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.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's great. Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate that.

I want to say how much I've enjoyed the last few hours, and I say that only partly tongue in cheek. I do enjoy hearing from Mr. Reid. It's always interesting. He knows his history, and I like history. I'm no expert, but I enjoy it. I'm pleased to pick up where he left off and to continue to point out why what's going on is so unacceptable.

Maybe to warm to the subject, I would start on a positive note; that is, I want to say to the government that this is not where we want to be. I can't speak for others, but the proof for my own motivation is the leadership role that I played in helping us get back to the Chief Electoral Officer's report, even though I was the one who blew it up the first time. The fact was that once we had dealt with that, the minister came in, and we got as much out of the minister as it appeared to me that we were going to get, and it was sufficient—barely—to allow us....

Then, colleagues on the government side, in camera and in public, you know that I was one of the leading voices for getting us back to work, and we did so. Very quickly, we managed to set everything aside. We were working, but now we're back into it again, for the same kind of problem, which is the government just dropping something out of nowhere in the middle of the floor and causing all this kerfuffle.

I said that I was going to try to start out by being positive, so what I want to do is just to reaffirm this. I like negotiating. I'm an old negotiator—and now I am old—from way back. I love negotiating. I love the give-and-take. It's like a poker game and I love playing poker. I don't win much but I love playing the game.

I want to say to the government that if there is any way at all that they are interested in the House leaders getting together—or whips, or members of this committee, or a combination thereof for any group at all that the government would like to identify—we in the NDP certainly are quite prepared to sit down, and I suspect my colleagues are, but I'll leave it to them to speak for themselves, and to try to find a reasonable compromise that recognizes the government's right to set an agenda but also respects the right of opposition in our role. I think we could find that if we came together in goodwill.

I want to say—and I say this much more in sorrow than in anger—that I wish that approach had been taken in the beginning. I have a sneaking suspicion that we wouldn't be here like this. As bad as we are, this is the worst I've seen it. This is worse than Bill C-33. It's worse because we're going around the clock, and the government knows.... They were with us in opposition and they know what we do. They know that we already have rotations, we already have schedules going, we have people who are going to be coming in through the night, and we're working on schedules for next week. We see where we are.

This is serious. Also, it's not very productive. It's not going to get us anywhere, other than two forces staring at each other. That's where we are right now, unnecessarily so. That's what is upsetting. I's that it didn't need to be this way. If the government wants to review these things....

Again, when the minister came in and said that she'd like us to try to get our work on the chief electoral report done by—what was it?—May, I think it was, our heads exploded, and we asked how we were going to do that. We didn't suddenly say, “No way—nothing.” I offered that we would do what we could. I said that to her privately. I can't say anything more than that as it was a private discussion, but I did offer privately and reaffirmed publicly that if we could find a way where this committee, if the government worked with us to identify areas where they wanted to bring in legislation.... I'm supportive of a lot of things the governments wants to do, not all of it but a lot of it, especially the removal of some of the ugly Bill C-23 stuff.

If we could have sat down and worked on an approach that would let us get through this and deal with it in a fair-minded way.... I was saying that I offered to the minister—and I think the official opposition was onside—that if we could, we would accommodate the minister's schedule, even though we don't have to do that. We're masters of our own destiny, but hey, we offered to do that, and we said that if they wanted to identify to us areas where they wanted to bring in legislation and would like the benefit of the thinking of this committee, then we would take that. If it was out of sequence with how we were going to do it, we were open to that.

I still remain open to the idea of moving our work so that we get at that in a timely fashion, which helps the government in terms of informing them of our thinking, so they can then introduce legislation. We get away from this Bill C-33, dropping a bill in the House before you've even heard from the committee, and then out the other side of your mouth telling us how important the committee work is. That just doesn't wash.

It's not like there's no evidence that we could work together, or there's no evidence that there's desire on the part of the opposition to be co-operative. Part of our mandate is to review the Standing Orders anyway. I would have been open to having that discussion, but I have to tell you, the ham-fisted way that this has been dealt with really feels like the last government. This feels a lot like Bill C-23, which really should inflict horror in the government members to find themselves sitting right where Harper's MPs sat. They're doing much the same as what Harper did on Bill C-23, only this time, instead of the election laws, it's how we run our House. It's the same attitude, that same bully approach.

I never thought I'd see anything like that, especially with the new government. I have to tell you, I'm not understanding any of this. I don't understand how the government thinks they're going to win on this, or how they think that ramming through changes to our Standing Orders is going to make the House work any better. There comes a point, Chair, where no matter how much we might want peace, if the government absolutely refuses to extend the olive branch of peace, then what I worry about—and, Chair, I say this to you as someone who is as non-partisan as our system allows—is that I'm not sure this committee can continue to function if we keep having things like Bill C-33 and this motion happening at this committee. I would be a fool, as one member, to continue to be co-operative with the government when all they seem to do is kick us in the arse. Why would I do that?

That's not my preferred way. I've been doing this for over 30 years. Having fights with the government, or fights with the opposition if I'm the government, is not new or exciting. I'm tired of all that. I have to tell you. I don't get a lot out of it.

What really turns my crank is when we get together with disparate political beliefs, different experiences, but come together in goodwill. Then we collectively try to find—like when we're doing reports—language that accommodates your concern and my concern. That I find stimulating because it goes against the grain. That's not easy to do in an adversarial system. Therefore, for me personally, after all these decades, that becomes a far greater challenge than just standing on some soapbox screaming and hollering. I've done that for decades, everybody's heard it, and we're all getting a bit tired of it, I suspect.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You've got the gavel ready to go. There are a lot of Canadians who'd like to vote right now that you do that. However, with apologies to Canadians, we do have a process to follow.

The process at this stage is to try to force the government to see the light and understand that the wonderful discussion they want to have is one that we're eager to have too. The difference is that the government wants to have what they would call equal, fair discussions, but always reserving the right, if they don't like the way the negotiations go, to just opt out of sunny ways and suddenly use their majority to ram through whatever they desire, regardless of how everybody else feels.

That's where we are. Every time this committee suspends, that's great—we make no bones about it—because our purpose is to prevent that discussion from starting until we have established what the rules of engagement will be.

Again, the government is trying to have everyone focus on the idea that all we want is a discussion. That's all. We just want to talk about these things.

We are ready to do that, but we are not ready to do that while the government maintains that they have the moral right to use their overwhelming majority to smother the opposition and deny us an equal say in the rules that determine how we make laws.

It's unfortunate, because it's a bit like a strike. There are no winners. The second you go out, work is stopping. The company is losing. Wages are not being earned. There are no winners. But sometimes in this world there are certain principles that you have to stand up for and pay whatever price. We run the risk in the opposition that the public will turn, or that the media that informs the public will say, in their dispassionate evaluation, that we're just being obstructionist. That's always a risk.

Before I move to a letter that was just released a few hours ago, it has to be underscored that the reason we're here, at 20 minutes to five on a Wednesday, debating this motion, is that the government refused to adjourn the very first meeting. Again, here in this room, parliamentary la-la land, this is two weeks ago Tuesday. It's two weeks ago yesterday. We're still on that day because the government wouldn't allow the committee to adjourn at its regular time. It's supposed to adjourn at 1 o'clock. The government unleashed an unwarranted sneak attack on the opposition, who are the minority, by refusing to allow the committee to adjourn at its regular natural time, thereby thrusting Mr. Reid, in what was supposed to be a two-hour period of speaking, into unlimited.

If this were the regular process, the filibuster started by the opposition parties would only play out at committee Tuesday and Thursday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. That's our normal business time. Filibusters happen all the time—“mini-busters”, if you want—where there's give-and-take at the committee. For some reason, the government's about to use their majority to do something that the opposition deems is unfair or unwise or unwarranted, so they quickly make the decision and say, “Look, I'm not just going to let that happen here. If I need to, I'll run the clock.” Running the clock means that you will just take the floor and keep going until the committee is over, thereby denying the government the opportunity to use their majority to ram something through.

Now, normally they, don't last very long. I've only been involved in one other major filibuster like this, and it's interesting that it was under the previous Harper administration, which pulled the same stunt. We were debating Bill C-23, the unfair elections act, on changes to the election laws, and I indicated that I was going to hold things up. In that case, we were looking to get the committee to travel, to get input from people. That's all we were seeking: that element of fairness.

I indicated that until we got that, it was going to be a problem, and we were going to seize things up, and they did exactly the same thing to me that the Liberal majority government did to Mr.Reid. That surprises a lot of people, because when they get the notice paper, a lot of people believe that if a meeting is called for 11 o'clock and is going to adjourn at one, it would, lo and behold, commence at 11, and then adjourn at one. A couple of minutes after one, as the committee Hansard will show, I believe it was a Conservative colleague of Mr. Reidwho made the point that it was a minute or two past one o'clock, the time that we usually adjourned. It was at that point that the chair had to advise that it requires majority support.

I learned that civics lesson the hard way too. It comes as a shock to a lot of people that a meeting that's scheduled, on paper, called by the chair, with all the proper format, layout, and language, and is supposed to start at 11 and end at one, doesn't really have to end at one. It is implied when the chair adjourns at one o'clock that a majority is in support. The government gave indication to Mr. Bagnell, our chair, that this implied consent was not there. Therefore, the chair had no option, absolutely no option, other than to have the meeting continue. That's what thrust this into the big leagues. That's what made this a much bigger deal than we did at committee.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Reid.

I share the sentiment of my colleague, Mr. Richards, and I want to hearken back to the election campaign where the now government, the Liberal Party, at the time made all kinds of promises, highfalutin, high-sounding promises, about how they were going to change the relationship between committees and Parliament. Committees were going to be respected. Committees were not going to be browbeaten by the government to toe the party line, and parliamentary secretaries weren't going to sit on the committee and direct things.

Most importantly, they said they were going to bring back the independence of committees as they were originally conceived when the parliamentary system was first thought of. That was the promise. I tell you it's been a struggle to recognize where that's been honoured. It has in a few occasions and I have said publicly that's a good thing.

My favourite part of being an MP, other than being in my riding with my constituents, here on the Hill is committee work. I love doing committee work. I've gone out of my way, when the government has shown some respect and lived up to what they promised, to say so in the hope that would further it and continue it. This is the antithesis of that.

If I can, Chair, I also want to share my thoughts with Mr. Richards in that I agree with him and I'll defer at any moment to give Mr. Simms the floor, since I'm about to talk about him. I'll give him that. I have great respect for Mr. Simms, and that's why I agree with Mr. Richards that I don't believe that this really is Mr. Simms' idea. If he wants to take complete ownership of it, that's fine, but I think we all know that it's kind of a poor ruse. This is from on high. This is directly out of the Prime Minister's Office, marching orders given to the House leader and then all the way down to here at the committee.

Again, that was not supposed to be the way this government was going to be with committees. That's why I'm so furious at this, because this was a good thing that the government was saying. I made it very clear that if we couldn't win—I wanted us to win—then I did want them to win. I liked a lot of the things that they were talking about. A lot of them were the same things as us, like breathing more democracy into this place and bringing back a lot of the traditions and respect that used to be here that got lost over the last decade—all good things.

So what happened? Because there's no goodwill. I'm sorry, my friend said he was doing this out of goodwill but I don't see any. Had there been goodwill, this would have started maybe at the House leaders' level where they would have said, look, here's what we're considering doing. How do you feel about that? It would have worked its way through and found a way to the committee. We'd have been seized of it in a way where it would be, “This is something we'd like you to take a look at in a respectful kind of way”, and then we would go about, with the steering committee, putting together what a plan might look like. That's how we would do that and that's how we've been trying to function.

I have to tell you it feels like I'm back in the last Parliament. This is the kind of nonsense we used to face with the Harper government every bloody day at every bloody committee. It was supposed to be different. This doesn't feel different. The government tried to bring in some of these changes. You know, context matters. There was government motion number six, an odious piece of parliamentary business if ever there was any, and clearly enough it was, because ultimately the government had to back down, big time back down.

Then, as Mr. Richards has said, we took a look at some of these issues—not all of them but some of them—in the family-friendly Parliament review we did, and some of these things were rejected. Now they're back, not for consideration or for discussion as they're putting it. Make no mistake, this is being served up to be rammed through.

I haven't heard the government talk about what we're going to do about the issue of the normal history of all-party agreement on these things. I think this would be a great opportunity to reintroduce the Cullen model. It worked very well in democratic reform and this is somewhat similar. We're dealing with rules that affect all of us. We want to give everybody an opportunity to have input. You try to find compromise where you can or at the very least reach majority with more than one party.

The Cullen model in the Special Committee on Electoral Reform gave us that opportunity. The government hasn't talked about that at all right now.

I have to agree with Mr. Richards, again, who had the opportunity to speak first and lay out some of these important issues. It looks like the government is prepared to change the rules of our House using their majority. How the hell is that fair? How does that even come anywhere near what you promised in the campaign? Every one of you promised that you were going to be different, and Canadians bought it and gave you a huge majority. Here we are now, facing Harper 2.0. This is really serious.

We have, as part of our mandate, a job to review the Standing Orders anyway. It's part of our mandate during this Parliament. Parliament did theirs, and they did it within 90 days. We have a mandate that we're supposed to review the Standing Orders. Normally that's done in a collegial fashion. We're not doing that. The government has reached in, cherry-picked certain things it wants, and stuffed them into this motion. From all accounts, it looks like they are prepared to just ram, ram, ram. That's just Harper, Harper, Harper.

Not only that, to add insult to injury, we haven't even had a chance to take it to caucus yet. The discussion paper was dropped last week, followed by the motion. Now we're back here. Tomorrow is caucus, yet today the government is so anxious to ram this through that it hasn't even given us an opportunity to take it to our caucuses so that when we speak here at this committee, we have a mandate from our caucuses to speak on behalf of our colleagues. They're looking at this in terms of, “We have a majority. We're going to ram it through.”

Take a look at my speech on Bill C-23. It's very similar, because this action is very similar. I say to my colleagues across the way, you can't be feeling good about this, as everybody busies themselves with their notes.

This is not a good day for Liberal promises about committee work and Parliament. At the very least, give us a chance to take it to our caucuses before you start ramming. At least let us do that. Let us check off the box that at least you gave the caucuses a chance to talk before you rammed through your cherry-picked changes to the way our Parliament functions.

With that in mind, Chair, I would move adjournment of this debate to allow us an opportunity to consult with our caucuses.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Reid then placed his amendment, which was exactly the right thing to do at exactly the right time: wait a minute—the first thing we need to decide here is what the rules of engagement are. His amendment to the motion was that we agree, basically. I won't read the legalese, but the essence of it is that we agree that we won't make any recommendations that go into the report unless there is all-party agreement for those recommendations.

Suddenly, it starts to become pretty clear that the government has no intention of supporting this amendment. That's when the first real spark of trouble showed itself. Up until then, it had been the report, the motion, but no comment or context. We didn't really know what it meant. We didn't even know if it was coming up on PROC. As I say, it was a surprise thing. I won't use the word “ambush”, but it was certainly a surprise, unexpected and not explained ahead of time. There were no niceties at all.

The veteran of this committee, Mr. Reid, on behalf of the official opposition, tables a motion that says that if we are going to get into this discussion he would like to make sure that we all understand and we are all in agreement. We get the indication the government is not going to do that. What that means, Mr. Chair, strategically, is that there is a vote coming and if we lose that vote it has serious implications. In this case, what it means is that the government would then retain the right—or rather, take the right—to use their majority to ram through the things they want to do in their discussion paper, in spite of any opposition that the united opposition benches might have.

Just because the discussion paper was issued and there are things they want to do, that doesn't, by its definition, make all those things evil. But I think it's more than fair to say that if you take a close look, anybody who knows anything about parliamentary procedure will tell you that most of these things—let's just call it a round number, 100%—benefit the government. Under the plan that the majority government alone could force those recommendations through, the final report would be called the report of the procedure and House affairs committee. The government could legitimately say, “We are only carrying out the recommendations of our independent standing committee, which took a good look at this, and here is its report.” The government keeps saying, “Well, you can attach your dissension reports underneath.” Yeah, that's a little nicety. When have you heard anybody say, “What we are doing as a government is consistent with exactly what was in the report. Oh, and by the way, to be fair-minded, I want to point out that both opposition parties did put forward dissenting reports”? That doesn't happen. It doesn't have to. That is why it's so critically important that the report reflect all our opinions and not just the majority.

Trust me, the plot thickens here; that was the easy part. So, we have the discussion paper, motion, meeting, surprise, and amendment to do the right thing, and the government indicates that they are opposed to it. This means that what we have to do strategically is to make sure this doesn't get voted on. This was moved by the official opposition. Once you get an indication that the government is going to oppose it, and they have more votes than we do, it's simple math.

The last thing that someone of Mr. Reid's experience is going to do is allow that vote to happen, where we lose, knowing we are going to lose going into it, and thereby losing our opportunity to have a unanimous all-party report reflecting all our wishes rather than just the ham-fisted demands of the government running over our rights. That's the implication. That's fine. That is when Mr. Reid made it clear that he was going to do exactly what you would do in that case.

Most of us at one time or another have had to do it. That is, you sort of advise colleagues, “Settle in for the rest of this meeting because I intend to talk out the clock. The last thing I'm going to do is let the debate collapse and have a vote come forward that I know I'm going to lose.”

Mr. Reid did the thing that we all do in that situation: he started talking. His goal was to talk from 11:00 till 1:00, which were our regularly scheduled hours. Then, under normal sort of “skirmishes”—I'll call them that as opposed to the war we're in now—under normal circumstances, what would happen, Chair, is that at one o'clock, the scheduled time to rise, the committee would adjourn.

We would all then go about our business as normal, come back at our next regularly scheduled meeting, which would be the following Thursday, again from 11:00 to 1:00. At 11:00, you would gavel us into order and then give the floor to Mr. Reid, who rightfully has the floor under our rules, in that you can't force someone to end debate until they're done. Under our rules, you carry that right into the next meeting: “What's our order of business this Thursday? Well, we're going to continue what we were talking about on Tuesday, and Mr. Reid has the floor.” That's exactly what Mr. Reid and the rest of us expected to happen.

And then, things got dirty. Now, I'm sure it's happened before. I've only seen it once before. I've had it done to me once before, and you remember it.

What happened is that at one o'clock, Mr. Reid rightfully expected that he would conclude his comments and be ready the following Thursday to pick up where he left off and continue. It would be that kind of thing, which is why I call it a “skirmish”. It would be a filibuster, but it would be within the usual time frame of when that committee meets. “That committee happens to be seized up right now because we have this issue and we're dealing with it as we go along.” It wouldn't become what this has become, because of this one—and I'm going to call it a dirty trick because it is a dirty trick—ambush. I had exactly the same thing done to me.

What happens is that you find out that, where we all thought if the meeting—and this comes as a shock to members over and over, and it did to me.... We had a document that called this meeting to order, and it said that we were going to meet from 10:00 to 11:00. Well, I guess it wouldn't in this case because here we are in parliamentary la-la land; it's Friday, but we're still on Tuesday. Anyway, the fact is that you have a piece of paper that tells you what hours you're going to meet, and 99% of the time that's when you rise. You would expect that.

I think there was a member of the official opposition who said, “Chair, I would point out that it's a couple of minutes after one o'clock. We should adjourn this meeting and this discussion and reconvene on Thursday at the regular time.” The chair said, “Actually, no, we're going to continue.” Points of order ensued, and we had a discussion with the clerk about what was going on: “It said the meeting is over at one o'clock. It's now a couple of minutes after one o'clock. The chair has an obligation to end this meeting.”

Ah, but you see, that's the interesting thing about parliamentary rules: they're not always crystal clear. What's inferred at the one o'clock rise is that at least the majority agree with that. It, in and of itself, is not an ironclad law of parliamentary physics that the committee must end at its scheduled time. The committee ends when a majority says that the committee ends. Given that we are masters of our own domain and masters of our own destiny, that right remains sovereign, unless and until collectively we decide differently, or we get overarching marching orders from the House. Other than that, we control our destiny.

So when you apply that, what it means is, if the chair knows that the majority government members are not going to vote for adjournment, he has, in this case, really no alternative but to keep the meeting going. Now if need be, he can stop things and force a showing that there is a majority who want to keep going, but when there's a majority built in, it's implied and understood, and that's the way that rule works.

It was done to me, interestingly enough, on a very similar kind of matter under that good old Bill C-23, the unfair elections act. I came in all raring to go. I came in and got my stuff. I got my speech; I'm ready to go; and I'm two hours, like Mr. Reid. I have two hours to go, and then I have a day in between where I can do my homework and get my next two hours of talking points so I can keep the floor and keep it going because, as you know, Mr. Chair, we can't repeat our arguments, and any argument we make has to at least have some kind of tenuous relationship to the motion at hand, and that is a discretion that you reserve as the chair as to whether or not something is germane to the point in front of us.

I had exactly the same thing. I had that two hours, exactly the same scenario, and the whole points of order, and, “What do you mean?” and shock on my part. I'm like, “What the heck?” Then suddenly I'm filibustering 24-7, and I have about two hours' preparation. That was deliberate. It was an ambush. Now for some of us—and I won't go long on this to my Conservative colleagues—some things leave permanent scars. My good friend Harold is laughing.

Now you might expect that kind of thing from a ham-fisted government that we had before. I'll leave it at that, Harold, okay? If you take that one, Harold, I'll cut it short. I don't want to go too far down that road because it takes the sting away from this government, and that's really where the play is, but it does need to be said that we are in this.

When I used the word “war”, it wasn't on the discussion paper, and it wasn't on the motion, and it certainly wasn't on the amendment. It was the governing Liberals using.... That was the government doing exactly what Harper did, as a vicious...legitimate.... I'm not saying we'll use points of order to stop it, so it's allowed, but that doesn't make it right, and it certainly doesn't mean it was fair play. There was never any intent for fair play. The government hoped that they would catch me flat-footed. At the time I was the only one who was keeping it going on the filibuster, so if I couldn't keep talking, that meant that the debate would collapse, and the vote would have happened, and I would have completely lost any further input into how C-23 was going to be dealt with. I won't say that I won, but we did get some concessions.

My point is that it is a sneak attack. It's an ambush. It's meant to catch members flat-footed by using an interpretation of the rules that is not done day-to-day. In fact, it's not even done usually year to year around here. Once every Parliament or so, this kind of hijinks is carried out. That is when this government decided that they were going to take this skirmish, and they were going to make it a full-blown war, and I just called it for what it is. That's what triggered us going 24-7.

It's really important for those who want to understand how we got here that this is not about the opposition going apoplectic, and all we've done is step forward, and we've hijacked the House and hijacked the committee, and that we're the ones who are forcing all of this. Not the case.

Preclearance Act, 2016

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that the current Bill C-23 is much better than Bill C-23 from the previous Parliament, but let us forget about that for now.

The last time I checked the schedule for the train from Toronto to New York, there was a delay at the U.S. border of between an hour and half to three hours. Expanding this train service is very important, and that is what this bill proposes. We see this in Europe. When I travelled from London to Brussels by train, I cleared customs on the England side, before going through the tunnel. It is very efficient.

I want to know what my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable thinks of the importance of also expanding this customs service to rail service.

[J.P. Lewis]

Yes. I mean, you mentioned SSHRC, and there are different grants at universities. It would have to be selected through the mechanisms they use, but there would be opportunity there.

I want to pick up on where you started to go with the question. I don't think I said the exact number before, but in this survey of all the policy actors in the civic education community, 77% put Elections Canada as the most trusted. It's not that Elections Canada hasn't made efforts. Jean-Pierre Kingsley I think in 2004 sent out postcards to people coming of voting age. I think when we saw the debate around Bill C-23, there was that ambiguous nature of what the Elections Canada role should be.

I would return to the clarification. We don't know a budget number, but there would have to be more resources. In terms of colleges and universities playing a role in the community, right now it's up to the individual faculty member. There are opportunities, and you can play that role as part of your day-to-day work, but again that's up to the individual faculty member. I think if there were more resources out there coming from an agency like Elections Canada, from the federal government, then that might help.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to both witnesses. I'm going to echo my friend Blake's comments about your diligence, Mr. Elbert, in coming up with yet another voting system. I plan to study it, as we will all the systems that have been put before us.

But I'm very tempted right now to go right to Professor Lewis and ask you a bit more about Elections Canada, as such a trusted agency. You're the first witness, I believe, to put that evidence before us, even compared to the Library of Parliament. I think this is important information for us.

When Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand appeared before us, he noted that he hoped this committee would make recommendations for the role that Elections Canada had before Bill C-23, and what specific steps they should be able to engage in. I wonder if you want to expand on, ideally, how you see Elections Canada interacting for civic engagement with Canadians in a non-partisan and trusted fashion.

[J.P. Lewis]

Having reviewed presentations to the committee from the beginning of the summer, and taking stock that you have heard plenty of empirically supported arguments for and against certain electoral systems and approaches to electoral reform, I thought it would be helpful to focus on one of the committee's four principles that I have done research on, and that's engagement—more specifically, the role of Elections Canada in civic education policy as related to engagement.

My two main points are that in light of impending electoral reform, Elections Canada should have a role in promoting engagement, and that this role should be emboldened by collaboration with non-governmental agencies. My review of testimony to the committee revealed that both these points have been topics addressed by many of the committee witnesses.

Departing Elections Canada Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand discussed the role of Elections Canada in introducing a new electoral system to the Canadian public. Mayrand noted that, “An extensive public education campaign would be needed to ensure that Canadians understand the new system....”

Australian Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers recounted the Australian Electoral Commission's successful civic education campaign based on principles of comprehensiveness and inclusiveness.

Political scientists Henry Milner and Jonathan Rose both raised the importance of civic education for elections. Professor Milner noted that while education policy is a provincial matter, he would like to see a greater effort in civic education at both the provincial and federal levels of government. Professor Rose reminded the committee of Ontario's experience with electoral reform and the $6 million devoted to educating the voters during the province's 2007 electoral reform referendum.

Representatives from civic participation and education non-governmental agencies were also supportive of more national efforts in civic education policy. Maryantonett Flumian, from the Institute on Governance, argued that Elections Canada “should be institutionally positioned to play a leadership role” in civic education strategy.

Jane Hilderman from Samara noted, “...there are very few resources for nationwide efforts in Canada in civic education, nor is it clear who among government departments or agencies should be responsible for delivering on this goal.”

Today I'll talk about clarifying that role and focus on civic education and elections, with special attention to two points: the role of electoral management bodies, such as Elections Canada, in civic education; and the place of Elections Canada in the civic education policy network in Canada. I will support both points with evidence from research I've published.

My first point concerns the role of electoral management bodies such as Elections Canada in civic education. I argue that based on policy precedent at the provincial level and general institutional support across Canada, there's a case to be made for a civic education role for electoral management bodies, going beyond the responsibility of simply providing answers on “how to vote” and suggesting answers to the question of “Why vote?”

You may remember that in 2014 the federal Conservative government introduced legislation, Bill C-23, that raised questions on the role of electoral management bodies and what type of information they should provide voters. While most Canadians expect electoral management bodies such as Elections Canada or their provincial equivalent to provide information on “how to vote”, in recent years, due to dramatic declining voter turnout, electoral management bodies have expanded their mandates and roles to provide education on the question of “Why vote?”

One of the benefits of a federal state such as Canada is that it provides examples of policies found in the so-called “policy laboratories” at the provincial level of government. Examining the description of CEO duties in provincial elections acts reveals that seven of the 10 provinces have specific mention of an educational, outreach, or awareness role of the CEO. Based on the research I completed for the article, I argue that, yes, electoral management bodies should be engaged in both “how to vote” and “Why vote?” campaigns. My position is based on three central claims: one, the modesty of the current programs; two, the affordability of the current programs; and three, the consistency in policy path followed by electoral management bodies across the country.

While considering the role of electoral management bodies in Canada in civic education, it should be clearly noted that the majority of civic education policies and programs undertaken by electoral management bodies are often in partnership with other policy actors. Groups such as CIVIX, Samara, and Apathy is Boring have all been prominent in spreading the message of combatting voter apathy.

This brings me to my second point and the case for why Elections Canada can take a leading role in the Canadian civic education policy network. For another article I was a co-author of, we found that out of a policy community of 53 civic education policy actors on questions of trust, influence, and reliance, Elections Canada was the highest ranked institution. The group of policy actors included the Library of Parliament, the federal Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, Canadian Heritage, all provincial departments of heritage and culture and all provincial departments of education, all provincial elections agencies, and 10 prominent non-governmental organizations.

To return to comments by previous witnesses to this committee, I would like to draw attention to my colleague from the University of Toronto, Peter Loewen's, point that, “...the functioning of Canadian democracy has not been sufficiently appreciated.” I agree with Professor Loewen, and I believe Elections Canada should continue to play a part in addressing this appreciation gap regardless of the electoral system selected, playing a leading national policy role in answering the questions of “how to vote” and “Why vote?”

Thank you.

[April D'Aubin, Member and Research Analyst, Council of Canadians with Disabilities]

On behalf of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, as my colleague Carlos did, I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to appear before it.

As my colleague John Rae, the first vice-chair of CCD, pointed out in his personal submission to the committee, much of what we do involves trying to remove all barriers and prevent the introduction of new barriers. As surprising as it may seem, new barriers continue to be introduced even in 2016. That is why we are here tonight, to encourage you not to introduce new barriers as you go about electoral reform.

I note that the electoral reform national dialogue information booklet “Electoral Reform: Community Dialogue” states, “Canadians expect greater inclusion...from their public institutions.” This statement echoes what CCD has been advocating since 1976, increased access and inclusion for persons with various disabilities. The booklet also goes on to elaborate a number of guiding principles, including “Support accessibility and inclusiveness to all eligible voters, and avoiding undue complexity in the voting process.” Adherence to universal design principles would go a long way toward eliminating the barriers encountered by Canadians with various disabilities.

The work of this committee presents an opportunity for Canada to take another step down the road toward implementing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Canada ratified in 2010 through a unanimous resolution of the House of Commons and with the agreement of all Canadian provinces and territories. Thus the CRPD enjoys a broad political support in Canada, and it is up to us, as citizens, to translate this political support for the CRPD into practical action.

In the CRPD preamble, Canada has agreed that “persons with disabilities continue to face barriers in their participation” and human rights violations, and it has undertaken, in the general obligations, to address these problems.

In article 29, which addresses “participation in political and public life”, Canada has guaranteed “persons with disabilities political rights and the opportunity to enjoy them on an equal basis with others”. The article goes on to encourage states parties to “[facilitate] the use of assistive and new technologies where appropriate”.

At this point, I would like to address the committee's mandate to look at online voting.

As Carlos said, marking the paper ballot is a barrier to some voters: people with vision impairment and dexterity problems. As well, the written information on the paper ballot is a barrier for people with intellectual disabilities and learning disabilities, for whom the written word is difficult. A ballot that includes photographs of the candidates could address this problem. Depending on how it is configured, online voting could offer a solution to these barriers.

We are encouraged that the committee was instructed to look at online voting, but we appreciate the complexities related to incorporating any new approach to voting. CCD was involved, to a limited extent, in Elections Canada's testing of an assistive voting device in the November 29, 2010, by-election in Winnipeg North. Elections Canada held sessions with the disability community to allow it to test this device and explain the parameters of the test. While this particular device was found to be unsatisfactory, a setback such as this should not discourage Canada from looking toward new technologies, such as online and telephone voting, to overcome barriers associated with the paper ballot. Although the test was not deemed satisfactory, engagement with the disability community about the device demonstrated an understanding of the “Nothing about Us” principle, which should be continued as we move forward toward any implementation of voting using new technologies.

In the hearings about the Fair Elections Act, CCD raised concerns about measures in the act that would make it more difficult to test electronic voting, and thought it shouldn't be more difficult to test online voting.

I'd like to spend a few moments addressing mandatory voting. I participated in Minister Monsef's consultation in Winnipeg, where we discussed possible penalties for non-compliance if mandatory voting were instituted. For instance, tax penalties have occurred in Australia.

During the social security review process conducted by then minister Lloyd Axworthy, CCD adopted the principle that people with disabilities should not be made worse off by reform. Some individuals with disabilities may be prevented from voting due to barriers that they have no control over. For example, there may be a lack of accessible transportation to the polls. A person who relies on the services of a personal care attendant may find themselves unable to get out of bed on voting day because their attendant did not show up. A polling station may be inaccessible. It would add insult to injury for them to then have to pay a tax for not voting.

CCD has not taken a position on whether Canada should continue with first past the post or adopt an alternative system. Whatever system Canada adopts, it needs to be fully accessible, inclusive, and understandable by grassroots Canadians with and without disabilities. At the September 12 community consultation, information was provided on the different systems. In my view, we as a community need to get better at translating complex information into plain language so that information is accessible and understandable by the widest range of Canadians possible.

CCD's member organization, People First of Canada, is very knowledgeable about plain language. I would urge the committee to consult with People First of Canada as it engages with Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yasmin Dawood is an associate professor at the faculty of law at the University of Toronto, and this year was awarded the Canada research chair in democracy, constitutionalism, and electoral law. Dr. Dawood specializes in election law in Canada, the United States, and internationally, as well as comparative constitutional law and democratic theory. Her focus is broadly concerned with improving electoral integrity and democratic governance.

Some of her recent articles have discussed the right to vote, money in politics, political dysfunction, partisanship, electoral redistricting, and the oversight of the democratic process by the courts. She is widely published in a variety of academic and law journals and reviews.

Dr. Dawood also testified as an election law expert in the House of Commons committee examining the Fair Elections Act, also known as Bill C-23, and is a frequent interviewee in various media on election law issues.

Thank you to everyone for being here.

The way we proceed is with presentations for 10 minutes by each witness, and then we have two rounds of questions. In each round, every MP gets to ask questions and obtain answers for five minutes, the five minutes including the answer as well as the question.

Without further delay, I would ask Mr. Broadbent to provide us with his ideas on electoral reform.

Mr. Broadbent, you have the floor.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Mayrand, I also would like to begin by thanking you for your service to Canada over so many years, and I share with Mr. Reid regret on your decision to leave your post at the end of this year. My questions are in light of your experience and your dedication to democracy.

The first question picks up on a point that you made just a moment ago in response to Mr. Aldag. On the changes that were made in the former Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act, you pointed to one that limits your role in education. Am I inferring too much in that, as I recall, in Bill C-23 there was a very tight timeline between when an election happened and when staff could be hired and trained? I would see that as another barrier here. Could you provide us either now or later with a complete list of the things that need to be changed under the current Canada Elections Act to ensure that a new electoral system could be rolled out and you and your office could perform the role of training and education both for the staff of Elections Canada and for the public?

Oral Questions

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions said that no amendments were accepted to the Fair Elections Act.

He knows that giving false information to the House is a serious matter. In fact, over 40 amendments were accepted to the Fair Elections Act. I would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary might want to take the opportunity to correct the record on that point.

Democratic Reform

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, when the former government decided to bring forward the Fair Elections Act, did the Conservatives consult with parliamentarians? Did they consult with Canadians? Did they hold a referendum? Did they include the voice of the Chief Electoral Officer and include his feedback in the changes they brought forward? They did not.

We have learned from their mistakes. We will engage with Canadians.

We have empowered a special all-party committee to hear from Canadians what their views are before thoughtfully bringing forward a plan for the House for deliberation. We will do that in a respectful and inclusive manner.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral Reform

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how to respond to the notion that people do not vote for the policies that the parties put forward. The reality is that in an election campaign, parties posit what changes they are going to make. The changes specifically with respect to the electoral system were made very clearly, certainly by our party and by others, that the last election would be the last run on a first past the post system.

I reflect on the types of ways that changes were made to our electoral system previously. For example, in the so-called Fair Elections Act, we saw broad and sweeping changes made without any sort of consultation, without engaging other parties, without engaging Canadians, which is what we have to move away from.

Today, the spirit of co-operation in working with other parties, of being able to find that commonality, is exactly what Canadians are seeking.

I hear from my constituents that they have the expectation that I will keep the promises I make to them. This was certainly a significant one in the last election.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for moving this motion and sharing his time with me.

I would like to begin with a confession. When I first got involved in politics, I did not really think that democratic reform was of much interest to regular people. That is true some of the time. As MPs, we knock on doors and listen to people talk about the economy, health, education, and other issues. Sometimes they even talk about issues that, while not within federal jurisdiction, concern them nonetheless.

In 2013, I was pleasantly surprised when the Conservatives introduced Bill C-23, which made significant changes to our electoral system. Unfortunately, the changes sometimes caused serious problems for our system. Local people outside the Ottawa bubble took an interest. Constituents came to see my colleagues and me in our riding offices about this because they were concerned. People also sent us letters and petitions.

It became clear to me that it was not always the top priority. Still, when a government proposes major changes in the area of democratic reform, people realize that these are significant changes to how they vote for their MPs.

The same thing is happening now. Since the Liberals came to power following the 2015 election, they have been proposing to change the status quo. The electoral system is fundamental to our democracy, and people are concerned about the changes that are being proposed to the system. They want to know how this is going to happen. Unfortunately, what the government has proposed so far is not what Canadians were hoping to see. If the proposed changes were to be accepted, this would allow the party in power to unilaterally decide how to go about changing something that is so important to our democracy.

What we are proposing today is very interesting. The minister repeated several times that what is important is hearing the opposition's proposals. She also said that she is open to those proposals. That is good, because here we are with a proposal that I hope will be supported by the minister and her party. The proposal aims to change how the committee is formed in order to require that any changes made to our democracy have the support of at least one opposition party.

At this time, the Liberals have a majority on the committee. They can go ahead with a unilateral change and come back to the House with a proposal that would very likely pass with the Liberal majority here.

Obviously, the Liberals still have the majority of the seats in the House of Commons, but they should also get the support of an opposition party. As proposed in the motion by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the committee's composition would reflect the percentage of votes, based on how Canadians voted in the last election. That way, our Bloc Québécois colleagues and our Green Party colleague would have a vote.

As a result, we believe that the way the committee is composed would help in achieving consensus and making changes to our electoral system that are acceptable to Canadians. They would know that a parliamentary consensus was reached on the changes. The composition of the committee would be more proportional and more representative of how Canadians voted in the election.

The committee's work will be very important. It is an opportunity for us to break out of the Ottawa bubble.

The minister is proposing that every member hold consultations in his or her riding. I am not saying that consultations are not important. In fact, consultations on various issues are at the heart of an MP's work. Holding consultations, going door to door, and collecting signatures for petitions are central to an MP's work. However, this could never replace the work of Parliament or a committee.

The Standing Orders generally establish the makeup of the other existing House of Commons committees. The government's reasoning was that it was using the normal proportions. However, the normal proportions are based on what they themselves called a false majority. If the government truly wants to reach a consensus and hear from the opposition parties, it should not use that false majority to determine the committee's makeup. That is very important.

Unlike individual members, a committee has the ability to call witnesses and benefit from the expertise of all parliamentarians. Earlier, my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands spoke about the findings of an expert study. That is the essence of what a committee does.

My constituents and I have our own knowledge, opinions, and expertise. However, that can never replace a consensus. We must consult Canadians, experts, and parliamentarians from the other parties to reach a consensus that reflects what Canadians want and need in a 21st-century electoral system.

This is an interesting conversation to have, since the first past the post system is several centuries old. It is not bad just because it is old, but we must always keep an eye on how our electoral systems are designed.

For example, many people are following the primaries in the United States. It is very interesting, since this process dates back to a time when people like farmers, for example, sent delegates because they did not necessarily have the time, resources, or ability to travel to a political party's convention.

Delegates were therefore sent to choose Republican and Democratic candidates for the presidential election. However, because technology has advanced and travel has become easier, cutting travel time between states, some Americans think it is time to reconsider this system.

That is exactly what we are doing here in Canada. Our system dates back to when there were just two parties. Now there are several more. Three parties are recognized in Parliament, and five parties are represented here, so we can and should be asking ourselves this question.

I know what the government members mean when they say that 65% of Canadians voted for parties that want to revisit the status quo, even though they do not always say it in good faith. Let us have that conversation.

In closing, I know that some of my Conservative colleagues will say there is nothing wrong with the status quo. All the more reason for them to participate in the conversation and support our proposal to give them a greater voice in the committee, a voice that reflects the number of people who voted for them. That is exactly why this proposal is so important. It is designed to ensure that all MPs in the House have a voice and that we engage in this very important conversation.

We must not fear change, but if we proceed, we must do so properly. We must not exclude those whose voices may not be as loud but are nevertheless just as valid. That was the challenge with Bill C-23. The Conservatives' changes had a negative impact on people who tend not to vote or who find it harder to do so.

When making such a major change, we have to listen to people and ensure that we find the right solution. We have to do it properly. If we do it thoughtlessly, we will realize later on that we made mistakes. This is about our democracy.

I am proud to support my colleague's motion, and I invite all members to join me. Their voices are at stake.