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.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I do appreciate that I have the floor, Mr. Graham. If you want a Simms protocol, I'm always happy to yield the floor for a Simms protocol. The fact is that the minister has indicated she's willing to come back. I will take her at her word on that.

I have a great deal of respect for many Liberals, many on this committee and many who no longer sit in the House. One of those people I have a great deal of respect for is Stéphane Dion. Monsieur Dion said this:

This bill comes after a long wait. It took the government two long years to introduce this bill, as though it cost the government a great deal to do so. This long wait was then followed by a suspicious haste to rush the bill through, to speed up the parliamentary process, as though the government had something to hide. It wants to rush through a 252-page bill that has to do with electoral democracy.

It's interesting that Mr. Dion said this during the debate on Bill C-23 because this is what happened with Bill C-33 tabled in November 2016, which was left unmoved, unloved on the Order Paper, and has never been debated at second reading. Then on April 30, towards the end of the spring sitting of Parliament, Bill C-76 is tabled. It is tabled, I would suggest, with some deal of haste, as Mr. Dion suggested with Bill C-23, and here we are. Here we are facing a guillotine motion with a hard end date. That's the right of the government to do so. That's the right of the committee to agree.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I actually can't do better than that. Perhaps someone more eloquent than me could do better than that.

I don't know why they did this. We'd be in the same position if we had heard from the minister, who is the most eloquent person they have on this subject. She's really well spoken, she knows her file, she has coherent things to say and she has always done a really effective job of articulating the government's position. It would be at exactly the same point procedurally, so I don't get why we didn't just move on to the discussion after, as opposed to before her presentation. I really don't get it.

Now we're in that position, I am prepared to speak to it and just say that this is actually a really reasonable subamendment. Everybody is familiar with the staff handing you amendments or subamendments that are meant to just keep the ball rolling, but in this case, this is the reasonable thing to ask for.

Ultimately, the government has this goal. It wants to get its legislation through this House by.... We would start clause-by-clause consideration of anything that's left at 1:00 p.m. on October 16. Even if we hadn't discussed any clauses at that point, the motion contemplates that we're done and it's out of here a few hours after that, so by the end of the day on October 16.

That's what the government is after. Everything else here is secondary. If that's the government's goal.... It's a complicated bill. Everybody concedes that. The minister has referred to it as generational change. I don't think that just means we're catching up on a generation of having neglected things. I think they mean this is meant to be change that will be here for a generation, until the minister's baby boy is able to vote and maybe even take a seat here.

It's a bill that the government has gone back on and made adjustments to. They have amendments of their own they've put in because they recognized their first draft was imperfect in a couple of ways. That's just what happens with large bills, so it doesn't make this bill stand out from the crowd of large bills, as these things go.

All we're looking for, in an environment where we are the minority—the government has more than half the votes and can do whatever it wants—is something that amounts to a guarantee that some of the amendments we're putting forward will actually get through. Now we are saying we want the government to express a willingness to us, in whatever way they want, to consider some of our amendments. There are no secrets here. Our amendments are already filed.

If we just agree to this, what happens is that we're not going to get any agreement on any of those amendments. We want their word.

By the way, speaking of people breaking their word and so on, I just want to say that what I'm doing here is indicating that we believe when the minister and the House leader give their word behind closed doors, it means something. We actually think they are honourable people, not just in the pro forma sense as when we talk of “my honourable colleague” or “the honourable minister”, but in the meaningful sense, the real sense. That's what we're after, and if we have to talk a fair length of time in order to obtain it—if we have to filibuster in order to obtain that—that's what we're after. It's not hard to understand. After this, they can push on and get the legislation by the proposed due date.

I've been clear in my previous remarks on this that the subsidiary components of Ruby's original motion are entirely reasonable: “That the Chair be empowered to hold meetings outside of normal hours to accommodate clause-by-clause consideration”. That is a very reasonable thing to do with a large bill when you're looking at a deadline that's really only two weeks out, and one of those is a break week.

As for “That the Chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes”, I thought that was well worded too, in that it says “may” limit debate, not “must” limit debate. It's reasonable. That five-minute number is essentially reasonable. You can make a coherent argument on any point.

Also, if there's a genuine willingness to look at things.... For example, if there is an opposition amendment on a section or a clause where the government has indicated this—I'm not on the side that's administering anymore, but to the best of my knowledge they have not indicated this—or the government is willing to give its word that it will look at it, including, I need to be clear, not necessarily the wording we put out in our amendment but an adjusted wording to whatever amendment we propose.... On those ones, it would take more than five minutes, but there's flexibility for the chair. That's reasonable too.

I'm not even disputing the October 16 deadline, particularly given what we've heard from the Chief Electoral Officer, who is being extraordinarily helpful to us in laying out which things he can achieve and which things he can't achieve based upon a projected timeline in which the election still occurs in October 2019 as scheduled. The bill gets through the House and then the Senate and royal assent at some point in 2018.

All of these things are reasonable, but the one thing we have, the one tool at our disposal as an opposition party, is the ability to slow things down until we know that our amendments are being looked at. Look, we're not the government. We're not saying that all our amendments.... We're saying that we have some that are practical, businesslike ways of making this legislation better than the draft that is currently before the House. This would not be on the things that are the landmark issues of Bill C-23 from the last Parliament as opposed to this one, but on some really good practical ideas. That's all we're looking at. That's all we're asking for.

I'm glad I'm able to make this pitch while the minister is here. That discussion, which has to happen outside this chamber, is what we're after. That's how we would obtain it. I'm hopeful that we can get to that point.

I'm also hopeful that we can do it without me continuing to talk. I'll just find out if anybody else is on the speakers list, because I'm reluctant to surrender the floor if I know that there isn't someone else there.

[David Christopherson]

I hear you, Mr. Bittle, but here's how I'm looking at it—and I could be wrong. I'm looking at this politically and thinking that if this committee is still sitting two days from now around the clock, it'll have some 'splainin' to do. I don't think the Conservative position right now is tenable with the public, especially if we're willing to give them all the time in the world to say what they want. If they decide that they're going to try to make this a repeat of what we did with Bill C-23, they're missing one thing: The angels aren't on their side.

If they want to be seen defending keeping this committee and all its operations going for 24 hours a day, day after day, to stop us from voting, I have a hunch there are going to be a few people out in the public who are not going to be buying that argument. That's my bet. My political bet is that they can't sustain that. The reason we were able to sustain it with Bill C-23 was that we were on the side of the angels. What they were doing was so wrong, and the public knew it. When we went out to the public, my office was getting emails and texts saying, “Go get 'em.”

How many do you think they're going get for doing nothing but preventing us from voting? My political calculation is that we can withstand that better than they can.

[David Christopherson]

Do you know what? My intervention basically allowed me to express myself. I don't want to slow it down any more than I need to in terms of the time I take. My position has been very clear, publicly and privately, to ministers, government members and opposition members. The entire world knows—anybody who cares—where the NDP, and me in particular as a member of this committee, are on this business.

I made it very clear from the outset of the Parliament. Just to get a little off my chest, I'm a little concerned. The government has to wear a little bit of the fact that we're so late in the day and something this important is still in front of us. I'll signal ahead of time because I don't play games—I'm not smart enough.

The minister is coming in and what I want to hear from the minister is that iron-clad guarantee from the government. I don't want to hear any nonsense about, well, it's up to the House leader. No, this is a government representative. I want to hear crystal clearly that this government is absolutely 100% committed to making sure that no matter what, with their majority government, this bill gets passed and we have an election that's a lot closer to the history and the proud traditions of Canada than the ugliness of C-23.

I've made it clear that I will support the government in getting that ugliness out. I will support them on any new progressive things and improvements they want to make. We will advocate for things that we care about, but at the end of the day the priority is to get a lot of the ugliness out of there. I will make a personal campaign commitment, since I'm going to be freed up, to do everything I can to make sure this country knows, if you fail to get this passed. This is big. We all, when we were on the opposition benches, got up and hollered from the rooftops that this is wrong. We had major reforms to our electoral process and the government of the day didn't even consult the Chief Electoral Officer.

I find it a bit rich when the current crop of official opposition members are slowing things down—why?—because they insist on hearing from a provincial chief electoral officer. That is rich. I understand the importance of that. I get that. I made it clear to the government members and people like Scott Reid who I have the utmost respect for, one of the people I respect the most in this entire Parliament, that my goal was not to drag them through the last election and the last Parliament.

However, there is a limit. When Mr. Reid or anybody else on the official opposition side get up on their hind legs and try to use the rhetoric of democracy and caring about voting as an excuse to slow down this process, which is meant to clean up that mess and that ugliness, I've reached my limit.

Very soon, it will be time for the official opposition to give themselves a serious shake and decide where they want to be on democracy. Do they really want to carry over the tradition and the reputation of the last Parliament? That's where they're heading. Or do they want to be able to put that behind them and maybe even say they were wrong and now see it differently? That's fine. We all understand politics, and those of us who want to get that through will let you get away with that.

What I am not going to do is sit here and quietly let the government continue to mishandle the timing and the process of this and so many democratic files. I have to say, you've been an absolute abysmal disappointment on this whole file. It's very disappointing with the promise that came in, and so many of you were so keen to do the right thing, and I know you were legitimate. We talked about these things in the beginning, and here we are a year out from the next election and one of the government's weakest files is on democratic reform.

The government has its share of responsibility for the mess we're in, trying to get this through in the dying months of this Parliament. Having said that, if the official opposition continues to do nothing but try to slow this down, to preserve the vote suppressing and anti-democratic clauses that were in C-23, then they are far more guilty than the government.

At some point very soon, we all need to live up to our rhetoric. There's a lot of it around this table in terms of the holy grail of democracy, a lot of rhetoric and a lot of talk, but not a lot of action. Canadians expect this to be cleaned up for the next election. Things need to move more quickly here, so I am going to be calling on the government. If you have to use the heavyweight power of going to the House, then do it, but I say this as officially as I can and on a personal basis as a parliamentarian: Please do not, under any circumstance, allow this Parliament to expire without fixing our election system. It's broken.

We do a disservice to our international reputation. Many of you know that I do some democracy-building work internationally, and I am so proud to be able to be a Canadian, where we have one of the finest, most mature, fair democracies in the world. Bill C-23 hurt that. It damaged it and stained that. This is an opportunity to fix it, but it can't be missed.

I don't intend to have a lot of interventions along the way. There are progressive things that I want, but I am not going to hold up this process to fight for those. At the end of the day, I support the bill that the government has put forward. I do believe their heart is in the right place. I just wish they'd get their brain engaged and move the bill more properly through. It's shameful that something this important is still sitting here undone.

I just want to tie into Ruby's comments, and I truly will close with this. Most of the time, we do try to work together, and I enjoy this committee and the members who are on it. After you've been around long enough, yelling at the government and getting a headline loses its thrill. What's far more thrilling is to take all of us who are fighting in different corners and find a way in which we can come together. After a while, you find that this is really valuable and it gives you such fulfillment.

Carrot and stick, let's work together. We're all saying we want to make democracy better, so let's all try to work together. We're not doing that at this moment to get this through. That's the carrot. The stick is that, if this doesn't happen, there's going to be holy hell to pay and both the government and the official opposition are going to be held to account, not that we're all that pure but we don't have enough power to have an influence on this. I don't pretend we do, but I do have a big voice, a big mouth, and another year to go, and I'd much rather be using that to compliment the government and compliment the official opposition, especially new members such as Mr. Nater who I respect, who I think will be an excellent parliamentarian. I hope he's around for a long time. I want to be able to continue to say those things and say, “You know what? We were in the ditch, but we got out.”

I want to give you that credit. Conversely, if that credit is not deserved, I'm not that far from Sarnia. I can go visit that riding and I'll tell them what you did. I'll tell them the difference between your rhetoric and how you voted. I would much rather continue to say, “Mr. Nater is an example of how I feel good about the Canadian Parliament”, even though you're not of my party, as I step aside off the public stage.

I want to say that. I truly do, sir, but give me a reason. Don't continue playing this game. The time has come to stop and it's time to start acting like grown-ups.

Thank you, Chair.

[David Christopherson]

On the official opposition side, we have a mixture of members who were here last time and who are feeling somewhat sheepish about what was done with the unfair elections act. We have new members who don't have direct blood on their hands as a result of the last Parliament and are doing their very best to try to get over with the angels on the side of democracy. It seems to me, and I would seek your opinion, that as long as these new members, who I have great respect for, continue down this road of delay for no other reason than delay, they run the risk of being lumped in with those who have to carry the baggage of C-23. The political reality is they have this opportunity to draw a line in the sand and say, “That was them. That's not me. That's not what I believe in. My view of democracy is very different from that of C-23, and I'm going to use this opportunity with my vote, my decision and my interjections to make it clear that, while I respect my colleagues, I completely disagree. I accept that we need to take some of this ugliness out of there and get back to making our democracy and our process more democratic.”

Would you agree, Ms. Sahota, that some of our colleagues are maybe running that risk of losing that opportunity and that they may, if they don't play this right, end up having to carry C-23 on their back for the rest of their career when they do have this opportunity to make that line of demarcation? What are your thoughts on that?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

When that was passed, there was no such leeway given, and there was a lot of opposition in Parliament to the so-called Fair Elections Act.

However, we've seen a very similar motion brought forward, with a start and end date, which seems to be problematic to the Conservatives for some odd reason. We're doing exactly what you would expect us to do, because this is how you used to function.

At this point, we haven't even been as.... We've given so much. We've given so much time. We've had every witness. I think you guys had a list of 200-some witnesses you wanted to bring forward, and we said go ahead. We said yes to every single witness. There were 50 witnesses who were available. Some had a lot of relevant testimony to share; some were maybe not so relevant.

It almost seems like we're going down this road where you want to hear from any person who has ever run in an election in their lifetime, because they may or may not, as Mr. Nater said, make one relevant point. That's just not how a committee can effectively function.

We can't function this way. We've been going in circles. This is the third time I think that we've been going in circles with this piece of legislation, and I am getting very dizzy. These are just delay tactics.

There may be other negotiations going on, as Mr. Nater keeps pointing out, but it will be interesting to see. All of the things that Mr. Nater keeps saying are of top interest to him may not even be what ends up coming out of the negotiation.

It leads me to further believe that these are all delay tactics and there's not a genuine desire to even hear from the chief electoral officer of Ontario, or a real genuine desire for any of the debate we're having right now. It's just a method of being able to get something else that may be of interest to the Conservatives.

That's fine. I mean, we are willing to play ball, but it seems like with that handshake agreement we made, there's no follow-through happening on the other side. It's about time that we get serious. We've been put here by our constituents to do work, not to filibuster and talk about irrelevancies.

I think we give a lot of leeway on this committee. What you may find relevant is not necessarily what I find relevant, but we've been giving that leeway so that you can hopefully get to that place where we can move forward in doing the good work that we've been elected to do.

There are a lot of amendments that you guys have brought forward. From what I've heard, I'm looking forward to seeing all of them. Some of them are quite good. I commend you for that. I commend everyone in all parties for bringing forward those amendments, but I think those amendments deserve some attention and time. We can only do that if you give us a start date, and so far we're having a problem even getting that, let alone an end date.

What is the holdup? Why do you find it so difficult to start the study, to start the examination of the legislation? Why is that so difficult? I can't understand that.

I know there are many tools that you also have in your tool box, and the delay that's being done up front could also be done later on down the road. That's not a choice that I guess you guys have made. It is just beyond me why we can't actually start.

You guys have a lot of good amendments. A lot of them are yours. Let's start talking about them. Maybe there are some changes that can be made, but you're not even allowing the good work that you've done to see the light of day and to have it discussed.

I know that Mr Christopherson is eager—the NDP is eager—for more people to have the ability to vote in this next election. A lot of people were disenfranchised by the so-called Fair Elections Act, and we want to allow those people to vote in this election. What's very concerning is that we've heard from the Chief Electoral Officer that the longer this takes, the harder that gets.

Maybe that's the Conservatives' motive. Maybe you don't want to see everyone able to vote. Maybe you don't want people in remote communities, which is astonishing because I know that a lot of your MPs come from rural and remote areas where access to polls is difficult.

There are a lot of good things in this bill that will enable many people to participate in the democratic process. A lot of the rhetoric I've been hearing now and even in June has been about the protection of our democracy: “This is why we're filibustering and this is why we're holding things up because we are the protectors of our democracy. We are not going to allow this legislation to be pushed through because that's how democracy will be protected.” Meanwhile, this very piece of legislation is what will allow us to protect our democracy. It's very ironic. It seems as if the Conservatives are speaking out of both sides of their mouths when we talk about protecting democracy.

We thought the Chief Electoral Officer endorsed this piece of legislation. Previously, in the so-called Fair Elections Act, Bill C-23, the Chief Electoral Officer said that he certainly cannot endorse a bill that disenfranchises electors, cannot.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I want to point out that we did establish the Simms protocol, thanks to the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame...or just Newfoundland and Labrador. I do appreciate the nice long titles. Perth—Wellington is nice and short. I can remember it.

I do appreciate that and I hope that there would be a similar type of discretion and debate allowed, arbitrarily limiting it to five minutes for all clauses. Hopefully there will be some discussion there, because there are going to be certain clauses that we can deal with in 30 seconds. Hopefully by that point we will have some commitments among those of us around the table that certain clauses will be passed or rejected fairly quickly. I think there will be certain clauses that, when we come to them, will need a little more fulsome debate. We may not agree on the outcome, but hopefully we can get to the point where we can agree to disagree on certain points and go forward.

I accept where the Chief Electoral Officer was coming from this morning. He and his organization, I believe, have done exceptional work since the last election, to be frank, and prior to that. I appreciate his comments that they're always ready to run an election based on the rules that are in place, based on the last election and using the by-elections as an outcome. I expect that we'll likely have some by-elections this fall. I don't foresee those going past the new year.

It's disappointing, but we can understand where he was coming from in terms of the poll books. It's disappointing in the sense that it would have been nice to have that in. It's certainly understandable that we do not want Elections Canada going ahead with an experiment in the middle of a campaign where things like that are at issue. I do appreciate that, but as we go forward, outside of the context of this particular bill, things like the poll books and making the process that much easier are there and can be undertaken.

We did discuss Bill C-23 a bit. I have what I think was a very interesting quotation about Bill C-23:

When time restrictions are placed on committees so there is a drop-dead time and when five o'clock comes around all questions are put, we do a disservice in the terms of the principle of democracy at the committee level by not allowing for debate and questions and answers.

Does anybody know who said that? It was Kevin Lamoureux. I always appreciate Kevin's sage wisdom and sage advice.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Bill C-76 has revised a lot of Bill C-23, which was passed in 2014. I will give some context regarding why we are up against some opposition.

The Chief Electoral Officer at the time when Bill C-23 was passed was quoted as saying, “I certainly can’t endorse a bill that disenfranchises electors.” The government was encouraged, through the many recommendations, to improve and modernize its election law so that more people could vote.

There are many reasons why this legislation has been brought forward, and we've done so in a way where we've continued to work with the Chief Electoral Officer. A lot of the recommendations that have come from the experience of the 2015 election have been inserted into this legislation.

In order to repeal and improve laws to modernize our elections, it was necessary to bring Bill C-76 forward. I know the NDP has been quite eager, like us, to move this legislation through, but many obstacles have gotten in our way. Perhaps some members don't want those disenfranchised by the previous bill, Bill C-23, to participate in this election.

However, I have to point out that although we have a strong democracy, one of the most stable in the world, we have seen, through the recommendations brought forward to us, that there are a lot of improvements to make. A lot of damage was done through Bill C-23, the so-called Fair Elections Act, which has to be corrected.

After the 2015 election, the Chief Electoral Officer made about 130 recommendations on ways to improve how our democracy functions. We did a careful study of those recommendations through consideration by this parliamentary committee and by both houses. We also received input from several experts across the country. After all of that work, the government proposed Bill C-76, the elections modernization act.

As we just heard from the Chief Electoral Officer, this act is really necessary. It's essential that they have this in their hands come October.

Although certain people around this table may feel that the motion I'm bringing forward is halting democracy, I would argue that it's the complete opposite. There is a vital need to modernize our Elections Act and repeal some of the things that have disenfranchised people from voting and completely participating in our democracy. We need to do this as soon as possible so that it can take effect for the next election. To the point that Nathan brought up, the longer we take, the more we lose and the more Canadians lose.

Bill C-76 would make it easier for Canadians to vote, and it would make elections easier to administer and protect. It would also protect Canadians from organizations and individuals seeking to unduly influence their vote. However, as Nathan discussed, we know there are forces beyond this act that we need to further discuss and study. I would propose that at a future date we do all of that and bring all of the necessary actors to help make our democracy even safer. But this bill is a really good start toward doing the things the Chief Electoral Officer has found to be necessary.

One party has stalled us time and time again. We've seen it for several months now. There is an unwillingness to move forward. The government has been given a mandate by the people to move legislation, and although I'm not saying by any means that the committee process is not important, we have seen practices such as this in the past, and in particular when it came to Bill C-23.

If I may remind the committee—some of the members are here, actually. Scott Reid is here, and Blake Richards used to be here, before the House rose for the summer. They were both involved with this committee when Bill C-23 was passed. At that time—I believe it was in the spring of 2014—a very similar motion was brought forward in order to pass Bill C-23 through committee. There was a start date proposed; there was an end date proposed.

If I may, I will read an excerpt from the committee blues at that time. It was moved by the member Tom Lukiwski and the motion that was moved at that time was:

That the Committee, in relation to its Order of Reference from the House concerning C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, initiate a study on this legislation, which will include the following:

That the Committee, as per its usual practice, hear witnesses to be determined by the Committee at a later date;

That the Committee shall only proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill after these hearings have been completed, provided that clause-by-clause consideration shall be concluded no later than Thursday, May 1, 2014 and, if required, at 5:00 p.m., on that day, all remaining amendments shall be deemed moved, and the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate, on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the Committee, as well as each and every question necessary (i) to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, (ii) to report the Bill to the House, and (iii) to order the Chair to report the Bill to the House as early as possible.

It's interesting. At that point, all of the Conservative members, including Scott Reid and Blake Richards, who used to be on this committee, voted in favour of this motion. Right now, in the last few meetings, I've heard some outrage that we can't possibly be thinking about a start date or an end date by any means, that this is not fair and we need to give the committee time.

I would argue that this committee has been given a lot of time. We have essentially adopted a lot of what the CEO has said, and we have spent several meetings on that previously in this committee, not to mention the 53 witnesses we've heard from already, after the legislation was brought to this committee. We've given it ample consideration, so I think it's time that we pass this legislation and allow Canadians to access their right to vote. We need to make sure that we bring forward the important amendments, and the Conservatives have definitely done so. They've brought hundreds of amendments forward. We'd like to get to work on those amendments and begin the clause-by-clause.

Just to reiterate, my motion was that we start the clause-by-clause on October 2. May I also remind the Conservatives that at the meeting we had last Thursday, there was a commitment made that we would start clause-by-clause earlier than that. September 27 was the commitment that was made at that time, so we're allowing for even more flexibility, in order to start by October 2 and then have everything completed by October 16.

Hopefully, when I give up my spot as a speaker after this, I'm not going to hear the type of outrage that we heard last time, because the Conservatives in this committee are quite familiar with this and did exactly the same thing when they brought their so-called Fair Elections Act.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I'm referring to Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Does this fall in line with the recommendation labelled as A5 from your CEO report following the 42nd general election? It noted, “While civic education for youth is obviously important”—which was contained within Bill C-23 at the tail end of deliberations—“it is not less important for electors who lack the basic knowledge about democracy.”

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Oh, great.

Indeed, I forgot that last time, but congratulations on the new position, sir. It's well deserved. Congratulations to you all.

I want to go back to the public education aspect of this new bill, because it seems to me that we're returning to what was before Bill C-23, several years ago. I forget the actual date.

Nevertheless, in it you talk about public education. Proposed subsection 18(1), the new amendment to the Canada Elections Act, says that the CEO's outreach activities may target groups of electors that are “most likely to experience difficulties in exercising their democratic rights.”

Can you give us more detail about that and explain it to us? Is this overly prescriptive, or does it build in the flexibility you need?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I appreciate that.

One of the most important changes coming in this bill is vouching. We're going to bring back vouching, a little better than it was under Bill C-23, and restore the use of the voter information card.

How long will it take you to set those up to make sure they're in place? Are those things that can be done fairly quickly, or are they in danger if there's a delay?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you very much for that. I appreciate the clarification.

Let me go back now to the other two issues. First, the commissioner: this was a huge issue for us in Bill C-23. We thought that the commissioner being taken out of the building, the atmosphere, of Elections Canada head office and brought over to the Director of Public Prosecutions was a flaw. We thought it was flawed because they weren't surrounded by the information they needed to do a proper investigation—ROs across the country and all the information coming in from across the country. It must be very hard to be in touch with all ridings across the country if you're out at DPP.

However, in this bill, are you satisfied with the move? I believe you said you were. As well, what will be the relationship now between the commissioner and the Director of Public Prosecutions?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, chair.

I have some quick questions for the three of you based on what I've heard thus far. I'll go to Mr. Roberts first.

You have been talking about the paradigm you're in, prior to C-76 and prior to C-23, and I've seen a lot of the issue campaigning you have done from the CLC. I have been involved in it, as a matter of fact, not just because I'm left of centre, but because I've liked quite a bit of it.

If you notice now, we're shifting things here towards election activity, election advertising, and election surveys. The middle one, election advertising, I get. It's the other two, the activity and the surveying information you get from the activities you do. What do you do in your organization that would be captured under those two headlines?

[Chris Roberts]

Under Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act, advertising with respect to issues that are associated with a party is regulated under those provisions. So, yes, in law, they do fall under that definition, but we certainly don't aim at them in partisan terms. We discuss the substantive issues.