getting rid of the board of ACOA. They are taking away the requirement that the CEO of ACOA is to report on the progress of that organization in contributing to economic development in the region every five years.

Talk about removing accountability at every step along the way. It seems interesting that ECBC, for example, is being disbanded, at a time when there is an investigation under way by the Auditor General into wrongdoings in the ECBC's decision to provide $4 million in new funding for a new marina at Ben Eoin. One might say that sounds familiar; it sounds a lot like what is happening under Bill C-23, the unfair elections act. Conservatives are getting rid of the provisions that would allow Elections Canada to press forward with charges against some of the Conservative members who have been under investigation for flouting the rules in the way they have prosecuted their own elections.

Again, it is a pattern by the government. It does not seem to give a hoot about democracy and things like fair elections, or about accountability. As I said, for a $1.6 billion budget at Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we get an hour altogether, and most of that is taken up by government in discussion with the minister. It is not good enough, as far as I am concerned, and as far as the constituents that I represent from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

I have very few minutes, but I want to talk about some of the things that the government could have done. There are a lot of things that it did that I do not agree with. Some things I do agree with. However, there is a lot that the government did not take the opportunity to do. These are things like investing in innovation, economic development, and high-quality middle-class jobs. We had hoped that Conservatives would continue to build on an existing job creation tax credit for small and medium-size businesses. They decided not to do that.

We wanted them to develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with persistent structural youth unemployment and under-employment throughout this country, to create and help businesses create jobs for young Canadians, and to crack down on the abuse of unpaid internships to ensure young people are paid for the work that they perform.

There is a serious problem occurring in this country, where young people, whether getting out of high school or out of university, are having a terrible time trying to find jobs to match their skills. They are having a terrible time finding jobs to develop experience and pay their own way forward, whether it be supporting a family or going on to post-secondary education. The jobs are not there, and the Conservatives have not come up with a plan to help deal with that, other than the Canada jobs plan which does not help students. It was announced last year, and it is only now being agreed to by some of the provinces. It attacks labour market agreements that provide funding for the most vulnerable Canadians, literacy training and job-readiness training in my province of Nova Scotia and throughout the country.

Provinces were forced, frankly at gunpoint, to sign this deal, knowing they were going to be losing funding that they had already committed for these labour market agreements, supporting organizations like the Dartmouth Learning Network and others throughout my province, and programs throughout the country. It is extraordinarily short-sighted, and an example of the lack of appreciation that the Conservatives have for the complexities of job training in this country.

We had hoped that the government would provide explicit transparent criteria for the net benefit to Canada test in the Investment Canada Act, with an emphasis on assessing the impact of foreign investment on communities, jobs, pensions, and new capital investments. I have heard a lot of employers in my constituency asking me why the Americans can protect jobs in their country but Canada does not seem to care what happens to jobs in this country. People are extraordinarily frustrated that companies that compete in the United States are prohibited from doing that, while at the same time American companies come up and displace Canadian companies.

Finally, we had hoped there would be a study conducted into the methods to encourage value-added domestic production in the energy sector.

There is a long list of things, but one of the things I am particularly concerned about is the fact that the Conservatives failed to restore the ecoENERGY home retrofit program. It was an initiative that worked well and was an investment into the renewable energy sector. It was an investment in Canadians actually taking control of the amount of energy they use and it was a good way forward. In their lack of judgment, the Conservatives have decided not to move in that direction again.

Let me finish by saying how disappointed I am as a member of this House of Commons, the representative from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, that I participate in debate after debate where the current government is shutting down our democracy. It is taking away my rights as a member of Parliament to examine legislation, to examine budgets, to give voice to the concerns of my constituents on these issues every single day. The Conservatives have been doing it repeatedly.

I am hearing from the people in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour that it is not good enough. They want to ensure that every time I have the opportunity I send that message because they are going to be sending their own message in 2015.