Bill C-23 (Historical)

Fair Elections Act

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act (“the Act”) to require the Chief Electoral Officer to issue interpretation notes and guidelines on the application of that Act to registered parties, registered associations, nomination contestants, candidates and leadership contestants. It also requires the Chief Electoral Officer, on request, to issue a written opinion on the application of provisions of the Act to an activity or practice that a registered party, registered association, nomination contestant, candidate or leadership contestant proposes to engage in.
The enactment also modifies the Chief Electoral Officer’s power under section 17 of the Act so that the power may only be exercised to allow electors to exercise their right to vote or to allow votes to be counted. It also limits the Chief Electoral Officer’s power to transmit advertising messages to electors and requires the Chief Electoral Officer to ensure that any information so transmitted is accessible to electors with disabilities.
The enactment further amends the Act to permit the Chief Electoral Officer to seek approval from parliamentary committees to test an alternative voting process (but where such a pilot project is to test a form of electronic voting, the Chief Electoral Officer must first obtain the approval of the Senate and House of Commons). The enactment also eliminates the mandatory retirement of the Chief Electoral Officer at age 65 and replaces it with a 10-year non-renewable term. It provides for the establishment of an Advisory Committee of Political Parties to provide advice to the Chief Electoral Officer on matters relating to elections and political financing. The enactment also amends the Act to provide for the appointment of field liaison officers, based on merit, to provide support to returning officers and provide a link between returning officers and the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. It also enables the Chief Electoral Officer to temporarily suspend a returning officer during an election period and provides for the appointment of additional election officers at polling stations. Finally, it empowers registered parties and registered associations, in addition to candidates, to provide names of individuals for election officer positions and changes the deadline for providing those names from the 17th day before polling day to the 24th day before polling day.
The enactment also adds to the Act Part 16.1, which deals with voter contact calling services. Among other things, that Part requires that calling service providers and other interested parties file registration notices with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, provide identifying information to the Commission and keep copies of scripts and recordings used to make calls. That Part also requires that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission establish and maintain a registry, to be known as the Voter Contact Registry, in which the documents it receives in relation to voter contact calling services are to be kept.
The enactment also replaces Part 18 of the Act with a new, comprehensive set of rules on political financing that corrects a number of deficiencies in the Act. Notably, the enactment
(a) increases the annual contribution limits for contributions to registered parties, registered associations, candidates and nomination and leadership contestants to $1,500 per year and by $25 per year after the first year;
(b) increases the amount that candidates and leadership contestants may contribute to their own campaigns to $5,000 and $25,000, respectively;
(c) permits registered parties and registered associations to make transfers to candidates before their nomination is confirmed by the returning officer;
(d) requires a registered party’s auditor to complete a compliance audit in relation to its election expenses return indicating that the party has complied with the political financing rules;
(e) requires registered parties, registered associations and candidates to disclose details of expenses for voter contact calling services in their returns;
(f) reforms the rules governing unpaid claims, making it an offence for claims to remain unpaid after three years and strengthening the reporting of unpaid claims;
(g) reforms the reporting requirements of leadership contestants;
(h) permits higher spending limits for registered parties and candidates if an election period is longer than the 37-day minimum;
(i) includes new rules on political loans; and
(j) defines “capital asset” for the purposes of reporting the distribution cost of advertising or promotional material transmitted to the public using a capital asset, so that the expense is reported as the corresponding rental value for the period in which it was used, and for the purpose of the disposal of the campaign surplus.
With respect to voter identification, the enactment amends the Act to require the same voter identification for voting at the office of the returning officer in an elector’s own riding as it requires for voting at ordinary polls. It also prohibits the use of the voter information card as proof of identity, eliminates the ability of an elector to prove their identity through vouching, allows an elector to swear a written oath of their residence provided that their residence is attested to on oath by another elector, and requires an elector whose name was crossed off the electors’ list in error to take a written oath before receiving a ballot.
The enactment also amends the Act to provide an extra day of advance polling on the eighth day before polling day, creating a block of four consecutive advance polling days between the tenth and seventh days before polling day. It requires a separate ballot box for each day of advance polling and details procedures for the opening and closing of ballot boxes during an advance poll. Finally, it gives returning officers the authority to recover ballot boxes on the Chief Electoral Officer’s direction if the integrity of the vote is at risk.
The enactment also amends the Act to, among other things, establish a process to communicate polling station locations to electors, candidates and political parties, to provide that only an elector’s year of birth is to be displayed on the lists of electors used at the polls, instead of the full date of birth, to permit candidates’ representatives to move to any polling station in the electoral district after being sworn in at any polling station in the district and to establish a procedure for judicial recounts.
The enactment further amends the Act to change how the Commissioner of Canada Elections is appointed. It establishes that the Commissioner is to be appointed by the Director of Public Prosecutions for a seven-year term, subject to removal for cause, that the Commissioner is to be housed within the Director’s office but is to conduct investigations independently from the Director, and that the Commissioner is to be a deputy head for the purposes of hiring staff for his or her office and for managing human resources.
The enactment also amends the Act to add the offence of impersonating or causing another person to impersonate a candidate, a candidate’s representative, a representative of a registered party or registered association, the Chief Electoral Officer, a member of the Chief Electoral Officer’s staff, an election officer or a person authorized to act on the Chief Electoral Officer’s or an election officer’s behalf. It also adds the offences of providing false information in the course of an investigation and obstructing a person conducting an investigation. In addition, it creates offences in relation to registration on the lists of electors, registration on polling day, registration at an advance polling station and obligations to keep scripts and recordings used in the provision of voter contact calling services.
The enactment further amends the Act to provide for increases in the amount of penalties. For the more serious offences, it raises the maximum fine from $2,000 to $20,000 on summary conviction and from $5,000 to $50,000 on conviction on indictment. For most strict liability offences, it raises the maximum fine from $1,000 to $2,000. For registered parties, it raises the maximum fine from $25,000 to $50,000 on summary conviction for strict liability political financing offences and from $25,000 to $100,000 on summary conviction for political financing offences that are committed intentionally. For third parties that are groups or corporations that fail to register as third parties, it raises the maximum fine to $50,000 for strict liability offences and to $100,000 for offences that are committed intentionally and for offences applying primarily to broadcasters, it raises the maximum fine from $25,000 to $50,000.
The enactment amends the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to authorize the Chief Electoral Officer to provide administrative support to electoral boundary commissions. It amends the Telecommunications Act to create new offences relating to voter contact calling services and to allow the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to use the inspection and investigation regime in that Act to administer and enforce part of the voter contact calling services regime in the Canada Elections Act. It amends the Conflict of Interest Act to have that Act apply to the Chief Electoral Officer. It also amends the Director of Public Prosecutions Act to provide that the Director of Public Prosecutions reports on the activities of the Commissioner of Canada Elections.
Finally, the enactment includes transitional provisions that, among other things, provide for the transfer of staff and appropriations from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to support the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

Fair Elections Act

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really want to say that it is a pleasure, but I am really pleased that I have the privilege to speak out very strongly against the bill that we are debating here today, Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts.

When we take a look at this piece of reform, it is something that the House has been waiting a long time for. Ever since 2011, as long as I have been here as an MP, we have heard over and over again that the government was about to bring forward amendments to the Canada Elections Act in order to improve accountability, transparency, and so on. What a big disappointment, then, when this bill was tabled.

First of all, let us take a look at the process. A bill that is many pages in number and not without insignificant changes is tabled, and before debate has even started, there is already a move from my colleagues across the way to shut down debate.

We suggested that the bill, after its first reading, should go to committee stage so that all parties could work on something this significant in a non-partisan way and come up with something that works for all Canadians. However, the Conservative government shut it down.

We then started the debate in the House. Before two speakers had finished their speeches, we had a motion. What a surprise. We had a motion to shut down the debate.

I am so proud to be a Canadian. I am so proud that I live in a country that has a parliamentary democracy, but right now, I fear that our parliamentary democracy is at risk. We cannot take those kinds of comments lightly. It takes a lot for me to say that.

The reason I say that parliamentary democracy is at risk is that there is a role for parliamentarians. When a bill is produced, parliamentarians representing ridings right across this huge and diverse country get to take part in a debate and put forward their perspectives. These perspectives are the ones they hear from their constituents, as well as those that they have garnered from their own experiences.

However, once again, the Conservative government has a lot to hide. When a government tries to shut down debate, it has something to hide. Once again, the Conservative government has moved time allocation. It seems so ironic that the very bill that purports to address parliamentary democracy and the elections of parliamentarians is where the government chose to use this tactic of shutting down debate. It is just so wrong.

Not only is it wrong, let us also look at the timing of this bill that we have been waiting months and years for. When did the government decide to table it? It decided to table the bill during Olympics week. One would think it would be enough with people preoccupied with watching and supporting our athletes at Sochi. That was not enough of a cover, so the government needed the time allocation, the Olympics, and the budget a few days later, to absolutely suppress debate of critical issues.

It is, as I hear my colleagues saying, very disturbing. More than disturbing, this is a deliberate act by a government that speaks about accountability and transparency. Now that it has a majority, it feels that it does not have to be transparent or accountable. Now, we are seeing the arrogance of the majority, trying to push through legislation without giving parliamentarians the chance they need to debate the issue.

I have many colleagues in my caucus who are very disturbed that they will not get the time to speak, that they will not get to put forward their perspectives on what is absolutely flawed in the bill.

I want to get down to the content of the bill. First, let me say that there are some minor improvements in the bill. We are not saying everything in the bill is bad, but these minor improvements are buried in a fundamentally flawed bill. For example, we are delighted that there would more advance polling days, which could help to increase voter turnout. The bill also helps to modernize the online voter registration system by indirectly allowing e-signatures, which is a good thing, but on the other hand the bill also has a number of flaws, and I want to get to a few of those.

First, I do not know what the government has against the Chief Electoral Officer. Over the last few years I have been impressed by how he has been doing his job in a non-partisan way. However, my colleagues across the way do not like that, so they are removing power from the Chief Electoral Officer instead of increasing the powers of his office, and they are making an unnecessary separation between Elections Canada and the commissioner.

Once again, the Conservatives have absolutely no evidence that the Electoral Officer has been anything but non-partisan. Just because the Electoral Officer found some misdeeds by colleagues across the way and some technical difficulties with things that were being done by members in the House, it does not mean he is not doing his job. He should not be punished personally and his reputation put at stake, but neither should his office have its power limited because my colleagues across the way are too scared about what it could mean for the future if his office retains its powers and who do not want that kind of oversight of their actions.

The other part of the bill I find most disturbing is that it makes voting more complex for our most vulnerable Canadians. This is a form of voter suppression that reminds us of what we have seen south of the border. I never thought I would see it in Canada. We have the kind of policies being put forward in the bill that would absolutely disenfranchise our most vulnerable, including the low income, transients, and our youth. All of this is very disturbing at a time when we should be engaging more people in a debate and the electoral process. We have a government that is absolutely suppressing the voters who might have the most complaints against its policies and who are very disturbed by how they are being marginalized more and more.

The bill also makes it difficult by changing some of the political financing rules in ways that absolutely favour my colleagues across the way. The bill does not actually increase a person's tax rebate. I did not really hear a clamouring anywhere in the country to the effect, “Please allow us to give more to the political process because we want to”. It is a cash grab by the Conservative Party. All of this will benefit that party.

In other parts of the bill the Conservatives are trying to clarify what is already there. The act already states it is wrong to commit fraud, yet now we are having that being spelled out again. I have some concerns about that. Is this a cover up so they can then go out and say that this provision did not really exist? Let me assure the House that it did exist.

This is a travesty and I urge my colleagues to take their time and that we be given the time to be parliamentarians and to debate important bills.

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House resumed from February 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Supporting Non-Partisan Agents of Parliament Act

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a spirited debate on Bill C-23, the fair elections act, I believe in under an hour. I would ask my colleague to entertain us with some relevancy to this particular piece of legislation.

Fair Elections Act

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-23, the fair elections act, introduced by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

Let me start by saying that the fair elections act would ensure everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, by putting special interests on the sidelines and rule-breakers out of business.

The bill would also make it harder to break election laws. It would close loopholes to big money, impose new penalties on political impostors who make rogue calls, and empower law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

The fair elections act would, among many things, protect voters from rogue calls, with a mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating elections officials, and increased penalties.

Second, it would give more independence to the Commissioner of Elections Canada, allowing him or her control over staff and investigations, empowering him or her to seek tougher penalties for existing electoral offences, and providing more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting.

The act would also crack down on voter fraud by prohibiting vouching or voter information cards as acceptable forms of identification.

It would also make the rules for elections clear, predictable, and easier to follow.

The act would also ban the use of loans used to evade donation rules.

It would further repeal the ban on premature transmission of election results, thereby upholding free speech.

It would provide better customer service to voters and establish an extra day of advance polling.

Also, in the case of disagreements over election expenses, it would allow a member of Parliament to present the disputed case in the courts and to have judges quickly rule on it before the CEO seeks a member of Parliament's suspension.

This last provision, ensuring that democratic elections are respected, will be the focus of my remarks today.

Members of Parliament and the Chief Electoral Officer sometimes disagree on an MP's election expense return. When that happens, the Canada Elections Act provides that the MP can no longer sit or vote in the House of Commons until the expense return is changed to the CEO's satisfaction. The removal of a democratically elected member of Parliament reverses the decision of tens of thousands of voters. No one should have the power to reverse a democratic election without first convincing a judge.

Subsection 463(2) of the act currently provides for the following:

An elected candidate who fails to provide a document as required by section 451 or 455 or fails to make a correction as requested under subsection 457(2) or authorized by 458(1) shall not continue to sit or vote as a member until they are provided or made, as the case may be.

In other words, if an MP has not provided his or her election expense return within a prescribed deadline or has failed to make a correction to the return requested by the Chief Electoral Officer, the act states that a member cannot vote or sit.

A provision requiring that members not be eligible to sit if they are late in filing a return has existed in the act since at least 1920. Provisions governing corrections to returns were first introduced in 2000, at which point the provision in subsection 463(2) was extended to cases where members have refused to make corrections requested by the Chief Electoral Officer.

All members will agree that this is an extraordinary provision, as it can prevent an MP from exercising his or her parliamentary duties and from representing his or her constituents. This provision provides a powerful incentive for MPs to ensure their returns are filed in time and to ensure their returns are accurate. However, we have to keep in mind that the suspension of a democratically elected MP reverses the decision of tens of thousands of voters.

It is essential, therefore, that the law be clear on how such a suspension should be applied. Any ambiguity from the process ought to be removed. Unfortunately, as we saw in two cases this spring, it is not clear how this aspect of the law ought to be applied.

Mr. Speaker, on June 18, 2013, you ruled that there was considerable ambiguity in both the act and in the procedures of the House of Commons.

The Speaker ruled as follows:

The current situation—and the various interventions on the matter—points to a serious gap in our procedures here in the House in cases where an impasse is reached in a dispute between a member and Elections Canada. The Canada Elections Act provides that the Chief Electoral Officer inform the Speaker when key milestones have been reached in the course of a dispute. Thus, as I explained earlier, I received a letter from the Chief Electoral Officer informing me that a member had not complied with his request for corrections and informing me of the suspension provision of the act applicable in the circumstances. Also, while elsewhere in the act there are provisions for a member in those circumstances to apply to the courts for relief, the act is silent on the effect of such an appeal on the suspension provision.

He continues:

I am not the only one left with questions about how to respond to this situation. Some argue that the provisions in subsection 463(2) demand immediate action—namely, the suspension of a member who has not complied with the Chief Electoral Officer in his application of subsection 457(2) of the Canada Elections Act—even as they acknowledge that there is no procedure for operationalizing such a suspension. Others hold that since the Canada Elections Act provides for an application for relief from the provision in subsection 457(2), any suspension is held in abeyance until the court makes its decision.

It is clear that there is considerable ambiguity as to how the provision of the act ought to be applied. The procedure and House affairs committee has been reviewing this issue and may come forward with proposals to change the Standing Orders to clarify how the House deals with such issues.

While the fair elections act cannot propose procedures for the House to apply this provision, it could seek to remove the ambiguity in the law. The fair elections act would allow an MP to present the disputed case in the courts and to have judges rule on it before the CEO seeks the suspension of the MP.

To avoid long delays in resolving disputes, the MP would have just two weeks to apply to a judge to resolve the matter. The courts can treat such cases through an expedited hearing, which would allow the case to be heard on a priority basis. The MP could still be removed if the judge determines that he or she has failed to make a necessary correction to the return.

Proposed subsection 477.72(3) would provide that where a correction to an election return was not made within the prescribed timeline, an elected candidate would not be not entitled to continue to sit or vote as a member of the House of Commons as of the end of the two-week period after the deadline to make the correction. This is the amount of time the candidate would have to apply to a judge for an order to relieve the official agent from the obligation to comply with a request from the Chief Electoral Officer to make a correction to his or her return. If after this two-week period the candidate has not made an application to a judge, it could be presumed that he or she would not be challenging the Chief Electoral Officer's proposed corrections in court.

Alternatively, if the candidate or his or her official agent applies to a judge for an order to relieve him or her from the obligation to comply with the request from the CEO to make a correction to his or her return, the elected candidate would not be entitled to continue to sit or vote as a member of the House of Commons, as of the day on which the application was finally disposed of so as to deny the member's application to the court. As a result, with the fair elections act, it would become clear that a member is not to be suspended solely on the basis of a dispute with the Chief Electoral Officer. If the member has brought the dispute to court for a resolution, he or she could only be suspended if the court upholds the Chief Electoral Officer's position.

The fair elections act would also provide that if an elected candidate has challenged the CEO's proposed correction in court, the judge would hear the matter without delay and in a summary manner. This is provided for in the new subsection 477.68(7) of the act.

Should there be any dispute that calls into question the ability of an MP to perform his or her parliamentary duties, it is only appropriate for the court to consider the matter in an expeditious manner.

Mr. Speaker, are we running out of time?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech and point out that the Conservative Party is hurting our democracy. There have been over 50 time allocation motions, and one of them is for Bill C-23.

My colleague talked about the new voter identification rules that will prevent thousands of people from voting. Because of this bill, a person willing to vouch for someone they know and who is entitled to vote will not be able to do so.

Can my colleague explain to the government how this bill can possibly be democratic and protect the rights of those who are far away?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to join the discussion on a bill that is very important to all Canadians. Bill C-23, purportedly the fair elections act, seems to improve in some ways the electoral system for all Canadians, but in other ways there are some significant shortcomings.

The good news is that after repeated calls by our party, repeated promises by the government, and repeated pleas from Elections Canada, the government has finally tabled a bill. We hope the bill will proceed and that it becomes law before the next election. Of course, only the Prime Minister knows exactly when that will be.

We are pleased that the bill is finally before us, but what we are not pleased with is that the government has called closure on this very extensive bill. The current Canada Elections Act is over 300 pages long. These amendments are comparable in length. It is clearly a complex bill and one of great importance to all Canadians in ensuring that they have equal rights to vote and that any voter fraud is prevented, first and foremost, and then responded to.

Now we have this fast-tracked debate. I will do my best in my 10 minutes to raise some of the issues that have been raised by Canadians.

What is equally important, though, is that it is one thing to pass a law but another thing to put in place the administrative system so that the law will be in place and that Canadians will actually be supported to vote.

There are a number of measures in the bill. As a former enforcer, I am pleased that the government has chosen to increase the penalties to $50,000. We had proposed $500,000 because there are some egregious potential offences under this law, and Elections Canada had called for $250,000. It is nice to have an increase, but regrettably, the proposed penalties remain too low.

Some of the proposed measures that are causing concern are the changes to the powers and the mandate of Elections Canada. One of those areas is the power of Elections Canada to promote electoral engagement, to encourage and enable Canadians to vote.

The bill would significantly narrow the education mandate of the head of Elections Canada. Right now, that mandate is very broad. For example, he can implement public education information programs in order to make the electoral process better known to the public, particularly to persons who experience difficulties in exercising their voting rights.

He may also use any means to provide the public, inside or outside of Canada, with information on the electoral process. That is being removed. As well, the educational mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer would be significantly reduced. It would be reduced to simply letting people know where, when, and how to vote. It is definitely a step backwards.

One of the most important measures we need to take is to encourage Canadians to vote and to tell them ways that would make it easier for them to be enumerated. Then, when they get to the polls, they have to be able to exercise their right to vote.

I am very concerned about this backpedalling.

Voter disengagement is a very serious problem as well. The government, in its wisdom, because it had found a relatively higher error in vouchers, has therefore decided it will just throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, we are told that the reason some vouchers were judged invalid was simply that elections officers lacked experience, not that the person seeking the voucher support was unqualified to vote.

As a result, we are very deeply concerned. That measure would potentially disenfranchise more than a hundred thousand voters, particularly youth and first nations. At a time when we are trying to get youth more engaged in elections, we should not be increasing barriers to their voting rights.

I can certainly testify to the many incidents we found in my own riding when I ran for office. Not only students but also many long-time residents found that they had not been enumerated or had been put on the wrong list. They spent the day running from voting poll to voting poll. Some just gave up and were not able to vote.

With regard to students, in many cases advance polls are held during exams, which makes it difficult for students to get to those polls, or are held in places with no bus service. My volunteers actually set up a votemobile that helped students, no matter how they were voting, to get to those polls.

Therefore, there are a lot of very pragmatic measures as well as legal changes that the country really has to dedicate itself to.

The government in its wisdom says it is going to add additional days to vote, but student exam time, as I am sure the parliamentary pages will testify, spans quite a long time period. They will be so preoccupied with trying to get the best marks possible and a good job when they graduate that they may be distracted. We need to make sure that those advance polls are readily available to students who are studying and can vote.

One area that I want to speak to in particular is the enforcement regime. In speaking to this legislation, government members have said that it would implement a system that would ensure a more effective enforcement compliance regime. Nothing could be further from the truth. The government is going to move the office of the commissioner into the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but strangely, this will be the only enforcement office reporting to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I fully applaud the government for understanding the important concept of separating the administrative and the permitting functions of a government regulatory agency from the enforcement and compliance functions. The norm in this country for quite some time has been for the enforcement and compliance entity to report to the relevant minister, and in this case it would be the Chief Electoral Officer. There is absolutely no rational reason for moving this office to the office of the public prosecutor.

I would like to point out that the mandate of the Director of Public Prosecutions has not been changed whatsoever. His mandate already includes advising law enforcement agencies or investigative bodies in respect of prosecutions. He does not advise them in the course of investigations; that is still the duty and function of the investigative unit of Elections Canada.

Personnel in an enforcement office should be well informed on the legislation they are going to enforce, in this case the elections act, and also well informed and trained in investigative and enforcement mechanisms. In this case, we would be separating the commissioner for elections completely from the office of elections. As I understand it, the government wants to make sure that the commissioner has not been employed by Elections Canada. This is possibly a big mistake. We need to make sure there is a closer linkage. That is a deep concern to me.

In addition, this legislation would not deliver the new enforcement powers that the Chief Electoral Officer has understandably called for. As a former enforcement officer, I fully understand why he has asked to have the power to compel witnesses to come forward and to provide testimony, and the power to demand financial documents from political parties. It is absolutely absurd that investigators, in order to do an effective investigation, will need to seek a court order each time they want information or approach someone to provide important information. That barrier is not in place for any other regulatory enforcement agency. The government is taking a step backward rather than a step forward to ensure effective enforcement.

Secondly, the government is not talking about having an enforcement and compliance strategy and policy for more effective and consistent delivery of its powers. We heard a Conservative member complaining about how he felt he was being prejudicially treated by Elections Canada in its exercise of its powers. The best remedy for that is to have a public and consistent enforcement and compliance policy.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-23.

To begin, I would like to point out that as soon as the minister introduced his bill, all potential for non-partisan debate went out the window. I will explain why.

The minister is trying to justify the relevance and validity of his bill by casting doubt on the impartiality of a democratic institution that is accountable to Parliament and that, by its very existence and creation, must be impartial.

When the minister said that the Chief Electoral Officer should not wear a team jersey, that not only made Canadians question whether there are some flaws in the bill, but it also made them question the impartiality of the electoral system as a whole.

It is unacceptable that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform is treating Canadians and our democratic and electoral institutions so condescendingly.That is no way for a minister to act. Despite my respect for him, I want to make my point because a minister must show respect for our institutions, not attack them.

After hearing the minister's comments, the Chief Electoral Officer gave this response:

Listen, the only team jersey that I think I'm wearing—if we have to carry the analogy—I believe is the one with the stripes, white and black. What I know from this bill is that no longer will the referee be on the ice.

This bill should be making the electoral system more democratic and transparent. My speech will demonstrate that, instead, it will completely destroy all of our institutions. I acknowledge that the bill includes some interesting points that we do not object to. I will not talk about those aspects, however, because I believe my colleagues have already done a good job of highlighting them.

Canadians deserve better. The Conservative Party's problem is that it has lost Canadians' trust. The record of its nine years in power goes something like this: in and out scandal, fraudulent calls, Senate scandals. The people of Canada and Quebec no longer trust this government.

This bill once again shows that the Conservatives have absolutely no intention of improving our democratic system or making our institutions more transparent. As the official opposition, it is our duty to highlight the flaws in the Conservatives' bill.

The minister can rhyme off all the statistics he wants. His job was to consult the opposition parties and the Chief Electoral Officer. Statistics Canada does not give him licence to hide or shirk his responsibilities.

Let us not forget that there was a cabinet shuffle. We have been waiting for this bill for two years. It is finally here, but there was no consultation. The minister can try to have us believe that there was. That is true, but I do not think he engaged in the type of consultation that should have been done to make such radical and important changes to such a fundamental aspect of our Canadian democracy as our electoral system. I do not need to tell you how extremely important this is.

In 2015, I know that Canadians and Quebeckers are going to vote for change and kick out this government that is worn down by fraud and scandals. This bill shows that the government cannot even let people decide for themselves anymore. They want to control the Chief Electoral Officer and Canadians. It is atrocious. I am outraged as I stand before the government to tell Canadians that it is time for a change.

Unfortunately, the government is refusing once again to allow Canadians to decide for themselves. The Minister of State for Democratic Reform tells us that young people do not vote, which is true. He shared statistics showing that fewer and fewer young people have been voting in recent years.

Why, then, prevent a democratic institution known by all Canadians from encouraging people to exercise their right to vote?

None of the minister's statistics can justify this measure. This is nothing but nonsense and lies, because the fundamental role of Elections Canada is to encourage people to vote, to exercise their right to vote.

Why are the Conservatives taking away Elections Canada's investigative powers? They are not happy with how Elections Canada's decisions and investigations have affected them. It is as simple as that. They can say that my speech was lacking facts and statistics, but there are no facts or statistics to justify this bill and this reform of the electoral system.

Every time I rise in this House, my colleagues accuse me of being too partisan and not presenting any actual facts in my speech. That is the only thing they can find to fault me for, because there are no facts or statistics that justify taking away the Commissioner of Canada Elections' investigative powers.

No matter what they say, they cannot justify that the Commissioner of Canada Elections will no longer be part of an independent democratic institution, but will instead be under the Attorney General of Canada. The government appoints the Attorney General of Canada. That is fine, but why take an impartial investigative body that was transparent, democratic and accountable to Parliament and have it report to the Attorney General, who is appointed by the government? Is there a reason that is not ideological and completely partisan?

We have known for a long time that the government really likes to emulate the underhanded tactics of the Republican Party in the United States. Several Conservative members are enrolling in Karl Rove's summer school. Karl Rove is George W. Bush's American strategist, known for his master strokes in committing election fraud. Perhaps it is time to let go of the “Rovian” ideology that brought our Pierre Poutine into the world.

I will not talk about the team jersey, as did the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, who is trying to make us believe that there are plots everywhere. We must look at the Prime Minister's Office first, because that is where the plots come from.

Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley said that striking at the integrity of the electoral process by attempting to dissuade voters from casting ballots for their preferred candidates is a form of vote suppression. The Conservatives can go ahead and call me names and say that I have no evidence. That is what they are doing.

I would simply like to ask Canadians who are watching today to understand that the sole intent of this partisan piece of legislation is to favour the Conservatives. Regardless of the statistics the Conservatives might get from Statistics Canada, those numbers cannot in any way justify the destruction of a democratic and transparent institution.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

I have seen a lot of legislation come and go in this House in almost 17 years. I have participated in vigorous debates in the House where we have opposed legislation, and some occasions where we have supported government legislation.

However, I have to say that this particular bill before us today, Bill C-23, the so-called fair elections act, is something I feel angry about.

First of all, it is being debated under a closure motion. We have now had over 50 different times in this House that the Conservative government has used closure, in effect to limit and gag debate. That, in and of itself, is very offensive.

However, what I find very problematic about the bill is that Canadians are being told that it is a fair elections act and that it would deal with, for example, the election fraud that was so widespread in the last election.

Let us remember that it is the Conservative government and the Conservative Party who have the worst track record on breaking election laws in this country, whether it was the in-and-out scheme, or the robocalls that were designed to suppress opposition votes.

The guise of the bill is to deal with elections fraud. However, when we examine the bill, we can see that there are so many other elements of the bill that are designed to undermine the role of Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer.

I have dealt with Elections Canada many times over the years, in six different elections. I have often heard criticisms about how the voting worked, particularly in my community, in the Downtown Eastside, where people are sometimes turned away from polls because they do not have ID. I have had an ongoing relationship with Elections Canada and have pointed out concerns about lack of training and issues in my local community. I have always found them to be responsive to those issues when I have raised them after an election.

In fact, Elections Canada has a worldwide reputation as a first-rate organization and is used as a model globally of what an independent electoral organization can be.

It is very dismaying and concerning to see that the bill would in effect undermine the power of the Chief Electoral Officer. It would create a new entity. It would remove general public education.

In fact, in questions in the House this week, even today, we heard the minister for democratic reform blaming Elections Canada for a lower voter turnout.

This is a complex issue. To have this simple fix by removing the role of education and talking to voters about voting, whether it is young people, first nations, students, new Canadians, from the role of Chief Electoral Officer, it is inexplicable in terms of the rationale. One can only come to the conclusion that the current government has basically brought forward a bill—it did not even consult the Chief Electoral Officer, by the way—that would undermine the role and mandate and the foundations of Elections Canada.

That is one element in the bill that I think is hugely problematic.

The other element is that the bill would remove a number of provisions whereby people who are not normally on the electors list and have difficulty voting, because they do not have the proper ID, would now find it very difficult, if not near possible, to vote. I am speaking in particular about what is called the “vouching system”.

This is something that various organizations in east Vancouver have used extensively. For example, we had lawyers on East Hastings Street who would help people determine whether they were on the voters list. They would help them figure out whether they had enough ID, and if they did not, they would help them in the process of what was called an “affidavit vote”.

All of that would be removed.

We used to have the vouching system, where somebody who knew somebody in the community who was homeless or on the street but eligible to vote, a Canadian citizen, living in Vancouver, who was 19 years of age, would make sure that information was provided to people.

There were many organizations that did an incredible service in vouching for people, by saying, for example, “Yes, we know that person. They come to the Carnegie Centre at Main and Hastings every day. We know who that person is, and they should be able to vote”. On that basis, a person was able to demonstrate their eligibility and would be able to vote. Sometimes there were problems, and the deputy returning officers would turn people away. There were issues and we did follow them up. However, the system of vouching has been an important democratic tool for people in my community to be able to vote.

In a previous Parliament, Bill C-31 severely restricted the vouching system. I fought tooth and nail against that. I thought it was a terrible proposition. Again, it was designed to hurt people, particularly those of low income.

Now we get to Bill C-23 and the vouching system is completely eliminated. I feel extremely worried about the impact that will have in the next federal election, in 2015, as there were about 100,000 people who used the vouching system in the last election.

We have just heard from one member that there was a 25% error rate and therefore it is a terrible system that has to be thrown out. However, if one reads the details, one would find that most of the errors occurred because there was a lack of adequate training for poll clerks and deputy returning officers in administering the vouching system. Therefore, it is a question of better training.

The bill would throw out the whole system. I feel we are now setting up an election process that has two-tiers. If one is a property owner, one is guaranteed to be on the voters list, to get a voter card in the mail. A property owner would probably have a driver's licence or some other identification, and there would not be an issue. However, in Vancouver, 50% of residents are not property owners. They are tenants, students, low-income families, seniors, and people who may move because the housing costs are so high people. People are always seeking more affordable housing. Those people end up not being on the voters list, not getting the information they require. Therefore, having provisions that would allow people to be eligible to vote on election day, even if they are not on the list, is extremely important.

I am very distressed about Bill C-23.

If we look at this historically, we have come far on a spectrum of disenfranchising people. I do not know about other members in this House, but I remember the days when people could walk down their street and see the voters list tacked up on the telephone poll. People could look at the list and see if they were on it. I remember the days when an enumerator would come door to door asking who lived in the household, who was eligible to vote. They would go through the criteria and people would get registered. All of that is gone. However, it was not the current government that did that; it was a Liberal government.

I want to make this point because I think it shows us how much our electoral system has been eroded in terms of its primary function, which is to enfranchise people who are eligible to vote, and to make sure they have the information, tools, and the system in place to make that process smooth and as accessible as possible. The key word is “accessible”.

We have come so far along that road. Here we are debating the bill on the opening day of the Olympics. Who the heck is even going to be watching this debate? The Conservatives brought in a closure motion yesterday, so we have a few hours of debate and the bill will be rushed off to committee. Before Canadians even know what is happening, the bill will be approved, yet it would impact every single voter in this country.

I am very glad that as many members of the NDP as possible are taking the opportunity to speak about the bill, to get the information to the public, and alert people that Bill C-23 is not a fair elections act. The bill is actually about voter suppression. It is about gagging the Chief Elector Officer. It is about undermining a democratic election system.

This is a thoroughly bad bill, and we will do everything we can to stop it.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with this bill is that it is being put forward as a bill to deal with election fraud. It is true that it includes a number of recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer, but contained within the bill are some terrible provisions that would actually make it much more difficult for people to vote, and I want to ask the member about this aspect.

In my community, where there are homeless people and people who do not have ID, the vouching system has been very important, and it is very strictly applied.

In Bill C-23, the vouching system would be eliminated. I do not know if the member is aware, but in a riding like mine, that is going to disenfranchise thousands of people. I feel very suspicious about what this bill is actually about. It seems to be more about stopping people from voting and disempowering people than it is about encouraging people to vote.

I wonder if the member would respond by explaining why the vouching system was eliminated.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to debate Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which would make it easier to vote and harder to break the law. It is a bill that would close loopholes to big money and give law enforcement sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. This bill is another step in the proud legacy of Canadian democracy. Step by step and generation by generation, Canadians have fine-tuned their electoral practices and procedures to make our system more representative, more responsible, and fairer.

I am delighted today to discuss the steps our government is proposing to improve the fairness of Canada's elections and how the rules are enforced. The fair elections act is a comprehensive bill designed to protect the integrity of federal elections in Canada by making the rules clearer, by reducing the influence of big money, and by giving real strength to the authorities that enforce the rules.

This bill would assure Canadian citizens that their votes count. Their votes and their contributions will not be nullified by the actions of cheaters who try to take advantage of loopholes in rules. The contributions of ordinary citizens will also not be diluted by the presence of big money from special interests or individuals who have been able to funnel great wealth into political campaign financing through existing loopholes.

Let me emphasize this. The bill before us would strengthen the penalties against those who abuse the system. When Canadians are cheated out of their votes through fraudulent acts or the system is abused when votes that had no right to be cast are counted, the integrity of democracy itself is put into question. Sadly, we have seen too many incidents in which that integrity and the strength of the foundation have been questioned.

The fundamental right of a citizen is the right to vote. One might even call it a responsibility to vote, or a duty to vote. It is a right, a responsibility, and a duty that was earned in blood during the world wars and during the constant vigilance to maintain freedom and the rule of law in the decades since then.

However, the voter turnout numbers tell us a different story. A generation ago, a large majority of voters went to the polls. In 1988, for example, 75% of eligible voters cast their ballots, or about 4 out of 5 voters. In the most recent election, in 2011, that number had dropped to 61%, or about 3 out of 5 voters. Most troubling is the decline in voter turnout for youth aged 18 to 24.

The bill before us introduces a series of amendments designed to restore confidence in the electoral system and provide voters with the assurance that their votes will count. It would introduce a response to changes in technology that have provided challenges that previous generations did not face, but which, if left unacknowledged, could undermine confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. This bill would give enforcement powers that send clear signals that cheating the system will not be tolerated.

Let me provide the House with an overview of what this bill contains. I will leave it for my colleagues to provide further information on the precise details.

Broadly speaking, this bill would bring fairness to Canada's federal election in eight areas.

First, it would protect voters from rogue calls and political impostors. There have been serious allegations that telephone and telemarketing technologies have been abused in past elections, and we are taking steps to put a halt to the practice. The bill would establish a mandatory public registry, administered by the CRTC, for those who want to use robocall technology. At the same time, it would provide prison time for those who abuse the technology, including those who impersonate election officials. It would increase penalties for those who deceive people out of their votes, plain and simple.

Second, this bill would give law enforcement sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. By sharper teeth, I mean that it would allow the commissioner of elections to seek tougher penalties for existing offences. A longer reach means empowering the commissioner with more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting. A freer hand means that the commissioner would have full independence, with control of his or her staff and investigations, and a fixed term of seven years.

Third, this bill would keep big money out of politics. It would prevent the use of loans to evade donation rules, and it would allow parties to fund democratic outreach with small increases in spending limits while imposing tougher audits and penalties to enforce those limits. It would make it easier for small donors to contribute more to democracy through the front door and harder for illegal big money to sneak in through the back door.

Fourth, the bill before us would crack down on voter fraud. It would prohibit the use of vouching and voter identification cards as replacements for acceptable identification papers. Elections Canada has found irregularities in the use of vouching and a high rate of inaccuracy in the National Register of Electors, which is used to create the voter information cards. I think my colleague earlier made this very clear with the example of his own personal situation. The bill would put a stop to the potential for these irregularities.

Fifth, the measures in the bill would make the rules easy to follow. Members on all sides of the House have complained that the current rules can be unclear. Complicated rules lead to unintentional breaches and intimidate everyday people from taking a more active part in democracy. The bill would make the rules for elections clearer, predictable, and easy to follow. In a fashion similar to the service provided by Revenue Canada, parties would have the right to advance rulings and interpretations from Elections Canada, which would keep a registry of interpretations and provide consultation with and notice to parties before changing any of these interpretations.

Sixth, the bill would enable the system to respect democratic election results. When members of Parliament and the Chief Electoral Officer disagree on an item on an MP's election expense return, the act would make it clear that MPs are able to present the disputed case in the courts before they are deemed ineligible to sit and vote as an MP.

Seventh, the bill would uphold free speech by repealing the ban on the premature transmission of election results. In the Internet age, this is as much a reflection of reality as anything else.

Finally, the bill before us would bring better service to voters, while focusing Elections Canada advertising on the basics of voting: where, when, and what ID to bring. It would explicitly require Elections Canada to inform voters with disabilities of the extra provisions available to help them vote.

Those are eight key areas in which we can build the democratic ideals that our country is known for around the world; the ideals that our soldiers in two world wars and since then have so sacrificed for.

I have served on the international human rights subcommittee of this House and listened to the testimonies of victims of various regimes in other countries that our freedom, democracy, and human rights are a big part of what makes Canada great.

Many people from across the political spectrum have underscored the importance of reforming our electoral laws and restoring confidence in Canada's democracy. I am confident they agree with me that these reforms are needed before Canadians return to the polls next year.

In fact, the bill would implement 38 of the recommendations that the Chief Electoral Officer made in his report on the 40th general election, which was tabled in 2010.

I urge hon. members—

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to return the attention of the House to some of the valuable aspects of this proposed piece of legislation, which would go a long way toward improving the quality of elections in this country.

Listening to some of the histrionics in what has been said earlier, one would think that Canada is a third world country in which elections are wildly abused. My hon. colleague for Guelph suggested that in 200 separate ridings there were investigations relating to people being misdirected to the wrong polling stations. If this were the tip of some giant iceberg, he would be right; we would be unfit to be considered a part of the family of developed and democratic nations. However, on its face, that is a ridiculous assertion.

One of the ridings the member was referring to was my riding, in which an allegation was made by at least one person phoning the Chief Electoral Officer, which is what actually accounts for the 200 different ridings. I do not know if the member is suggesting that my riding, where I defeated the Liberal candidate by more than a three-to-one margin and the NDP candidate by more than a two-to-one margin, was one in which our party was attempting to misdirect voters because we were afraid we would otherwise lose the seat. If that is what he wants to assert, then he should come out and assert that, as opposed to using this sort of ridiculous innuendo and suggestion, when a clear counterfactual is the case.

Let me deal with three real benefits to the new legislation.

The first is a mandate to Elections Canada as to how it would direct its advertising revenue during and prior to writ periods. This is to be found in proposed section 18 of the legislation. I will read this legislation and then comment on it. Proposed section 18 would now read:

(1) The Chief Electoral Officer may provide the public, both inside and outside Canada, with information on the following topics only:

(a) how to become a candidate;

(b) how an elector may have their name added to a list of electors and may have corrections made to information respecting the electors on the list;

(c) how an elector may vote under section 127 and the times, dates and locations of voting;

(d) how an elector may establish their identity and residence in order to vote, including the pieces of identification they may use to that end; and

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

Proposed subsection (2) of that section says:

The Chief Electoral Officer shall ensure that any information provided [above] is accessible to electors with disabilities.

The Chief Electoral Officer has spent a great deal of money on advertising, but very little on these practical issues. This is despite the fact that many Canadians turn up at the polls, in some cases, as in a rural area, having driven a great distance, and discovering they do not have the necessary identification and are therefore unable to vote. Or, they find themselves in a situation in which they cannot vote at an advance polling station because they were not on the voter's list. This is a real problem.

I asked the Chief Electoral Officer in a meeting of the procedure and House affairs committee how big a problem there is with the voter's list. He hummed and hawed and did not want to answer the question. The answer is that there is a 20% rate of errors; one Canadian in five is not on the list or is on the list in the wrong way. That is a problem.

This legislation is designed to help people correct these problems for themselves. They can get on the list. They can find out how to vote. They can find out the methods available to them with whatever disability they may have, be it a mobility impairment, a visual disability, etcetera.

The CEO has to put in an effort to find out how to get those pieces of information to those communities, which is a challenge. I might add that this challenge has attracted no interest from the CEO until now, but now he will have to do that. That is a good thing.

Secondly, I want to talk a bit about voter identification and the issue of fraud. We have put in a lot of effort in this Parliament, and the previous one, into designing legislation in order to reduce electoral fraud. One of the key reasons this electoral fraud can exist is because Elections Canada has had to loosen the criteria for allowing people to vote and to identify themselves, given that Elections Canada has done such an unsatisfactory job in determining who is actually permitted to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have just been passed a note. I am supposed to remind you that I am splitting my time with the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale and not, despite his helpful suggestion, the member for Malpeque. He no doubt will have fascinating things to say when his time comes.

The situation with voter identification is a mess in Canada. We recently had a case adjudicated between the current member of Parliament for Etobicoke Centre and the former member. They were disputing whether people had voted validly in the election. In the end, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in favour of the present Conservative member and against the former Liberal member in that case. What was striking was that the issues revolved entirely around problems associated with voter identification, with the fact that people were not on the list properly. It all could have been resolved with better rules. Bill C-23 attempts to provide some of those rules.

One of the things that the bill would do is to specify that the voter identification card sent to a voter by the Chief Electoral Officer may not be used as a piece of identification for the purpose of voting. That is stated in proposed subsection 143(2.1):

The Chief Electoral Officer may authorize types of identification for the purposes of [voting]. For greater certainty, any document—other than a notice of confirmation of registration...may be authorized.

Why is this important? Let me give an example. My name is Scott Jeffrey Reid. In the 2004 election, I received three voter ID cards at my address. One was addressed to Scott Reid, one to Jeffrey Reid, and one to Scott Jeffrey Reid. Of course, all three voters are me. I can legally vote at the returning office at almost any point during the writ period. I can vote at the advance poll. I can vote on election day, in my case at a school near my house. I could have gone to all three of those places and voted, and there would be no record. They would take the voter ID card, but there would be no record that I had voted in multiple places.

I raised this matter with the former chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, when he appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee. I said that this was not a very effective kind of identification. He responded that given the fact that I could go to these multiple places and engage in fraudulent voting anyway, what did it matter? I think that is not a very satisfactory response. Attempting to bring the issue of identification under control is very important. The elimination of vouching is a very important aspect of that.

I want to bring attention to, arguably, one of the most important aspects of the bill, which is the rule that from now on when the Chief Electoral Officer makes a ruling as to how the law is to be interpreted—and in some areas the law is ambiguous and will be found to be ambiguous in the future—he must apply the same rules to everyone. When we listen to the other side talking about the in-and-out scandal, they mean that a practice that was legal at the time was found afterwards by the Chief Electoral Officer, retrospectively, to be illegal in the preceding election. However, it was not found to be illegal in the election preceding that one, in which the other parties, not the Conservatives, had engaged in the practice. If we engage in that kind of retrospective ruling, we create a very unfair, unlevel playing field. That can no longer happen. No longer can retrospective rulings be imposed, and no longer can a ruling be imposed that does not apply universally.

A compliance agreement under the law is where a party violates the law. The New Democrats did this when they allowed sponsored advertising at their national convention, thereby allowing union contributions. It must be made public. They cannot keep it secret. When it is kept secret there cannot be precedents developed. There is no guarantee that the law will be enforced equally. That is a huge step forward. It is astonishing that Elections Canada did not undertake this on its own without encouragement from outside. However, having failed to do so, it will not be required to do so, and that is a very good thing.

The House resumed from February 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to provide further supplementary submissions to those I made earlier, as I indicated I would, on the point of order raised this afternoon by the hon. House leader for the official opposition.

I have had a chance to consult the cases that were cited in footnote 99 associated with the passage from which the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley quoted on page 728 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition.

In one of those cases, on May 16, 1978, at page 5461 of the Debates, Mr. Speaker Jerome directed that a bill be withdrawn after introduction because, “...while the document in respect to the motion was prepared, the bill itself had not been finalized and therefore is not ready for introduction”.

Second, in another case on December 15, 1980, at page 5746 of the Debates, Madam Speaker Sauvé directed that a bill be withdrawn on the same basis. Indeed, the bill in that case had not yet even been drafted.

These are in very stark contrast to the situation at hand.

Unlike those cases, we do have a bill. We have been hearing about it in the House all week long. The hon. House leader of the official opposition even quoted, from the summary of the bill, an explanatory text accompanying the clauses of the bill. Of course, we have had many people in the debates today and yesterday referring to parts of the bill.

In my earlier submissions, I spoke to the relationship between an explanatory note and a bill. Members will recall that the House leader was saying the difficulty was with the explanatory note, that there was a difference in the translation between the French and the English, and therefore the bill was not in its proper form.

I will add to my earlier citation by quoting from the treatment O'Brien and Bosc give to bill summaries at page 733.

The purpose of the summary is to contribute to a better understanding of the contents of the bill, of which it is not a part. For this reason, it appears separately at the beginning of the bill.

Once again, there is another citation that demonstrates that the summary, which is what the member was referring to, is not part of the bill. Even if there were an error in the summary that was grievous, that is not a reason to say the bill is not in its proper form. It is not part of the bill.

I do have a few other precedents that I would like to offer in relation to these supplementary texts of an explanatory nature, which get appended to bills.

I will start with a ruling of June 14, 1938, at page 450 of the Journals from Mr. Speaker Casgrain. He said:

The explanatory notes do not form part of the bill proper and they do not have to be approved by the House. They are only given as reasons for the text and to facilitate discussion.

That was a long time ago; 75 years ago or more.

Next, I have Mr. Speaker Beaudoin's ruling, which is much more recent, May 17, 1956, an interesting time, at page 568 of the Journals.

...explanatory notes are not part of the bill nor are the marginal notes....The bill consists of the various clauses that are there. In order to judge whether a bill is blank or in an imperfect shape, it had to have blanks when it was introduced and given first reading.

Later, he said in relation to what is now Standing Order 68(3): “No bill may be introduced either in blank or in imperfect shape”.

He continues:

Therefore at that moment the hon. Member cannot raise the point of order because he does not have a copy of the bill. The bill has not been printed. It is my duty, however, to satisfy myself. He was referring to his role as Speaker.

Mr. Speaker Beaudoin's ruling was sustained at the time upon appeal by a vote of 152 to 57.

On March 29, 1972, at page 1268 of the Debates, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux also confirmed the courtesy nature of the supplementary content that gets printed with bills.

As the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley pointed out, there was a translation error in the text from which he quoted. That text was prepared by the Department of Justice and bore on its cover the following note: “Advance copy to be formatted and reprinted by Parliament”.

The proviso was added to the courtesy copies of the government bills that were provided to MPs following the point of order by the hon. member for Kings—Hants, which was also cited today, and I think some of us remember that debate.

The official version of Bill C-23 of which the House is seized was ordered by the House on Tuesday to be printed. That motion is recorded at page 493 of the Journals. That copy of the bill, the official copy printed by order of the House and as published under the purview of our law clerk, can be viewed on the Internet, and there the House can see the corrected text in the bill’s summary.

In conclusion, I will briefly recap my arguments. First, the test for the application of Standing Order 68(3) takes place prior to introduction under the authority of the Chair, not at this stage. Second, explanatory notes and summaries do not even form any part of the bill; it is simply a courtesy measure to assist hon. members in performing their jobs. Finally, the wording issue of which the NDP has complained is not even in the version of Bill C-23 before this House.

I think we can see that there is no merit to the point raised.