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

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak once again to this bill, this time at the report stage. Given the stage that the bill is at today, it is worthwhile talking about how we got to this point and the level of consultation that went on, and to the amendments we are debating today.

First, I had a lot of feedback in my constituency about how we were talking to Canadians about this, how we were getting feedback from our constituents on the bill and how we were exposing it.

I have to congratulate the work of the committee, of people of all political stripes in here today, because committee study is often something that does not get a lot of attention in the press. A lot of Canadians are not even aware that some of our parliamentary committees sit and work. However, the committee has done a lot of work on the bill. What does that work mean and what does it look like?

First, the parliamentary committee, since the bill was introduced, had over 15 meetings to study it. The meetings are usually about 2 hours in length, but I know the committee sat late, so that is roughly 31 hours of study. A parliamentary committee comprises members from the government, as well as the official opposition and the Liberal Party. Some of our independent colleagues sat in there as well to hear the debate.

Over 72 witnesses from all different aspects of civil society from across the country participated, testified, gave their feedback and submitted written briefs. In addition to that, we have had hours of debate in the House. We have had probably well over 100 questions on the bill in the House of Commons, be it in question period. Certainly, too, we have seen some very firm public opinion research on where the public thinks some of the components for the bill specific to identification production should be, which I will speak to in a moment.

The bottom line is that all that work is what we do in the House of Commons. It is what we do as legislators and parliamentarians. We look at legislation as it is presented by the government. That is why committees exist. That is why we sit there. It is to listen to people who come to committee and then amend the bill. At report stage reading, as we have here today, we look at amendments. Some of them are quite substantive, and many of them are in direct response to some of the feedback that was heard at committee. We then have a chance to vote on the bill after the amendments have been incorporated.

It is worth taking a moment to say that we did something that resembles work on this bill. We did some pretty good work when it came to committee. I have to commend my colleague, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, for going through all the testimony, listening to it, doing the background research, looking at different legal options of how some of that stuff could be incorporated, drafting the amendments and then presenting them so we could debate them in the House of Commons.

I want to firmly push back against anyone who says there was not consultation on the bill. If anyone wants to look at the list of witnesses, which is publicly available on the Parliament of Canada website, published on the committee website. So is the transcript, or the Hansard, of the committee. People can look at that as well and see the fact that we had over 72 witness groups. We all brought questions to those committees. I was not on the committee, but those who sat there brought questions for the witnesses based on constituent feedback. This is how the legislative process works, and it worked here.

Given that it worked and that we had a great degree of consultation, we have some amendments in front of us to debate the substance of today and then vote on later this evening.

One of the key pieces of subject matter in the debate was the voter identification component of the bill. I quite enjoy the subject matter of this legislation, so I did review a lot of the committee study myself. I found it interesting, because I do not think that there was one witness who the opposition or anyone else produced who could say that they personally would not be able to vote, given the changes proposed in the bill. That was absolutely stunning. Why is that? It is because there are 39 forms of ID that can be produced to prove identity.

A poll done by Ipsos Reid showed that over 85% of Canadians, many of those who support the opposition parties, felt it was reasonable to produce voter identification.

Further to that, after the committee study was complete, the amendment put forward on voter identification was found to be quite solid.

If there is any issue, it has to be addressed now. After doing the diligence out of the committee study, I could not find any group that would not be able to vote given the tightness and the ability that we have put around the forms of identification to be produced.

The amendment with regard to this would allow electors to vote with two pieces of identification that would prove their identity and a written oath as to place of residence and proof that another elector from the same polling division, who would provide his or her identity and residence by providing documentary proof, would also take a written oath as to the elector's residence. This new measure would allow those who did not have identification proving their residence to register and vote on polling day.

Here is the great part. Because irregularities were identified in the last election and to address that valid concern, “to ensure the integrity of the vote, new verification of potential non-compliance will be done after polling day, and an audit of compliance with registration and voting rules will be done after every election...”

We have put in an amendment that should capture everyone.

Here are some other components that I do not think have not been addressed in the debate today.

We are expanding the hours. We have added additional time for people to vote. If Elections Canada does what we are telling it to do through this bill, which is educate people on how to vote, where to vote and when to vote, then the electorate should know that it has additional time to vote and prepare to find one of those 39 different pieces of ID. We are providing better customer service to them with some of the changes laid out in the bill in terms of how Elections Canada will support the actual vote itself.

It is absolutely critical for members to take into consideration that we have expanded Canadians' accessibility to vote. Not only that, but we have enshrined it in Elections Canada's mandate. It has to provide these critical pieces of information to Canadians. It needs to focus on that information so people will know the types of identification they have to bring.

I did a lot of door knocking in my community while the bill was being debated. The only thing that came up at the door was that people were shocked they could vote without identification. It was a shocking, jarring, thing. They were surprised that people could vote without identification. I think Canadians know that providing ID is the right thing to do.

As parliamentarians, should we talk about how to produce identification, what type of identification should be provided, under what circumstances, can someone attest to the identify of a voter? Sure, let us have that discussion, but I am confident that with the amendment that has been provided today, Bill C-23 is solid in that regard. I encourage anyone who is listening to this debate to check out the 39 different forms of ID which are applicable.

I was also quite glad to see the amendment that civic education programs for primary and secondary schools would be included. That is a positive amendment.

The core thing I spoke to earlier was that it was the responsibility of candidates and civil societies to go out and convince people why they should vote rather than have a government agency tell people why they should vote. That is a core principle in the bill of which that Canadians can be proud.

It is with great enthusiasm that I support the content of Bill C-23.

I also congratulate the committee for hearing from over 72 witnesses and for taking a really robust look at this legislation and coming up with these amendments.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister pointing out that 72 witnesses made submissions. It is all very well to listen to them, but it would have been better, if not critically important, to try to understand them. Clearly, the Conservatives listened to what these 72 witnesses had to say, but failed to understand that they wanted the government not to proceed with this harmful electoral reform initiative.

I find the minister’s comments, and in particular her view that political parties have a duty to encourage people to vote, especially dangerous. The right to vote is not a partisan exercise, but rather a fundamental right. It should not be left to partisan organizations. Rather, the voting process should be overseen by an independent non-partisan agency responsible for ensuring the people can exercise their right to vote. Even Preston Manning stated that these initiatives were ill-advised.

How does the minister intend to encourage people, specifically first nations, which have a different political culture, to embrace that of the Conservatives because it suits their purposes from an electoral standpoint?

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps something was lost in the translation, but I believe my colleague just said that the bill would allow political organizations to manage the vote. If my colleague reads the form and substance of the bill, he would see that is not even close to the case.

This is all about how Elections Canada carries out its mandate. Elections Canada is still a government organization which has responsibility for various aspects of the vote.

Since I have been elected, my colleagues opposite have been talking about how we are going to proceed with democratic and electoral reform in our country. Certainly, Bill C-23 is in response to some of those questions that all of us in the House have had.

The fact is that we responded and put Bill C-23 before the House. I do not believe in just having empty rhetoric and saying that all the witnesses said that the bill should be killed. This is about coming up with concrete amendments, doing the right thing as parliamentarians and coming up with legislative change, and that is what we have done. We have excellent amendments and my colleague should support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made the point that the bill is in response to requests made in how Elections Canada carried out its mandate, and so changes were made.

Who made these comments to the Conservatives before the bill was tabled?

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

Mr. Speaker, I spent a great deal of time laying out the process at the front end of my speech. The legislative process is one by which a government can present legislation to the House and then committee can respond to it through study, which is exactly what happened in this case. Over 72 witnesses came forward and responded to the legislation, which was put in front of the House and amendments were made.

My colleague opposite also understands that there is cabinet confidence after legislation has been proposed to cabinet. This is a great example that Canadians should be looking at as to how work can be done here. Government tables legislation, it goes to committee, and committee hears a bunch of witnesses and reads a bunch of different briefs. The government responds with amendments and we debate them in the House of Commons. It is a great thing of which to be a part.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague reiterated the parliamentary process. When a bill is proposed, it goes to committee and amendments are made.

It is also important to recognized that always before bills are presented or created, there is an upfront process where Canadians often have input from across the country as to what they see in a broad vision term. Perhaps the member could speak generally on how governments actually consult even before legislation is drafted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could do a ten-minute speech on this.

There are constituent emails, round tables, telephone town halls, one-on-one meetings, feedback from colleagues to the minister directly, caucus input and Twitter. I debated this bill on Twitter. There are so many different ways that we pull in input as parliamentarians, and that is our job. It is to synthesize it, put it into a bill and translate it to committee study. That is what happens here.

Canadians should watch this with great interest, and I certainly hope my colleagues will support the bill.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel pleased and privileged today to discuss Bill C-23 at report stage, on behalf of the constituents of Sherbrooke who elected me to this House.

It is as a result of some considerable bungling by the Conservative government that we have reached the report stage of this bill today. A few amendments have been agreed to. It still has a number of shortcomings, and I am going to have to vote against this bill. We will be voting on it this evening. Last Wednesday, the bill came back to the House after consideration in committee. After only 10 minutes of debate, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons informed us of time allocation. The next day, that is, last Thursday, we voted on a time allocation motion for it.

There has been about one day and a half of debate at report stage. However, more than 150 amendments were submitted in committee, if I remember correctly. I was not directly involved in the process, but I followed it closely, as did most of my colleagues. We have had only a day and a half to debate this bill, unfortunately.

This is the reason why I said I was privileged to speak to this bill, before it is voted on tonight at the report stage, following the work done by the committee. The committee itself was not able to perform its work as one would have wished. The committee hoped to hold hearings across Canada and hear from voters directly, since there are voters in other places besides Ottawa. There are voters everywhere in Canada, and they all have their own specific characteristics in their own communities. It would have been important for us to be able to consult them. The government refused. The government, in addition to limiting debate, even refuses to consult people outside Ottawa on this bill. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the government has made a mess of the whole process regarding this bill.

Furthermore, the bill was tabled without consultation and with a time limitation on debate, and there was not any consultation even before the bill was introduced in the House. If there was any consultation done at all, it was among the members of the Conservative Party. We doubt that the leaders of the Conservative Party were deeply involved in the drafting of this bill.

You may recall that the former minister for democratic reform at the time had announced, with much fanfare, on a Monday or Tuesday, that he was going to introduce his democratic reform bill. This was a bill we had been calling for, for some time. He announced it at a press conference, and he was very proud to say that the government was finally introducing its bill to reform the elections act, as the opposition had been calling for, for quite some time.

Ultimately, it seems that the bill was discussed in the Conservative caucus. The following Thursday, the Conservatives announced that they were going to drop the election reform bill and send it back to drafting. What happened between the time it was announced that the bill was being introduced and the time it was withdrawn? The minister decided, after consultation, that not everybody was happy with it. I assume this was in the Conservative Party, because it was after the caucus that he decided to cancel the introduction of the bill in the House.

Therefore this is a bill we never saw the original version of. Today, we are debating this version of the bill, which has probably been heavily sliced and diced or dictated by the Conservative Party members and the party leaders. We cannot guess everything that went on at the caucus meetings, but we can get an idea from all the reversals and turnarounds, as those we saw in the past around election reform.

All of that was discussed in committee recently. Nearly 70 witnesses appeared before the committee, and they were all against this bill for various reasons. There may have been someone who seemed to support the bill, but that was cutting it a bit fine, if I can put it that way.

Eventually some government amendments were adopted, but the opposition’s amendments were virtually all rejected, with a few exceptions amounting to small corrections to the wording of the bill.

We are used to this attitude from the government. The Conservatives believe that they are right and everything other people say is wrong or is politicking. If someone opposes them, it is because they are partisan. Whether it be the former auditor general, judges or former chief electoral officers, whenever an individual states an opinion publicly on a subject—a bill, in this case—the Conservatives perceive them as an enemy.

Their enemies list gets longer every time someone decides to voice their opinion, even though sometimes it is well formulated and informed, and there is nothing partisan about it. When you oppose one of the Conservatives’ proposals, you are playing politics, in their eyes, and you get added to their enemies list.

However, witnesses’ concerns were well founded. I will allude to them in my speech today in an effort to convince a few Conservative members to vote differently from the Prime Minister this evening. That is what I would most like to see happen.

Ours is a parliamentary democracy. Each member was elected in his or her riding. In each riding, 100,000 people voted, and the makeup of this House reflects the outcome of the vote. I hope that the members of all parties who were elected to the House will vote this evening according to their conscience and their convictions. I hope that a handful of Conservatives will vote against the government’s bill because it is possible for them to do so.

Members were elected in their ridings to represent their constituents. Once in the House, these members vote according to the views of the majority of their constituents. Personally, I know full well what the views of my constituents are on this matter, and that will affect how I vote this evening. I hope that the Conservatives and my colleagues across the political spectrum will also vote according to the will of the majority of their constituents. I assume that many Conservatives will vote against the Conservative bill this evening, that they will listen to reason and that ultimately they will find a way to improve upon the bill’s provisions, however difficult that might be.

Tonight’s votes will be very important because the constitutionally guaranteed right to vote is on the line. Some government members drew comparisons between this and the voting methods employed by political parties during leadership races and party fundraising tactics used in leadership races. They were confusing many issues. However, there are no comparisons to be made when it comes to the right to vote in federal elections.

A person’s right to choose who will govern the country is unassailable. However, I am worried that this right is now being threatened, given that the bill would eliminate the ability of a voter to prove their identity through vouching. At present, when voters are unable to provide proof of their identity at a polling station, they can get someone to vouch for them, thereby ensuring their constitutional right to vote. Without this option, I am worried that this fundamental right will be called into question. I hope the Conservatives will realize this and vote against the proposed electoral reform this evening.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He talked about the charter and the right to vote. Could he tell the House and the other members how this electoral “deform” will negatively impact the right to vote in Canada?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges for his question, which gives me the opportunity to finish my speech about protecting the fundamental right to vote.

Vouching is used when a voter shows up at a polling station and realizes that he or she does not meet the identification criteria. These criteria can sometimes be complicated and voters do not necessarily know them in advance. Not all Canadians will show up at the polling station with all of the proper pieces of ID.

If we allow vouching, all Canadians will have the opportunity to vote when they arrive at the polling station. It will enable them to retain that fundamental right. If someone cannot have the ID required, they still have the right to vote. We cannot prevent that person from voting because they do not have a piece of ID that cannot be obtained in a few hours at a government office. This person needs to retain their fundamental right to vote.

This bill is destroying the right to vote in Canada. This is unfortunate. I hope that the Conservatives will join us when we vote this evening.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I think there was an underlying message in his speech. There is a debate between the strong desire to control everything that happens and the desire to make it easy to vote. I think that as elected members of Parliament, it is our duty to make voting more accessible.

What does my colleague think about this dichotomy between exercising absolute control over what is done and making it easier to vote? What does he prefer?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to make it easier to vote. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are imposing restrictions on voting and making it more complicated. I am concerned that there will be a court challenge to some of the provisions in the bill, which will be the new elections law once it is passed.

It is very unfortunate that the government, although aware of this possibility, did not try to remedy the situation in committee. The government is always trying to take more control. In the end, some people will lose out and Canadians will have fewer options in a number of areas, including, in this case, when it comes to voting.

The major problem with all of this is that the government thinks that all Canadians are fraudsters. Consequently, it has to do everything it can to prevent fraud. We do have to be careful and put measures in place. However, after all the debate about the possibility of vouching, I feel that the Conservatives believe that all Canadians are potential fraudsters who will attack the system, which has to be made as complicated as possible.

We are headed in the wrong direction. We have to make it easier to vote and have fairly strict rules to ensure the integrity of our elections, which is vital to the proper functioning of our democracy.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I would like to remind all hon. members that when the Chair calls to resume debate, it is the responsibility of the member to come to stand in the House at that point and not to count on the list. The list that we have is for advisory purposes and does not trump those who come to their feet.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in the third reading debate of Bill C-23, the fair elections act.

This important legislation would ensure that much-needed reforms are brought to a number of areas of electoral law in the Canada Elections Act.

The government committed, in the 2013 Speech from the Throne, to introduce comprehensive changes to Canada's election law. With the fair elections act, we have fulfilled that promise. The bill's measures are common sense, reasonable, and Canadians agree with them.

I want to remind the House that our government has been clear from the start that it would listen carefully to the debates and witnesses, and consider reasonable amendments that would improve the bill. On April 25, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform announced that the government would support amendments on a wide range of subjects dealt with by the fair elections act—14 areas, in fact.

My remarks today will focus on some of these amendments and will demonstrate why the fair elections act would be made even better with these changes. In particular, I would like to highlight the importance of upholding the integrity of elections and of protecting Canadians' right to vote. These are objectives of the bill that all hon. members should join me in supporting wholeheartedly.

One excellent example of how Bill C-23 would put those important objectives into practice is the new voter contact registry. This initiative would prevent fraudsters from taking advantage of communications technology to deceive Canadians out of their votes.

Another very important example of how the fair elections act would uphold the integrity of the vote and protect Canadians' rights to vote is the bill's provisions on voter identification, as modified by the amendments that were passed by the procedure and House affairs committee.

I will return to these topics a little later.

Before I turn to some specific amendments, I would like to reiterate that the proposals in the fair elections acts are reasonable, common sense, and Canadians support them. I would like to remind the House that recent polls show that Canadians agree with the measures in the fair elections act. In particular, 87% believe that requiring voters to prove their identity is reasonable, and 70% believe it is acceptable to eliminate vouching.

Most of the amendments that I am about to describe respond to various commentaries and suggestions that have been made during numerous hours of witness testimony in the procedure and House affairs committee, as well as many further hours of witness testimony in the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee.

Such an airing of opinions and constructive debate is a sign of a healthy democracy. I am proud to say that this legislation would strengthen our democratic practices.

The first two of the government-supported amendments to Bill C-23 that I will describe today concern voter identification practices. Canadians should have complete confidence that their federal electoral system would operate with the integrity that they expect and deserve, and the requirement to show identification is a key part of ensuring that is the case. While the fair elections act would require people to show identification proving who they are before they vote, the government supported an amendment to assist those whose address is not on their identification to register and vote.

Specifically, the amendment would allow electors whose identification does not have an address, to vote by providing two pieces of identification that prove their identity and by signing a written oath as to their residence, provided that an additional safeguard is met. The additional safeguard that would be required in such circumstances is that another elector from the same polling division, who proves his or her own identity and residence by providing sufficient documentary proof, must also take a written oath as to the residence of the elector whose identification does not have an address specified on it.

To ensure the integrity of the vote, new procedures to detect potential non-compliance will be done after polling day. In particular, Elections Canada will be required to check the list of those who signed the oaths as to residence, to make sure that no one voted more than once or attested for another elector without being eligible to do so. Moreover, a mandatory extended audit of compliance will be done after every election in order to ensure that the rules are followed.

Unlike the current rules for vouching, every voter will now need to show identification, without exception. The message to voters from these measures is “Get identification. From now on, you will need it to vote”. Canadians can choose from 39 allowable forms of identification. Government-issued photo ID is not required.

The next government-supported amendment to Bill C-23 that I will mention today also relates to voter identification requirements.

The amendment will clarify that all of those who apply for a special ballot and vote at the office of the returning officer must prove their identity and residence in the same way as they would at the polling station.

A reasonable concern was expressed that the fair elections act would, in practice, create two processes, one for local electors and another for electors who are away from their electoral district. This amendment will have the benefit of ensuring consistency in the identification procedures that are practised for voting at all polling stations, and at the office of the returning officer.

I believe the amendments to Bill C-23's voter identification measures that I have mentioned will further strengthen the needed reforms that this bill brings to the current voter identification process.

The next amendment to the bill that was introduced by the government that I wish to touch on today concerns the public information and education mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer.

This amendment clarifies that the Chief Electoral Officer may communicate with the public, but where he advertises to inform electors about the exercise of their democratic rights, he can only do so on how to be a candidate; when, where, and how to vote; and what tools are available to assist disabled electors.

That policy recognizes that there are two things that drive people to vote, motivation and information. Motivation comes from parties and candidates giving people a reason to vote. Information should come from Elections Canada on where, when, and how to vote.

In other words, political parties and candidates appropriately provide the “why” and Elections Canada appropriately provides the “how”.

The government also supported amendments to ensure that the Chief Electoral Officer knows that he has always had the freedom to speak or report on any matter. There was some confusion on this when the bill was introduced. These amendments will clarify that issue. Furthermore, amendments stipulate that the Chief Electoral Officer may support civic education programs that explain voting for primary and secondary school students.

The next of the government amendments that I will mention today deals with the central poll supervisors. The bill originally sought to implement a recommendation of the procedure and House affairs commitment that central poll supervisors be appointed in the same manner as the deputy returning officers. Nevertheless, the government has, as promised, listened, and has decided to not proceed with this particular reform.

Another of the government's amendments was to include a provision requiring that the chief electoral officer consult the Commissioner of Canada Elections before issuing an advance ruling or interpretation note. The amendments also provided more time for the Chief Electoral Officer before he has to issue an advance ruling or interpretation note, while reducing the consultation period with the registered parties.

Some reasonably pointed out that the timeframe set out for the Chief Electoral Officer to fulfill those duties might be insufficient to enable them to be completed appropriately. The government listened, and supported amendments to deal with this issue.

Moreover, amendments to the advanced ruling will give them precedence. This will ensure a higher degree of consistency and predictability with respect to those instruments.

It is undeniable that the amendments I have just outlined for the House demonstrate conclusively that, as promised, this government was following the debate on the fair elections act with openness to ideas that would strengthen this common sense bill. The fair elections air was a terrific piece of legislation when introduced, and it has now been improved. We are moving forward with this valuable legislation.

I hope hon. members will join me in supporting the important reforms of the fair elections act.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but having said that, it bears repeating that it is important to recognize that we are changing election laws. When election laws are changed, there is a certain expectation that the public as a whole has of the government of the day; that is, that it is being perceived as being done properly, and the process is in place that ensures it is not just one entity, in this case the Conservative Party, that is pushing through amendments.

What would the member think if we heard of another country where the governing party was the only party forcing changes to election laws? I suspect the member would speak out against that, believing that if we are going to change election laws, that there is a responsibility of the government of the day to work with different stakeholders, including opposition parties; the election authority, in particular Elections Canada, which is world renowned in terms of its true independence; and the Commissioner of Canada Elections. There are stakeholders who should have been consulted prior to the legislation coming into the House. At the very least, the government should have shown a clear demonstration of consensus building before bringing in legislation and then using its majority government ultimately to pass it.

Content aside, strictly on process, does the member not recognize that there is something wrong in terms of the process? With hindsight, Conservatives could have done a much better job in bringing the bill to the House.