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.

Awarding of Contract to Boeing

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will just continue addressing the question of privilege that was raised on Friday by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I had gotten to the point in my dissertation as to the ruling that Speaker Milliken made in 2002 about the minister of national defence at that time. He is quoted as saying that misleading a minister or a member has been considered a form of obstruction and, thus, a prima facie breach of privilege. The Speaker accepted the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House and made the following statement: “Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation.”

The Speaker went on to say:

On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar to move his motion.

On November 4, 2003, the member at the time for Scarborough—Rouge River presented to the House the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which documented how the former privacy commissioner had deliberately misled the committee and provided false and misleading information to it. The member for Scarborough—Rouge River rose later in the sitting on a question of privilege to charge the former commissioner with contempt of Parliament based on the contents of the report. On November 6, the Speaker delivered his ruling and found the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege.

On April 10, 2008, the member for Charlottetown at the time raised a question of privilege alleging that the RCMP deputy commissioner provided false and misleading testimony to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts at a meeting on February 21, 2007. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts reported the matter to the House. and the Speaker found that a prima facie case of contempt had been established.

On February 17, 2011, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood and other members argued that a minister had made statements in a committee that were different from those made in the House or provided to the House in written form. These members argued that the material available showed that contradictory information had been provided. As a result, they argued that this demonstrated that the minister deliberately misled the House and that, as such, a prima facie case of privilege existed.

In a ruling of March 9, the Speaker said:

The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is this: as the committee has reported, when asked who inserted the word “not” in the assessment of the KAIROS funding application, in testimony the minister twice replied that she did not know. In a February 14 statement to the House, while she did not indicate that she knew who inserted the word “not”, the minister addressed this matter by stating that the “not” was inserted at her direction. At the very least, it can be said that this has caused confusion. The minister has acknowledged this, and has characterized her own handling of the matter as “unfortunate”. Yet as is evident from hearing the various interventions that have been made since then, the confusion persists. As the member for Scarborough—Rouge River told the House, this “has confused me. It has confused Parliament. It has confused us in our exercise of holding the government to account, whether it is the Privy Council, whether it is the minister, whether it is public officials; we cannot do our job when there is that type of confusion”.

On February 25, 2014, the then House leader of the official opposition raised a question of privilege regarding statements made in the House by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. He claimed that:

...the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville had deliberately misled the House on February 6, 2014, during debate on Bill C-23, the fair elections act, when he stated that he had witnessed evidence of voter fraud firsthand. He further argued that the matter was not resolved by the statements made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville on February 24 and 25, where he admitted that, contrary to his original claim, he had not actually witnessed what he had originally claimed to have witnessed. In his view, this was not a simple case of someone misspeaking; he argued rather that it was a case where the member deliberately chose to take something he knew not to be true and present it as eyewitness evidence—something so egregious, it constituted contempt.

In delivering his ruling, on March 3, the speaker at the time cited that:

Speaker Milliken was faced with [this] in February 2002 when the then Minister of National Defence, Art Eggleton, provided contradictory information to the House. In ruling on a question of privilege raised about the contradiction, Speaker Milliken stated on February 1, at page 8581 of Debates:

I am prepared, as I must be, to accept the minister’s assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House.

The same Speaker went on to conclude:

In keeping with that precedent, I am prepared to accord the same courtesy to the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

At the same time, the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements. This is a difficult position in which to leave members, who must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties.

Accordingly, in keeping with the precedent cited earlier in which Speaker Milliken indicated that the matter merited “...further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air”, I am prepared in this case for the same reason to allow the matter to be put to the House.

On November 3, 1978, the member for Northumberland—Durham raised a question of privilege and charged that he had been deliberately misled by a former solicitor general. The member had written in 1973 to the solicitor general, who assured him that, as a matter of policy, the RCMP did not intercept the private mail of Canadians. On November 1, 1978, during testimony before the McDonald commission, the former commissioner of the RCMP stated that they did intercept mail on a very restricted basis and that the practice was not one that had been concealed from ministers. The Speaker ruled on December 6 that there was indeed a prima facie case of contempt.

I will go back to the original question raised by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. He said on November 4 that he had been told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence that a decision had not yet been made in answer to a question that he had here on November 21 about the replacement of our CP-140 Aurora aircraft.

The parliamentary secretary stated:

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. We need to replace the CP-140 Aurora patrol aircraft. However, we need to replace them with something that will serve the operational capability of the armed forces. No decision has been made yet.

The parliamentary secretary's second answer was even more specific. She said, “Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear today. No decision has been made.”

A few days later, on November 28, in an answer to questions from the member, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement said:

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for acknowledging the expertise of aerospace workers not only in Quebec, but also in Canada. That is why the decision we will soon be making is an important one....

We know that the next day, November 29, there were multiple media reports that the government was going to be buying the Boeing Poseidon P-8A patrol aircraft.

Global News stated, “sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, said that last week”, which was November 23, “cabinet green-lit the purchase of 16 P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft to replace the half-century-old CP-140 Auroras.”

It went on to say:

Two of the sources, including a senior government official, said the Treasury Board held a special meeting Tuesday night [November 28] and approved the contract, which a U.S. agency has listed at US$5.9 billion (C$8 billion).

Therefore, the announcement did finally get made officially on November 30 to sole-source the P-8 from Boeing.

This question of privilege does not call into question the replacement of the CP-140 Aurora patrol aircraft or the process of awarding that contract to Boeing. To be clear, Conservatives want to procure equipment for the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Armed Forces; we just want to do it faster, and we want to make sure we are procuring the kit and equipment our armed forces are asking for.

This question of privilege is with respect to whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Services and Procurement intentionally misled the House.

Based on the timing of events I just laid out, I support the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot's question of privilege. The answers from both the Minister of Procurement and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence were misleading to the House and the defence industry, and I would suggest that this constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege.

Alleged Misleading Comments by the Prime Minister

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege to address misleading comments made in the House by the Prime Minister.

At the heart of the issue is the Prime Minister's denial that he was aware, in 2018, that the allegations of sexual misconduct against General Vance were a matter of a #MeToo me complaint. I have evidence that will demonstrate that this is a false statement. Further, the facts clearly indicate that the Prime Minister had to have known of the situation, and therefore deliberately misled the House. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 82, states that it is a contempt of the House for a member “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition.”

During question period yesterday, the Prime Minister said:

Mr. Speaker, as I have been saying for some time now, yes, there was a complaint against General Vance. Nobody in my office or in the Minister of National Defence's office knew the nature of the complaint.

Then he went on to say:

Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward is simply untrue. While there was awareness that there was a complaint against General Vance, there was no awareness that it was in fact a #MeToo complaint of a sexual nature.

I have emails on this matter, internal to the Privy Council Office, from Janine Sherman, deputy secretary to the cabinet for appointments, to various political staff in the minister of defence's office and the Prime Minister's office that I would be happy to hand over to you, Mr. Speaker.

I will refer to a few of these emails, beginning with one from Janine Sherman in which she proposed transmittal language from the minister to the ombudsman, dated March 2, 2018. This is what she wrote:

“Dear Mr. Walbourne, I am further writing to our discussion concerning allegations of sexual harassment that were brought to your attention. As the allegations relate to a Governor in Council appointee, I would ask you to please transmit the information to Ms. Janine Sherman, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet for the Senior Personnel Secretariat, Privy Council Office, and provide her with your full cooperation.”

In a March 5, 2018, email from Ms. Sherman to Mr. Walbourne, the first paragraph is blacked out, but I will quote, “I understand that you have information concerning the conduct of a GIC appointee that the Minister has asked that you share with me.” Here there is another redaction. To continue, “...but given the sensitivity of this matter if it is at all possible to speak today or at your earliest convenience, I will make myself available.”

There is also an email from Ms. Sherman dated March 2, 2018, although the recipient is blacked out. It states, “On behalf of the Minister, I am writing further to your discussion concerning allegations of sexual harassment that had been brought to your attention.”

Ms. Sherman confirmed that these email exchanges were with political staff in her testimony to the committee on national defence, dated March 26. Ms. Sherman is recorded in the committee's evidence as saying:

Those redactions are done on the basis of the statutory requirements in the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act, so public servants' names are not redacted. For non-public servants, that does constitute personal information and that is the reason it is redacted.

In the interests of being helpful, I could indicate in a generic way that those interactions were between myself and people in the Prime Minister's Office.

The Prime Minister's statements in the House, which predate Ms. Sherman's testimony of March 26, confirm her version of the events as stated above. The Prime Minister stated during question period on March 10:

Mr. Speaker, my office was aware of the minister's direction to the ombudsman to follow up with appropriate authorities, but my office and I learned of the details of the allegations over the past months only.

Then, on March 24, the Prime Minister said:

Mr. Speaker, allegations of sexual misconduct or inappropriate behaviour need to be followed up by the appropriate authorities, and that is exactly what happened in this case.

That was the Prime Minister speaking on March 24. I am going to repeat that. He even said, “allegations of sexual misconduct”. Now I am going to go on to what he continued to say:

The ombudsperson was directed toward the right people in terms of following up on an investigation. The ombudsperson was not able to share further information with the investigators and, therefore, the investigation did not move forward.

We will continue to take very seriously any allegations that come forward, as we always have.

Ms. Sherman confirmed she had these discussions specifically with staff in the Prime Minister's Office later in her testimony before committee.

She stated:

As a matter of course, Madam Chair, in my responsibilities, I would not make a decision alone in that respect. I did meet with Mr. Walbourne myself. After that discussion, I would have briefed up to the people who had been involved in the discussion to pursue and try to get more information about the generality of the complaint.

I would have done a follow-up in terms of, certainly, the Clerk.

Later, in response to a question from the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on whether the information was shared with the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford, she said:

I have shared information to say it was within the Prime Minister's Office.

The emails from Ms. Sherman outline the substance of the information that she was discussing with staff in the Prime Minister's Office addressing the Prime Minister's assertion that no one in the defence minister's office was aware of the nature of the complaint.

Gary Walbourne's testimony to the Standing Committee on National Defence from March 3 states the following:

The investigation process inexplicably moved at a snail's pace until March 2018, which just so happened to be the time when I personally met with [the Minister of Defence] to address an allegation of inappropriate sexual behaviour within the senior ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces, specifically, against the chief of the defence staff, and to discuss my concerns about this allegation.

He further stated:

To...conclude my statement, I will say that, yes, I did meet with [him] on March 1, 2018, and, yes, I did directly tell him about an allegation of inappropriate sexual behaviour made against the chief of the defence staff.

Finally, there is Michael Wernick's testimony at the Standing Committee on National Defence on April 6, replying to another question from the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman regarding the allegations being of a sexual misconduct nature.

Mr. Wernick stated:

I don't have the language of the emails in front of me. I think the language was “potential sexual harassment”. There is a back-and-forth of emails between Zita, Janine and Elder. I certainly would say that it was in the realm of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment, but I couldn't speak to the exact language.

Also, as to whether the Prime Minister's statements about his office should extend to the PCO, Wernick had this to offer, which appropriately places the PCO as responsible to the Prime Minister.

He stated:

The Privy Council Office is the Prime Minister's department. It's part of the executive branch of government. It is the Prime Minister's department, and the Prime Minister is the minister, just like any other department, and the Clerk is the deputy minister, just like any other department.

It's not independent in the sense of the courts, but it is separate from [the Minister of Defence]. I guess that's the argument he was making. It was somebody from outside.

Mr. Wernick later responded to a question from the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke as to why Elder Marques had gone to the Clerk instead of to the NSA.

Mr. Wernick stated:

That would be because I'm the boss of the Prime Minister's department. That would have been going right to the top and saying, “We have this very serious issue. The minister wants it looked into. What's the best way to proceed?

On February 1, 2002, the Speaker then ruled on a matter regarding the former minister of national defence. The hon. former member for Portage—Lisgar, now the current Premier of Manitoba, alleged that the then minister of national defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in Question Period on two successive days.

The Speaker considered the matter and found there was a prima facie question of privilege.

He stated:

The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House.

The authorities to which Speaker Milliken referred to include, but are not limited to, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which states on page 115:

Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.

On February 25, 2014, the House leader of the official opposition raised a question of privilege regarding statements made in the House by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

The hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville had deliberately misled the House during debate on Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act, when he stated that he had witnessed evidence of voter fraud first hand. He further argued that the matter was not resolved by the statements made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville later on February 24 and 25, when he admitted that contrary to his original claim, he had not actually witnessed what he had originally claimed to have witnessed.

In the Speaker's view, this was not a simple case of someone misspeaking. He argued, rather, that it was a case where the member deliberately chose to take something he knew not to be true and present it as eyewitness evidence, something so egregious it constituted contempt. On March 3, the Speaker delivered his ruling and found the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege.

On November 3, 1978, the member for Northumberland—Durham raised a question of privilege and charged that he had been deliberately misled by a former solicitor general. The member had written a letter in 1973 to the solicitor general, who assured him that, as a matter of policy, the RCMP did not intercept the private mail of Canadians.

On November 1, 1978, during testimony before the McDonald Commission, the former commissioner of the RCMP stated that they did indeed intercept mail on a very restricted basis and that the practice was not one that had been concealed from ministers.

The Speaker ruled on December 6, 1978, that this was indeed a prima facie of contempt.

On the final analysis, does this meet the test for a prima facie question of period? The evidence above does clearly establish that the Prime Minister provided information that was misleading, and there is no doubt about that. Therefore, the first test is met.

On the second test, did the Prime Minister know that the information he provided was false?

On March 10, in questions from the official opposition, the Prime Minister specifically had to address the awareness of members of his office, Elder Marques and his department, Michael Wernick and Janine Sherman, and the defence minister. The Prime Minister's answer included the following, “The ombudsman came forward with allegations, the minister said that he needed to take those to independent authorities able to follow up on this investigation, and that is something my office was aware of.”:

Gary Walbourne's statement of March 3 to the Standing Committee on National Defence details specifically that the allegations brought forth were sexual in nature. The testimony predates the statement by the Prime Minister by a full week.

This was followed on March 11, in response to a question in the House, the Prime Minister named members of the Prime Minister's staff, as I said, Elder Marques and his department, Michael Wernick and Janie Sherman, and the defence minister, as having personal knowledge of the nature of the complaints. In that exchange, the defence minister speaks directly to his knowledge of the substance of the allegations and the actions he took with regard to it.

There is a strong case that the second test is met.

On the third test, was the Prime Minister intending to mislead the House?

The Prime Minister's answers on this matter have repeatedly changed, not only in the press but in the House. They have gone from “not being aware of allegations” to “not being aware of specific allegations” to “his office being aware.”

However, the public statement issued to the media by the Prime Minister's Office on February 23, and published in its entirety by Mercedes Stephenson, states the following, “The Prime Minister confirmed on March 10, in the House of Commons, that his office was aware of the concern raised by the defence ombudsman in 2018.”

That means the Prime Minister has issued a public statement prior to his statement in the House that his office was aware, as the defence minister has stated, that he raised concerns of a sexual nature regarding the chief of the defence staff.

In the face of a public statement by the Prime Minister, which contradicts the statement made yesterday in the House of Commons, there is an argument that the third test has been met.

In conclusion, it is just not believable that the Prime Minister was unaware that these allegations were of a #MeToo sexual complaint nature.

Let us remember, this was in 2018 at the height of the #MeToo movement, the very height of it. It was also during this period that allegations surfaced that the Prime Minister had inappropriately groped a young newspaper reporter. In addition, sitting on the Prime Minister's desk for three years was a report from former Supreme Court Justice Marie Deschamps that categorized the culture in the military as “sexualized”.

The second edition of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, at page 227, states:

In the final analysis, in areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply:

Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege...or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should...leave it to the House.

In the House, the Prime Minister is being accused of something very serious, something that should not be treated lightly or dismissed as a matter of experiencing something differently.

Let us not forget who we are dealing with here. We are dealing with a Prime Minister who has frequently breached our ethics laws. I am, of course, referring to the SNC-Lavalin scandal, his family vacation on billionaire island and the investigation about his family ties to WE Charity.

All things considered, I believe I have more than an arguable point. If the you rule this matter to be a prima facie question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Response by the Prime Minister

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege regarding an incident that occurred in committee of the whole on July 8, 2020. I know you are aware of this, because I made this case to you a couple of weeks ago and you came back to the House and identified the unique circumstances. I thought that now that the House is sitting, I would expand on the remarks I made that day.

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to present to you my argument that in this special case it is within your authority and duty as Speaker to rule on the matter raised in committee of the whole. As you yourself noted on July 8:

...the situation is somewhat particular in that the question of privilege was raised in the committee of the whole and the procedure for dealing with it is quite different than it is in the House.

What complicates this matter even further is that the work of the committee of the whole today and the work scheduled this summer are strictly governed by an order of the House that limits these proceedings and dictates that the committee must now rise.

The situation is more than particularly complicated. The House order adopted on May 26 would appear to run counter to some of the more important tenets of our parliamentary democracy, such as Parliament's authority to defend members' privileges or take action to keep the executive accountable. Although the Liberals, with the support of the NDP, provided us with these occasions to talk in committee of the whole, they effectively prevented members from taking any action.

Mr. Speaker, that is the point of my submission to you today and why I believe you should intervene on this question of privilege that arose in committee of the whole on July 8.

Page 156 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice explains the procedure when a member rises on a question of privilege in committee of the whole:

...the Chair will hear the question of privilege. As in a standing, special, or legislative committee, the role of the Chair is to decide whether the matter raised does in fact relate to privilege. If the matter raised by the Member touches on privilege and relates to events in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair will entertain a motion that the events be reported to the House.

The terms of the May 26 order do not provide for a motion to be moved. Therefore, the matter of my question of privilege cannot be reported to the House.

Pages 152 and 153 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice note:

Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings only upon presentation of a report from the committee which deals directly with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual Member.

The extreme situation noted in that passage was from 1992, when Speaker Fraser found a prima facie case of privilege with respect to threats made to a witness who had appeared before a subcommittee, without waiting for a report. The ruling, found at page 14631 of the Debates, from December, 4, 1992, points out that there are occasions on which it is not appropriate to wait for a report from the committee before dealing with a serious breach of privilege. In that case, Mr. Speaker Fraser was faced with the fact that it might well be a period of several months before the subcommittee could meet to deal with the matter.

In this case, the problem is more substantive than just a simple matter of delay. It would appear that the committee of the whole established by the government is unable to take any action except to rise, as you explained to us on July 8, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the content of my question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring your attention to a matter that was raised on November 3, 1978, by the member for Northumberland—Durham. The member charged that he had been deliberately misled by a former solicitor general. The member had written a letter in 1973 to the solicitor general, who assured him that as a matter of policy the RCMP did not intercept the private mail of Canadians. On November 1, 1978, during testimony before the McDonald Commission, the former commissioner of the RCMP stated that the RCMP did indeed intercept mail on a very restricted basis. The Speaker ruled on December 6, 1978, and found that this did constitute a prima facie case of privilege.

The issue I raised on July 8 is similar in that a senior officer of the House, the Ethics Commissioner, presented evidence that directly contradicts the evidence the Prime Minister gave the committee in response to my question about the co-operation that his office will or will not be providing to the Ethics Commissioner. The Prime Minister said, in reference to the SNC-Lavalin scandal, that he took unprecedented steps so that the Ethics Commissioner could, “fully investigate the matter at hand.”

On July 8, I referenced three points that the Ethics Commissioner made in the “Trudeau II Report”. They directly contradicted the Prime Minister.

First, the commissioner said:

Because of my inability to access all Cabinet confidences related to the matter I must, however, report that I was unable to fully discharge the investigatory duties conferred upon me by the Act.

Second, he noted:

Because of the decisions to deny our Office further access to Cabinet confidences, witnesses were constrained in their ability to provide all evidence. I was, therefore, prevented from looking over the entire body of evidence to determine its relevance to my examination. Decisions that affect my jurisdiction under the Act, by setting parameters on my ability to receive evidence, should be made transparently and democratically by Parliament, not by the very same public office holders who are subject to the regime I administer.

Third, he said:

During this examination, nine witnesses informed our Office that they had information they believed to be relevant, but that could not be disclosed because, according to them, this information would reveal a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council and would fall outside the scope of Order in Council 2019-0105.

This is very important, because as we are currently witnessing, the Prime Minister is in a very similar situation. He is assuring members of the House and Canadians that he will co-operate fully, as he said he did in the previous investigation, which we now know to be false.

On February 1, 2002, the Speaker Milliken ruled on a matter regarding the former minister of national defence. At the time, the previous member for Portage—Lisgar alleged that the former minister of national defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF 2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in question period on two successive days. The Speaker considered the matter and found that there was a prima facie question of privilege. He said, “The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House.” The authorities to which Speaker Milliken was referring include, but are not limited to, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which states on page 115, “Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.”

The Speaker in 2002 accepted the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House and made the following statement: “Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation.” The Speaker went on to say:

On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar to move his motion.

Of course, the House is presented with two versions of events. We have the Prime Minister's version, where he claims he fully co-operated, and we have the report from the Ethics Commissioner, which directly contradicts that claim.

On February 25, 2014, the former House leader of the official opposition raised a question of privilege regarding statements made in the House by the former member for Mississauga—Streetsville. He said the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville had deliberately misled the House during debate on Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act, when the member stated that he had witnessed evidence of voter fraud first-hand. The former House leader further argued that the matter was not resolved by the statements made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville on February 24 and 25, when he admitted that, contrary to his original claim, he had not actually witnessed what he had originally claimed to have witnessed. In his view, this was not a simple case of someone misspeaking. He argued, rather, that in this case the member deliberately chose to take something he knew not to be true and present it as eyewitness evidence, something so egregious that it constituted contempt.

On March 3, 2014, the Speaker delivered his ruling, citing what Speaker Milliken was faced with in February 2002, when the then minister of national defence, Art Eggleton, provided contradictory information to the House. In a ruling on a question of privilege raised about the contradiction, Speaker Milliken stated on February 1, 2002, at page 8581 of the Debates, “I am prepared, as I must be, to accept the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House.”

The Speaker went on to conclude:

In keeping with that precedent, I am prepared to accord the same courtesy to the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

At the same time, the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements. This is a difficult position in which to leave members, who must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties.

Accordingly, in keeping with the precedent cited earlier in which Speaker Milliken indicated that the matter merited “...further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air”, I am prepared in this case for the same reason to allow the matter to be put to the House.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, in deciding these matters, Speakers take into consideration three principles. The first is that the statement was misleading.

This was clearly the case. The Prime Minister gave us a version of events that was obviously not true.

Second, the member knew at the time of the statement that it was incorrect. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister must have known that it was incorrect. The title of the report was the Trudeau II Report, because it was the second time he was found guilty of ethics violations. He also knows it be false, because in the previous Parliament, I questioned him regularly on his obstruction of that investigation.

Third, the member making the statement intended to mislead the House.

I believe this matter has met all three of these principles, Mr. Speaker.

Getting back to your comment in committee on July 8 about this matter being complicated, I refer you to Joseph Maingot's second edition of Parliamentary Procedures in Canada, page 227:

In the final analysis, in areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply: Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege...or, to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should...leave it to the House.

In a ruling of October 24, 1966, at page 9005 of the Debates, the Speaker said:

In considering this matter I ask myself: What is the duty of the Speaker in cases of doubt? If we take into consideration that at the moment the Speaker is not asked to render a decision as to whether or not the article of complaint constitutes a breach of privilege...considering also that the Speaker is the guardian of the rules, rights and privileges of the House and of its members and that he cannot deprive them of such privileges when there is uncertainty in his mind.... I think at this preliminary stage of the proceedings, the doubt which I have in my mind should be interpreted to the benefit of the member.

Mr. Speaker, you have clearly indicated that this is uncharted territory. There are likely very few scenarios that could guide you specifically as to the proper course of action, because this has not happened before in our parliamentary system. I believe, therefore, you should leave it to the House to decide, and if you do find that there is a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Procedure for Votes in the Chamber

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise regarding the question of privilege that the whip brought forward yesterday, as well as the recent comments and explanation that was given by the member for Vimy. I want to take a couple of moments to comment, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so, and then we can continue with the debate on the bill.

I want to begin by thanking the member for Vimy for her explanation today. We all understand what it is like being a new member of Parliament and not always being sure of what it actually means to be in the chamber when the question is being read. I want to let the member know not to feel bad about that and that we all understand. We are glad that she now understands where she needs to be when the question is being read.

There are a couple of items I want to point to regarding two issues I know the Speaker indicated he would be looking at and making some decisions on. The first is on the issue of misleading the House. There is some precedent which I think is important we have the opportunity to hear and consider as the Speaker makes his decision.

On February 25, 2014, the House leader of the official opposition raised a question of privilege regarding statements made in the House by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. The hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville had deliberately misled the House during debate on Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act, when he stated that he had witnessed evidence of voter fraud first-hand.

He further argued that the matter was not resolved by the statements made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville on February 24 and February 25, where he admitted that, contrary to his original claim, he had not actually witnessed what he had originally claimed to have witnessed and he apologized to the House.

On March 3, the Speaker delivered his ruling, citing what Speaker Milliken was faced with in February 2002 when the then minister of national defence, Art Eggleton, provided contrary information to the House. In that case as well, the minister indicated that he did not intentionally mislead the House and he too apologized.

Speaker Milliken went on to conclude, “In keeping with that precedent, I am prepared to accord the same courtesy to the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.”

We have two precedents where prima facie cases of privilege were found despite members indicating that they did not intend to mislead the House and apologized. There is precedent where when this House and the Speaker are misled, there still is a case of prima facie privilege and that there is a consequence that needs to be found for that action.

With respect to my whip's motion to send this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I refer the Speaker to the second edition of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, page 227, which states:

In the final analysis, in areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply:

Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege...or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he [or she] should...leave it to the House.

I am asking the Speaker to leave this matter to the House to decide, and if the House decides to send this issue to committee, then the committee can look at, in addition to the misleading statement, the issue my whip raised as to establishing a mechanism for the Speaker to deal with disputed votes, which is particularly important in a minority Parliament.

We need to deal with the issue of deliberately or not deliberately misleading the House and there is precedent for that. As well, we need to deal with the matter of the importance of votes. In a minority Parliament, we still have the question of how we would have dealt with it if it had been a matter of confidence and the government had lost that vote, which we all know is of grave importance.

I wanted to make sure that was presented as the Speaker continues his deliberations.

[David Christopherson]

Thank you, Ruby.

Thank you, Chair.

I'll be very brief because this is not a filibuster. There was no intent to try to do that. I hope colleagues will appreciate that my remarks are made far more in sorrow than in anger. I'm just so heartbroken that something so important has, as Mr. Nater just described, been tarnished. That's a shame, and it needn't be.

Again, the democratic reform ministry has become the file from hell. This was one of the signature pieces for this government, and this is the file—one of them—where they have failed the most spectacularly and, unfortunately, in ways that are important. That's where the sorrow comes from. This didn't need to be.

I've indicated to the government, to the minister—I've made no bones about it—my willingness, the willingness of my caucus, to do major reform, especially to undo the damage that the previous government did with Bill C-23. We gave them every political opportunity. Most governments would be drooling at what they were offered in terms of the political coverage of having two of the three parties on democratic reform.

It used to be it had to be unanimous. We seem to have lost that. The best we can get right now is at least a majority of recognized parties in the House, and I know Ms. May doesn't like that, but that's how we work things—at least a majority, two out of three of the parties. I've consistently offered that to the government to let them know that if they do the right thing, they're going to have the political support of the NDP to give them the legitimacy to make the changes, expecting that the authors of the changes in Bill C-23 might be defending them going forward, which they have done.

Parenthetically, and we're starting to get close to going, I just want to thank the previous government members on this file. They could have easily made every single change a hill to die on politically, and justified it to their base. I just want to say that they didn't do that. Where some of us were taking shots at them, deserved in my opinion, obviously, for the most part, they just absorbed the hit, because there was a decision made by the Canadian people in the last election that there were some things they didn't like. I like to think that some of those anti-democratic moves were part of it. I just want to say that I've been impressed with the grown-up approach of the Conservative members, with the way they've conducted themselves when we're dealing with some of their legacy pieces. It has been very classy and very helpful, and Canadians need to know that.

I'll just end by saying my motion is not a “gotcha” by any stretch, and that's why I worded it the way I did. You can see there are no traps in there. Very sincerely, Chair, I think certainly my motivation, and I'm hearing from the Conservatives that it's their approach too.... Again I'll give them their due. They didn't vote for the package, yet when we were working on it they still participated in a lot of areas to help us make that report as strong as we could. Again, the Conservative colleagues on this file, given the history, have been very productive, and it's worth noting. I want to thank them for that.

The purpose of the motion is to try to add some legitimacy, because I don't know where this is going to end up. I don't know if there's going to be a party that balks on participating and claiming lack of legitimacy as their reason, in which case, thank you, Liberals, you completely screwed up on an important file, and it didn't need to be. That's what really gets me. It's the mismanagement of this file, of this ministry. I don't believe it's the fault of the two ministers who have been in those positions. Those decisions were made from on high, that's pretty clear, and it's also clear how bad those decisions were and how bad those directions were.

In an attempt, sincerely, Chair, to give some legitimacy, to make it more difficult for anybody to wiggle out of participating, let's at least try to add some legitimacy from this committee onto this process, because the government has no legitimacy. Therefore, by extension, the commission at least, and again to use Mr. Nater's word, is tarnished. That's not a good way to start your election, and it didn't need to be.

Let us, since we didn't make these decisions, and we know this issue and we've already worked through it, take ownership again and do the best we can to give some legitimacy to this important component of our precious election system.

Thank you, Chair.

Elections Modernization Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in debate at this point on Bill C-76. I want to take the occasion to start with a bit of a broad historical sweep, albeit going back just to 2014. It is important for Canadians to know what is being accomplished with this legislation and what remains to be done. It is not perfect. I want to stress that, but I will be voting for it. I am also gratified that at least some of my amendments were accepted in the committee that studied the bill.

I want to go back to 2014, when the current hon. member for Carleton was the minister of democratic institutions. He brought forward a bill in that Parliament, Bill C-23, that was given the unlikely title, given its content, of the Fair Elections Act. I was a member of the opposition at the time, as leader of the Green Party, but I struggled with other members of the opposition, the New Democrats and Liberals, to try to stop that piece of legislation because it clearly had less to do with fairness than with trying to create favourable conditions for the governing party, the Conservatives at that time, going into the 2015 election.

Therefore, it is with a great deal of irony that I have heard a number of times Conservative members say that the Liberals are just trying to change the terms to make them better for their party.

We cannot forget the circumstances in 2014 when the member for Carleton introduced his bill. I hope that this will now be fixed by the changes to Bill C-76.

Going back to what the so-called Fair Elections Act did, it was consumed, as some members of this place still are, with a fiction—and I want to underscore the word “fiction”.

It is completely untrue. I want to stress that Canada does not have a problem with election fraud.

We do not have a problem of people disguising themselves, taking voter cards or any number of things that have been hinted at in the chamber in the last debate on Bill C-76. We do not have a problem of Canadians voting more than once under assumed identities. We have a problem of Canadians voting less than once. That is a serious problem, and that is why we needed the things that the so-called Fair Elections Act got rid of. These were things like being able to vouch for someone and being able to provide one's voter card as a piece of ID when going to the polls.

None of this would have been necessary if it were not for changes that the former Harper Conservatives made back at the very beginning of their first mandate. For the first time, they made it a requirement that Canadians produce a piece of government issued photo ID in order to vote. That, again, hinted darkly at the idea that people were voting more than once because we did not have enough checks on this problem. It was a non-existent problem then and does not exist now. It never existed. That is the evidence of several chief electoral officers, including Marc Mayrand and Jean-Pierre Kingsley, who both testified to the PROC committee that it was a non-problem.

Bill C-23 did a few other things. It took away some of the abilities of our Chief Electoral Officer to speak to us as voters when we needed information. One of those critical moments was, for instance, the election in 2011. The Chief Electoral Officer sent out a press release and got on the phone and radio. Robocalls were going on. Canadians were being misdirected, being told that their polling stations had changed. None of that was true. We had an investigation. I do not think it was ever adequately investigated. We know it took place, but we do not know who did it. That is a mystery that remains unsolved, but I think we know there was a gun lying on the floor, it was smoking, and several people standing around appeared to have used it. We have no conclusion, but we know for sure that voters who did not intend to vote Conservative were being told to go to polling stations that did not exist.

The Chief Electoral Officer then had the power to get on the radio and say “If you get a message on the phone that tells you it's Elections Canada on the line and your polling station has changed, ignore it. We have not changed any polling stations”. That was important.

What Bill C-23 did in 2014 was to take away the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to do exactly that. It took away the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to reassure Canadians that their polling stations had not changed.

There were a number of other things that the so-called Fair Elections Act did. One was to say that if there were a particularly long writ period, more spending would be permitted. That meant that the really big parties, like the Conservatives or the Liberals, and this was certainly to the advantage of the Conservatives in that election, could spend more money if the writ period were longer. They spent a lot of money. In that election, they spent just shy of $42 million. The people of Canada gave them half back, because of the way the so-called Fair Elections Act operated to their benefit.

Moving quickly, we had two pieces of legislation tabled in this 42nd Parliament to deal primarily with fixing all of the things that had gone wrong or were perverse under Bill C-23 in the 41st Parliament. In December 2016, we got Bill C-33. I was thrilled to see it, but it never got to second reading. Everything in Bill C-33 was added to Bill C-76, which emerged this year.

Let me just go through the great things that were in the original Bill C-33 and are now before us in Bill C-76. It gave the Chief Electoral Officer back the powers to warn people, to talk to Canadians, and to educate people in a non-partisan fashion. It got rid of the extended period in which parties could get more money out of the whole system. That is now in Bill C-76. It actually shortened up the period and restricted how much money big parties could spend, which means that the taxpayers will reimburse them less at the end, which is great.

The first part of Bill C-33, which has now come forward within Bill C-76, brought back the basics, namely that people are allowed to bring someone with them to the polls to say, “I know Joe. He's my brother-in-law. We live in the same neighbourhood. He's missing a driver's licence because his driver's licence has been taken away from him. I am here to vouch for him.” Students voting at university have a very difficult time proving where they live and thus that they have the right to vote.

Far too many people were denied their constitutionally enshrined right to vote in 2015. The Conservatives said that voter turnout went up. Sure it did. Voters were desperate to get rid of Stephen Harper, and they showed up in large droves. However, the reality is that hundreds of thousands of Canadians were denied the right to vote because of the changes to the Elections Act that we are now getting rid of.

What is also really good and entirely new is the concept that the Chief Electoral Officer, that is, Elections Canada, can go into schools and try to encourage 14-year olds to register to vote for when they turn 18. They can start, right away, knowing that they are registered so that they can begin to think about their civic duty to vote.

The lack of voter turnout among our youngest citizens is a real problem. I would love to see us reduce the voting age to 16. That is not in this bill, but a good first step is allowing Elections Canada to go into the schools to talk to the young people when they are in high school. Their civics education will feel far more real when they are personally registering to vote. It is not that they have the right to vote, but they are pre-registered for when they turn 18 and do have the right to vote.

Bill C-76 does a number of other things. I do not think we will ever do enough to deal with the threats to social media, things like Cambridge Analytica, the way that Facebook information can be mined, the way that Facebook ads can be targeted, and the use of fake news. Bill C-76 attempts to deal with this. I think we are going to have to come back to it and do more. I certainly support what they have done in this bill.

I certainly support having pre-writ election spending limits. This was a big vacuum in our laws. I think it is because the last time we looked at the Elections Act, no political party was spending money pre-writ. They kept their money and started spending it after the writ fell. It was not until Stephen Harper's attacks on Stéphane Dion in January 2007 that we started having attack ads outside of a writ period with no spending controls at all. Now we have spending controls.

What is missing? Here is the big gap. This was our opportunity to put political parties under our privacy laws. This legislation says that political parties must develop privacy policies and table them, but that is a far cry from having them under our privacy laws. It is a voluntary scheme. We need to put political parties under our privacy laws.

Back when Bill C-23 was going through the House in 2014, during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, I did try to get an amendment passed that would make political parties subject to the Privacy Act. No party supported that then. I really want to thank the New Democratic Party for supporting my amendment, which did not succeed, to set out that parties must adhere to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA. We did not succeed, but I thank the NDP for being with me on that.

We need to keep working for fair elections in Canada. Bill C-76 gets us a long way toward them.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate for quite some time and hearing the opposition talk about time allocation and the issue with having the Chief Electoral Officer in place at a particular time.

I am hoping that my colleague from Oakville could speak to this and remind hon. members and all Canadians that we used 87% of the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer. We heard witnesses' testimony that amounted to over 100 hours of study of this legislation, where Bill C-23, the unfair elections act, only had less than 50 hours.

I am wondering if my colleague could speak to the dedication that we have put into this piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how I am going to follow that. It was quite blistering, intelligent and if I do say so myself, something I must surpass. I will try. I do not know if I will have any success, nevertheless we know the Lower Mainland of British Columbia is well represented.

I want to thank my colleagues for bringing forward their thoughts on this. We are into third reading on Bill C-76. We are just about to hand it over the Senate. I hope it gets the acceptance.

For me, this is a journey that has taken place for quite some time. It started for me with Bill C-23 in the last Parliament. At the time, it was called the Fair Elections Act. There was much to-do about the title, of course, and a lot of people made fun of the title. A lot of us felt that it was not fair in many respects. Some changes were made that were certainly acceptable, but for the most part, it was a bill that was troubled in the law. In my humble opinion, here we are now winding back some of the mistakes made in Bill C-23.

There are four main themes in Bill C-76. We are talking about amendments to third party spending, which is very important because third party spending has come up quite a bit in politics throughout the world. The United States grapples with this issue every year, not just every four years. Throughout Europe it is the same sort of situation, where one has to track the third party spending looking at how they plan to affect elections. This bill would substantially address that issue, far more substantially than what has been done in the past.

One of the things being encapsulated in this legislation is the fact that the activities around politics and the things we can spend on are being described. Right now, there are all sorts of ways of communicating with the people. With the onset of polling years ago, now we have push polls, pull polls and all that sort of thing, as well as the fact that we also have social media to contend with. In the past, advertising was held to newspapers, radio and television. Through social media, now there are all types of advertising, and ways to track advertising spending have become much more difficult as well. Therefore, encapsulating all of that in this legislation would go a long way.

For example, in the past we always talked about the advertising issue. Right now, there are three elements in this legislation we must address: election advertising, as I have mentioned; political activities, election activities such as rallies and those sorts of things that must be addressed; plus surveys, finding out the information and bringing it back to the candidate and the campaign, and the expenditures surrounding those.

The second part of Bill C-76 is reducing barriers to participation and increasing accessibility. To me, the accessibility measures in this legislation are essential. I will get to those in a moment. However, part of this bill would be reducing the barriers to participate, in particular the voter information card, which is something that has come up quite a bit. I will also address that a little later. In terms of modernizing voting services, I mentioned the advent of technology. We are using technology a lot more in all facets of life, not just when it comes to election campaigns. Another element is amendments related to privacy and protecting personal information.

When it comes to third parties, what we would be doing here is broadening the scope of third party activities. A third party would have to register with a CEO, which we feel is necessary. If they spend more than $500, then they would have go forward, be registered and would have to be tracked in light of that. We are also talking about spending on advertising, as I mentioned, partisan activities and election surveys.

Now, we would be defining two periods to measure this. There would be a pre-election period and the election period, when the writ is dropped until election day. It is very important to capture what would be happening in the pre-election period in this legislation, because we want to track how it affects the election itself. Third party spending is a big part of that. Foreign prohibition also came up. I have been here 14 years, and this issue comes up substantially when talking about foreign participation in our elections. Now, it is not prolific to the point where it is a major problem, but it could be. The language in this legislation would curtail a lot of that activity.

To be precise, it would be people who do not reside in Canada. It would include corporations that do not carry on business in Canada or are not formed in Canada and groups where the responsible person does not reside in Canada. It defines the entity by which third party spending is done.

I want to move on to another subject that is also encapsulated in the bill that is a step ahead. It is called the register of future electors. There are many jurisdictions around the world, and even within Canada, that look at voters younger than the voting age of 18. They go through the process of registering them so that when they turn 18 it becomes a simpler measure. However, what it really does is incorporate younger people to get involved in the election itself. It is not like when one takes part in an election in school. What they are doing is enumerating themselves to be registered so that when the election arrives they will be far more ready and far more aware of the situation of how one registers to become involved. Let us face it, it is a right to vote. We have a right within our charter, and therefore, to exercise their right these people get to the point where they work up to the age of 18.

There are jurisdictions in Canada that do this right now. They are: Nova Scotia, P.E.I., Ontario and Yukon. Around the world, U.K., New Zealand, Australia and Argentina all partake in registering of younger voters before the age they are eligible to vote.

That is only fair. Within the major political parties in the House one can vote for a leader at 14 years of age. Therefore, if the parties recognize they are incorporating people at this age to vote, then certainly it is incumbent upon Elections Canada, which they agree with and seem to be as excited about this as much as I am. They too are now involved in the process. That is also something in the bill that was overdue. Now we are embarking upon that.

On accessible voting, amendments to make it easier for those needing assistance to vote need to be improved. We are looking at assistance by friends or relatives to make the process of marking a ballot easier. Vouching in seniors residences would also become easier. The right to vote and the access to vote is an inalienable for Canadians and must be enshrined in legislation. The access to vote must be improved through the Canada Elections Act.

The other part of the disability involves when it comes to spending and how we do this. Money spent on those with disabilities can be included for election expenses but is not part of the cap. Therefore, we can be reimbursed for expenses for those with disabilities, but it does not go toward the overall spending cap. This is the type of legislation that could go a long way. It may seem like a small measure to many of us, but it is not if one is campaigning for someone with a disability.

Clause 5 restores the broad-based authority of the CEO to educate and inform the public. This was an egregious error in Bill C-23, the former Fair Elections Act, when they took that power away from Elections Canada. The problem with it was that Elections Canada was not able to inform the public about voting, the process and the democracy of it. It was basically pigeonholed to one particular part, which was only to youth. There is nothing wrong with that, that will continue, but now Elections Canada would have the ability to go beyond this and bring to the public information about democracy and voting. It would help promote to Canadian citizens above the age of 18 who have not taken part in democracy, and therefore is essential.

The other part is on the voter information card. How many times would I go around and see people with the voter information card on their refrigerator or on the door, waiting for election day? They would take it down to the voting booth as part of their ID and be turned away because it is not ID. To me, that was just wrong. Therefore, I am glad to see we are restoring the voter information card as valid ID. In the past, with Bill C-23, the problem with that legislation in many respects was it was a solution to a problem that did not exist. The problems around the voter information card were so minuscule that they felt it was unnecessary to use. To me, that was an egregious error so I am glad to see that back in all its facets.

Finally, I would like to say I am glad to see that the commissioner of Canada elections has returned to Elections Canada and has been taken out of the public prosecution office.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this debate because the Liberals have finally got on with it and introduced a bill to fix the work done by the previous government, and here I use the term “work” loosely, because that work made it more difficult for a whole series of Canadians to vote.

As the parliamentary secretary was saying earlier, this bill, in their terms, is a “generational overhaul”. Even in the name of the bill itself, that it is a modernization act, conveys that. It gives Canadians the clear sense that we do not do this very often. We do not renew the election rules by which we all participate in our democracy, the ways in which the parties and third parties participate and the ways that voters experience the election, very often.

There was a longstanding principle in Canada, that we would never change those rules in this place unilaterally, that doing so was bad practice and bad faith for one party alone, the government, to force through changes to our rules unilaterally. Canadians would then be left with the very distinct impression that maybe the ruling party of the time was putting in rules that would help that party in the next election.

That is a fair assumption to make. People do not even have to be quite so cynical as some folks in the Prime Minister's Office are to make that assumption.

The practice in this place, for generations, was that when we changed election rules, we did it together collaboratively. The previous government, unfortunately, broke with that tradition over a fight about vouching. It felt there were problems with the vouching system. The New Democrats fundamentally disagreed and the evidence supported them, because there was no massive fraud taking place in our elections and those changes were more about disenfranchisement than ensuring proper enfranchisement of our voting rights.

How we got here with the current government is an important part of this conversation. The Liberals said that the bar was quite low, that their aim was to fix Stephen Harper's unfair elections act. It was not going to be hard to do; it just had to undo a bunch of the damage that the Conservatives had done in Bill C-23 in the last Parliament.

The government introduced the bill. It took a year, but okay, it was a new government. Then for two years, it did not move the bill. The bill just sat there on the Order Paper. I can remember getting up in this place to ask the democratic institutions minister, “Hey, where is your bill? What else are you working on?”

At the time, we had been going through the whole electoral reform process, some of my colleagues will remember well. The committee was called ERRE. It was a special committee. We had participation from all parties, including a representative of the Bloc and the Greens. We toured around the country. We visited every nook and cranny. I see that the Chair is smiling in fond recollection of all of those days we spent on the road together. It was an incredible privilege, not just because we got to hear from experts in Canada about our democracy and how it could perform better, about voting and how to count votes in different ways, but also heard about how much of Europe and most of the world, in fact, had changed over time.

Also, and more importantly, we got to hear from average, ordinary Canadians. We had an online survey. Some 33,000, I think, people participated. We went around and held town halls, and heard from witnesses from each of the provinces, but we also just had an open mic where people could come up for a few minutes and tell us what they thought was needed.

As a parliamentarian, this is the very lifeblood, the very motivation of why we should be here, to have that open access to Canadians. They poured their hearts out to us, talking about voting reforms they wanted to see. They overwhelmingly supported proportional voting systems. That was the evidence that we heard, both from the experts and from the public who came before us.

Then, unfortunately, at the 11th hour, in a most awkward and quite cynical move, the Liberals kind of pulled the plug and, for months, they would not talk about what they wanted to do, what kind of voting systems they were interested in. The Prime Minister had hinted at one out of Australia that he liked, a ranked ballot. However, very early on in the committee process, we heard from experts who said that ranked ballots would not work well in Canada, that it would be a first-past-the-post system but on steroids. It worked very well for a traditionally centrist party, a party that borrowed a bit from all sides at all times. Good gosh, who could that possibly help out? Right, it was the Liberals. That idea was shot down out of the gate.

Then the disinterest of the Liberals in moving anything forward became obvious, to the final point where the then-democratic reform minister got up in this place and slammed the committee itself for failing to do its job. She then became the former democratic institutions minister, because that did not go over well.

Moving forward, we then saw the government taking so much time that it actually blew past the Elections Canada deadline, which was last spring. Indeed, Elections Canada came before our committee and said that if we were going to make any changes to the way elections are run, it needed legislation passed by the House and the Senate last spring. The Liberals said, “right”, saw the deadline and introduced the bill the day after the deadline had passed.

The committee began to work, the Conservatives started a little filibuster, and that took all spring and into the fall, and then the government blinked and they worked out a deal together. It is so nice to see parliamentarians getting together and working things out. The Conservatives and Liberals worked out that there would be more pre-election spending money, thus putting more money into politics. The Liberals were okay with that. Now they are upset again at the Conservatives and so things are returning back to normal, I guess.

We were just outside the House of Commons talking about the debates commission, which this very same committee had studied as well for quite a while and made clear recommendations, which I have here. The second and most important one is on the leaders' debate, which is an important part of our democratic process. A lot of Canadians watch these debates in French and English and make up their minds as to whom they want to support. However, it got a little tricky in the last election, with leaders not showing up and kind of screwing up the process a bit. Therefore, a debates commission was promised three years ago. However, for months and months, the new Liberal minister of democratic reform told us not to worry, that they were not really consulting with us because they were just going to use the report by the procedure and House affairs committee, PROC. We said, okay, if they followed what PROC studied and recommended, then we should be fine.

The second recommendation states that the leaders debate commissioner must be selected unanimously by all parties in the House. That seems like a good idea. We do not want the person who sets the rules over that important debate to favour one party or another, or to be chosen only by one party and not anyone else, because Canadians would then ask if it were not a partisan appointment, which is not right. It should not be a partisan appointment, especially by just one party, because then we would just watch the democratic reform minister step out in front of the cameras and say that the government has appointed a commissioner, that the government has decided alone and set the terms for who can participate in the debate and that the commissioner it has appointed will set the topics and all of the rules to follow. The Liberals say unilaterally, “Trust us”.

On democratic issues, the government seems to have some kind of fundamental twitch that comes up again and again, in that when it comes to the decision between collaboration and working with others versus unilaterally having all the power in its hands, the governing Liberals choose the latter again and again. I do not know why. It is actually quite stupid strategically, because when they make recommendations that are only supported by themselves, they are open to proper accusations of bias, of trying to rig the rules. For heaven's sake, I just do not know why. It is not just for the sake of the spirit of collaboration that we try to work together to try to strengthen our democracy, but if that is not motivation enough, then doing so just for the sake of political strategy is sufficient reason. However, the Liberals do not understand that when they work with other parties and have them support their recommendation, there is just much less controversy out the other end and that Canadians will trust the results more. Yet, time and time again, the Liberals choose to go it alone and then it blows up in their face again and again, and then they want to blame someone.

Here we are with Bill C-76, which is pretty flawed. I mean, 338 recommendations and amendments, a whole bunch of them, came from the governing party itself. They wrote the bill and then had to correct the bill, and then just last night, we voted on more corrections to the corrections of the bill. It is not great that it took them three years to get here, and there were so many fundamental problems in it, and a bunch of things remain uncorrected. I will give one example, and I think it is a good one.

Canadians would worry about someone trying to cheat or steal votes in an election and spending money illegally. Well, how would Elections Canada be able to investigate that? It needs to compel testimony, which the bill includes. However, what the bill does not include, which Elections Canada wanted, is the power to require receipts, cheque stubs, from all of the political parties, as it does for us as candidates. As candidates, if we claim to spend money, we have to demonstrate how the money was spent. Political parties do not.

Well, that is strange. How can Elections Canada do an investigation and find out if something went wrong or if someone may be cheating if it cannot get the evidence? It would be like passing criminal laws in this place where we would strengthen the laws to protect Canadians, but deny the police the ability to gather evidence. We cannot bring a person to trial if we do not have evidence.

However, the Liberals actually had a provision in the bill to require receipts and invoices, but took it out. We tried to put it back in and the Liberals said no. The Chief Electoral Officer said that he needed that ability to catch the bad guys. If someone working in some party office started to cheat and spend money in a bad way, Elections Canada is not going to know, because it will not have the evidence. In order to have an investigation, we need evidence.

Let us talk about getting more women into Parliament. We all remember Daughters of the Vote. It is an excellent program. The government just decided to fund it a little more. Under that program, young women, particularly from each of the ridings across the country, come and occupy these seats, 338 of them. They sit in these seats. Last year they got to question the Prime Minister. They were good. They were tough and fair, but mostly tough.

When we look at our parliamentary situation and whether Parliament reflects what the country looks like, if we were to stand out on the front steps, the first thing one would notice is that there are not a lot of women. They represent 26% of members in this Parliament. In the last Parliament, they were 25%. It went up by one percentage point. At the current pace, we will have gender equity in Parliament in 83 years. The Daughters of the Vote said, “That is not a sufficient timeline, Mr. Feminist Prime Minister. When are you going to get on with this?”

One of the ways we can all get on with this is to encourage more women and more people of diverse backgrounds to run. That is a good way of doing things. However, like many things in life, we have to follow the money. Therefore, one of the changes we proposed was included in the bill by our former colleague Kennedy Stewart. The Liberals said they liked that bill, but then voted against it. How typical. What it proposed was that when we reimburse parties for spending, which the public very generously does, we should reimburse to 100% those parties that try to present candidates that reflect the country, those parties that have candidates close to parity. The parties that just want to present 100% pale, male and stale candidates would get less money back from the public. It is a form of encouragement to not just mouth the words but go out and try to recruit diversity so that we can have diverse views here. How radical is that? The Liberals voted against that. Instead, they said they were going to allow women to claim child care expenses for 30 days as part of their election spending. They could fundraise on that and get child care for 30 days, as if that were the barrier holding women back from running for office, those 30 days in the 35 days of the actual writ period.

Come on. For an allegedly feminist prime minister—and I say “allegedly” because I do not have a lot of evidence to show that he is—one would think that if he had a proposal in hand that would result in more women over time getting into office, that would be good, unless he is happy with 26%. That seems to be be the case, because he recently decided to protect all of his incumbents from nomination races. He just said, “They're all protected”, which is essentially saying that he would like to have the status quo. I know this because I think there is a Liberal riding association that does not want to have its current incumbent MP represent them again, and the Liberal Party recently told it to step in line or walk out the door. That is love of the grassroots if I ever saw it.

Privacy was a huge part of the conversation that we had with Canadians. New Democrats believe in people's right to have their personal data private. As we move deeper into the social media world, the Internet based economy, privacy and the protection of privacy become incredibly important in commerce but also in politics. Here is what the rules in Canada say right now with regard to how the parties manage huge databases of information about the Canadian voter. They say nothing. Canadian law says nothing. Therefore, if this is a modernization bill, a once in a generation attempt to make our elections free and fair and to protect our sacred democracy here in Canada, one would think that because it is 2018, we would have something in here about that data and protecting Canadians' rights.

Here is the threat that we have seen exposed. It is not an imagined threat. Has anyone heard of Cambridge Analytica? People from Cambridge Analytica approached a number of MPs in the last Parliament, me included, and said that we should hire them because they could help us harvest data from our social media sites, from Twitter and Facebook. They said they would find out their associated email addresses, something one cannot normally do. If someone likes us on Facebook, then they like us on Facebook. That is no big deal, However, we cannot find out their email address. They said they would get us those people's friends as well, that they would be able to micro-target folks who might be be associated with them and of interest to us.

For political parties, that is red meat. That is interesting. That opens up whole new worlds. What we can do now with social media is to hyper-target people. The old days of putting out political ads with a sort of scattered approach in appealing to voters are gone. Micro-targeting is where it is at.

The Liberals up until last year prided themselves on being able to micro-target. They said that is how they won the last election. In fact, they hired Cambridge Analytica. They gave a $100,000 government contract to do what? Has anyone seen the contract? No, because the Liberals will not put it out. They hired the guys who were caught up in a thing called Brexit.

Folks will remember Brexit. Britain certainly remembers Brexit because it is going through it right now. Voters in England were hyper-targeted. Databases had been harvested. Facebook likes and share groups had been manipulated and were only being sent a whole bunch of myths and disinformation about what Brexit meant. The British Parliament has been trying to unravel this thing ever since Brexit happened as to how that referendum vote happened.

I want people, particularly from Quebec, to imagine if in the last Quebec referendum we found out after the fact that the referendum had been tampered with by outside groups and agencies, that a foreign government had gone into the data profiles of Quebeckers and targeted them one by one and spread misinformation about the effects of their referendum vote, and we found out after the fact. What would the reaction of Quebeckers be in what was ultimately an incredibly close vote as to whether Quebec would seek to leave Canada? Would anyone cast aspersions on the results of the vote whether they won or lost, that whoever had lost would say that the vote was not done fairly? That is what is being said in England.

The U.S. justice department has said that the last U.S. election was tampered with and the current U.S. mid-terms are being tampered with right now through Russian and Chinese online hackers. The threat is real and the threat is now. When we look at this modernization bill and say what protections are we—

[Bernadette Jordan]

Madam Speaker, let me remind members of this House that in a democracy, voting is a fundamental right. Unlike the Conservatives, we believe our democracy is stronger when more Canadians, not fewer, vote.

I now want to touch on the amendments that official opposition members put forward at report stage. Simply put, their amendments would have removed accessibility measures, removed the Chief Electoral Officer's mandate to communicate with Canadians about voting, removed the ability for one voter to vouch for another, and taken away the right from over one million Canadians to vote. It is clear that the official opposition is opposed to more Canadians voting. Sadly, this does not surprise me.

The Conservatives will stand in this place and claim to be champions of Canadian democracy, but I wonder how they genuinely can say that when they have delayed and filibustered throughout the study of this legislation. Let us be honest. The Conservative members attempted to block this legislation purely for partisan purposes. Rather than strengthening our democracy in Canada, the Conservative members of the procedure and House affairs committee wanted unlimited spending ability for political parties in the pre-writ period.

We are levelling the political playing field with Bill C-76 to ensure that our elections are more fair, transparent and secure as a result of this amended legislation. However, the Conservatives insisted on delaying the important work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and preventing good legislation, which will help more Canadians vote, from proceeding through this House.

Earlier this fall, the committee invited the Minister of Democratic Institutions to appear at the start of the clause-by-clause consideration, but rather than agreeing to set a time and date to begin clause-by-clause, the Conservatives filibustered throughout the minister's appearance during which she waited for, but never received, a single question. To be completely frank, I still cannot see what their reasoning was for these delays, apart from wasting the minister's time, delaying the important work of the committee and preventing good legislation which will help more Canadians vote from proceeding through this House. I just cannot imagine how Canadians could support these games and tactics.

Many Canadians choose to study or work abroad at various points in their lives. With the advancement in technology, Canadians are more mobile than ever before. As it has been said many times before in this House, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, and regardless if an individual was born in this country or took the oath of citizenship recently, by virtue of being a citizen of this country, that individual is entitled and has the right to have his or her voice heard in our elections. It is puzzling that Conservative members in this House would attempt to prevent over one million Canadians from voting in our elections simply because they are living abroad. In spite of attempts from members opposite, Bill C-76, if passed, will ensure that Canadian citizenship entitles people to vote in federal elections regardless of where they currently reside. It is as simple as that.

During the consideration of this legislation at the procedure and House affairs committee, the Conservatives put forward amendments that would require parental consent for young people to participate in Elections Canada's register for future electors; lower the administrative monetary penalties for those who break election laws; restrict the capabilities and independence of the commissioner of Canada elections in performing his or her duties; and restrict the use of the voter information card to provide one's address. Those are just to name a few.

I will return to an amendment submitted by a Conservative member on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It had to do with the requirement of parental consent for young people to participate in Elections Canada's register of future electors. Members of this House who are parents will know that parental consent is required for many memberships and to access various online platforms, and certainly for good reason, but to conflate a young person's interest in the democracy of our country and our electoral system with something nefarious is just another attempt by the Conservatives to create barriers to voting in the hopes to suppress the vote.

Members on this side of the House are not surprised by this. The Harper Conservatives attempted to build a case of fear and distrust in our elections through Bill C-23 with the removal of the use of the voter information card to prove address as they felt it was being used by voters to vote multiple times, which as we know, is simply not true. We now see the same fear and divisionary tactics by members of the former Conservative government now being used by the opposition with its proposed amendments.

It should also come as no surprise that the Conservatives did attempt to amend Bill C-76 to restrict the independence of the commissioner of Canada elections. After all, it was the Harper Conservatives who restricted the commissioner's power to investigate in the first place.

Members of the House will remember that through Bill C-76 we are reinstating the commissioner's independence and empowering him or her with the ability to better investigate possible violations of elections law. We are giving the commissioner the power to seek a warrant to compel testimony and the power to lay charges. We are doing this following the recommendation after the 2015 election where the Chief Electoral Officer stated, “The inability to compel testimony has been one of the most significant obstacles to effective enforcement of the act.” Following the Chief Electoral Officer's compelling argument, I find it deeply concerning that all members of the House would not support this measure in Bill C-76.

What is stranger yet is that Conservative members on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs did not support the amendments submitted by the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, which would add additional punishment for third parties using foreign funding for regulated activities. Under this amendment, third parties who are found guilty of offences related to the use of foreign funds could be subjected to a punishment equal to five times the amount of foreign funds that were used.

The reason I find it surprising that they did not support this amendment is that it can also be found in Bill S-239, which was introduced by one of their Conservative caucus colleagues, Senator Frum. Given that the proposed amendment is the same punishment as set out in Bill S-239, I have to wonder if the amendment was purely not supported because it came from a member on this side of the House, or if it was not supported because it actually would strengthen the legislation. Either reason is completely unacceptable.

This fall the new Conservative critic for democratic institutions, the member for Calgary Midnapore, brought a new collaborative tone to our work and I want to thank her for that. Collaboration from all three parties at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has made this a stronger bill. Members will not always agree on everything in this chamber; in fact, it is disagreement and debate which can produce better policies for all Canadians.

That is why I want to highlight some of the amendments brought forward by opposition members that the committee was able to come together and agree on. These include more protection for information contained in the register of future voters; creating a better definition for third party activities in Canada; and expanding vouching so that any voter on the list in the same polling station can vouch for another voter.

This builds on other important amendments brought forward by the Liberal members on the committee. I would like to highlight just a few of the amendments presented by my colleagues on this side of the House that further strengthen this legislation. These include a complete ban on foreign money spent at any time, not just during the writ or pre-writ periods, for third parties; a new obligation on social media platforms to create a registry of all digital advertising published and paid for by third parties, political parties and nominated and prospective candidates during the pre-writ and writ period; and, as previously mentioned, allowing employees of long-term care facilities to vouch for residents.

During debate on the bill at report stage, we heard concerns from the member for Thornhill with regard to foreign funds in our elections. He said:

Bill C-76 would double the total maximum third party spending amount allowed during the writ period, and it would still allow unlimited contributions from individual donors and others, unlimited spending by third parties and unlimited foreign donations outside the pre-writ and writ periods....

In wrapping up, while there are, admittedly, some modest improvements made to Bill C-76, it remains a deeply deficient attempt to restore fairness to the Canadian election process.

Simply put, this bill, as amended at committee, would prohibit the use of foreign funding in all third party partisan activities and advertising regardless of whether they take place during the pre-election or election period. As a result, I am proud that this bill would ban all foreign money all of the time to further protect our elections from foreign influence. I must also note for the member's reference that this amendment was supported by all members of the committee, including the member's own caucus colleagues.

On the subject of pre-writ spending by virtue of the creation of these timelines during an election year, Bill C-76 has created a maximum writ period of 50 days. I have heard from constituents in my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets that while levelling the political playing field is important to keep our electoral system fair, they also think that the fixed election date rules cannot be abused again. The previous government rigged the system to its own advantage and many Canadians were frustrated to be in such a gravely extended campaign period.

Before I wrap up, I want to go into detail on one other aspect of Bill C-76, which is Canadian Armed Forces voting. The women and men of the armed forces make tremendous sacrifices on behalf of our country and to protect our free and fair Canadian elections, yet they vote at a lower rate than the general population. This is likely in part because the Canadian Armed Forces' voting system is terribly outdated. Canadian Armed Forces members are required to vote on a base ahead of election day. Often they are required to vote in a different manner than their families. This system made sense when it was established, but it is no longer practical.

That is why we worked closely with the armed forces and the Department of National Defence to modernize forces voting. Under Bill C-76, Canadian Armed Forces members would be able to choose to use the civilian voting program. Those who wear the uniform face some of the most dire consequences of government policy. We have an obligation to ensure that their voices are heard during elections.

I will close by reiterating that this is important legislation. Bill C-76, as amended at committee, would make voting easier and more accessible to Canadians. It would make it easier for Canadians to run for office. It would make it easier for our women and men in uniform to vote. Bill C-76, as amended, would ensure that Canadians enjoy a democratic system that is more accessible, more transparent and more modern than ever before.

I encourage all members to support this important legislation, which would modernize our elections for future generations to come.

[Bernadette Jordan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-76, the elections modernization act. This legislation represents a generational overhaul of the Canada Elections Act and will allow it to better address the realities facing our democratic system in the 21st century. As many in this House will know, this legislation is making our electoral processes more transparent and more accessible to all Canadians.

Let us be clear. Voting is a right. As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to make voting accessible to all Canadians. Members of this House will know from previous debates on this bill that Bill C-76 makes a number of important changes to federal elections in Canada.

This bill will make voting more accessible for members of the Canadian Armed Forces, those who lack certain types of ID, and Canadians with disabilities. It will make participation in our democracy easier for those who have children or are responsible for sick or disabled family members. It gives the Chief Electoral Officer the flexibility to make elections more efficient. It extends the right to vote to over a million Canadians abroad, and it repeals the element of the Harper Conservatives' so-called Fair Elections Act that made it harder for Canadians to vote, which is why of course so many people refer to Bill C-23 as the unfair elections act.

I am currently the only female member of Parliament elected from Nova Scotia. In fact, I am only the ninth ever elected to represent my beautiful province since Confederation. We clearly have work to do, which is why I want to focus for a moment on the provisions of Bill C-76 that make it easier for women to participate in our democracy.

Historically, women have been disproportionately responsible for caring for young, sick or disabled family members. Bill C-76 will do two things to help people in this situation. First, the legislation will increase the reimbursement rate for candidate expenses related to caring for a family member to 90%, and second, it will exempt those expenses from the campaign spending limit. No longer will candidates be punished for taking care of their young or vulnerable family members.

I would like to remind this House that this legislation is also repealing measures enacted by the previous Harper Conservatives, which made it harder for Canadians to vote.

Certainly, some of the more egregious aspects of this so-called Fair Elections Act included the elimination of vouching and the voter information cards, also known as the VIC, as a form of proof of address. As a result of those changes, many Canadians across the country saw increased barriers to voting. In fact, a 2016 Stats Canada survey found that approximately 170,000 Canadians did not participate in the last election because they lacked the required ID to vote. This is completely unacceptable.

The Conservatives will tell us that it is not hard for Canadians to obtain an ID to vote. They will make false comparisons between voting and boarding an airplane or buying a six-pack of beer. Let me assure members, many senior citizens who are living with relatives, who may not have a valid driver's licence or do not have bills addressed in their name would be greatly helped by the use of the voter information card in order to provide a proof of address. Other examples include Canadians who have their mail sent to a PO box, or students who are often in precarious living situations while studying.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise here today to speak to Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. I am somewhat happily surprised to get this speaking opportunity, as we are debating this under time allocation.

The irony is, if it was not so serious, it is a bit delicious debating a bill that would change the rules around our elections, the foundation of our democracy, under time allocation after only a couple of hours of debate on the committee report. It is doubly ironic because the Liberals used closure to limit debate on second reading as well back in the spring. I remember that. Maybe it is a triple irony, because in the previous Parliament, the Liberals used one of their opposition days to debate a motion that time allocation must never be used to cut off debate on any bill that touches on our electoral system, and they have already done it twice here.

The history of this bill, as the previous member touched on, goes back to the time of Conservative Bill C-23, the so-called “Fair Elections Act” of 2014. If there was ever an Orwellian name for a bill, that was it. Among other things, that act made it more difficult for many Canadians to vote and ordered Elections Canada not to educate Canadians about the electoral process.

Both the Liberals and the NDP ran in the 2015 election on a promise to repeal Bill C-23 and get rid of the first-past-the-post electoral system once and for all. What have the Liberals done with regard to the Fair Elections Act? In late 2016, they tabled Bill C-33, and then sat on it for 18 months and did nothing. Then they tabled this bill, Bill C-76, on April 30 of this year, which included the measures of Bill C-33. That is a little late, because the Chief Electoral Officer had given the government a deadline of April 30 to pass any legislation around election changes because they had to be ready for the 2019 election. The government was a bit late with its homework there.

Here we are almost two years after the government tabled C-33, its first attempt at electoral reform, two years after it broke its promise that the 2015 election was going to be the last election run under the first-past-the-post system, and five months past the Chief Electoral Officer's deadline for legislation to be passed in time for the 2019 federal election.

What is in this bill that we have been waiting for all these months and years? To be fair to the government, I will start with some of the good measures we are happy to see on this side of the aisle. In fact, many of them are changes the NDP has been calling on the government to do for some time. It would limit the writ period of any election to 50 days, thus eliminating the chance for another marathon election like the 70-day campaign we had in 2015. That is great news for all Canadians, not just for candidates. I would like to thank my NDP colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, for suggesting this to the government in the form of his private member's bill.

I am happy to see two parts of this bill that would encourage young people to get informed and involved in the electoral process. Like many MPs, I go to a lot of schools to talk about government and the electoral process. During the Thanksgiving break I spent a whole day at Grand Forks Secondary giving classes on civics, and a couple of classes on biology as well, because I was a biologist in my former life, but that is outside the scope of this topic.

The questions I get asked at school talks are often much more informed than those I get at open town halls. Unfortunately, the turnout for young voters at elections is usually well below that of older voters, so I am happy Bill C-76 would allow the registration of future electors between the ages of 14 years and 17 years. This simple act has been shown in other jurisdictions to increase the proportion of young people who vote after they turn 18.

Unfortunately, the Liberals voted down an NDP amendment to this bill that asked the government to study the possibility of lowering the voting age to 17. We allow young Canadians to join the military at age 17, but for some reason we do not want to give them the right to vote in our elections, to give them a voice for their future in this country.

Second, this bill would remove the ban on public education programs conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer through Elections Canada. Why this ban was put in place in the so-called Fair Elections Act is beyond me. However, I welcome the opportunity for Elections Canada to inform and educate Canadians about the electoral process.

Bill C-76 would also bring back the process of vouching to allow electors without proper ID to vote, as well as allowing the use of the voter ID card for the same purpose. These were disallowed under the Fair Elections Act in an effort that seemed to want to solve a non-existent problem, that of voter fraud, for which there are vanishingly few if any examples of, by creating a much more serious problem that inhibited Canadians, particularly disadvantaged citizens, from voting at all. We should be encouraging Canadians to vote and this will be a step in the right direction at last.

Unfortunately, the government missed an opportunity to increase gender equality in Canadian elections, to increase the number of women running as candidates. The Liberal government talks glowingly about its commitment to gender equality, but does next to nothing in the bill to advance that.

Canada is far behind other countries in gender equity in political representation. My former colleague, Kennedy Stewart, now the mayor of Vancouver, put forward a private member's bill that would have strongly encouraged parties to increase the proportion of female candidates in future elections. Unfortunately, the government voted that bill down and failed to include its provisions in this bill.

There is no ban on foreign third party spending or activity. We have seen evidence of how foreign activity has affected elections in the United States and the UK. We need to ban that from Canadian elections. We hear almost daily stories of election tampering in those areas and others.

Canadians are deeply concerned about privacy issues during election campaigns. Political parties amass huge amounts of personal information on voters, yet there is nothing in the bill that covers this.

The present Chief Electoral Officer, Stéphane Perrault, said in committee, “If there is one area where the bill failed, it is privacy. The parties are not subjected to any kind of privacy regime.”

The Privacy Commissioner, Daniel Therrien, said that the bill had “nothing of substance in regards to privacy.”

No one at committee spoke against more stringent privacy requirements. Everyone was concerned that we did not go far enough.

I will close by bringing up the big thing missing from the bill and that of course is real electoral reform.

The Liberals, the NDP and the Green Party all campaigned on a promise that 2015 would be the last election under first past the post. Over 60% of Canadian voters supported that idea. For many Canadians, that was the most important promise of the election.

Canadians were tired of elections that gave parties with less than 40% of the vote a 100% of the power in a majority government. The Harper government was an example and the present Liberal government is another. Unfortunately, once the Liberals were in power, they forgot about that promise.

The Liberals say they want to increase the participation of Canadians in the electoral process. They say that Bill C-76 is their answer to this. However, the incredible cynicism on their lack of action on real electoral reform has already had a negative effect on how Canadians feel about their elected representatives and whether it is even worth voting in the next election.

I support many of the reforms contained in Bill C-76, but it falls short in so many ways. Like so many bills we see in this place, it is a tentative step in the right direction, but we need to go further.

Let us get rid of big money in elections. Let us ban foreign interference in elections. Let us protect the privacy of Canadians. Let us get back on track to getting rid of first past the post, so every vote will count.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's speech. He spent some time talking about the fact we have introduced time allocation on this legislation. We know that time allocation is necessary to advance legislation and to do the work that Canadians have sent us here to do.

I want to remind the hon. colleague that, through the committee and other work that has been done, over 85% of the recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer were included in Bill C-76. We heard 56 hours of witness testimony. There were 24 hours of study at committee and 36 hours of study on the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer. In total, over 100 hours of study have gone into what we now see as a very comprehensive piece of legislation.

I wonder why the hon. member thinks we should take any lessons from his party. When the Conservatives introduced Bill C-23, they had less than 50 hours of study of that legislation.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the amount of work the committee has done on this particular bill is exemplary. We have had great debate here in this House. If we take a look at the amount of time that was spent on Bill C-23, it is a fraction of what we have been able to spend on Bill C-76. It is important to let members of this House know that a voter identification card is information, and that information is important. Only Canadian citizens can vote in a Canadian election and that is the way it should be.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada has heard what Canadians have to say.

We are very proud that the majority of the all-party amendments to the bill are among the amendments the committee adopted.

When the bill was introduced, the Government of Canada introduced it as an initiative to modernize our electoral process and make it more transparent, accessible and secure for all Canadians. One of the proposed amendments was to require all electors to be Canadian citizens when exercising their right to vote.

Even though that has always been a requirement for eligibility to vote, Bill C-76 revealed an error in the wording of the new Canada Elections Act, which came into force in 2000.

It was possible to interpret the French version of the act as stating that a person who expected to obtain Canadian citizenship prior to voting day could vote in an advance poll before being granted citizenship. Of course, there is no way to know for sure that a person will become a Canadian citizen until that person has taken the oath of citizenship.

The amendments made by the committee to Bill C-76 correct this error and clarify that only Canadians can cast a ballot in a ballot box. This would help ensure the integrity of the entire electoral process.

Former chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand has applauded the Government of Canada's efforts to modernize our electoral system and make it more accessible. However, he also mentioned that additional amendments should be made to facilitate the identification of electors who live in seniors residences or in long-term care centres, because it could be difficult for seniors to prove where they live with an ID. I think this is a great amendment, a great suggestion, because in a riding like Edmonton Centre, with so many towers and so many seniors residences, I have seen that this particular voter ID difficulty for seniors is prevalent.

The committee also adopted amendments to Bill C-76 that would make the electoral system more accessible for our seniors. From now on, seniors centre employees would be allowed to cast ballots for senior citizens living in their place of work, provided they themselves can vote and live close to the seniors centre. I know that the seniors at St. Andrew's will be happy to hear this. They live about a block away from my house, and when it comes time to vote, they will be able to make sure that their voice is counted.

Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, includes measures to ensure that political parties and third parties play by the same rules in exercising their right to participate in political electoral activities.

From now on, third parties that intervene in the electoral process in any way would have to clearly explain their advertising messages. Also, third parties that spend more than $10,000 or that receive more than $10,000 in contributions would be required to submit financial reports to Elections Canada every two weeks, starting on September 15 in a fixed-election year. Elections Canada would publish these financial reports on its website. These transparency measures would help Canadians better understand who is trying to influence their vote and why.

This bill will also protect our democratic institutions from foreign attempts to influence outcomes. Elections Canada representatives and the commissioner of Canada elections appeared before the committee and recommended further enhancing a number of protective measures. The government agreed to several of those recommendations.

Bill C-76 also contains additional tools that would make it easier for Elections Canada and the Canada elections commissioner to prevent or limit the effects of third-party influence on Canadian voters. For example, the new third-party funding section of the act would prohibit the use of foreign funds at any time to obtain or broadcast partisan advertising, to fund partisan activities or to conduct polls. New anti-avoidance provisions would also forbid all attempts to sidestep these rules.

Bill C-76 created a new offence to prohibit the fraudulent use of a computer to influence election results. A new offence added during the committee's study will henceforth prohibit all attempts to influence an election and strengthen that prohibition.

We would also make it a criminal offence to publish material made by anyone attempting to impersonate the Chief Electoral Officer or a returning officer.

Finally, on the recommendation of the commissioner of Canada elections, our government would reinforce the ban that applies to all persons and entities that sell advertising space. It would now be forbidden to sell advertising space to foreigners that would allow them to broadcast election advertising.

The results of Canadian elections should only ever be determined by electoral votes made by Canadians. Bill C-76 already contained numerous amendments to the act to amend the Canada Elections Act that were important to Elections Canada's recommendations.

During the committee's study, the Government of Canada listened to independent experts whose only job is to protect our democratic institutions. I am proud of the comments we heard from those experts because they helped strengthen the bill.

Therefore, I invite all colleagues in the House today to voice their support of the third reading of the act to amend the Canada Elections Act and modernize our electoral process and make it more transparent, accessible and secure for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

When we take a look at the facts, 56 witnesses were heard in committee on Bill C-76, there were 24 hours of committee time and there were 36 and a half hours of study time of CEO recommendations by committee. For bill C-23, the hours of study for the Fair Elections Act was 49.5.

Bill C-76 would encourage Canadians to participate fully in the electoral process, and that is exactly what we intended.

Bill C-76—Time Allocation Motion

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to hear that from my colleague across the way, because when his party was in government it used time allocation to move forward a piece of legislation that further limited democracy.

What is also of note is that since this bill was introduced, the official opposition has taken every opportunity possible to obstruct the progress of this piece of legislation. Even yesterday it put forward 177 spurious amendments that would return this piece of legislation to what was in Bill C-23, which, as we heard from experts and Canadians across the country, limited people's ability to participate in democracy.

This piece of legislation is incredibly important. It expands the franchise. It ensures that every Canadian citizen who has the right to vote will be able to vote.

On this side of the House, we firmly believe that our democracy is strongest when all Canadians participate in it. I understand that that is not the case with my colleagues on the opposite side. However, for us, democracy should be available to all Canadians and we are working diligently to ensure that is the case in 2019.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians know that it is neither the Liberals nor the New Democrats who are working to impede democracy, considering it was the previous government that introduced Bill C-23. In fact, most of the amendments my hon. colleague and opposition members proposed were to return this bill to Bill C-23, in which, unfortunately, the previous government went out of its way to limit the ability of Canadians to participate in our democracy. Therefore, it is a bit rich, and slightly laughable, to hear from Conservatives on the other side how strongly they value democracy and democratic participation in our country, when they did things to impede that process.

Bill C-76 would do much to repeal all those unfair elements in Bill C-23. It would ensure that the election in 2019 had the integrity Canadians deserve and expect and that the process would be fair and protected.

Motions in amendment

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is right to point out that Bill C-23, the unfair elections act, is much undone by this bill. We are actually moving amendments to allow for vouching to make more sense, not people just within a polling station but more broadly.

I have a question on process, because process matters, of course. It is not just what is in the piece of legislation but how we pass it through this place. Bill C-23, the unfair elections act, was time allocated by the Harper government at the time, and that means that the debate was cut off. Both ourselves and the Liberals joined in the chorus from other parts and from many Canadians who said that when it comes to election laws, we should never do so.

The Liberals, in fact, moved a motion on one of their few opposition days. It was moved, in part, by the now-Prime Minister, saying that time allocation should never apply to electoral bills.

I have just a straight question, and hopefully we will hear a straight answer. Will the Liberals commit to allowing the debate to exist over something so vital as our democracy, and to not employ the same tactics that were used by the Harper government to time allocate, to shut down Parliament's ability to discuss and debate this bill?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege to rise today in the House to begin second reading debate on Bill C-76, elections modernization act.

I want to begin by thanking the procedure and House affairs committee for its hard work and collaboration in studying this piece of legislation.

I am incredibly proud of this important piece of legislation that will strengthen the integrity of, increase the fairness of, and protect our elections.

Bill C-76 makes it easier and more efficient for all Canadians to take part in our democratic process in the most important exercise of all: casting a ballot on election day. Importantly, it undoes the most unfair aspects of the previous government's Bill C-23. Not many people know this, but the reason I decided to run for office was precisely that legislation because I could not believe that a government of Canada would do things in its power to make it more difficult for Canadians to vote.

In Bill C-76, we are ensuring that every Canadian who has the right to vote will be able to cast that ballot. I am so proud that we are moving forward with this legislation.

We made important commitments to Canadians surrounding the use of vouching and the voter information card. Those are returned in Bill C-76. I travelled across the country and heard from people who were unable to cast their ballot in the last election because of those changes the Conservatives made previously. Statistics Canada estimates that over 170,000 Canadians were unable to cast their ballot in 2015 because of the changes made in the so-called Fair Elections Act.

For example, the CEO of Elections Canada talked about the dignity that is required when vouching is enabled, the dignity for the people who go to the polling station. He talked about the fact that it is senior women often who do not have two pieces of identification to demonstrate both their identity and their address. Using the voter information card, which will enable individuals to establish residency, will empower and ensure that those senior women, among others, will be able to cast their ballot on election day. This is also important for indigenous Canadians, for people who do not have a permanent place of residence, and also for those who are interested in casting that ballot and need that extra bit of help with respect to vouching. This is so important for the dignity of Canadians. I am so proud that this is part of Bill C-76.

I also want to talk about the fact that in section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all Canadians, by virtue of having citizenship, have the right to vote. In Bill C-76, we are ensuring that all Canadians living abroad will be able to cast their ballot on election day. Having studied abroad and lived abroad for work, I have had the opportunity to vote from abroad in previous federal elections. I know how important it is for Canadians to maintain that connection to the country they are so proud to come from. Therefore, in Bill C-76, Canadians living abroad will be able to cast their ballots too.

Let us talk about dignity and accessibility. In Bill C-76, we are also ensuring that political parties and candidates will be able to have an incentive to ensure greater accessibility to their campaign material or perhaps build a ramp to their campaign office or provide sign language interpretation at an all-candidates meeting. We heard from Canadians across the country that these measures are so important to be included in the electoral process and to ensure that they also feel included and are able to participate fully in our elections.

Let us talk about some of the important measures with respect to transparency that are in Bill C-76.

With regard to the pre-electoral period that will begin on June 30 going until when the writ is dropped, this will create greater transparency for Canadians to understand what third parties and political parties are spending with respect to advertising. There will be a cap on spending for political parties and third parties during this time period, and for third parties it will, during the writ period, also include political activities. This is so important, because we know that Canadians want to know who is spending money during an election and who is trying to influence their choices as they cast their ballot and get ready to make those choices on election day.

When it comes to foreign interference, I want to thank all members of the House because we stand united across partisan lines to ensure that our elections in Canada are free from foreign interference. Of note, I want to mention that members of the Conservative Party and New Democratic Party, as well as my own party, the Liberal Party, on the procedure and House affairs committee put forward really good amendments at committee stage to ensure we are doing everything we can to protect our elections from foreign interference. All members of this House have put partisanship aside, put country first and I applaud them for doing that.

When it comes to online platforms, we know that 2019 will be a different election. It will be one in which social media has a heavy presence and I am very proud to note that in Bill C-76 important measures have been taken to both protect us from foreign interference and also ensure there is a greater transparency in political advertising online.

In Bill C-76, there are two important amendments to the Canada Elections Act. The first is to ensure that social media platforms do not knowingly accept any political advertising from foreign sources and the second is to create a public registry of all political advertisements in the electoral period, something that Canadians will be able to check publicly to see who is targeting them and trying to influence them during an election.

Another extremely important aspect of Bill C-76 is with regard to the integrity of our elections. The robust election laws we have in Canada are, quite frankly, some of the very best in the world and the world looks to Canada for how to run and administer effective, free and fair elections. We are ensuring that those laws are upheld. We listened to the commissioner of Canada elections and have ensured that this office has the ability to both investigate and compel testimony. These are very important because we saw with previous scandals, whether it was robocalls or the in-and-out scandal, in which the integrity of our elections came into question, that Canadians needed to have the confidence to know who was behind these activities. The commissioner made it clear that had he had these tools, he would have been able to get to the bottom of it, and that is extremely important.

I would like to highlight the fact that Bill C-76 takes into consideration 85% of the recommendations that the CEO of Elections Canada made following the 2015 election. This piece of legislation is in direct response to ensure that Canadians have a process they can trust, that there is integrity in the electoral system, that our laws are as robust as possible and that they are as accessible and inclusive as possible.

There is no right more fundamental than being able to cast a ballot on election day, to mark down who one wants to govern and ensure that process has integrity. I am so fundamentally proud of this legislation. It is good for democracy, it is good for Canada and I am absolutely thrilled that we are debating it at report stage in the House of Commons. We can all be proud of this because it is good for Canada.

Elections Modernization Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on a point of order raised on October 23, 2018, by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington regarding Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments.

The hon. member objects to an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, sometimes called PROC in this place, on the basis that it amends a section of the parent act not amended by the bill. He argues that the committee went beyond the mandate the House had given it and urges the Chair to strike the amendment from the bill. He notes that Speakers have exercised this power in the past to deal with inadmissible amendments adopted by a committee.

I am grateful to the hon. member for having raised this matter, as it affords me the opportunity to clear up a misconception about what is commonly referred to as the “Parent Act rule”.

As the hon. member no doubt noted, the passage he cited concerning this rule, found at page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, is contained in a section about relevance.

The Parent Act rule, the idea that an amendment should not amend an act or a section not already amended by a bill, rests on a presumption that such an amendment would not be relevant to the bill. This can be true. Often, such amendments attempt to deal with matters not referenced in the bill, and this is improper.

However, there are also occasions when an amendment is relevant to the subject matter of a bill and in keeping with its scope but can only be accomplished by modifying a section of the parent act not originally touched by the bill or even an entirely different act not originally touched by the bill. This is especially so when the amendments are consequential to other decisions taken by a committee or by the House.

In the present case, an amendment adopted by the committee creates a new section 510.001 of the Canada Elections Act. This section would empower the commissioner of Canada elections to request and obtain certain financial documents from political parties. The hon. member made no suggestion that this amendment was inadmissible. He objects, however, to a related amendment to section 498 of the act that makes it an offence to refuse to comply with the commissioner's request. Section 498, while not originally part of the bill, is the section that spells out offences relating to Part 19 of the act, which is where the new section 510.001 would be found.

I have trouble seeing how this could be considered irrelevant to the bill. Were I to accept the hon. member's argument, we would find ourselves in the strange circumstance of allowing an amendment that creates a new obligation but refusing an amendment that spells out the consequences for failing to comply with that new obligation.

The parent act rule was never intended to be applied blindly as a substitute for proper judgment as to the relevance of an amendment. Clearly, amendments that arise as a direct consequence of other admissible amendments should be considered relevant to the bill, even if they are made to a section of the parent act otherwise unamended.

The hon. member noted that our procedural authorities do not reference any exceptions, leading him to conclude that none are possible. He well knows, however, that practice and precedent are also binding. As is stated at page 274 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

Where there are no express rules or orders, the House turns to its own jurisprudence, as interpreted by the Speaker, who examines the Journals and the Debates of the House to determine which rulings of past Speakers and which practices and precedents should be applied.

There are multiple examples of amendments of this nature having been accepted in the past. In 2003, Bill C-250, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda), contained a single clause amending section 318 of the Code to change the definition of “identifiable group”. At the beginning of the report stage, on June 6, 2003, the Chair accepted amendments to sections 319 and 320 of the Criminal Code, which also dealt with hate propaganda.

On May 5, 2014, when the Procedure and House Affairs Committee presented its report on Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts, the report contained an amendment to section 345 of the act, which was not originally amended by the bill, but sought to clarify what did not constitute an election expense under section 376, which the bill did amend.

Just last year, in a report tabled on October 5, 2017, the health committee amended Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts, by modifying section 7 of the Non-smokers' Health Act, originally untouched by the bill. This change arose out of an earlier amendment to the definition of “workplace” in the same act.

These are just a few examples where exceptions were made to the parent act rule because the amendments were clearly relevant to the bill. Given that the present amendment is of a similar nature, I have no difficulty concluding that it too should be found in order.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

[Robert Sampson]

We do agree and, in fact, these provisions are modelled very closely on Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act, and other acts before. This is very much in keeping with the tradition of transitional provisions.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

When the Fair Elections Act came out, one thing that we quickly found troublesome was moving the commissioner away from Elections Canada. It's important that we put it back where it belongs and has been for most of its life. On that basis, I won't support amendments CPC-171 or CPC-172.

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

Thank you, Chair, because I know that your committee motion didn't require you to give me a second crack at this.

I just want to mention that I tried to amend this when it was Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act. I brought forward an amendment to have the Privacy Act apply. This time, I modified it to having the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, apply.

Based on the advice we're hearing from our Chief Electoral Officer and from experts in privacy, if we wait, David, with all due respect, we'll be having the 2019 election with inadequate protection of Canadians' privacy data, and we know what can happen. As Nathan was talking, I remembered that when Irwin Cotler was in Parliament with us—it was a huge honour to serve at the same time as Irwin—he was so upset because he told his campaign staff to make no phone calls on High Holy Days, no phone calls, and somehow somebody had the database of the Jewish families in his riding and they all got calls on Seder. They were interrupted if they were at the Seder feast by calls from the Irwin Cotler office.

Now, we don't know who made those calls, but it's a misuse of privacy data to be able to know who is Jewish, who is likely to be home, and who could be offended by the misuse of data. Our privacy data is private, and Canadians should have a right to be able to say to any political party, “Show me what you've got on me—I want to know.” That's a right Canadians should have. There's no reason, ethically, practically.... There is no justification for political parties to be the only exempt operators who collect data, and boy, do they collect data.

We collect as much as we can. We don't have as much as you guys. I will never forget talking to Garth Turner. He put this in his book. It was about the FRANK system, which stands for friends, relatives, and neighbours' kids, in terms of what his former party was collecting.

We've got to fix this. We've got one shot and it's in the next half hour.

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

This is a change included in the Fair Elections Act that we opposed fairly strenuously at the time and continue to oppose. It was intended to give the government of the day an advantage by controlling how much money everybody could spend by stretching the campaign. I think it's not a very good system. Spending should be predictable in advance.

I'll be opposing this amendment, absolutely.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm saying this from memory, but I think this was a change brought by Bill C-23. Prior to Bill C-23, there was a maximum of two electors who could attend the vote in the absence of representatives, but we'd have to confirm that.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

It is right that the voucher needs to be from the same polling division. Bill C-76 in that regard would reinstate the situation that was prior to Bill C-23.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Sure. Essentially, this amendment is reverting to the status quo of no vouching, but with the attestation as to residence, as seen under the Fair Elections Act.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Yes. As Ms. May has said, following Bill C-23 in the 41st Parliament, Sunday was introduced as a day of advance polling.

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

I briefly wanted to say that in the 41st Parliament, Bill C-23, for the first time, broke the barrier against Sunday voting. The previous Conservative government had put in the legislation that advance polling would be mandatory on Sundays. That's the current state of the law, as far as I know it.

What Nathan's amendment would do would be to provide a voting day quite close to election day, but this would not be breaking a precedent or a taboo on Sunday voting. That was done by the previous government.

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

May I ask you specifically about the privacy piece, which is one that is worrying me? As a matter of fact, when the Conservatives' Bill C-23 was before this committee in the 41st Parliament, I put forward an amendment that political parties would not be exempt from the Privacy Act.

My amendment in this case is more specific to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA. This would be much more effective, I think everyone would agree, than each party coming up with its own privacy plan and tabling it.

Can you give me a sense—and I know this is highly specific—of whether there is any willingness to entertain this amendment, and if not, why not?

[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.

[Brian Marlatt]

Principally.

Again, we did not get to the point of having extended conversations with a constitutional lawyer about that, because the thing passed, in terms of time and so forth. We've had another election since then, with a new government being elected, which considered redressing some of these concerns and is doing so.

I will tell you, and I think this is public knowledge, that in the ACPP meetings on June 8 and 9 of 2015, immediately before the last election, one of the key focuses was on how the changes brought by Bill C-23 could be implemented effectively without influencing the election and that there would probably be a statement by the Chief Electoral Officer afterwards, as I recall and understand what he had said at the time.

Does that help with your question?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Were the court challenges you talked about going to concentrate mainly on the voter suppression aspects of Bill C-23?

[Brian Marlatt]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] the role of the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada in educating and presenting information to the public during an election. Those are the two principal ones I referenced here. As far as Bill C-23 is concerned, I should draw to your attention—and you'll find it appended to this document when you see it in the French and English translation which will be available in a couple of days—that on the recommendation of the Honourable Sinclair Stevens we were going to bring a constitutional challenge to Bill C-23 before the Federal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada, costing a retainer of $350,000, we found.

We talked to the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Federation of Students, which felt that Bill C-23 was suppressing their voting opportunities. The answer we got back from the Council of Canadians, frankly, was that they preferred to go through their own lawyers, through a provincial court. I thought of that as nothing more than a photo op, and that's ultimately what it proved to be.

I am pleased that some of the greatest concerns we have about Bill C-23 are being addressed in this legislation. As you consider the bill I hope you will put the two things together and see what further things you feel should be a part of the way you address it, and things that need to be remedied that we've not identified.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you both for being here. I regret that I came in late and I missed your presentations, or at least I certainly missed all of yours, Mr. Turmel. It seems I must have missed something quite interesting. I'm not sure what to ask you.

Mr. Marlatt, you don't seem to be a fan of Bill C-23 from the previous Parliament, the Fair Elections Act.

[Brian Marlatt]

If you look at my historic past.... Before political involvement, I was a DRO in two federal elections—1993 and 1997. I've acted as a voting clerk and a voting officer with Elections BC, and subsequently in provincial elections, including the last one in 2017.

One of the things they use there, as we always have, was the voter elections card or its provincial equivalent. That, in conjunction with another piece of ID that can be provided—and there are various categories in which that applies—as opposed to insisting upon a kind of identification that some classes of people simply don't have. Sometimes they're students. Sometimes they are people in northern communities or aboriginal people. These people are marginalized. I don't want to press this too hard, but in the United States, where there is an active—at least according to the media—exercise of voter suppression, getting rid of something like the voter identification card seems to have been a key part of what they were doing.

We don't need voter suppression in Canada. We need voter participation. Reinstating this, and public education on the part of the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada, are important things that were removed in Bill C-23 that Bill C-76 proposes to return. I commend that.

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

Mr. Marlatt, I appreciate the work that has gone into your report here. You're obviously not a fan of Bill C-23, to say the least, and I like what you had to say about not letting us get distracted by things and having us focus on the changes that need to be made, and then down the road we can discuss that even further.

I want to go back to something you said. I didn't quite get the whole thing, but there was something, a recommendation by the U.K. commission. Is that right?

[Brian Marlatt, Communications and Policy Director, Progressive Canadian Party]

Thank you to the chair and to the committee for inviting the Progressive Canadian Party to present important evidence, in our view, concerning Bill C-76, the elections modernization act.

The Progressive Canadian Party is a continuation of the tradition in Canadian politics of a Tory party willing “to embrace every person desirous of being counted as a progressive Conservative”, in the words of Sir John A. Macdonald. The PC Party was led, until his recent passing, by the Honourable Sinclair Stevens, who was a minister in the Clark and Mulroney Progressive Conservative governments, and is now led by former PC MP Joe Hueglin.

I'm speaking today as communications and policy chair on the PC Party national council, but I also contributed to the Elections Canada advisory committee of political parties in 2015; again in meetings in 2018, and in fact yesterday; and previously served, before political involvement, as an Elections Canada DRO and Elections BC voting officer and clerk. I hope this experience adds value to our testimony.

Evidence and comments today will be limited largely to implications of Bill C-76 in the context of today's fixed-date election law introduced in 2006, the Fair Elections Act, sometimes described as the voter suppression act by Progressive Canadians, introduced as Bill C-23 in the 41st Parliament, and other proposed electoral reforms that have been part of public discussion of this bill. I welcome questions from the committee in its larger context or details insofar as I may be able to contribute positively to your study of the bill.

As an aside, I will note that because Bill C-76 is important in the evolution of our democracy, vigorous debate in the Senate is likely to follow given the new partisan spirit introduced by appointments in the previous government, which have been moderated but not checked by the new independent advisory committee recommending persons for Senate nomination by the Prime Minister to the Governor General. I have further comments on that. If you wish, we can take care of that in questions.

Change in Westminster parliamentary democracy may be characterized as a balance of continuity and change, of evolutionary trial and error, and at its best when it proceeds by what Renaissance scholar Desiderius Erasmus described as “by little and little”. Unexpected consequences can be moderated, and ill-advised choices mitigated or remedied. Bill C-76 is about evolutionary change. The need for progressive evolutionary parliamentary change is suggested by the 42nd general election.

The 42nd general election of Parliament, on October 19, 2015, well illustrates the need for many of the measures recommended in Bill C-76. The 2015 election was the first one honouring the fixed-date election law. The 41st Parliament had seen the parliamentary opposition in effect neutered by the unavailability of parliamentary responsible government by excesses of party discipline in a majority government and the fixed-date election law.

Omnibus bills and limited debate on controversial legislation, including the Fair Elections Act, became the norm rather than the exception. The last year of the 41st Parliament was reduced, arguably, to a campaign to elect the next parliament. By the end of the session, in June 2015, campaigns and campaign spending by parties and third parties were ramped up before rules applying to writ-period spending came into effect. An almost unprecedented 78-day writ period followed in which party spending limits allowed nationally, and in all 338 riding elections, doubled per candidate. Money became key. The distance between public interest and party interest widened, and concern about Bill C-23 voter suppression grew.

I refer you to “Memo on the Fixed Date Election Law, Money and the Corporate Political Party in 2015, and the implications for Smaller Political Parties, and Independents.” The written copy is appended to this document.

Many of these concerns were anticipated. The Progressive Canadian Party addressed several of these concerns and proposed remedies, which were discussed in a submission solicited by this committee, PROC, in September 2006, when the fixed-date election law was originated as Bill C-16, and in a submission to the Elections Canada Advisory Committee of Political Parties, ACPP, on election advertising, in which the implications of fixed-date elections were discussed. Both documents are available on the EC website or by request from Elections Canada.

Bill C-76 proposes a new pre-writ period in a fixed-date election, beginning June 30, at the end of the session in the year a fixed-date election is to be honoured, and a maximum limit of a 50-day campaign writ period. We cite the following remarks in the PC Party 2015 submission to Elections Canada by way of guidance on ways in which Bill C-76 may be improved:

It is widely reported that political parties or candidates are conducting political campaigns well in advance of the writ being dropped to begin the formal election period. At present, there is no limitation on the spending of political parties or candidates outside of the writ period.

In other Commonwealth countries, notably the United Kingdom, political advertising outside of the writ period is subject to legislated “long campaign” and “short campaign” limits administered by the Elections Commission.... EC advice and interpretative instruction for the 2015 election is strongly recommended.

Advertising activities by the Government of Canada and government departments have included public service announcements of programmes “subject to parliamentary approval.” Such announcements may be deemed partisan advertisements funded by public monies and taxpayer dollars by the agencies contracting to issue such public service announcements because they concern proposals, generally by the governing party of the day, which have not received parliamentary approval.

While this practice is not strictly election advertising in advance of the writ period, the effect is the same. It is recommended that these practices be qualified and that a pre-writ period in the fixed-date election years be extended to mirror long campaign practices administered by the U.K. Elections Commission. This recommendation would apply if the fixed-date election law is not repealed in the interest of protecting the principle of responsible government at the heart of Canadian Westminister Parliamentary democracy.

The Progressive Canadian Party strongly agrees with the intention and certain of the provisions in Bill C-76, which are intended to reverse the outcomes of Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act, passed in the 41st Parliament, and to see these corrections as part of the continuity, change, and evolution in Parliamentary practice, by which the unintended consequences or error in previous legislation may be mitigated or remedied. In particular, we commend the restored role of Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer in providing public information during elections and measures to ensure that every qualified Canadian may take part in riding elections of a Parliament in Canada.

We recommend restoring the voter identification card issued by EC as acceptable identification of voters at the polls. We note that in other places and countries, requirements for photo ID and other limitations have had the effect of limiting voter participation and have been described as voter suppression in some sources.

The Honourable Sinclair Stevens, speaking for the PC Party national council in 2014, underscored the seriousness of these concerns, stating that:

It is the view of the Progressive Canadian Party that Bill C-23, entitled the Fair Elections Act...will betray basic principles of democracy in Canada even if substantially amended. Bill C-23 will deny the right to vote to large numbers of Canadians and as such must be challenged in the courts as unconstitutional...in ways indicated by scholars of Canadian constitutional law and political science published in the national media, Progressive Canadians believe the Fair Elections Act must be rejected as unfair, undemocratic, and deserving of constitutional challenge even in light of amendments which are being recommended by members of the House of Commons and in Senate committee. Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act is deeply flawed in fundamental ways and for its apparent intent.

The media release from which this is drawn is appended to this document.

Bill C-76 is a welcome remedy for some of the flaws of the Fair Elections Act. We welcome this remedy. Finally, on the margins of debate concerning Bill C-76 can be heard voices calling to revisit the question of electoral reform, which for them means replacing riding-elected MPs in each of Canada's 338 electoral districts according to single-member pluralities or majorities with party proportional representation according to the national or regional party popular vote.

We elect members of Parliament to the Parliament of Canada in riding elections held in each riding separately in a general election of a Parliament when Parliament is dissolved or in by-elections between general elections. We elect members of Parliament, not parties, movements or prime ministers. Party vote, or distributing seats in the House of Commons according to the proportion of votes received by party members nationally, is not relevant.

These facts about Canadian electoral practices are consistent with the constitutional architecture of Canada and with Canadian realities of space and population. Diversity of interest and of opinion, even within party groups, often varies widely in distant parts of Canada. The view in the north, the coasts, the prairies, and the industrial heartland can vary considerably in ways of party discipline, whether formal or as a part of movement politics, yet it is not reflected in party proportional representational systems.

We strongly advise that the debate on Bill C-76 not be distracted by those who purpose to achieve partisan advantage by advocating for systems of party proportionality regardless of the merit of the movement or party view they may represent. Democratic rights and objectives are not achieved, sustained, or protected by changing the system to achieve partisan advantage; they are achieved by the power of persuasion and a willingness to do the hard work of achieving democratic societal consensus.

I'd like to thank the committee for taking the time to consider our representation and my remarks. I hope they will help to guide you in meaningful debate and conclusions toward modernization of Canadian elections. There are documents appended to this, which you may find expand upon some of these issues that time here may not have provided for. I thank you again.

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

Can you speak to us briefly about the direct consequences of Bill C-23, following which you no longer reported to Elections Canada but to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada? What were the effects of this change?

[Marc Chénier, General Counsel and Senior Director, Legal Services, Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The commissioner has asked me to send his regrets for being unable to attend today's session. I am pleased be here today in the context of your study of Bill C-76.

This bill contains measures that stem from recommendations that were previously made by both the commissioner and others. Among these extremely positive measures, the System of Administrative Monetary Penalties, eliminating the requirement for prior approval in order to lay a charge and the power to ask for a court order to compel witnesses.

In addition to these changes, there are a number of other elements that are of particular interest to us.

First is the return of the commissioner to within the Office of the CEO. This change would be beneficial because our work is closely tied to elections. We would be able to enhance our ability to fulfil our mandate by maintaining better contact with those responsible for the election machinery.

We are happy to see that the important safeguards in Bill C-23 to protect our office's independence have been kept in this bill, including the statement that our investigations be carried out independently, a fixed term for the commissioner with removal only for cause, and his status as deputy head for human resources.

With respect to the third party regime, the commissioner asked that I report that a review of complaints about third party activities during the last general election has been completed, and that we have not found any evidence of illegal collusion, coordination, or foreign influence. However, the narrow regulation of third parties under the current act has limited our examination. Third parties now carry out opinion polls, conduct canvassing activities, and hold events. To date, provided they are carried out independently from parties and candidates, these activities are unregulated. Thus, the bill makes significant progress toward levelling the playing field for electoral participants.

Our office has a few suggestions for improvements. First, the bill would require a third party to identify itself in a tag line on its advertising messages; however, a third party can be a group that is formed only for one election, and its name alone may be meaningless. This is not consistent with the goal of transparency sought by the act, and also causes enforcement difficulties. Some provinces require third parties to provide a telephone number or address in their tag line, and the committee may wish to consider requiring this of third parties.

Furthermore, we generally support provisions to provide tools allowing us to deal with new challenges to elections. This includes new offences related to cybercrime and misleading communications, as well as clarifying the offence for foreign inducement and for false statements about candidates and party leaders.

On that last point, I note that the clarifications related to these two provisions of the act are not as broad as what had been endorsed by the committee in its 35th report.

In the case of false statements about candidates and leaders, allegations of criminality and about a few personal characteristics would give rise to the offence. In our view, this is not sufficient to protect the integrity of our elections against false claims that can have a devastating impact on a campaign.

While courts have recognized that false allegations concerning moral turpitude are currently covered, this would be lost if the bill is adopted as is. At a time when false news has become a pressing concern, weakening one of the only provisions that protects our democratic process against false allegations may not be advisable.

With respect to undue influence by foreigners, one of the ways of exerting such influence would be to make a false statement about a candidate or leader. Again, this is much more limited than what the committee had endorsed. The commissioner continues to believe that any false information disseminated by a foreigner purposefully to influence a Canadian election should be prohibited.

Finally, I would point out that the commissioner supports the suggested amendments put forward by the acting CEO. In particular, as our office suggested to Elections Canada, a circumvention offence should be added to prohibit attempts to go around the ban on foreign funds being used to finance third-party activities. It is also important that the specific intent element be removed from the cybercrime offence.

Information about the amendments recommended by the commissioner is included in the chart that was distributed to the committee.

In conclusion, there are many useful elements to this bill. The commissioner has asked that I mention that there will nevertheless always be limits to what can be accomplished in some cases. While Canada has agreements with some countries to carry out investigations beyond our borders, there are others with which co-operation will be impossible.

That said, we are working with our government security counterparts to minimize such barriers.

I will be pleased to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

My initial questions are for the Canadian Federation of Students, whoever would like to answer.

I know that your executive director, Bilan Arte, has gone on record before to call the Fair Elections Act, Bill C-23, an insult to Canadian youth and a form of voter suppression. Why did you feel that way about Bill C-23, referred to by your organization as the “unfair elections act”?

[Coty Zachariah, National Chairperson, Canadian Federation of Students]

[Witness speaks in Mohawk]

I was just speaking Mohawk and said, “Hello, everyone.” My name is Coty Zachariah, or “He Speaks in the Wind”. I come from the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte First Nation, located near Kingston. I'm also the national chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students and represent around 650,000 students across the country at the post-secondary level.

In October 2014, we joined the Council of Canadians in a charter challenge to the voter suppression elements of the so-called Fair Elections Act. Our primary concerns about the act were with regard to prohibiting the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, to authorize the use of the voter information cards as valid ID for voting, and limiting the CEO's authority to carry out voter education and outreach.

Students face additional barriers to voting, notably that students move frequently, often up to twice a year. As a result, common identification cards do not indicate the address that students live at on election day, or their names are not on the voters list in the poll or riding that they live in while they attend school. Moreover, by limiting the CEO's authority to carry out voter education and outreach, students, who are often new voters, are likely to be more confused about the process.

Despite these barriers in the last election, the CFS undertook a massive, non-partisan elections campaign that worked to mobilize students to come out in record numbers to vote. In 2015, 70,000 student voters took part in the democratic process at on-campus polling stations. It led to an expansion of that initial pilot project within Elections Canada. For 18- to 24-year-olds, turnout was 57.1%, compared to 38.8% in 2011. This increase of 18.3 percentage points is the largest increase of voting engagement in any demographic in the country. However, this increase was in spite of the Fair Elections Act and students still faced issues.

To quote the Chief Electoral Officer's post-2015 election retrospective report:

As in the previous two elections, problems with voter identification at the polls were more often related to proof of address. The labour force survey after the 42nd general election asked non-voters why they did not vote. In terms of reasons related to the electoral process, the inability to prove identity or address was the main reason cited ... and was more often cited among those aged 18 to 24.... Based on estimations from the survey, that amounts to approximately 172,700 electors. Among them, some 49,600 (28.7%) said they went to the polling station, but did not vote because they were not able to prove their identity and address. Approximately 39% of that group were aged 18 to 34.

We at CSF find that unacceptable. Students, however, are encouraged to see that Bill C-76 would make substantial reform to the Canada Elections Act, including the amendments formerly set in Bill C-33, and we look forward to seeing it passed.

We are discouraged, however, that these reforms are coming so late. It seems likely that even if Bill C-76 proceeds expeditiously, it would not make it through the Senate and be proclaimed into force until 2019, making it unlikely that Elections Canada could fully implement the bill's reforms before the next general election in October of next year. It seems likely that it is our court case with the Council of Canadians that might result in the necessary reforms around voter suppression being implemented prior to this election, a regretful outcome of a delayed process around Bill C-33 that we would like noted.

We believe student and youth participation in the democratic process is something to be celebrated and not discouraged. We hope that Bill C-76 will promote this principle.

Thank you.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

In your presentation you spoke about the previous Fair Elections Act being brought in due to concerns of fraud, and that's why they had to act and bring these measures in. You've said that, in study after study, the concern was not about fraud in people going to the polls to vote fraudulently, but in keeping people back and withholding people from voting, such as the robocalls.

I know, Professor Pal, that you've also written a piece regarding the robocalls. What kinds of measures and steps can we take in order to avoid having situations like that occur, and that did actually occur, as we hear, in the Guelph riding, due to Conservatives...? What can we do? That question is for both of you.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

In those terms, we talked a bit more about how the voter information cards can increase accessibility, but I'd like to talk a little more about the education component, because I know that's one of the components that caused some concern for your organization as well. You are currently in court fighting the Fair Elections Act, which the Harper government brought in.

I'm sorry you're having to do that, but right now for the government that is the law of Canada and that is what we have to operate under until this new legislation gets passed. I hope that will be soon so that you won't have to proceed. How will this piece of legislation further enhance the ability of the electoral officer to educate people? How is that in line with the mandate of the organization?

[Andrea Furlong, Executive Director, Council of Canadians]

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity given to the Council of Canadians, and me as executive director, to present today to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding Bill C-76.

I speak to the committee today as we prepare to go to court to defend the constitutional right of every Canadian of age to vote in next year's federal election.

The issues of greatest concern to us in the current legislation are those provisions that will rescind amendments to the Canada Elections Act made by the previous government in passing the so-called Fair Elections Act, which made it more difficult for the Chief Electoral Officer to communicate with Canadians about the electoral process and their right to vote; stripped the Chief Electoral Officer of his ability to authorize the voter information card as a means for proving an elector's residence or identity; diminished the independence and accountability of the Commissioner of Canada Elections; and effectively eliminated vouching as a means for people without the necessary identification to obtain a ballot.

In response to the Fair Elections Act, the Council of Canadians partnered with the Canadian Federation of Students to file a charter challenge, not only to repeal those problematic elements of the act but also to defend the most fundamental right in a democratic society: the right to vote. We launched the charter challenge because the Fair Elections Act made it harder for students, people who are de-housed, seniors, indigenous people, and others who have difficulty proving their identity and residence to vote. That application is to be heard by the Ontario superior court in October 2018, a date chosen so that the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer will have the six months he requires to implement the necessary changes, should we succeed, before the 2019 federal election. We certainly hope that the provisions of Bill C-76 will address the issues now before the court and will come into force in time to obviate the need for that hearing.

Until the bill receives royal assent, our case will proceed. We have amassed a substantial body of expert opinion, including from Harry Neufeld, the former chief electoral officer of British Columbia, stating that the Fair Elections Act effectively limits ballot access by increasing the administrative burden for any voter who does not possess acceptable documentation that proves their current address of residence. It has made the vouching process more intimidating to participants. It's difficult for all to understand and cumbersome for election officers to administer.

This also eliminates the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer to allow any use of the voter identification card as a legitimate form of address identification. Elections Canada has described the problem in this way:

With regard to accessibility, a continued challenge in the identification regime is the difficulty some electors face in providing documentary proof of their residence. Among the larger challenges is that no piece of identification issued by the [federal government] contains all three elements required in a single piece by the Act: the elector's photograph, name and address.

The difficulty electors may encounter in proving their current address falls disproportionately on certain groups. As described by Elections Canada, these groups are indigenous people; electors living on first nations reserves; electors living in long-term care facilities, including seniors; youth, including students; the de-housed, also known as homeless electors; and electors who have recently moved or who have difficulty proving their physical address.

The Harper government's declared objectives in enacting the Fair Elections Act were to protect against fraud and to uphold the integrity of our electoral system, but study after study has shown that claims about in-person voter fraud have no foundation and serve as a pretext for measures intended to prevent unfriendly voters from being able to cast a ballot. In fact, public concern about voter fraud, as we saw following the 2011 election robocall scandal, was about organized efforts to deter people from voting, not about individuals seeking to vote fraudulently.

The groups I have highlighted who are disproportionately challenged to prove their identity and residence are electors who care deeply about a host of public policy issues, particularly those that affect their daily lives and that often become important electoral issues. They would have strong views about what government should be doing to deal with the problems they confront, and are keen to participate in the electoral process.

Under the Constitution, all Canadians are guaranteed the right to vote, yet for many, including tens of thousands of electors who are on the voter list, the voter identification requirements of the act are a significant impediment to exercising their democratic franchise.

In summary, the Council of Canadians is strongly supportive of those provisions of Bill C-76 that will reverse the anti-democratic reforms of the previous government, including an expansion of the Chief Electoral Officer's mandate to include public education campaigns; a reversal of changes that disallowed the use of a voter information card as a piece of eligible identification at polling stations; a reversal of changes that disallowed one voter vouching for another; and more independence to the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

Thank you.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Very good.

With respect to the voter information cards, you've commented that, in your view, there is absolutely no issue with respect to those being used for fraudulent voting.

For me, in particular, I look at seniors and students, because they are probably the two groups that use the VIC most. Can you speak from your experience about how those groups and others have relied on the VIC, how voters rely on that as a piece of identification that can be used, and the consequences of the Fair Elections Act having taken that away as a piece of identification?

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

Okay, I just wanted to clarify that.

I want to go back to the beginning. When I say “beginning”, I want to go back to when we first met, which was a discourse you and I had about the Fair Elections Act some time ago. You used the term “meeting the test of the charter”, and we were quite fearful at the time that, in many cases, changes being made in the Fair Elections Act would mean that a lot of people out there would be in a vulnerable state when it came to voting, with things like the voter information card and so on and so forth.

What was so particularly egregious to you? What was the one part that caused you the most concern when the Fair Elections Act was put in place?

Report Stage

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are in the House, on Wednesday, May 30, at 8:45. I should mention that that is 8:45 p.m., for the many residents of Beauport—Limoilou who I am sure are tuning in. To all my constituents, good evening.

We are debating this evening because the Liberal government tabled very few significant government bills over the winter. Instead, they tabled an astounding number of private members' bills on things like swallows' day and beauty month. Sometimes my colleagues and I can hardly help laughing at this pile of utterly trivial bills. I also think that this process of randomly selecting the members who get to table bills is a bit past its prime. Maybe it should be reviewed. At the same time, I understand that it is up to each member to decide what kind of bill is important to him or her.

The reason we have had to sit until midnight for two days now is that, as my colleague from Perth—Wellington said, the government has been acting like a typical university student over the past three months. That comparison is a bit ridiculous, but it is true. The government is behaving like those students who wait until the last minute to do their assignments and are still working on them at 3 a.m. the day before they are due because they were too busy partying all semester. Members know what I mean, even though that paints a rather stereotypical picture of students; most of them do not do things like that.

In short, we have a government that, at the end of the session, has realized that time is running out and that it only has three weeks left to pass some of its legislative measures, some of which are rather lengthy bills that are key to the government's legislative agenda. One has to wonder about that.

The Liberals believe these bills to be important. However, because of their lack of responsibility over the past three months, we were unable to debate these major bills that will make significant changes to our society. Take for example, Bill C-76, which has to do with the electoral reforms that the Liberals want to make to the voting system, the way we vote, protection of the vote, and identification. There is also Bill C-49 on transportation in Canada, a very lengthy bill that we have not had time to examine properly.

Today we are debating Bill C-57 on sustainable development. This is an important topic, but for the past three years I have been getting sick and tired of seeing the Liberal government act as though it has a monopoly on environmental righteousness. I searched online to get an accurate picture of the record of Mr. Harper's Conservative government from 2006 to 2015, and I came across some fascinating results. I want to share this information very honestly with the House and my Liberal colleagues so that they understand that even though we did not talk incessantly about the environment, we achieved some excellent concrete results.

I want to read a quote from www.mediaterre.org, a perfectly legitimate site:

Stephen Harper's Canadian government released its 2007 budget on March 19. The budget allocated $4.5 billion in new investments to some 20 environmental projects. These measures include a $2,000 rebate for all electronic-vehicle or alternative-fuel purchases, and the creation of a $1.5-billion EcoTrust program to help provinces reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Liberals often criticize us for talking about the environment, but we did take action. For example, we set targets. We proposed reducing emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. The Liberals even retained these same targets as part of the Paris agreement.

They said we had targets, but no plan. That is not true. Not only did we have the $1.5-billion ecotrust program, but we also had a plan that involved federal co-operation.

Allow me to quote the premier of Quebec at the time, Jean Charest, who was praising the plan that was going to help Quebec—his province, my province—meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets. Jean Charest and Mr. Harper issued a joint press release.

Mr. Harper said, “Canada's New Government is investing to protect Canadians from the consequences of climate change, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.” He was already recognizing it in 2007.

Mr. Charest said, “In June 2006, our government adopted its plan to combat climate change. This plan has been hailed as one of the finest in North America. With Ottawa contributing financially to this Quebec initiative, we will be able to achieve our objectives.”

It was Mr. Charest who said that in 2007, at a press conference with the prime minister.

I will continue to read the joint press release from the two governments, “As a result of this federal funding, the Government of Quebec has indicated that it will be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 13.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide or equivalent below its anticipated 2012 level.”

What is more, the $1.5-billion ecotrust that was supposed to be allocated and was allocated to every province provided $339 million to Quebec alone. That was going to allow Quebec to engage in the following: investments to improve access to new technologies for the trucking sector; a program to develop renewable energy sources in rural regions; a pilot plant for production of cellulosic ethanol; promotion of geothermal heat pumps in the residential sector; support for technological research and innovation for the reduction and sequestration of greenhouse gases. This is probably one of those programs that is helping us make our oil sands increasingly environmentally friendly by allowing us to capture the carbon that comes from converting the sands to oil. There are also measures for the capture of biogas from landfill sites, for waste treatment and energy recovery, and finally for Canada ecotrust.

I invite our Liberal colleagues to listen to what I am going to say. In 2007, Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace said the following: “We are pleased to see that after negotiating for more than a year, Quebec has finally obtained the money it needs to move towards meeting the Kyoto targets.”

Who made it possible for Quebec to move towards meeting its Kyoto objectives? It was the Harper government, a Conservative government, which established the $1.5-billion ecotrust fund in 2007 with monies from the budget surplus.

Not only did we have a plan to meet the targets we proposed, but this was also a plan that could only be implemented if the provinces agreed to the targets. It was a plan that was funded through the budget surplus, that did not further tax Canadians, and that provided money directly, without any conditions, other than the fundamental requirement that it had to help reduce climate change, which was philosophically important. Any and all measures taken to reach that goal were left entirely to the discretion of the provinces.

Mr. Harper, like a good Conservative who supported decentralization and like a true federalist leader, said that he was giving $400 million to each province so it could move forward with its plan.

By 2015, after 10 years of Conservative government, the country had not only weathered the worst economic crisis, the worst recession in history since the 1930s, but it had also reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 2% and increased the gross domestic product for all Canadians while lopping three points off the GST and lowering income taxes for families with two children by an average of $2,000 per year.

If that is not co-operative federalism, if those are not real results, if that is not a concrete environmental plan, then I do not know what is. Add to that the fact that we achieved royal assent for no less than 25 to 35 bills every session.

In contrast, during this session, in between being forced to grapple with scandals involving the carbon tax, illegal border crossings, and the Trans Mountain project, this government has barely managed to come up with four genuinely important bills.

By contrast, we expanded parks and protected Canada's wetlands. Our environmental record is exceptional.

Furthermore, we allowed debate. For example, we debated Bill C-23 on electoral reform for four days. The Liberals' electoral reform was debated for two hours.

I am sad, but I am happy to debate until midnight because debating is my passion.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much.

Minister, welcome back. It's great to see you before the committee.

The Harper government's so-called Fair Elections Act made it harder for Canadians to vote and easier for people to evade our election laws. The Globe and Mail said, “This bill deserves to die.” The Chief Electoral Officer at the time said, “I certainly can't endorse a bill that disenfranchises electors.”

Why is it so important for the government that these provisions be repealed?

Democratic Reform

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, the other side keeps talking about rigging elections. The other side seems to forget that 400 academics signed a petition asking them to stop Bill C-23 when they were in power. Why was that? It was because they were worried that the Conservatives were going to circumvent democracy.

We are not afraid of Elections Canada. We are not afraid of the commissioner of Elections Canada, but perhaps that side is. Conservatives paid $250,000 in fines for breaking election laws. We will take no lessons from the Conservatives when it comes to democracy in this country.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, the party opposite seems to have amnesia about Bill C-23. The Conservatives forget that they were the ones for whom The Globe and Mail ran a five-part series demanding that they not go forward with their elections legislation. Bill C-76 is undoing the damage that they did to our democracy.

In fact, they even went so far as to not consult Elections Canada on elections legislation. That is what we did in drafting this legislation. It was not instructing them, as the Conservatives are so falsely accusing.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague opposite remembers the previous government's Bill C-23. With Bill C-76, we are making it easier for Canadians to vote, and we are cracking down on offenders who maliciously interfere with our electoral process. Compare that to the Conservatives, who, when they were in government, made it harder for Canadians to vote and who took part in malicious schemes, like the one involving Dean Del Mastro and his robocalls, to undermine the electoral process. We do not need any lectures on democracy from the Conservatives.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I hear Blake's concerns in terms of the public message or rhetoric matching the actions. Governments always say they want to work with you as they invoke time allocation. Some of my blue team colleagues down the row would know that, too.

I'm just looking for what would work. I hear the offer from Chris with respect to the minister up front and then the minister at the back. It gets to the two hours, except that it may be a middle ground. It seems possible to me that, in some ways, it could be more effective, just in that, by the second time, we will have heard criticisms of the bill, where the holes are, and then we could call the minister back and ask, “Did you think about this? Did you think about that?”

We had early confusion, if you remember, Mr. Chair. It was Scott who was asked to introduce it as the interim minister, so you can forgive it a bit, but even through the technical briefings that some of us —not many—went to, from the public servant side of things, there were major questions that they either didn't have the answers to or gave us incorrect information.

Parties issuing receipts and needing to issue receipts before they could get reimbursed from Elections Canada was a major part of the bill that we asked Scott about. He said, “You can amend it.” A few days went by, and then he said, “It's actually in the bill”. That type of stuff does not give me as a parliamentarian a huge amount of confidence that this is locked, has been well considered, and is totally airtight. I think we're going to find either by intention or by not paying attention that there are problems with the bill.

I'm still pushing for travel. I understand the tight timelines, but again, my grandmother used to say that a lack of planning on my part did not make for a crisis on her part. As a little kid, I wasn't a great planner.

This is what I was going to propose. We hit the thing hard starting next week. I look at our totals as a way to think about these committee studies. How many hours can you fit in to start to satisfy what would seem like a worthwhile...? Frankly, this has been so late. It's not even going to meet the standard that we took with Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act. It's not going to meet the same number of hours of study, which, as I have said, is unfortunate, because I think it's a bigger bill than Bill C-23 was. We could argue whether it's as good, more damaging, or whatnot.

We've lost two hours of committee time for next week through other things. If we were to do two hours on the Monday, get an hour on Tuesday, do another two hours either Tuesday or Wednesday, and then get another hour on Thursday, that would give us six, maybe. That would be my proposal for next week. That's the “get the ball rolling” week.

The next week I'm going to propose we travel.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Bill C-23.... Memories fade, don't they? It was a classic.

That legislation we spent a couple of months on. Obviously, there have not been a couple of months made available to us to spend on a bill that I would actually say is more ambitious in scope, because Bill C-76 has all the components of what the—I'll keep using the term, just to be polite—Fair Elections Act had in it, plus an additional number of sections about foreign influence and other aspects of our voting ecosystem, as it's been referred to. It's bigger and we're going to spend less time on it, which is worrisome to me as a parliamentarian, because we have one job, and it's to try to get legislation right. Whether you agree with it or not, understanding it is proper.

I've always felt and committed.... Ruby knows this. There are many Canadians who are very committed and deeply passionate about our democratic processes. They come from all sides of the spectrum. Sometimes they seem to care more than we do, frankly. They want their voices to be input into this. This doesn't belong to us: we're just here for a moment. We are making changes that will last long beyond our careers in this place, and we should be responsible to the people who sent us here.

It's with some regret, but I'll suggest that we crack it next week. We start with what I would say are some of the more obvious witnesses who are available to us. I think we should have a very short timeline in terms of submitting witnesses to the chair. I was going to suggest noon tomorrow, but that might be a bit aggressive. I'll put it out there, chuck it at the wall, and see if it sticks.

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

Bill C-23. There you go, I remembered that.

Second reading

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I really do appreciate many of the comments made by the leader of the Green Party.

She was here during the debate on Bill C-23, Harper's Fair Elections Act. We found that there were a great many individuals, academics, Elections Canada itself, and parties within the chamber, excluding the Conservatives, who really opposed the legislation. Today, we have a wide spectrum of support, not only outside this chamber but also inside it, where we have more than one party supporting the legislation.

Would my colleague and friend across the way not recognize that there are some who ultimately do not want to have the elections laws reformed? If this legislation passes, it will strengthen Canada's democracy. I agree there is always room for improvement. However, this will provide additional strength to Canada's democracy. Would the member not agree that at times we do have to look at ways to get legislation through, because there are parties that will put up whatever obstacles they can to prevent its passage?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise to speak to Bill C-76.

I am pleased to rise in debate today, but I regret that it is in the context of time allocation already being applied to the bill. I appreciate that the Liberal side of the House has provided time for my colleague, the hon. member for Montcalm, and for me to speak to the bill, but I regret deeply the use of time allocation. Because I was not able to get in on the debate on time allocation that occurred before the vote, let me suggest some ideas to the hon. minister, the government House leader, and others as to how we might avoid so many time allocations.

It is my belief that the ability, in votes, of all three of the larger parties, particularly the official opposition and the governing party, to put forward as many speakers as possible on any bill is a black box for our House leaders. Getting agreement is something I will leave to them. I can only assume that when we have a lot of time allocations, the coordination is not going well. I do not blame any one party more than the others. I will just say that it is not a good thing for this place when we have time allocation, particularly on a bill that is important.

I would like to suggest that the Speaker has the power, and could be encouraged by those within this place who want the place to work better, to insist on a rule that has fallen into disuse. That rule is that members cannot read speeches. If no one could read a speech, people in the back rooms could not hand a speech to someone and say, “Go give this speech. You are up next.”

They would have to call enough people forward who had read the bill and understood the bill and were prepared to debate it without notes. I am not saying that there are not many of us who are prepared to do that, but the ability of a House leader, on any side, to decide to play games with this place would be significantly minimized if we went back to that rule, which already exists.

I would urge those who think it is a good idea to perhaps speak to their own House leaders. In that case, I would just have a conversation with myself, but the rest of those assembled here should talk to their whips, talk to the House leaders, and talk to the Speaker if they think it would be a good idea to say that we do not want all the members to just read. I am not saying that members do not get up and read speeches they have written themselves. I know that happens, but a lot of times, people read something they have never seen before in their lives. We can tell by the rapt attention with which they deliver something they do not actually know much about or believe in.

Here ends the rant on how to get this place to work better. If people could only get up and speak based on what they know about a bill, we would get more interesting debates and more civilized debates, and we might have an easier time getting agreement on how many speakers there would be on legislation.

It is really tragic that we are seeing time allocation as often as we are seeing it. I do not think it is healthy for democracy, and I know it is going to be an election issue, with everyone saying, “They did it more. They did it too. They are hypocrites.” We should not live in glass houses if we are going to collect stones.

This bill is good legislation. It is very good legislation. It undoes a lot of what happened in the unfair elections act before the last election, but that does not mean that it is perfect legislation, which is why we should not be hearing from the minister that it has already been discussed at PROC. It should be discussed in this place at second reading, where all members who are engaged in the issue and know about it can participate, because not everyone is on PROC. It is a committee.

We know that Bill C-33, which was excellent legislation, languished for a year and a half. It was tabled when I was still serving on the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, which was one of the more tragic experiences of my life. We were still sitting around the table putting forward good ideas, but then saying, “Oh, the minister has new legislation that just came out that has some of our ideas in it.” That was Bill C-33. It came out in December of 2016, and everything from Bill C-33 is now rolled into Bill C-76.

For those who are not familiar with the bill, perhaps who are watching from home, let me say that Bill C-33 did a lot of very good things. I know that the Conservatives will disagree. They like Bill C-23, which they called the Fair Elections Act. What it did was make it harder for Canadians to vote. There is no doubt in my mind about that. I had people come to me who were not allowed to vote.

Bill C-23 was focused on the false notion that Canada suffered from voter fraud. However, it is very clear, on the evidence, that the problem in Canada is not people who try to vote more than once; it is people who vote less than once. We do not have any voter fraud that the elections commissioner has ever really been able to find is a problem. Our problem is low voter turnout.

The Conservatives were quite self-congratulatory when we went from an average national voter turnout of 60% in 2011 to a voter turnout of 68% in 2015. They said that proved that the unfair elections act did not decrease voter turnout. In fact, I think it masked what would have been a much bigger voter turnout. Young people mobilized in 2015. There were a lot of efforts to educate people about vote mobs, advanced poll voting, and getting people who did not usually vote out to vote.

I am enormously proud to represent Saanich—Gulf Islands. In 2011, when the voter turnout nationally was 60%, voter turnout in Saanich—Gulf Islands was just a titch below 75%. In 2015, when I was re-elected, voter turnout was just a bit below 80%. Now, that is nothing compared to my friend who is leader of the Green Party in Prince Edward Island, Peter Bevan-Baker. When he was elected, voter turnout in his riding was 93%.

Let us not be satisfied with 68%. We need to see 90% or 95% of Canadians voting and feeling good about the democratic experience. I think getting back the voter registration card is important. Bringing back vouching is important, and so is bringing back the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer to inform people and educate people. Warn people when voter fraud is happening.

Everything in Bill C-33 that would undo Bill C-23 is to the good and should be passed quickly. As well, I really like the idea that the Elections Canada folks would go into schools and register people who are 16 to 18 years old so that when they get the right to vote, they know what they are doing. They know where to go. They have already registered to vote. That is all in what was former Bill C-33. It is all good stuff. I wish we had already passed it.

Now we are looking at new and additional changes. I wish we had seen more. Clearly, if we are going to protect the privacy of Canadians, it is long past time that political parties were exempted from the Privacy Act. I have never heard a single good reason why we are in a special category, political parties, and Canadians' data is safe with us. Clearly, it is not safe with us. We get hacked. We hire companies and do not have any idea that they will be doing stuff like Cambridge Analytica or some of the ones that mine data and use it for other things. We are not in a position to say that it is good enough to have a voluntary code of privacy practice for every political party that we are required by law to show Elections Canada and have posted publicly.

By the way, I do not think “trust us” works terribly well for political parties. One of the best pieces of legislation from the 41st Parliament, the Reform Act, to bring about reform in this place and reduce the power of political party leaders over their MPs, which came out under the name of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, required a change in the Parliament of Canada Act. It was executed. Section 49 is new and requires parties, immediately after the election, to have a discussion in caucus and a vote to decide what the powers of the leader will be. For instance, will the power of the leader include throwing someone out of caucus?

I am reliably informed that even though that is the law of the day, two out of three recognized parties in this place skipped that step and did not think it was important to follow the Parliament of Canada Act, section 49. I am deeply dismayed that this took place. All MPs in this place should ask their party leadership if they did that. Did they file the letter with the Speaker? They should ask to see the letter filed with the Speaker to comply with section 49 of the Parliament of Canada Act.

On to the other things in Bill C-76. I hope the government will be open to amendments. As I said, this is good legislation. It does take on things like pre-writ spending. However, why are we allowing any pre-writ spending on televised election ads that bombard Canadians with negative messages and attack ads. It is good to regulate spending before an election. Let us just say that between election day and the next time a writ drops, no one is allowed to spend any money on political ads. There is not an election going on, so no spending. I will be bringing forward things like that as amendments.

Why are we increasing the spending ability of third parties? I would love to see us go in the direction of many countries around the world, including the U.K., which prohibit spending for electronic political ads of any kind at any time. It is very useful legislation.

There are many things I would like to suggest need more work in this legislation. Getting it to committee is important, but not so important that we should have time allocation in this place.

Bill C-76—Time Allocation Motion

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is why I think we need to get this bill to committee as soon as possible. It is to ensure that those questions are asked of witnesses, that those questions are asked of myself, of officials, of Elections Canada, so that we can have the proper scrutiny, so that we can get this done, so that we can ensure that we have restored the transgressions in democracy that were put forward by the previous government in Bill C-23 and ensure that we have integrity in our system in 2019.

That is exactly what we are going to do. I look forward to continuing this conversation and continuing this debate and dialogue with colleagues in this House and at committee. Let us get it there. Let us get it done for Canadians.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the member is confused because she is recalling Bill C-23 from the previous government. That is what happened when the Conservatives tried to rig the election in their favour. This bill is precisely trying to fix those abhorrent changes that were put forward with regard to democracy and to specifically ensure that we re-establish its integrity.

In the previous response I mentioned returning power to the commissioner of Elections Canada to compel testimony and lay charges, precisely because there were some members on the other side of the aisle who ended up in jail for their transgressions. Therefore, we are empowering the commissioner of Elections Canada to make sure he has the tools necessary to enforce the law and also to ensure that the law is strengthened so that we can uphold democracy here in this country.

Elections Modernization Act

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite, who is generously sharing his time with me.

It is a great pleasure to speak today to Bill C-76 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. Many subjects are debated in the House, and when we discuss democracy, and changes in how we operate and how members of the House are elected, I believe that it is a crucially important debate for everyone here. Furthermore, it is even more important that we take the time needed to debate these matters and that everyone have the opportunity to speak as long as necessary, because our democracy is at issue.

My party studied the bill thoroughly, but since we do not have much speaking time today, I will have to focus on just a few main themes.

Before I begin my more in-depth analysis, I would like to touch on the few things we think this bill gets right. First of all, Bill C-76 undoes some of the damage the Conservatives did with Bill C-23, such as preventing the Chief Electoral Officer from educating voters about the voting process and encouraging people to vote.

I think virtually all of us can agree with the basic principle that more voter participation is a good thing. The Chief Electoral Officer's job is to make sure that as many people as possible can vote. Preventing people from voting undermines and delegitimizes our democracy. On that, this bill is a good first step.

In addition, the bill gives the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections some powers that were also taken away from them under Bill C-23.

Bill C-76 contains positive measures to encourage members of the armed forces, young people and persons with disabilities to participate in the electoral process. We also welcome the government's efforts in this regard. Finally, we are particularly supportive of limiting the duration of the election campaign to 50 days, because that is what the Bloc Québécois asked for during the last federal election in 2015. In fact, the Conservative government used a loophole in the fixed election date bill to greatly extend the duration of the election campaign in order to circumvent the spirit of the legislation put in place. We had not seen such a long election campaign in hundreds of years. It did not make sense. We needed something that made sense. We had to frame that. For this reason, we are pleased to see the 50-day limit, because it is still a reasonable limit. We very much welcome these provisions and congratulate the government on having retained the position and vision of the Bloc Québécois on this issue.

Now, I want to talk about one of the biggest problems with Bill C-76. The problem is not necessarily what is in the bill, but what is missing from it, and some measures in the bill are not particularly interesting.

I want to point out four areas on which we disagree. If I have the time, I will then talk about what we plan to do later on. The first thing that we have a problem with is third-party involvement in the electoral process. The government is proposing greater oversight of third-party involvement in the electoral process. We think it is a good idea to have greater oversight of third parties, except that this oversight would allow for a higher spending limit for third parties, even though there is greater oversight during the pre-election period. There is also greater oversight over the money going to and from these third parties.

The government is over-complicating things. We do not think that third parties should be influencing the election by spending money during the electoral process. We think that is a bad thing. The political parties that spend money to get elected are the ones that should be involved in the electoral process. We are already supposed to be regulating spending and fundraising for political parties, so third parties should not be spending money to get other parties or a specific party elected. It is dangerous to get third parties involved since they could find roundabout ways to use money to support one party and undermine the others.

Interested parties could draw inspiration from what is happening in the United States with super PACs. We do not think that is good for democracy. We need to make much simpler rules that categorically ban third-party intervention in electoral spending. We hope the government and the other parties will be open to that idea.

Voter identification is another issue that is especially important to us. We got a chance to discuss it in 2015, during the last election campaign. Bill C-76 would have been a great opportunity to move the discussion forward, but unfortunately, it will not require Canadians to uncover their faces to vote, which is something the Bloc Québécois has been calling for for a long time. Some parties have supported us in calling for that. Candidates from other parties have even broken ranks to side with us.

In 2007, Michel Guimond introduced Bill C-465, which required every elector to identify himself or herself with his or her face uncovered before voting. When Bill C-23 was being debated in committee, MP André Bellavance, who is now mayor of Victoriaville, also introduced some amendments specifically requiring voters to uncover their faces. Unfortunately, at the time, the NDP, the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party banded together to veto the Bloc Québécois's proposal that Canadians be required to uncover their faces in order to vote. The end result was that during the 2015 election people showed up to vote dressed any which way. Some dressed up as clowns, Star Wars or Star Trek characters, or monsters, while others put on hockey gear. It was absolutely disgraceful.

The electoral process must be serious, secure, and secular, since our government must be secular. It therefore seems obvious to us that Canadians should vote with their faces uncovered. We are very pleased that the Conservatives seem to have had an awakening in this regard. We hope that they will remain consistent in their views on this.

Another issue that we care about, and I hope I will have time to mention them all, is political party financing. Something must be done because not everyone can afford to pay $1,500 to attend a cocktail party. After the Conservatives did away with the public funding for political parties implemented by Jean Chrétien in response to the sponsorship scandal, the Liberals promised that they would bring it back. However, once they took office, it seems they changed their minds. Perhaps they realized that there were a lot of people who wanted to make donations. Why then would they allow the other parties to compete on a level playing field? It is important to have a level playing field. The parties should receive funding based on votes, not just on the depth of their party supporters' pockets.

Another issue that we care about is government advertising. The government promised to do something about that, but there is nothing in this bill in that regard. We know how this works. We have seen a lot of quasi-partisan or questionable advertising in recent years. The government has a duty to take action on this issue.

There is also no framework for the leadership debate in this bill. It seems pretty clear to us that all parties represented in the House should have the opportunity to participate in the leadership debate. The bill also does nothing to reform the voting system. The government has broken its promise in that regard.

Finally, the Liberals are trying to let foreigners keep the right to vote. It seems obvious to us that the people who should be able to vote are the people who live here, in a riding in Canada, and not people from other countries. We understand the case of members of the armed forces or people who are temporarily out of the country. However, people who have been out of the country for years do not have the interests of people living here at heart. Those people should just vote in their new country, if they so wish.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today as we get back to the House after a week in our ridings. Last week was very busy, I must say. I also want to take this opportunity to say hello to the many constituents of Beauport—Limoilou who, as always, are watching now on Facebook Live or who will be watching at a later time when the videos are posted on CPAC.

Today we are talking about democratic participation, which I find fascinating. If there is one thing that interests me most in life, it is democratic participation. This was the reason I got involved in politics. I urge Canadians to get involved. Last week I held the first-ever “Alupa à l'écoute!” public consultation in Beauport—Limoilou. I spent more than six hours listening to my constituents and answering their questions. Ultimately, my goal was to hear about the concerns, challenges, and difficulties they face in their day-to-day lives. The next consultation will be in Giffard on September 13, and the third will be in Beauport on November 17. For more information, people can call 418-663-2113. After these three public consultations, I will produce a report in the winter of 2019 and introduce a bill to address an issue that people face in their day-to-day lives. In those six hours last Thursday, I answered every question from around 40 constituents. I was very proud, because this kind of democratic accountability is absolutely essential. That actually ties into this bill.

Let us talk about participatory democracy. Once again, Bill C-76 is not all bad, but we expect that the Conservatives will vote against this bill for specific reasons. I did say “expect”, but that will depend on what happens in committee. My first impression is that this is another attempt by a government that brags about its international and national brilliance. Specifically, the Liberal government thinks it has a monopoly on being virtuous all the time. They want to sell to Canadians on the idea that with this bill they are again improving the accessibility of the electoral system and the eligibility to vote. A number of Liberal colleagues spoke in this place about the integrity of the system. With respect to Bill C-76, we feel that some of the amendments and new rules will directly or indirectly undermine Canada's electoral system.

My Liberal colleague, who as usual was fiery and spouted anti-Conservative rhetoric, said that voting is of course a fundamental right, but that it is also a privilege, as my colleague from Lethbridge stated. It is a privilege that requires a right and individual responsibility first and foremost. The laws that govern Elections Canada at present seek not just to foster participation, but also to ensure that this duty is carried out with integrity and responsibly. It is really a conflict between how to increase the public's participation and how to ensure that the right to vote remains a protected right.

The Liberal member for Willowdale spoke eloquently of the history of our great federation by talking about the changes in voting almost every decade; we went from suffrage on the basis of property ownership to popular ballot. We went from the popular ballot, just for men, to voting for women, thank God. It was Borden's Conservative government that gave women the right to vote. All the parties here, Canada's major governing parties, Liberal and Conservative, are always in favour of making voting more accessible.

We have some technical questions about the bill. That is unfortunate because, as my Liberal colleagues said, accessibility to the vote is a fundamental debate. Why did the Liberals move a time allocation motion a week ago? We were supposed to vote on time allocation today. Surely, the Liberals backed down after finding that they would look undemocratic by allocating only two or three hours of debate on such a fundamental issue.

In comparison, for Conservative Bill C-23, which dealt with Elections Canada and which was introduced during the 41st Parliament, we had four days of debate for a total of 14 hours, in addition to 23 meetings in committee, on this bill that was aimed at improving our electoral system. At this point, we have only had two hours of debate on Bill C-76.

As the NDP did, it is important to recall the concerns raised by the Chief Electoral Officer. He said that the government had previously tabled the amendments to Bill C-76 in Bill C-33, which died on the Order Paper. Actually, it did not exactly die on the Order Paper, because there was no prorogation, but it never got beyond first reading. The Chief Electoral Officer therefore told the government that it needed to get to work right away if it really wanted to make changes in time for the 2019 election. However, the government waited until the last second to make these changes, just days from the deadline set by the Chief Electoral Officer. Clearly, this is just another tactic to keep us from debating Bill C-76 properly.

Certain parts of this bill are fine, but what I find utterly astounding about it is that it proves that Mr. Harper was right back in 2015. The Liberals called us terrible, horrible partisans for announcing the election on July 1. However, the reason we did that was because Mr. Harper had noticed a problem. During the month of June 2015, unions, such as the FTQ in eastern Canada and other big unions in western Canada, which of course are free to protest, had spent tens of millions of dollars on partisan ads attacking the Canadian government in power at the time, which was a Conservative government. Since we could not respond to that situation because we were not in an election period, Mr. Harper, a man of unimpeachable integrity, decided to call an election so that we could respond using election expenses.

Throughout the campaign, the Liberals called us enemies of democracy who only cared about winning votes. In fact, they still say that about us today. However, by creating a pre-election period beginning on June 30 in Bill C-76, they are confirming, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Mr. Harper was right to do the same thing four years ago. That is a tribute to our former prime minister.

What exactly would Bill C-76 do? It would expand voter eligibility. Apparently this bill would prepare future voters by creating a register of young people aged 14 to 17 so that Elections Canada can start communicating with them. That seems kind of strange to me because that is when young people are most likely going to CEGEP or community college and living in apartments with two or three roommates. I do not really know how that communication is supposed to happen considering that young people today use their phones and social networks such as Facebook to communicate.

My Liberal colleague said that Liberals support enfranchisement, but giving kids the right to vote is something else entirely. He said that voting is a basic right, but that there is discrimination inherent in our system because Canadian citizens under the age of 18 do not have the right to vote. Voting is not in fact a privilege and a basic right granted to everyone. There are limits, and we can all agree that those limits are good for democracy and the duty to vote because people under the age of 18 have to go to school and do their homework. I strongly agree with that. If they are not in school, they should at least be working or travelling around the world and around Canada without asking anyone for money. I can say for sure that, up to age 18, people should be preparing to exercise their civic duty. That is why people cannot vote until they turn 18. It is not in fact an absolute right for everyone. There is already some discrimination inherent in the right to vote in Canada.

Then there are three pre-election periods. I have already mentioned the pre-election period, so let us talk about the “pre-pre-election” period. There is already a problem with this one, since there will be no constraints on the financial commitments of domestic and international third parties.

Until June 30, we know very well that all the international environmental groups, who like to see the Prime Minister contemplating the death of the oil sands, will spend millions of dollars to promote the end of natural and energy resources in Canada, which is very bad news. Natural resources represent 40% of the Canadian economy. We are in an energy transition. The systematic blindness on the part of the Marxist left and the centrist left in Canada is astounding. We are always being told that we are not making any effort on the environmental front. Since 1960, the environment has been systematically and continuously improved. Let us also not forget that this 40% of the Canadian economy is used to fund hospitals, education programs and our elections, which still cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

They also want an extended period of advance polling, which is very good. I won because of advance polling, so it is a very good idea. Joking aside, it is a good thing.

With regard to limiting the election campaign to 50 days, we could also ask why 50 days and not 37.

The Liberals want to change the requirement of having identification with an address and photo. It will be terrible. I go door to door every month in my riding—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

As New Democrats, we agree with reversing the vouching requirements that were done away with under the previous “Unfair Elections Act”, and with the education component that was talked about earlier. There are some things in there that we want to see succeed. They were sitting for 18 months untouched by the government. There was no sense of urgency. Now they're rolled in, but now it's been rolled in as an omnibus bill, with other things that we do have legitimate questions on, like freedom of speech.

Let me ask you one about data, because that's an important thing that Elections Canada deals with. You give the parties a lot of data, the personal information of Canadians.

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

Thank you very much.

Just finally, in the last session of Parliament, when we were going through the “Fair” Elections Act, one of the things that was talked about was.... There was a huge argument as to what the role of Elections Canada is when it comes to engaging the public. On one side of the argument, your only role is to say to people when and where to vote for all 338 ridings. On the other side, we were saying it was public engagement to encourage the exercise of democracy for young people, for indigenous people, for rural areas.

What do you see in this role of yours as to the way Elections Canada can best engage with the public?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Don Valley East.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act. I have had the privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs since I first came to this place. One of the most interesting studies we have conducted so far was the one pertaining to the recommendations of the chief electoral officer.

In the previous Parliament, I was the parliamentary assistant to the critic for democratic reform, namely, the current member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs during its study of Bill C-23, Fair Elections Act. Under the circumstances, it was an odd name, given that the Conservatives worked harder than any other party to destroy the integrity of our elections.

Under Stephen Harper's leadership, the Conservatives won three consecutive election campaigns, specifically in 2006, 2008, and 2011. The Conservatives were found guilty of electoral fraud in the 2006, 2008, and 2011 elections. Clearly, the Conservative Party of Canada has never won an election without cheating, so when the Conservatives introduced a bill on electoral integrity, they knew exactly where the gaps were.

After letting their parliamentary secretary to the prime minister be led out in handcuffs for bypassing election laws, after pleading guilty to the illegal in and out scandal, and after sacrificing a young 22-year-old scapegoat for election crimes committed by the Conservative Party to try to steal several ridings, as part of the robocall scandal, one of the first targets of the Conservative Party was the elections commissioner. They made sure that he would never have the tools he needed to conduct a real investigation.

Bill C-76 changes all that. The elections commissioner will return to the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, who is an officer of Parliament, instead of reporting to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, where there is no officer of Parliament. Once enacted, the act will give the commissioner the power to require testimony or a written return, a power that was eliminated by the Conservatives. Why did Stephen Harper's Conservatives not want the elections commissioner to have that kind of authority, especially since he was responsible for the integrity of our elections?

Integrity is clearly not what the Conservatives were looking for, and given their reaction to this bill, their position has obviously not changed. In the debate on this bill, we keep hearing that the Conservatives have concerns about the creation of a pre-election list of young people, which could be given to political parties. They know that this list is meant for the Chief Electoral Officer and that these names will not be provided to political parties before the individuals turn 18. However, the Conservatives do not want a tool that would help inform young future voters and help them prepare to become citizens and informed voters in our democracy.

The Conservatives are afraid that young people will not vote Conservative. Instead of modernizing their old-school values, or reassessing their attitude towards women, immigrants, minorities, indigenous peoples, the environment, and science, the Conservatives would rather do everything they can to make sure that the younger generation does not have the tools it needs to participate in the democratic process. They refuse to evolve to where society is now.

During the 2011 election campaign, advance polling stations were set up on university campuses. In Guelph, the Conservatives opposed a polling station at the student centre and a young campaign volunteer, who was also a ministerial assistant on Parliament Hill was accused of attempting to steal the ballot box. Those accusations were never proven, but the incident shows how afraid the Conservatives are that young people will get involved.

The Conservatives think that giving young people the opportunity to get involved in elections, as Bill-76 proposes, is an existential threat. For the first time, millennials will outnumber baby boomers.

The Conservatives are not adapting to the new reality. They prefer to shout out “it is not a right” here in the House when we are talking about women making their own decisions about their bodies. That is shameful. Millennials, those of my generation, have had enough of this paternalistic attitude. We find that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and his Conservatives have the same attitude.

Again in the 2011 federal election and again in the riding of Guelph, robocalls were made. These calls were bilingual and claimed to be on behalf of Elections Canada. The calls told thousands of voters that the location of their polling station had changed. The goal was to keep people from voting. The federal elections commissioner and his investigators did not have the authority to compel witnesses to testify, so the commissioner had to make agreements with those involved in this subterfuge. As a result, a young man who is unilingual and has no particular technical skills was put in jail for electoral fraud. He was the scapegoat that I mentioned earlier.

Because the investigators lacked authority, the legal process resulted in a completely ridiculous outcome. First of all, they overlooked the campaign's political adviser, who had all the necessary political and technical access and who had created software called “Move My Vote” to determine what to dispute in the 2013 electoral redistribution. This is not to mention the fact that the assistant campaign organizer worked at the store where the burner phone was sold, or the fact that the Conservative Party lawyer was present when the witness statements were taken, rather than the lawyer of the accused or the witness. That is the kind of situation the Fair Elections Act was designed to ensure by undermining the integrity of the investigation process.

However, that was not the only problem the Conservatives wanted to create or even exacerbate. One of Elections Canada's main tasks is to educate voters across Canada on the electoral system and their role in it, and those information campaigns should be entirely impartial to ensure fair elections. The Conservatives, however, had no interest in conducting public information campaigns in schools or newspapers. Voter participation is not in the Conservatives' partisan interest. They did everything they could to undermine it. In the end, voter participation was high, but that was because Canadians were fed up with the lack of integrity.

Because of that, the Conservatives used their integrity bill to change the law and take away Elections Canada's educational role. Going forward, its only role would be to say where, when, and how to vote. That is it. Things were even worse than we thought. On top of taking power away from the Chief Electoral Officer, the Conservatives wanted to muzzle him, just like they muzzled scientists to keep facts from interfering with their agenda.

In addition to dealing with the elections commissioner's workplace and power structure, Bill C-76 will resolve this ridiculous situation created by a government that had no interest at all in protecting democracy. To the Conservatives, electoral integrity meant staying in power.

Going forward, the Chief Electoral Officer will have the right to speak and to perform his rightful educational role. That is why the Conservatives are so afraid of this bill passing and will do everything they can to block it. Much like women's rights, the integrity of our elections is not something the Conservatives care about. Shame on them.

Speaking of shame, let me remind the House that the Conservatives use the Fair Elections Act to take away voters' right to use their voter information card as a piece of ID. That had an immediate and significant impact. An estimated 170,000 people lost the right to vote in 2015 because of that anti-democratic change.

The vast majority of approved pieces of ID are used to confirm a voter's home address and to confirm whether this person has the right to vote and is voting in the correct riding. The voter information card does both of those things. When voters receive their card, it means that they are obviously on the voter's list. This also means that the address is correct, or else they would not have received their card. However, this card is never enough on its own, and it must be used with another piece of ID. Anyone can vote with a health card, for example. Without this card, someone who does not pay the household bills and who does not have a credit card or driver's license has nothing else to confirm his or her address. Once again, this was the objective of Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

If people were not going to vote Conservative, why let them vote at all? That would not help the integrity of a Conservative victory. No one wants that, so the Conservatives prevented Canadian voters from using the best piece of ID available to a large number of them. Integrity, my foot. These people do not have much integrity at all.

I am particularly proud of Bill C-76, since it will allow mail from the Chief Electoral Officer to be used as a valid piece of ID to vote. This makes sense.

The process we embarked on was long and complex. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs worked hard to study each recommendation made by the former chief electoral officer. Of the 130 specific changes in Bill C-76, 109 stem directly from the recommendations in the Chief Electoral Officer's report on the 42nd general election. Furthermore, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs studied most of the recommendations. The others were mostly technical changes requested by the Chief Electoral Officer.

I am proud to support this bill and to support a government whose vision extends beyond the next election to secure the long-term success of our country and our democracy.

Election Modernization Act

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this time, I will use every minute and second available to me, since Bill C-76 is a very important bill for anyone who believes in democracy.

When it comes right down to it, MPs of all stripes are just advocates who decided to take their political commitment to the limit and help develop our society to the best of their ability and in keeping with their values.

Every member of the House knows how lucky he or she is to live and participate in a democracy. However, our democratic system, like many others, is far from perfect. We would hope that each and everyone of us would be able to help perfect it and that any bill that would make major changes to our entire electoral system, in whole or in part, would have not only the broadest possible consensus, but complete unanimity.

A bill that affects the very foundation of our democracy should not be a partisan bill. Still, we do have to admit that things have changed a bit ever since the Conservatives introduced Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act, in the previous Parliament. In our search for a better democratic system, the aim should always be to strive for a consensus. However, we seem to be seeing more and more partisan games, which I believe have no place in a bill like this.

I obviously feel privileged to rise to speak on a bill as fundamental as Bill C-76. However, I unfortunately feel like I am acting in an old movie because the government seems to be assuming it does not need a consensus. The government is using our old parliamentary system to its advantage since that system allows the political party that holds a majority in the House to bulldoze, and I do not think that is too strong a term, its agenda through, rather than striving to reach a consensus.

Even as we debate this topic, something very important is happening in Quebec City. Just months—weeks, actually—before the Quebec provincial election, four parties held a joint press conference to say that, regardless of the outcome of the next election, they all agree that the existing electoral system should no longer be used in our society.

Québec solidaire, Coalition Avenir Québec, the Parti Québécois, and the Green Party of Quebec joined forces to say that the coming provincial election should be the last to use this voting system. That is why I feel like I am in an old movie, unfortunately. Many parties have sung that tune, especially the Liberal Party during the last campaign. The party said loud and clear that that would be the last election with that voting system, which worked fine back in the day.

When this Parliament was created, it was a two-party system. In a society with two parties, one of them will, by definition, get at least 50% plus one of the votes. What could be more democratic than that? Since then, things have changed a lot in Canada and Quebec, as they have in all the other provinces and territories.

A plurality of political opinions and approaches emerged, which all demand representation in the House of Commons. We think that, no matter which party is in government, even if it was the NDP, it is completely inappropriate for a government that wins 39% of the popular vote to get 100% of the power in the House. This is what happened with this government, and it was the same with the previous government. There is a massive dichotomy that needs to be addressed.

The government has backtracked on this specific issue, which was a very important issue for the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party during the last election. It is clear that the Liberals have backtracked on their election promise, probably because now that they are in power, they want to continue to enjoy full control over this country's democratic institutions.

Now Bill C-76 is being rammed through at the very last minute. I would say it is being done at the eleventh hour, when the acting Chief Electoral Officer does not even know whether he will be able to implement all the different measures this bill contains in time for the next election, because the Liberals dragged their feet so long. First they dawdled with the study on what our new voting system should be. Then they ignored an overwhelming consensus in favour of a mixed proportional system, while trying to convince Canadians that there was no consensus or that the consensus was for something else. That is a funny way to put it, but it shows how desperate they were to dodge the issue.

Not content to have delayed this process, the Liberals also delayed the next process, which was aimed at correcting some of the stalled measures that were stuck behind those they had rejected. However, here we are at the eleventh hour, and they cannot even guarantee that all of the measures we have been discussing this morning and over the past few days will be implemented by the next election.

It is therefore fairly safe to say this has been a total failure, even though, as I will elaborate, Bill C-76 does contain a few measures that are worth studying and implementing.

We are talking about a 230-page bill that will have to be rushed through because, as I was saying, the Liberals have been behind on all counts from the very beginning.

Worse still, this very rushed bill will likely pass thanks to the majority this government holds. This means that the broad consensus that has been the tradition in this House could once again be ignored in favour of the bulldozing effect of a government majority.

After two press releases in quick succession proposing two different names, this week we learned of the appointment of a potential new chief electoral officer. The person responsible for implementing the measures in Bill C-76 has not yet been officially appointed. It is safe to say that problems are piling up.

Let us explore some of the things in this bill that deserve a closer look, such as the issue of financing. As people generally expect more transparency in the lead-up to an election, this bill proposes a number of measures in that regard. However, while promising greater transparency, the bill also raises spending limits at the same time. This means that election campaigns will become much more about money than ideas.

I think that there is a very broad consensus in Canada and Quebec regarding the U.S. election system, because no one wants to see money take precedence over ideas. For years now, money seems to have become increasingly more important. Canadians are well aware that there is a cost to living in a democracy. No one expects elections to be free. I will get back to public financing a bit later, since this aspect is largely missing from the bill. This was an opportunity to restore the balance that was lost under the previous Conservative government led by Mr. Harper, which completely eliminated the per-vote subsidy. I am not saying that this made for a proportional government, but at least the public financing was representative of the public vote and gave additional meaning to casting a vote.

What is more, increasing election spending limits is also problematic and feeds into the trend of making money more important than ideas. In an election campaign, I would like to see people debate ideas equitably rather than see parties inundate people with ads because the rules are not the same for everyone. Conversely, one could argue that the rules are equal for everyone since everyone has the same spending limit, but when that spending limit is at a height that not every party can achieve, then clearly there is an imbalance.

I would also like to address another problem that is widely panned and does not seem to have been resolved by Bill C-76: personal information protection. That is an issue that everyone in Canada and Quebec is concerned about now and not just when it comes to elections, but also in daily life. Every move that is made on the web leaves a footprint and we cannot begin to imagine how much personal information we leave there.

Perhaps members have already had the experience of downloading an app on their cell phone or other device and reading the terms of service. I do not know whether this has ever happened to you, Madam Speaker, but I have tried a few times to read the terms of service, but I have rarely succeed in getting all the way to the end. The times I did manage to finish, I must admit that it was a challenge. However, just because I read the terms, does not mean that I understood them, but people always end up agreeing to the terms because they need the app in their daily lives. Once we accept the terms, we no longer know exactly how much personal information will be shared or how that information will be managed. Bill C-76 does nothing to address that issue.

I would like to quote what a few witnesses had to say about this. Teresa Scassa, the Canada research chair in information law and policy at the University of Ottawa described the solution proposed in Bill C-76 as “an almost contemptuous and entirely cosmetic quick fix designed to deflect attention from the very serious privacy issues raised by the use of personal information by political parties”.

Lori Turnbull, director of Dalhousie University's School of Public Administration and co-author of a document about the modernization of public funding published by the Public Policy Forum said, “It’s a step in the right direction, but it looks as if they were pressed for time and some big problems have been left on the table.”

I have used this image many times: when you take a step forward, you are not actually moving forward, you are just moving your centre of gravity. In order to move forward, you have to take at least two steps. Bill C-76 is only one step.

Funnily enough, Canada does have a privacy act. It is quite a progressive act, and it is often studied by many other countries seeking to perfect their own privacy acts and learn how a united front is needed to protect personal data in our new computer-oriented society.

However, political parties are exempt from Canada's privacy act. For example, a private company that wants to solicit customers by email has to seek their consent to store their email addresses for future correspondence. Political parties are not required to ask for consent. They can even sell the personal data they gather, which to me is an utterly absurd situation that Bill C-76, as drafted, does not address.

Where are the rules for increasing the number of women to a significant level? That is another issue that Bill C-76 does not resolve. In terms of women's representation in the House, we are light years away from parity, except in the NDP. Why? At the very beginning of an election campaign, the very instant the writ drops, the NDP have rules in place that require candidate nominations to be gender balanced from the get-go. If there is no parity at the starting line, how can we hope to miraculously reach parity by the finish line? We ought to thank the NDP for its efforts and make sure more women get into the House.

By voting down the bill introduced by my colleague from Burnaby South, the government missed a great opportunity to make additional strides in that regard. Bill C-76 again misses the opportunity to introduce specific measures to achieve gender parity, or at least something close to parity between 40% and 60%, by the next election. We should not have to wait decades for this. If current trends in the number of women in the House of Commons remain at the same level, it will likely take 40 or 50 years to achieve parity, and even that is not guaranteed. This is an absolutely crucial issue that has been completely overlooked in this legislation.

The bill does contain some important positive aspects, which is why, at the end of the day, I will be voting to support it at second reading, even though I may sound like I completely oppose it. I think it is important to send it to committee so that we may get some answers to relevant questions and see how we can make the most of a bill that has been reduced to the basics and does not really reform our electoral system. That is the role of all opposition members, in other words, not to simply oppose legislation but also improve it.

We do welcome the time limit for an election campaign. Having election campaigns in this era of faster travel and digital media means they can be shorter than back in the day when candidates had to travel across Canada by train, which of course took longer.

Offering a 90% refund for child care expenses is a good measure. We support that.

In closing, democracy does not belong to just the Liberals or any one party in the House. It belongs to all parties in the House of Commons.

I hope the next changes made to our electoral system are based on a consensus.

[Nathan Cullen]

So the government is participating, and just dropped 2,000 pages on the claimants, arguing for Bill C-23, Harper's bill. It's more than confusing to Canadians, who said they want truly fair elections. A government that promised to do that is fighting in court to maintain the status quo that was brought in by the former prime minister.

I have a question about Russian diplomats. The Foreign Affairs minister, also a couple of weeks ago, said they have expelled six Russian diplomats who are:

intelligence officers or individuals who have used their diplomatic status to undermine Canada's security or interfere in our democracy.

Are you aware of any Russian interference in the 2015 election?

[Nathan Cullen]

So it was both the changes that were promised in Bill C-33, which was meant to undo some of the changes made in Bill C-23, the so-called Fair Elections Act—some said “unfair elections act”—plus any changes that this committee proposed after having studied the last election with Elections Canada about how to make the next election secure. Your recommendation to the Government of Canada, to Parliament, was to pass all of those changes through Parliament and the Senate by the end of this month.

Access to Information on Prime Minister's Trip to India

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege regarding misleading information that has been presented to the House by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety.

During question period on February 26, 2018, I asked the government a number of questions regarding a briefing provided to the media by the Prime Minister's security adviser, Daniel Jean. The briefing attempted to explain how a convicted terrorist ended up at an event with the Prime Minister during his trip to India. The reason Mr. Jean gave was that the Government of India conspired and manipulated events in order to ensure the attendance of Jaspal Atwal at the reception. My first question to the government was simply, “What proof does the Prime Minister have that the Government of India did this?”

As you know Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety did not provide any evidence to this claim, nor did he refute it. Instead he said:

I can say that the invitation that was issued to this particular individual, Mr. Atwal, should never have been issued. Indeed, as soon as it was discovered, it was rescinded by the Government of Canada.

This statement supports the statement made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs when she told the Indian foreign affairs minister that Jaspal Atwal's invitation to the event was an honest mistake. If we follow the evolution of the responses from the Minister of Public Safety on that day, the answers begin to also support the theory of Daniel Jean, a theory that blames rogue elements in the Indian government.

The Minister of Public Safety said on February 26:

...Canada has very strong, very proficient national security and police agencies. They are well trained in what they need to do to protect and advance the Canadian national interest, and they have done their jobs in relation to the trip to India. They have done that job exceedingly well to make sure the best interests of Canadians are served and protected.

On February 27, 2018, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister the same question, and the Prime Minister, in his one answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question, combined both the notion espoused by his Minister of Foreign Affairs that the invitation was a mistake, and Daniel Jean's theory laying blame on factions in the Indian government.

The Prime Minister said:

Mr. Speaker, as we have already said, this invitation should never have been sent. As soon as we realized that it had, the invitation was withdrawn.

Canada's national security and law enforcement agencies are non-partisan, highly competent, and very effective. We have faith in them to protect Canada and Canadians. They continue to work very hard to serve and protect the interests of Canadians.

Later in question period, on February 27, the Prime Minister introduced to the House a new character to this saga. He said:

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, this individual never should have been invited. As soon as we found out that he was, that invitation was rescinded. The member responsible for the invitation has taken full responsibility, and I will be following up with that member later this afternoon.

The member he was referring to was the member for Surrey Centre.

When pressed as to the conspiracy theory, the Minister of Public Safety out and out dismissed it as false when he said, in response to my question on February 27:

...the hon. member, both today and yesterday, has provided her interpretation of events. In fact, her insinuations and her accusations are false.

At the same time, that same minister and the Prime Minister continued to support the public servant who claimed, and has never retracted or explained to any member of Parliament, or clarified his comments, that the Indian government was behind the events that led to Mr. Atwal's attendance at the reception. This contradiction continued all last week, and it continues to this day, despite more evidence that the conspiracy theory may be bogus.

Mr. Atwal, at a press conference last week, confirmed that he asked the member for Surrey Centre for an invitation to the Prime Minister's event. We in the opposition have given the government ample opportunity to clarify this matter, and it refuses to do so.

This contempt for the House is not unlike a matter that was raised in 2002. In 2002, another Liberal government refused to clarify the record, forcing the opposition to raise the matter as a question of privilege. It would seem that once again the opposition needs to take this extraordinary step and seek the authority of the House to cut through the contradictions and falsehoods to finally get to the truth.

In addition, the official opposition has dedicated its opposition day tomorrow to call on the Prime Minister to instruct Daniel Jean to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, to give the same courtesy to members of Parliament that he gave to the media about his government's theory regarding the Indian government's involvement in this matter.

It is my sincere hope that the Prime Minister will see fit to not show further contempt for this House and allow his official to at least treat members of Parliament the same as members of the press gallery.

In your ruling of yesterday, Mr. Speaker, while on an unrelated matter, you touched on the issue of respect that members of Parliament are expected to receive from the government and its officials in these situations. You said, Mr. Speaker:

...as Speaker, I understand the member for Abbotsford's frustration and the sense of disrespect that he feels in not having had priority access to a briefing on such a complex piece of legislation. In fact, the Chair not only finds this matter to be unfortunate, but also entirely avoidable.... There is no question that the work of members of Parliament is made more difficult without expeditious access to legislative information. Given this reality, there is a rightful expectation that those responsible for the information should do their utmost to ensure members’ access to it. Not respecting this expectation does a disservice to all. It is particularly disconcerting when the government gives priority to the media over the members of Parliament.

On February 1, 2002, the Speaker ruled in a matter in regard to the former minister of national defence. The former hon. member for Portage—Lisgar alleged that the minister of national defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew what prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in question period on two successive days. The Speaker considered the matter and found that there was a prima facie question of privilege. He said:

The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House.

The authorities to which Speaker Milliken was referring included the following from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which states on page 115:

Misleading a Minister or a Member has...been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.

The Speaker, in 2002, accepted the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House and made the following statement. He said, “Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation”. The Speaker went on to say:

On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar [ironically] to move his motion.

On February 25, 2015, the House leader of the official opposition raised a question of privilege regarding statements made in the House by the former member for Mississauga—Streetsville. The hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville had deliberately misled the House during debate on Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act, when he stated that he had witnessed evidence of voter fraud first-hand. On February 24 and February 25, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville admitted that, contrary to his original claim, he had not actually witnessed what he originally claimed to have witnessed. The Speaker found that by taking something the member knew not to be true and presenting it as eye-witness evidence, something so egregious constituted contempt.

I believe we are faced with the same scenario today, except government members refuse to admit it, as the previous Liberal government refused to do. On March 3, 2015, the Speaker delivered his ruling, citing what Speaker Milliken was faced with in February 2002 when the then-minister of national defence provided contradictory information to the House. The Speaker went on to conclude:

In keeping with that precedent, I am prepared to accord the same courtesy to the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

At the same time, the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements. This is a difficult position in which to leave members, who must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties.

Accordingly, in keeping with the precedent cited earlier in which Speaker Milliken indicated that the matter merited “...further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air”, I am prepared in this case for the same reason to allow the matter to be put to the House.

The House has been presented with several conflicting answers to one very simple question about the appearance of Jaspal Atwal at the event in India. This is a grave situation that has not had a satisfactory resolution.

Parliamentarians have a right to obtain accurate and non-conflicting information, even clarification, when asking questions of the government. If the media got this information, members of Parliament should have this clarification. In this instance, this has not occurred.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Canada Elections Act

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

Mr. Speaker, this is timely, because the heckling we are hearing between the Liberals and Conservatives only serves to reinforce the point I wanted to make.

In the previous Parliament, the Conservative government only generated more cynicism and changed our elections legislation, making it harder for Canadians to vote.

Now the Liberal government is fuelling cynicism with superficial changes that ultimately will do nothing to correct a serious perception problem that the Liberals themselves created. Everyone who has been watching today's debates heard the Liberals say that the leader of the official opposition was just as bad and that he did the same thing. The Conservatives, for their part, said that what they did was less serious because at least when their ministers attended fundraisers, they met people whose areas of business were not directly related to the department.

I have been an MP for almost seven years now, and I am starting to get pretty sick of giving speeches about all the issues that breed cynicism. Others have talked about this today. As my colleague from British Columbia mentioned this morning, when we go door to door and talk to people, that is what is on people's minds. They say they are not interested, they do not want to donate money to political parties, and they do not want to take out memberships. Worse still, some say they do not even want to vote because of the cynical mood fuelled by stories in the news and legislative half-measures. We will support the changes anyway because one step in the right direction is better than nothing, but everyone needs to understand where this is coming from.

Bill C-50 is a first step. Unfortunately, although I have a lot of respect for the minister, it will probably be the only step. The Liberal government is unlikely to leave behind anything else that qualifies as a legacy of democratic reform.

I have to wonder if it is mere coincidence that this bill was introduced right after the Prime Minister broke his lofty electoral reform promise, right after the dismal failure on that front. This is a big problem for our political system as a whole, not just party financing.

We recognize that some of the changes have made things more difficult. My Bloc Québécois colleague and others spoke earlier about the per-subsidy vote, which is money allocated for each vote received by a party or a candidate.

The member for Beaches—East York spoke about similar issues. He even went so far as to speak about making changes to tax credits for donations. I am raising all these issues to point out that it is possible to be open-minded in this type of debate and to find ways to improve political financing.

We can study all the important changes made in Quebec following revelations about the corruption that occurred over several years, as well as all the changes in political financing and the lowering of contribution limits.

These are all legitimate ideas and we could have a healthy debate about how to provide the financing needed, for better or for worse, to run an election campaign. It takes money to print brochures, inform voters about our positions and important issues, obtain telecommunications equipment for campaign offices, communicate with voters, hear their concerns, and share our positions. We recognize that this is the reality, whether we like it or not.

In that sense, it is very important to find a way to work together in a non-partisan manner to fix this system or at least create a system that instills confidence in Canadians. There are many reasons why that is currently not the case. Sometimes it is because of changes that have nothing to do with political donations as such, but have more to do with the electoral system itself and how it works. I am talking about Bill C-23 from the last Parliament, which had to do with electoral reform, or deform, as people jokingly used to refer to it. That is the type of thing that fuels cynicism and makes all of this that much more challenging.

However, we also have to consider the optics of a minister receiving the maximum donation allowed by law to attend an event with people who have a direct stake in his or her portfolio. What we need to understand is that ministers and regular MPs wield a very different level of power. I agree with the Conservatives on that. I would add that we keep reminding the Liberal government of that fact with each new conflict of interest scandal. Everyone knows that party leaders aspire to be Prime Minister one day and that members of the official opposition or another opposition party could easily end up in cabinet with decision-making power within two or three years. Nonetheless, ministers have the power to make extremely important decisions, hire people, award contracts, spend money, and so on. As such, their ear is much more valuable to have than that of a regular MP.

This does not mean that all members of the House are not prepared to follow the conflict of interest rules—political financing rules, specifically. However, when the government denies that things are different when it comes to ministers and claims in the House that everyone should be on a level playing field, it is insulting the intelligence of those who want to participate in this debate and make real change, so that we can have a political financing system that allows us, among other things, to run political campaigns. People want to see candidates on the ground, which costs money, whether we like it or not, but people also want to have confidence in the financing system.

This morning, the member for Beaches—East York talked about how things work south of the border, and he is right. In other countries, such as the United States, money plays such a dominant role in politics that it has become a problem. For example, my campaign spending cap for my riding would buy about one ad for a U.S. Senate hopeful. We have to acknowledge that our system does have merit. Seeing how bad things are elsewhere makes us feel better about how we do things here, but that does not mean we can rest on our laurels.

Whenever a journalist digs up another scandal, we can pretty much count on the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Minister of Democratic Institutions to say that our system is a good one, spending is in check, and there are strict caps on how much an individual can donate. That is not enough, though. We cannot compare ourselves to the worst of the bunch, places like the United States, where a Supreme Court ruling made the who and how much of election spending a free-for-all. Corporations, unions, anybody can spend as much as they want. Even so, alarming situations that are bad for democracies elsewhere are no excuse for us to be content with the status quo here.

In closing, as I said earlier, there are too many situations in the House that remind me of the cynicism I have seen among too many voters as I have gone door to door as an MP for almost seven years now, and I know that my colleagues have seen the same thing. If we really want to make Canadians less cynical and put an end to political financing scandals, we need to engage in a real debate. The government needs to do more than introduce a bill that is merely a smokescreen designed to hide its broken promises on electoral reform and to try to make people forget about the scandals it has been caught up in. Let us stop pointing fingers and arguing over which political party was worse than the other when in office. Let us seriously consider this reform and the measures that we could change or even those that we could bring back, in the case of public financing.

There are all kinds of interesting questions. Of course, the NDP's main goal when it comes to bringing in true electoral reform is the implementation of a mixed member proportional system. There are also many other issues that need to be seriously considered. That is not at all what we are seeing from this government, and it is not what we saw from the previous government, either.

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

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on Bill C-364 to discuss election financing law.

To start with, I will not be supporting this bill. That is not because I do not believe in a stronger role for public financing; I do believe that. It is because the alternative is a stronger role for private financing.

The key question I want to address in our democracy is a complete re-evaluation of political fundraising itself. Is fundraising necessary, and if so, what should it look like? Conventional wisdom is that it is. However, I want us to ask the question honestly and objectively.

Political parties need funds to operate and campaign. That is a given. However, what is a fair way to achieve that funding?

First, parties and riding associations should not have to fundraise in competition with each other. The fundraising should come from the riding, with a share sent to the party in order for it to remain a part of the party, with the specific details left up to each party or riding association to figure out. A party is not a party, after all, without ridings and representatives. The parties themselves are only meant to exist as a vehicle for like-minded members to work together, not as a means for members to become like-minded. That is a discussion for another day.

I disagree with the current fundraising model of 100% private funds, coupled with non-refundable tax credits and expense reimbursements that do not give equal ability to all members of society to participate, which is a fundamental tenet of any democracy. Those who have money can participate and get tax credits. Those who do not have money to participate are not eligible for the tax incentive to do so. Therefore, having less means that each dollar costs less fortunate individuals more in absolute terms, and prohibitively more in relative terms. Once again, those who need are at a disadvantage compared to those who do not, and politicians, with their insatiable need for funds, must necessarily gravitate toward those who have.

Many donors donate because they believe in the cause. However, I think it is naive to believe that all donors do. I am sure most of us have received an angry email or phone call at some point from someone who has given money to either our riding or our party saying, “I am a donor and I am angry.” Personally, I do not take well to this kind of message. I want people to donate because they believe in what we are doing and want us to continue, not in order to tell us what we need to do. If they are angry, I want to know that, not because they are donors but because they are citizens. I want that fact detached from the comment, and I want people who did not donate to express themselves with equal fervour. I am here to represent and work for all of my people to the best of my ability, not just those who supported me or may do so in the future.

I also disagree with the concept of annual per-vote funding, the primary objective of Bill C-364, for the simple reason that how people voted in 2015 may not reflect where they want their financial support to go. At that, it may not be the same in 2016, 2017, 2018, or 2019. If people vote for a Liberal candidate to block a Conservative candidate when they actually support the Green Party, why should the money go to the Liberals and not the Green Party in that circumstance? It does not make sense. If we do have per-vote funding, we should also have a preferential ballot so that the money we assign goes to our first pick, even if we have specified additional choices in order to prevent the unfavourable results that can sometimes come from not voting strategically.

On the other hand, I also do not believe that just because one has registered a political party it is automatically entitled to some funding or an equal level of funding as all the others. It must be tied to that party's actual support in some way. Giving the Rhinoceros Party $18 million simply because it is registered may not necessarily serve the interests of democracy, and providing per-party financing may motivate some people to register political parties for the purpose of simply collecting the money without any actual interest in the electoral process. I think these risks are fairly self-evident.

While I know I am very much in the minority on this, my preferred model for addressing all these concerns is to put a question on the tax returns of Canadians that would go something like this, with the numbers being completely arbitrary for the sake of demonstration here today.

With respect to let us say tax return line number 500, an answer to this section is required for my tax return to be accepted as complete. Therefore, the questions might be, “Question 1, I am entitled to direct $25 to a party registered in my riding or to be held in escrow for an independent candidate to be returned or forfeited if the candidate I name does not register to run in the next election: a) Yes, I would like to exercise this right, or b) No, I do not wish to contribute to any political party or independent candidate at this time.” If we check off no, then we are finished and have met our obligations under this section of the return. If we answer yes, that we do wish to direct $25 to a political party, we have three more questions to answer.

The first question would be, “The party or independent candidate I wish to support in my riding is”, then there would be a blank space or drop-down menu with data provided by Elections Canada for electronic filers. The second question would be, “I would like this money to: a) come from general revenues, or b) be added to my own tax assessment.” The final question would be, “I would like the origin of this contribution to be: a) disclosed to the party or independent candidate receiving it, or b) kept anonymous and confidential.”

Splitting up the questions like this allows those who believe it must be their own funds that contribute to political parties to put their money where their mouth is. However, more importantly, it means that someone who does not have two cents, and someone who is a millionaire, have the same weight in the fundraising process.

Everybody has the option but not the requirement to do so anonymously, so the data cannot be automatically used by political parties. Allowing people to say no to donating at all, and not knowing who, should help force all parties to retain a more positive message. Divisive dog-whistle fundraising will not work on an anonymous tax-assessment-based fundraising model. Being negative would serve to discourage people from contributing to political parties overall, with them answering no to the question of whether to give before seeing the options of who to give to.

The pie can be pretty big if Canadians all have a positive view of political parties, rather than the negative views promulgated today by some elements of our political system to sew division and make people hate, rather than to want to work together.

While the Canada Revenue Agency will no doubt be less than excited to get involved in this manner, and there must be careful and specific controls to protect the privacy of the responses to this question, in my view it is the fairest possible way to ensure that political financing is put on an equal basis by all citizens for those they support here and now, at all times, in all parts of the country.

There are no doubt other models and solutions that could be looked at, but I firmly believe that the question must be asked, and I thank the member for Terrebonne for bringing public financing reform forward for us to discuss.

This legislation also reduces the fundraising limits significantly in conjunction with the reintroduction of per-vote funding. The amount of the donation cap is largely irrelevant if there is still an inequity between donors who have means and donors who do not, and so the cap at $500 or $1,500 is largely immaterial to me. Someone who makes enough to pay taxes giving $400 is still out of pocket only $100, while someone who does not make enough to pay taxes giving $400 is out of pocket the full amount, not to mention possibly out of a home or a few meals. Therefore, I find the particular change proposed in the bill to be fairly meaningless. It would not solve any existing problem.

Finally, the member for Terrebonne's bill has an absolute rather than relative coming into force provision. Given that the bill is only at second reading here in the House and has yet to get through the Commons committee, report stage, third reading and referral to the Senate, second reading at the Senate, Senate committee, Senate report stage, Senate third reading, and royal assent, it is not realistic to suggest that the bill could be in force 24 days from now.

Over the past two years, we have made strides forward on these matters. I do not believe my views on fundraising reflect those of very many of my colleagues on any side of the House, but we are seeing changes both here and in several provinces.

Conservative Bill C-23, the so-called Fair Elections Act, reformed fundraising in a whole lot of ways that were detrimental to democratic society, including removing fundraising costs from capped expenses in an election campaign, and upping the donation limit by 25%, and then indexing it by $25 per year instead of by an an inflation-based formula.

I do not wish to re-litigate that particular bill. As the assistant at the time to the Liberal critic for democratic reform, I had more than enough sleepless nights trying to grok every word of that act once, and it certainly contributed to my motivation to seek a seat in this place so that this kind of abuse of democracy could not happen again.

Our own government's Bill C-50 brought in strict reporting requirements for fundraising events involving the key power brokers of government, and those working hard to replace them, which I think is genuinely important.

The thing about fundraising, and public financing of political parties, of course, is that there is no such thing as a perfect answer, only a balance of imperfect solutions. What I am sure of, though, is that Bill C-364 does not address the fundamental inequalities within our existing fundraising and public financing structure for our political system.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

We all received a copy of the minister's letter, and I think that's where you've got us right now, focusing on this letter. The problems arise, not so much from what it says, but from what it doesn't say. Again, here we are, running out of time to do our work effectively and the reason we don't have enough time is the government. I can make the case chronologically how this opposition has bent over backwards to try to be accommodating, on my part mostly because I want to see a lot of changes in the election laws, especially fixing some of the serious damage that was done by Bill C-23.

This government does not make it easy to continue to have that kind of approach because I feel a bit like we've been had. The government got what it wanted, for the most part, not the opposition, and the reason? We're out of time. Why are we out of time? Because we spent six weeks doing the filibuster we just referenced. I want to remind everybody that filibuster was caused by a letter from the House leader indicating draconian changes to the Standing Orders, followed by a motion from a member of this committee that then put a timeline on it and gave a 100% clear indication that it was the government's desire to let as much debate happen as is necessary, but only to allow them to get to the point where they could vote and ram it through. If the proof is in the pudding, what happened at the end of six weeks? The government withdrew the letter, and they withdrew the motion, and we were exactly where we were six weeks before, except we lost six weeks. That's the government's fault.

At the very least, when it looked as if we weren't going to get a chance to finish the Chief Electoral Officer's report in time to give it to the minister prior to the legislation she's developing now, what we asked for was an indication that the government was committing to at least an intention of a second round, a second bill, that would then give us a chance to do the follow-up work. If you'll recall, Chair, we have spent almost all our time in the last few weeks since we got out of the filibuster talking about only the issues the minister asked us to talk about, which we accommodated.

At the last meeting we asked for some indication to let us know that we should continue our work, and that the unfinished items could.... We haven't even gotten to the items that this committee thought were some good ideas; we put those over in another work pile as we put together our work plan. All we wanted was some commitment that this work was going to lead somewhere and do something progressive and positive. Instead, we get a letter that basically, if it says anything, says that—my words—if you don't get your work done in the report, you can send me a personal letter, so I can consider the things you want.

I don't need this letter to do that and I don't need PROC to do that. I could have done that a long time ago. What does that give me? Nothing. I spoke to you last night. I asked if there was any chance of getting hold of the minister because I didn't want to give this damn speech again. I'm getting as tired giving it as you folks are of hearing it, but damn it, it's still where we are.

Apparently I asked you last night, can you get to her to get us a different message, something that would prevent us from being exactly where we are right now? Crickets. Nothing. All we get is this.

I have to tell you, Chair, I am getting very frustrated and—this is public— I was the one who threw my lot in and trusted the government, even when my good friend Mr. Richards was warning me to be careful. He was concerned that we were going to get sandbagged here. I took the government at their word, and I thought they were serious about wanting to hear what this committee had to say, and that it would help advise and inform the minister as she developed legislation to introduce. I'm beginning to think more and more, worst-case scenario, that Mr. Richards was right, that we've been sandbagged here.

You can take your modest little victory in what you think this got you, but you're going to pay for it going forward, because we still have two and a half years to go.

Like Mr. Reid, I've been on this committee a very long time. Not as long as he, but a very long time, and I can tell you when this committee is working well we get some really good stuff done, and when we go in the ditch it is serious. The problem is that the House can't afford to have this committee tied up because basically we're the steering committee of the House. So it's not too long before the House is asking us to consider something that they've either given us directly or has come from a referral out of the Speaker's chair.

I don't have an action at the end, or a motion, Mr. Chair. I'm speaking much more in sorrow than in anger, but I do not like where we are. I do not think the government has been respectful of the opposition. I think they've been respectful enough to get what they want, and when it was time for the opposition to maybe get their day it was “too bad, so sad”. You can get away with that and you can get yourself out of this, fair enough, but be on notice. If this is the way you're going to treat us, you're going to have a very different opposition and you're going to have a very different autumn experience here than you have had to date.

Thank you.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Reid for his ever-thoughtful comments.

In my opinion, it would be in our best interest to take up the suggestion that we pursue some of this. The issue of not adjourning and forcing...the government of the day, whoever controls the majority, having the ability to unilaterally declare a 24-7 filibuster, when it's....

There are two different kinds of filibusters. There is the filibuster where you have the floor at a meeting and you talk until the end of the meeting. Then the meeting adjourns, and you go off and do your business. When we come back again as a committee, the first order of business is to pick up where we left off. The other kind of filibuster is the one the government forced this time by refusing to adjourn, effectively setting in motion a 24-7 filibuster that the opposition wasn't calling for.

I would just point out that this has happened before. I experienced it at the hands of his government, which did exactly the same thing to me, on Bill C-23, as this government did to him. It created as much confusion then as it did this time.

I think it may be in our best interest to take up Mr. Reid's suggestion that we pursue that a bit, because we know it's going to come up again and we are going to have the same turmoil and the same question of its legitimacy. We could get ahead of it by removing the passion of the moment and looking at it dispassionately.

There is an argument—and I'll just leave it there, not that I'm supporting it per se—that, given the fact that the opposition does have the ability to seize control of a committee through a filibuster, maybe a countervailing measure that the government can call its bluff by virtue of being able to trigger that is not such a bad thing. I think what's in question is whether it is done unilaterally through a declaration of the chair or, as Mr. Reid has outlined, whether it requires a vote. Should we eliminate it entirely? Do we deem it to be not cricket and say, “You know what? From now on, that's not the way we're going to let things go”?

Anyway, I just wanted to thank him for his remarks. We all learn. I suspect he is the dean of the committee, by a long shot, and I learn so much from him as a political historian.

I would end by echoing his comments about the chair. There were a few times when I was ready to come flying out of my chair, too, but for the most part, Chair, it's obvious you bent over backwards as much as possible in our situation, where you're both partisan and non-partisan at the same time. You're our Schrödinger's cat: you both are and aren't at the same time. I just want to echo how much your personal character helped us get through a very difficult time.

I would just end by, again, urging that, even though we have a massive amount of work, at some point we find the time to unpackage some of the issues Mr. Reid has raised, because it's in our best interest to do so.

Thank you, Chair.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, and here's the thing. We still have the study of the protective services that we started quite some time ago, not long after we were constituted as a committee. We started to get a little bit of traction and then it kind of fell by the wayside as other things got layered on top. This is an opportunity to deal with some of those same issues, so putting all my cards on the table, people know some of the issues that I care about, and I'm not sure that an hour is going to cover it this time.

On the other one, I don't know about you people, but I have no agenda on the Chief Electoral Officer other than I wouldn't mind getting some deadlines from him. There is more information I would seek from him than normally under estimates, given the work we're doing on that study that's now been pushed back. I'm very concerned. I've been very up front with Mr. Chan and others about the fact that we are united—at least I am—with the government in wanting to make serious changes to the election laws.

A lot of that is contained in the Chief Electoral Officer's report. A lot of it is withdrawing the ugliness, in my opinion, from Bill C-23. That work has to be done. It would break my heart if we got to the end of this Parliament, with a majority government and at least one of the two opposition parties seriously wanting to make reforms in those areas—progressive, positive reforms—and we hadn't ripped out that ugly stuff that was stuffed down our throats in the last Parliament.

All of that is to say that I, for one, might spend a little more time than I might otherwise at estimates, but I'm not seeking to have the tail wag the dog here. I'm just saying that, from my perspective, there may be a little more time needed, given the current situation on both those files.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I appreciate that, Chair.

I enjoyed the exchange, but I do hope that it makes it a little easier for the member to understand where we're coming from, the process that led us to this point, and then the overreaction on the part of the government when they refused to adjourn. I hadn't seen that since Bill C-23 with Harper, when we thought I was going to do a two-hour filibuster, adjourn, and then come back the next day. They said, “No, you're not leaving.” Suddenly, not only was I in a filibuster, but I was in a filibuster that I wasn't even prepared for. It's a real sneak attack by a majority government that has all the marbles anyway to conduct themselves in that fashion, but then, for the government to do exactly that, in only the second time I've ever seen it, whoa.

I want to end in terms of responding to Ruby by saying that it is possible, in a different.... I'm not guaranteeing anything. I'm just saying that I think it is plausible, even possible, that had there been a different approach, we may still have the same disagreements, but we wouldn't be here at five minutes to eleven on a Wednesday night, spinning our wheels, which is really where we are. It's quite possible, because a different approach got a different result on at least two other occasions, and it wasn't like we didn't do work: we got two good reports. Both of them, I think, were only the first steps. There's more work to be done.

Again, you can take in context what previous parliaments said about this very issue, which was that they couldn't get everything through that they wanted to either, but for everything that they did put in, everyone agreed to it. They said, “It made Parliament work better and we urge you to follow that same sort of model.” It's not black and white, but when you add it all up, I don't think it's too difficult to understand how the opposition benches found ourselves where we are now. I would remind the honourable member, in my last comment on this before I return to my prepared remarks, that we could still do it.

The letter that I've spent maybe a couple of hours on is another attempt by the opposition to offer the government an exit strategy from their own mess. The only reason we're bothering is that we care about these things. If it had been a piece of legislation where you were going in a direction that we didn't agree with, whether you ran on it or not, we would just leave you there twisting.

That would be your problem, not ours. We'd say that we don't agree with you ideologically and we're not about to change, and it would be cut, dried, done, and over, but here we are, making a suggestion, and it's not a suggestion loaded in favour of the opposition. It's the process that Mr. Chrétien followed when he wanted to change the rules.

I won't go into the details, Chair—that wouldn't be right—but Mr. Richards and I have had numerous off-line private discussions with Mr. Simms. I think it's fair to say that for the most part we were the ones making recommendations and Mr. Simms was considering them. We would have a little back-and-forth and, at an appropriate time, he would say, “Okay, I hear what's being said.” Then he would have to go and talk to the folks who he would have to talk to, just like Mr. Richards and I would have to do before we could conclude a final, absolute agreement.

It's hard to make us out as the ones who are being the most difficult. I'm not saying that I'm not being difficult. I am being difficult.

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

But the average Canadian goes to work at 8:30 in the morning. We go to work at 10. Why can't we go to work at 8:30?

The average Canadian works in January. We, too, could do that. The average Canadian works in September, and we could do that as well.

That time gets apportioned out, so that's one part of the argument. I'm glad I'm given this opportunity to talk about those elements because that's been spun, I think, in the wrong direction. Again, this is a discussion paper that we wanted to start with. We may very well end up with a report in the same spirit of the McGrath report in 1985. We just have to get to that point where we start on this report.

At this point I don't even want to talk about the past. Let's juxtapose it.... I just said I won't, but I guess I will.

On Bill C-23, Mr. Christopherson and others compared it with what we're doing here—not at all. Bill C-23 was tabled legislation, and that's it. This is not a motion that's been tabled. It's not even a study that we're predetermining as to what.... These are not recommendations written in stone.

I'll give you a good example. Scott Reid brought up the point about omnibus legislation, and one of the things we suggested was that maybe the Speaker can split omnibus bills. He may have a valid point. How does that happen? How do we get to that point? We can't get there until we have that discussion.

There are a few other details that are out there that are not entirely correct. We suggested the idea of a Prime Minister's question period; we didn't say it would be once a week. We said it would be a Prime Minister's question period. Why can't we have the Prime Minister accountable to the House for the entire period?

You see, this is the problem. We've been having a debate for the past 12 hours that I think has been a good one. Now I get a chance to rebut some of the stuff because, as I said, the Friday issue to me is about a half day. Canadians work Fridays, but they don't do half days. I don't know many Canadians who can go home at 1:30 or 2 o'clock in the afternoon. I suggest to Mr. Richards, stick around, do a full Friday, because Friday has to change. You either take that time, or you put it somewhere else. It's like one of those workers who opts for a 12-hour shift with more days off as opposed to a worker with an eight-hour shift who works more days. That option is available to many employees across this country—and rightly so. It's not an exercise in getting Friday off, as has been mischaracterized.

In the spirit of goodwill, a lot of times we've said, “I don't know what you do in your riding, but I work”, and people insinuate that they don't work when they're home. We all do. For goodness' sake, there isn't an MP out there who goes home and just sits at home and doesn't bother going out into their constituency. We all have offices. Let's not get into that game, but let's call it like it is.

This is the discussion paper that starts or is the genesis of a conversation that may well turn into the report that Mr. Christopherson characterized that was done in 1985, but we have to get there.

I'll leave it at that. I want to thank Mr. Richards, and Mr. Genuis, too, for suggesting this, and my colleagues for giving me this time. Thank you.

I won't stay late.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You already know that's not going to happen, so you have to get over it. Listen, I'm still living down the Rae government. You carry what you have to carry too.

That's the difference. It feels as if we're in that time of “I have to think about every political angle, and I have to think out every move the government makes”. You're on the defensive. You have to look at where you can take your shots. That makes Canadians nuts. They like the adversarial system because it does work for us and it's our parliamentary system, but they like it in the Canadian way.

Mr. Chrétien offered up what would seem to be a very Canadian way to deal with this issue. Let's take the deputy speaker, make him or her the chair of the committee, and take the three House leaders and make the government House leader and the official opposition House leader vice-chairs, and they only will pass on the things that they agree on. That was good enough for Mr. Chrétien, and he did pretty well. Three, four.... ? Did he get four? He got three. He could have had four if it weren't for that vicious stuff, but we won't go there. We all have our baggage.

That's what Mr. Chrétien did. I don't know if he ever uttered the words “sunny ways”. He might have, but it's not part of his legacy, especially for that guy in the park.

But Mr. Chrétien's way of doing things is not good enough: the government wants more control than a three-time majority prime minister and former government Liberal believed that he was entitled to by way of controlling the House by the throat. If necessary, that option was always available to Mr. Chrétien, as we know. It was the Shawinigan handshake, yes, from the little guy from Shawinigan. We were once here on a tour when I was on city council, and Terry Cooke and I told the driver, “No matter what, even if everybody else goes back to the hotel, you have to take us to drive by to see where Chrétien lives.” The little guy from Shawinigan was that successful. When you're first starting out and someone like that is in power, you pay attention to it.

I think it says a lot that Mr. Chrétien thought that was a fair process to deal with this, yet Mr. Respect and Sunny Ways feels that's not good enough, that the government should retain the right to ram through the changes. Mr. Chrétien did not see it that way. You have to acknowledge that we have at least a good case, even if you don't want to admit it's the winning case. I feel sad and disappointed that I'm even talking that way in terms of winning and losing, especially when we're talking about the rules. There shouldn't be any losers on the rules; there just shouldn't be. It's that deep sense of commitment to Parliament and a desire to do a lot of this stuff.

I make no bones about it. A lot of the changes the government wants to make in the election laws, I favour. For a lot of the stuff it wants to remove from Bill C-23, I can't get that out of there fast enough. I make no bones about it. I don't want to see this Parliament go by with that stuff not taken out. We have a majority government with, at the very least, a third party—if not the opposition—that is very supportive of doing real modernization and paying real respect to the Chief Electoral Officer's report. Do you realize that when they brought in Bill C-23, they didn't even consult with the Chief Electoral Officer? That's how bad it was.

I want to get off this dime. It's wrecking all my other stuff. I'm missing the public accounts committee.

[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.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to go back to the idea that there could very well have been many precedents that are very similar to this that wouldn't have come to your attention because they were never raised as precedents in Parliament.

One example that I would like to point out is on the so-called Fair Elections Act, Bill C-23. I'm looking here at an article by Stephen Maher on February 2, which was two days before that bill was tabled in the House. To go back to Mr. Schmale's point, in the first sentence it says the Conservative government will introduce changes. Then, three paragraphs down “Conservative sources”; another one says it promised the government will “close loopholes to big money, and give law enforcement sharper teeth, a longer reach and a freer hand”. Then it goes on to say, “The bill would remove the Commissioner of Elections Canada, where the investigators work, from Elections Canada and set it up as a separate office, sources say.”

Would this not be considered very similar to the issue we're dealing with? But there was never any point of privilege raised in the House, because perhaps this is considered normal and expected when you're dealing with legislation.

[Marc Mayrand]

In 2010 with Bill C-23—

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Right. Thank you.

I have to change the topic because of the short amount of time I have.

In October 2014, the so-called Fair Elections Act transferred the office of the commissioner of Canada Elections from Elections Canada to the office of the DPP. In the 2016-17 estimates, do they provide for increased resources as a result of the transfer? How has that transfer of jurisdiction affected your office, if at all?

Digital Privacy Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to the very important Bill S-4. It concerns the sharing of personal information in the digital age. It deals mainly with the way in which we legislate against companies responsible for the loss or sharing of information. We know this is a very sensitive issue because we are in the digital age where more and more personal information is found online. We think first of banking information, and also of information that sometimes seems not that important, but that is nevertheless part of peoples' private lives. It is information that we share on social networks, such as photos.

This covers all kinds of of complex issues, such as copyright, that we have addressed in the House since the last election, and the dissemination of information pertaining to national security. We had an important debate on this issue during the debate on Bill C-51. We learned that information technology companies, or startups, had concerns about some of the bill's provisions.

Of course, we are all familiar with the infamous story of Bill C-30, where the minister of public safety and emergency preparedness at the time told us that we stood either with the government or with child pornographers. This example shows just how big an issue we are dealing with and the Conservatives' poor record in this regard.

First, I would like to mention something very important and very simple: the obligation to review the privacy legislation every five years. Obviously, this is very important given how quickly technology changes. Unfortunately, such a review has not been implemented. A number of bills were introduced in this regard, but they died on the order paper when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. There was, of course, Bill C-30, which is a whole other story, and there was also the bill introduced by my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville. That bill, which the government refused to support, sought to implement a robust privacy review process, give more power to the Privacy Commissioner and have clearer legislative provisions.

Bill S-4 includes similar provisions. However, they do not go far enough and there are still worrisome loopholes. One of the grey areas that I am particularly concerned about has to do with organizations, such as banks, that could share private information. These organizations are required to report a loss of personal information to the Privacy Commissioner only “if it is reasonable in the circumstances to believe that the breach creates a real risk of significant harm to an individual”. That may seem clear, but when it comes to legislative measures, we can see that there is a lot of leeway in how this provision of the bill is worded. The company could decide that no one's privacy was really violated and that there was no risk of harm to the individual and simply not report the privacy breach.

One of the flaws in this bill is the requirement for a court warrant, which my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville brought up earlier and which she included in her bill. The Supreme Court recently ruled that any invasion of privacy by the government and any request that the government makes to a private company that is in possession of our information require a mandate. There is no such requirement in this bill, which is extremely worrisome. That is why I made the link earlier to Bill C-51 and the debate on Bill C-30, which did not end up taking place because we managed to get the government to back down. The government seems to be on the wrong track and does not seem to take privacy seriously.

Its record is a great example of that. How many times does the House need to hear criticisms about mismanagement at the Canada Revenue Agency, for example, during question period or at every possible opportunity, whether it is when bills are introduced and petitions are presented or at press conferences?

This department is in possession of the most sensitive information on Canadians, such as their social insurance numbers and their tax information. The department has been the victim of data breaches, and the government does not seem to be taking any responsibility. That makes it hard for us to trust that the government will require private companies to comply with high privacy standards when it is not capable of doing so itself. This situation is extremely worrisome.

We know that this is a complex issue because more and more things are done online. As far as matters of national security are concerned, we know that as legislators we have work to do. We wanted to propose amendments to ensure that this bill went further and complied with the Supreme Court decision. Like a number of witnesses in committee, we question the constitutionality of this bill in its current form.

If I am not mistaken, the 18 amendments the NDP proposed were all rejected. True to form, the Conservatives did not listen to any of the testimony or pay any regard to the amendments proposed by all the parties. The amendments proposed by the NDP were all based on what the public had to say and on the very hard work of my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, who was trying to get suitable provisions for 2015, not 2000. Technology changes and so does our reality, and we have to adjust accordingly.

In this context, there are a number of troubling aspects. First, this bill was introduced in the Senate, which, naturally, we criticize every chance we get. The Minister of Industry made an announcement about how he wants to proceed in the digital age, but instead of introducing this bill in the House himself, he introduced it in the Senate. That is one problem.

The second problem is that the Conservatives wanted to skip second reading and send the bill straight to committee. That is not a bad idea in and of itself. The NDP has asked for the same in order to study certain extremely complex files.

For example, we asked to take this approach for Bill C-23, which we called the “electoral deform” bill. Since the government wanted to go straight to committee, we thought it was willing to accept amendments and listen to witnesses, but that did not happen.

The third problem concerns another of the government's bad habits: the honour of the 97th time allocation motion was bestowed on Bill S-4 in order to limit debate. Unfortunately, at this rate, the Conservatives will have moved 100 such motions by the time the election is held. To be blunt, that is pretty shabby.

Although it is important to protect Canadians' privacy and to do what it takes, in 2015, to implement an approach appropriate for the digital age, recent Supreme Court decisions have cast doubt on the constitutionality of this bill.

This bill does not go far enough, and since the government wants to limit debate and does not accept the amendments and the work done in committee, we cannot and will not support this bill. I am very pleased to rise in the House to say that.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank our guests in British Columbia, and here as well, for joining us.

This issue about provisional voting came up the last time. I think the concept is being put out there as a way of encouraging voting, but my opinion is that we're overlooking the obvious every time we bring up provisional voting. In other words, it may be a solution to some people in certain cases, but if you restore the international permanent list, it goes much further.

With provisional voting, as my colleague from Cape Breton would point out, all we're doing is moving the house in order to tighten up the clothesline. What we should be doing is saying that the international list should be created permanently. As Mr. Biggar pointed out, we want low barriers, high motivation.

I'm going to start with Mr. Biggar on this one. Obviously the high motivation is in your domain, given Leadnow and what it does to get people to vote. However, the lower barriers issue, which you pointed out in the beginning, is becoming very uncertain. We can no longer use the voter information card with Bill C-23.

I would assume—yes or no, Mr. Biggar—about the international list on a permanent basis....

[Josh Paterson, Executive Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the committee for the invitation to appear.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association is a non-profit, non-partisan group whose objectives are to promote, defend, sustain, and extend human rights and civil liberties in Canada. We have a long history of defending voting rights and the principle of voter equality. For example, we were an intervener in the Frank case at the Court of Appeal for Ontario, and have applied to intervene in the current challenge to certain provisions of the Fair Elections Act.

One critical case that we brought was Dixon versus the Attorney General of B.C., in 1989. In that decision, the court held that to give some voters less weight than others ran counter to the charter principles of equality and democratic governance. At the time, it was Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court Beverley McLachlin who wrote in her opinion that “the right to vote and participate in the democratic election of one's government is one of the most fundamental of the Charter rights. For without the right to vote in free and fair elections all other rights would be in jeopardy.”

We believe this bill will jeopardize this right. It will place undue impediments on the right of Canadians living abroad to vote in federal elections, and we believe it will be found to be unconstitutional as a result. While the Frank decision sets the stage for maximizing citizens' ability to participate in our democracy and recognizes and extends the constitutional right to vote, this bill has the effect of limiting that right and limiting the participation of Canadians abroad in their own governance.

If Parliament is determined to legislate beyond a simple deletion of the inoperative provisions from Frank, we have no objection to the requirement that an individual prove they're a Canadian or that they establish their place of last residence. We do, however, share with the Chief Electoral Officer and other witnesses the concern that the requirement to register only once an election has been called is likely to disenfranchise some voters. For many voters like Dr. Woo, who testified last week, there simply may not be enough time.

We also believe the requirements to constantly re-prove one's last residence in Canada are unduly onerous. As far as we can tell from reviewing the evidence in these proceedings, no hard evidence has been provided as to why these steps are necessary. If an individual has proved their last residence in Canada once, why can that proof not stand until they return to Canada? Their last residence, as we've heard, cannot change once it has been established. We see no reason that any of this should only be done as well once the writ has been dropped.

As the committee has heard from no less than the Chief Electoral Officer, it is highly likely that people will not be able to complete this multi-step process in time—applying for a ballot, proving their last residency, waiting for the assessment, having the ballot mailed, and mailing it back. Resident Canadians don't need to do this. For example, 84% of tax filers provide their address to Elections Canada using their tax filings and keep themselves constantly updated in that way. We see no reason that non-resident Canadians, whose last address in Canada is fixed and immoveable, need to re-prove that location at each election.

We also object to the one voucher per voter rule, whether for resident or non-resident voters. You can easily foresee a situation in which a Canadian family, with several members who have long lived abroad but who don't have acceptable proof of their last residence in Canada, might have difficulty locating and reaching vouchers for each of the family members. Maybe you're still in contact with an old neighbour, who, lucky thing, still lives in the riding, but what if there's only one person left in that family living in the riding? What if there's not enough of them to vouch for the members of your family?

This is senseless. While we're pleased that the vouching has been expanded from the totally baseless requirement that the voucher live in the same polling division, we question the riding restriction, too. Why is this sworn and declared word of a voucher less worthy if they literally live down the street in Kitchener Centre, but you lived in Kitchener—Waterloo, and your kids went to the same school? Or what if they got transferred to Kitchener Centre in the recent redistribution? You used to live in the same riding and now you don't. We don't see why that should matter.

There can be no question for us that this act on its face places a barrier in the way of Canadians abroad exercising their constitutional right to vote, and the case law is clear. When legislation interferes with the capacity of citizens to play a meaningful role in the electoral process, it is inconsistent with section 3 of the charter. It's plain that the combination of all of these measures will make it so that Canadians will have more difficulty in voting from abroad.

Given that there's been a lack of any justification offered for the proposal, it's difficult for us to imagine how the infringement of charter-protected voting rights would be upheld by the courts as a justified infringement.

We urge the committee to take to heart the suggestions that have been made and make changes to this so that people could register earlier, before the election, so they are better able to cast their ballots—or else to reject this bill entirely.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister for Democratic Reform]

Thank you very much, everyone, for having me here today. Before I begin my remarks, I would like to introduce Isabelle Mondou and Natasha Kim, both of whom work in the Privy Council Office. They are exceptional public servants and they know more about all of these subjects than I do. I'm very pleased to have them at the table with me. I feel assured to have them at my side.

Without any further ado, Mr. Chair, it's a pleasure to address the committee on the citizen voting act. The bill will strengthen Canada's democracy by reinforcing the integrity of the special ballot voting system and ensuring fairness for resident and non-resident votes. The citizen voting act proposes to reform the vote by mail procedures set out in divisions 3 and 4 of the special voting rules of the Canada Elections Act.

The last major update to these procedures was back in 1993. The citizen voting act is in keeping with the government's objective to strengthen the integrity of our electoral process. It builds on the rules enacted by the Fair Elections Act in June of 2014, a bill with which I know all of you are deeply familiar.

The citizen voting act proposes six key measures to reform the special voting rules in the Canada Elections Act and proposes objectives of integrity and fairness.

First, the proposed legislation creates a single process for residents and non-residents who vote by special ballot. Special ballot voting procedures applicable to resident and non-resident electors will be harmonized. Non-resident voters will no longer automatically receive a ballot at election time, mitigating the risk that ballots will end up with unintended recipients. The citizen voting act requires that non-resident electors wishing to vote by special ballot must apply for one at each election, just as resident electors do now.

Second, the bill stipulates non-resident electors will only receive a ballot for the address at which they last resided in Canada. Non-resident electors will no longer be allowed to choose the riding in which they wish to vote.

Third, the bill builds on the Fair Elections Act by requiring all electors voting by special ballot, both residents and non-residents, include in the application proof of identity and residence according to the rules that are similar to those set up in the Fair Elections Act. At the moment, proof of residence in Canada is not required for non-residents. This shortcoming will be remedied, and as with other Canadians, proof of prior residence will be required for expatriate voters.

Under the citizen voting act, resident and non-resident electors voting under the special voting rules will have the same three voter identification options available in order to cast their ballots: a government-issued photo identification with name and address; two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, one with an address and both with a name; or two pieces of authorized identification with an oath or declaration of residence that is attested to by another properly identified elector from the same riding.

Fourth, the proposed legislation requires that electors voting from outside of Canada provide proof of citizenship. Currently, providing proof of citizenship is required administratively by Elections Canada for non-resident electors. The citizen voting act makes this a legislative requirement, including for resident voters temporarily outside of the country.

Fifth, the citizen voting act extends the special ballot voting procedures to the mandatory post-election audit that was introduced in the Fair Elections Act. As you will recall, we required that the Chief Electoral Officer appoint an auditor to ensure identification rules were administered in the course of a general election. That mandatory audit was to apply to domestic voting. The citizen voting act will see to it that it also applies to those voting from outside of the country. To this end, the Chief Electoral Officer will be required to engage an external auditor to carry it out, and he will also be required to report the results of this audit. The audit will look into election workers' compliance with resident and non-resident special voting procedures after every election.

Finally, the citizen voting act adds a new provision authorizing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information such as the name, gender, date of birth, and address of persons who are not Canadian citizens, for the purpose of cross-referencing registrants in the national register of electors. This is to assist in deleting the names of non-residents from the register who are not qualified to vote. This suggestion came to me from the Chief Electoral Officer. He was concerned that there are people on the voter list who are not citizens, and one of the ways that Elections Canada can identify these non-citizens and remove them from the list is by having data on the identity of non-citizens who reside within Canada. So we have agreed to his suggestion and with the passage of this bill, we will permit the immigration minister to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with that data.

Before concluding my remarks to the committee, I would like to report that, following consultations with Elections Canada, and after looking at some of the issues that were raised during the debate in the House of Commons, the government will be proposing seven minor amendments to the citizen voting act.

First, the current bill provides that the Chief Electoral Officer may authorize types of identification issued by, among others, an entity that is “formed in Canada”. This ensures that identification documents must always be Canadian documents and thus reinforces the integrity of the identification procedure. Moreover, foreign-issued identification is likely to be harder to verify, and in some cases, it could be in another language. This requirement raises concerns that it would be difficult to determine whether an entity is Canadian. In particular, it has been argued that it would be difficult for poll officials to make such a determination.

We have noted the concerns and will be proposing to limit the application of this requirement to only electors voting by special ballot under divisions 3 and 4. This means that front-line officials at the polls will not have to evaluate whether a piece of identification was issued by an entity formed in Canada. Rather, this determination will mainly be required when Elections Canada reviews the identification documents provided by electors with their applications for special ballot prior to election day. In other words, it will apply to those voting by mail and those voting outside of the country, but not at the voting booth.

Elections Canada has access to more resources and will have more time than poll officials to assess whether pieces of identification have been issued by a Canadian entity. I believe this amendment will ensure not only that electors voting by special ballot provide Canadian identification to prove their identity and residence, but also that it will be easier for election officials to verify the acceptability of such identification.

Second, another concern that has been raised relates to the requirement in Bill C-50, the citizen voting act, that residents wishing to vote by special ballot using the attestation procedure to prove residency must obtain an attestation from another elector from the same polling division. For those listening who are not familiar with the complexity of local voting, there are electoral districts that each elect one member of Parliament, but within those districts are polling divisions that break down the voting locations where people go to cast their ballots. The reason that the distinction is important is that it is much more difficult to find an attestor who lives in the same polling division or even to know if that voter lives in the same polling division if you are voting from outside of the country and you are resident abroad. This is not a problem when you're actually voting at the polling division location because you're physically there and the person attesting is physically with you, and they would know very well if they are at their appropriate location.

That brings me to the proposed amendment.

Because the requirement would be problematic, we would seek to change the requirement for the fact that the boundaries of the polling divisions are not published by the Elections Canada website until 24 days before the polling day. To facilitate the process, we will propose an amendment to allow non-resident electors voting by special ballot to obtain an attestation from an elector from the same electoral district instead. In other words, anyone living in the same district would be able to act as the attestor for the non-resident voter lacking proof of prior address. They will not have to be from the same polling division. These electors will therefore be able to kick-start the registration process from the day the election is called.

The third amendment that we propose, Mr. Chair, relates also to the attestation process. Bill C-50 currently provides that as part of the attestation, resident and non-resident electors voting by special ballot may sign a declaration to prove their residence instead of taking the oath. Those who attest to the residence of an elector who are abroad may also sign a declaration instead of taking an oath. An amendment will be proposed to clarify that the declarations signed by attestors from abroad will not need to be administered by another person. Signing a declaration will be sufficient to prove or to attest to the residence of an elector. This will simplify the process for electors and attestors abroad.

The fourth proposed amendment relates to the proof of citizenship that electors voting by special ballot would have to provide, if making their application from outside Canada. We will clarify the language to specify that proof of citizenship is required when the ballot is being sent outside of the country rather than to special ballot voters within the country.

The fifth amendment relates to post-election audit. Bill C-50 proposes to extend the audit to include voting by special ballot and to give the auditor access to all documents necessary to perform the audit. A technical amendment will be proposed to ensure that the auditor has access to all documents necessary to perform the audit for voting at the polls as well.

Sixth, an amendment will be tabled to mitigate the risk of a voter identification card being sent to Canadians at an address at which they no longer live, which would increase the risk of such cards falling into the hands of people who are not eligible to vote in our elections. This technical amendment will provide that all non-residents will not receive a voter information card. Under clause 3 of the bill as currently drafted, that exception would apply only to some non-residents.

As amendment number 7, finally, we will propose an amendment for resident electors who vote in person through special ballot initiatives. For example, such initiatives could be held at hospitals, universities, or at remote work locations, as has been done in the past. An amendment will enable those electors, like electors who vote at the polls, to present an original piece of identification, and not only copies, as is currently provided by Bill C-50.

I hope that committee members will support these amendments. I believe they are sensible and that they are consistent with the goal of the bill.

I can just wrap up by highlighting the principle at stake here.

Mr. Chair, we believe that people should provide ID when they vote. This ID should show who they are, where they reside, and in the case of people living abroad, where they used to reside. Those people voting outside of the country should be required to prove that they're Canadian citizens. The Constitution does give every Canadian the right to vote, but that right is predicated on citizenship—explicitly predicated on citizenship—and so too should be the identification requirement for those who are casting a ballot from outside Canada's borders.

Thank you very much.

[Professor Michael Pal, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you very much to the committee for having me here to speak on this important bill. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa where I teach constitutional law and election law. You're all invited to come and speak to my class, if you'd like, down the road.

I'm going to give you a very different perspective than Professor Lee. You would have thought the law professor would be the one quoting Hobbes and Foucault, but instead I'm going to speak to the constitutionality of Bill C-50, particularly the rules on registration and on voter identification for overseas voters.

In my opinion, and I wish it was otherwise, the bill as currently written is unconstitutional for violating section 3, which is of course the guarantee of the right to vote in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's unconstitutional because it substantially burdens the rights of all citizens, no matter where they live, all Canadian citizens, to be able to cast a ballot.

I would also add that I don't believe Bill C-50 is actually in the spirit of the Frank decision. Frank, of course, struck down the rule preventing those overseas for five years or more from voting, so it actually expanded voting rights.

My fear with Bill C-50 is that the House may inadvertently be doing indirectly what the courts have said it cannot do directly. The House of Commons cannot deprive people, ban them from voting. But if the rules are so onerous as to make it nearly impossible to be able to cast a ballot, then the effect is the same.

The relevant sections here for overseas voters, in particular, that raise a constitutional dimension are those that require individuals to register at each election and only once the writ has been dropped, and then the voter ID requirements from the Fair Elections Act being applied here.

Requiring registration only after the writ is dropped is a recipe for denying the right to vote to Canadian citizens. The timelines are extremely tight and I know there has been some discussion at the committee about Canada Post and how long it takes to go back and forth. Once you factor in applying to register, the approval by Elections Canada, and then sending your ballot in, it can become very difficult to get it in on time. It's not impossible, but we shouldn't have to be lucky to be able to exercise our constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. I fear that is what this bill would do.

I would just draw the committee's attention to the recent British election, which also had extensive postal balloting of hundreds of thousands of people, and an article from The Guardian. It said that 113,000 people applied to vote by post, and overseas voters raised concerns they did not receive their ballots in time. We often look to the United Kingdom as a shining example of democracy and here even through best efforts postal voting can be deeply problematic.

Second, to turn to the ID requirements, the driver's licence is, of course, the document that has both your identification and your residence on it. Of those who live overseas, however, or in the United States but are Canadian citizens, very few will actually have an incentive to keep their driver's licence or documents that prove their identification and residence.

I know the committee has had a discussion in Bill C-23 about ID requirements, so all I would add is that for overseas voters, however onerous the ID requirements are for Canadians living in Canada, for Canadians living abroad they're likely to be even more onerous. Why would you keep all those pieces of ID that you might potentially need in order to vote because you probably don't need them for any other reason?

To turn to the constitutionality explicitly, the courts have consistently expanded the right to vote since we've had the charter. The Sauvé decision granted prisoners the right to vote. Cases have also granted the mentally ill the right to vote. Frank, from the Ontario Superior Court—and we'll see what the court of appeal has to say and then potentially the Supreme Court—was absolutely in that tradition. If one is a citizen, any restriction on the right to vote has to be very clearly justified by the government.

The question here is: what is the justification? I believe, as Professor Pilon said, we don't have good evidence of widespread fraud that would lead us to say we should limit the right to vote of those who are non-residents. I would ask the committee to weigh the very direct and concrete harm that's likely to result for Canadians living outside of the country, making it very difficult for them to vote, versus the relatively abstract goal of trying to prevent fraud.

We all agree preventing fraud and electoral integrity are important, but without evidence that this fraud is actually occurring we are potentially creating a real harm through Bill C-50.

To conclude, I would say the timing of registration is something that could easily be fixed. I know Mr. Kingsley said 30 days. Why not a year or perhaps even longer? You could register at any time potentially in between elections and I think that would be administratively possible.

If attestation as to residence is still going to be required, we should perhaps look at why the person who is attesting for you has to have lived in the same riding as you, because that is potentially artificial restriction that may not mean much on the ground and might restrict the right to vote.

Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

It would go a long way towards solving, in my view, the vouching issue as well. It would reduce the difficulties that have been introduced with the changes under Bill C-23. It's something that Canadians automatically did in the past, and I think they still do. They take the card with them because it has the address of where they go to vote on it. They put it on the fridge, so it became that. It was never issued with that purpose in mind, but they would do it, and we know that because we would get them at the polls.

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

First of all, like everybody else, I want to extend my appreciation for your willingness to come to the committee and to offer the truly unique insight you have—at least a unique insight among the living with regard to elections, referendums, and all such things.

I wanted to actually ask, is this quite literally the first time you've publicly advocated the provisional ballot idea? I can't remember. We did Bill C-23. Did you not comment then?

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

The current CEO is very concerned about the coming into force...and the time he has to go about doing this. He's constrained by time, in light of what happened to Bill C-23 as well.

Not only should they have held off on this legislation given the Frank ruling, but should they have held off on this legislation because October 19 is not that far away?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, honourable members, it's a privilege to appear before the committee once again. Thank you.

I believe that I understand the objectives set out in the bill, in light of the court's decision in Frank. I have read the presentation of the Chief Electoral Officer and reviewed members' input, all of which I appreciate.

Consequently, I would like to propose alternatives aimed at achieving the same ends as the bill, all the while unburdening the process in light of the right of Canadians to vote.

The first one would be that a further advantage of the fixed election date would allow the start of the registration process 30 days before the issuance of the writs, therefore allowing reasonable time to process the required documentation and to overcome difficulties, if there are any. In the case of a minority government, the Chief Electoral Officer could initiate the process, and if no election is called within three or four months, let's say, it would have to start again. Registrants would be advised that this had happened.

Second, under Bill C-50, the passport would now be required, as has been the practice until now. That's how people got on the list, essentially. It will serve automatically as proof of ID, as it has your picture and your name. For proof of a last address in Canada, should it coincide with the data in the register of electors, no other proof would have to be required.

Driver's licence data, I remind you, is provided every two or three months for updates to the register, thus making it essentially the same information, and we're asking people to provide proof of a driver's licence amongst one of the documents. If you're already on the register at the address that you're claiming to be your last address, that would be it. If the address differs, the alternatives in the bill will then prevail. You must provide proof of address, as the bill requires. I noted that the register will be purged of non-Canadians, and I think this helps the acceptance of the measure that I've just mentioned.

With respect to the third proposal, the list of those electors would be kept for the subsequent election and not incorporated in the register. Canadians still living abroad would need to reapply, which is what the bill asks for, and would be verified against this list. It would be used by the CEO for registry quality control purposes as well, something that we all aspire to.

I wanted to make a comment as well with respect to military personnel. It's important to remember that they may change their address in Canada annually. That's their right. Spouses and elector dependants do not have that right. Military personnel will receive their voting package automatically. Spouses and dependants will not. They have to reapply one way or the other.

There's a fifth point that I wish to make with respect to proofs of ID and address. A further measure would be to recognize the VIC as proof of address. Another proof of ID would still be required.

I will add as well, as a personal comment, that it is completely incongruent to me that the Canada Elections Act, which is a federal statute, does not recognize the VIC as proof of both when it is the only federally issued document that contains both. A federal law says that you must have these two things, but no federal agency except the Chief Electoral Officer has it, and Parliament says to the Chief Electoral Officer, “You can't use that.”

By the way, my comments are for both proofs, but my recommendation is that it be used as proof of address at this stage, in order to make the recommendation somewhat acceptable. Any resulting confusion with the new terminology on acceptable documents—and I saw the debate on this—should in my view result in a provisional ballot, to be resolved before the official results are announced. We have seven days after polling day for official results.

If a deputy returning officer is not satisfied that the proof of ID or address that's been provided to him is acceptable, he could not reject that elector if the elector said, “I want you to provisionally put that aside and check with the Chief Electoral Officer.” There would not be that many, and therefore, they could be easily controlled after the event.

That also raises, though, the interesting phenomenon of electors not having sufficient ID and proof of address, if we introduce the concept of provisional ballots; and that is that they could vote provisionally, go home and bring the proof that is missing, not having understood what was required when they went to the polls initially and therefore adding to the substitute for vouching, which was introduced in Bill C-23, I think.

Mr. Chairman, those are the comments I had to make with respect to what I considered to be concrete proposals on how to build upon the objectives of the proposed statute and at the same time facilitate this for Canadian electors, and not change the basic tenet, which is that electors living abroad must exercise initiative to get on the list to be approved for that election, and they then must vote. All of that requires initiative beyond what is required here.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

My first question is about Bill C-23, which was passed and which transfers the Elections Canada Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, responsible for investigations and the management of federal elections, to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, I believe that the 2015-2016 main estimates do not contain any funds or increases specifically for the management of the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

I would like to know if a budget is planned for the administration of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and if so, what that amount is. I do not know what type of budget he had before, but I would like to know if that has been drastically reduced.

[Marc Mayrand]

The short answer is no. We're just in the process of issuing a revised handbook as a result of changes in Bill C-23. That's in process. We have consulted with political parties, and again, there's been no change there.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's problematic for a whole bunch of reasons on your end in terms of time, resources, and the ability to get people in a position such that they can vote. But it also makes it more difficult for people to vote, which takes us right back to some of the problems we had with Bill C-23.

So I want to say to the government right now that on these two issues, unless they have a good explanation of why they're here—I'm going to raise the other issue about voter ID—both of these things look just like the problems we had with Bill C-23. The government is doing whatever they can to put in bureaucratic hoops that make it more difficult for people to vote by virtue of the steps that are involved, so that eventually they'll just say, “Aw, to heck with it.” That's what this looks like.

If we're wrong and I'm impugning the motives of our government, then I'm quite ready to hear quickly from Mr. Lukiwski that this is wrong and that is not the case, but so far it's looking like that to us.

Now, on the other one, voter ID, this was an even bigger issue in Bill C-23. We went through this whole thing. This whole issue of voter ID was part of why we had filibusters. Now it looks as if the government's trying to bring in through the back door with Bill C-50 what they couldn't achieve through the front door in Bill C-23.

My understanding is that the language is pretty clear, and you're very clear in your language, sir, and as an agent of Parliament, you folks are always very careful about words you use. You state in your analysis sheet that:

There will be no way for deputy returning officers or those receiving applications for special ballots to readily ascertain whether an entity is incorporated in or otherwise formed in Canada. The restriction is likely to cause confusion at the polls on the part of election officers, candidates' representatives and voters.

This sounds like the makings of a huge problem. I'm trying to understand—and my sense is that you are too—what it means when the law is now going to say “an entity that is incorporated or formed by...an Act of Parliament” or a provincial legislature “or that is otherwise formed in Canada”. That doesn't make any sense to me. What I'm hearing from you, sir, is that you're not clear on what that means either, or am I missing the point?

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

So in no way is it an extension of Bill C-23, and you have recommended, I believe, that this provision be deleted, correct?

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

Thank you.

The minister has said that Bill C-50 simply extends the rules in Bill C-23 on what the forms of ID are, and that's actually completely erroneous, because the new proposed subsection 143(2.11) is a new restriction on what you, as the Chief Electoral Officer, are allowed to delegate as ID across the board. Is that correct?

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

Okay. Did you want to add to that? No?

I have a final question on the coming into force. We're not far away from October 19. In light of the changes made by Bill C-23 that have to go through, and now this, Bill C-50, time is really tight. Is it possible to enact all this?

[Marc Mayrand]

Thank you, Mr Chair.

BillC-50 introduces a number of changes to the Canada Elections Act that relate primarily to the process of voting from abroad but that also touch upon various other aspects of our regime. I will keep my remarks relatively brief and, as always, will be happy to answer any questions that may assist the committee in its study of this bill.

The first change I wish to underline is the provision that would allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide information on non-citizens. This is an important proposal. It would improve the quality of the register of electors by preventing the inclusion of non-citizens and by allowing me to remove those who may have already been included.

Over the last few years, my office has had discussions with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, as well as the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, about accessing the department's information on non-citizens in Canada. Unfortunately, in the absence of explicit statutory authority, privacy laws prevent Citizenship and Immigration from sharing this information with us. The amendment proposed in this bill would remove that obstacle.

With access to information on non-citizens, Elections Canada could first match it against persons in the register of electors and contact them to clarify their status. If they are not citizens, they would be removed from the register. Second, we would ensure that on a going forward basis, when individuals wish to be included in the register, they would be checked against information on non-citizens.

The second and perhaps most significant change proposed by Bill C-50 is the elimination of the International Register of Electors. All electors abroad who wish to vote by special ballot, other than military electors, will now be required to make an application after the writs are issued. They would have to provide proof of citizenship, in addition to proving their identity and residence. If they no longer reside in Canada, they would have to prove what was their last place of ordinary residence here in this country.

It is clear that these new rules will make it harder for electors abroad to vote. The requirement to prove citizenship confirms a pre-existing administrative practice for electors who reside abroad.

It would now also apply to people temporarily away, such as snowbirds. These people normally have a passport, and this aspect of the proposed regime is not a concern.

Proving their last place of ordinary residence in Canada, however, is likely to be much more problematic. This is especially true for those who have been away for a number of years and who will not likely have kept any acceptable ID with their former address. Given that their former address will not change until they resume residence in Canada, it is unclear why it must be proven for each election that occurs while an elector is abroad.

Although the bill allows for the attestation of residence by another elector when no documentary proof is available, this procedure is burdensome. It requires attesting electors to provide documentary proof of their place of residence in the same electoral district. It also requires electors and attestors to each take oaths or make statutory declarations administered by a qualified third party. This administrative burden may well be a barrier for some electors.

Another concern for electors abroad, and probably the most significant one, is timing. Currently, once electors residing abroad have established entitlement to be included in the international register, they will automatically be mailed a voting kit after the writs are issued. In this regard, the international register was designed to reduce the number of situations in which an elector is unable to return a completed ballot in time for the election day.

Under Bill C-50, electors would now have to make an application after the issue of the writs and send it to Elections Canada from whatever part of the globe they find themselves in. The application will have to be processed, a voting kit mailed out, and their completed ballot returned by 6 p.m. on election day. While we would strive to reduce the delays as much as possible, the challenge for electors abroad would be unavoidably increased.

Both of these concerns—that is, the problem with having to repeatedly prove a former residence and the difficulty for electors to return their ballot in time—result from the abolition of the International Register of Electors. I see no reason why the International Register of Electors should be abolished or how maintaining the register isn't compatible with the objectives of the bill.

As a third significant change, Bill C-50 proposes to harmonize the voter identification rules by extending to those who vote by mail the rules applicable to those who vote in person.

My concern is not so much with harmonization, which I support, as it is with a new requirement under Bill C-50 that would apply to voter identification, whether in person or by mail. This is the requirement that documents authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer be only documents issued by an entity that is—and I quote—“incorporated or formed by or under an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province or that is otherwise formed in Canada”.

First, it's not clear from a legal point of view what this actually means. Certainly, it is broader than simply entities incorporated under Canadian law, but what exactly is meant by “otherwise formed in Canada”? Does it include entities incorporated abroad but registered in Canada? What else does it include?

I cannot see how election officials, especially deputy returning officers at ordinary polls, will be able to decide whether a particular bank or credit institution, such as Amex or Visa, was incorporated or formed in Canada. This is equally true of a telephone service provider, such as Virgin or Koodoo, or any insurance company, especially when they operate both in Canada and abroad. It is not realistic to expect that election officers will be able to make these determinations or that candidates' representatives will have a clear understanding of what is acceptable ID and what is not. It is also difficult to see how this requirement can be easily communicated or understood by Canadian voters who want to make sure they have the right pieces of ID.

In the absence of clarity, the proposed rules will lead to confusion, inconsistent application, and, quite possibly, controversy at the polls. This begs the question of whether such a new restriction on acceptable pieces of ID is necessary. Documents, including utility bills and bank statements that include an elector's residential address in Canada, will most likely be issued by entities that operate in and have a connection with Canada. But in the event they do not, it is not clear how a communication from a bank or a university abroad is any less trustworthy as a proof of identity and address than a communication from a Canadian university or bank.

I strongly encourage the committee to examine this aspect closely, keeping in mind the fact that election officers will be required to administer these complex requirements. My view is that such a restriction is unnecessary and would not improve the integrity of our system, and that it should therefore be deleted from the bill.

The fourth point I would make relates to a number of more minor, but nevertheless significant, technical and operational concerns I have with the bill as currently drafted. I have brought a table that identifies these concerns and, to the extent possible, proposes solutions. In many, if not all, cases, you will see these are merely drafting adjustments to make sure the bill achieves its intended purpose.

While I do not think it is necessary for me to go through the table with you today, the proposed changes are nevertheless important. For example, with respect to expanding the mandatory procedural audit to include the administration of the special voting rules, the proposed wording may inadvertently prevent auditors from having access to election documents that are critical to the audit of the regular polls. I do not think this is the intent.

Finally, I wish to speak to the implementation of Bill C-50 and the proposed period of 60 days for its coming into force. This is an exceptionally short period for implementing changes to the electoral process.

With respect to receiving information to remove non-citizens from the register of electors, this will take some time to implement. We will need, first, to put in place an information-sharing agreement with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Once this is in place, we will be able to receive and process the data on non-citizens in order to match it with the register. Finally, we will need to write to those in the register who are identified as possible non-citizens and ask them to confirm their status. This is clearly not something that can be done in 60 days.

With respect to implementing the proposed changes to the special voting rules and to the voter identification rules at the polls, this is possible, but not without important challenges and some risks. As you are aware, we have been busy implementing the changes introduced by Bill C-23 and getting ready for a general election.

The further amendments proposed by Bill C-50 would require changes not only to manuals, but also to instructions, forms and public information material for both the special voting process and the regular vote. With respect to the special voting rules, we will also need to develop workarounds for our IT systems, which cannot be redesigned immediately. While we will spare no effort, it can be expected that there will be some confusion, as well as procedural errors.

I will conclude by reiterating that there are aspects of Bill C-50 that I welcome, in particular the new provision allowing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide information on non-citizens to Elections Canada. I also support the requirement to prove citizenship when applying to vote from abroad. I am, however, concerned with the fact that the bill will make it more difficult for electors abroad to vote, and I expect that many will not be able to do so under the new rules. I am also very concerned with the new requirement that pieces of ID be issued by entities incorporated or “formed in Canada”—a criterion that is unclear and that cannot be administered by election officers. I urge the committee to consider this aspect of the bill, and also to consider other changes set out in the table I submitted that are in line with the bill's objectives.

Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to answer any questions from the committee members.

[Marc Mayrand]

Pre-writ, one of the things that we will be doing shortly is issuing a guideline under the new provision of Bill C-23 regarding third parties, advising them of the rules, how they apply, how they should be administered, and what's expected from them. We'll do a bit of public consultation on that, but that will be broadly communicated to the public and third parties as we go. That's a new feature.

Again, we monitor during the election. I'm sure that candidates, as they see things happening, will bring them to our attention. I would welcome them to bring it to our attention or, if they think it's an offence, to the commissioner's attention.

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

Monsieur Mayrand, I have a very quick question. I'm wondering whether a mechanism has been worked out with the newly located Commissioner of Canada Elections for involvement of his staff in some of the compliance problem-solving functions that you described when we were looking at Bill C-23.

One of the gaps in the government's understanding of what the commissioner does during elections is that a whole team of people helps respond to compliance issues. Will that happen in this election? If so, is it on Elections Canada's dime? Is it on the Department of Justice's dime? In any case, is that seamless transition from the previous state to this one going to happen?

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

Regarding disabled individuals, when we studied Bill C-23, a number of groups that came to testify talked about the accessibility of polling stations and some of Elections Canada's offices.

You mentioned in your presentation that offices will be rented before September 1. Is there any special emphasis on those offices' accessibility?

[Marc Mayrand]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me to discuss the 2015-16 main estimates for my office.

I am accompanied today by Stéphane Perrault, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Regulatory Affairs. I am also accompanied by Hugues St-Pierre, Chief Financial and Planning Officer, as well as Belaineh Deguefé, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Integrated Services, Policy and Public Affairs.

Today, the committee is studying our annual appropriation, which is $29.2 million. This represents the salaries of approximately 350 full-time-equivalent employees. Combined with our statutory authority, which funds all other expenditures under the Canada Elections Act, our 2015-16 main estimates total $396 million.

This includes $317 million for the October 19 election. In total and over four fiscal years, the cost of the 2015 general election is estimated at some $375 million. A number of factors may influence actual expenses, such as the duration of the campaign; the level of spending by political entities; adjustments to election worker fees and allowances; and prevailing market conditions for advertising and for the rental of local offices, furniture and equipment.

My office has just completed a three-year cycle of election preparation, modernizing its technological infrastructure and its approach to communications, and enhancing field training programs and business processes to respond to the ever-increasing expectations of voters and candidates that the electoral process be both accessible and trustworthy. We will be deploying resources progressively and just in time for the call for the October 19 election.

Returning officers will be instructed to rent their offices for September 1. That window of two weeks before local offices are open to the public will enable us to set up field equipment, including computers and telephones. Over the summer months, final preparations, including hiring and training key personnel, printing materials, and releasing pre-election advertising aimed at encouraging voter registration, will be completed. These activities are monitored closely so as to avoid unnecessary incremental costs.

During the upcoming election, electors will benefit from a number of new or improved services.

Elections Canada has established an online service that allows electors to verify, update or complete their voter registration. The ability for electors to do so before they arrive at the polls may contribute to improving the accuracy of the voters lists used on election day. We expect that it will also reduce the number of electors who have to register to vote at the polls on election day.

We have also made a number of changes to allow electors to vote in a timely manner. Polling stations will now have a “fast lane” for registered electors who have the required identification and are ready to vote. Another lane will be set aside for electors who require additional procedures, like registering at the polls or having another elector attest to their residence.

In order to improve accessibility leading up to the 2015 election, Elections Canada worked with the disability community to identify 35 accessibility standards that returning officers will apply to select voting locations. Information about the extent to which polling stations are accessible will be included on voter information cards and on Elections Canada's website. Electors will be able to contact returning officer in advance to inquire about accessibility and to make special arrangements if required. Moreover, electors will have more opportunities to vote, with an additional day of advanced polls and special ballot voting at Elections Canada satellite offices in 56 institutions across the country, including college and university campuses, YMCAs, and aboriginal friendship centres.

As per the document on the electoral reminder program that I shared with the committee earlier this week, frequent reminders will be issued using a variety of vehicles to advise electors on when, where, and how to register and vote. Elections Canada will also focus on reaching out to electors before the issue of the writs through targeted promotion of online registration, as part of its effort to increase registration before electors arrive at the polls.

Following the 41st general election, Elections Canada began working towards improving its ability to respond to electoral incidents that may interfere with voter participation. In this regard, we will monitor the election environment to be better prepared to detect and respond quickly to any incidents that threaten the integrity of the election.

We have also undertaken a number of initiatives to improve how poll workers follow procedures known to be complex. Some of these initiatives include enhanced recruitment practices, modernized training, simplified procedures, and clearer instructions for elections workers. We have also renewed the role of central poll supervisors, who will be able to provide guidance to staff at the polling station and ensure that procedures are followed.

We have also launched a procurement process for the independent audit of poll worker performance introduced by Bill C-23. The agency is currently awaiting bids from interested parties. This process should be completed by the end of July, in time for the fall election.

In the 14 months following the election, I will publish three reports to provide a comprehensive perspective on the event. First, a factual chronology of the election will be published in early 2016 within 90 days of the return of the writs. This first report will include the measures taken by Elections Canada to improve the accuracy of the lists of electors.

In June 2016, a second report will present a retrospective of the 2015 election, drawing on the experience of electors and candidates. This report will include the official poll-by-poll voting results and the conclusions of the independent audit of poll worker performance.

By December 2016, I aim to table a final report that will recommend administrative and legislative improvements.

Mr. Chair, this brings me to the end of my remarks in relation to the main estimates. My colleagues and I are happy to answer any questions the committee might have.

Citizen Voting Act

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. He eloquently presented our position on Bill C-50 and the reasons why we are opposed to An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

This bill basically deals with the right to vote of Canadians living abroad. This bill is very important because it directly affects one out of three Canadians. Unfortunately, I see that we are debating this bill under a time allocation motion. In fact, it is the 95th time allocation motion that the Conservative government has imposed on the House since 2011. Despite the fact that we have raised a number of concerns with this bill, the government does not want to have this serious debate in the House, which I find disappointing.

I am also disappointed by this government's approach in terms of the bills it has introduced in the House concerning Canadians' right to vote. A few years ago, it introduced Bill C-23, and I was able to voice my concerns about it in the House. It restricted the right to vote of many Canadians, especially marginalized Canadians. In fact, the bill actually prevented them from voting. Bill C-23 primarily prevents young people from voting, as it does aboriginal people and vulnerable citizens, such as the homeless. Basically, the voter card will no longer be accepted as a form of identification when people go to their polling station to vote in an election. With this bill, 120,000 Canadians who had to have someone vouch for them during the last federal election may not be able to vote in the next election. Bill C-23 is extremely problematic.

However, today, we are debating Bill C-50, which could prevent another cohort of Canadians from voting. I am talking about the 1.4 million Canadians who live abroad. We know that there are many reasons why Canadians choose to live abroad. Some of them are going to school, while others are working and are very mobile. I am the NDP deputy science and technology critic. I therefore talk with many scientists who find very interesting jobs or contracts that require them to live abroad for several years. I am also thinking of some of my constituents who often travel to the United States, including retirees who choose to spend their final years there. They are still very attached to Canada and they feel as though they are 100% Canadian. They would like to have the right to vote in Canada's general elections.

I would like to give a little bit of background to explain why this bill was introduced in the House and why it is so necessary. The bill is before the House because of an Ontario Superior Court decision. That court ruled that paragraph 11(d) of the Canada Elections Act, which prevents Canadian citizens who have been living abroad for more than five years from voting, is unconstitutional. We therefore have a problem. The court forced this government to take action. The decision was rendered in the case of Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada. It is a case that will be quoted often in this debate.

At first glance, the bill seems to harmonize the legislation with the court's decision. However, we need to be careful. We on this side of the House did our homework, and we found that that is not the case.

In fact, the bill does not bring the act in line with the Ontario Superior Court ruling. Bill C-50 does not repeal subsection 11(a) of the Canada Elections Act, and the government has still not withdrawn its appeal of the Frank ruling.

The government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It talks about this ruling and claims to want to find a solution to the problem, but it has introduced a bill that is not consistent with the Ontario Superior Court ruling. In fact, it has introduced a bill that will cause even more problems for Canadians living abroad.

Bill C-50 will make it more difficult for all citizens living abroad to vote, whether they have been abroad for more than five years or for less. Furthermore, the bill provides for new prohibitions on the types of identification that the Chief Electoral Officer will accept from any citizen living in Canada or abroad, which could seriously compromise the votes of many Canadians come election day.

Before going into detail about the problems with this bill, I would like to talk briefly about Bill C-575, which was introduced by my colleague from Halifax. The bill is clear and unequivocal. It is the NDP's response to the decision in Frank et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada.

This bill, which was introduced in good faith, gives all Canadians living abroad the right to vote. I would like to know why my Conservative colleagues did not simply accept and adopt the bill introduced by my colleague from Halifax, which is in line with the court's ruling.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives' bill ties Elections Canada's hands and makes voter identification requirements so complicated that Canadian citizens living abroad will have a much harder time voting. They are doing this for no reason at all.

I listened to my Conservative colleagues' speeches, but I did not hear one single citation or study showing that the measures in this bill are necessary and valid. Back when the Conservative government was advocating for Bill C-23, it was also unable to quote one expert who thought the measures in the bill were a good idea.

Since I have only a minute left, I would like to go into more detail about the provision that removes the Chief Electoral Officer's discretionary power to determine what forms of identification are acceptable under certain circumstances. For example, under clause 143, the Chief Electoral Officer will no longer be able to accept a foreign driver's licence as a main form of identification or even a secondary form of identification to corroborate a main one. We have to wonder how many Canadians living abroad keep a driver's licence that is no longer valid.

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

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a trend happening from Bill C-23 until now where consultations have not taken place, to the point where members in committee find themselves struggling to fix some of the mistakes that were made initially, which have been pointed out by many in the House earlier. The lack of consultation is certainly alarming. We were expecting this to address the Frank decision directly; instead, we got what was a different piece of legislation in addition to the challenge to the ruling that was made.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the matter of the court case that gave rise to this bill, we think, although the minister did not say that, that court case said, or the end result was that every Canadian, regardless of where he or she lives, has a constitutional right to vote and it cannot be taken away by means of an artificial time limit. The government, with the other hoops that it is putting in this bill, would appear to be taking away that right to vote, not just for the people who have lived outside of Canada for more than five years, but for all persons who live outside of Canada, because it will now become effectively impossible for them to properly cast their ballots in a reasonable timeframe.

With Bill C-23, the government also made it more difficult for persons who are on the margins of society, those who do not have documentation, who do not have access to myriad personal information because sometimes they are homeless or not living in a place that is permanent and as a result, it will become almost impossible for them to cast ballots.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is definitely the only party in the House that is prepared to defend the right of every Canadian to vote in a general election.

Can my hon. colleague speak briefly to the previous bill, Bill C-23, which dramatically limited Canadians' right to vote?

Would he also comment on the NDP's position and proposal regarding Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are several problems outlined, and they have been directly addressed, in some cases, but in other cases not so much. One of the problems arising from this, which I asked about earlier, was the coming into force, which the Chief Electoral Officer has told us is going to be very problematic, given the changes in Bill C-23 and now changes here.

Does the member agree that this would be overly problematic for Elections Canada, which does not have the resources for that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Hébert for his comments and his question. He raises a fundamental issue in the debate we are having here today on Bill C-50 as well as the debate we held last year on Bill C-23.

Right now, the biggest threat to our democracy in Canada is low voter turnout. That is our biggest problem and that is what we should be trying to fix, by whatever means necessary. We as politicians should be joining forces to try to address the problem of voter apathy and low voter turnout. It is a truly serious problem.

However, the Conservatives have become paranoid about massive electoral fraud by people who use vouching, although that is not at all the reality. There is no evidence whatsoever; nothing like that has ever been documented.

Faced with the immense problem of very low voter turnout, the Conservatives simply shrug their shoulders. They are not worried about it because, ultimately, they know that with fewer people voting, they can hold on to their little powers and their small majority, given to them by a minority of Canadians.

The only thing that matters to them is being able to hold on to power and control. They really do not care whether democracy is advanced in any way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for his question. He has been very involved with us on this issue and he spent a lot of time studying Bill C-23 with us. When we were studying the bill in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, he proposed a number of amendments that ultimately could not be debated.

He asked an excellent question. We knew that was a problem with Bill C-23. The Chief Electoral Officer told us many times that these were massive changes.

There are the changes from Bill C-23, the changes to electoral boundaries, the addition of 30 new members to Parliament and some very complicated voting restrictions for millions of Canadians living abroad. In addition to all of that, Elections Canada is not receiving any kind of additional assistance to implement all these measures.

Indeed, the fact that the government is introducing bills to amend the Canada Elections Act less than six months before an election causes major logistical problems. I think we will notice an extreme drop in voter turnout as a result of these rules.

This is a serious issue that we need to look at. I hope that this will come up in committee and that we will be able to discuss it in depth.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to say that I find it very unfortunate that this is the 95th time the Conservatives have imposed a time allocation motion. I think it is positively shameful that in our democracy, in 2015, the Conservatives will not let us have an honest discussion in the House of Commons on something like closure motions and time allocation motions.

Many of the solutions proposed could help us create a more vibrant democracy. The Conservatives have always rejected the solution proposed by the NDP to have limits on when time allocation motions can be used. I find that unfortunate. Ironically, when the Liberals imposed too many time allocation motions, the Conservatives were the first to denounce it, saying how wrong it was and how limiting debate was an affront to democracy.

Now the Conservatives have set a new record. I think there is an explanation for this. The Conservatives have realized that this is no longer making headlines. Early on, when they began moving closure and time allocation motions, that got a reaction out of people. People wondered why the Conservatives were doing that, and they were not happy about it. Now, 95 time allocation motions later, people are sick of it. There is a certain point where people stop talking about it, because it becomes redundant and there is nothing more to say on the matter. Saying that the Conservatives are attacking our democracy elicits responses like “Yes, but that is the way it is and the way it has always been”. This is nothing new, and people eventually ignore the situation. However, the reality is that we are once again faced with closure on debate. I truly believe that the Conservatives must have some sort of goal to move 100 time allocation motions before the end of the 41st Parliament. It is really unfortunate, but that is just the way it is.

Today I will be sharing my thoughts on Bill C-50. It is yet another bill to amend the Canada Elections Act. This time the amendment has to do with voting from abroad.

Bill C-50 is the solution the Conservative government is proposing in response to the legal problem caused by the Ontario Superior Court ruling in Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada.

I would like to take a bit of time to go over the events that brought us here in order to help those watching at home who may not have all the facts they need to properly understand our discussion today.

Summing things up like that will make it easier for me to explain why I refuse to support this bill. At the same time, I will have the opportunity to share with my hon. colleagues a few suggestions for improving this bill.

First, as I was saying, the impetus for introducing this bill last December was the decision by Justice Michael Penny of the Ontario Superior Court to nullify a part of the Canada Elections Act, specifically paragraph 11(d) regarding certain restrictions on voting applicable to Canadians living abroad.

Up until that verdict was handed down a year ago tomorrow, Canadian citizens living abroad for more than five years would lose their right to vote. Justice Penny held that this loss of the right to vote violated a constitutional right guaranteed by section 3 of the charter, which states that “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.”

This prescribed time limit was contrary to the spirit of the charter because it could not be justified under section 1, which guarantees the right to vote in a free and democratic society. Justice Penny further held that voting is an inalienable right under the charter. That is what is at the heart of the discussion we are having today, and it is this key point that informs my entire understanding of the problem.

We must say it over and over again: every Canadian citizen has the sovereign right to cast a ballot during an election. It is simple. However, this statement has two logical consequences. First, anyone who would attempt to hinder or prevent a Canadian citizen from voting is guilty of very serious wrongdoing. Furthermore, and this is the impetus for the bill, as a moral entity, Canada must do everything in its power to ensure that its citizens can exercise their right to vote during an election. In other words, the state administration must adjust to its citizens and not the opposite. Best efforts must be made to facilitate, encourage and honour the citizens' democratic exercise.

This view of the right to vote that I just explained will be upheld by all the courts in the land, no matter what happens.

I do not believe that I am mistaken when I say that, in addition to the courts, the people themselves will confirm this interpretation of our constitutional rights and defend it. It would seem that the only person who has not understood this is the Minister for Democratic Reform. However, I am not here to argue with and insult the government. I would like all of us to work together to find a solution to this problem.

A consideration related to what I said earlier should be addressed here. We agree that the right to vote is an inalienable constitutional guarantee. The right to vote is also a civil responsibility. A citizen has the right and the duty to vote. However, he or she does not have an obligation to vote. Refusing to exercise one's democratic right is, in my humble opinion, also guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because abstaining from voting or spoiling one's vote constitutes a valid democratic gesture. A vote does not have any qualitative aspect. A spoiled ballot is still a ballot. I am dwelling on these details, these facts, because I want to be clear and I want to properly identify the essential nature of the right to vote. I would like my colleagues to correct me if they believe that my definitions are incorrect.

I would like to come back to the judge's verdict. This Superior Court decision took effect immediately and struck down the five-year limit set out in paragraph 11(d). After all—and I am asking those who are listening this question—why five years? What was the rationale for that timeframe? Why not 6, 10 or 20 years? I am sure that some thought went into that decision when the Canada Elections Act was reviewed in the 1990s, but this number still seems rather random to me. I am not sure when this provision was added to the Canada Elections Act, but perhaps migration was less common or more permanent at that time. When a person left for more than five years, it was only logical to assume that they were never coming back. After all, international travel was not always as easy and common as it is now.

I think that this is one of the shortcomings of the decision to quantify the loss of the right to vote at five years, a flaw that remains in the bill despite the fact that the bill is supposed to fix it. Everything I am about to say now should be taken with a grain of salt. I am going to try to describe the perception that Canadians have of themselves when they take shortcuts. In their minds, Canadians are not the sort of people who tend to emigrate. People leave for a year or two, but then they come back. They may go to the United States or Great Britain to go to school, or they may move for a diplomatic post or because they are in the military and they are stationed abroad. Otherwise, being an expat is not very serious and is more an act of social rebellion than anything else. That is basically the stereotype we have about ourselves. However, it is quite close to the reality of many Canadians. Some Canadians do a lot of travelling. Many of them have dual citizenship and share their time between two countries. These people follow Canadian politics, talk about Canada in their second country and keep up with current events in Canada. These people are full citizens and they have the same constitutional guarantee to the right to vote as every other Canadian.

This was confirmed by Justice Penny in his ruling. If a rose is a rose is a rose, then a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. No matter where a Canadian may be—even on Mars—they have a right to vote. The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer quickly responded to this Ontario Superior Court ruling, and it announced that it would no longer apply the parts of the Canada Elections Act that had been invalidated. In theory, the right to vote was thus expanded to a pool of about 1.5 million newly enfranchised voters. This was a historic decision. An entire group of people had once again been vested with the most fundamental right in our Constitution. It was anachronistic, but still exciting. Just last week we celebrated the anniversary of women obtaining the right to vote in Quebec. Need I remind members that aboriginal people just obtained the right to vote in their own country in 1960?

The five-year period set out in the Canada Elections Act was a remnant of an bygone era, and this ruling appears to have completely eliminated this exclusion.

Although this speech will soon take a more negative tone, I am very happy that the last restriction on enfranchisement in Canada has been eliminated.

With respect to selective inclusion, I would like to share a quote from David Smith of the University of Saskatchewan:

Voting is the hallmark of citizenship, both symbolically and practically....

....at different times, the House of Commons admitted and the House of Commons excluded, but in each instance, the House of Commons defined Canada.

The value of the right to vote as a guarantee of the legitimacy of this House demands absolute respect on our part.

However, this decision creates a big problem. These 1.5 million citizens who will now be able to exercise their right to vote will be added to the approximately 2.8 million other expats who were already eligible to vote.

Electoral logistics need to be properly set up so that these millions of people can vote. After all, as I said, the state is responsible for facilitating the process and collecting ballots everywhere in Canada.

This is where things get a little less fun because we are getting right into the frustrating world of political calculation.

Let us start with the good ideas and the brilliant initiatives. In February, my colleague from Halifax introduced Bill C-575, which presaged Justice Penny's decision and attempted to ensure that absolutely all Canadian citizens residing abroad would have the right to vote.

The thinking behind Bill C-575 is self-evident. In the interconnected and instantaneous world of globalization, it a good thing for Canadians to live and work around the world. The House must take immediate action to confirm these citizens' right to vote.

I would imagine that everyone agrees with the member for Halifax's ideas on this, but of course, such a historic and generous initiative from the opposition could not be tolerated, much less endorsed, by the government. The Conservatives would rather die than take the lead and accept a perfectly acceptable opposition proposal.

Hubert Aquin wrote:

Political partisanship is a means of action, not a mode of thinking.

A year and a half later, the Conservatives are finally taking action. Bill C-50 is the Conservative proposal for dealing with the consequences of Justice Penny's ruling.

However, the minister's response goes much further. In response to a clear legal decision regarding an even clearer problem, we have a vague proposal that is like a reflection dimly seen in a mirror, as St. Paul put it.

When you take a closer look at the proposals in Bill C-50, it becomes very clear very quickly that this bill is not about empowering citizens.

This bill accepts the basic premise that Canadians abroad have the right to vote, but it does so in a backwards way. Expanding the constitutional right that is the very essence of the bill and should be showcased does not actually appear in the bill and can only be read between the lines. It is an odd masterpiece of inversion, like a photographic negative.

In his speech introducing the bill, the minister showed no signs of excitement. This bill is not about the right to vote, nor is it about righting a historical wrong, far from it. Rather, it is about tyring to combat electoral fraud.

The minister said, and I quote:

The citizen voting act has three principal objectives: the first is to help prevent non-citizens from voting in federal elections; the second is to require voters living abroad to provide proof of identity, past residence, and citizenship; the third is to create one set of rules for all Canadians voting from outside the country.

The main focus of the bill is the fear of these so-called collateral misdeeds, which are presented as going hand in hand with the privilege that the government is taking such great risk to provide to Canadians living abroad.

From the outset, the government makes it clear that there is the risk of serious abuses, which are listed and may be impossible to prevent. The government's message is that it is full of goodwill, but the electorate abroad is asking for the impossible and, accordingly, the privilege to vote will come with very strict measures.

It is as though the government were saying that it was giving us the right, but in order to exercise that right, we would have to jump backwards through rings of fire in a hoop skirt. We might go so far as to say that the government is completely disregarding Justice Penny's ruling and not really giving Canadians who live abroad for more than five years the right to vote.

The government did not welcome the decision with great enthusiasm and appealed the Frank ruling. Let us not forget that it also tried to impose a moratorium on the coming into force of the ruling. Clearly, the Conservatives were hoping the problem would go away.

Nonetheless, as I said earlier, no court in this country can justify restricting a Canadian citizen's right to vote. This is the new reality, and we must implement the necessary means to ensure that everything works as it should.

In my naivety, I thought this democratic progress would be heralded for what it says about the maturity of our country. However, I again forgot that I was living in one reality whereas the Conservatives were living in a world of Stalinist paranoia where having a passport is a betrayal.

Under the guise of harmonizing the procedure—creating one set of rules, according to the minister—the Conservatives are turning what they consider to be a reversal of legal fortune into a win. Not only are they not really giving the right to vote to Canadian citizens who live abroad for more than five years, but they are also taking it away from the other 2.8 million Canadians, with a few exceptions, such as people in diplomatic postings and members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

As my colleague from Toronto—Danforth wrote in an article published in the National Post on February 3:

In fact, Bill C-50 uses the court’s rights-expanding ruling as an excuse to actually undermine the voting rights of all Canadians abroad, regardless of how long they have resided outside of Canada. It does this by generating delays that could easily prevent voting in time for election day and that creates disincentives for voting by making it unreasonably difficult.

This is what Bill C-50 is proposing to do: Canadian citizens living abroad who want to exercise their right to vote during an election will have to prove two things. First, they will have to provide proof of citizenship, which goes without saying. Second, they will have to provide proof of address for the place where they last resided before leaving Canada.

To better understand all that, we can propose a hypothetical scenario. Suppose that in 2011, I decided not to stand as a candidate in the federal election, and I decided instead to live happily somewhere abroad. Had I done that, I would have remained the same citizen I was, with less contact with the political world than I have now, a normal citizen with concerns other than the legislative changes debated in the House of Commons. Furthermore, being abroad, I would work regularly to maintain my ties to Canada. I would make an effort to consult the Canadian media and keep abreast of what is happening.

Say I want to vote in the October 2015 election. I am sure that, if I have to go through a whole process to be able to vote, it is better to get started earlier rather than later, so I go online to see what that process involves. If I search for “voting from abroad, Canada”, the first hit takes me to a Government of Canada website. On that website, it says:

If you live abroad, you may apply to be added to the International Register of Electors and vote by special mail-in ballot in future federal elections at any time.

That is no longer true because of Bill C-50. It goes on to say:

To apply, complete an Application for registration and special ballot for Canadian citizens residing outside Canada, available online through Elections Canada, in person at any Canadian government office abroad, or by calling Elections Canada...

Send your completed application and copies of your supporting documents to Elections Canada in Ottawa. Once your completed application has been approved, your name will be added to the International Register of Electors. When a federal election, by-election or referendum is called, Elections Canada mails a special ballot voting kit to all eligible electors whose names appear in the International Register.

In order to remove inaccurate information from the register—according to the government, there are 40,000 non-Canadians on the list—voters who are living abroad are going to be asked to reconfirm their place of residence.

Canadians living abroad generally believe that they will be able to just pick a riding in which to vote, but in reality that is not how it works. Canadians who are living abroad and who have not lived in Canada for a number of years sometimes have difficulty obtaining tangible evidence that they lived at their last place of residence before moving abroad.

Seeing this measure in the bill gives me a feeling of déjà vu and reminds me of the discussions that we had about Bill C-23 last year. It is very simple. Under the guise of improving the accuracy of voter identification and combatting election fraud, the Conservatives are actually making the rules as complicated and as difficult to follow as possible. In a way, they are doing as much as they possibly can to interfere with Canadians' right to vote. As I said, it gives me a feeling of déjà vu and reminds me of Bill C-23.

I do not need to remind the House about all the bad provisions that were passed by the Conservative government in its reform of the Canada Elections Act in Bill C-23. There were so many measures aimed at simply lowering voter turnout, such as no longer allowing the voter information card or vouching as a means of identification, that we can no longer trust this government when it tells us that it is doing good things or that it wants to help Canadians; we know that the underlying philosophy of undermining Canadians' right to vote as much as possible is always there.

That is why I obviously cannot support Bill C-50. We will make a number of suggestions to amend and improve this bill. With Bill C-23, we barely had enough time to debate half of the amendments proposed by the NDP.

I hope that this time we will be allowed to carefully study this bill for real in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that the government will be open to improving it as much as possible.

Bill C-50—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have just arrived in the House, I hope I do not sound too repetitive after my colleague from Toronto—Danforth.

From Bill C-23 to this bill, Bill C-50, there has been an overall theme. The overarching theme here concentrates on issues and problems that are overblown. We have used this expression before with the prior legislation, and now with this legislation as well, which is that in many cases the Conservatives are cruising for a solution to a problem that does not exist.

The Conservatives do not want people to be shopping ridings when they are living internationally, choosing any riding they wish. To a certain degree, I understand that concept. However, by doing this, it is making it very hard on individuals to go back to the prior addresses. In many cases, some of them are students and unable to do that. Not only that, but the vouching process or the attestations have to be done in that prior riding, which may be impossible. That could be many years prior.

These problems created by the Conservatives are fundamentally keeping people from their charter right to vote. It is their right. That is why my colleague was correct in saying that this did not address the judgment from the court and therefore has to be remedied.

In addition, there are the time constraints on this, time constraints within the legislation itself and time constraints regarding the enactment of the legislation. This is a strange 30-minute debate, because we are talking about time allocation as well. I will not get into that too much.

I am getting into the bona fides of the bill, because I will not have that opportunity too much longer. Therefore, we should look at that. I know the debate will continue soon.

Is there not a great concern about the timeliness of this, about the full debate, as to allow people, even if they live internationally, that fundamental right to vote, as given to them under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Bill C-50--Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, back to the substance of the bill once more, one of the issues brought up by the Chief Electoral Officer was the fact that time is not on Election Canada's side for this. That was several months ago, so we should have a thorough debate about this to realize that the time impact is going to be great. Getting over Bill C-23 was bad enough. Now we have this one.

In addition, there are several questions that need to be asked. For instance, Armed Forces personnel would not be involved, but what about the spouses or partners of these individuals? They would also have to go through this routine. As my colleague pointed out, debate is of the essence, because they would have to register each and every time internationally. Why not maintain the international list of electors?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Other large bills have already been studied. I think it is possible to do so by getting out of our environment. We usually meet here Tuesdays and Thursdays, from 8:45 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. Actually, it's standard for most committees to hold two two-hour meetings a week.

I've noticed that many other committees have managed to find common ground to study bills relatively quickly, while ensuring that as many witnesses as possible were heard and that as many meetings as possible were held.

I've spoken about this a bit, but I think it should be noted. I've looked at details in this bill, details that I didn't have in the beginning. Last summer, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights studied Bill C-36, which followed on a Supreme Court decision on the legislative framework on prostitution in Canada. The Supreme Court had asked the House of Commons to study the legality of prostitution and to examine the issue as quickly as possible.

Thirteen meetings were held on the issue, and they were all held during the summer when the House wasn't sitting. There were a number of witnesses and several hours of meetings on the matter. The parties conducted this study in good faith because it was important to resolve the issue of the legislative framework on prostitution in Canada. Although it is a sensitive topic and the discussion may have been lewd at times, it was important for all the parties to study the bill in depth.

I remember because two of my very good colleagues sat on that committee, the hon. members for Gatineau and La Pointe-de-l'Île. This study was fairly significant. When we spend the summer in our ridings, we try to do our work as parliamentarians. That is when we can do it. We determined that this study was important and that we had to return to Ottawa. I don't have the exact information, but I think the committee sat for four or five days during the week. There were a number of meetings each day. If we think of that example, we can say that it's doable to hold several meetings in a short period of time.

I'll come back to the House calendar later. It could help us organize meetings in the evenings or on weekends, or even when the House isn't sitting. The calendar for the coming months indicates that it's possible. There are several weeks where we are going to return to our ridings. As the Conservatives mentioned as well, it is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that we protect Canadians. I think we can make this sacrifice, be it in our personal schedules or in our schedules as MPs, when we meet with constituents in our ridings. It's a sacrifice worth making to ensure the bill is studied properly.

I think other colleagues of mine on this committee would be willing to make a compromise in this case. As has already been mentioned, the purpose of the sub-amendment proposed by the parliamentary secretary is to ensure that we hold eight meetings and that the clause-by-clause study be completed no later than March 31. That being said, we will have no choice but to sit in the evenings or on recess weeks to meet that deadline. If we are going in that direction, which is an opening by my Conservative colleagues, why not do our jobs as parliamentarians and conduct a full study?

Another study, which was on Bill C-23, was done in committee. If I'm not mistaken, it was done last year. We held some 20 meetings on the bill, which was put forward by the Conservatives and dealt with democratic reform. Some meetings took place at night, others were longer than normal. Some meetings lasted over four hours and others lasted three. The meetings usually run for two hours, but in this case, we had to deal with the large number of key witnesses. I think all the members of the committee would agree that the bill on democratic reform was large.

Furthermore, I'm wondering why the government chose to do more comprehensive studies of other bills. I don't want to minimize the importance of those ones, even though it was clear that all of us—and there's no point in denying it—had relatively diverse and differing opinions on Bill C-23. Among other things, it had to do with democratic reform and the legislative framework of prostitution in Canada, a rather sensitive debate. I'm wondering why so much interest and so many meetings were dedicated to these bills, while we are clearly not striking the same balance with the study of Bill C-51.

As I've mentioned already, I want to ensure that my colleagues and the people listening at home understand that we are willing to conduct the study in a fairly short period of time. We are truly willing to make concessions to ensure that the key witnesses and experts are indeed heard. Moreover, as we mentioned, we want to hear from representatives from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as well as witnesses from academia and individuals interested in the matter because they are affected by the bill.

Our ideas come together very well. In fact, each side of the table will probably be happy to hear testimony from numerous witnesses on a panel and to have them answer our questions.

I think we can find some common ground here, in committee, and I am glad we can sincerely discuss this. I hope to be able to convince my Conservative colleagues of the importance of conducting a comprehensive study on this matter. Many pieces of legislation will be affected by Bill C-51. If it is passed, it will have a number of consequences. I think it is extremely important that experts explain to us what the impact of this bill may be on our way of life.

And we owe it to Canadians. In fact, it has been shown a number of times that most Canadians expect their government to tackle the terrorist threat and radicalization, which I think just makes a lot of sense. It's our job and the job of any good government.

But most Canadians do not know what's in Bill C-51. We've seen a number of reactions in recent weeks, especially in the media. There are many examples, but one of them is a letter signed by former Supreme Court justices and former prime ministers, both Liberal and Conservative. One of the things they expressed concerns about was one portion of Bill C-51.

That's just one example of many. In the last few days, the Assembly of First Nations raised many concerns about the impact of this bill. I think we owe it to those groups to conduct an in-depth study, and to Canadians who don't know exactly what Bill C-51 contains.

I think that this study and the proposal of my colleague Mr. Garrison to hold 25 meetings with the possibility of doing so relatively flexibly, outside normal meeting hours, just makes a lot of sense.

I'm aware of the urgency of acting, and I know it's common practice for the government party to rush to pass bills. I think we can find some common ground so that we can study the bill relatively quickly by putting a little water in our wine. The government wants the study done quickly. So let's set up some full-day meetings if necessary. It's important, and we were elected to do this.

When I was elected in 2011, the first thing I said to myself was that I needed to represent the people who elected me as best as possible, that I was going to try to make them proud of having elected me, and that I was going to do my best as a parliamentarian. There is no denying it, this work isn't always easy, but it's our duty. I would also say that it's a privilege to be able to put forward the best legislation possible. I think we can all agree on the fact that we are very privileged to be here to study a bill. Why not do it properly?

When I was researching various studies, be they bills or studies in committee, certain things intrigued me. For example, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recently did a study called The Economics of Policing. We did that study last year. We devoted 12 meetings to it. I don't want to minimize the excellent study we were able to do together despite our differences of opinion, but we still spent a lot of time in comparison to what the Conservatives want to give the committee to study Bill C-51.

I have another obvious example that isn't from this committee. I don't always follow the debates of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I should more often, because I was surprised to learn that they began a study on safety last year, and it's relatively interesting. So far, they have held 31 meetings in this study, and they aren't done yet. They're still studying it. So there's a lot of latitude we could have as parliamentarians and as a committee. I think it's important not to go full steam ahead and not to prevent certain key witnesses from appearing before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in the context of this study.

Just before I move on to another topic, many witnesses have themselves asked—without being invited because we haven't yet submitted our witness lists to the clerk—to appear and to testify on Bill C-51. These witnesses are from all walks of life and are addressing different aspects of the impacts of the Conservatives' anti-terrorism bill.

I don't think anyone here can say that these witnesses and experts aren't good witnesses. It will be extremely difficult to choose. If I could ask my colleagues opposite a question, I would ask them why they don't want these people to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Who do they not want to appear for the study of Bill C-51? As I mentioned, former Supreme Court justices, former prime ministers, First Nations leaders and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada have raised concerns. These people come from all backgrounds. They want to talk about the impact of the use of the Internet and social media.

These people, including former members of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, are concerned about the impact of this bill.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned that it would be worthwhile to hear from people from academia, which I greatly appreciated. Many individuals from several Canadian universities have asked to appear to discuss the impacts that this bill could have. These people are from various backgrounds, including constitutional law—

Citizen Voting Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the kind of debating that really elevates the scrutiny of bills in the House. There was a conscious effort to address a number of concerns that were heard in the first part of the debate so far. I truly appreciate the effort.

I want to ask two quick questions in clarification.

First, it is not true that it is merely an extension to the existing Bill C-23 procedures because subsection 143(2.11) is reworded to prohibit the authorization of any documents to be used for ID unless issued by a government entity in Canada or by an entity incorporated or formed in Canada.

The wording is done in a way that a number of possible things that are currently among the 39 pieces of ID may no longer easily qualify. Private leases that are not issued by corporations is one. The other is that it will be very unclear whether utilities bills, credit card bills, et cetera necessarily meet this new definition.

I am not saying this is deliberate, but the government has tried to come up with a definition of documents originating in Canada that actually, it appears, would not cover all 39 that currently exist. I know Elections Canada is very concerned about the administrative chaos that this could cause.

Second, is there any harm in extending the period when one can actually register, especially when we have fixed statutory elections?

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to this act, which addresses some important concerns that have been raised in recent court rulings, which have been discussed in debate already today. As well, it clarifies some of the procedures by which certain types of voters participate in our democratic process.

As the debate was going on today, I had the opportunity to listen to a few of my colleagues' concerns and some of the technical questions that were raised. I would like to use the bulk of my speech to try to address some of the concerns raised in the House today.

I was very pleased to hear that there was some general consensus on the need to remedy the fact that, according to Elections Canada, there are approximately 40,000 non-citizens on our voters list at present. My colleague from the Liberal Party, the member for Winnipeg North, just asked what some of the recommendations were. I believe that this particular fact was brought forward by Elections Canada. There seems to be consensus in the House on the sharing of information between Citizenship and Immigration and Elections Canada to ensure that only those who are eligible to vote, as per our country's legalities, are actually on the voters list. That is a very positive thing.

Just to clarify for the House, this act would authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with names, genders, birth dates, and addresses of non-citizens so that Elections Canada could cross-reference and remove them from the National Register of Electors.

One of the things that came up several times, both in questions and in speeches, was that there is no evidence of riding shopping. I want to go back a bit, because through this Parliament, we have had some fairly substantial debates in this House on how the electorate ties into local representatives. I believe that we are even going to be talking about it today with respect to the reform act. That is a very worthwhile debate. How do elected representatives function in this place? How do we do our jobs, and what is the tie between the electorate and the elected representative?

We need to ensure that this particular relationship is enshrined in our legislation and protected. The reason we have 308 members of Parliament here is to recognize the fact that there are different interests in different communities in this great, vast country of ours. The question becomes how we ensure that the integrity of that relationship is maintained. The context of this act addresses that.

Going back to that riding-shopping phenomenon, my question for the House is this: How do we know that this is not happening? Right now, there is no verification process for electors living abroad who are on the international list of electors. As well, because there is no process in place, there is no audit procedure to ensure that compliance rules are being followed. I am actually quite supportive of putting legislation in place that would require the verification of the different voting requirements contained in this bill for that reason. It would ensure that those who are abroad have a tie to their elected representative and would ensure that there is a verification process that every other Canadian citizen who is participating in the voting process has to follow.

Just to clarify, what we put forward as a government in the citizen voting act would ensure that Canadians living abroad would follow the same rules as those living in Canada. The bill would require that they prove their identity and most recent Canadian address, using the same documentation as voters who live in Canada use under the Fair Elections Act.

I was pleased to hear my colleague from Toronto—Danforth earlier today. He stated that it is relatively easy for attestations to occur under the amendments made in Bill C-23. “I believe” was the term he used. This attestation procedure would continue to exist under this particular act. Having this requirement for verification would ensure that we have the data that would ensure both compliance and a link to a particular community and an elected representative in Canada.

There was a bit of a discussion as well about ballots going to the wrong address and whether this was a real problem. We go to great lengths in this country to ensure that the balloting process at on-site elections during a writ is sacrosanct. We have to make sure that ballots are handled with the utmost care. That is the reason we have scrutineers in our election campaigns.

We should be trying to prevent problems and ensuring that a ballot, which gives people a democratic right to vote for an elected representative, is being sent to a correct address. I do not think we should be arguing over whether this is a problem. It is a problem if it goes to a wrong address. This act would rectify that.

The 60-day coming into force period was discussed earlier today as well. With respect to the criticism that there would be no time for Elections Canada to adapt to the new rules, the House needs to understand that what is being proposed in this legislation is an extension of existing procedures and not the reinvention of a wheel.

When I work with my department officials, I always like to give a shout-out to the hard-working public servants within WD Canada. We work toward a goal. We ask what the legislative requirement is. One of the most important roles of the public service is to implement and execute directions from government. We try to put together a project plan. We put resources around that to ensure we have a plan in place to execute the needs of the government direction.

There certainly is a clearly defined need to have this implemented, given that the Frank ruling that came out adds approximately 1.4 million people to our voting list. Therefore, we need to ensure there are procedures in place in short order to protect the integrity of the voting process in Canada. Given the need that has been precipitated out of this ruling, as parliamentarians, I hope we would look at ways to make this happen through committee debate, rather than saying this cannot be done without giving any specific reason.

The issue of the families of diplomats came up. The Canada Elections Act has always clearly spelled out who is exempt from the different requirements for out-of-country voting. The Canada Elections Act applies a separate set of rules for members of our armed forces. They are under different circumstances than many of those who are living abroad. They are deployed in short order. Sometimes they do not know how long they will be overseas or where they will be. We want to ensure that the men and women of our armed forces have every right to participate in the democratic process. That is why there are separate rules for them.

However, it is worth re-emphasizing that this act puts in place a set of rules for voting overseas that is consistent among voters across the country. Whether they are on vacation, or are a snowbird or have moved abroad, they would have one very similar set of rules that would be applied across the board. That is a positive thing. People on vacation have used the special balloting rules without incident for a long period of time. I think it is reasonable to say that those rules can be extended to others, especially those people who have been out of the country for a certain period of time.

There was also some debate regarding the requirement for identification from a Canadian source and whether that would disenfranchise voters. We had this argument with respect to Bill C-23, and I hope there was some consensus respecting the 39 eligible pieces of identification listed by Elections Canada. It is a robust and comprehensive list. That set of identification is also pertinent to this act, and I think in no way disenfranchises people. There are 39 forms of ID. Surely, there is something on that list that can be shown to meet the requirements in the act.

With respect to there not being enough time for people to register, to get their ballot and to vote, people already do this with the special ballot rules. If my colleagues would avail themselves, the special ballot rules are readily available on the Elections Canada website and many of the rules contained in this act are similar. Again, this has been happening with ease for a lot of people.

Out of curiosity, I went to the Canada Post website to see how long it took for a letter to reach its destination. It states that it is four to seven business days for international letters. Given the variety of ways that people can register to vote, be it online, at the embassy or by fax, there is a way for people to get that information and interact.

Therefore, I support this law. It provides great clarity, given the Frank ruling.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague, who is also my neighbour, near Quebec City, Quebec. I would like to ask him a question.

I have been working on the issue of democratic reform for a long time. He mentioned how many changes his government has proposed to the Canada Elections Act to date. We know that the main changes were in Bill C-23, which was introduced last year and amended a number of things. With a lot of pressure from the official opposition, from our party, the Conservatives ultimately backed down on several fairly major points in Bill C-23, in particular vouching.

In the case of this bill as well, I would like to know whether he would be open to changing some elements of the bill to make it as effective as possible, in particular to improve access to the vote for Canadians living outside Canada, rather than restricting it as is being done here. Voting is being made more difficult for all Canadians, not just for those who have been outside Canada for more than five years. Could we find ways of facilitating it as much as possible, rather than making it more difficult?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We do not want to buy into conspiracy theories, but the Conservatives' speeches seem to indicate some fear of the unknown, whether we are talking about Bill C-23 or Bill C-50, which is being debated today. They use scare tactics, claiming that people will cheat the system and that non-Canadians will try to vote in our elections. Last time we heard about people who would cheat and vote several times.

Like my colleague, I have to wonder why they are doing this. Perhaps this issue does not concern Conservative voters. I do not think that is the case, since everyone, regardless of their political beliefs, should be trying to make it easier for voters living in Canada or abroad.

As my colleague mentioned in his question, as I said in my speech and as all of my colleagues have said, while other developed countries are using these technologies or using other means to make it easier for citizens, especially with respect to deadlines to register to vote, the Conservative government seems to want to make things harder.

Then we wonder why people are so cynical and why voter turnout is so low. The Conservatives need only look in the mirror.

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

Mr. Speaker, members may have noticed that some of my colleagues and I are fighting a little cold. If we do not seem all there, it is not because we are not interested in this topic.

Bill C-50 obviously deals with an important issue. The government addresses the same problems and same visions of democracy that we saw in Bill C-23 on election reform—or electoral “deform”, as we nicknamed it.

There are a number of problems with this bill. Before I get into them, I want to give a brief background. This bill came about because of a ruling by the Ontario Superior Court stating that it was unconstitutional to prohibit Canadian citizens living abroad for more than five years from voting in a federal election.

This is an important issue, especially in 2015, in light of the global village phenomenon. We have increased access to other countries and opportunities—this is especially true for young people. I am thinking about young university grads who want to pursue opportunities abroad without ruling out the possibility of returning home. They remain invested in their home community even though they are abroad.

The right to vote has always been essential, because at the end of the day, it is the very essence of what it means to be a citizen. With how easy it is now to find information and follow the events leading up to an election, the right to vote is increasingly important for citizens living abroad, considering the global realities of today's world.

I would like to mention another very important point that also relates to the right to vote, which, as I said, is the very essence of citizenship. The number of Canadian citizens residing outside Canada translates into a lot of money for the public purse because those individuals pay taxes. We all know the famous slogan that served a certain American cause very well: No taxation without representation. This is another important factor that must not be overlooked, beyond the principles of citizenship. Those people pay taxes, and ultimately, they are entitled to have a say in how their tax dollars are used, that is, in the governance of their home country, where they are citizens.

There are a number of problems, but there is one that we already saw with Bill C-23. The government sees problems; some are legitimate, others do not even exist. They are scaremongers. Last time, the government talked about fraudsters, as though there were thousands of fraudsters across the country trying to steal the right to vote from other citizens. Obviously, there were some dubious findings there. The idea was that many non-citizens were trying to take advantage of the right to vote.

Earlier, I heard an hon. member allude to the fact that non-citizens were receiving ballots abroad, as though this happened frequently and there were wide-scale electoral fraud. That being said, some media reports indicated that it was hard to tell the extent to which citizens abroad were affected. If the journalists who were focusing on this issue were unable to dig up these numbers, I do not see how an hon. member can make this observation. What is more, when my colleague from Sherbrooke asked the hon. member whether there were any studies to back her comments, she was unable to provide an answer.

The point I am trying to make is that instead moving forward and finding progressive ways to improve our electoral system, the government always takes a step backward. Instead of moving forward, it takes two steps back. That must be extremely frustrating for the people who, like the NDP, want to see a higher voter turnout. That is the problem we saw with Bill C-23, which had negative consequences for seniors, aboriginal people, young people and students. We see the same problem here.

The thing that strikes me the most is the French example. In 2012, I went to France with my colleagues to observe the presidential election.

I was surprised because I did not know that France had elected representatives—senators and members of the National Assembly—who represent constituencies outside of France. They represent French citizens who live outside of France. I know one person in the area, in Gatineau, who is a French citizen. This is a well-established system because French citizens living outside of France even receive campaign material from political parties.

That says a lot about how important it is to the Republic that all French citizens be properly represented, not just French citizens residing in France. This relates to what I was talking about at the beginning of my speech: in the new global village, where more and more citizens are pursuing opportunities abroad but staying connected to and involved in their communities, the governing body should represent not just residents but all citizens, no matter where they live.

As pointed out by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth—who does an excellent job of developing our positions on democratic reform—the French system has another component: the right to vote by Internet. The Americans allow U.S. citizens living abroad to vote by email.

While other countries look for solutions that will make it easier for citizens living abroad to vote, our government seems to be stuck on making it more difficult. A fine example—and that is another problem with the bill—is the issue of people living abroad who serve the government. We think of course of members of the Canadian Forces who are deployed abroad. The government will say that they are still exempt from the five-week period proposed in Bill C-50.

Although the government is not saying as much, this is a step backwards from what was already in the act. I will explain. Previously, diplomats were also exempt because, after all, they also serve the country, Canadians and the government abroad. Now, diplomats will have to follow the same laborious process as all other Canadians living abroad. They do not get a break even though they are abroad to serve their country.

The same is true for military families. It is a good idea and it is important—and I am not being sarcastic here—to grant exemptions to members of our Canadian Forces. However, we also need to think about their families. Some of these members are undoubtedly accompanied by their 18-year-old children. Some have spouses who also have the right to vote. The government is forgetting to look at the big picture when it comes to people who are living abroad.

Today in his speech, the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke about the team and the public servants who served him abroad. As my colleague from Sherbrooke mentioned, people like that, who are working for a minister and serving the Crown—it is important to point that out—are also not granted an exemption from this long and sometimes difficult process. As a result, they will have to use courier services, which Elections Canada has no legal obligation to use. They will have to turn to courier services that sometimes take a long time to deliver things and, in some countries, are difficult to use. There are many problems with this.

This once again shows, as Bill C-23 did, just how much difficulty the Conservatives have resolving problems, making it easier to access the electoral system and increasing voter turnout. They are once again introducing a bill that makes the process even more complex and forces Canadians to work even harder to exercise their right to vote. The right to vote should be an automatic part of citizenship. The government has the responsibility to make this process easier.

In closing, I would like to quickly mention one more thing, which I did not have time to really talk about. Once again, students are affected. When I was going to McGill, I saw how easy it was for American students to vote, even though they were living in Montreal. However, Bill C-50 contains an error that requires any lease used by a student as proof of residence to be for an official university residence.

Students who are going to school abroad and living off-campus as an individual and not in accommodation such as a university residence cannot use their lease as valid proof of identity.

It is because of these types of problems that we are forced to oppose yet another botched bill on an issue as fundamental as our democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, right now, citizens of France living overseas can vote electronically, and Americans living abroad can vote by email.

Bill C-23, the unfair elections act, contains a provision that stipulates that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada must conduct a pilot project or test on electronic voting but that he must obtain the consent of the entire House of Commons and the Senate—not just one committee, but the entire Senate.

Does my colleague think that this is a coincidence?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the citizen voting act, which was introduced by my colleague, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

Our government has a strong record of democratic reform. We ended the per-vote subsidy. We made the House of Commons more representative with the Fair Representation Act. Most recently, we closed loopholes for big money, ensured that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, and made it harder to break election laws with the Fair Elections Act. All of these initiatives have strengthened Canada's democracy and reinforced confidence in our electoral system.

Today I am very pleased to discuss our government's latest democratic reform initiative, the citizen voting act. The bill would ensure that everyone who votes is a Canadian citizen, and it would require voters living abroad to follow the ID rules set out in the Fair Elections Act.

Specifically, the citizen voting act would ensure that only Canadians vote in federal elections by requiring proof of citizenship from everyone voting in federal elections while abroad. This would not apply to Canadian Forces members.

Second, the bill would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to cross-reference the National Register of Electors with Citizenship and Immigration data to remove non-citizens from the voters list.

Third, the bill would put an end to the possibility of riding shopping by ensuring that non-residents receive a ballot only for the Canadian address at which they last resided.

Fourth, the bill would apply the same voter identification rules to all Canadians. Under the Fair Elections Act, Canadians living inside the country must prove who they are and where they live. Canadians support this requirement, and that is why the citizen voting act would expand it further to residents living abroad.

Finally, the bill would create one set of rules for voting from outside the country. Anyone voting while abroad, whether temporarily, on vacation, or permanently, will need to apply for a ballot in the same way and follow the same rules.

Given the limited time that I have today to discuss the citizen voting act, I am going to focus on a couple of items. First, I will focus on riding shopping.

Currently the Canada Elections Act permits non-resident voters to choose the riding that they vote in. They can select from one of four options. First, they can choose their last place of ordinary residence. Second, they can choose the address of a spouse, a relative, or a relative of a spouse. Third, they can choose the address of a dependent. Fourth, they can choose the address of someone with whom they would live if not residing outside of Canada.

Voters living in Canada do not have such flexibility. They must vote where they live at the time of an election. They cannot choose the riding in which they want their vote to be counted, and justly so.

Geographic representation is an essential characteristic of our electoral process. Canadians in each electoral district elect the candidate who they feel will best represent their interests and those of the community. Particularly in this vast country of ours, territorial-based representation ensures that diverse communities are represented in the House of Commons.

I am sure members may think that when an expatriate voter chooses his or her riding, proof of past residence is required. However, they would be wrong: Canadians living abroad are not required to provide proof to Elections Canada of their last Canadian residence. By stipulating that a non-resident voter's last place of residence in Canada would be their residence for voting purposes, the citizen voting act would end the unfair option of riding shopping and standardize the rules for resident and non-resident voters. This would ensure that each voter has a direct and meaningful connection to the riding in which he or she is voting.

I would now like to turn to the issue of voter identification.

The citizen voting act would ensure that Canadians living abroad would follow the same rules as those living in Canada. The bill would build on the Fair Elections Act by requiring Canadians voting by mail—both residents and non-residents—to include proof of identity and residence in their application for a special ballot. This requirement is similar to the rules set out in the Fair Elections Act.

The Fair Elections Act, adopted last June, contained important measures to reinforce the integrity of the vote by strengthening ID rules. According to Ipsos Reid, in April 2014, when debate about the Fair Elections Act was at its height, 87% of those polled agreed that it is reasonable to require someone to provide proof of identity and address before being allowed to vote. The citizen voting act would make this requirement consistent for all Canadians, both resident and non-resident.

The same three ID options for voting at the polls would apply to those applying to vote by mail: either a government-issued photo identification with the name or address; or two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, one with address and both with name; or two pieces of authorized identification with name and an oath or declaration of residence that is attested to by another properly identified elector.

In the case of non-residents, the attestation process would enable them to provide proof of their last residence in Canada by an oath or declaration. The person providing an attestation would be a fully proven resident or non-resident qualified to vote in the same electoral district as the person applying for the special ballot.

To account for the potential difficulty that non-residents might face in obtaining an attestation as to their former residence in Canada, the citizen voting act would allow the attestor for the previous residence of a non-resident to be qualified to vote in the same electoral district not to be of the same polling division. This is a slight variation to the attestation process for Canadians voting at the poll that was introduced by the Fair Elections Act.

A non-resident Canadian applying for a special ballot must also provide, in addition to his or her own identification proving his or her identity, copies of identification providing the identity and residence of the person providing the attestation.

Standardizing the voter identification requirements for resident and non-resident Canadians removes preferential treatment for one group of voters over another and obviously just makes sense.

Our government recognizes the unique circumstances of members of the Canadian Forces. A completely separate set of rules found in division 2 of part 11 of the Canada Elections Act governs their voting procedures. Canadian Forces members serving abroad can vote at the location they are stationed, and the citizen voting act would not affect those rules.

In conclusion, our government remains committed to ensuring that our electoral system meets the needs of voters, both in Canada and abroad. The amendments being made by the citizen voting act are necessary to ensure the fairness of the electoral process and to ensure that one set of rules applies to all Canadians.

To summarize, the bill would strengthen Canada's election laws by, first, ensuring only Canadian citizens vote in federal elections; second, putting an end to the possibility of riding shopping; third, applying the same identification rules to all Canadians; and fourth, creating one set of rules for voting from outside the country.

These important advancements will bring greater accountability, integrity, and accessibility to Canada's fundamental democratic process. These are common sense legislative changes, so I would encourage all members to support the citizen voting act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the clarification and also for talking about the flexibility within the system.

There seems to be an exercise where that flexibility is being cut at every corner, so it therefore becomes an exercise of blaming them for voter suppression. Suppressed votes will be a result of what the government feels are administrative fixes.

What is the government's responsibility? A government is responsible for allowing a person to vote if that individual is 18 years or over and a Canadian citizen. There are special circumstances for people who live outside of Canada. Therefore in this situation, if they have an attachment to where they came from last, their home, then obviously they should be allowed to vote there. I would not want to give people the right to go all over the country and choose whatever riding they want. Nobody does. In its press release, Elections Canada did not describe that as a problem. I am at a loss to find out how people can gang up, go into a particular riding, and overturn the results based on people living outside the country who get to choose whatever riding they want. That is not their intent either. The flexibility allows these people to exercise their right under section 3.

The second part is the lack of time Elections Canada would have to adjust itself to the new realities in light of the fact that it also has to deal with the realities of what was Bill C-23. It is impossible now for Elections Canada to do this. If the government wants to fix administratively what is happening with Elections Canada and give it some help, then it needs to give Elections Canada some time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

To the consternation of my colleagues, I was not attempting a bait and switch there. I apologize, but I am sure that members have the deepest respect for the member for Ottawa—Vanier, as I and his constituents do.

I want to start by saying many of the points have been brought out already, and by way of background I want to say that I am a firm believer in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, where in section 3 it says everyone has a right to vote, providing they are a Canadian citizen and 18 years of age or over. The bill raises a lot of questions as to stifling that ability, and that is why I have questions. As another colleague pointed out, obviously with the majority in the House, this bill will end up going to committee, assuming that all members of the governing party vote in favour of this, and when it goes to committee, serious amendments should be sought. I mean serious.

There is one instance where it is positive. The rest, however, raises many questions, and as my colleague pointed out, may result in some chaos, certainly in the administration of our elections, regarding electors outside of the country temporarily or permanently.

I want to talk about some of the things in Bill C-50. I will get to the Frank decision in just a few moments, but first of all, I want to talk about eliminating the register of electors who temporarily reside outside of Canada and incorporating the information found in it into the register of electors. Basically there is a harmonization process that is going on with the process of special balloting.

When we hear Conservatives and the minister, in particular, talk about the same set of rules for both, a lot is being missed, in the sense that the circumstances are different either way. Remember that what is tantamount or most important is not the administration of this and the efficiency of the administration of this. What is most important is that nobody's rights are violated by denying them the right to vote, which is what people talked about with Bill C-23 and now Bill C-50 regarding the suppression of vote. That is the absence of any accusations of that being the intent.

Nevertheless, there is a level of suppression that is a continuation of what we had last, from vouching now to this, not to mention what the voter information card dismissal brought about in the last round of legislation.

The bill would require Canadian electors who reside abroad to apply for registration and a special ballot after the writs are issued at each federal election, stipulating that electors may only receive a special ballot for the address at which they last resided in Canada.

There are a couple of things here. What made it easier in the past was that people could register to vote living outside the country. Now they could only do it when the writ is dropped, and as pointed out before, the time period is of the essence here. The time period would become so narrow. Again these are special circumstances where voters live outside of the country, so we are making it particularly hard for them to do that, in light of the fact that they do have the right to vote.

The bill would require an external auditor to report on election workers, compliance with special ballot voting, procedure, and requirements for every election, and add the offences of attempting to vote by special ballot while knowing that one is not qualified to vote. It refers to electors temporarily residing outside of Canada, electors residing in Canada improperly attesting to the residence of more than one elector, and attesting to the residence of an elector when one's own residence has been attested to.

What we look at here is that we know the government wants to cut down on election fraud. We have heard all this before. It does not want to send a ballot to an address outside of Canada that could be picked up by a non-Canadian citizen. At the same time, we are reverting to a previous argument. The theme is a solution that is looking for a problem. Once again we find it within Bill C-50.

One thing that was brought about in the bill—and I will get to this right now because we agree with it—is authorizing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information to help the CEO to delete the names of non-citizens from the register of electors.

We grant that it is a process that should be done and should be looked at. Virtually everyone in the House would agree that this is the type of measure that should be taken for the sharing of information to make sure we can exercise our right to vote.

The history behind people outside of the country being allowed to vote goes back to the First World War. The soldiers who fought valiantly for us while overseas were given the right to vote. That is a natural extension of being a Canadian and living in the country that we do, which is so great and wonderful. That extension still applies. There are extensions for people who work for the Government of Canada, whether they work for the military or several embassies around the world, to be able to vote as they would if they were residing in this country.

The question I have, and it has yet to be answered, is with respect to the families, particularly spouses or partners, who are eligible to vote but face different rules than do the people who are employed by the Government of Canada. That is problematic because they have to go through the process of re-registering every five years and the others do not. Therefore, there are different rules applying to two different people who are living in the same residence in another country for the same reason. I hope that some of the amendments would address this issue as we get closer to looking at it in committee.

In 1993, the rules were changed further to allow more people the right to vote. However, we again had the five-year rule that if they had been outside of the country for more than five years they were not eligible to vote, which is their right, despite the fact they are above the age of 18 and Canadian citizens. The Frank decision recently decided that was not good because it denies those Canadian citizens above the age of 18 who happen to reside outside of Canada, whether long or short term, the ability to exercise their right to vote under the Constitution.

In looking at the Frank et al decision, I see that section 3 of the charter states:

Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

The Frank decision posed this to the government to take action. However, there is some confusion in Bill C-50 as to whether that was done. I am not a constitutional expert, but in reading it I have yet to square it as to where the vote of these people who are more than five years outside the country has been protected, because it is not protected at all. I think an administrative nightmare has been created for many of them to do that. In the past they could register once they were outside the country. They cannot do that anymore. They have to wait for the writ to be dropped. That puts them in a tricky situation as far as timelines are concerned. I understand there are some online mechanisms that the minister has pointed to that would remedy this, but by the same token there is still that process.

The verification of signatures for those people outside of the country appears to be absent from this, or I have yet to see it. I hope the minister can clarify the situation. That qualification is no longer there. It would have made it easier to identify and verify those people based on two signatures, one on the ballot and one on the application form, and that would have gone a long way toward helping Elections Canada. That is something we have to look at.

I would also like to talk about vote shopping. The government has stated on several occasions that vote shopping is a problem. For those Canadians who are not aware of what vote shopping is, in its base form, those people can choose the riding in which they want to vote. However, Elections Canada has never stated that it was a big problem or that there was too much abuse and the law had to be changed. I again go back to the theme that it was a solution looking for a problem. Unfortunately, it would impede their ability to vote; it would impede their right under section 3 of the charter. Therefore, in looking at this, we see the government wants to cut down on an abuse that we are not sure existed to any extent, by making it problematic for those who want to legitimately vote in the riding they left when leaving Canada. That raises many questions.

My final point is with respect to this coming into force in only 60 days. I cannot see how Elections Canada can administer all of these rules in that 60-day period.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been through this on a few occasions now, where we have talked about changes to the Canada Elections Act, and here we go once more.

I agree with 99% of his speech. However, one of the issues that I would like to address with him is the issue of coming into force. It states that it would come into force 60 days after royal assent. On top of Elections Canada getting used to the changes made in the former bill, Bill C-23, this will be a particularly hard thing to do, especially when we are dealing with outside entities, and especially with issue he brought up of the Canadian entity.

How do we get the poll clerks trained to the point where they are able to recognize that? It could result in the mass confusion he talked about. I am not sure if he addressed that issue, but could he address the coming into effect of this particular piece of this legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his presentation. Along with my colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, I acknowledge that this may not be the best day for the minister in terms of his health. Accordingly, in the spirit of what we heard from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I may be a little more gentle than I was intending to be.

Some here might have had a chance to read the piece that came out today in the National Post, where I make it very clear that I do believe—this sounds like how I started the debate on Bill C-23, what we call “the unfair elections act”—that the effect, at minimum, of these changes in Bill C-50 would voter suppression of citizens living abroad, and something that I am not sure the minister is fully aware of, namely, that it could create chaos with voting in Canada, because of the changes to a section that would prohibit the Chief Electoral Officer from authorizing any use of ID that basically does not have its origin Canada. I will explain why that could cause those problems.

I will stick with this phraseology that “in the result”, this is the problem, although seeing what has been knowingly put in the bill, I honestly think that the minister has to realize what these impacts would be. I hope that with some of the presentations during this debate and some of the criticisms he is already beginning to receive, he will be open to some serious amendments, including a couple that, to follow his own line, would be quite simple and could actually get rid of some of the serious blocking effects that I see. It is also important to note, although the minister did not really make hay of this in his own speech today, that in the presentation back in December when the bill was tabled, there very much was an effort to spin this bill in a way that created two false impressions. This is important to know.

One is that the press release in the backgrounder made it seem like the government was implementing the Frank judgement, which basically said that citizens away for more than five years now have the right to vote from abroad. It was very unclear from the presentation whether or not the Frank judgment was being accepted. It is important that everyone knows that Bill C-50 would not remove any provision in the Canada Elections Act that was struck down by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Frank decision. It is still sitting in the statute. The reason for this is that the government has clearly decided it is going to continue to fight to prevent citizens who have been away for more than five years from voting. It is appealing the decision, and it even sought a stay of the trial judgment to try to prevent it from going into effect. The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied that stay.

The fact of the matter is that the government is still actively seeking to keep as disenfranchised Canadians who have been living abroad for more than five years. Yet the presentation of the bill made it look like this was somehow an effort to bring things into line. If this were really bringing things in line with the Frank judgment, all the government would have to do would be to adopt the suggestion by the member for Halifax in her Bill C-575 and simply repeal the same sections the judge found to be unconstitutional in the case. Instead, the Frank decision is being used as a supposed reason for a wholesale change of issues that never arose in the Frank case. It is important to ensure that the Frank judgment does not carry the government along in any sense where people think the government is actually respecting that judgment. It is still appealing it.

Second, the press release directly claims that all Bill C-50 would do is to apply the same voter identification rules enacted by the so-called Fair Elections Act, Bill C-23, and extend those rules to Canadians voting from abroad. There is some truth in that. There are some analogues that get brought forward. For instance, the vouching for an address gets brought forward. However, Bill C-50 inserts a new prohibition on the kinds of documents the Chief Electoral Officer could designate as identity documents. It would apply to documents used by all.

The new subsection 143(2.11) would apply to all electors and would basically create additional limitations on what the Chief Electoral Officer would be free to authorize by way of identity documents.

Because of the wording in that provision, this would have impacts in Canada. It would also make it extraordinarily difficult for some Canadians abroad to produce the right kinds of ID that now they have to produce. They would not be able because of this change. This is new. This was not in Bill C-23.

I just want to set the scene by making clear that this is the case.

It is also important to note, to set the scene, although the minister has downplayed it in his presentation today, and I acknowledge that. There was a sign it was not going to go this way. There is virtually no reality to the idea that there is a fraud problem from voters from abroad. The judge in the Superior Court, Mr. Justice Penny, basically said that those kinds of claims were so unreal as to not even constitute a pressing and substantial reason under section 1 of the charter to limit the right to vote.

“Riding shopping” is not something that Elections Canada has ever seen as being a problem. All that happens at the moment is that multiple points of contact are available to increase the chances, the ease with which somebody from abroad can vote. The idea that there is something illicit going on when people choose to vote where their parents live versus choosing to vote where they last lived seems to me to be a spin that is designed to make this look palatable or necessary when there is actually no problem. There is no such thing as “riding shopping”, except perhaps in the minister's imagination.

It is important to clarify that when the minister talks about 40,000 non-citizens being on the register, this was brought to his attention—and I am glad that two years later he is acting upon it—by the Chief Electoral Officer. The new mechanism that would allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to allow Elections Canada access to the non-citizen database that CIC has would be great. However, it is important to note that we are talking about a fear, by error, that approximately that number of people are on the national register, not on what is, until this point in time, the international register. To get on the international register, one has to actually show one's citizenship.

It is a separate issue that would be dealt with in the bill, but it should not be confused with anything to do with a concern that non-citizens are voting from abroad. I fear that, unintentionally, the minister's emphasis on that could allow people to think this is what is going on. No, the issue is cleaning up the national register for people who are in Canada. That is fine. That one particular piece is a good thing in the bill.

I do feel duty-bound to note that Elections Canada was not consulted on this, except for the discussion a couple of years ago on the issue of trying to ensure non-citizens were removed from the national register where they appeared in error. That will probably prove to be a problem at the time of committee because we will probably hear some very detailed testimony from Elections Canada about many problems the bill would create.

As long as the minister is open, seriously open, to changing them, because these have not been foreseen because there has been no consultation, we might well end up with a productive committee process. If the minister thinks it has all been thought through and that whatever he hears from Elections Canada will not change his mind, then we will have a serious problem. What we will have, in effect, is the minister confirming that the intention here is to make it much more difficult to vote from abroad and that it is not just the unfortunate result of how the act was written.

Let me go to this issue that is the sleeper issue. It is the question of subsection 143(2.11). It is a new provision that would basically create a new prohibition on the Chief Electoral Officer. It says:

—the Chief Electoral Officer is not permitted to authorize...a type of identification that has been issued by an entity other than...a Canadian government, whether federal, provincial or local, or an agency of that government; and...an entity that is incorporated or formed by or under an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province or that is otherwise formed in Canada.

It is fairly complex wording.

The bottom line, as the minister made clear, is to ensure that ID only originates in Canada, essentially. That seems to be the general idea. The problem, however, is that it has been done in a way that might actually end up creating some serious administrative, and even more serious problems, in Canada.

This new prohibition, which is intended to deal with voters from abroad so they have to somehow produce Canadian-originated ID, is going to have an impact on everybody who shows up on election day in Canada.

What is the reason for that concern? First, “formed in Canada” is not a legally known concept and is not defined in the bill. The question of what an “entity formed in Canada” means is going to produce some serious problems in Elections Canada trying to scope it out, and then having that interpreted on election day by pressed election officials. We really need to ensure that this will be clear. Obviously the intention is probably that organizations like the CNIB are covered, and it is not just documents issued by corporations, for example, utilities bills, et cetera. However, the language is used in a way that is very unclear.

Here is an issue. Now a voter can use a Visa, Amex or MasteCard bill as one piece of ID to show an address. However, people could show up with it, and the deputy returning officer or the chief poll officer could look at it and ask if Visa is a company incorporated or formed in Canada, is there a Visa Canada and who has issued the document. The chance of that kind of minute questioning will be a problem, even if it seems farfetched. It will create serious workability problems. I know for a fact that Elections Canada is concerned about this extra burden and the mistakes that could be made.

The second thing is that it is not at all clear to me that private leases will be caught by this wording, as I asked in my question to the minister. The language is all about corporations, entities or government agencies. There is no scope there for a document that has effectively been issued by an individual, which is what private rental leases are. They are often a form of identification to prove address that students in university tend to use.

The bottom line is that this will create workability issues that I do not think the minister intended to create, but that we will hear about in committee from Elections Canada. The unworkability issue is major.

I am also concerned that some party scrutineers who now would be allowed to ask to inspect identification documents as a result of Bill C-23 would see these new rules as an opportunity to ask, more often than they should, for proof that this new provision has been met by whatever document has been presented by somebody showing up.

If somebody shows up with a Visa bill, somebody might ask the deputy returning officer if that is a document issued by an entity formed in Canada. Maybe it is a document issued by an entity doing business in Canada. We can imagine the opportunity for mischief that could occur.

I am being a bit like the minister in that I am looking down the line at what kind of abuse is possible. The minister looks in one place and I look in another. We have to talk about that.

In my remaining minutes, I want to talk about what everybody knows is a big concern. The big concern here is that the new requirements for citizens voting from abroad can be extremely onerous. They can produce delays that can result in ballots not arriving in time to be counted.

The primary problem is the requirement that voters have to register for each election, apply to receive their ballot or register, the same kind of thing collapsed into one, only once the writ has been dropped. People have to be aware that it has happened. They have to register quickly enough in order to ensure that all the mail can occur. As the minister has said, sending in their application, even if that is virtually, and receiving the special ballot and mailing it in and doing that from Dar es Salaam, New Delhi or Sydney, requires time.

There are all kinds of reasons to think that the way the mail service works or the way citizens abroad may be not be immediately on top of when a writ has been dropped could result in timelines that could be almost impossible to make. Currently, people can register in the international register at any time. However, I believe we will hear testimony from Elections Canada saying that currently when people wait to register until the election has been called, there is an increased incidence of the ballot not arriving in time.

A system has been created in this new bill whereby that problematic situation that we already know exists, for some who wait too long to register, get their ballots and mail them in, is now scripted as the only way. Therefore, the delay issue is huge.

We should also not underestimate the problem of ID. The longer people have been away, the chances that they have retained Canadian-issued IDs, apart from their passports, may go down dramatically. In some jurisdictions when people get local drivers' licences, they actually have to hand in their old drivers' licences. People who are hoarders, and have kept every ID they have ever had, may have no problem. However, with no notice, many of the two million Canadians already abroad may already have sort of jettisoned or lost the IDs that they now have to use.

They cannot rely on the Chief Electoral Officer to issue a list of acceptable foreign IDs that go along with proving people's addresses. Let us say people still have to prove their last known addresses in the way the bills wants, but they can use their passports and some foreign piece of ID as corroborating ID. The Chief Electoral Officer is not permitted to allow that, even though a foreign driver's licence is at least as good in proving who one is as a Canadian licence. It has nothing to do with the address, but it does with identity. Therefore, there are serious problems with actually producing two pieces of ID for some abroad that we have to take into account.

Let me now talk about vouching. The bill would get rid of the possibility that people could vote where they would have a strong connection to relatives and would focus only on people's last known addresses. The problem is they have to prove it affirmatively. If people do not have pieces of documentation saved, such as a driver's licence, which in New York state they have given up to the Americans, then they basically will have to rely on this new vouching provision.

The new vouching provision says that people have to provide proof of their last place of residence, so they would have to contact their neighbours and ask them if they remembered them when they were neighbours seven years ago. They would have to ask them to do this attestation. They would need a statutory declaration, see their IDs to prove they are voters, have them fill out a form, get the form back to them and then include it in their package in applying to vote. We can obviously see that the one big problem is the delay this will create. The need to have someone vouch for them within a 35-day election campaign period will already make it virtually impossible to meet that deadline.

The other issue is that all the same rules in Bill C-23 apply. A person cannot vouch for more than one individual. If a family of four living abroad can only find one neighbour who still lives where the family used to live and the neighbour lives alone, that neighbour can only vouch for one of them. The other three are out of luck.

Therefore, it is very clear that the issue of how the vouching system would work will not be as relatively easy as it is in Canada when somebody on election days goes with the person to vouch for him or her. The idea of saying that the rules are the same for those voting in Canada and those voting abroad is a very formalistic understanding of equality, because when the same rules are applied to very different circumstances, there is a serious disadvantage in complying with the rules. The committee will find example after example like this and the minister will really have to get his mind around them.

Let me give another example. Students going abroad to get their masters degrees or Ph.D.s quite often are heading off from a previous university. Now, sitting in London, Paris, or New York, they will have to prove that their last residences were in university towns and pretty much the only people who know that was the case are former students, who themselves have moved on. How will a proper vouching system be created for that particular case? It may sound like an imaginary issue, but it is not. When we think about students moving around internationally, they usually move from a university town or an address that they lived at to obtain their education.

What I would say is that in its result, Bill C-50 is a clear exercise in suppressing the votes of citizens abroad in a way that is diametrically opposite to the spirit of the Frank judgement, which the minister started out by invoking as the reason for these changes.

In sympathy for the minister and his illness today, as he seems to have the flu, I will not hit too hard any more, but I very much hope that he is not doing this intentionally in the bill. I also hope that, for once, we will be able to make serious changes at committee based on the evidence that there are problems with this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Agreed. There are times when we differ philosophically, but this committee always seems to be able to leave the room with a smile on its face. We did some tough legislation this year when you consider the finishing of redistribution and the Fair Elections Act, so I thank all of you for that hard work.

I thank you for making your chair's job about as easy as it could possibly be.

Did you notice that we came second as best committee in the Hill Times survey? We tied with the defence committee, but they're far less than us anyway....

Amendments to Standing Orders

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to this motion. I want to say right off that I appreciate the effort made by the hon. member to bring this matter forward. He is a very amiable member of this chamber, and I appreciate chatting with him from time to time on matters in the House.

I can fully understand, as I am sure everyone in the House understands, the frustration that would drive him to bring forward this motion. It is very hard for the independent members in this chamber, because they are not accorded the rights the parties are. That is what our system is. Why is the system that way? It is not that there are not a lot of changes that could be brought. New reforms have been proposed by the government side, individual members at least, and by our party.

Certainly, the way we operate in this place can be improved, but I think it is really important for us to recognize our responsibilities. We are here because we were elected, and we were elected in certain numbers, which resulted in three parties being represented in this place, and in certain numbers. We are between 90 and 100 members. The government has considerably more, another 20 or 30 members, and the Liberal Party has a certain number of members. Then we have some independents, who from time to time like to stand up and say that they are a party, but in fact, they are independent members.

Everyone here wants to make sure that everyone has a right to participate, because they too were elected by their constituencies. However, as a number have said who have been debating this motion, it is very important that we recognize the system and the way this place operates.

If I had my druthers, I would prefer that this place operate by consensus, but that is a dream for the far future. It is our dream in the New Democratic Party that this can best be achieved through proportional representation. Some of the members of the third party say they like that idea. Other members of that party say they like first past the post, because perhaps they could be the commanding party in the next election.

I think we have to recognize that our system is the system it is, and the electorate brings us forward and we are here representing the constituents. In so doing, we can change the system. We can try to improve it in some way.

One of the things we have tried to do on this side, certainly in our party, is try to be equitable in the way we represent our constituents. If others in this House had the opportunity to join our caucus, they would see a lot of the debate that goes on. One thing we have in common is that we agree that there should be gender balance. We agree that all regions of this country should have a voice in this place. We believe that both official languages should be represented in debates in the House, in question period, and in committee.

It is not always easy to bring that balance, but we certainly endeavour to do that, and we think it is a really important principle for this place that those basic principles be represented.

Unfortunately, while we know that the member means well and is trying to reform the place so that everyone has an equal, or at least a fair, voice, the proposals the member is bringing forward will not enable that to occur. Every member having a chance to ask a question per week would make it very difficult to provide any kind of cogent presentation in question period.

It is very important to recognize that the official opposition has a very important role in this place. It is our duty in the parliamentary system to hold the government of the day accountable, so it is very important that we have the opportunity to be strategic in doing that. To do that, we have to have the freedom to decide who will be raising the questions of the day.

The second aspect the member has raised is committees. Certainly in our party, we can recognize his frustration. We have our own frustrations as the official opposition. I myself have been very frustrated by the difference between this government and the same party but in a previous Parliament, where there was much more toing and froing on what we would discuss in committee, how we would discuss it, and the witnesses who would come forward. We also discussed amendments when the bill was before us, or even in a report.

There are enough frustrations. I do not think we need to make it more complicated with lotteries and those kinds of systems.

We have, from time to time, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, actually supported some of the initiatives of the independents. For example, we defended the rights of the independents when the government moved to constrain the right of independents to table amendments at report stage. We have been very clear. We should be given greater rights in this place.

We also supported the amendments to Bill C-23 proposed by one of my colleagues from the Edmonton area, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, that would have allowed independents to form riding associations and engage in fundraising between elections. We are open to good proposals that come forward and to giving everyone in this place who is duly elected greater opportunities to represent, speak to, and engage their constituents and speak for them when they come to this place.

Again, we have endeavoured to provide the same kind of balance in committees that we have in question period. We endeavour to have both official languages represented through our party, to have a gender balance, and most important of all, to develop expertise, which goes back to the proposals for changing question period. It is very important that the questions we bring forward are based in knowledge, experience, and work at the ground level on the issues of the day that are brought forward either by the government or other members in this place.

I would close by saying that I commend the efforts of the member in bringing the motion forward. He has taken his one spot to speak to a motion in this place to bring forward parliamentary reform. My hope is that the government will finally listen to our proposals and that we will bring together all the representatives in this place to come forward with procedures and policies to make sure that we actually work better together and co-operatively in the interest of Canadians.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I often have the habit of starting my presentations with a quote. I have another one today. All quotes have their shortcomings and do not apply 100%, but I would like to quote Blaise Pascal, who said that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. The spirit of this quote could apply here. The motion introduced today does not represent hell, but the means proposed are not in keeping with the intentions of the motion. I will have the opportunity to explain.

Members will have already understood that I will be voting against this motion for the good reason that we do not have before us a bill, but a binding private member's motion. Therefore, I will not be referring to the two hours of debate, because the two hours allocated for this motion will be two hours of discussion. We will have the opportunity to listen to the arguments for and against from each member who speaks, of any political affiliation, including independents. However, we will not have the opportunity to take this discussion to a higher level where we can ask questions of others or of ourselves and talk about where this motion could be taken further and improved.

Since we are talking about a binding motion, it means that even if we mostly agree with the motion, it would take effect immediately, without any further discussion. A bill would have to go through the regular process, which involves a clause-by-clause examination in committee and a more thorough debate. Most members could have likely gotten on board with that approach.

I understand the member's concerns, but good intentions must be combined with appropriate methods in order to achieve truly democratic parliamentary reform. That is the main weakness of this motion. The motion proposes a legitimate principle, but the methods suggested for achieving it are somewhat questionable or even completely inappropriate.

I want to say right away that I am opposed to this motion, as I already mentioned. Before getting into the mechanics of this motion, I would like to make an analogy, but once again, no analogy is perfect. For those who are watching at home, we are fairly fond of sports here in the House. If we compare a political party to a hockey team, it is easier to understand the problem. It would be one thing if we let players choose their position on the team. They might choose based on talent but they might also choose based on the fact that forwards have better statistics and score more goals than defencemen. If we also asked players to choose their captain, their coach and even their general manager, it is easy to see how this would cause problems that would negatively affect the team's performance. The success of a hockey team or any sports team, like the success of a political party, depends on the ability to put the right person in the right place to do the right job.

In that regard, we are still trying to maintain a balance between members' opinions and our party-centric parliamentary system. Concretely, we are trying to make Parliament work effectively while enhancing the independence of members and their role of representing the interests of their constituencies.

As hon. members know, the public pays close attention to question period. Beyond how it appears in the media, question period is an opportunity for our audience and our constituents to keep abreast of the most pressing national and local issues. For that reason, it is appropriate for a party to be able to develop a strategy for effectively exercising oversight over the government's activities. This motion hinders the opposition's ability to organize and to check and analyze the government's policy choices. The motion proposes mechanisms that totally exclude the strategic dimension of this exercise.

In examining the content of the motion, I get the impression that the hon. member does not know what a party is trying to achieve during question period.

We ask questions to draw attention to local and national issues and show the flaws and contradictions in the government's policies. The ultimate objective is to put pressure on the government and make it reconsider its positions or, quite often, make it do something.

With this motion, it seems as though my colleague wants to turn question period into a game in which the objective is for every member to ask a question. To make the game even more fun, my colleague is suggesting that members take turns, on rotation, asking the questions they want to ask.

We can already imagine, if not the disorganization, how difficult it would be to organize an efficient question period in which we hold the government accountable. I remind members that it is important for every member to participate in this process, but we must keep in mind that we need to see results from our right to ask questions of the government. The most important thing for members of a team is for the team to be successful and to hold the government accountable to the people we represent.

The objective, then, is to push the government to change direction and, more importantly, to reveal to the public the flaws, if not the failures, of its public policies, while putting forward our point of view regarding the day-to-day concerns of our constituents. The motion completely alters the role of question period, because it would prevent the parties from working together and coming up with a consistent, effective strategy for putting pressure on the government on certain issues.

I would remind members that on many bills debated in the House, our effectiveness in question period as the official opposition party has forced the government to make some compromises and back down on some important points. Consider, for example, Bill C-23, which we asked about on a daily basis until the government backed down on some of the more controversial parts of its election reform.

Another example would be rail safety. Our collective effectiveness pushed the government to phase out DOT-111 tank cars, thereby making for safer rail shipment of dangerous goods, particularly flammable liquids like oil.

I find it hard to believe that these issues could have been dealt with as effectively in the kind of random, arbitrary question period that this motion is proposing. What is more, how can this motion ensure that there will be equal representation of genders, languages and regions? Those values are central to our objectives and they will be completely overlooked by the parties if this motion is adopted.

The same can be said of the lottery that would allow members to choose the various committees they wish to join. Once again, it is clear that any team strategy could go out the window. I am not saying that it definitely would and that this is unavoidable. However, there is a real risk that people would choose a committee for the wrong reasons, because one has a higher profile than another or because they are hoping to get re-elected. The basic premise of the work we do as parliamentarians is that everyone's skills should be put to the best possible use. In other words, we should be putting the best person in the best position to get the best results. The lottery being proposed would not achieve that objective.

There are many other reforms we could have worked together on and even agreed on in order to promote the important role that MPs play in the House. I will just quickly mention the option that we put on the table, since I am running out of time. We proposed that after 2015, we no longer use this unfair election method where votes are not given equal value or importance in the House. Proportional representation would eliminate or alleviate many of the problems that this motion is looking to resolve.

I would like to conclude by, unfortunately, restating my intention to vote against this motion. I think that the gap between its objectives and the methods proposed to achieve those objectives is too great for me to be able to give it my support.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to very important issue. In my opinion, the motion moved by the House leader of the official opposition is of utmost importance. I want to emphasize that the amendments proposed by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth are also very important. I am truly pleased that most of the members of this House will be supporting this motion, because it will send a clear message to the Canadian people. As my colleague said several times during his speech, we cannot let this kind of thing go on, and assume that, as parliamentarians, we are armour-plated and protected and nothing can touch us.

Last week's charges against the member for Peterborough are very serious. There is no argument that the elected members sitting in the House of Commons must not have been convicted of charges as serious as violating the Canada Elections Act. It seems so simple, that I find it all deplorable.

I would like to speak more specifically about one point. In fact, it is a strange coincidence that this happened today of all days. I want to remind the House that in the amendment presented by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, in (ii), he specifically mentions the steps to be taken with regard to a member's benefits, including his or her retirement pension.

Today, as it happens, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was conducting a clause-by-clause study of Bill C-518, introduced by my colleague fromNew Brunswick Southwest. This bill very clearly states that a member of Parliament or a senator cannot, by resigning, escape the consequences that his or her expulsion from the House or Senate would entail. This speaks directly to this motion and the situation we are facing today.

The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest has repeated over and over that what he was ultimately trying to do with this bill was to close a loophole. The loophole resulted from the fact that when a senator or member was found guilty of breaking a law or having otherwise done something that would lead to his expulsion from the House or Senate, instead of waiting for the House or Senate to take the appropriate measures and decide to expel him, the person concerned could simply say that he had had enough and was resigning.

And what would happen? Such persons would be entitled to their pensions, as if nothing had happened. Life would go on, happily. They could get their money, and neither the House of Commons nor the Senate could do anything about it. This has never happened in the House, but it has happened several times in the Senate. That is the problem my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest has tried to solve with his bill.

And what happened then? The question is fundamentally rather complicated, because there are many aspects involved. It was necessary to be as inclusive as possible, but without including too much, of course. Thus, there were several options open to us. Was it necessary to draw up a list of infractions that could lead to this result?

In the end, I think that my colleague, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, has found the best solution. He introduced an amendment this morning, during the clause-by-clause study of the bill. I repeat, this only happened this morning. The hon. member simply proposed to amend the act to provide for cases where the House or the Senate are involved in the process leading up to an expulsion. We could insert wording in the act providing that if the House or Senate passed a motion recognizing that an individual had resigned, but was still a member or senator, his or her pension would be revoked.

Therefore, all we need to do is give ourselves the power to use the same process as that followed for expulsion. That way, we would cover all cases where a person has been found guilty of violating the Canada Elections Act, for example. The House would find it unacceptable that such a person was entitled to his pension simply because he resigned before being held accountable to the House or the Senate, because that is not relevant. That person should not be entitled to a pension.

That was by far the best solution, but in the end another amendment was passed earlier, probably by the committee's majority, as we can all surmise. That amendment lists a number of infractions, but only those under the Criminal Code. If a person is found guilty of any one of them, the law will apply.

All of this will apply only after the law is passed, which is very specific to their amendment. There is no retroactive provision, although several experts told us in committee that it would not be a problem to make it retroactive.

When the NDP amendment was rejected and we knew that the majority amendment was going to be adopted, we introduced amendments to the amendment to try to add certain specific aspects regarding the Canada Elections Act.

We are elected members of Parliament and we must stand for election every four years—or less often, if there is a minority government. As elected members, we must go back to the people and ask them to vote for us. And now I am told that a member can remain in place here without suffering any consequences, despite having broken our country's election law.

Last spring, when we were debating Bill C-23, we saw how little respect the Conservatives have for the Canada Elections Act and how ready they were to change it all to gain an advantage.

Regarding what happened this morning, it is worthwhile to read the short title of the bill introduced by the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest: “Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act”. It is quite strange that a bill with such a fine title and such an interesting principle does not apply in any way to a person who violates the Canada Elections Act.

That is why I think the amendments proposed by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth to the motion on which we are about to vote are very important. Even though this bill has gone through today's clause-by-clause study, it is even more important than ever to return to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and ask the members to look into the strategy concerning the member's benefits, particularly his pension.

Today we saw that there is a lack of consistency and the results will not be what my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest had hoped for. He talked about similar situations, even though at the time he obviously did not know that a member of his own party would be convicted of a crime. Nonetheless, the fact remains that it is the same principle and such principles should apply to all members and senators.

I encourage all my colleagues to support this motion. I will vote in favour of this motion because I like to think that by doing so there will be a little more justice in this world.

Amendments to Standing Orders

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

My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I went off on a bit of a party tangent.

However, I will say that we do this for a reason, for national interest, to allow someone to sit at cabinet from any particular region of the country, in the same way that the constitution of committees would also benefit from that. I do understand that he is saying they can trade, if need be. A lot of that might happen under his particular motion. However, it is rather prescriptive in how it handles this. Remember, we only get one vote for this and then all of the rules are changed instantly. I would go back to that argument about the procedure and House affairs committee.

The other part with regard to committees is that I have no problem with there being more members, allowing for the fact that there are 30 new seats coming into this House. That is right: we are going to go from 308 members to 338 members across this country.

My final point is that I agree with my colleague from the official opposition. On Bill C-23, we also supported the voice of the independent member of Parliament by allowing that person to have more power within the committee structure. It is a bit difficult to do, but nevertheless it is legitimate. When that person runs as an independent member of Parliament, some of the freedoms and obviously some of the rules that benefit certain parties should benefit that member as well.

As the Liberal Party, we have made moves lately for reform, such as transparency of all of our expenses. We would take the partiality out of the Senate.

We look forward to this debate, and hopefully within the next hour of debate we will also shed more light on all of the topics that my hon. colleague has brought forward, because it is quite—

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

Mr. Speaker, that was probably the most gracious wrapping up I have heard in ages.

First, we need to remember and take note of the context in which our colleague opposite spoke. This motion is a take it or leave it deal.

We are voting on a motion that, if adopted, will immediately amend the Standing Orders. These amendments will not be sent to committee and will not undergo a more in-depth legislative review.

That is quite important, because my hon. colleague across the way has already pointed out a couple of problematic parts of the motion that are not mere technicalities, as I think the sponsor might suggest they are. Rather, they are mistakes in the drafting of the bill, which suggests there may be others that we have not yet found.

The motion seeks to increase the independence of members who belong to a recognized party in the House and the rights of independent members. These are principles worthy of our support.

However, this motion does not give sufficient consideration to the legitimate and critical role that parties play in the Westminster system and tradition. It therefore does not establish a fair balance between the rights of members as individuals and the effective operation of the parties and thus of the House of Commons and this Parliament.

The motion does not make it possible to strike a fair balance between promoting the independence of members and maintaining the legitimate role of parties in our British-style parliamentary system, which is party-oriented. This is particularly true when it comes to the changes proposed to the methods used for selecting committee members.

I would like to point out that the NDP has been proposing democratic reform initiatives for years, the most recent of which sought to give the Speaker more authority. We are working on more practical and balanced reforms that will increase the independence of members while still allowing this Parliament to operate.

This includes defending the rights of independent members, as we did when the government wanted to restrict the right to propose amendments at report stage and when we supported the amendments to Bill C-23 proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert, which would have allowed independent members to form riding associations and raise money between elections.

The NDP continues to work on other balanced reforms in order to increase the independence of members, including during question period and in the work in committees, and to make Parliament work. We will present those in due course.

Let us now talk about fairness. The lotteries form the basis for the proposal by the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for forming committees. The lotteries are purely formal exercises of fairness, because they leave no room for a conscious effort to promote real equality. It would be impossible for a party like the NDP to ensure that both sexes are equally represented in committee with the hon. member's proposed reform.

The whip and the House leader pay attention to these criteria when they designate members for the committees. We would not be able to be as proactive when it comes to other considerations regarding diversity, including regional representation, and the ability to communicate in both official languages.

We can also consider things that have an impact on the effectiveness of Parliament. In our system the opposition—especially the official opposition—must be in a position to resolutely hold the government accountable for its actions. In many ways, the domination of the executive, primarily as a result of the combined powers of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office, has so compromised the role of the House of Commons during times of majority government that we need to protect the remaining tools the opposition has to remain effective. We need to ensure that the most informed opposition members sit on the committees that study the issues they are knowledgeable about or that are related to their role as critics. We also need to ensure that the role of oral question period is not compromised by a weakening of the coordinated strategies that the opposition parties sometimes use during this period to ensure that the questions being asked of the government—sometimes over a period of several days or weeks—are consistent and persistent.

One recent example was Bill C-23, the so-called Fair Elections Act. Members of the NDP asked questions every day for weeks. The government ended up making concessions in some areas, which is very important.

My colleague's motion would hurt the opposition's ability to hold the government accountable during question period by making this period less organized and less effective.

I would finish by returning to the point made by my colleague across the way. There is a drafting problem in the motion, which basically says the lists for composing committees are taken from the list for the consideration of private members' business. The member's draft then says that ministers, as well as Speakers and Deputy Speakers, shall be removed from the list.

In fact, ministers would not be on that list in the first place, because it is the list for private member's bills. Also, parliamentary secretaries now appear not to be part of the list draw because they would not be part of private members' business, but it was clearly not the intention of the member to exclude them. Therefore, my worry is that there are other drafting problems, and that is certainly one of them.

I would end by saying that probably the most important reform, apart from reforms that we will be bringing forward on question period and on the composition of committees, has to be how we structure the House of Commons in the first place.

In the NDP we believe strongly that our electoral system is broken and is unfair. We believe that if we had a proportional representation system, the way in which the House is elected would profoundly change the way the House works. That would include how question period would work. It would create a rebalancing of the power of MPs within parties and it would create a more collegial environment that would be more open to compromise.

At some level, the member's motion has to be lauded, because the underlying concern is real. He is concerned about Independents who are not part of a recognized party in the House, and he is obviously also concerned about the independence of members who are in a party but who at any given time may feel they are not getting the roles they would like, either in question period or at committee.

These are real concerns and they do have to be addressed, but I firmly believe that the way that the motion has been drafted and the fact it would be immediately implemented if we voted for it mean that we have to wait for reforms that will accomplish some of what the member is trying to do with a differently drafted reform.

[Barry Thorsteinson, Past President, National Pensioners Federation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and committee members.

It's an honour to be here today to represent the National Pensioners Federation, of which I am past president. For those of you not familiar with the federation, it's in its 70th year now after being founded on the Prairies. It's a national organization with large groups as diverse as the British Columbia Retired Teachers' Association to East Margaree Seniors' Club, close to Roger Cuzner's home riding. You can check that out with the folks when you're there next.

We have 250 organizations across the country, representing about a million members. We're the only organization representing seniors that has an annual open democratic convention where we elect our officers and debate our policies in open and public debate, and by democratic vote. I'm here representing the executive board and President Herb John, who can't be with us today.

Simply put, we're pleased to see the progress of this bill and we're here to voice our support. I'm not going to repeat all the same specific reasons why one point of contact is such a strangely revolutionary development in this day and age, but somehow it still is upon the challenge of parliamentarians to enact.

We encourage you pass the legislation for all the reasons that have already been mentioned by my colleague opposite. I had a few points to single out, but they touch on the same specifics. I'm sure this committee has been canvassing those very same points time and time again since the introduction of the bill by the honourable member from Guelph.

I did have a few points of concern, however. One of the questions I have—and I'm sure you've got a good answer for this—is why can't we just do this simply, administratively within the minister's purview now in human resources? It's an administrative feature really that connects all the dots online, with today's technology, within the Government of Canada. One would think it would be an administrative change that doesn't require parliamentary action. However, not being as experienced as the committee members present on what's necessary legally, I'm sure you know what you're doing with having a bill to enact the necessary changes.

Given that a bill is necessary, then trying to think it through, we're also wondering if it needs an amendment for any potential legal challenges down the road after the bill is presumably passed by Parliament. For instance, a very resourceful and energetic lawyer in the legal community might be keen on privacy issues and might say you didn't put anything explicitly in the bill to override any privacy concerns.

It shouldn't be a concern, these are all federal government departments, but you don't want to see any delays in the implementation of the bill due to any potential legal challenges down the road. Whether an amendment is in order or not, I'll leave that in the hands of much more experienced and wise parliamentarians than I could possibly imagine.

Although CPP has been mentioned as one of the many points that would be affected by this, we're also wondering about the automatic triggering of the death benefit under the Canada Pension Plan. We are wondering whether or not that can be quickly dispatched with by that particular pension plan oversight to the executor of the estate after the point of contact has been made, or whether there still has to be a separate application. We're not sure that the legislation provides for that, but you may want to specifically look at that.

We're hopeful, with the British experience already well known and some of the material that's known to this committee on at least one G-8 country that's already had experience with this, that it can be quickly implemented in the days ahead.

Lastly, a note of fondness for the all-party support that this bill has received to date. I hope it remains that way. It's certainly refreshing to see, considering the last time I was here on Bill C-23 on the alleged Fair Elections Act.

I'll leave it at that. Thank you for the time. If you have any questions, please submit them.

Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the short answer would be that I do not have any great confidence that the government will proceed that way. The way in which Bill C-23 was handled suggested that strong consultation was not part of the modus operandi of the government.

The bill may be a bit different. It purports to be technical only but the government acknowledges it is about a very central part of the modern administrative state, the regulatory power, and it is well aware that testimony, as well as some speeches in the other House, have revealed some serious concerns.

In light of the fact that the bipartisan and bicameral Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations has repeatedly said that there is a problem with delegating regulatory authority to external bodies through the open incorporation by reference technique in particular, I would hope that the concerns of that standing committee do not get lost simply because the bill ends up before the House, having started in the Senate, with another committee having to scrutinize the bill.

As often happens, we sometimes have moments in the House when it feels very co-operative. It certainly has felt like that the last couple of days for very obvious reasons. I would urge the government to take that approach on this because we are on board with the fact that cleaning up how we deal with incorporation by reference in an extremely important area of law-making. The problem is that the government may inadvertently end up creating some democracy deficit problems.

Digital Privacy Act

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to support the motion to refer Bill S-4 to a committee before second reading.

Bill S-4 amends the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. I will talk a little more about that, but first I want to take a moment to talk about the motion itself, which aims to send the bill to committee before second reading. This is somewhat strange; this is the first time the current government has done this in recent memory.

It is rather interesting and makes me wonder. Why this measure right now? Why did the government decide to do this, when there were other bills? Is it because the government has its doubts about Bill S-4 and wants to send it to committee, we hope, to solve the problems in the bill? That is what I am wondering.

Although we requested that some highly contested bills be sent to committee before second reading, such as Bill C-23 on election reform, Bill C-33 on first nations education and Bill C-3 on transporting oil along our coasts, the government refused. I have to wonder why it refused to do so and why it is now making the rather unusual—or at least uncommon, in recent history—move to send Bill S-4, a bill that comes not from the government, but from the Senate, to committee before second reading.

Procedure is not one of my strong suits, but there are experts here who can clear this up for us. I find it rather interesting that when we send a bill to committee before second reading, as this motion would do, the scope of the proposed amendments can be much broader. In other words, we could make more extensive amendments since the study in committee is not restricted by the principle of the bill, which has not yet been approved by the House. That is interesting. We can hope that Bill S-4 will be amended and that we will end up with a more polished product, if I can call it that, so that it will be more acceptable as we go into second reading.

Bill S-4 makes a pretty significant change to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. I took a look at this act, which received royal assent in April 2000. As members know, 14 years is an eternity in the digital world. A lot of things have happened in the past 14 years. This act was the result of an extensive consultation with a wide range of experts at all levels.

This work was accomplished through broad consultation in 2000. It is clear that since 2006, with this government, consultations are restricted to very specific groups. It is interesting to see that in 2000, there was a broad consultation that culminated with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Here is what that legislation does:

An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.

That is the legislation that is being amended now. Another interesting part of this law is schedule 1. Certain principles were set out in the legislation about to be amended, and they are particularly interesting because they were set out in the National Standard of Canada entitled Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information. The 10 principles are as follows: accountability; identifying purposes; consent; limiting collection; limiting use, disclosure, and retention; accuracy; safeguards; openness; individual access; and challenging compliance.

I went to the trouble of reading those principles. I found them very interesting and I urge all members to read them. Like it or not, as members, we receive personal and confidential information in our riding offices. That is why we too have a responsibility to respect these principles of personal information and electronic document protection.

Right now, we are talking about a motion to refer Bill S-4 to committee before second reading. I mentioned that this has not happened often in recent parliamentary history. In the time I have left, I would like to take a quick look at what Bill S-4 will change.

This bill will make major changes to to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which I just mentioned, by allowing personal information to be shared without the knowledge of the person concerned or without their consent under some circumstances. To me, that is a questionable way of protecting personal information. Companies would be allowed to share personal information under certain conditions.

As I read the bill, I really thought that there needed to be a better explanation of these conditions and some examples. For example, in a business transaction, when should personal information be shared without clients' consent?

Some aspects of the bill are positive, such as requiring organizations to take various measures when a data breach occurs. Even the current government has some transparency problems in this regard. The third aspect seeks to create offences in relation to the contravention of certain obligations respecting breaches of security safeguards. The fourth aspect would allow the the Privacy Commissioner, in certain circumstances, to enter into a compliance agreement with an organization.

Those are the four main aspects of Bill S-4 that raise concerns. Other aspects of the bill are positive and constitute a step in the right direction. That is why I support the motion to send Bill S-4 to committee to resolve the problems it contains that could result in a breach of privacy.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Why does she think this bill is being referred to committee before second reading? We asked for the same for other rather problematic bills such as Bill C-23 on electoral reform or the bill on tanker traffic.

In her opinion, why is this bill being sent to committee before second reading?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address this motion by the government to have Bill S-4 go to committee before second reading, which is a rare event in the House. This is a procedure that was made possible for the first time in 1994 amendments. I believe it stemmed from the 1982 McGrath committee's report that said that committees should more often be used at the early stages of legislation to make sure that things are caught and that a wide variety of perspectives are taken into account in drafting legislation and, frankly, to make the role of MPs more meaningful than is often the case when a bill is studied only after second reading in committee.

As we know, in committee after second reading, and after hearing any amount of testimony from witnesses that could suggest serious problems with a bill, the amendments are often extremely constrained by the rule that they must fit within the principle of the bill. Quite often that means that the principle is understood by the chair or the legal staff advising the chair as simply the principle of a given provision, and therefore, an attempt to work more broadly than the narrow purpose of a given provision is often ruled out of order.

Beyond that, I have found so far in committees, since arriving in the House, that there seems be a reluctance at the moment, on the part of the advisers to chairs, to understand that bills can often have multiple purposes and not just a single purpose. Therefore, in the end, after second reading, committee work often really is an exercise in frustration, because a lot could be done to perfect a bill that is technically ruled out of order due to the fact that we have to work within the principle of the bill as voted at second reading.

It is great that this bill is going to committee before second reading. It will hopefully allow, in the spirit of what this procedure is all about, a full, frank hearing, from all kinds of witnesses, about the problems I hope the government understands are in this bill. I hope this is also the reason the minister has decided to send it to committee before second reading. There can be true dialogue and engagement among MPs, obviously with the government watching what is going on and giving its input through government MPs, so that this bill is taken apart and rewritten in the way this procedure would allow.

I myself stood in the House to move unanimous consent to have Bill C-23, what New Democrats called the unfair elections act and the government called the fair elections act, referred to committee before second reading, exactly for the reasons I have just given. There were so many obvious problems in the bill. Not sticking to the principle in the bill and working collegially across party lines would have benefited the study of that bill. In retrospect, New Democrats realize how true that was. Although we got serious amendments passed, with pressure from backbench members of the government suggesting changes that helped us in our efforts, that bill would be much better if it had gone to committee before second reading.

There is another procedure that, in the spirit of openness, I am hoping the minister might consider. To date, it has not been the practice of the government to table opinions about the constitutionality or charter compliance of a bill. Given the real concerns that exist with respect to warrantless access to information that is contained in this bill as kind of a compendium bill to Bill C-13, I would ask the minister to please consider, for once, having the Department of Justice table a written opinion on the constitutionality of this. Why does it think that the Spencer judgment coming out of the Supreme Court of Canada does not apply or, if it applies, that the bill is written in a way that justifies it under the charter?

So often in committee there is minimal to no good testimony from the civil service side on why, supposedly, the Minister of Justice has certified that a bill is in compliance with the charter. We know that the standard for the minister doing that is a very minimalist standard.

I will read from the Senate testimony on Bill S-4 from Michael Geist, of the University of Ottawa, to tell the House why having that additional procedure as part of the referral to committee before second reading would be useful. He says:

Unpack the legalese and you find that organizations will be permitted to disclose personal information without consent (and without a court order) to any organization that is investigating a contractual breach or possible violation of any law. This applies both [to] past breaches or violations as well as potential future violations. Moreover, the disclosure occurs in secret without the knowledge of the affected person (who therefore cannot challenge the disclosure since they are not aware it is happening).

That is an extremely good summary of a core problem with the bill in terms of the fears it raises that it has gone too far. It would purportedly create an updated regime to protect privacy and in the process would potentially ram through new problems with respect to Canadians' privacy.

I would like to now, in my last couple of minutes, go over a few points that I hope come up in committee.

I wish to thank a constituent, Mr. John Wunderlich, an expert in privacy law, who worked with me on the weekend to better understand the bill. These are points that I hope do have discussed.

In paragraph 4(1)(b) of the act, the definition of who this would apply to would move from just employees to employees and applicants for employment. In that context, this leaves hanging the question of how much or how little this would apply to companies whose business is to conduct background checks. The committee should solicit feedback on this. In my view, the background check function in the employment sector is done far too often and too deeply and already constitutes a systemic privacy invasion in the employment sector. Therefore, this extension needs to be looked at.

The next thing is the definition of valid consent. While it is welcome, because it brings clarity, the committee should note whether the current systems asserting consent on the web actually provide meaningful information to web surfers about just how many entities will be given access to either some or all of their personal information. Right now, there is a real risk that so-called valid consent, as outlined in the bill, would actually piggyback on the systematic sharing of information that people have no idea is being shared. The act could become a smokescreen behind which individual profiles were built and shared across businesses.

I have already spoken about the potential for the warrantless invasion of privacy because of the fact that organizations could seek information from others when they are simply investigating breaches of agreement or fraud. We should keep in mind that when they are investigating fraud, it is not just in the criminal context. All of this involves civil questions as well. An example is fraudulent misrepresentation.

The “real risk of significant harm” test for companies in particular to decide whether they are going to inform the commissioner and at another stage inform persons of breaches of privacy is a problematic standard in the sense that it is actually very general, and it is probably too low. There should be a presumption for disclosure to the commissioner, and it should be left up to the commissioner to either determine, or assist the company in determining, whether this is significant enough to let the persons whose information was released know that it happened. At the moment, it is an entirely discretionary system, based on a very vague standard, which may mean that data will be breached without people actually knowing it and being able to take the measures necessary to protect themselves.

Those are only three of the more specific concerns that need to be looked at. There is a lot in the bill.

I have a final comment, and it may be a rather strange one. I am looking at my colleague across the way. The privacy legislation from Alberta should be looked at very closely as a reference point for whether the government has gotten certain things wrong. That province has gotten things right.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand with two petitions to present.

The first is a petition to stand up for Canadian democracy. Now that Bill C-23 has been passed, the petitioners ask for the government to bring forward genuine electoral reform to stop fraud and prevent money politics from distorting our elections.

There are hundreds of signatures on the petition.

Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this question of privilege about closure.

I am rising at my first opportunity on this question of privilege, given that between the Speech from the Throne in October and when we adjourned June 20, there had been 21 occasions on which closure of debate occurred, and I maintain that the exercise of my rights and the rights of my colleagues in this place have been obstructed, undermined and impeded by the unprecedented use of time allocations in the second session of the 41st Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this fairly legal argument to you, I propose to leave out page numbers and citations because I have prepared a written version of this for your office and I hope that will be acceptable to you, that I skip page numbers in this presentation. Hansard may not have the numbers of the debates, but I hope there is enough context so people can find them.

I belive this excessive use of what is often called “guillotine measures” is a violation of the rights of all members of Parliament, but I would like to stress that there is a disproportionate impact on members such as me who are within either smaller parties, that is less than 12 members, or who sit actually as independents, because in the roster of recognizing people in their speaker slot, quite often those of us in the smaller parties or independents simply never get to speak to the bills at all.

My question, Mr. Speaker, bears directly on what your predecessor said in this place on April 27, 2010. He said, “...the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation”.

In the autumn of 2011, in a ruling concerning the member for Mount Royal, Mr. Speaker, you yourself said that to constitute a prima facie case in regard to matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation, you need to “...assess whether or not the member's ability to fulfill his parliamentary [activities] has been undermined”. At that moment in the same Debates, you had the occasion to reflect on “...the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members,...” and you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

I now have occasion to turn to other words that will guide us in this matter. From the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vaid decision, in the words of Mr. Justice Binnie, speaking for the court, he outlined the scope of parliamentary responsibility and parliamentary privilege for the management of employees and said, “Parliamentary privilege is defined by the degree of autonomy necessary to perform Parliament’s constitutional function”. He went on to say at paragraph 41 of that Supreme Court of Canada judgment:

Similarly, Maingot defines privilege in part as “the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament, and for Members of the legislatures of each of the ten provinces and two territories, in order for these legislators to do their legislative work”.

I would repeat and emphasize that, because although the Vaid decision was on a different fact set, Mr. Justice Binnie spoke to our core responsibility as parliamentarians when he said that we must be able, as legislators, to do our legislative work.

Mr. Justice Binnie continued in the Vaid decision to say:

To the question “necessary in relation to what?”, therefore, the answer is necessary to protect legislators in the discharge of their legislative and deliberative functions, and the legislative assembly’s work in holding the government to account for the conduct of the country’s business. To the same effect, see R. Marleau and C. Montpetit...where privilege is defined as “the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions”.

Mr. Justice Binnie went on to find further references in support of these principles from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada.

These are fundamental points. The purpose of us being here as parliamentarians is to hold the government to account. It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or to assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate powers to protect itself, its members, and its officials in the exercise of these functions.

Finally, Mr. Justice Binnie—again, for the court—said at paragraph 62, on the subject of parliamentary functions in ruling that some employees would be covered by privilege, that coverage existed only if a connection were established between the category of employees and the exercise by the House of its functions as a legislative and deliberative body, including its role in holding the government to account.

As I said earlier, this approach was supported by your immediate predecessor. In a December 10, 2009 ruling, the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Peter Milliken, said that one of his principle duties was to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, and of the House, including the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions, which is an indisputable privilege, and in fact an obligation.

It is therefore a fundamental principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy that the most important role of members of Parliament, and in fact a constitutional right and responsibility for us as members, is to hold the government to account.

The events in this House that we witnessed before we adjourned on June 20, 2014, clearly demonstrate that the House and its members have been deprived of fulfilling constitutional rights, our privilege, and our obligation to hold the government to account, because of the imposition of intemperate and unrestrained guillotine measures in reference to a number of bills. Over 21 times, closure has been used.

It is only in the interest of time that I am going to read out the numbers of the bills and not their full description. Bill C-2, Bill C-4, Bill C-6, Bill C-7, Bill C-13, Bill C-18, Bill C-20, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-24, Bill C-25, Bill C-27, Bill C-31, Bill C-32, Bill C-33, and Bill C-36 were all instances where closure of debate was used.

In many of the instances I just read out, and in the written argument I have presented, closure of debate occurred at second reading, again at report stage, and again at third reading. The limitation of debate was extreme.

A close examination of the guillotine measures imposed by the government demonstrate that the citizens of Canada have been unable to have their elected representatives adequately debate the various and complex issues central to these bills in order to hold the government to account. Members of Parliament have been deprived and prevented from adequately debating these measures, through 21 separate motions for time allocation in this session alone. It undermines our ability to perform our parliamentary duties.

In particular, I want to again highlight the effect that the guillotine motions have on my ability as a representative of a smaller party, the Green Party. We do not have 12 seats in the House as yet, and as a result we are in the last roster to be recognized once all other parties have spoken numerous times. Quite often, there is not an opportunity for members in my position, nor for independent members of Parliament, to be able to properly represent our constituents.

Again, I should not have to repeat this. Certainly you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that in protecting our rights, as you must as Speaker, that in this place we are all equals, regardless of how large our parties are. As voters in Canada are all equal, so too do I, as a member of Parliament, have an equal right and responsibility to represent the concerns of my constituents in this place, which are equal to any other member in this place.

As speaking time that is allotted to members of small parties and independents is placed late in the debates, we quite often are not able to address these measures in the House. This would be fair if we always reached the point in the debate where independents were recognized, but that does not happen with closure of debates. My constituents are deprived of their right to have their concerns adequately voiced in the House.

Political parties are not even referenced in our constitution, and I regard the excessive power of political parties over processes in this place, in general, to deprive constituents of equal representation in the House of Commons. However, under the circumstances, the additional closure on debate particularly disadvantages those constituents whose members of Parliament are not with one of the larger parties.

Mr. Speaker, in the autumn of 2011, in your ruling considering the member for Mount Royal and his question of privilege, you said that one of your responsibilities that you take very seriously is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded. The principal right of the House and its members, and their privilege, is to hold the government to account. In fact, it is an obligation, according to your immediate predecessor.

In order to hold the government to account, we require the ability and the freedom to speak in the House without being trammelled and without measures that undermine the member's ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary function. As a British joint committee report pointed out, without this protection, members would be handicapped in performing their parliamentary duty, and the authority of Parliament itself in confronting the executive and as a forum for expressing the anxieties of citizens would be correspondingly diminished.

To hold the government to account is the raison d'être of Parliament. It is not only a right and privilege of members and of this House, but a duty of Parliament and its members to hold the government to account for the conduct of the nation's business. Holding the government to account is the essence of why we are here. It is a constitutional function. In the words of the marketers, it is “job one”.

Our constitutional duty requires us to exercise our right and privilege, to study legislation, and to hold the government to account by means of raising a question of privilege. This privilege has been denied to us because of the consistent and immoderate use of the guillotine in regard to 21 instances of time allocation, in this session alone.

This use of time allocation, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is unprecedented in the history of Canada, and infringes on your duty as Speaker to protect our rights and privileges as members. As you have said many times, that is your responsibility and you take it very seriously. However, these closure motions undermine your role and your duty to protect us. Therefore, it diminishes the role of Speaker, as honoured from time immemorial.

In fact, you expressed it, Mr. Speaker, in debates in the autumn of 2011, at page 4396, when you had occasion to reflect on “the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members..”, and when you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

Denying the members' rights and privileges to hold the government to account is an unacceptable and unparliamentary diminishment of both the raison d'être of Parliament and of the Speaker's function and role in protecting the privileges of all members of this House.

In conclusion, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the intemperate and unrestrained use of time allocation by this government constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege of all members of this House, especially those who are independents or, such as myself, representatives of one of the parties with fewer than 12 members.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your consideration in this matter. I hope you will find in favour of this question of privilege, that this is a prima facie breach of the privileges and rights of all members.

Democratic Reform

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, with royal assent, the fair elections act will be enacted today. Identification will now be mandatory in order to vote.

With today's royal sanction, we have finally and happily achieved the fair elections act, and it will be passed into law.

We will have royal assent. We will have a requirement for physical ID every time someone votes. No longer will politicians be able to use loans to get around donation limits. We will have independent investigations. It is fair, it is reasonable and, as of today, it will be the law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first one is signed by hundreds of my constituents and other Nova Scotians who are appalled by Bill C-23 and the affront to democracy.

Bill C-24—Time Allocation Motion

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying “71”. That is the number of times that the government has brought in closure on debate in the House. It is a record, by the way. I am sure by the end of the day, it will be 72, and if not today, it will be tomorrow.

The minister said that the NDP is saying the same thing over and over again. The NDP has a lot to say on this legislation because it is important legislation. It is more a matter of him not liking what we have to say and that he would like to dismiss it.

He also said that the system is working very well. I can understand that. From his point of view, the system is working very well when the government controls it 100% and can basically bypass the legislative process in the House.

I do need to point out that no witnesses were heard when the bill was at committee. The government says that pre-consultation was done. The fact is that we abide by due process at committee, hearing parliamentary witnesses at committee. That is an integral part of the parliamentary process. Quite frankly, I am shocked and disturbed that the minister is not taking responsibility and does not see the error in trying to bypass a legitimate process at committee. There is no excuse for it.

Of course, it is the government's prerogative if it wants to hold pre-consultations. However so many bills, whether it is Bill C-23 or this legislation, are being rammed through the House without due process, and that negates the very reason we are here. We were elected to hold the government to account, to examine legislation, and the committee process is an important part of that.

Again, we are having another vote on a closure motion, a censure on debate, on an important bill. How can the minister defend that? How can he defend bypassing an important stage at committee?

Democratic Reform

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

Now, the information is coming out, Mr. Speaker.

The Conservatives' deeply flawed Bill C-23 failed to effectively target deceptive phone calls. Now we can see why.

At the trial of a former Conservative staffer, one of the witnesses has just stated:

This scheme was clearly wide-spread, national and well organized. It required access, and ultimately complicity from someone higher up in the campaign....

Given these troubling allegations, would the government agree to finally introduce a bill that would actually go after these kinds of national voter suppression crimes, yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-23, the electoral “deform”, has been criticized far and wide. Just today, at the electoral fraud trial in Guelph, we learned that Andrew Prescott—

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

I have a quick question about Bill C-21, dealing with loans to political parties.

In committee, you said that the common limit for loans and donations really is a problem. From what I understand about Bill C-23, it comes up again. The limit has been increased to $1,500. Bill C-21 has been sort of integrated into it all. At the moment, loans and donations have the same limit.

Have you thought about mechanisms to tackle that matter? I do not have the exact quotation, but I remember that you said that it could cause a number of problems.

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

Thank you. I will mention one last thing.

This is not technically—I realize it doesn't cost; it's just a little bit more ink. But one issue came up in the amendments phase of Bill C-23. Given that we in opposition and the official opposition had lost the fight to retain the voter information cards, we were greatly concerned that the 800,000 to 900,000 people officially authorized to use them in a number of settings in 2011 will well remember that and not necessarily know that the rules have changed. We moved for an amendment to have the VIC prominently stamped with a very clear message to say it cannot be used, that it's an aid, etc.

Can we possibly make sure that it's very prominent? Otherwise it will cause confusion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Monsieur Mayrand, for coming again to the committee.

I hope when you come in the fall, you might be able to address the following questions.

Some of the concerns coming out of Bill C-23 were that we might end up with some unexpected bottlenecks and challenges at the polls. Voter information cards will no longer be able to be used. It could be that we end up with even more vouching in 2015 than we had in 2011. Vouching for address has been restored—it's in the new bill—but people will not be able to prove address with the voter information card. It's reasonable to assume that more people might well need to be vouched for than was even the case in 2011. That takes resources,and it takes training, and there could potentially be bottlenecks in areas where that's most likely.

The second thing is that Bill C-23 includes the right of scrutineers effectively to challenge, to see but not handle identification, with very unclear rules about what happens when they don't like what they see. There is a practice in certain jurisdictions for that to be aggressively used as a right by scrutineers and it can create lineups.

I'm hoping that Elections Canada can take into consideration these kinds of scenarios in planning their budget. I'd be grateful for any information on that in the fall. If you have any comments now, that's fine. Otherwise, it's just a request for the future.

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

Okay.

I would also like to ask you some questions about Bill C-23 and about the way in which you will be planning the next budget.

An election is on its way and there will be new changes. In your opinion, what will the major financial impact of BillC-23 be?

[Marc Mayrand]

I cannot estimate that at the moment, at least not before having accounted for Bill C-23. Adding 30 constituencies with elections held in the same way as in 2011 would involve an additional $9.2 million in the budget for the election.

[Marc Mayrand]

We are still at the stage of analyzing the operational impact of the new act. My proposal today is to come back to this committee in the fall to present our analysis of that impact, and its financial consequences.

I would like to be able to come back before the committee to explain how we are going to implement the new provisions of the act and to present at least a preliminary draft of the budget for the 2015 election. Bill C-23 aside, a number of factors will influence that. Clearly, there will be the addition of 30 constituencies and inflation-related costs. Various factors come into consideration, and then we have to add the cost of implementing Bill C-23. It would be premature for me to suggest figures at this time.

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

Mr. Mayrand, your final comment brings me to the question I had meant to raise anyway, which is that the Commissioner of Canada Elections, assuming Bill C-23 becomes the law of the land, gets through the other place and gets royal assent, will move to the Director of Public Prosecutions' office. With him he'll take not only his personnel but obviously the financial needs necessary to deal with the core funding. I'm aware that he receives funding for investigations directly out of the consolidated revenue fund, but he has core funding, which I gather from his report—actually, I'm a little uncertain of this in asking this question—amounts to the salary of his six indeterminate employees and has a total of $541,000.

Is that right, or is there a larger amount associated with his ongoing expenses?

[Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me to discuss the 2014-2015 main estimates for my office.

I am accompanied, on my right, by Mr. Hughes St-Pierre, Chief Financial and Planning Officer, Mr. Belaineh Deguefé, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Integrated Services, Policy and Public Affairs and Mr. Michel Roussel, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Electoral Events.

Prior to discussing my office's report on plans and priorities, I wish to remind the committee that, at the time of preparing our main estimates, Bill C-23 had yet to be introduced. As a consequence, the priorities outlined in the report will need to be reviewed and adjusted. We will also review our operating budget and draw on the statutory authority to deal with additional expenditures that may be required.

I would like to appear before the committee again in the fall to give you more information on our progress in implementing the provisions of the Canada Elections Act; on key changes for the next general election in this new operating context; and on our initial budget estimates for that election. As we continue our preparations, I would like to underline my commitment, and that of my staff, to implementing the provisions of the act in a timely and effective manner.

Today, the committee is studying our annual appropriation, which is $30.5 million. This represents the salaries of approximately 350 full-time-equivalent employees. Combined with our statutory authority, which funds all other expenditures under the Canada Elections Act, our 2014-15 main estimates total $97.1 million. This is a $18.7 million decrease from our 2013-14 main estimates. There are three main reasons for it: the phasing out of quarterly allowances to political parties, a $7.4 million decrease; the completion of the main components of our office consolidation project, a $9.3 million decrease; and the conclusion of the redistribution of electoral districts, a $2.5 million decrease.

The major focus of my office for this fiscal year is completing preparatory work and mobilizing our resources to achieve a state of election readiness for an election called after April 2015. In preparation for a 2015 general election, we are improving the services required for voters. This includes implementing the provisions of Bill C-23. Our overall objectives are to ensure the integrity of the conduct of elections and make it easier for Canadians to register and vote. I would like to explain some of this work in more detail.

As indicated in our management response to the 2013 compliance review report, we are planning additional administrative measures to improve compliance with election day procedures. These include improved recruitment practices, modernized training, and when possible, simplified procedures and clearer instructions for election workers.

Record-keeping errors occur when election officers handle exceptions, such as voters whose names do not appear on the list. To address this issue, we will pursue measures to ensure that we have the most accurate and current voters list possible on election day.

This year, Elections Canada will introduce a new voter registration system. This system will combine a new, online registration service with a new approach to revising the voters list during an election, one that targets polling divisions known for high volumes of polling day registrations, and it will promote voter registration among first-time electors. To make this possible, my office has invested in developing a secure national voter database that can be updated in real time by returning officers and electors themselves during an election.

We are also making improvements to the electoral reminder program, which is our multi-media advertising and information campaign for elections. It delivers information to electors on where, when, and how to register and vote, and how to provide their identity and address.

For the next general election, information will be provided in a wide variety of new formats. There will be frequent reminders to ensure that Canadians know how to register and know their options for voting: on election day, at advance polls, by mail, or at their local Elections Canada office.

One important focus will be on reaching electors before the issue of the writs through targeted promotion of online registration to reduce the registration at the poll.

I have provided members with a handout that summarizes the goal of the program, the channel we will use to connect with electors, and the general timing of its rollout.

Finally, we will offer increased specialty communications for people with varying abilities, such as products in Braille or large print, open- and closed-captioned videos, and specialty audio broadcasts. As well, our website will describe the accessibility of individual polling sites. We will also continue to provide information in numerous aboriginal and heritage languages.

Another priority this fiscal year will be, of course, to implement the new provisions of the act resulting from Bill C-23. I will mention only two aspects today.

First, Bill C-23 moves the Commissioner of Canada Elections from our agency to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. My officials have initiated discussion with that office for the transfer of the commissioner and his staff.

Second, Bill C-23 requires the Chief Electoral Officer to issue non-binding guidelines and interpretation notes as well as written opinions on the application of the act to registered parties and associations, nomination contestants, candidates, and leadership contestants. We plan to convene the advisory committee of political parties in the fall to determine an approach and forward agenda for addressing these provisions. I intend to use this opportunity to formalize the committee's role as an advisory body to the Chief Electoral Officer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My colleagues and I are happy to answer questions that the committee may have.

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight to speak to this bill. It is the first time I have risen to speak to a bill in a while because of the time allocation that keeps being brought forward by the government and has prevented me, as the member of Parliament for Scarborough Southwest, from representing my constituents' views on things like the budget or Bill C-23, the unfair elections act. The Conservatives continually cut off debate.

I am rising to speak to Bill C-20, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras. I have to say that I find it disturbing that the government is now presenting this bill. I believe that Canadians hold true a certain set of values based on decency, fairness, a respect for human rights, and, yes, the law as well. Many Canadians are very proud, as am I, of our country's record of peacekeeping in areas of international conflict. Many Canadians are proud of our tradition in history of being champions of human rights around the world. This bill is a definite departure from those values Canadians hold close and that we proudly identify as our own that make us all proud to be Canadians. This bill underscores the trend in Conservative foreign affairs that focuses less on our shared values of decency and fairness and respect for human rights and more on the narrow interests of a few industries.

It is disturbing, deeply troubling, and very sad. It is hard for me and for many Canadians to understand why the Conservatives would even want to negotiate a free trade agreement with a country like Honduras, which hat has one of the most horrendous records on human rights. I was particularly disturbed after reading the testimony and opinions of some of Canada's leading experts on foreign affairs in Central and Latin America. Stacey Gomez, coordinator of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation’s Americas Policy Group, had this to say about a free trade agreement with Honduras:

We have long maintained that under the right conditions, trade can generate growth and support the realization of human rights. These conditions simply do not exist in Honduras....until there is a verifiable improvement in the country’s democratic governance and human rights situation...the Canada-Honduras FTA will do more harm than good.

This is really the measure with which we have to negotiate and look at every trade agreement that we would sign with other countries in the world. The simple reality is that we are not going to get 100% of what we want in every trade agreement. It is not going to be 100% good and 0% bad no matter where we turn to do trade. We always have to find that right balance between the economic goods and the potential harms that might exist in a trade agreement. That is whether we are negotiating one with Europe, with China, or with Honduras. In this case, with Honduras, we truly do believe that this trade deal would actually enable the continued human rights abuses. It would enable the further degradation of life for many people in that country because it would embolden the regime that came about as the result of a military coup to continue doing the kinds of things that it has been doing.

That is why we also believe, as Stacey Gomez does, that the Canada-Honduras FTA would do more harm than good.

Before the provincial election was called in Ontario, I was out doing my regular “have your say” canvassing, where I go out to speak to constituents at their doorsteps to find out what issues matter to them. On that particular occasion, I was going out and speaking to constituents about the cuts that are proposed and coming to Canada Post, the ending of home mail delivery. I ran into a couple in an apartment building near Victoria Park and Queen Street who, out of the blue, thanked me for opposing this trade deal. I have to admit that I was taken aback because foreign affairs and trade is not a topic that comes up on the doorstep very often in Scarborough Southwest. I asked these constituents why they had problems with this particular trade deal. They worked for an agency that does work in Honduras, one of those agencies that is trying to shine a light into those dark places in the world. Only two weeks earlier a Honduran staff member of that organization had been killed and is now one of the numbers of people who have been eliminated by the regime. That loss was felt throughout the organization. Sitting at their doorstep, it was clear to me the impact it had on these two individuals. This is the kind of thing that all of us we try to leave work at work and not bring home at night, but it was clear that had impacted them and they were taking that loss back home with them at the end of the workday.

It is hard for me, and I think for many Canadians, to see how the country of Honduras comes close to meeting the criteria that would justify us signing a trade agreement, the one that determines there would actually be more good generated than harm.

Many Canadians are wondering perhaps what is really at play here. Testifying before the Standing Committee on International Trade on April 22, 2013, Sheila Katz of Americas Policy Group, Canadian Council for International Co-operation, told members that “the Americas Policy Group has recommended that Canada refrain from concluding free trade agreements with countries that have poor democratic governance and human rights records”.

She also said that, “Canada's eager recognition of a president who came to power in a military coup in Honduras in 2009” is another example of “Canada prioritizing the trade pillar of its Americas strategy above the rest. Since the coup, hundreds of regime opponents have been intimidated, arbitrarily arrested, disappeared, tortured and killed”, just like the person who worked for that agency that two of my constituents work for.

Further, she said that, “The Americas Policy Group is concerned that Canada has validated this regime by adopting a business-as-usual approach and signing a free trade agreement with Honduras, in spite of its horrendous human rights record”.

Honduras is a very poor country with a seriously flawed human rights record and a history of repressive undemocratic politics. The democratically elected government was toppled by a military coup in 2009 and subsequent governmental actions and elections have been heavily criticized by international observers as failing to meet acceptable democratic standards. NGOs have documented serious human rights abuses; killings; arbitrary detentions of thousands of people; severe restrictions on public demonstrations, protests, and freedom of expression; and interference in the independence of the judiciary. Of course, we perhaps have been encountering some of that here at home recently, but it really cannot be compared when there is an argument between the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice compared to the kinds of things and the interference that happens in Honduras, which is far worse. That said, none of it should be tolerated.

Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world and is considered the most dangerous country in the world for journalists, the ones who tell the stories about what is happening in the country. They are the people who tell the stories about what is happening in a parliament or the stories of what a government is doing that shines a light on the things that are happening back home.

Transparency International ranks it as the most corrupt country in Central America, yet our government is forging ahead, pushing to get this trade deal brought forward into law and having us sit until midnight. However, with all of these problems with the bill, where are the Conservatives to defend their actions, to get up and say this is why we should be signing the trade deal? Have we heard from any of them here tonight? They passed a motion to make us sit until midnight then they do not have the decency to get up and stand in their places, to actually take their speaking opportunities in order to defend the bills they are bringing forward.

Before we even include tonight, the Conservatives had missed 22 of the last speaking opportunities since the House started sitting late. That is at least 220 minutes of time they could have been using to defend their actions and to push their government's agenda ahead. Instead, they are asleep at the wheel. They actually got up and spoke last night. It was about time, but they only got up because the NDP was bringing attention to the fact that they were not showing up, that they were not doing their jobs. Well, New Democrats stand here every single night doing our job.

Honduras also has the worst income inequality in the region. After Canada struggled to get a multilateral deal with the Central American economies as a whole, Canada approached the weakest political actor, Honduras, and worked to negotiate a one-off deal as part of an ideological drive to get FTAs signed. In August 2011, the Prime Minister announced—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I'd like to take this opportunity now just to serve a notice of motion, which reads as follows: That, in conjunction with the order of reference from the House of Commons of Thursday March 27th, 2014, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs also conduct a study into the policies by which the Board of Internal Economy allocate payment of any legal fees for members of Parliament, including those who are alleged to have committed offences in their role as candidates, for example, before becoming members of Parliament, and that the committee invite the Speaker, the government leader in the House of Commons, the chief government whip, the member for Yellowhead and the member for Beauséjour to appear as witnesses for this study.

To the best of my knowledge, it has been circulated in both official languages, and I serve notice that, at the appropriate time, I'd like to debate that motion.

By the way, just the little snippet that Mr. Lukiwski did get out there.... My words, if they weren't accurately reflecting, should have, that my partisanship comments are about process, and that doesn't involve anybody's testimony. I'm talking about the process, and the process is clearly the tyranny of the majority. The process here is not unlike what we've seen from this government. This is not new. This is what the government did with Bill C-23. This is the way they went after the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This is the way they've gone after the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Going after the leader of the official opposition is entirely consistent with the disregard and disrespect for the institutions of our democracy and the people who staff them. This is just a continuation of that. At some point, and maybe it will take until the election, but at some point there have to be more and more Canadians saying, “Wait a minute. At what point does less than 40% of the vote stop giving you supreme power to rein over us at will?” That is what's going on.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Very good. Thank you.

I want to say that the real issue here is not all the wonderful words that Mr. Lukiwski went on and on about, which really was just a bit of a Coles Notes version of the meeting we already had. Every one of those issues the member raised, with the exception of one, and I'll deal with that separately, was dealt with when Mr. Mulcair was here. Every one of those allegations, every one of those scenarios the member painted were posed to Mr. Mulcair, who gave an answer.

The government and their handmaidens, the Liberals, are just heartbroken that after two hours they couldn't find anything in the evidence of Mr. Mulcair contradictory to the statements we had been putting out from moment one, with the exception of the two-letter answer from the Speaker on a question at our previous meeting.

What happened was this. A question was placed. There was a two-letter answer, “no”, from the Speaker. Immediately we brought out information to suggest that maybe wasn't the fullest answer that could have been given, shall we say. The Speaker then put out a clarification. I hope I'm not using an inappropriate term. I don't mean to cast anything other than to describe it as a response, a clarification from the Speaker.

That's the only thing new. Other than that, everything that's been talked about.... We've been round and round the mulberry bush on this stuff. The government, having the majority, has the ability, along with their friends in the Liberal Party, to keep this going, because it generates great headlines. It's wonderful for the Conservatives. I don't know when the Liberals are going to wake up and realize they're doing the dirty work of the government, but that's up to them to figure out.

The fact of the matter is that the only thing new that would give argument to this motion is that one answer I just described, and immediately we had information provided that caused the Speaker to issue a clarification. A clarification—I'm not trying to say it's more or less than that, but he was clarifying his response in the context of the information we provided our staff after the meeting. That's the only thing new.

It's interesting that Mr. Lukiwski—and of course we all try to be wordsmiths—just kind of runs over the word. “Well, there was a memorandum that BOIE did. Mr. Mulcair's justification for all of this...it was merely a memorandum, and if we had known everything that was going on, it never would have been allowed from the get-go.”

The problem with that is it's not accurate. What came out of BOIE was an amendment. We all know that we've had a little study of the word “amendment”. We've had our own version of Clinton's what the meaning of the word “is” is. We did that on the word “amendment”, and it's generally agreed that amendment means change.

If it was only a clarification or a memorandum, I have no doubt that all those brilliant wordsmiths sitting in the Conservative and Liberal chairs around that table, sitting in those chairs around that table, would have said, “Wait a minute. This is just a clarification. No, this is not a change. Let's be clear what this is.” No, they didn't do that.

So the word became “amend”. When it says “amend”, it means change. The reason they had to change the rules was because we didn't break the rules as they existed. No matter how hard the government tried when Mr. Mulcair was here, they could not establish in any way that there were rules broken and that there just needed to be an amplification or a clarification of those rules. I believe at one time they were using a stop-order suggestion, that it's what this was. No, this was a change. What the party did, the NDP in this case, was not against the rules.

Clearly the government didn't like it. That's obvious. Whether they didn't like it because they're upset with themselves for not having thought of it....

To put this in context, Mr. Chair, over almost a year ago our whip sent to the Speaker as the chair of BOIE a series of issues, questions, and matters that we wanted clarified around mailings and around approvals. Remember this is a two-pronged story. On the one hand it's the satellites, and then it's the mailings. On the satellites we've answered every single question. On the mailings, however, we have a different story.

At BOIE the rule they changed did directly speak to the idea of where people will work. I'm not going to rehash the whole meeting as Mr. Lukiwski would like to do, but I ask everybody again to review the Hansard and try to find anywhere in there where the government had their “gotcha” moment.

Remember, Mr. Mulcair did not have to come. There was a procedure where the House ultimately could have forced him, but initially he did not have to, and we get ministers all the time who say they won't come to committee. We know that the leader of the official opposition, although not a minister, like the Speaker is paid the same as a cabinet minister and holds an important position in our Parliament. Do you think the government would let our leader be treated the same way that we treated their own minister on something as big as Bill C-23? The minister agreed to come in for an hour, and we virtually guaranteed for our part that it would be a non-disruptive kind of meeting and that we would do the business, but it was one hour.

When we asked for that same respect and courtesy to be shown to Mr. Mulcair, it was denied. Does that sound like fair treatment? Does that sound like people who are really trying to be fair-minded, or does it sound like people who have got the whip hand, and they've got the votes, and the tyranny of the majority will prevail?

They got him in here for two hours. He came in on his own, twice the time of their minister defending the bill that changed our election laws, twice the time that minister came in, Mr. Mulcair sat there, and make no mistake, he was grilled. He was grilled for two hours, and there was not a “gotcha” moment. There was not a “gotcha” moment. Every question was answered. I think the government realized that they'd lost that round, but they're still getting the headlines, so why not continue? Why not continue? When they may be a little bit worried that it's kind of a little obvious that they're beating up on us, the good old Liberals step in and they provide some cover because they love all this too. It's good for their partisanship.

Does anybody really think this is not about partisanship, aside from the Liberals who drank the super Kool-Aid? The fact remains that it's a kangaroo court. We've got procedures happening. Half of them are happening behind closed doors at BOIE. At the secret BOIE meetings is where half of this stuff is coming from, and then the other half of it is happening here in this public arena. That's why my amendment was there. We'll get that tabled because, if this is the way we're going to go, then the meeting is going to have lots of headlines coming because, if you want to go down this road, there's an awful lot of surprises waiting for certain parties as we open up those doors.

Oral Questions

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

Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will seek unanimous consent to table a document.

During members' statements, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville called on the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin to apologize. I want to point out that the member already apologized, which was appropriate.

I would mention, and I think it is ironic, that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville has never apologized for deliberately misleading the House on Bill C-23.

I seek unanimous consent to table this document, the response from the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. He did the right thing.

When is the member for Mississauga—Streetsville going to do the right thing and apologize for his comments in the House of Commons?

Democratic Reform

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today put together by a citizen from Aurora, Ontario, who I understand organized this petition through Facebook and other online media. It is signed by people from all over Ontario, including my own riding. It concerns Bill C-23, the so-called fair elections act.

The petitioners would like to tell the House that experts disagree with the bill, were not sufficiently consulted, and do not support the bill. They call on the government to withdraw the legislation.

Dairy Producers

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that has nothing to with the record harvest. It has everything to do with this whole “trust us” attitude that the government proclaims to say to the farmers. Its actions do not reflect what it asks Canadians to do, which is to trust it.

Now we have the very important issue of supply management. We know the government has been soft at best in affirming strong support toward supply management.

When we look at what has taken place with the comprehensive economic trade agreement in principle between Canada and the European Union, some red flags and concerns have been raised regarding certain industries in Canada. One of those industries, specifically, is the cheese industry.

The Liberal Party as a whole has been exceptionally supportive of freer trade and the idea of free trade agreements. However, at the same time, it has been encouraging and calling on the government to be more transparent in exactly what it is saying abroad. What is the government attempting to negotiate? To what degree is it putting our farmers at risk? Canadians have these concerns.

I am pleased to hear that the government seems to want to support the motion, and that is a good thing. The problem is that it would not be the first time the government has voted in favour of a motion and then, months later, seems to contradict it. All we have to do is take a look at the fair elections act to exemplify that.

I am grateful that at the moment the government members seem to be somewhat supportive of supply management.

However, I am an optimist. I believe there might be hope at the end of the day for the Conservatives in making that solid commitment to supply management. I would like to hear that commitment more often. I say that because I am genuinely concerned about industries, not only in my home province of Manitoba, but, as pointed out in the motion, the province of Quebec and in fact all over Canada as well. There has been an immense benefit.

It was interesting what we heard about the agreement between Canada and the European Union, and it is important that we realize it is far from being complete. I suspect there might come a day when we will achieve that free trade agreement with the European Union. Hopefully, if things go well over the next couple of years, it could be a Liberal administration signing off on it. In that situation, supply management would be well taken care of.

Members over there are a little sensitive on this issue. Maybe they see the writing on the wall.

However, it is not only the Liberal Party that has raised the issue of ensuring that people are aware of the ramifications. Some interesting points were raised by the Dairy Farmers of Canada. We need to have more discussion on this. European Union access will total 31,971 tonnes, or 7.5% of the Canadian cheese market.

I am very proud of a local company we have in Manitoba, Bothwell Cheese. The company came into being in 1936. The member for Provencher gave me the thumbs up. He is very familiar with Bothwell Cheese. If one lives in Manitoba, one has to be proud of that company. It is the best cheese in the world. In fact, I think it is their marble cheddar cheese that we could honestly say is the best product in the world. We are very proud of that fact. Our cheese manufacturers can excel, not only in Canada but also abroad.

However, many cheese companies still are concerned about the percentage of cheese and want to maintain as much as possible the percentage of the current market in Canada. Total imports will reach 38,171 tonnes, or about 9% of the current Canadian consumption. It is a significant increase. How is the government responding to this issue? There are a number of issues that have to be taken into consideration when we start to talk about these kinds of numbers. We are talking about jobs, quality of life for farmers and quality of product ultimately.

We can look at the financial compensation. There are all sorts of hidden tariffs out there. We need to get a better sense of what the government is talking about when it is sitting at those trade negotiations. When we start talking about these kinds of numbers, we really need more transparency. We want the government to be more transparent in what we hear from the European trade negotiations, discussions and so forth.

There is serious concern from our dairy farmers with the equivalent of farm quota cuts. There are serious concerns about the fine cheese market in Canada and the rationalization that will have to take place with our dairy herds.

So much can be said about this important issue.

The Liberal Party supports the motion. We are concerned about the government's lack of a solid commitment to supply management. We want more transparency on the issue of negotiations.

Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law)

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we disagree. I am glad the consultations were held. In fact, I am assuming that the member is saying that those consultations were held before the bill was tabled. I think he said it helped in the final drafting of the bill, which is very important. I wish that had been done with Bill C-23, that there had been some consultation with somebody—that is, the Chief Electoral Officer or other political parties—as it fundamentally changed the Canada Elections Act. I am glad it happened on this bill, but it is kind of a rare thing.

My comments at the beginning were more that, while the government introduced the bill in December, it did not come forward for debate until March, and then it was for a couple of hours, which is pretty minimal for second reading.

We are here debating the bill today, and I know some of my colleagues want to speak on it because they feel very strongly about it. They are not on the Standing Committee on Health, so I hope they will have an opportunity to do that.

I also hope that the bill will go to committee quickly and that we can get into it there. I am glad it has finally come back to the House to be debated today.

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

Mr. Speaker, I saw the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley rising. I am sure he would have pointed out that, according to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in 2013, of the jobs the current government managed to cobble together, 95% were actually part-time, and we have 300,000 more unemployed than we did the year before. Therefore, the Conservative government, I guess in keeping with not showing up to evening sessions, is a part-time government. The Conservatives are only able to stimulate the economy with part-time jobs, and that is not even going. I know my colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley would also mention the fact that tens of thousands of jobs were lost last month.

We are talking about a government that right now does not seem to be doing much right.

It is rather sad that the government is again moving this motion that it is imposing with its majority. The NDP is always willing to work evenings. There is no doubt about that and we have proven it many times. Every June since 2011, NDP members were always in the House ready to debate bills and provide advice. The problem is that this government does not listen and is not prepared to listen to good advice. I will come back to that in a moment.

We are very familiar with the results. We know that bill after bill has been rejected by the court. The government is then often required to make amendments to the botched parts of the previous bill. The government seems to want to bungle everything, not just services to Canadians, but also the legislative process that leads to the introduction of appropriate bills and proposed amendments to improve bills in order to help Canadians. This process does not seem all that complicated, but it is unfortunately often botched by this government.

I am referring to the Conservatives' use of closure and time allocation motions, which is on par with their use by the Liberals when they were in power. It is appalling that this government systematically wants to shut down debate and deprive members of their right to speak. Each time, 280 members, on average, are deprived of their right to speak. The Conservatives vote for these closure motions. That is ridiculous.

In ridings where a Conservative member was elected—I am not so sure they will be re-elected the next time—that member takes away his own opportunity to speak on behalf of his constituents. The Conservatives say they want to shut down debate and therefore they do not want their constituents in Calgary, Red Deer, Lévis or any other riding to be represented in the House of Commons. They want to shut down debate. Thus, the vast majority of Conservative members seldom talk about the needs of the people in their riding or bills introduced in Parliament.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has just stood up and said that the Conservatives are going to work harder, but that also happened last year. My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley knows what I am talking about. Last year, the Conservatives were not in the House to speak. One evening, there was six hours of debate and only a single Conservative member was in the House to speak. Only one Conservative member spoke in six hours. The government moves time allocation and closure motions, and the Conservative members remain silent instead of speaking.

Members of the NDP, on the other hand, are always in attendance when the sitting hours of the House are extended. We are always there to fight, to improve bills and to solicit comments about bills. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are nowhere to be found. They do not come to the House, or perhaps one of them will show up over the course of the evening. As we said earlier, during the debate on S-12, no Conservative members came to speak about the bill. Not one, and we were there for six hours. What were they doing?

I do not know. It is not as though they were out consulting their constituents. The Conservatives are not here. They are not speaking.

I am going to come back to this momentarily, but the result is that we end up with botched legislation because the government does not listen and the Conservative members do not even speak on behalf of their constituents. Honestly.

We receive a generous salary from our constituents, the taxpayers. We are here to work to help our ridings move forward. I represent the riding of Burnaby—New Westminster. It is my duty to be in the House to stand up for the interests of the people of Burnaby—New Westminster.

If members decide to stop speaking, to systematically go along with the government's time allocation and closure motions and therefore deprive their ridings of the right to speak and if, on top of that, members do not even show up for the evening sessions in the House of Commons to contribute to the debate and the legislative process, then this approach becomes a complete sham.

I am fairly certain—and I would take a bet with any Conservative member—that this year, we will have the same problem as we did last year and the year before: 90% to 95% of the time, the NDP, or sometimes other opposition members, will be speaking and the Conservatives will not even be here.

The reasoning behind this motion does not make sense. The Conservatives are not the ones who will be here working. The Conservatives will not be here representing their constituents. The Conservatives will not be here giving passionate speeches about their ridings. They will not be here.

The proof, as we will soon see, is the way this motion is structured. The way the government decided to structure the motion is evidence of how much it will once again diminish the democratic rights all Canadians value so strongly. Canadians across the country want us to be in the House. They want us to represent them, regardless of where we are from.

For example, my colleague from Sherbrooke is an extraordinary young man, and he does a good job representing his riding. He is always in the House and speaks often. He is here; he represents his riding. He understands how important it is to represent Sherbrooke in the House of Commons. The same goes for my colleague from Hochelaga. Her riding is not the wealthiest riding in Canada. The average family income in her riding is below the average. She is always here representing the people of Hochelaga and talking on their behalf. She gives speeches on the importance of affordable housing. That is because she understands her role as member of Parliament.

Members on the Conservative side, on the other hand, refuse to speak at second reading or at report stage because there is a time allocation motion, and they refuse to show up on evenings when we have extended debates. How can the government expand the scope of its activities when it does not listen and when government members refuse to speak on behalf of their constituents? They refuse to defend government bills, they refuse to take action, they refuse to present amendments and they refuse to offer anything at all when it comes to legislation.

In such circumstances, voting Conservative does not mean a great deal. When people voted for the Conservatives, they voted for members who are controlled by the Prime Minister's Office, not members who rise in the House, defend their constituents' rights and speak on their behalf.

I want to speak to the motion now because I know that many of my colleagues are reading it. We want this to be a useful study of an important motion. For those who are watching, I will go step by step.

To begin, the majority government, as usual, wants to force a decision on the House. Unfortunately, debate and democracy are foreign concepts for the Conservatives.

They are proposing that commencing upon the adoption of this order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014, on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place.

As I said, we do not object to working until midnight. However, what actually happens is that the members opposite rarely show up to speak in the House. Opposition members are the ones who really contribute to the debates, and that is a major problem. If the government listened to us, it would not be problem, but that is not the case.

This has caused many problems with bills in the past. More than once we had to make amendments to botched bills with subsequent legislation, or, again, the Supreme Court clearly indicated that the bills were not in order.

Today, the Conservatives are proposing that we adjourn at midnight, or 10 p.m. if a debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1 is to take place. That refers to emergency debates.

My colleagues in the House, including the hon. member for Laval—who works very hard for the people in his riding—and the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, are always listening to their constituents and are always ready to raise questions that often result in an emergency debate.

A few weeks ago, in fact, an emergency debate was held in accordance with Standing Orders 52 and 53.1. That debate on the kidnapping of young Nigerian schoolgirls by the terrorist group Boko Haram was proposed by the member for Ottawa Centre. Many people from across the country came here to attend the debate, and people were still talking about it when I returned to my riding, Burnaby—New Westminster, last week.

Now the government wants to prevent us from holding emergency debates before 10 p.m. If the Chair decides that there is to be an emergency debate, that debate cannot begin before 10 p.m. For working people in eastern Canada, who have families and work hard, that is late. They will be denied their right to tune in.

It will not be so bad in my riding because of the three-hour time difference. For example, 10 p.m. here is 7 p.m. back home. That is a reasonable time. However, for the vast majority of Canadians, this government motion deprives them of their right to tune in to the emergency debates that will take place in the coming weeks.

Second, when we look at the second clause of this motion, which deals with recorded divisions, we see that what the Conservatives would now do is put in place a voting system that would have votes occur at the conclusion of oral questions, in the middle of the afternoon. This proposal reveals the whole intent of the government.

The Conservatives say that they want to work harder. We have already ripped up that argument by showing that when they said they wanted to work harder that last year, over 90% of the time it was not Conservatives but New Democrats doing the work. Only one Conservative member would show up every night to speak in the House of Commons, so this idea that somehow the government wants to work harder is simply not true.

Paragraph (b) deals with recorded divisions demanded in respect of any debatable motion before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. In this case the vote would stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on that day, while if a division is demanded after 2 p.m., it would stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the next sitting day.

What the Conservatives would do is basically do away with those evening votes. Not only do they not show up to speak, but they also do not even want to show up to vote. This could be perhaps the laziest motion ever put forward in the House of Commons by the government. It is far from wanting to work harder, as we have shown quite clearly when 90% to 95% of the time it is the New Democrats carrying the heavy load.

We are fine with carrying the heavy load. We come from humble roots and we are hard workers. Everybody acknowledges that, and that is why 90% to 95% of the time it is we who do the hard work in the House.

However, now the Conservatives want to even do away with evening votes. They are saying, “No, that is too hard. It is too hard voting at 6:00 or 7:00 at night. We do not want to show up to speak”.

This is a licence for laziness. That is what the government has brought forward. The Conservatives want to make sure that motions are voted on around question period time so that folks can show up around question period and then do whatever it is that Conservative MPs do in the evening. I have no idea of that.

I should also point out that, in this motion, the same goes for private members' business. Where this motion mentions Wednesdays governed by this order, it says that recorded divisions will be deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday. As for other private members' business, the motion says that this too will be deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday. That is the same thing.

This is really a licence for laziness. As we have shown, 90% to 95% of the time, the Conservatives are not the ones showing up to speak in the House. They do not want to vote in the evening, not even on private members' business. They want to curtail all of these activities and make sure that no votes happen in the evening.

What difference will that make? The NDP will still be here working. We work hard. We have a reputation for working hard. We come from humble roots and we represent our ridings well. I know that the members here this afternoon are very hard-working, and we will continue to work hard. Votes, including votes on private members' business, will now be held in the afternoon. That means the Conservative members will have their evenings free.

That is really the problem. As we move through this motion, we see time and time again that this is like a giant recess for the Conservatives. They have structured this so that they do not have to have votes in the evening anymore. They do not show up to speak in the evening 90% of the time, depending on the evening. It is New Democrats who actually put in the representation of their ridings. What we are seeing again is the Conservatives, through this motion, giving themselves an evening off.

The real clue to what the Conservatives are doing, this licence for laziness, is that they will not show up to speak or to vote, but they are telling the NDP that we can do our stuff and speak on behalf of our constituents. They have also proved that they are not willing to listen to the good advice we offer them, which is why they got into so much trouble having to amend legislation they brought forward previously and having pieces of legislation rejected by the Supreme Court. If they had listened to us and to Canadians, they would not be in so much trouble.

The key to this is paragraph (h): “No dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown after 6:30 p.m.” The essence of the motion is that Conservatives will not show up to speak in the House of Commons. They will not show up to participate, because they do not do that; they let harder-working members do that. They will also not show up to vote in the evening. They will not show up to vote on private members' legislation, and they will not show up to vote on public legislation. That is why they want the votes after question period, when it is convenient.

That means that the Conservatives are shutting down the rules of the House so that only they can use them. It is incredible. If we had not been through Bill C-23, in which they were trying to cook the next election campaign, it would be unbelievable that after all the decades, a century and a half and more of Canadian parliamentary democracy, a government would say that the rules will exist, but the government members will be the only ones who can use them. Only Conservatives can use these rules. Only a minister of the crown can use these rules.

We will have this period. I know it, because we went through it. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley knows it full well, because I think he probably spent more time in this House than any other member. Night after night, there will be no Conservatives here wanting to speak, or maybe one member of Parliament from the Conservative Party will want to speak. However, the Conservatives will not show up to vote, because they are having all the votes deferred to question period, when it is convenient for them, and they are now saying that all the rules of the House apply only to them. Only they can use them. They are basically putting handcuffs on every single member of the opposition. They are saying that only a Conservative can use the rules that normally function that make this democratic place a democracy. Only the Conservatives can use them. It is unbelievable.

If we had not been through the unfair elections act, where the Conservatives were trying to subvert the next election campaign, we would actually think this could not be Canada. These are not Canadian values. That is what they are doing. They are putting in, and writing it out so that any Canadian can see, “No dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown after 6:30 p.m.”

This is not an approach to try to work harder. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was trying to slide that by us a little while ago, and we simply do not believe it. The evidence simply shows that this is not the case. Conservatives will not be showing up to speak in the House. They did not last year. They did not the year before, and 90% to 95% of the time they let the heavy lifting be carried by New Democrats. We are strong, we are tough, and we do not mind doing it. We will do an even better job in 2015 once we are the government. That is when we will really see changes, when the heavy lifting actually benefits people directly through good governance.

I can tell members something else we will not be doing. It is what I mentioned half an hour ago.

I am enjoying this. I am not sure when I am going to sit down, actually. I think my colleagues from the NDP are appreciating it too.

I just want to mention what happens when due diligence is not done. Conservative members should know this, but they are muzzled. They vote for time allocation and muzzle themselves, so they do not actually speak on legislation in the House. There are 280 MPs, on average, who have their right to speak on legislation ripped away every single time, the dozens and dozens of times, the government has used closure techniques. Sometimes it calls it time allocation, but it amounts to the same thing; it is closure. Every time the government does it, 280 MPs, on average, are denied their right to speak. They do not show up to the evening session to speak. One does, and that is normally it. Then 90% to 95% of the heavy lifting is done by the NDP.

What is the result of this? I will give three examples. I could give tons of examples. I could probably speak for 14 hours on bad, botched Conservative legislation. I could do that, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you and the public would find it interesting, but eventually we are going to have to go to question period. I am going to mention only three examples.

The Conservatives rammed Bill C-38 through the House without due care and attention and without showing up for evening sessions. Bill C-38 was one of the omnibus bills. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley raised major concerns about it at the time. The Conservatives botched the bill. They botched it so badly that the next bill they introduced had to fix the mistakes they made in the first bill. They rammed Bill C-38 through the House with time allocation. It was omnibus legislation, which was quite all right, except it was wrong. It was badly botched in a way only the Conservative government could do it.

It was so badly botched, the government had to introduce another piece of legislation, Bill C-45. Bill C-45 had to fix all the problems in the previous bill. Was that a good use of taxpayers' money? Was it a good, use of this legislative process? The government rammed through Bill C-38 but botched it so badly that it had to bring another piece of legislation in to fix it. That is like bringing one's car in to get fixed and driving off without the wheels. It is incredible. We went through another process, with Bill C-45, to fix what was wrong with Bill C-38.

That is just a snapshot of how the government handles legislation. It is like the guy who has a hammer and thinks everything is a nail. Conservatives think everything is pavement and they can steamroll over all of it, except that when legislation is badly botched, there are consequences.

That brings me to another piece of legislation, Bill C-4. It is the same kind of thing. The Conservatives tried to throw a whole bunch of things in the bill, a laundry list, except that the Supreme Court rejected part of that legislation. As we know, the Leader of the Opposition has been raising this repeatedly in the House.

We have a problem whereby botched legislation leads to more time wasted, because the Conservatives have to introduce other legislation to fix the bad legislation they forced through in the first place without listening to the NDP. If they had listened to the NDP, they would not have had the badly botched legislation in the first place. If they do get it through the House, then, as we saw with Bill C-4, the Supreme Court says, “Sorry, you badly botched this legislation and it is not constitutional”. As a result of that, we have to reject part of this legislation.

This is the real problem. It is not that the government, as it likes to say, does its job and produces a quantity of legislation, so everyone should give it a pat on the back. It is bad legislation in so many cases. It is legislation that has to be fixed. New Democrats always offer the amendments and the fixes. We are always there to try to direct the government. We often feel as if we are trying to direct a puppy, because it seems to get distracted often.

The reality is that the work the government does should be very important. The legislation the government presents in the House should be very important. There should be a proper legislative process. There should be amendments that are considered. There should be a process people can actually respect. That is not what happens under the government.

The government just throws legislation out without due respect for parliamentary traditions. It refuses to listen to the opposition to develop the legislation so that it can actually accomplish what it purports to set out to do when it puts the legislation on the floor of the House. The government will not take amendments, will not listen to debate, actually shuts down the debate, and rams legislation through. This costs Canadians enormously.

Every time the government has to provide new legislation to fix the old legislation, and as has happened a number of times in the past few weeks, every time the Supreme Court says that what the government is doing is simply not constitutional, it costs Canadians.

We have this motion that is a licence for laziness. It dismisses Conservatives from voting in the evening. It dismisses Conservatives from having to participate in debates that are actually quite important, because that is how we get legislation fixed, particularly the shoddy legislation the government tends to present in the House.

Now we have a government that has such profound arrogance that it says, quite clearly, “No dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown”, which means that no dilatory motion may be proposed except by a Conservative, except by a minister of the crown, after 6:30 p.m.

What the government is doing, at the height of its arrogance, is saying to Canadians, “Hey, we are just going to run this government, this country, exactly how we want, and we do not care about the consequences”.

We care about the consequences. We care when we see shoddy legislation that has to be corrected, and it takes months of work, because the government did not get it right in the first place. We care when the Supreme Court says that what the government is doing is unconstitutional.

We care when we see, right across this country, growing concern about the government's arrogance and its attacks on a whole host of institutions, not just in the elections act but in the attack on the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Sheila Fraser. How could anyone attack Sheila Fraser? The Conservatives have been doing just that.

When we see all those attacks, we see a government that has simply done its time. It no longer has any sort of legitimate agenda but just wants to lash out at its perceived enemies and wants to set a perception that is simply not true.

With this motion, this licence for laziness, Conservatives get off scot-free. They do not have to vote in the evening. They do not have to show up in the evening. The government has said it is going to handcuff every single member of the opposition to their desks and not let them use any proper parliamentary procedure after 6:30 p.m. Only the government can.

That arrogance is something Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of. That arrogance is something Canadians are saying they have had enough of. In the most recent poll, the Prime Minister had an approval rating of one-third of Canadians. Two-thirds of Canadians disapprove of the work he is doing.

The leader of the Liberal Party has falling approval levels, but he did better. It was 50/50.

The top approval level in the country is for the Leader of the Opposition. Two-thirds of Canadians see his work in the House of Commons and approve of it. They see him as strong and as defending Canadian democracy.

That is what we are going to continue to do. We are going to ensure that legislation is effective. We are going to continue to speak out and work hard on behalf of our constituents. We are looking forward to that day, October 19, 2015, when we can get rid of the government and start having an NDP government that is going to fully respect our democratic traditions here in the House of Commons and right across the country.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I think the House is aware, some of our priorities this spring have included the budget, job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity. They have been the core priority of the government throughout.

We have also dealt with the fair elections act, something we know Elections Canada wants us to have in place before the end of June so it is able to prepare for a 2015 election. We are seeking to meet that objective so it can be adequately prepared and ready.

As a result, we have not had as much time as we would have liked so far this spring to focus on our very important tackling crime agenda. The opportunity over the next several weeks, with extended hours, would allow us more opportunity to advance those bills and allow ample debate on them. We are happy to do that, because we know these bills are very important to Canadians.

We need to continue to find ways to send a clear message to criminals that the government will not tolerate crime, and that it is looking to rebalance the justice system to give greater rights to victims, as members can see with the victims bill of rights. We are looking to protect those who are vulnerable in our society.

The tackling crime aspects of the agenda are, in fact, a very significant part of what we hope to achieve over the next several weeks.

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (d), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1);

(d) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(e) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(g) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(h) no dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown, after 6:30 p.m.; and

(i) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the government's motion proposing that we work a little bit of overtime over the next few weeks in the House.

I have the pleasure of serving in my fourth year as the government House leader during the 41st Parliament. That is, of course, on top of another 22 months during a previous Parliament, though some days it feels like I am just getting started since our government continues to implement an ambitious agenda that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. We still have much to do, and that is the basis for Motion No. 10, which we are debating today. Regardless of what other theories that folks might come up with, our objective is simple: to deliver results for Canadians, results on things Canadians want to see from their government.

As government House leader, I have worked to have the House operate in a productive, orderly, and hard-working fashion. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf. We agree, and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons. However, do not take my word for it. Let us look at the facts.

In the previous session of the 41st Parliament, 61 government bills received royal assent and are now law. In 2013 alone, which was a shorter parliamentary year than normal, the government had a record-breaking year with 40 bills becoming law, more than any other calendar year since we took office, breaking our previous record of 37 new laws in 2007 when I also had the honour to be the leader of the House. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly, and productive Parliament. With more than a year left in this Parliament, the House has accomplished so much already, handing many bills over to the Senate for the final steps in the legislative process.

Just as we had a record year for legislative output, Canadian grain farmers experienced a bumper crop with a record yield in 2013. Understanding the real challenges faced by grain farmers, our government acted quickly on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, moving the bill through three readings and a committee study before handing it over to the Senate. This bill would support economic growth by ensuring that grain is able to get to market quickly and efficiently. The House also passed Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, ensuring the integrity of our electoral system and putting rule breakers out of business.

Two supply bills received royal assent, thereby ensuring that the government has the money it needs to continue providing services to the people.

When we passed Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, we fulfilled our promise to protect the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's enrolment process, making it fair and equitable while ensuring that only eligible individuals will be granted membership.

Earlier this spring, royal assent was also given to Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act, making the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation the first self-governing nation on the prairies and the 34th aboriginal community in Canada to achieve self-governance.

Next on the agenda is Bill C-34, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, which will implement the agreement with the Tla'amin Nation. Bill C-34 will give the Tla'amin increased control over their own affairs. They will have ownership of their land and resources and will be able to create new investment opportunities and make decisions determining their economic future.

We considered and passed through all stages of Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act, which will enhance safety standards for workers in Canada’s Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry to protect Canadians and the environment while supporting jobs and growth.

Bill C-14, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, became law just a few weeks ago. This act will ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Also, this spring, our government passed Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which honoured our government's commitment to giving northerners greater control over their resources and decision-making and completing devolution all before the agreed-upon implementation date of April 1, as well as Bill C-9, the First Nations Elections Act, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to provide all Canadians with strong, accountable, and transparent government. Bill C-9 provides a robust election framework, improves the capacity of first nations to select leadership, build prosperous communities, and improve economic development in their communities.

However, despite these many accomplishments, there is more work to be done yet before we return to our constituencies for the summer, let alone before we seek the privilege of representing our constituents in the 42nd Parliament.

During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

It is worth saying that again. During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That continues. Through three years and four budgets since the 2012 budget, we have passed initiatives that have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, as part of the one million net new jobs since the global economic downturn. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7 and we are on track to balance the budget in 2015.

As part of our efforts to build on this strong track record, our government has put forward this motion today. Motion No. 10 is simple. It is straightforward. It would extend the hours of the House to sit from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m., the House would, instead, sit until midnight. This would give us an additional 20 hours each week to debate important bills. Of course, the hours on Friday would not change.

Extended sitting hours is something that happens practically every June. Our government just wants to roll up its sleeves and work a little harder a bit earlier this year.

Productivity is not just a function of time invested, but also of efficiency. To that end, our motion would allow most votes to be deferred, automatically, until the end of question period to allow for all hon. members' schedules to be a bit more orderly.

Last year, we saw the New Democrats profess to be willing to work hard. Then, mere hours later, after the sun would go down and people were not watching, what would the NDP do? It would suggest we pack it in early and move adjournment, without any accomplishment to show for it.

In order to keep our focus on delivering results and not gamesmanship, we are suggesting that we use our extra evening hours to get something done, not to play idle, unproductive games. We are interested in working hard and being productive, and doing so in an orderly fashion. That is the extent of what Motion No. 10 would do. Members on this side of the House are willing to work a few extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians. What results are we seeking? Bills on which we want to see progress, that are of great significance to Canadians, are worth spending a little extra time to see them considered and, ideally, passed.

Of course, we have the important matter of passing Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014, No. 1. This bill implements our government’s budget—a low tax plan for jobs, growth and a stronger Canadian economy. It is also an essential tool in placing the government on track to balanced budgets, starting in 2015.

We have a number of bills that continue to build on the work we have done in support of victims of crime. Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, is another essential piece of legislation that will crack down on cyberbullies and online threats by giving law enforcement officials the tools necessary to investigate and tackle these crimes. We are taking clear action to combat cyberbullying and I ask the opposition to join us in this pursuit.

Every day in Canada, our most vulnerable—our children—are the victims of sexual abuse. This is truly unacceptable and as a society we must do our part to better protect our youth. With Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, we are doing our part.

Our government's comprehensive legislation will better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on the predators who hurt, abuse, and exploit our children.

Therefore, I ask the opposition to work with us, support this important piece of legislation by supporting this motion.

It is also important that we move forward with one of the most recent additions to our roster of other tackling crime legislation. Last month, we introduced Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which will give victims of crime a more efficient and more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It seeks to create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canada's history. The legislation would establish rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution, and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights on the part of victims. It would protect victims, and help to rebalance the justice system to give victims their rightful place. I hope we can debate this bill tomorrow night. By passing Motion No. 10, we will make that possible.

Our efforts to protect families and communities also extend to keeping contraband tobacco off our streets, so that the cheap baggies of illegal cigarettes do not lure children into the dangers of smoking. Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, would combat this by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders trafficking in contraband. Aside from protecting Canadian children from the health hazards of smoking, it will also address the more general problems with trafficking and contraband tobacco propelled by organized crime roots. With luck, I hope we can pass this bill on Friday.

Just before the constituency week, the Prime Minister announced Quanto's law. Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, would pose stiffer penalties on anyone who kills or injures a law enforcement, military, or service animal. I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill, having previously introduced a private member's bill on the subject, will be keen to see the extra time used to debate and pass this bill at second reading before we head back to our constituencies.

Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act, could also have a chance for some debate time if we pass Motion No. 10. This particular bill will tackle drug use and trade in the federal penitentiaries to make the correctional system a safer place, particularly for staff, but also for inmates, while also increasing the potential for success and rehabilitation of those inmates. As a former public safety minister, I can say that this is indeed an important initiative.

Delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week. Our clear and steady focus on the strength of our Canadian economy does not simply apply to our budgets. We will also work hard next week to bring the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement into law. Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, would enhance provisions on cross-border trading services, investment, and government procurement between our two countries. It would also immediately benefit key sectors in the Canadian economy, by providing enhanced market access for beef, pork, potato products, vegetable oils, and grain products.

As a former trade minister, I can say first-hand that this government understands that trade and investment are the twin engines of the global economy that lead to more growth, the creation of good jobs, and greater prosperity. Trade is particularly important for a country like Canada, one that is relatively small yet stands tall in terms of its relationship and ability to export and trade with the rest of the world. If we are to enjoy that prosperity in the future, it is only through expanding free trade and seizing those opportunities that we can look forward to that kind of long-term prosperity.

Through Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, we are providing further support to Canada's agriculture producers. This bill would modernize nine statues that regulate Canada's agriculture sector to bring them in line with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practices within the agriculture industry. The act will strengthen and safeguard Canada's agriculture sector by providing farmers with greater access to new crop varieties, enhancing both trade opportunities and the safety of agriculture products, and contributing to Canada's overall economic growth.

As the House knows, our government has made the interests of farmers a very important priority. We recognize that since Canada was born, our farmers in our agriculture sector have been key to Canada's economic success. As a result, Bill C-18 will be debated this afternoon. It would be nice to have the bill passed at second reading before the summer, so that the agriculture committee can harvest stakeholder opinion this autumn.

Over the next few weeks, with the co-operation and support of the opposition parties, we will hopefully work to make progress on other important initiatives.

My good friend, the President of the Treasury Board, will be happy to know that these extra hours would mean that I can find some time to debate Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act. This important bill should not be underestimated. It would enshrine into law our government's one-for-one rule, a successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape that affects Canadian employers. Treasury Board already takes seriously the practice of opining that rule, but we want to heighten its importance and ensure that it is binding on governments in the future. We want to ensure that Canadians do not face unreasonable red tape when they are simply trying to make a better living for themselves, and creating jobs and economic growth in their communities.

Another important government initiative sets out to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. For the first time in more than 35 years, our government is taking action to update the Citizenship Act. Through Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, we are proposing stronger rules around access to Canadian citizenship to underline its true value and ensure that new Canadians are better prepared for full participation in Canadian life. This legislation will be called for debate on Wednesday.

The health and safety of Canadians is something that our government believes is worthy of some extra time and further hard work in the House of Commons.

Tomorrow evening, we will debate Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. Under Vanessa's law, as we have called it, we are proposing steps to protect Canadian families and children from unsafe medicines. Among other actions, the bill would enable the government to recall unsafe drugs, require stronger surveillance, provide the courts with discretion to impose stronger fines if violations were intentionally caused, and compel drug companies to do further testing on a product. In general, the bill would make sure that the interests of individual Canadians are looked out for and become a major priority when it comes to dealing with new medications and drugs.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, would modernize safety and security for Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries, thereby ensuring a world-class regulatory system, and strengthening safety and environmental protections. This legislation, at second reading, will be debated on Thursday.

Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, could pass at third reading under the extended hours, so that we can secure these important updates and improvements to transportation law in Canada.

We could also pass the prohibiting cluster munitions act. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained at committee, the Government of Canada is committed to ridding the world of cluster munitions. Bill C-6 is an important step in that direction, but it is just the beginning of our work. Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo Convention into domestic law would allow Canada to join the growing list of countries that share that same goal. I hope members of all parties will support us in this worthy objective.

By supporting today's motion, the opposition would also be showing support for Canada's veterans. The extra hours would allow us to make progress on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act. The measures included in this legislation would create new opportunities for men and women who have served their country to continue working for Canadians through the federal public service. As a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that veterans have access to a broad range of programs and services to help them achieve new success after their time in uniform is complete. This initiative would do exactly that.

Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. I could go on and on, literally, since I have unlimited time to speak this afternoon, but I will not. Suffice it to say that we have a bold, ambitious, and important legislative agenda to implement. All of these measures are important, and they will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part. Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, to vote on bills, to make decisions, and to get things done on their behalf.

I hope that opposition parties will be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come to a vote. I am sure that members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say that they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer.

I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for adding a few hours to our day to continue the work of our productive, orderly, and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

Veterans Hiring Act

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his answers, which are very enlightening. It is obvious that he has given a great deal of thought to this matter.

Some elements of the bill before us were presented recently as Bill C-11. However, that bill was only debated for one day before it died on the order paper. It disappeared. Now it is being revived in part in the bill before us.

Could my colleague tell us what he thinks of the fact that Bill C-11 was abandoned and is being revived as Bill C-23? Is the government failing to take things seriously by introducing bills and then abandoning them almost immediately? Are we to take this bill seriously or not?

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, we know at this point that Bill C-23 has gone through the House, but I continue to receive petitions from people across Canada asking for the bill to be more substantially reworked in order to meet the purpose of a fair elections act.

I table these petitions today from the residents of Nepean.

Fair Elections Act

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

Seldom has a bill been so flawed even though it deals with one of the most fundamental aspects of our democracy: the rules governing federal elections. Bill C-23, the fair elections act, was attacked from all directions and for good reason. The government has only itself to blame for that. It consulted no one and was hostile towards anyone who did not agree with its views.

A solid democratic tradition in Canada requires the largest possible consensus for the law that sets out election rules. This time it is a complete failure. The government isolated itself. Nevertheless, in the face of relentless pressure, the government backed down and withdrew some of the worst parts of its bill.

Before this series of amendments, Bill C-23 was definitely a dangerous bill. The amendments have transformed a dangerous bill into just a bad bill. The government would have had to do more to make it a good bill, but that was certainly too much to ask.

Nevertheless, let us be thankful that one of the government's steps backwards allowed us to close the loophole that the Conservatives wanted to introduce in the control of election expenses. The first version of Bill C-23 exempted fund-raising costs from the limits on campaign expenses in the case of donors who had previously donated more than $20.

By pure coincidence, that favoured parties with long lists of donors, such as the Conservative Party. Letting money influence the result of elections in such a way would have gone against the principles of political equality and democratic fairness.

In other good news, the government gave up on adding polling station supervisors to the list of partisan appointments at polling stations. The risk of that becoming political was too flagrant. However, it is a pity that the government did not extend its mea culpa further and agree to depoliticize the entire administration of elections. They only had to follow the recommendation in the Neufeld report, which proposed choosing elections officials solely on the basis of merit and administrative neutrality, in accordance with established international election practices.

There was more partial progress, insofar as the government reconsidered, though only in part, its plan to abolish the vouching system, which protects the right to vote of Canadians without forms of identification. The vouching system allows those citizens to identify themselves under oath and to have another Canadian from the same electoral district vouch for them. This provision enables many Canadians, including students, seniors, and first nations people, to exercise their right to vote; coincidentally these groups are the least likely to vote for the Conservatives.

Whereas the first version of Bill C-23 removed any right of vouching, the new version allows voters who have proof of address to swear to the address of those who can only prove their identity, provided they live in the same polling district. That was partial progress.

However, the government has stubbornly refused to let the voter information card be recognized as a voter identification card.

Bill C-23 would still eliminate the voter identification card as identification that could be used to vote. The government failed to support Liberal amendments to restore the voter identification card, the only universal piece of federal identification to contain an address and widely used by the population.

There has been no proven fraud using voter identification cards. Removing the identification card is a solution in search of a problem. The facts on the voter identification card are clear. The data of the card is based on regular updates from driver's licence bureaus, the Canada Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and various other authoritative sources.

During the election period, revision activities at the local level also increase the accuracy of the voter identification card. This likely makes it a more current document than even a driver's licence, which is authorized by law and used by the vast majority of voters.

The Chief Electoral Officer has pointed out that seniors who live in long-term care facilities, and who vote on-site and do not have proper ID or utility bills, rely heavily on voter identification cards to vote. Elimination of the voter identification card would disenfranchise many Canadian seniors.

Now I would like to talk about how this bill infringes on the Chief Electoral Officer's freedom of speech. The government barely budged on this.

While the government would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to continue public education and information programs to students at primary and secondary levels, the government would still severely limit how the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada could communicate with Canadians. The Chief Electoral Officer would be specifically limited to speaking publicly only about where, when, and how to vote.

Elections Canada will no longer have the right to run campaigns that encourage people to vote nor will it have the right to publish research papers on the electoral process. Canada will be the only democracy to impose that type of gag order on its electoral agency.

It is an odd situation. Elections Canada will be able to encourage voter turnout among children and teens, but not adults. It will be able to encourage voter participation among those who are too young to vote, but not among those who can actually vote.

Does that make any sense? I would be surprised if it does because this government does not make sense to Canadians.

On the topic of voter fraud, the government stubbornly refused to include in its bill the main recommendation put forward by the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections, namely, that the commissioner be given the power to apply to a judge for an order to compel any person to provide information that is relevant to an investigation.

The Conservatives failed to support a Liberal amendment to finally give the Commissioner of Canada Elections the power he desperately needs to enforce the Canada Elections Act; that is the power to ask a judge to compel witnesses to testify. The commissioner has stated that this would force him to abandon election fraud investigations.

Are the Conservatives not willing to give the commissioner the power to compel witness co-operation because they are afraid of what this might reveal about the source of the fraudulent election calls and who may have used the Conservative database to deny Canadians their right to vote during the 2011 election?

The question the minister failed to answer is the following. Why does his bill not provide the Commissioner of Canada Elections with the power already held by the Commissioner of Competition under section 11 of the Competition Act or the power already held by several provincial chief electoral officers or commissioners? This includes New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, and Yukon. Internationally, other electoral management bodies have this power. These include the Australian Electoral Commission and the Federal Election Commission in the United States.

To conclude, if the minister stubbornly refuses to include that honest, common-sense measure in his bill, the Liberals and our leader are committed to adding this provision to the elections law when Canadians vote in a Liberal government.

In the meantime, Parliament should say no to this unfair elections bill.

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

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Richmond Hill certainly has enough hot air to brag about this bill. I actually do not know how he manages to meet with his constituents and tell them with a straight face that he is improving the democratic process and making it more accessible.

In December 2005, at the press conference where I launched my first federal election campaign, I highlighted the fact that, unfortunately, 40% of our voters in Canada do not exercise their right to vote. Of that group, an even larger proportion of young and very young people, who are just becoming eligible to vote, do not participate. We are not even talking about aboriginal people who unfortunately do not participate in large numbers.

The participation rate of the most vulnerable groups of our society, which are far too easily held hostage by the powers that be, is much lower. The rate is barely 30% or 40%. In his work The Price of Inequality, Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winner in economics, described the Tea Party approach, which is used to exclude disadvantaged segments of society through methods like the ones found in Bill C-23.

How can the member for Richmond Hill exclude the weakest and most vulnerable Canadians, including those in his riding, from our country's democratic process?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak in support of the fair elections act, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

Bill C-23 addresses important issues that are fundamentally essential to a strong democracy, and it has succeeded in bringing them to the forefront for public discussion. It is important that my constituents in Richmond Hill and Canadians across our country be aware of how this important legislation would strengthen the integrity of our voting processes. That is why I am pleased to highlight some of the important improvements this bill would bring to our democratic system. Bill C-23 would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of their democracy.

In response to many of the issues identified by the Chief Electoral Officer in terms of where improvements are needed, the fair elections act would implement 38 of the recommendations found in the Chief Electoral Officer's report following the 40th general election and in his more recent report on deceptive communications. The fair elections act addresses many of the recommendations made in the Neufeld report, which was commissioned by Elections Canada following the 2011 general election, such as the recommendation to do the following:

To further support the simplification of procedures for polling staff, request the following amendments to the Canada Elections Act: Reduce, as much as possible, the number of verbal oaths required from electors. Where legal formality is warranted to ensure procedural integrity, instead require signed declaration forms.

It also addresses the recommendation to

Ensure there is a supervisor in charge at every voting site, that their authority is clear, and that each supervisor has the power to ensure polling staff comply with legally required procedures

as well as the recommendation to

Investigate ways to reduce the number of voters who must have their identity and address of residence vouched for on Election Day, for instance by:

i. Improving and extending the pre-vote advertising campaign that encourages electors to bring appropriate identification to the polling site with them.

Bill C-23 addresses important issues, such as the significant drop in voter turnout that has been taking place over the last 25 years and the need to improve the integrity of our voting system.

We simply need to do a better job of motivating electors to vote. Citizens in countries around the world have fought and died for their access to democracy and their right to vote. We here in Canada must not be complacent, nor should we take this very special privilege for granted.

We cannot afford to stand still on these issues, and we will not. Let me explain how Bill C-23 would improve the integrity of our democratic system.

The amended bill proposes to eliminate identity vouching. The fact that this is currently allowed has actually been a surprise for many of my constituents and to many Canadians, who were dismayed to learn that this practice even exists.

By Elections Canada's own admission, the practice of vouching, whereby someone states that he or she knows someone else who has no identification, is rife with irregularities. I would like to read into the record an important passage from Elections Canada's own compliance review, or the Neufeld review, as it is commonly referred to, that was undertaken following the 2011 election. It states:

All Canadian citizens, 18 years of age or older, have the right to vote in the federal electoral district in which they reside. The Canada Elections Act provides a wide range of procedural safeguards designed to protect the integrity of the electoral process. A subset of these safeguards requires voters to demonstrate eligibility (identity, citizenship, age, and residency) before they can receive a ballot.

For the vast majority of electors who are already registered at their correct address, Election Day procedures involve a simple, efficient check of a single piece of photo ID to confirm identity and address of residence. However, for any persons who are not registered, or do not possess accessible identification documents at the time of voting, election officers must administer special “exception” procedures prescribed in legislation.

Ensuring voter eligibility through the administration of these special “exception” procedures is an expected part of election officers' duties. Errors that involve a failure to properly administer these procedures are serious. The courts refer to such serious errors as “irregularities” which can result in votes being declared invalid.

The report goes on to say that most Canadian elections officers struggle to administer the complex rules of exception procedures they are expected to conduct as part of their temporary election day roles.

I quote again from the Neufeld report. It states:

An estimated 15 percent of voters need some type of “exception” process to be administered before they can be issued a ballot. While administering “regular” voting procedures is usually straightforward, the audit showed that errors are made in the majority of cases that require the use of non-regular processes. Serious errors, of a type the courts consider “irregularities” that can contribute to an election being overturned, were found to occur in 12 percent of all Election Day cases involving voter registration, and 42 percent of cases involving identity vouching. Overall, the audit estimated that “irregularities” occurred for 1.3 percent of all cases of Election Day voting during the 2011...election. More than 12 million Canadian citizens cast ballots on May 2, 2011 and the audit indicates that the applications of specific legal safeguards, in place to ensure each elector is actually eligible to vote, were seriously deficient in more than 165,000 cases due to systemic errors made by election officials. Averaged across 308 ridings, election officers made over 500 serious administrative errors per electoral district on Election Day. Obviously, this is unacceptable.

I think most Canadians would be concerned to hear that serious errors, ones that can contribute to an election being overturned, were found to occur in 42% of cases involving identity vouching. In the 2011 election, the Neufeld report found that there were 45,868 cases where no record was kept of who the voucher or the voter was. That is 45,868 cases where no record of the voucher or the voter was kept.

This same report goes on to suggest that public trust and proper administration of the electoral process is at serious risk if these error rates are not addressed. It says that the overly complex procedures to administer vouching cannot be remedied simply by improving quality assurance and concludes that redesign through simplification and rationalization is necessary to reduce the risk of such errors.

That is precisely why we have brought forward Bill C-23, the fair elections act, to address these concerns in a practical, transparent way. The status quo is simply not an option.

I agree with this statement in the Neufeld report, which states:

Citizens' trust in their electoral institutions and democratic processes are put at risk when established voting rules and procedures are seen not to be followed. Even the perception of problems can be extremely detrimental to this trust. Public trust in an electoral process is fundamental to perceptions about the legitimacy of democratic governance.

How does Bill C-23 propose to solve these problems as identified by Elections Canada? It is by allowing electors to vote with two pieces of identification that prove their identity and by taking a written oath as to their residence, provided that another elector of the same polling division who proves his or her identity and residence by providing documented proof also takes a written oath as to the elector's residence. The difference between this and what we have now is that electors will have to prove their identity.

There are 39 pieces of possible identification that could be used, including a driver's licence; health card; citizenship card; birth certificate; social insurance number card; student ID card; utility bill; hospital bracelet, worn by residents of long-term care facilities; correspondence issued by a school, college, or university; statement of government benefits; or attestation of residence from a shelter or soup kitchen or a student or seniors residence.

This new measure would allow those who do not have identification proving their residence to register and vote on polling day. By ensuring that electors could properly identify who they are within these acceptable 39 ways, we would help to restore faith and trust in the system.

To ensure the integrity of the vote, we are also proposing a verification of potential non-compliance, to be conducted after polling day, and an audit of compliance with registration and voting rules after every election. These changes would add procedural safeguards to protect against duplicate voting and impersonation.

I would also like to highlight the important ways Bill C-23 provides better customer service for voters.

In 2011, indeed 60% of non-voters cited everyday life issues as the reason for not voting. These included reasons such as travelling, work or school schedules, not enough time, or lack of information. We believe that better customer service would help remove these practical obstacles.

For example, Bill C-23 would add an additional day for advanced voting. It would also bring forward changes that would reduce congestion at the polls. Additional election officers would be appointed at the polling stations. Liaison officers would be appointed to facilitate communication between the Chief Electoral Officer and returning officers in ridings, and the time allowed for election officer training would be increased. Bill C-23 would return the role of Elections Canada back to the basics.

As noted earlier, voter turnout in general has decreased from 75% in 1988 to 51% in 2011. During this same time period, Elections Canada had responsibility for promotional campaigns. A Library of Parliament analysis also shows that from 1984 to 2000, voter turnout for youth aged 18 to 24 dropped 20 percentage points. Unfortunately, this trend has not been reversed in recent years.

It has been found that the main reason for youth not voting was not knowing where or when or how to vote. The job of an election agency is to inform citizens of the basics of voting: where to vote, when to vote, and what ID to bring. It is also incumbent upon the agency to ensure that disabled people know about the extra tools available to help them vote, such as wheelchair ramps, sign language services, or Braille services for the visually impaired. We need to devote our full attention to getting this complete information into the hands of electors.

Bill C-23 would define the public information and education mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer by specifying that advertising by the Chief Electoral Officer would focus on informing electors about the exercise of their democratic rights; about how to be a candidate; about when, where, and how to vote; and about what tools are available to assist disabled electors. The Chief Electoral Officer could also support civic education programs for primary and secondary schools.

In addition to these important changes, the fair elections act also proposes to protect voters from rogue calls and impersonation with a mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating elections officials, and increased penalties for deceiving people out of their votes. It would also allow the commissioner to seek tougher penalties for existing offences.

The bill would ban the use of loans to evade donation rules, and it would uphold free speech by repealing the ban on the premature transmission of election results. The bill would provide for more than a dozen new offences, making it easier for the commissioner to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting.

We have listened to Canadians and our colleagues throughout this important debate and have supported a number of amendments to the original bill to make it even better. I thank everyone involved in this process, including the witnesses at committee, my colleagues, and the residents of my riding of Richmond Hill for their input.

Some of these amendments I have already mentioned, such as allowing vouching for residency and clarification of the mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer to include the support of civic education programs for primary and secondary schools.

Other amendments include retaining the current appointment process for central poll supervisors; eliminating the proposed exception as to what constitutes an election expense, in the case of expenses incurred to solicit monetary contributions from past supporters; and amending the provisions to require that the Chief Electoral Officer consult with the Commissioner of Canada Elections before having to issue an advance ruling or interpretation note. This would provide more time for the Chief Electoral Officer before having to issue an advance ruling or interpretation note while reducing the consultation period with the registered parties. It would give advance rulings precedential value for the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner with respect to similar activities or practices carried out by other political entities.

Other amendments include requiring calling service providers to keep copies of scripts and recordings for three years instead of one; allowing the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections to exchange information and documents; allowing the commissioner to publicly disclose information about investigations where it is in the public interest; increasing the spending limit for elections, with a longer writ period than the 37-day period; adding a clear prohibition against a third-party unable to show a link to Canada incurring more than $500 in an election; clarifying the intent of giving the commissioner the unrestricted ability to begin investigations by removing the bill's proposed evidence threshold before the commissioner may begin an investigation; clarifying the intent of having no limitation period for offences under the Canada Elections Act that require intent; making the term of the Chief Electoral Officer non-renewable; clarifying that all those who apply for a special ballot and vote at the office of the returning officer must prove their identity and residence, as they would at a polling station, thereby closing a potential loophole; and clarifying that the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions must contain a section prepared by the Commissioner of Canada Elections through which the commissioner would report on the activities of his office, without providing information about specific investigations.

These are common sense principles, and Canadians agree.

The Chief Electoral Officer has been very clear in saying that reform needs to be in place before the next general election.

I applaud the good work of the Minister of State for Democratic Reform in preparing the bill, which will significantly restore confidence in the electoral system and will improve voter turnout. I am proud to support the bill, and I urge all my colleagues in the House to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa South for his question.

I honestly think this is a major problem that we have never really seen in Canada before. This is pure contempt, a total lack of respect for people that goes completely beyond any partisanship. I am not saying that personal attacks should be part of partisanship, but those people are there for the common good, for the good of all Canadians, and they are constantly under attack by the Conservatives.

I think this was especially a problem with this bill, specifically with the attacks against Mr. Mayrand. When the minister said that Mr. Mayrand was opposed to Bill C-23 just because he wanted more money and power, I, for one, was disgusted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to give special thanks to my colleagues from Hamilton Centre and Toronto—Danforth for their exceptional work on this file since the very beginning. They are really committed to upholding the integrity of our elections and of our democracy.

Because of their relentless work and the continuing pressure they have put on the government, I think that we really have succeeded in making the government retreat on some of the really harmful aspects in this file. Therefore, I really have to thank them. Each time they get involved, they give me hope for our country and for our political system.

I would like to revisit the question that my colleague raised earlier by making some additional comments about the various aspects of the process established for Bill C-23.

First of all, I was here yesterday making a speech that was unfortunately very similar when we were studying Bill C-23 at report stage. I made additional comments on the process in general. I also made a short historical presentation about the way in which Bill C-23 had been introduced.

Today, I would like to speak a little more specifically about incidents that occurred in committee and about amendments that were rejected. In my view, this is a problem and it shows how unhealthy it can be for the majority party to decide to govern while listening to no one other than its friends in a corner, and while covering their ears and governing like despots.

The Conservatives keep repeating ad nauseam that 70 witnesses testified in committee, that the committee sat for 30 hours and therefore the bill has been thoroughly studied. They wonder why the opposition is complaining. It is outrageous. I sat on that committee for all those hours and, really, one witness after another told us about the huge problems that had to be completely eliminated from the bill and that we should go back to the legislation as it was previously. The testimony kept coming and coming. Not one single Conservative ever said that the testimony was interesting, that they had not looked at things that way or that things could perhaps be improved. Never. They did not budge and kept clinging to their positions.

Some witnesses, like the aboriginal women's groups, were treated with all but contempt. They were not listened to at all and they were told, in a truly paternalistic tone of voice, that everything would be explained to them and then they would understand. Watching what was going on, I was ashamed to be sitting there as part of that process. It was shocking.

At the end of the day, after starting the clause-by-clause consideration, we only got through half of the amendments, as my colleague mentioned. As for the bill itself, we only got to page 44, out of 250 or so pages. Does that make sense as a process for changing our electoral law?

That represents barely one-fifth of one of the most important bills for our democracy. However, we were told that we had studied it enough and that it would suffice. Debate was ended because the Conservatives no longer want to listen to us. In my opinion, that is a major problem.

Today, I will speak more specifically about different things that happened in committee. One of the most contentious aspects of the bill concerns all the changes made to section 18, which deals with the powers of Elections Canada. With Bill C-23, the Conservatives tried to completely muzzle Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer by preventing them from communicating anything other than basic information, such as the location of polling stations, how to vote and the people eligible to vote. Elections Canada would no longer be able to communicate anything more than this basic information to the public.

Many people told us that it made no sense and that this had never happened before in any democracy on the planet.

In the long run, with all the people who protested, we managed to get the government to back down. However, what concessions did they make? It is important to have a good understanding of what the Conservatives changed. Now, Elections Canada's advertising messages can address only those topics. The bill deals with advertising messages, which means that it does not limit other forms of communication too much. The Chief Electoral Officer can therefore hold a press conference about a subject and so on. That is not so bad. We like the existing version of the Canada Elections Act the best, but if we have to choose between the first version of Bill C-23 and the amended version, we will take the amended version.

There is more to it than that, though. Now it says that the Chief Electoral Officer can deliver programs to promote democracy to primary and secondary school students. Why that, specifically? Four times in committee, I asked my colleagues if that meant there could no longer be any programs to promote democracy to university students. Did it mean there could no longer be programs to promote democracy to aboriginal people or any other target group that Elections Canada thinks might benefit? I did not get an answer. I really tried because I wanted to know. Maybe that is not the case. The way I read it, I get the impression that it cannot do anything else, but I just want someone to tell me I have got it wrong. That would be fine by me because I would rather see programs like that. Still, the way it is written right now, I honestly do not think that Elections Canada will be able to deliver programs like that to other target groups.

I found something else in here that is absolutely ridiculous. The government says that people can no longer use a voter information card to identify themselves and provide their address when they get to the polling station. We fought to keep that. We had excellent arguments in favour of it. We tried everything we could think of and presented every possible amendment to keep that card, but in the end, we had to give up because the Conservatives had made up their minds to get rid of that use of the card. Instead, we tried to mitigate the damage.

For all those who take it for granted that they can vote using that card, why not include an amendment to tell the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada to write a message in big, highly visible letters on the voter information card that the card cannot be used as a form of identification when a person goes to vote? It is quite simple, really. All we want to do is avoid confusion. Many people show up to vote with their card and another piece of ID. Then they find out that that is not enough, and they are told they cannot vote. These are people who might have taken their lunch break during work to go vote, or maybe they live far from their polling station. Who knows—there can be any number of scenarios. I think that a lot of people will show up not knowing that. They will end up going home and will likely not go back to the polling station to vote.

I do not understand the logic behind that. I cannot come up with a single reason why the government would refuse to agree to write that visibly on the card. I cannot think of a single reason. I asked the question again in committee. I asked why the government would refuse to provide these people with a clear notification. The only explanation I can come up with is that the government wants to suppress the vote. I see no other explanation. I have looked for, asked for, and tried to get answers. At the end of the day, that is all I can come up with.

Finally, as my colleague mentioned during his questions and answers earlier, everything having to do with the registry of the companies that are going to contact the voters is generally good. It is better than nothing. However, as many witnesses in the know pointed out, this will not be very useful because the companies will not have to keep a list of the phone numbers that were contacted or a recording of the phone calls. It would be quite easy to do. They could start immediately with no problem at all, but no. We are going to be left with a registry that will keep the data for an insufficient amount of time, without the phone numbers, without the scripts, and without the information needed to make it truly useful in fighting electoral fraud.

Bill C-23 is truly a missed opportunity to reform our electoral law in an intelligent and consensual way that is respectful of our Canadian democracy. It is too bad.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is true, as far as we are concerned on the opposition benches, this is not a partisan matter.

The shame of it is the government has made it a partisan matter. We are united on the opposition benches.

Let me give a key example. The government makes a big deal about the changes it made. There are big changes that did not happen. For instance, there is now a registry for robocalls, which the government is touting as a great thing. That is not a bad idea.

Originally, the government was only going to let the records be kept for one year, and through pressure we got it changed to three years. However, the fact remains that that information is still not going to be sent from the companies that do the robocalls to the CRTC. If it were sent to the CRTC, it would have that information, it would be protected, and it would be dealt with as part of a public trust.

The bill does not do that. The information is still left in the hands of the individuals. If there are investigations afterward, we will not have the power to compel witnesses to give testimony. We are going to have to chase these people.

What happens if somebody sets up a robocall firm before the election and then declares bankruptcy afterward? What happens to all that information that is supposed to be kept? Gone. That is why we wanted an amendment to send the information to the CRTC right away. Then it would be there and it could be used if necessary.

The government would not do that. That is just one more example of the unfairness that exists in Bill C-23.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that last answer was a bit rich. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent.

I only have 10 minutes, so it is not a lot of time to try to hit the highlights and the low lights of Bill C-23. I am glad to see the chair of the committee is here to join in the heckling. He does not get to do that when we are at committee, but he is glad to get a chance to do it now.

Bill C-23 really does deserve to be called the unfair elections act. I ask anyone watching to hear the evidence and conclude for themselves whether they believe the process is anything close to fair or reflected Canadian values, or is the way we should make laws in our country.

First, there was no consultation with anyone who did not have a Conservative membership card. We did not find one witness, although I think the leader of the Green Party said that she had an opportunity to give some input on something, or expert, or involvement of the opposition parties, or consultation with anyone except card-carrying Conservatives. In fact, I would be surprised if the bill was even drafted on Parliament Hill. I suspect it was probably drafted in the private sector somewhere at a law firm that was a good friend of the government. However, that is mere speculation because we did not have time to go down that road.

Right off the top one would think that common sense would dictate that if we are to change our election laws, the first thing we would do is talk to the Chief Electoral Officer. Is that so shocking and difficult to figure out? Step one of changing our election laws is to talk to the individual who is mandated, not by the government, but by Parliament, hired by Parliament, accountable to Parliament on our election laws.

The Chief Electoral Officer was not even consulted after the minister tried to make his little one-hour meet and greet, how-de-do and tried to turn that into a consultation. That did not work because it was not a consultation. The Commissioner of Canada Elections was not consulted. Both of their opinions of the bill are that they do not support it. Neither do either of their predecessors.

How do opposition members feel about having involvement in Bill C-23? We did not get any. There was no involvement by anyone who did not carry a Conservative membership card.

When my friend across the way makes comments that Conservatives represent ordinary people, that they do not want to hear from elites, fine. If they want to call the Chief Electoral Officer an elite, they can play whatever word game they want. However, the fact remains that the person Canadians trust, not the government and sure as heck not the Minister of State for Democratic Reform is the Chief Electoral Officer who Conservatives did not talk to and when the opposition gave him voice, he was against it. He had serious concerns about it as did the Commissioner of Canada Elections and as did the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose whole department is being moved. He was not consulted either, and he expressed some concerns.

The government did not talk to anyone. Conservatives brought in this unfair elections act into the House at first reading. The first thing we did was try to save the government from itself, if it was sincere about a fair process. We offered to use a mechanism in the House, which we adopted at Queen's Park when I was there, because it is a good mechanism. The minister of the day can take an issue that is brought to the House at first reading and send it directly to committee. The reason to do that is because at second reading, we all put political skin into the game, we argue what our point of view is, defending attacks from others and taking a position and voting.

By the time we get to third reading, it gets politically difficult to start making major changes in position after the bill was at second reading. By sending it to committee ahead of time, members are free to set aside their partisan membership cards and just work at committee as MPs. Then the bill can come back to the House at second reading and if they do their work, in a fair world that report would come back having the unanimous support of all members who were on the committee, which would hopefully lead the House to support it unanimously. Then we would have an election law that we can all agree on.

This was brought in when the Olympics were on, if members recall, a major distraction, of course, but the fact is it is a good example, because in the Olympics it is not the host country that decides what the rules are for the Olympics. Those are decided when? They are decided ahead of time and everybody agrees on them. Then they have the races, the jumps, the swims, and all the things they do, because they have all agreed on the rules. We can remember when we were kids that we would spend our time in the back alley playing a pick-up game of ball. We would spend half our time fighting about what the rules were going to be rather than actually playing the game. If we set the rules ahead of time, everybody agrees and everybody understands, great. Then we can get to the business at hand. In the case of the Olympics, it is sports. In the case of making laws, it is getting unanimity in the House around election laws and rules, so they are fair for everybody.

New Democrats were not seeking any advantage. If anything, we were trying to stop the Conservatives from putting advantages in the bill for themselves. We offered to do that, they said no, it went to second reading, and guess what happened? At second reading, boom, the government brought in closure. That was it, it shut down debate. There was no more debate.

Let us see if I have this right. Only Conservatives had input, the Chief Electoral Officer was not spoken to, the Commissioner of Canada Elections was not spoken to, there was nobody else spoken to, and when it was brought to the House for debate, the first chance the Conservatives had, they shut down debate. Where is the fairness in that? Off it went to committee and the first thing that we as the official opposition wanted was to take the bill, guess where, out to the public to give Canadians, who actually own the election laws, an opportunity to comment in the communities where they live.

The Conservatives would not go for that and New Democrats had a rather protracted filibuster to make our points. We did the best we could and at the end of the day, since the government has a majority, it won every vote 10 times out of 10. We had hearings. The Conservatives are now saying they shut it down in the House because they sent it to committee, which is where the real work gets done, so it does not mean anything that they shut down debate on the floor of the House of Commons. When it got to committee, people would think that members would go through this 242-page bill very carefully, line by line, make comments, and vote on the clauses and amendments if necessary. One would think so. We did not even get halfway through the amendments or the bill when the May 1, 5 p.m., deadline came along and, boom, again democracy was shut down.

There is probably this much of the bill that nobody who does not have a Conservative membership card got a say in because there was no consultation ahead of time, it was not reviewed at committee, and we cannot review it now because this debate is being shut down through closure. Therefore, this part here, at the very least, is pure Conservative Party documentation, because nobody else has had a chance to look at it due to the Conservatives shutting down debate. That alone should worry people, that there is so much shutting down of debate on a fair elections act.

I have to get this in. I am not at my segue, but I am going to say this anyway because it needs to be said. Just the other day, Senator Marshall, who is the government whip in the Senate, said this:

As the government whip in the Senate, when a government bill comes forward, I would expect our Conservative Senators to support it.

Therefore, anybody who is under any kind of illusion that there is real democracy happening over there, even if it is not happening here, is wrong. There is no democracy there, there is no democracy here. There is no fairness there, there is no fairness here.

We will continue with every breath that we have and every vote that we have to try to stop this bill and amendment to its very end, which is coming very quickly.

Make no mistake, Canadians know that this is a bill that is meant to help the Conservatives get re-elected, not make our democracy stronger. The NDP will stand up for a proper and fair elections process every day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the answer my colleague just gave, because I do not agree with what he said. The opposition is not alone in calling on the Conservatives to give the commissioner sharper teeth and more powers to investigate election fraud. Experts are saying the same thing. For example, in his 2012-13 annual report, the Commissioner of Canada Elections pointed out that it was necessary to be able to compel witnesses to testify.

Does my colleague think that the Commissioner of Canada Elections is not aware of which tools could help him investigate? I want to point out that there was a serious case of election fraud in 2011 and that the causes and guilty parties have yet to be uncovered. That is proof that those responsible do not have enough powers to be able to investigate properly. A look at Bill C-23 shows us that the Conservatives are not prepared to make those tools available. Why?

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

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there those members go again, as I said, fear-mongering, negativity. I am more than convinced that Bill C-23 would provide the environment so students, native people and, in fact, all Canadians would come out to vote in the next federal election.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in this House to speak about Bill C-23.

Over the past few months, the opposition parties have been tirelessly trying to portray the fair elections act as undemocratic and sinister. Before the bill was introduced, even before they had had a chance to read it, they were against it. They have consistently tried to misinform Canadians about why the government was implementing Bill C-23. They have tried to build a narrative of the government ramming legislation through without proper consultation or investigation. Quite frankly, nothing could be farther from the truth.

It seems to me that the opposition parties have forgotten how our legislative process works. I would like to use my time today to highlight two issues. First is how the progress of Bill C-23 thus far exemplifies the integrity, utility, and efficacy of our legislative system. Second is what Canadians have really been saying about Bill C-23, not the fabricated stories the opposition parties have been desperately trying to sell.

The 2011 election saw several irregularities. While courts recently determined that nothing illegal had been done, Canadians, Elections Canada, and our government were concerned about the integrity of our electoral system and the process by which any irregularity would be investigated and prosecuted. This was the true motivation behind the fair elections act.

Although the opposition parties like to throw around alarming phrases like “voter suppression tactics” and other wild descriptions, this bill started out like any other. A problem was identified that needed a government legislative fix. There is nothing controversial or new about this. This is how our democracy has functioned for nearly 150 years.

Before Bill C-23 was introduced, the government spent a great deal of time examining the various issues raised by Elections Canada, as well as court cases related to the robocall scandal and other irregularities. I myself was inadvertently, and quite frankly, unnecessarily, dragged into the robocall case by the Council of Canadians. The court found, after close investigation, as we had stated all along, that nothing illegal had been done by any of the MPs involved.

If Elections Canada had sharper teeth, this entire investigation could have been completed more quickly, saving thousands of taxpayers' dollars. If Elections Canada had only had the proper investigative tools from the get-go, it would have been straightforward to discover the evidence, if any existed. Only charges with substantive evidence would have progressed, and countless hours of the court's time and taxpayer resources would have been saved.

Since Bill C-23 was introduced, the opposition parties have been trying to misinform Canadians by stating that the government had not consulted with Canadians or experts. They have continuously tried to convince Canadians that this bill was being rammed through Parliament without any debate or proper investigation.

Let me provide the House with some facts about what has actually transpired on Bill C-23. In committee, the bill has had a long and exhaustive analysis. There have been over 15 meetings, amounting to roughly 31 hours of study, with testimony from over 72 witnesses.

In addition, Canadians have continued to voice their concerns to their MPs, who have duly consolidated these concerns and have informed the minister and his department accordingly.

In my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming, I have received input from 45 constituents. As people wrote in, the overwhelming majority of concerns were focused on one particular part of the bill, and that was the elimination of vouching. As their MP, I communicated this to the minister. The Minister of State for Democratic Reform was always open to the feedback I shared on behalf of my constituents.

In addition, the Senate conducted its own study of the bill and conveyed to the minister its thoughts and concerns. What was the result? On April 25, the government announced that it would support amendments to the fair elections act in anticipation of the clause-by-clause review of the bill by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. These amendments included voter identification and vouching, the mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer to include engaging the public on voting, the appointment of central poll supervisors, fundraising exceptions that would constitute an election expense, and several others.

While the opposition continues to pine and misinform Canadians, our government has methodically, in combing through the bill, listened to Canadians and experts and has made modifications that better reflect expert insight and essentially what Canadians want. That is not controversial or sinister. That is, quite frankly, democracy in action. In fact, I am currently in the process of sending correspondence to every single one of the constituents who expressed concerns about the bill to inform them about the details of the amendments so that they know that their letters, calls, and emails played a direct role in the legislative process of fine-tuning the bill before it becomes law.

Here are some of the details. First is voter identification. The bill would allow an elector to vote with two pieces of identification that prove identity and a written oath as to his or her residence, provided that another elector from the same polling division who proves his or her identity and residence by providing documentary proof also takes a written oath as to the elector's residence. This new measure would allow those who do not have identification proving their residence to register and vote on polling day.

Second is the public information and education mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer. The bill specifies that the Chief Electoral Officer may communicate with the public, but where he advertises to inform electors about the exercise of their democratic rights, he can only do so with respect to how to be a candidate; when, where, and how to vote; and what tools are available to assist disabled electors. Further, the Chief Electoral Officer may support civic education programs for primary and secondary schools.

Third is the appointment of central poll supervisors. The legislation would retain the current appointment process for central poll supervisors.

Fourth is the fundraising exception and what constitutes an election expense. We are eliminating the proposed exception as to what constitutes an election expense in the case of expenses incurred to solicit monetary contributions from past supporters.

Overall, thanks to input from experts, Canadians, and legislators, 14 substantive and 45 technical amendments have been introduced by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform to further improve the quality of the fair elections act.

Now that we have an appreciation of how Bill C-23 has carefully gone through analysis, consultation, and revision, I can briefly discuss what Canadians outside the Ottawa bubble have actually been saying about it.

A recent Ipsos poll conducted on behalf of CTV demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of Canadians believe that it is entirely reasonable for voting to have identification requirements. We require Canadians to have ID to drive, travel, purchase alcohol, and do countless other tasks. Canadians recognize the good common sense in requiring identification for one of the most fundamental acts citizens can do, and that is elect their government. This makes abundant common sense.

This poll demonstrated that 70% of Canadians believe that it is acceptable to eliminate vouching. This reflects the desire of Canadians to ensure the integrity of their electoral system.

Canada is a very tolerant and diverse society. If resident non-Canadians want to vote, they are always more than welcome to apply for citizenship. However, the responsibility of choosing our federal government belongs to citizens and citizens alone, and we must protect that important privilege from those who would seek to abuse it.

The opposition parties protest that ID requirements would disenfranchise some Canadians. For example, they argue that ID requirements would make it more difficult for students to vote. This is a perfect example of the kind of fearmongering and misinformation the opposition has been propagating. All Canadian universities and colleges issue their students ID cards. These same cards can be used to vote.

However, the issue of ID raises a more important question. If the right to vote is reserved for Canadian citizens, how does one prove that he or she is a citizen? ID requirements are just good common sense. However, and although it is highly unlikely, for citizens who do not have access to any of the 39 pieces of acceptable ID, including basic and easily obtainable documents such as bank statements, hydro bills, or library cards, we have retained vouching as an assurance, because we recognize that improbable does not mean impossible. We want to make sure that every citizen who makes the effort to come out and cast a ballot has a reasonable way of proving his or her status as a citizen. This would ensure that no Canadian citizen would be deprived of the right to vote.

Citizens who could not obtain the necessary ID could request that another voter from the same poll vouch for them, but this person would have to first prove their identity and would only be able to vouch once.

This change to vouching is in line with the March 6 recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, when he said, “vouching procedures should and can be simplified.... The need to rely on vouching should also be reduced”. We agree with that.

This amendment is a perfect example of how the bill has been fine-tuned through the legislative process after extensive review and consultation. In fact, for all the sound and fury the opposition has been making about Bill C-23 and how allegedly outraged the majority of Canadians are, the same poll indicates that some 23%, that is one out of every four Canadians, are closely following the issue. Clearly, this reflects the fact that most Canadians have come to the conclusion that the fair elections act is nothing but common sense, a common sense response to some very serious issues.

The opposition parties have tried to mislead Canadians by calling Bill C-23 a scheme intended to disenfranchise voters. This is simply not true, and Canadians know that it is not true. Sixty-one per cent, six out of every 10 Canadians, disagree that Bill C-23 is a scheme, and only 15%, fewer than two in 10 people, strongly agree.

Finally, when asked if requiring voters to personally prove who they are and where they live is essential to eliminating potential fraud in our electoral system, 86%, nearly nine out of every 10 Canadians, agreed. Only one in 10 Canadians disagreed with that statement.

There is evidence that the opposition parties are desperately trying to distract Canadians from the fact that they have no policy or plans of their own, except for possibly a $21-billion job-killing carbon tax. They have tried to mislead Canadians into thinking that this is a scheme and that the majority from coast to coast are upset about it.

As I said throughout my speech, over the past few months, only 45 constituents in my riding of 96,000 have raised concerns about Bill C-23. The majority of these concerns dealt with vouching. That issue has now been put to bed.

Once again, the opposition opines and fusses instead of making meaningful and critical positive contributions to our legislative process.

I would certainly like to commend our Minister of State for Democratic Reform for his principled commitment and leadership of guiding Bill C-23 through the legislative process.

While the NDP and the Liberals have tried to misinform Canadians about the contents of the bill, how it was drafted, how it continues to be fine-tuned, our government has attentively listened to Canadians, experts and legislators in order to improve the fair elections act.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would describe today as a very dark day. In fact, it is the last day of debate on Bill C-23, the government's electoral “deform”, as we rightly refer to it.

This bill was not introduced with a view to better protecting our democracy and our electoral system. Changes are being made to benefit the Conservatives in the next election. Tactics include voter suppression and the ability to continue to get around the election rules without the slightest concern.

What the government is doing today is outrageous. It is steamrolling over the opposition parties. This is actually the first time in Canadian history that a government has used its majority to impose its views and anti-democratic changes, without coming to an agreement with anyone, with any of the opposition parties or members of civil society. Everyone is against this bill; that is unanimous. Seldom have we seen all segments of civil society join forces to speak so strongly against a bill.

The content of this bill is anti-democratic. In addition, true to form, the Conservatives trampled over and circumvented our Parliament's democratic procedures in the way they introduced and debated this bill in the House. Showing contempt for Canadian democracy, the Conservatives once again imposed time allocation motions, which means that debates were limited. In fact, this is the first time I have been able to speak to the bill. I have not been able to do so previously because debates on bills are constantly being limited. Some of my colleagues definitely would have been interested in speaking out against this terrible bill.

Furthermore, the Conservatives put an end to the committee's study of this electoral “deform” bill, even though half of the amendments proposed by the NDP were not even debated.

Furthermore, the first draft of this bill was extremely outrageous. This one is a bit better, but it is still outrageous. This shows that the government has no respect for its democratic institutions. It proposed amendments that elected members of Parliament themselves had submitted during the parliamentary committee's study. It wanted to change Canadian democracy by first studying this bill in the Senate. It is rather ironic that the government would propose amendments in the Senate and that an unelected chamber would make changes to our democracy. That is absolutely ridiculous. Furthermore, this shows what kind of respect this government has for its democratic institutions.

The Conservatives rejected the amendments that would have given investigators the tools they need to combat election fraud, that would have kept Elections Canada independent from government and that would have given the Chief Electoral Officer the right to encourage Canadians to vote.

The Minister of State for Democratic Reform did not even consult the CEO on this bill. He misled the House during question period. He indicated that he had consulted the CEO, but that was absolutely not true.

The minister has been going after Elections Canada for years, and more recently he has been going after the Chief Electoral Officer by undermining his credibility and attacking him, as he has done with all the officers of Parliament. That is absolutely outrageous and disgraceful on the part of a government.

The minister has been going after Elections Canada for years. He says that this agency is biased because it has criticized the Conservatives' non-compliance with election laws. They were caught with the in and out scandal. I want to explain to Canadians what that scandal involved. In Canada, each party has a maximum amount for election spending. They circumvented this maximum by diverting funds through riding associations that had $90,000 maximums but where the party had no chance of winning. These associations were made to pay invoices that should have been charged to the national party. The party was circumventing the law.

The Conservatives got caught and pleaded guilty. This bill will allow them to keep circumventing election laws without being concerned about the Chief Electoral Officer or the commissioner, even though he has some investigative powers. The Conservatives want to get rid of all of the measures so that they can keep bending the rules illegally without the slightest concern. We need to keep in mind that the Conservative database was used to send voters to the wrong polling station.

Instead of complying with election laws, the Conservatives decided to take direct aim at Elections Canada by limiting its investigative powers, even though they voted in favour of the motion we moved in 2012 that called for more investigative powers for the Chief Electoral Officer. Elections Canada's powers were completely eliminated, thus allowing the Conservatives to keep bending the rules without a care in the world.

Our party, all of the opposition parties and Canadians in general oppose this bill. Canadians from coast to coast voiced their disapproval. Faced with such a public outcry, the Conservatives had no choice but to back down on some fundamental aspects of the original bill.

We obtained a number of concessions, which proves that the NDP is a strong opposition, worthy of being the government in waiting. Soon, we will no longer be waiting because we will form the government in 2015. I would remind the House that in the wake of the robocall scandal, it was the NDP that demanded changes to the Elections Act, notably to strengthen the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer, not weaken them as the government is currently doing.

The NDP is there to protect Canadian democracy. We stand at the ready when the government attacks our democracy. We are there to make sure the government is accountable to Canadians.

One aspect of the bill that the government partially backed down on is the Chief Electoral Officer's ability to participate in public education campaigns to increase voter participation, which is plummeting. The government wanted to see those numbers drop even further in the next election so that it would increase its chances of getting re-elected.

The Chief Electoral Officer will no longer have the authority to educate Canadians about the importance of voting. From now on, the Chief Electoral Officer will only be able to publicize certain aspects of the voting process, namely, when and where to vote. Unfortunately, they are limited to just that. The Chief Electoral Officer will no longer be allowed to reach out to certain groups to help them encourage voter turnout among the people they represent.

We feel that public education is an essential function of the Chief Electoral Officer and that these changes will certainly not help boost voter turnout, but will instead have the opposite effect and lower turnout among young people, seniors and aboriginal groups living on reserves. All these groups will have more difficulty voting because, in a way, their right to vote will not be recognized.

Canada's Democracy Week, which was organized by Elections Canada, is a glaring example. From now on, Elections Canada will no longer be able to organize this important week to raise awareness about democracy.

Furthermore, the Chief Electoral Officer will have to ask the Treasury Board for permission to hire private companies to help in conducting an investigation or drafting reports like the report on the robocalls case. The government will be interfering in the work of an officer of Parliament, who must have complete independence from the government. The Treasury Board's control is unacceptable.

As I mentioned previously, one of the bill's main objectives is voter suppression. Someone using a voter information card as proof of address will be prevented from voting under this bill. That provision will create serious problems for Canadians who have difficulty providing proof of address when they go to vote.

Students, seniors and aboriginal communities are affected by this change.

Since I do not have a lot of time left, I just want to say that we have been strongly opposed to this bill from the start and will continue to be until the end. In a few hours, we will continue to denounce this dishonest strategy the government is using to try to secure its re-election.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are yet again showing their contempt for our democracy by restricting debate on a bill that addresses such an important issue as electoral reform.

Bill C-23 would make significant changes to the quality of our democratic institutions without in-depth public consultations and without the expert opinions of the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Director of Public Prosecutions, or even the Chief Electoral Officer.

This bill is quite simply a partisan stunt on the part of the government, which sees this bill as a way to hold on to power. This bill is an attack on the democratic rights of vulnerable groups.

Now, in order to vote, a voter is able to present their voter information card or show up with someone who can vouch for their identity. However, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform wants to eliminate that possibility because he claims that:

...one out of six electors may get a card with the wrong address. That allows some to vote in a different riding than they live in, or to potentially vote more than once.

Instead of fixing this problem, the government chose to eliminate this option altogether, which will have some serious consequences for some groups. During the last election, Elections Canada made a special effort to use voter information cards in various situations, in order to make it easier to vote for certain segments of society who have lower voter turnout, such as aboriginal people living on reserves, young people on campuses or seniors living in seniors' residences.

The provision allowing someone to vote with a voter information card along with a piece of ID, which will be abolished, was used successfully during the last election and it received an incredible amount of positive feedback.

The minister certainly loves to claim over and over that a person will be able to use 39 different pieces of ID to prove their identity. However, what he is forgetting is that only a few of these pieces of ID show a person's address. I repeat: only a few. For example, a health care card does not have an address, nor do passports and student cards. I could go on. As a result, a number of people will have to present two documents to have the right to vote, and those documents will have to be from the list.

As we all know, voter turnout in Canada is plummeting. Why is the government making it more difficult for seniors, students and aboriginal people living on reserves to vote by prohibiting the use of the voter information card as proof of address?

I am also concerned about another related factor. This bill prevents the development of electronic voting. From now on, Elections Canada will have to seek Parliament's approval to set up pilot projects of this kind. The purpose of Elections Canada is to improve our electoral system. Electronic voting would allow seniors and people with disabilities to vote, but again the government is turning a deaf ear and restricting Elections Canada's work.

The government is amending the law in its favour by changing the funding rules. This is a thinly veiled attempt by the Conservatives to serve their own interests by increasing the maximum annual donation from $1,200 to $1,500. The Conservatives are doing the exact opposite of what they say they are trying to do, which is reduce the influence of big money in elections.

The fact that candidates will be able to invest $5,000 in their own campaigns will give those with the ability to do so a significant advantage. What kind of democracy is that?

The NDP proposed close to 100 amendments to improve this bad bill. None of the substantial amendments proposed by the NDP were accepted by the Conservative Party, which of course had a majority in committee. One of these amendments sought to remove the provision on funding. Unfortunately, it was rejected, much like most of the NDP's amendments.

In a move that showed their contempt for Canadian democracy, the Conservatives shut down the work of the committee that was examining the electoral “deform” bill when half of the amendments proposed by the NDP had not even been debated yet.

Since this government came to power, it has done nothing but restrict Canadians' rights. It abuses its majority to impose bills that are not in the best interests of Canadians.

This is another sham of a debate. The Conservatives have once again imposed a time allocation motion, which prevents us from conducting an in-depth examination of this elections bill. The way the government is behaving and preventing us from fulfilling our parliamentary mandate is shameful. We are being silenced. The government must know that it needs a consensus to change the Elections Act. It should not be resorting to the tyranny of the majority to impose changes that serve its own needs.

Mr. Speaker, excuse me, but I would like to let you know that I am going to share my time with my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

The Conservative government wants to make the voting process more difficult for the most vulnerable Canadians, especially those who do not support their ideology. It is a form of discrimination that calls to mind some American practices under the Bush Republican presidency.

How can we encourage Canadians to participate in their country's democratic process when their institutions are broken?

Obviously, I oppose this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do so as well, in the name of democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech of my distinguished colleague with whom it is always a joy to work.

The problem is that the bill was introduced without consensus of Parliament. That is a problem. This is the first time in the history of Canada that a political party is introducing a bill that tips the scales in favour of its re-election. Generally speaking, for electoral law to be credible in the public's eyes, it not only has to be independent, but it also has to have the appearance of being independent. In that sense, Bill C-23 has completely missed the mark.

Every stakeholder, every editorial writer, every representative from the Barreau du Québec and every stakeholder on the electoral front have said that this is a bad bill. Thankfully some amendments were proposed. Indeed, we went from an unacceptable and anti-democratic bill to just a bad bill. It is still bad because no one approves of it except for the Conservatives.

Is it okay for legislation as important as the Canada Elections Act to be introduced without consensus?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

A little earlier he spoke of the power to investigate in the event of electoral fraud and I am rather surprised at how different our interpretations are of the effectiveness of the measures in this bill for properly investigating electoral fraud.

I think everyone in the House recognizes that there was major electoral fraud in 2011 and that we must provide essential tools to those who need them in order to shed light on these incidents. Not only was there fraud in 2011, but those responsible for the fraud still have not been identified.

In his 2012-13 annual report, the Commissioner of Canada Elections raised the need for the power to compel witness testimony. The Chief Electoral Officer is calling for more power, including the power to ask for supporting documentation for the expenses claimed during election campaigns. Bill C-23 does not respond to any of those requests.

Does my colleague think that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections do not know what they are talking about? Does he think that a political party is less partisan than these independent experts who are making these types of requests?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-23, the fair elections act. I would like to take this opportunity to outline how this bill would be a great benefit to our democracy.

Our government understands that the integrity of Canada's voting system is paramount to our democracy. It is vital that we protect the integrity of the system, so that everyday Canadians remain in charge of our democracy. That is why the bill has been met with support by Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

My hon. colleagues have spoken at length about the many facets of this landmark legislation. The fair elections act would ensure that our elections are fair and democratic. As members of all parties, we are entrusted by Canadians to act in the interests of protecting the integrity of our electoral process. The fair elections act would provide all members an opportunity to uphold that obligation.

I would like to add that the government undertook extensive consultations in drafting this legislation. The bill brings to light concerns raised by Canadians, various groups and think tanks, Elections Canada, and parliamentarians themselves. The fair elections act addresses those concerns and would improve the system by introducing a new standard of consistency.

We promised to examine the bill with openness to ideas that would strengthen this common sense bill. That is why on April 25 the government announced it would support amendments to the fair elections act.

The committee has had a long and extensive study of Bill C-23. There have been 15 meetings, amounting to roughly 31 hours of study. In addition, 72 witnesses appeared at committee to offer insight into how we could further strengthen this bill.

I would like to begin by discussing the issue of vouching. First, I want to emphasize an important element of the fair elections act, which is the changes it would make to the identification process. As it stands, the current system has been unable to preserve the integrity of the electoral process. In fact, serious errors of a type the courts consider “irregularities” that can contribute to an election being overturned were found to occur in 42% of cases involving identity vouching.

Overall, the Neufeld report estimates that irregularities occurred for 1.3% of all cases of election day voting during the 2011 federal election. More than 12 million Canadian citizens cast ballots, and the audit indicates that the application of specific legal safeguards, in place to ensure each elector is actually eligible to vote, were seriously deficient in more than 165,000 cases due to systematic errors made by elections officials.

Averaged across 308 ridings, elections officers made more than 500 serious administrative errors per electoral district on election day. These levels are just too high. We must recognize that a fraudulent or illegitimate vote has the same mathematical effect as denying honest Canadians their constitutional right and privilege to cast a ballot.

The Neufeld report cites cases of fraudulence and irregularities that are far too high. We cannot let the electoral system continue on its current flawed trajectory. That is why the fair elections act would finally end the use of vouching as a means of identification.

Our government believes that it is important to let every eligible voter cast a ballot. By the same token, we believe that fraudulent voters should be ineligible to cast a ballot. The safeguards that current laws established to halt fraudulent voters were violated in 50,735 cases, 42% of the time, in the 2011 election according to Elections Canada's own compliance report. We cannot continue to abide by the current vouching procedures and expect different results in future elections.

It is evident that changing times have brought about changing threats to the integrity of the electoral process. That is why I am pleased with the direct manner in which the fair elections act would proactively keep up with changing conditions.

The fair elections act represents a giant leap forward in ensuring that the integrity of the electoral process is upheld.

The bill would require voters to choose from some 39 pieces of acceptable identification to prove their identity and residency. Photo ID would not be required. However, simply having someone vouch for a voter's identity, without so much as a utility bill to back it up, would no longer suffice.

While the fair elections act would require people to show ID proving who they are before they vote, we supported an amendment to help people whose address is not on their ID. If someone's identification does not have an address on it, they would need to sign a written oath of residence. Another voter with fully proven ID would be required to co-sign the oath, attesting to the voter's address. This would only be required for people whose identification does not have an address.

This is one of the reasons why Canadians overwhelmingly support the bill. In fact, 87% of Canadians believe it is reasonable to require someone to prove their identity and address before they can vote.

As a resident of Ontario, I recently had the opportunity to apply for a new OHIP card in my riding of Don Valley West. In applying for Ontario health insurance, one must provide proof of citizenship, proof of residency, and support of identity. That is three pieces of identification. With that level of scrutiny required for an OHIP card, it is only right to support a bill that requires a similar level of identification be provided for voters in our federal elections. What our government will not support is the opposition suggesting that people should not require any ID to vote.

This is another reason why Canadians are on board with the bill. According to an April 24, 2014, Ipsos poll, 70% of Canadians believe it is acceptable to eliminate vouching and require voters to personally prove their identity and address before voting. Our government believes that in a democratic country all eligible citizens have the right to participate in making the decisions that affect them. The fair elections act would ensure that an honest vote is not denied by fraudulent votes. The fact is that the fair elections act represents a giant leap forward in ensuring that the integrity of the electoral process is, in fact, upheld.

Another important element of the bill is that it would separate the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Chief Electoral Officer. Quite simply, the Commissioner of Canada Elections should not serve at the pleasure of another official. He should have control over his staff and his budget, and no one should have the power to dictate what he investigates. It just makes sense that the commissioner should not work for one of the entities he might investigate. This is in keeping with basic fiduciary accountability and standards that government departments and institutions use to ensure their functions are carried out properly and ethically.

Our government understands that separating administration from enforcement is vital to upholding the integrity of our electoral process. That is precisely why the fair elections act would house the commissioner with the director of public prosecutions. There, elections law enforcement would be held under the auspices of a strong commissioner. We have made him completely independent by giving him authority to investigate offences. The commissioner would also be afforded full independence with regard to being in charge of his own staff and his own investigations, as well as a fixed term of seven years, in which he could not be dismissed without cause. We gave him new offences to help him in his investigations, such as obstructing an investigation and providing false information.

Our government also supports an amendment that would give the commissioner the unrestricted ability to begin investigations by removing the bill's proposed evidence threshold before the commissioner may begin an investigation.

Working in different entities, our government understands that a line of communication between the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Chief Electoral Officer would be required to perform their duties effectively. As a result, our government supports an amendment that would allow the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections to exchange information and documents.

Meanwhile, the CEO currently has the power to adapt provisions of the Elections Act during emergencies. It is highly unusual to give an unelected agency head the power to rewrite any section of an act of Parliament. Our government believes that the purpose of this power should be limited to protecting the right to vote, which is in line with basic democratic principles.

In addition, members of all parties have complained that the rules are unclear and complicated. Complicated rules cause unintentional breaches and intimidate Canadians from taking part in democracy. That is why the fair elections act would make the rules for the Chief Electoral Officer clear, predictable, and easy to follow.

The fair elections act would continue to equip the CEO with key responsibilities, especially as they relate to educating voters. That is why our government supports an amendment with regard to the education mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer. The Chief Electoral Officer may communicate with the public. Where he advertises to inform electors about the exercise of their democratic rights, he can only do so on how to be a candidate; when, where, and how to vote; and what tools are available to assist disabled electors. Further, the CEO may support civic education programs for primary and secondary schools, something that I know in my riding is a very important element.

I am pleased with the direct manner in which the fair elections act and its amendments would establish ethical and fiduciary investigative independence that is in line with good governance.

Another essential element of this bill is that it would redirect Elections Canada back to its core mandate. As recent elections have shown, Canadians are participating less and less in the voting process. In my constituency of Don Valley West, 67% of eligible voters cast a ballot in the last federal election. Federal voter turnout, however, was even lower at 61%.

Since Elections Canada began promoting voter participation campaigns, turnout has actually plummeted from 75% in 1988 to a low of 61% in 2001, where it has stayed. The facts show that Elections Canada's campaigns are not working. As a result, the bill would amend section 18 of the Canada Elections Act to focus all of Elections Canada promotional campaigns on two purposes: informing people of the basics of voting—where, when, and what ID to bring—and informing disabled people of the extra tools available to them to help them vote and participate in their democracy.

Let me be clear. Elections Canada would continue to be the organization responsible for the administration of our elections. However, the job of generating interest would be left to aspiring candidates and parties. Government bureaucracy should continue to focus on administrative functions and leave the duties of generating interest to the parties and the candidates. That is why the fair elections act would allow parties to better fund democratic outreach with a small increase in spending limits, while imposing tougher audits and penalties to enforce those limits. Aspiring candidates and parties, not a government agency, have a duty to reach out to voters, to inspire them and give them something worth voting for. It is time for the agency to get back to the basics, while political parties get down to the work they are prescribed to do.

Finally, the fair elections act would introduce additional measures to crack down on lawbreakers and fraudsters. These would strengthen the penalties for election lawbreakers, including introducing prison time for serious offenders and tougher fines for rule breakers. For example, anyone caught bribing or obstructing an election official could receive upward of five years in prison, and anyone who makes a false statement could be fined up to $50,000. Investigators would also be afforded more extensive capacities to fulfill their mandates; a number of new rules would close loopholes, crack down on influence of big money, and help stop the election fraud that jeopardizes the system. This includes enhanced protection for voters against robocalls, cracking down on voter fraud by prohibiting vouching, and banning the use of loans used to evade donation rules.

In addition, the fair elections act would introduce guidelines for clear and transparent tracking and records retention of telemarketing, which would help prevent rogue calls and voter deception. It would also introduce measures to track mass calls to protect voters and prevent fraud by creating a mandatory public registry for voter contact services by telephone. The fair elections act would make it an offence to impersonate an election official and increase penalties for deceiving people out of their votes. That is why the fair elections act is a major improvement of the status quo.

It is clear that Bill C-23 is not only constructive, but very reasonable, and we are moving forward.

In closing, the bill would make it harder to break the law and easier to vote, not to mention it would close loopholes to big money. Election laws would be tough and predictable, but easy to follow. Life would be harder for election lawbreakers, and easier for honest citizens, who merely wish to take part in their democracy.

Our government continues to be a leader when it comes to enforcing greater accountability in politics. When we first took office, we passed the most comprehensive anti-corruption legislation in Canadian history, the Federal Accountability Act. This important legislation increased oversight, cracked down on lobbying and expanded transparency in government spending. Now, through the fair elections act, we are building on that strong record in helping to ensure that Canada's democracy remains strong and that its integrity remains upheld.

The fair elections act is an important step forward toward greater transparency and accountability in our elections. These meaningful changes would help strengthen Canada's electoral system and ensure that our democracy would remain in the hands of everyday Canadians.

That is why I vote in favour of the fair elections act. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the House will join me in doing the same.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech and all of the work she does in the House and in her riding.

We have often said that there are some key elements missing from the infamous Bill C-23. No one supports the bill. Even in my riding, Joliette, people have often spoken out against this method of reforming the Canada Elections Act.

The Commissioner of Canada Elections requested the power to compel witnesses to appear. However, that is not in the bill and the Commissioner, who will now work for the Director of Public Prosecutions, was not granted that power. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight some of the presentations of the commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer on Bill C-23. The Chief Electoral Officer said that the commissioner should remain within Elections Canada. We all know that the CEO for Elections Canadian is in fact a man of great stature, truly independent, and so forth. Then we had the commissioner come before the committee and indicate that he was quite comfortable in the current situation, being at Elections Canada, and felt that he was truly independent and was favourable to staying there.

Why does the member think the government took it upon itself and went against the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Chief Electoral Officer and pulled that office outside of the Elections Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am rising today to address Bill C-23, the fair elections act, and some of the very significant and beneficial reforms that it is making to the Canada Elections Act and to the conduct of elections in this country.

I will run through a couple of things, and if I have time within my ten minutes, I will go through some of the amendments that were made in committee, amendments that I think show a genuine commitment on the part of the government and on the part of the responsible minister to take into account a wide range of inputs and to alter the bill in order to make it better reflect those inputs.

Let me start with what I think are the four key themes of this legislation. As someone who sat through all of the many hours of committee hearings on the bill and who has been involved in one form or another in every stage of the process of its adoption and amendment, it seems to me that these four themes come out very clearly.

First, there is an attempt to limit the influence of big money. This is a continuation of a theme that began when Jean Chrétien was Prime Minister and donations were limited to $5,000 per person. Before that there were no limits on how much an individual could donate. Anybody who has an interest in these things can look at the records of Elections Canada to see the enormous donations, to the tune of quarter of a million dollars, from major institutions. That was changed. It was tightened by this government in its first term, reducing the amount of donations to $1,000 and eliminating all forms of corporate and union donations.

The bump upwards in this piece of legislation, in the fair elections act, to $1500 is merely a reflection of inflation over that period of time. I should add that we have done a few things, entirely non-controversial but I think very beneficial. This bill eliminates the possibility of the one kind of giant donation that still exists out there, the donation in the form of a bequest.

A few years ago, the New Democrats received a donation in a bequest, in a will, of over $300,000 from a single individual. Clearly, this kind of very large donation, which could, in theory, allow for donations in bequests in wills of up to millions, would destabilize a political system in which every other input of cash has been reduced. I think that is a very significant step that this bill has taken.

Second, we have greater certainty in the administration of elections and of the rules. Elections Canada is now required to prepare rulings in advance. It cannot make retroactive rulings. The rules are this now, but we also say that in the past they have changed from what we said they were in the past or what a reasonable person might have thought they were in the past. It is bound by their own rulings. It is no longer in a position to sign compliance agreements with a party, as it did with the New Democratic Party following its convention and following the large corporate donations that were given in the form of sponsored advertising at that convention for a very large consideration. The compliance agreement is a secret. The CEO knows what it says. The New Democrats know what it says, and none of them want to reveal it to the general public. That cannot happen any more. That is vital for the rule of law.

Third, there is greater integrity and protection against voter fraud. Much has been spoken on that subject; I will only say that I think the measures taken here are reasonable, balanced and, especially once the amendments occurred, do everything they can to ensure that there is fairness and that the restrictions that are placed on the ability of people to vote without identification are applied with as a light a touch as is realistically possible. I applaud the minister for having made those amendments.

Fourth, there is greater knowledge by Canadians of what their rights are under the law. Canadians have the right to vote, not only on election day, but also in advanced polls. They have the right to vote at the returning office throughout the election period, or most of it. They can vote by mail. If they are visually disabled, they have the right to go in and vote with a secret ballot through the use of an ingenious template that lets them know that their candidate is the candidate whose name is listed third. They have to count down one, two, three, and tick off that ballot. It remains their secret ballot. That is a very clever solution for a minority of the population, but I know, and members can check the Hansard of the committee hearings, that the representative from the Canadian National Institute of the Blind did not know that right existed.

My point is, Elections Canada has done a very poor job, a really poor job, of informing people of all the different ways in which they can exercise their franchise.

An examination of Elections Canada's own reports on the subject indicate that youth in Canada, the group with the lowest voter participation, indicated that one of the primary reasons they do not vote is because they do not know where to vote. They do not know and are not given that voter information card because they moved recently. The absence of the voter information card, which is Elections Canada's way of attempting to assist youths to find out where to vote, was cited as one of the key reasons they did not vote.

If information such as how to get youths onto the voters list, how they can vote in advance, and all the rights that we have were publicized properly by Elections Canada, I make the modest suggestion that we would see youth voting rates go up substantially and the voting by disabled people and others go up substantially. The CEO is now mandated to engage in a series of these kinds of acts of publicity which in the past, as I said, he had not done to nearly the adequate level.

The bill has been the subject of a great deal of debate including a motion that was put forward by the New Democrats under the name of the member for Toronto—Danforth about a month ago in which they expressed particular concern with regard to the ability of certain groups in society to vote if there were requirements that they prove their identity and their place of address. They cited in particular three groups. I want to talk about how the amendments to the bill have dealt with these three groups.

The three groups they mentioned were seniors living in residence, long-term care in other words; aboriginal people, and I think by this they meant aboriginal people living on reserve, although that may not be exactly how the motion was worded; and finally, students living in residence on campus. They felt these groups were potentially deprived of their franchise, if we read the rhetoric of the NDP, which was a little overwrought at the time.

Even in its original form, I think the bill was pretty good at dealing with people in these categories, but the amendments to the bill did a significant amount to ensure that these individuals would be able to cast their vote. I would add to these people another group that was not mentioned in the NDP motion and that is the homeless. All of these groups have one thing in common and that is that they have moved their residence recently or else are residing in a place where having the normal forms of identification such as a driver's licence or bills they would pay are not readily available. Therefore, they find themselves unable to prove their place of residence.

In some of these cases it is obvious that the person is in residence where they say are. The best example of this is a senior living in long-term care. These are often closed facilities. People cannot come into them because of the fear of spreading pathogens. The notion that someone could show up claiming to be John Smith who lives down the hall is preposterous, yet under the existing legislation there is a problem that no one is available who can vouch for them. The administrators were unable to do so. There is a provision for attestations to be given, but for reasons of their own, these residences have on occasion been reluctant to issue such attestations.

The impression I had from listening to testimony is that homeless shelters are in general better at this. There appears to be a problem where full use of the attestation provisions in the current law is not exercised as much as it should be on some aboriginal reserves. That would vary from one reserve to the other. But the point is that in dealing with the issue of identity, the bill, through its amendments, specifically through amendments that were made to section 143 of the bill, would allow the use of attestations as a proof of residence on a more widespread basis.

Some people have called it a kind of vouching for residents. I am not sure that is exactly the right way of putting it, but what happens now is that voters can vote with two pieces of ID that prove their identity and a written oath as to their residence, providing that another elector from the same polling division, who has proved his or her identity and residence by providing documentary proof, takes a written oath as to the elector's place of residence.

People still have to prove they are who they say they are, but they do not have to prove their place of residence the way that would have otherwise been required. That has now been adjusted and taken care of through this amendment to the bill. That is very significant and it deals with the fundamental issue, which is not that people would be unable to prove who they are, but rather they could not prove where they live. There were a number of very empathetic examples and in my last five seconds I want to give one example.

A witness at committee offered the example of a woman who has had to flee her home and is now living with a relative because of an abusive relationship with her spouse. She would be unable to prove her new place of residence. That person, it was suggested, would have been unable to vote. That was a legitimate concern, and it would now be dealt with through this amendment to the law.

We have done as much as can reasonably be done to ensure that every Canadian will be able to vote, while still ensuring proper security against improper voting by those who are either not eligible to vote, or who are voting in the wrong constituency.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.

It is a privilege for me to rise in the House to speak to the importance of the fair elections act, also known as Bill C-23. Today I will be focusing on the important measures taken by our government to protect democracy and to ensure the integrity of the voting process as well as on our commitment to combatting big money and minimizing the possibility of fraudulent voting.

We are very fortunate as Canadians to be able to exercise our right to vote through our democratic system. Sadly, in many countries, the voices of their citizens are frequently stifled by dictatorships and/or communism. We often hear news of fixed or rigged election results in these countries, which result in civil unrest, division, and violence. This is why our government fully commits itself to protecting the core Canadian values of democracy, fairness, accountability, and transparency through the fair elections act.

Our Conservative government is focusing on the Canadian value of democracy and it will continue to do so.

I believe that the bill will strengthen the integrity of the voting process. We continue to build on our record and, under the leadership of our government, we have taken action and introduced the best measures to protect and improve the electoral system. Complicated rules result in unintentional breaches and discourage ordinary people from taking part in democracy. That is why the fair elections act will make election rules more clear, predictable and easy to follow.

In order to follow the rules, parties must know what they are. The fair elections act will ensure that they know what they are by requiring the Chief Electoral Officer to take appropriate action. To ensure that the laws reflect the reality of the overall election process, an advisory committee of political parties would be created through legislation. It would be composed of the Chief Electoral Officer and two representatives of each registered political party.

The role of the committee would be to ensure that the views of the parties represented are considered in administering the election laws. Its mandate would be to provide useful advice and comments on any administrative or legislative issue related to the law or the administration of elections by Elections Canada.

The bill establishes that the committee's advice and recommendations are not binding on the Chief Electoral Officer. It should be noted that Elections Canada would have the power of final interpretation, but that the committee would safeguard the independent administration of elections. The committee would examine the Chief Electoral Officer's interpretations and suggest improvements when necessary.

However, we should understand that there is no perfect election system. Even though Canada has a particularly solid democracy, there are always things that can be improved. We believe that the measures I have just mentioned will help fine-tune the system.

Our government continues to take action when it comes to improving our voting system. In light of accountability and transparency, the fair elections act would help combat big money to encourage small donations and to eliminate taxpayer-funded handouts. This would also keep special interest groups, such as unions or individuals with deep pockets, from drowning out the voices of everyday citizens.

We believe that political parties should interact and engage with the public to advocate their cause, to be meaningful to Canadians, and to seek their financial support. This means that political parties and candidates need to be engaged, committed, and most importantly, relevant to Canadians so that they will make contributions from their own hard-earned money.

Political parties need to do their own fundraising and utilize resources at their disposal to encourage individuals to come out to vote. That seems like a win-win to me. As MPs who hold public office, we have a responsibility to keep ourselves and those around us accountable.

All of us here must lead by example come election time. The spending limit, although increased by our government from $1,200 to $1,500, would help political candidates do just that. Along with ensuring accountability, this spending limit would allow Canadians to make meaningful contributions to the parties they support.

Although I appreciate and listened to the views and concerns of the members opposite on the matter of vouching, it is my opinion that they do not understand that the majority of Canadians agree with our position that a person must show identification to vote.

I can assure this House that we are committed to strengthening our voting process and procedures. We will take the necessary action to reduce high levels of irregularities, which have been noted in studies, resulting from a process known as vouching.

It is indeed reasonable to ask people to produce identification prior to their casting a vote. When Canadians pick up a parcel at a post office, they are asked to produce a valid piece of ID. When Canadians embark on a plane, they are asked to produce a valid piece of ID. When Canadians set up new bank accounts at banks, they are asked to produce a valid piece of ID.

My point is that if one requires a piece of ID for many day-to-day dealings and activities, it is entirely reasonable that one would produce a piece of ID to prove one's identity to vote. What the opposition clearly does not understand is that Canadians agree that this is, indeed, entirely reasonable.

Our government has made the process simple, accessible, and clear for Canadians. There are currently 39 forms of authorized ID to choose from to prove identity and residence. I will not go through the list, for the sake of time, but I can assure members that it is extensive. That there are 39 forms of approved identification facilitates the ability of Canadians to show who they are.

What the members of the NDP and Liberal Party need to do is lay aside their ideological opposition to the fair elections act and a matter such as this and instead recognize that the measures are fair and reasonable and are considered to be so by Canadians.

To conclude, I would like to express my unwavering support for this bill. It is a remarkable initiative, especially when we consider that no one other than the Conservative government could achieve such an objective. Moreover, we worked with opposition members and, as a result, we made amendments to an already solid bill. We then introduced the improved version.

This bill will simplify our voting system and will protect Canadians from abuse of campaign donations—big money—and fraudulent phone calls. Our government is committed to protecting core Canadian values by applying this law. Unfortunately, the NDP and Liberals have always voted against these important initiatives.

As an MP, I often think about the importance of democracy in Canada. I sincerely believe that this bill is firmly based on the idea of an accountable, transparent and impartial democratic system for this country. I invite opposition members to join with us in supporting the bill, which is designed to defend our democratic system and improve the voting system.

Canadians want accountability, transparency, and fairness. This is what we are delivering through the fair elections act.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question actually builds into it an extremely strong set of arguments about why the legacy of Bill C-23 will be a lack of public trust and confidence in our electoral system.

We have given extremely good reasons why a whole range of sectors of society have not been dealt with fairly by the bill. We have not simply raised this for opposition sake, but the result is that the bill will be passed against major opposition, not just in the House but in society. As such, the former auditor general for Canada, Sheila Fraser, was correct when she said that the ultimate impact of this was going to be diminishing public trust in both our parliamentary institutions and our electoral system.

At some level it will be very important that we revisit key elements of the bill in a future Parliament and start again, more consensually, to produce a final version of the Canada Elections Act in which all parties and all key actors in civil society feel an ownership.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to orient my remarks in the following way: first, to briefly situate why there was so much concern when the bill was initially tabled in early February and in the months leading up to major concessions by the minister, not the minor or modest amendments that he just referred to; second, to outline what those amendments were that constitute a major victory for civil society and the opposition in making a bad bill less bad; and, finally, to go through 10 points about what still remains in the bill that makes it a bad bill unworthy of the support of this House.

On the first point, it has to be said that from the beginning, our worry was that the dozens of new provisions and changes in the bill created a tapestry that, in the result, whether or not by intention, would favour one party in the next election and lock into place a series of principles that were not themselves fair, despite the name of the act, the “fair elections act”. There was no better sign for those well aware of what the government is capable of and of the bill itself than the fact that on April 10 two very highly respected Progressive Conservatives joined in signing a statement about their concerns and about why the bill should actually be killed. Those persons were David Crombie and Allan Gregg.

They said:

This legislation is a blatant attempt by the Harper government to stack the deck in favour of the Conservatives in the next federal election.

These are two extremely knowledgeable members of Canadian society, one of them a former mayor of Toronto and a former Progressive Conservative minister and the other a deeply connected pollster and marketing person. Both these men knew what the current government was capable of. They read the bill, they understood it, and they used very strong language. “Stack the deck” is something that clearly suggests an effort to create an unfair elections act, the opposite of the title of the bill, the “fair elections act”.

With pressure from all sides—from civil society, from a vigorous opposition effort, from academics speaking out, and, I have no doubt, from a certain number of Conservative backbenchers who, either as a matter of principle or as a matter of feeling the pressure, weighed in—a number of major concessions were announced by the minister and indeed delivered upon in amendments at the procedure and House affairs committee.

I will list them. By listing them, I hope I convey how major they are and how the government was forced off of some elements that were at the very heart of the effort to “stack the deck”.

First, there was a fundraising exemption. Parties would be allowed to exempt from their campaign expenses all the costs of contacting previous donors from the last five years in order to raise more money from them. All the costs associated with that would not have to go into campaign costs. All kinds of reasons were given as to why this was a huge, unlimited exemption to the campaign caps at election time. That was removed.

Second, the government added to the original bill, Bill C-23, the fact that central poll supervisors would henceforth be de facto appointed by the first-place party's candidate or the first-place party going into the next election.

The central poll supervisor is in many ways the most important person at any given poll. The fact that this would unbalance the existing system—which unfortunately is already politicized, in that the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk are each appointed by the first-place and second-place parties respectively—was something that produced major concern. There was no logic as to why this should be the case. That was removed in one of the so-called modest amendments of the minister, but it is an amendment that I nonetheless would prefer to characterize as a major concession.

We have just had an exchange where the minister acknowledges that vouching for identity in and of itself is no longer part of Bill C-23 and remains so, but vouching for an address, which is the absolute key problem that had occurred when the vouching provisions of the Canada Elections Act were removed, has been restored.

That was not a modest amendment. That was a major victory for civil society and for the many witnesses who took the time and trouble to explain to Conservative members at the procedure and House affairs committee, to the media, and ultimately to the minister why the elimination of the current vouching provisions in the Canada Elections Act were deeply unfair and disenfranchising.

Fourth, there was a bordering on ludicrous limit on how long calling service providers and others had to keep data with respect to voter contact in the new voter contact registry. When Bill C-23 was initially introduced, it was to be only one year, which is barely enough time for information to come out in some context that there is a problem needing investigation. The minister caved with respect to the keeping of scripts and audio records. That was increased from one year to three years.

Many other problems remain with this voter contact registry system. I would call this a modest amendment, but nonetheless a significant one.

Fifth, the government heard early on that Bill C-23's elimination of the public education and information programming role of Elections Canada, especially targeted toward disadvantaged groups and those more likely to experience difficulties in voting, was an abomination. I knew early on that this was one area that a lot of Conservative Party backbenchers had great trouble with. I could have predicted from the beginning what would happen, which was that the public education role for Elections Canada was restored, albeit only for primary and secondary school students. All of the other outreach activities that Elections Canada had engaged in over the years or could engage in in the future have remained prohibited by the current version of Bill C-23.

Nonetheless, at least allowing a student vote and analogous programs to continue to be supported, funded, co-organized, and partnered by Elections Canada constitutes a major victory on the part of civil society, which very much put this issue near the top of its concerns.

Sixth is the fact that Bill C-23 contained no provisions that are necessary in a bill, for technical reasons, to allow communications between the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Chief Electoral Officer after the commissioner would be moved from Elections Canada to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That was rectified by putting in communications authorizations. They are minimal and do not go as far as we wanted, but they are nonetheless important.

Seventh, it was very clear that the new section 18 of the Canada Elections Act was written in such a way that the Chief Electoral Officer would henceforth be prohibited from communicating with the public other than to provide information to the public on a very narrow set of functional questions, such as where one can vote, how one can vote, and what identification one can use to vote. The reason was that section 18 was worded to say that the Chief Electoral Officer shall “only” communicate about the following. Therefore, there was great concern that, whether intentionally or not, it had been written in a way that meant the Chief Electoral Officer could communicate on nothing other than that in the future.

Early on, the minister said that was not the intention, and when he announced his other concessions, he said that the Chief Electoral Officer could communicate freely in his own capacity. When the time came for the amendments at the procedure and House affairs committee, it was never expressed that the Chief Electoral Officer could communicate freely henceforth, but the way in which section 18 was rewritten satisfies me that the result would be that he could now communicate freely. I only wish the government had agreed to an NDP amendment to make that clear for the sake of certainty. However, I will go on record here, as I did at the committee, to say that it is clear from the record that the Chief Electoral Officer would now be able to say whatever he wants in whatever context, in Canada or outside of Canada.

Finally, of the concessions made by the minister, there was a very puzzling provision in Bill C-23 that basically said the Commissioner for Canada Elections could not begin an investigation until he or she had reasonable grounds to suspect an offence had been committed.

Anybody involved in the criminal law or investigative sphere knows that is a standard not for beginning an investigation but for receiving things like orders for wiretaps or other kinds of investigative measures. However, in common law and in every other investigative context, all investigative officers need is a reasonable suspicion to start an investigation.

That was changed in committee, and I am willing to concede that it was simply a mistake on the part of the drafters, although a puzzling one that I cannot understand being made by anybody who understands how criminal law investigation works.

The point is that a number of major concessions arose as a result of fierce opposition, an engaged civil society, and either persuaded or somewhat fearful backbenchers, who obviously weighed in with the government.

I would like to now move to why, despite all those concessions, there still remain so many problems with this bill that it does not deserve our support, quite apart from all of the process concerns about how it was generated and how even the amendments process was non-consensual, in that not a single opposition amendment of any substance was accepted. Despite the concessions that I mentioned earlier, there are so many problems that it deserves not to see the light of day. I will briefly now indicate 10 points.

First, the current Bill C-23 on which we are about to vote today would continue to eliminate the power of the Chief Electoral Officer to implement public education and information programs designed to enhance knowledge of our electoral democracy and to encourage voting. It would only bring back one context, and that is for primary and secondary school students. All other public outreach would remain prohibited.

Second, Bill C-23 would prohibit the Chief Electoral Officer from authorizing the use of voter information cards, or VICs, as a piece of voter identification to be used not on their own but alongside a second piece of identification. It would do this despite the fact that such cards are a method of enfranchisement that were introduced because of concerns about limited forms of identity showing address and despite the fact that smoother administration of voting on election day resulted from their use in various contexts in 2011. It would be prohibited despite there being no evidence whatsoever for believing these cards are, or are likely to be, a source of fraud. This remains the case, no matter how many times the minister gives an example of a hoax that was attempted by the television show Infoman that never actually reached fruition.

Third, Bill C-23 would require that the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner for Canada Elections must now get the permission of government officials in order to remunerate experts and investigators whom they find necessary to hire on a temporary basis. Previously, they could have direct access to the consolidated revenue fund. Now the CEO would have to go through the Treasury Board and the commissioner would have to go through the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Fourth, it refuses to legislate powers that are necessary for full compliance with, and enforcement of, the Canada Elections Act, in light of the experience with fraud and breach of other electoral law rules in the elections of 2006, 2008 and 2011, notably, the power of the CEO to require registered parties to provide receipts accounting for their election campaign expenses and the power of the commissioner to seek a judicial order to compel testimony during an investigation into electoral crime.

Fifth, it unnecessarily transfers the commissioner to a government ministry, the ministry of the Attorney General, and away from the current location within the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, who is, I will remind the House, an officer of Parliament. This thereby creates corresponding negative consequences for the effectiveness of commissioner investigations and for the complementary roles that the Chief Elector Officer and his or her staff and the commissioner and his or her staff play in securing compliance with the Elections Act, well ahead of and well beyond the relatively limited number of contexts in which their focus is enforcement.

Sixth, the commissioner is fettered in ways that other investigative agencies are not. In particular, he or she is required to inform suspects if they are under investigation, and he or she is prohibited from explaining to Parliament and Canadians why an investigation has not led to charges of prosecution.

Seventh, it leaves serious loopholes in the voter contact registry system that is to be administered by the CRTC, which is a welcome addition to the Canada Elections Act, but which does not go far enough. The loopholes include: the fact that the voter contact scripts for live calls and audio recordings of robocalls do not have to be conveyed to the CRTC; the fact that no person or group is under any obligation to retain phone numbers of persons called, let alone to convey those numbers to the CRTC; and the fact that no affirmative obligations are placed on the CRTC to proactively inform the commissioner if and when a CRTC employee suspects wrongdoing. I speak obviously not of wrongdoing on the part of the CRTC, but on the part of the actors who have to report to the CRTC.

Eighth, the Canada Elections Act, through Bill C-23, retains a politicized system of appointing deputy returning officers, poll clerks and registration officers as elections officials or officers for election day. As such, the Canada Elections Act does not grant Elections Canada the full authority to appoint all elections officers on the basis of merit, with corresponding detrimental effects for Elections Canada's capacity to minimize election day irregularities through more timely recruitment and training for elections officers. It is one of the major outcomes of the Neufeld report saying that the ability of Elections Canada to appoint all elections officers would be the single most important way to enhance the capacity of elections workers to minimize irregularities that the government from the beginning tried to leverage as evidence of fraud, which it was not.

Ninth, is the problematic provisions relating to voter identification that create the danger of harassment and intimidation of voters, because identity documents can now be inspected by party scrutineers. They also dissuade people from actually vouching for an address because of the fear that the requirement that the person must have known personally the person being vouched for is very unclear as to how long and how well the voucher must have known the elector.

Finally, it increases the role of money in politics through unjustified increases in donation limits and also by creating an unworkable banking loan system that would actually, in ways that are too complex to explain, benefit well-resourced candidates and parties.

Therefore, I would like to move a reasoned amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

this House decline to give third reading to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, because, amongst other things, it:

(a) was rushed through Parliament without adequately taking into account the concerns raised by over 70 expert witnesses and hundreds of civil society actors that speak to a wide array of provisions that remain problematic in this bill;

(b) prohibits the Chief Electoral Officer from authorizing the use of 'Voter Information Cards' as a piece of voter identification to be used alongside a second piece of identification, despite such cards being a method of enfranchisement and promoting smoother administration of the election-day vote and despite there being no basis for believing these cards are, or are likely to be, a source of voter fraud;

(c) refuses to legislate the powers necessary for full compliance with, and enforcement of, the Canada Elections Act in light of experience with fraud and breach of other electoral law in the 2006, 2008 and 2011 general elections, notably, the power of the Chief Electoral Officer to require registered parties to provide receipts accounting for their election campaign expenses and the power of the Commissioner for Canada Elections to seek a judicial order to compel testimony during an investigation into electoral crimes such as fraud;

(d) eliminates the power of the Chief Electoral Officer to implement public education and information programs designed to enhance knowledge of our electoral democracy and encourage voting, other than for primary and secondary school students; and

(e) increases the influence of money in politics through unjustified increases in how much individuals may donate annually and how much candidates may now contribute to their own campaigns, thereby creating an undue advantage for well-resourced candidates and parties.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

moved that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, here we are arising to debate at third reading the fair elections act. This has been an excellent process in considering the democracy that we have been fortunate to inherit from our ancestors in this country, to build upon its foundations and to make it even better.

Today, we have before the House the fair elections act, a bill widely supported by the Canadian people, based on the principle of fairness and universal suffrage. It would make it easier for law-abiding Canadians to vote and harder to break the law. It would make it easier for law-abiding Canadians to contribute more financially to democracy, while making it harder for special interest groups to break election finance laws. It would make it more difficult to vote illegally or fraudulently, while giving new opportunities for Canadian voters to cast their ballots conveniently throughout an election campaign.

The bill has been subject to a great deal of debate, a variety of opinions, and some modest amendments, which built upon the foundations of the original document; so let us review now the final product that the House will consider with its vote on the bill tonight.

To start with, Canadians would be required to bring ID when they cast their ballots. In the last election, it was possible for people to arrive at their voting location without a single piece of ID and cast their ballot by having someone else vouch for their identity. Identity vouching would be no more. Every single Canadian voter would be required to bring ID showing who they are before they vote.

Beyond that, there would be a safety valve in the system to help those people whose address may not appear on their identification. For example, in communities throughout rural Alberta, Canadians often have drivers licences that do not contain a home address, but rather a post office box. That creates complications at the voting booth. In such circumstances, or ones like it, the voter would be allowed to co-sign an oath with another voter from the same polling division who does have ID and proof of residence in hand, to confirm the residency of the voter.

There would be a list of oath takers, and Elections Canada would be required by law to check that list for duplicates. Duplicates would of course be evidence of multiple voting. If that occurred, it would automatically be sent over to the commissioner, whose job it is to investigate breaches of the Canada Elections Act. Signing of a false oath or using oaths to vote more than once would subject a voter to a $50,000 fine or up to five years in prison.

There would also be a mandatory external audit to examine whether or not Elections Canada followed all of these procedures. That is particularly important, considering the abysmal record of the agency in managing the vouching process during the last election. The agency had roughly 50,000 irregularities linked to vouching last time, and 165,000 irregularities throughout the organization in other areas of its management on election day. This mandatory external audit would hold the agency accountable for this kind of mismanagement and these sorts of irregularities. That is an enormous step forward. Those protections were not in place in the last election, nor was a mandatory ID required.

The presence of ID would ensure that we know who people are before they vote, so that if they, for example, misused, abused, or misled in the taking of an oath, we would be able to track them down afterwards, having actually seen their identification.

Under the status quo, people who used vouching to commit voter fraud might never have been tracked down because they never provided ID and their identify is therefore not even registered in the system. These new safeguards would prevent against abuse, and they would embed a very simple principle into our system: if people want to vote, they must present ID.

I realize that this position is contentious within the House. The NDP and the Liberals believe that people should be allowed to vote with no ID whatsoever, that they should be able to walk in and have someone vouch for their identity. I disagree, and so do Canadians. Before I even announced that there would be some amendments to this bill, 87% of Canadians believed that identification should be required in order to vote. We agree with that 87%.

In addition to requiring ID, we would eliminate a form of identification that has proven unreliable and susceptible to abuse. In the last couple of elections, the agency has allowed voters to use their voter information card as a form of ID. This card is error-ridden. It has millions of mistakes. Some voters even get more than one of them, allowing for multiple voting to occur.

In the last election, there were errors with 12%, or roughly 1 in 6, of these voter information cards. Even today, the Chief Electoral Officer says there is a roughly 6% error rate within the voter information cards. That percentage might not sound like a lot, until we consider that there are 25 million voters in Canada, so off the top of my head, 6% equals almost 2 million errors in those cards. That presents an unacceptably high level of risk. As a result the fair elections act would end the use of the voter information card as a form of ID.

Furthermore, the fair elections act would close financial loopholes that have allowed some powerful interests to get around the donation limits. Some years ago, the House of Commons passed into place, with a great deal of consensus, restrictions on the amount that people could give and the sources from which those funds could come. Corporate and union money was no longer allowed. Individual donors were restricted to $1,000 a year. With inflation, that is about $1,200 now.

The problem is that some have found loopholes. Liberal leadership candidates, for example, took enormous loans from powerful interests and just never repaid them. In essence, those loans are identical in their effect to illegal donations. For some reason, Elections Canada did not pursue an investigation into this breach of the law, and these Liberals were allowed to get away with that practice.

New Democrats, on the other hand, were particularly creative. They invited people to leave enormous donations in excess of the donation limit in their testaments or in their wills. The NDP received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations bequeathed to them because the limits did not apply to dead people. Although dead people cannot vote, they can contribute under the status quo. The fair elections act would put a nail in that coffin and end the practice of dead donors. From now on, wills and testaments would be subject to the same donation limits as those applied to living Canadians.

All this is designed to end the abuse and the loopholes that have permitted big money to creep back into our electoral system. We understand that big money can drown out the voices of everyday Canadians. That is why our laws would attempt to restrict the flow of that money. It is so that parties can never take enough money from one donor to require them to be indebted to that donor with their public policy decision making.

These rules, whether to prevent voter fraud or to keep out unacceptably large donations, would be useless without enforcement. That is why the fair elections act would strengthen enforcement by making the chief investigator of election law independent. We would be giving him sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

Sharper teeth means that he would have tougher penalties for existing offences. A longer reach means that he would have many new offences to crack down on big money, voter fraud, and other forms of abuse. A freer hand means that he would be completely independent.

Right now, the commissioner is subject to the control of the CEO. The CEO picks his staff, directs his investigations, hires him, and can fire him at any time without cause, according to the law. This is not independence.

The fair elections act would give the commissioner control of his own staff and his own investigation, and guarantee that he cannot be fired without cause. That is the kind of independence the Canadian people expect from a chief investigator. I expect that independence would vastly improve the quality and consistency of enforcement that Canadians enjoy in their electoral system.

One of the best ways to ensure that people do not break the rules is to make those rules known and consistently applied. For example, if the agency were to allow a practice for many years and then change its mind suddenly, as it has been known to do, then it is hard for political actors to know which set of rules they are supposed to follow. As a result, the fair elections act would require the CEO to issue legal interpretations and advance rulings on requests from political parties.

For example, if a party is unclear as to how the agency would enforce a certain rule, it could send a request for an advance ruling to ask the CEO if its plan to do a, b, c, and d would be allowed. The CEO would be required to respond within a confined time period, and the party would then be able to use that advance ruling to carry out its actions in compliance. The ruling would be binding on Elections Canada.

In other words, the agency would not be allowed to tell a party that something is allowed and then change its mind after the fact. Furthermore, it would set a precedent so that all parties could follow the same practice as one party had been allowed to do. In other words, there would be one set of rules for everybody. This is a massive improvement and it represents the use of an ounce of prevention instead of a pound of punishment.

The democracy we enjoy should never be taken for granted. All of us have been given this sacred opportunity to choose who shall govern our country. Unfortunately, many Canadians choose not to exercise that right. One of the biggest obstacles to voter participation, according to Elections Canada, is a lack of basic information about how to participate.

Now most Canadians understand that they can vote on election day. That knowledge is widely understood. However, half of young people are not aware that one can vote before election day. A poll by Elections Canada showed that three-quarters of aboriginal youth were not aware that they could vote before election day, through an advance ballot, a mail-in ballot, or by going to the Elections Canada local office on any day throughout the campaign.

That knowledge would be useful in helping people get out and vote who are too busy, out of town, working, or having family or health obstacles. That is why the fair elections act would focus Elections Canada's advertising on where, when, and how to vote.

In fact, with the passage of the fair elections act, the agency would only be allowed to advertise on the basics of voting. That is a change from the system right now, and it would ensure that the information the people of Canada receive from their election agency is relevant to their role.

Finally, for the vote to matter, it has to be honoured. Under the status quo, Elections Canada is able to attempt to remove a member of Parliament, through suspension, from the House of Commons if there is a financial dispute over election spending.

I think all of us agree that if someone flagrantly and deliberately breaks election law in order to be elected, that person should be suspended, but we have to make sure that the allegation is in fact true before reversing the decision of thousands of voters by the edict of one agency head. Therefore, the fair elections act will allow any member of Parliament whose financial claims are disputed by the agency to exhaust all levels of legal appeal in the courts before the CEO can come to Parliament and ask for that MP's suspension. This is altogether fitting and proper. It is not right for an agency head to attempt to overturn the results of a democratic election and to cancel out the votes of tens of thousands of voters unless and until a judge has agreed with the allegation the CEO has presented. The fair elections act will imbed that required judicial proceeding in place, rather than the current system, which is undemocratic and unfair to voters.

We in this party and in this government believe that voting should be as easy as possible. That is why we are adding an additional day of voting during which Canadians can show up and cast their ballots in advance, in case they are not able to do so on election day.

This is a summary of the changes we are putting forward before the Canadian people. They have been widely debated and thoroughly considered in the committees of both the House and the Senate, and now we move forward to decision day. Having had all of this debate and having considered some modest but fair changes, it is time for people to decide.

This bill will allow Elections Canada to focus on its core mandate of running elections fairly and efficiently while removing from its mandate aspects that really do not belong with the agency at all. It is a major step forward for democracy. It will protect the independence of our elections, and it will allow the Canadian people to have full confidence in the apparatus constructed to carry out the vote on election day.

I invite members of all parties, having carefully considered it, to vote in favour of the fair elections act tonight and to celebrate it as a step forward in the evolution of Canadian democracy, building upon our longstanding traditions and democratic heritage to move our country forward into the future of its democracy.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the fair elections act.

The fair elections act is a bill that would make significant changes to Canada's election laws. It would close loopholes to big money, impose new penalties on political imposters who make rogue calls, and empower law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. The bill would also implement 38 of the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations.

As a member of the procedure and House affairs committee that studied this bill in great detail, I can say that through the committee process, we were able to make a great bill even better with a number of amendments made at committee through the work that we did there. A very thorough study was done and a very thorough debate happened around the bill at committee and in the House of Commons.

There are two particular elements of the bill that I would like to address in my brief remarks here today.

The first is a key change that the fair elections act would make in putting in place a very clear process that the Chief Electoral Officer would have to follow when issuing changes to the rules governing elections.

Everyone in the House has obviously been through an election or two, and in some cases many more than that. Some of us have probably encountered situations in which the rules were not as clear as we would have hoped. Complicated rules can certainly bring about unintentional breaches. They can even intimidate everyday Canadians from taking part in democracy. That is unfortunate in a democracy. We want to encourage more people to get involved, make it easier for them to stay involved, and reduce the risks of transgressing the rules.

The bill before us would make the rules for elections clear, predictable, and easy to follow. Just as importantly, it would provide a system whereby the Chief Electoral Officer could help citizens avoid making mistakes.

The bill contains provisions that would improve the transparency and consistency of election rules. It would do this by drawing on the successes of other government agencies in improving their own regulatory regimes through more communication and greater transparency. They have put in place a system of notices to advise regulated entities on how the law applies to them. These generally take the form of guidelines and interpretation notes or bulletins. For example, the Canada Revenue Agency routinely publishes bulletins to advise taxpayers on how it will interpret and apply specific provisions of income tax law.

These procedures help to clarify the rules. They establish an accessible and transparent body of information to help interpret the rules. They enable interested parties to make preliminary inquiries without prejudice to explore how the rules are likely to be interpreted.

Under the bill before us, a registered party would be able to request from the Chief Electoral Officer an advance ruling or a written interpretation of questions regarding the Canada Elections Act. The Chief Electoral Officer would be required to respond within 60 days of the request. The bill would provide a further 30-day notice period before the ruling or interpretation would be formally issued. This would enable all parties to respond to the new rule.

Advance rulings issued by the Chief Electoral Officer would be binding on him and on the commissioner of elections. In the interest of consistency and transparency, the Chief Electoral Officer would maintain an online registry, available to the public, of the complete text of final guidelines and interpretation notes, as well as of the written opinions containing advance rulings that have been issued.

This system would be far superior to what is currently in place, because currently political parties and campaigns can only guess at how their actions might be interpreted.

I would also point out that under the fair elections act, a mechanism would be put in place whereby the Chief Electoral Officer and the representatives of registered political parties would have a forum to help guide such interpretations. The forum is not new, but it would be put to better use.

The Advisory Committee of Political Parties was established to share information, to foster good working relations, to consult on legislative changes, and to resolve administrative issues.

Looking back at the reports of the Chief Electoral Officer following each general election, one finds a quick summary of the advisory committee's work. In the report on the 40th election in 2008, we learn that advisory committee members were generally satisfied with Elections Canada's services and the overall administration of the election, but there was discussion on candidate debates, the candidate nomination process, and voter identification. In the report on the 2011 general election, the advisory committee discussed the effectiveness of Elections Canada's information services. We think the practical knowledge that the advisory committee members have can assist in crafting future guidelines, interpretations, and advance rulings.

Under the fair elections act, the Chief Electoral Officer would turn to the advisory committee for guidance and advice on interpretation notes. The committee would have 15 days to weigh in and determine whether it thinks the guideline is fair. The Chief Electoral Officer and the parties can help ensure that the rules are clear and fair.

While the advice of the advisory committee is not binding on the Chief Electoral Officer, it should help to ensure that future rules are informed by the realities that political parties face.

The changes that I have referred to thus far in my speech deal with matters that most Canadians may not know about, but they are very important. They make the rules clearer and help prevent the unintentional breaking of the rules. They are, I would suggest, of vital interest to all members of the House, and I certainly trust that we will have them in place in time for the next election.

The second element that I would like to discuss today is the provision in the bill that would require voters to prove their identities when voting. This is clearly something that the vast majority of Canadians wholeheartedly support. They understand it is a very reasonable requirement that people should be able to prove their identities when voting. In fact, in a recent poll, 87% of Canadians indicated that was something they believed was a very reasonable thing that they supported. I can confirm that from anecdotal evidence and through conversations I have had with constituents and other Canadians. It is something that many people feel quite strongly is an important part of ensuring a fair democracy.

I would note that during the committee process there was a lot of discussion regarding those particular provisions. There were some amendments made in relation to voter identification aspects. As it currently sits, there are 39 different forms of ID that can be used to prove one's identity when voting, and there are 13 pieces of ID, besides one's driver's licence, that can be used to prove people's addresses.

Obviously those are very important changes. In committee, there were some amendments made in order to provide for any potential concerns, but we are still very much requiring that people be able to prove their identities when voting. There is provision for a written co-signed oath, signed by both the elector and another elector who is able to produce the proper identification, in order to swear to an elector's residence for those who may not have their residential addresses on their identification. That would ensure compliance with the rules and ensure that people can verify who they are in order to vote.

The committee heard many times from the opposition about hypothetical voters who would not be able to vote with these changes. I would note that during the committee process, every time I heard about one of these hypothetical voters, I would think about it. I do not have time in my remarks, but hopefully I will get a chance in the questions to go through what those hypothetical voters could do to prove their residences and identities. In all cases, I was able to come up with a solution that would allow someone to vote in that hypothetical situation.

One thing I did note is that at no time during the committee hearings, and there were very extensive hearings, did I hear any one person say he or she would not be able to vote should these changes be put in place, nor did I ever hear anyone say that he or she knew of anyone who would not be able to vote.

It is quite clear to me that there is full support for those changes. What it will do is ensure the sanctity of the election process and ensure that all Canadians are eligible to vote who are in fact eligible to vote.

I look forward to questions.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-23, the fair elections act.

The bill would fulfill a commitment made by our government during the last Speech from the Throne and in it our government committed to bringing forward a comprehensive election reform proposal that would protect the votes of Canadians at the polls.

The fair elections act would ensure that constituents in Etobicoke Centre, along with all Canadians, would be in charge of democracy by putting special interests on the sidelines and the rule-breakers out of business.

It would also make it harder for people to break the law. It would close loopholes in big money. It would impose tough new penalties on political imposters and those rogue calls and it would empower the Commissioner of Canada Elections with sharper teeth, a longer reach and a freer hand.

The fair elections act would make our laws clear and easy to follow. It would make life harder for election law-breakers and easier for the honest people to take part in democracy.

I believe Canadians agree that our current system can be improved. For example, 87% of Canadians believe it is reasonable to require someone to prove his or her identity and address before voting. Based on my conversations with constituents in Etobicoke Centre, I would also submit that a majority of my constituents would agree with this view. This is why I am proud that our government is committed to enhancing our electoral laws and protecting the integrity of each and every ballot.

What I would not support is the NDP's suggestion that people should not require any ID to vote. The fair elections act would prohibit the use of vouching and voter information cards as replacements for acceptable ID.

Studies commissioned by Elections Canada demonstrate mass irregularities in the use of vouching and high rates of inaccuracy on voter information cards. Under the act, voters would continue to have 39 different forms of authorized identification to choose from to prove their identity and to prove their residence.

Our government has also recently announced that under the fair elections act, electors with no identification that proves their residence would be allowed to vote with two pieces of identification that prove their identity and a written oath as to their residence provided that another elector from the same polling division, who proves his or her identity and residence by providing documentary proof, would also take a written oath as to the elector's residence. These changes are abundantly fair and reasonable.

Stopping possible election fraud is just one of the many positive changes that the fair elections act proposes to make. The act would protect voters from rogue calls and from political imposters by punishing those who would attempt to deceive Canadians. For example, Bill C-23 would create a mandatory public registry for mass calling and impose prison time for impersonating election officials. It would also increase penalties for deceiving people out of their votes.

The fair elections act would give the Commissioner of Canada Elections sharper teeth, a longer reach and a freer hand to ensure we would have strong elections law enforcement.

The bill would allow for small donations coming in and keep big money out of our elections by ensuring donation limits could not be circumvented. Big money from special interests can drown out the voices of everyday citizens, like people in Etobicoke Centre, who have supported me, and those constituents who come to my office often looking to discuss current legislation or seeking assistance on a variety of issues. Theirs are the voices that should be reflected in the House.

Lastly, the bill would provide better customer service for voters by adding another advanced poll day and ensuring Canadians would know where to vote, when to vote and what ID to bring with them.

The fair elections act would also explicitly require Elections Canada to inform disabled voters of the extra help available to help them vote.

I believe the majority of my constituents would agree with me in that the fair elections act would make life harder for election law-breakers and easier for honest people to take part in our democratic process.

I do want to address something about our youth. I reach out to schools and to various groups in my constituency and beyond when I am asked to speak for a variety of reasons. I tell people, including at citizenship ceremonies, that citizenship comes with duties and responsibilities. One of those duties is to vote. I have said that before and I have said that often. I tell that to school groups, to youth, and to people frequently when I speak in front of public groups. It is very important that people understand that, to make sure that our democracy works as it has.

Make no mistake, Canada is a heaven on earth. There are people clamouring to come to our country because of what we have, because of the strength of our democracy, and how hard we work to ensure that each and every person is enfranchised with their vote.

I am very proud of the bill. I am very proud to stand for it. I am very proud to speak for it.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, almost two years ago the NDP tabled a motion demanding more powers for the Chief Electoral Officer, and for the government to present a bill within six months. This motion was unanimously adopted by the House.

In the fall of 2012, in response to the Conservatives' non-action on the bill, my colleague, the member for Toronto—Danforth, presented Bill C-453, which proposed changes to the Canada Elections Act to prevent and punish electoral fraud carried out through fraudulent phone calls. Many of the provisions he suggested are now included in Bill C-23. There is no denying that those concessions by the Conservatives prove the effectiveness of a strong opposition by the NDP and by Canadians, who came together and stood up for our democracy.

Yes, as a result of this strong opposition, the Conservatives have backed down on some of the fundamental aspects of the unfair elections act. Unfortunately, they have also shut down the study of this bill with half of the NDP's common sense amendments still under debate. In good faith, the NDP proposed close to 100 ways to improve this widely denounced bill, but the Conservatives rejected all of them.

The Conservatives have a track record of breaking election laws. The Minister of State for Democratic Reform has been attacking Elections Canada for many years. Bill C-23 clearly attacks Elections Canada by cutting its powers, and this is unacceptable.

Removing powers from the Chief Electoral Officer instead of increasing his power is a huge mistake. Placing the Commissioner of Canada Elections under the Director of Public Prosecutions and rejecting NDP amendments that would have given investigators the tools they need to crack down on electoral fraud is another huge mistake.

With Bill C-23, the commissioner would no longer be part of Elections Canada. The reality is that there is a necessary working relationship between the commissioner and Elections Canada, which includes daily consultation. This change would cause a great loss of expertise and knowledge transfer. Sharing information is vital there, and I am glad that after the NDP pushed back, a government amendment at committee would now allow information-sharing between the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner.

The minister has been misleading Canadians into thinking it is a requirement of independence that the commissioner be separated from the Chief Electoral Officer. It is entirely appropriate that the commissioner be integrated within the structure of Elections Canada. In Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, and Quebec, the chief electoral officers assume all functions.

Thanks to the strong NDP opposition, the government also scaled back its attack on the Chief Electoral Officer's ability to engage in public education, though the government amendment only half removes this new muzzle. The Chief Electoral Officer is now limited to advertising only certain aspects of the electoral process, those being when, where, and how to vote. He is also limited to participating in voter engagement programs only at the elementary and secondary levels. Elections Canada is still prohibited from partnering with other groups, such as university-level programs to engage youth aged 18 to 25 to vote. Some reports suggest that a significant number of young people who pass on voting the first time they are offered a chance are likely not to vote, ever, in their lifetimes. Limiting the Chief Electoral Officer to engage in public education is certainly not a way to increase voter participation, especially among young new voters and demographics that tend to have a lower turnout, such as first nation communities.

The Chief Electoral Officer would also need to seek Treasury Board approval to hire technical experts for conducting research and delivering reports such as the Neufeld report and the IRPP report on fraudulent robocalls in the 2011 election. This is sheer government interference with the work of an officer of Parliament.

Thanks to the NDP and civil society opposition, the Conservatives have amended the bill to allow vouching for addresses. However, this bill still prohibits the voter information card to be used to prove addresses as one of the two pieces of ID.

Voter information cards benefit those people who face challenges in establishing their address when it is time to vote: youth on campus, seniors, and aboriginal people. Prohibiting the voter information card from being used as a piece of ID in an election would deter electors from voting, as indicated by the Chief Electoral Officer.

In fact, the Conservatives should have looked into the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations for prevention measures, such as providing more training and information to elections staff and volunteers and the need for better recruitment and advance recruitment of election workers. Instead, the Conservatives rejected an NDP amendment on this.

I would like to underscore the fact that some key elements are missing in Bill C-23. This bill would not give more power to the Chief Electoral Officer to request financial documents to ensure political entities comply with their obligations. This was in our 2012 motion. Instead, the bill would grant more power to the auditors hired by political parties.

The Elections Canada commissioner had asked for powers to compel witnesses. The commissioner, who would now be under the Director of Public Prosecutions, would not be granted such powers. Several provincial election laws grant chief electoral officers or commissioners the power to compel persons to appear before them and provide information or produce records. This laws are in place in Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, and Yukon.

Canadians should not trust the Conservatives to stop fraud. Canadians deserve better.

I would like to share some very interesting facts and quotes from witnesses who were questioned by my colleagues in committee.

To put this in context, only 70 people were able to speak against Bill C-23 in committee, and only 22 committee meetings were set aside for an issue as important as changing our elections act. It is sad that the Conservatives think that reforming our country's democracy is only worth 22 committee meetings. We were given just 40 hours or so to study such an important bill.

There are plenty of quotes from people who shared our opinion. They said that major changes needed to be made to the bill. There are good things in the bill, but as parliamentarians, we have to pick bills apart to make sure that they will improve people's lives and democracy in our country. There are already so many people who do not vote. We have to ask ourselves whether this bill will enable more people to exercise their right to vote. Unfortunately, I do not think that we will be able to answer that question.

Just outside my riding, there is an Indian reserve. I would like to quote Teresa Edwards, who was asked about aboriginal voting. When the subject of vouching came up, she was told how great it was that people could use any of 39 pieces of ID to vote. Here is what Teresa Edwards said about that:

...it shows the amount of privilege that's in this room that people have no comprehension of how difficult it could be for aboriginal people to obtain identification.

...This will only further put up barriers for aboriginal people and it can't help but make someone wonder, is that the intent? Is this really democracy or is the intent to actually limit aboriginal voting in the next election?

It is a shame, because we are wondering the same thing about this government. We get the impression that the government does not like some people and that it is trying to prevent them from voting. That is what Ms. Edwards was suggesting in her comments to the committee. To me, that is serious.

As I said in my speech, right now, most young people in our country do not vote.

Last weekend, I met some young people in my riding and most of them told me that they were not sure whether they were going to vote and that they do not trust the current government. They wondered whether things would be different with another government.

I tried to explain to them that the NDP is different. We are not here for politics, power, money or success. We were all elected on a wave. No one knew we were going to be elected. We are here to defend values. That is what I tried to explain to them. It is interesting to note that these are people who did not vote. As I was saying, there are many studies.

Apathy is Boring is a group I have met with often and they tell me that the danger is that people who do not vote when they first become eligible to do so will likely never vote. It is therefore crucial that the government realize how important it is to get young people and first nations to vote and why this type of bill is sad for our democracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will return to these topics a little later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have put in an amendment that should capture everyone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for his speech. He worked with us in committee on Bill C-23. I greatly appreciated his various views during the clause-by-clause study phase of the proposed legislation.

I would like my colleague to speak in general about the process followed by the government in the case of Bill C-23, for example, about the fact that there was very little, if any, consultation. When electoral legislation is tabled in a country like Canada, should we encourage such an approach, specifically having the majority impose changes to such a fundamental piece of legislation as the Canada Elections Act? I would like to hear his views on the subject.

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

Mr. Speaker, I opened it up for a joke, and I got one.

I want to say that the whole process was a little disappointing.

By way of explanation, it seems to me that the public pressure had been so high and so heated that changes had to be made on their part, especially on vouching. Rather than go through what one would consider the regular process of making changes and amendments at committee stage, the government did it through a pre-study, asked for by the minister and given to the Senate and the Conservative senators there. “Theatrics” is perhaps one way of describing it. However, there were some positive steps in the right direction.

My only problem is that the Conservatives did good measures to a bad bill, but unfortunately, the bill is still bad. In effect, we voted yes to the vast majority of the amendments the Conservatives proposed, but in the end, we voted against the particular clauses, and then in the end, against the bill itself because of many measures.

There is one I would like to highlight. I tried to get a question in earlier, because I wanted to ask some of my Conservative colleagues about the fact that I truly believe that in the next election, one of the biggest mistakes will be realized very quickly.

Not just on election days but on advance polling days, we are going to see a lot of seniors and students with voter information cards. Many people still call them voter identity cards. Those cards can no longer be used as a piece of identification.

Let us remember, people need three elements to qualify to vote. They have to prove that they are Canadian citizens. They have to prove that they are over 18 years of age. The third measure is that they have to prove their addresses, where they live in a riding, to vote in a particular riding. This is what could pose a problem.

I have been in four campaigns. My fifth one is coming up. I remember campaigning and going to many seniors' homes. Just prior to voting day, they would have that card sitting on the kitchen table or pinned to the refrigerator. It was always ready, right there, ready to take, ready to use when they voted. That is now going to be lost because of this. That is unfortunate, because the address on that card was actually updated more than a person's driver's licence, which is acceptable. It is one of the very few pieces of ID published by the federal government, in this case through Elections Canada, that actually has an address on it.

The way I described it in committee was that it is like a boarding pass. People cannot get on a plane without a boarding pass. In many seniors' minds, they could not vote without that card. It was a voting pass that told them that they were good to exercise their right in this democracy.

There are a lot of examples being thrown around the House about vouching, about going into a bar and vouching someone who is above the age of 19, or going across the border and vouching for a person's identity, which people cannot do, to get into another country.

Let us bear in mind that voting is a charter right we have as citizens. It is in section 3 of the charter. Some of my colleagues brought up potential challenges as a result of this. I do not doubt it, but I will not delve into that too much, because it has already been handled.

However, I would like to talk about some of the other changes.

The Chief Elections Officer is now capped at one renewable 10-year term. The opinions and guidelines were also discussed. The CEO now may inform elementary and high school students about the voting process. This is a wonderful process. Groups such as civics students run elections within the school system. These are kids below the age of majority. They go through the exercise, and Elections Canada helps subsidize their efforts to bring democracy into the classroom. It is a wonderful exercise. Although that was not allowed under the original form of Bill C-23, the Conservatives allowed an exemption to do that.

Here is my problem with that. That is good for that particular measure, but what about other measures Elections Canada hopes to invest in to further our principles of democracy by informing and teaching people about how they vote and why it is important to vote? They could be not just for secondary students but also for post-secondary students. There could be programs for first nations. There could be programs on many facets that would allow Elections Canada to bring forward democracy and to advertise in a non-partisan way. The government says that this should be left up to the parties.

I would be disappointed if the only way people could inform themselves about voting in the next election was pinned on negative advertising. We all do it, some more than others. We all partake. The problem with that is that it is not an inspirational, non-partisan way to convince people to exercise their right. I know that the fundamentals about the location and how to do it are contained in this bill, but there are certain things that have to be communicated to individuals that may not be caught up in this bill.

I will give an example. Earlier I mentioned voter information cards, the identity cards. They cannot be used to vote. It should say that on the card, because a lot of people will be disappointed. However, can Elections Canada go out and inform people specifically that they can no longer use that voter information card? These are things that were covered in this bill before. What is happening here is that we are seeing that Elections Canada is being held down in a way that is just not healthy.

Many of us travel abroad. We go for work reasons. We go to Europe. We go to Asia. I went on a recent trip to Mongolia with the Governor General. One individual said to me that they love Canada in many respects, and one of the reasons is the independence of the bureaucracy, and in particular, the independence of Elections Canada. It is a model to be used by countries that are not as experienced in democracy. Mongolia is a prime example of a young democracy. The independence of that agency is sacrosanct. This bill takes measures by which it would put it into a corner and handcuff it in a way that would not allow it to act as the agency that we so love and that many countries revere.

An example is the commissioner. We thought for sure that there was an amendment coming about this. We thought, most certainly, that there would be at least some small modicum of flexibility, but there was none, to allow the commissioner what that person asked for, which is the same type of powers contained in the Competition Act. Instead, the Conservatives have taken that position and put it into public prosecutions. This was not an exercise in independence. This was an exercise in isolation, and that is what is going to be detrimental in future investigations.

The other amendments on some of the loopholes, such as calls to raise money from people who have donated in the past, have been eliminated. That is fine.

As I said before, though, a lot of these measures have made a bad bill better, but they certainly have not made a bad bill good.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise to talk about Bill C-23, the unfair elections act.

We have sat through committee. We have gone through several amendments, the vast majority proposed by the government. I would love to say that I take satisfaction in knowing that two of my amendments were accepted by the Conservatives, but they were just minor fixes, inconsequential stuff. There was nothing major.

My friend is trying to egg me on. I want to thank my hon. colleague from Burlington for his encouragement in getting those amendments passed, albeit diminutive in nature.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Neufeld report showed that vouching is extremely difficult to administer. That is what led to the 42%, or higher, error rate. In fact, if we look at multiple errors, 80% of vouching transactions had errors. Why is that? Mainly because Elections Canada officials are well-meaning, on the ground in the ridings, but they tend to work one or two days every few years. Vouching is very complicated and, really, comes from an era when people did not have as many forms of ID on them as they do on any given day.

What our amendments to Bill C-23 would do, to answer the second part of my friend's question, is address the fact that, yes, not enough of the 39 forms have ID. Even though there is the ability for attestation letters to satisfy certain groups, like students or those living in shelters, that sort of thing, we feel that the added safeguard would maximize voting by allowing someone to take an oath as per their residence that would be verified at the polls. They would still need to show identification as to who they are, so that no irregularity or fraud could result, but if they were not able to satisfy the residency requirement, an oath could be administered and they could proceed to mark their ballot. I think it is a good balance.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member clearly did not listen to the final moments of my remarks where I showed that Elections Canada's move to the 39 forms of identification, with specific attestation letters for those on first nations reserves, would actually allow a template that could be used now to raise turnout and participation by that community. It is interesting to note that turnouts are higher at some band council elections. There is the ability to run localized and provincial elections. We would now have a better way to do that federally.

I would invite the member to look at the Supreme Court decision that I think sets the stage to show that Bill C-23 would improve our system. The majority opinion there said it would be better to keep the inherent confidence in our system to ask someone to return to the polls with the proper registration materials than it would be to allow somebody to vote who may not be entitled to vote.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to offer my voice in this House of Commons on Bill C-23.

I did have the privilege of spending a lot of time, as I said, with colleagues on the procedure and House affairs committee. I also had the ability, particularly as a by-election winner, to follow this issue as it evolved to the present state that is before this House of Commons, which is Bill C-23.

In my brief time that I have, I am going to try to dispel a few myths that still linger out there on Bill C-23.

I have been having great conversations with people in my riding of Durham, and I know people in my riding have been patiently waiting for me to speak on this today. I have also heard from passionate Canadians on all sides of this issue, from people in coffee shops, some passionate University of Toronto professors talking about modernizing our elections law, critiques, positive comments, and that sort of thing. However, the echo chamber and politics around Bill C-23 led to some myths that in many cases still remain out there. Therefore, in my remarks today, I am going to try and dispel some of the myths.

The biggest myth that we still hear in debate in this place is that Bill C-23 came from out of nowhere, with no consultation, no contribution from expert opinion, and that sort of thing, that this was foisted upon Canada, and that it was done with strategic brilliance to favour Conservatives.

The reality is that Bill C-23 comes from the need to fix our antiquated system of administering elections. The “antique” comes from the Elections Canada expert charged with making recommendations on the forum. In fact, Terry Neufeld, at page 24 of his report, said: “...an overhaul is urgently required”.

Why did Elections Canada ask Mr. Neufeld, who served as the B.C. Chief Electoral Officer with distinction for many years, for this report?

Well, Elections Canada asked for it after the calamity of the election in Etobicoke Centre in 2011. We have a fine member for Etobicoke Centre in this place who won a narrow win by 26 votes. However, a lower court in Ontario overturned that result. All election observers recognize that if small margin elections can be overturned so easily, it could lead to a margin of litigation and in fact further lack of confidence in our election results.

Fortunately, in that case, the overturning of the result was reversed and the Supreme Court of Canada held that the member for Etobicoke Centre won. The Supreme Court decision also demonstrated that the system of running elections in Canada was profoundly broken, which led to Mr. Neufeld. In fact, that decision led to a national audit of elections with thousands of polls examined to see where there were errors in the system, including some polls in my 2012 byelection in Durham. That audit allowed Mr. Neufeld to examine the cases of errors in registration, in vouching, and make an urgent plea to modernize our elections law.

Mr. Neufeld was also prescient. We warned that there would be radical resistance because we live in a great parliamentary democracy. Our system seems to run quite well and so a lot of people do not feel there is really a need to reform. However, the Supreme Court of Canada case showed that fraud and irregularities can be considered on par if they result in an election result being overturned. Serious irregularities can lead to that result. We saw that in Etobicoke Centre.

What did Mr. Neufeld's report say about irregularities? On average, there are 500 irregularities per riding. Historically, there are a lot of politicians at the provincial and federal levels with the nickname “landslide”, and they usually get that nickname by winning their first election with a very narrow result.

In fact, most general elections have between 5 and 15 seats decided by 500 or fewer votes, while the audit showed that there are at least 500 irregularities or errors per riding. There was a real risk to the margin of litigation and no end to an election result in a community. It is unfair if that community has to wait months for litigation to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine who it is sending to the House of Commons.

Another myth I would like to address is vouching. I asked my hon. colleague a question on that because it was portrayed by some voices in the media that the elimination of vouching was the decline of our democracy as we know it. People were going to be disenfranchised and their constitutional right to vote was going to be struck from them. That is not the case. In fact, there were numbers quoted by some learned people, even before committee, suggesting that hundreds of thousands of people would lose their right to vote because of the elimination of vouching.

The fatal error with that logic is the fact that they did not ask the question to determine whether the person who vouched had any idea. I would note that only a few provinces allow vouching and no municipalities in the province of Ontario allow vouching. To suggest that everyone who used a vouching approach to voting would not have any ID to satisfy the basic registration requirements is simply erroneous. That number was thrown out and repeated many times, even by good members of this place, without any basis in reality.

What was the reality from the audit? Mr. Neufeld looked and 120,000 people in Canada vouched in the 2011 general election. There were 120,000 vouching transactions and he found 95,500 errors. It is hardly something that inspires confidence in a G7 country. They were serious errors. Often there were multiple mistakes made in the vouching process. Someone vouching several times for one person is not allowed, and that sort of thing, but Mr. Neufeld found that 42% of all vouching transactions, almost half, were serious errors. When we connect that with the Supreme Court that showed that serious errors and irregularities are as bad for our system as fraud, clearly something needed to be done. Mr. Neufeld, at page 28 of his report, said that it would be very difficult to fix vouching.

Therefore, we think it is reasonable to ask Canadians to show identification when they vote. Our amendments have also recognized that some people may have difficulty with the address component at registration, so there will be some flexibility built in for those people. However, I sincerely hope that in the future that ambiguity is eliminated so that we can have absolute certainty.

I would also refer people on this subject to the 2007 “Electoral Participation of Electors with Disabilities” report commissioned by Elections Canada. Dr. Prince ran that study that looked at specific groups that were under-represented on voting day. That report from Elections Canada, as well as people who appear before committee, confirmed that voter participation, low turnout rates of students, members of first nations, or the homeless, are not related to identification or registration issues. Their participation challenges are totally distinct and something we should address, but when it was being connected with vouching, it was done in a way to cause unnecessary concern among Canadians.

Finally, we have heard a lot in this place about the 39 forms of identification that Elections Canada provides. I found many people, even media commentators, thinking that those 39 pieces were in Bill C-23. Those forms of identification are outlined by Elections Canada after specific consideration for groups with low participation rates. I have suggested that attestation letters used by first nations, schools, and shelters could actually improve turnout. Those are there now. They were there in the last election.

Bill C-23 is an approach that we feel would modernize a system that has demanded modernization for a generation. Our modest amendments are as a result of having listened to the concerns and would strengthen the bill. I think we are going to have better results, in the future, in our elections.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I have greatly enjoyed sitting with him on the committee. He always asks very interesting questions.

In terms of his question, and in relation to the 87% of people polled, I would like to remind him that the question respondents were asked was whether they agreed that people should have to identify themselves before voting. I entirely agree with that. I am among the 87% of Canadians who believe people should have to identify themselves before voting. The difference is that I think that having someone vouch for a person, and having that person sign a declaration confirming the identity of the person, is a sufficient form of identification.

When people were asked more specifically whether they were for or against abolishing vouching, a majority of Canadians were against. I therefore believe that I am still on the side of the majority of Canadians in opposing Bill C-23.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member wanted me to get up and ask a question after her impassioned speech earlier, so I will certainly oblige. I enjoyed my time on the procedure and House affairs committee with her, and everyone who spent a lot of time on Bill C-23.

My question stems from public opinion research that came to light, ironically the day before our government and the minister accepted substantial amendments to the bill based on commentary in this place and based on people who appeared before committee.

My question relates to vouching. It appears that the vast majority of Canadians, 86%, I believe, including the vast majority of NDP supporters, I might add, agreed with our government that it is reasonable to require someone to show identification when they are voting.

My question is for the hon. member. After all the hyperbole we heard with respect to the decline of democracy with the elimination of vouching, are the NDP keeping that strong position, does it feel that Canadians got it right, or does it agree with the majority of Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his question. It deals with one of the main problems with Bill C-23.

No, it is not reasonable for a government to use its majority to dictate changes to the Canada Elections Act. In fact, this practice is something that is never done in several Commonwealth countries. In Great Britain, for example, they are required to consult their electoral commission, the equivalent of Elections Canada, before amending the elections act. I believe the law in Australia also imposes an obligation to consult the opposition parties before amending the elections act.

These are changes that should not be made without broad consultation and a public consensus, because we are talking about the fundamental rules of our democracy. If people no longer have confidence in those rules, we have a serious problem.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of motions in Group No. 1.

Grouping of Amendments to Bill C-23

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today on a point of order arising out of the impending report stage votes on Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts.

In particular, I want to address the groupings of motions for debate at this stage. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the NDP has already raised points of order on this topic in the House, for example with respect to the report stage of Bill C-45 in November 2012.

In light of the Chair's decision then to group many amendments together for single votes, I feel obligated to rise today to speak on this subject once again. In part what I want to affirm today is the Chair's role to protect members' rights to exercise their duties as members of Parliament, including the right to vote freely on questions that are put to the House.

I would like to quote House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the second edition, O'Brien and Bosc, which states on page 307 that:

It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.

On the same page it reads that:

Freedom of speech may be the most important of the privileges accorded to Members of Parliament....

O'Brien and Bosc, a bit later in the same chapter on page 316, note that voting in the House according to a member's conscience is a freedom that all members enjoy in this House, including the Speaker on rare occasions, as you know, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that when I finish speaking, you will agree to let members vote separately on all the motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-23.

The principle of a free vote is a simple one, Mr. Speaker, one with which everyone in our democracy should be familiar. I am sure that the majority of Canadians who are watching us right now are surprised to see that I must rise today in the House to ask you to ensure that this right is respected when we vote on the motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-23.

Because this particular bill is of foundational importance to our democracy, this question becomes all the more crucial. Bill C-23 would make significant changes to our electoral laws, and as they currently stand, in many cases these changes damage the letter and spirit of the Elections Act. As well, as we learned after weeks of scrutiny, a majority of Canadians and virtually all electoral experts are opposed to the bill.

With this much on the line, I believe that it is more important than ever to safeguard members' rights to vote separately on all of the motions in amendment that will affect the bill.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 76.1(5) states that:

The Speaker shall have the power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage...

The note following the Standing Order adds that:

...the Speaker will not select for debate a motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage...

It is therefore clear that when you select a motion for debate at report stage, this means that it is not of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature, contrary to what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons likes to say again and again.

However, nothing in the Standing Orders provides that the Speaker must group the motions at report stage for votes on very different issues. There is nothing about the Chair grouping amendments in an effort to spare the government from lengthy votes.

In the annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons on page 264, the commentary on Standing Order 76(5) does note that the Speaker has a role in limiting duplication when it states:

When the Speaker selects and groups report stage motions for debate, he or she also decides on how they will be grouped for voting.

A further comment is made that this avoids the House having to vote twice on the same issue. The same explanation is given in House of Commons Procedure and Practice on page 784:

When the Speaker selects and groups motions in amendment, he or she also decides on how they will be grouped for voting....

I underscore that it is to avoid the House having to vote twice on the same issue.

It seems to me that these explanations are very clear. The selected scheme must ensure that the House does not vote twice on the same issue.

However, I would submit that the voting scheme that has been selected for report stage motions on Bill C-23 goes much further than this very clear instruction. While it is critical that the Speaker not allow the House's time to be wasted, the Speaker must also fulfill his duty to ensure that the right of members to free speech is protected and exercised to the fullest possible extent.

Specifically, when it comes to the report stage motions for Bill C-23, NDP MPs put 110 motions on the notice paper to delete the worst clauses of the bill, in our consideration, and to also delete the clauses that the committee did not have a chance to debate before the government's motion cut off committee proceedings during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Of those 110 motions, the Liberal Party submitted motions to delete 46 of the same clauses of the bill as our MPs. However, with regard to 54 of the clauses that we moved to delete, Liberals did not. I think it is reasonable to assume that the Liberal MPs would want to vote in favour of the motions that they also submitted, but would likely want to vote against the motions that they chose not to submit. It is the groupings for voting that puts them in this dilemma of choosing a single vote for all 110 motions; those that they submitted and those that they may not be in favour of.

The same problem exists for the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. She put 13 motions on notice, which were identical to our motions, but 97 of our motions that are grouped along with them were not submitted by the member. It seems logical to me that she too will be put in conflict by having to choose one vote for both parts of this enormous equation; those that she submitted and those that she did not.

What is essentially happening is that the Chair is taking clear, valid, individual questions, and putting them to the House as double-barrelled questions, or, in some cases, questions with many more barrels than two. Looking online, a quick Google search reminds us of what a double-barrelled question is, why it is a breach of the rules of logic, and what kind of absurd results it can yield.

The opening line of the Wikipedia entry for “double-barreled question”, and we could go to any other dictionary as well, tells us that, “A double-barreled question is an informal fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that touches upon more than one issue, yet allows only for one answer”. One asks two separate questions, but only allows for one answer. That sounds a lot like the situation we are facing here.

The next line tells us, “This may result in inaccuracies in the attitudes being measured for the question, as the respondent can answer only one of the two questions, and cannot indicate which one is being answered”. Again, for report stage on Bill C-23, this sounds very familiar.

These are very basic rules of logical reasoning that are being breached, rules that are necessary to avoid inaccuracies.

Mr. Speaker, on December 12, 2012, in your ruling on the point of order regarding the report stage of Bill C-45, you said that your decisions were not based exclusively on written rules, but also on the evolutionary nature of procedure and precedents.

At that point, you cited a ruling by Speaker Milliken, delivered on April 27, 2010:

...the Chair is always mindful of the established precedents, usages, traditions and practices of the House and of the role of the Chair in their ongoing evolution.

To this, you added:

This not only confirms that it is not just written rules from which the Speaker’s authority is legitimately derived, as suggested by the opposition House leader, but that the evolutionary nature of procedure must be taken into account. It was on this basis of the House’s longstanding acceptance, and in fact expectations, of the practices at report stage, in conjunction with the need for adaptation to the current context, that the amendments for Bill C-45 were grouped for debate and voting purposes in the manner that they were.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this matter and your decision on it are of fundamental importance to our democracy and its cornerstone, this House of Commons. I look forward to your ruling.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is a series of petitions, all together, from Canadians across the country, most on the west coast and the prairies.

The petitioners object to Bill C-23, the so-called fair elections act. They ask that this Parliament not pass the bill and that we start over again with a bill that ultimately would be fair.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House signed by Albertans.

The first petition calls upon parliamentarians to stand up for Canadian democracy, to reject Bill C-23, and bring forward genuine electoral reform that would stop fraud and would ensure every Canadian could exercise the right to vote.

Fair Elections Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to speak to you today about Bill C-23 at report stage. We are studying the report that the committee produced about this bill to change our elections legislation.

To begin, I would like to talk about the process because there are some major problems with the process that Bill C-23 has gone through so far. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for three years now, so I have heard from the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Canada Elections and various Elections Canada employees on the subject of our elections legislation many times.

Three years ago, we studied the report of the Chief Electoral Officer, who recommended changes to our elections legislation. He said that parts of the bill should be amended to improve democracy in Canada. We worked on that for months, and the committee produced a report that included an analysis of each of the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations.

After the robocall scandal broke, the NDP moved a motion in the House calling on the Conservatives to amend the Canada Elections Act, in particular to give Elections Canada the investigative powers it needed to request all necessary documents from political parties to ensure their compliance with the Elections Act.

Under the existing legislation, all candidates from each riding and political party must produce the documents requested by Elections Canada, such as invoices or other documentation, to verify their election spending. However, although $33 million was given to political parties during the last election, these parties did not have to submit any documentation. Elections Canada must simply assume that everything is fine and that the parties are complying with the Canada Elections Act.

I think this is one of the major flaws of Bill C-23. The Chief Electoral Officer has been calling for this very important power for a very long time. This power would help him investigate cases of fraud. However, when Bill C-23 was introduced, the bill did not provide for this power.

The motion I mentioned was unanimously passed by the House nearly two years ago and it contained that provision. However, when the bill was introduced, that provision was not there. I do not know when the government decided to change its mind. Perhaps it was when the court found that it was the Conservatives' database that was used in the robocall scandal. I do not know. The Conservatives tend to be rather unhappy when Elections Canada investigates cases of fraud, since they are generally the guilty ones.

Several months after we moved our motion, the minister of state for democratic reform at the time announced that he would introduce an election reform bill the following Thursday. However, on the Wednesday afternoon, right after the parties' caucus meetings, the bill mysteriously disappeared. Poof, no more bill. It was as though it never existed and it was never mentioned again.

Everyone wondered what had happened and where the electoral reform bill went. We will never know. We do not know what exactly was in the bill. We did not hear of it again until this past winter, when the new Minister of State for Democratic Reform introduced Bill C-23.

Not only does this bill not contain the powers requested by the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Chief Electoral Officer or any of the requested measures that should be part of electoral reform, but it also includes changes that are both unjustified and downright harmful to our democracy. The government is trying to pull the wool over Canadians' eyes so that they do not realize that it is failing to do what needs to be done to improve democracy in Canada.

For example, how does it make sense to move the Commissioner of Canada Elections into the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? We have no idea. The Conservatives say that it will make him more independent.

However, both the current and the former commissioners came to tell us that this move would not make the commissioner more independent and that it would instead interfere with his work. The Conservatives are telling us that it will help the commissioner, but the Commissioner himself is saying that he does not need to be more independent and that he does not understand the need for the changes.

This is all a show to hide the fact that the Commissioner made specific requests. He said that he is the one who investigates electoral fraud, and he told us specifically what would be really helpful to him during investigations. Nothing came of that. Instead, they are playing chess. The pieces are being moved around but nothing at all has changed in terms of the Commissioner's ability to properly investigate fraud.

There have been major problems throughout the process. When the Conservatives introduced the bill, we suggested that it be sent to committee before second reading. Basically, that would have given witnesses the opportunity to talk about what is in the bill. We would have had far greater flexibility to change various elements and produce the best electoral reform possible. That is the goal, really. I am certain that everyone wants that. The witnesses who would have appeared could have told us what needed to be changed.

Then we would have had a meaningful debate at second reading. The Conservative majority would not have imposed its will. The Conservatives decided to change everything just because they felt like it and because it would be to their advantage. This bill amends one of the most fundamental statutes in Canada. It affects 34 million Canadians. It affects every Canadian's right to vote. There was no pre-consultation with the Chief Electoral Officer, the commissioner or the political parties: no one. The Conservatives show up with this bill and force it down our throats, telling us it is good enough.

Now, because we fought quite hard and told the Conservatives that they could not just change the Canada Elections Act like this, they ended up backing down on some of the points that I thought were the most damaging. The only amendments proposed and adopted in committee—obviously those proposed by the government—mitigated some of the most troubling aspects of the bill. However, this does not change the fact that the bill fundamentally poses a lot of problems. Given the choice between the Canada Elections Act in its current form and Bill C-23, even amended, I would choose the Canada Elections Act because this bill includes too many changes and has too many flaws and problems to be acceptable.

In short, when the Conservatives introduced Bill C-23, it was a very bad bill. Currently, with the amendments, it is a very bad bill. The amendments do not go far enough for me to support this bill.

Now, how did things go in committee? Dozens of witnesses came to tell us that there were major problems with the bill that absolutely needed to be addressed and that the bill did not make sense. Finally, they managed to push hard enough that the government backed down a little on some things. However, overall, did the government representatives in committee listen to the witnesses? Did they really listen to the proceedings and take witnesses' opinions into consideration? I do not think so. The witnesses, who are experts on the subject, raised many points that did not find their way into Bill C-23 or the amendments. I guess we will have to wait for a new government in 2015 before the changes that really need to be made to the Canada Elections Act are finally made.

In the end, in a 21st century democracy and in a country like Canada, which is internationally respected for its democracy, it is a real problem for such a fundamental bill to be changed, introduced and imposed by a majority government that does not hold consultations and does not listen. It does not want to listen to anyone and does not want to hear about any problems with the bill. The government thinks its bill is terrific, and that is that.

The Conservatives really need to do better. They need to hold real consultations. A real reform of the Canada Elections Act is needed.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to speak to Bill C-23. There has been a lot of misinformation on the subject, and I am happy to have the opportunity to clarify at least some of it, and clarify why our Conservative government is putting forward the fair elections act.

A system can never be perfect, but we can always work toward improving it one step at a time. This is the very reason why the government put forward the fair elections act. This bill is designed to protect the fairness of federal elections and to ensure that all citizens are in charge of our democracy. Democracy becomes susceptible to threat when the rules are not given the proper respect. Therefore, it is our duty as citizens, and as members of the House, to protect its integrity as that in itself protects our freedom to live in a democracy.

The fair elections act would strengthen democracy by making it harder for people to break the law. The act would implement 38 of the Chief Electoral Officer's past recommendations. The first of many changes would be the process in which the commissioner of Canada Elections is appointed. It would establish that the commissioner is to be appointed by the director of public prosecutions for a seven-year term and could not be dismissed without cause. The commissioner would have full independence, with control of his or her staff and investigations. The act would permit the commissioner to publicly disclose information about the investigations when it is in the public interest, which would improve transparency.

The act would add a section that deals with voter contact calling services. Among other things, this section would require 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. It would become a requirement for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to 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 filed.

The fair elections act would give law enforcement more tools to protect the integrity of our elections by allowing the commissioner to seek tougher penalties for existing offences. It is our full intention to not allow a fast and loose approach with the rules of democracy. For more serious offences, the bill would raise the maximum fine from $2,000 to $20,000 on summary convictions, and from $5,000 to $50,000 on indictment. For registered parties, it would raise the maximum fine from $25,000 to $50,000 on summary convictions for strict liability political financing offences, and from $25,000 to $100,000 on summary convictions for political financing offences that are committed intentionally. For third parties that are groups or corporations that failed to register as third parties, the bill would raise the maximum fine to $50,000 for strict liability offences, and to $100,000 for offences that are committed intentionally.

By establishing tougher penalties, our Conservative government would deter the occurrences of offences, intentional or unintentional.

To encourage voter turnout, the bill would make it easier for voters to participate in the democratic process. The fair elections act would provide an extra day of advance polling. The additional day of voting would take place on the eighth day before polling day, creating a block of four consecutive advance polling days. This amendment would surely make it easier for Canadians across the country to vote.

It would also improve transparency by allowing the establishment of an advisory committee of political parties to provide advice to the chief electoral officers on matters relating to elections and political financing. It would amend the act to provide for the appointment of field liaison officers based on merit, to provide support for the returning officers, and to provide a link between returning officers and the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer.

The fair elections act aims to respect democratic election results. There are occasions, and my colleague spoke to this before, when the Chief Electoral Officer disagreed with the elected MPs' election expense returns. When this occurs, the MP can no longer sit or vote in the House of Commons until the expense return is changed to the CEO's satisfaction. This prevents the democratically elected member of Parliament from representing his or her constituency. The fair election act would allow the MP to present the disputed case to the courts and to have a judge quickly rule on it before the CEO makes the suspension.

In Canada, we are seeing a trend where money from special interest can drown out the voices of everyday citizens. The fair elections act would let small donors contribute more to democracy and prevent illegal, big money from sneaking in the back door.

Although the fair elections act would allow small increases in spending limits, it would be done to ensure that parties have enough resources to increase their outreach efforts and help encourage voter turnout. At the same time, this bill would impose tougher audits and penalties to enforce those limits.

This bill would help ensure that voter fraud does not occur by strengthening the rules around voter identification. With respect to voter ID, the act would be amended to require the same voter identification for voting at the Office of the Return Officer in an elector's own riding as it requires for voting at ordinary polls. It would also prohibit the use of voter information cards as a proof of identity.

It would eliminate the ability of an elector to prove their identity through vouching, and require an elector whose name was crossed off electors' lists in error to take a written oath before receiving a ballot. I want to explain why this is important. With a democracy comes responsibility. As a voter, I am responsible for providing proper identification so that I can participate in the democratic process.

Voting is one of the most important privileges and duties that we get to enjoy, so it is extremely important that we do not treat it lightly, that we take it seriously and meet all of the requirements.

Members of all parties have noted that the rules can be unclear. It is our intention that the fair elections act would fix that identified problem by making rules for elections clear, predictable, and easy to follow. These are a few changes that are proposed in our bill. I believe that the fair elections act would protect the integrity of fair elections by improving transparency and enacting tougher penalities for rule breakers.

What our government understands is that Canadians overwhelmingly support this bill. As was mentioned before, 87% of people polled believe it is reasonable to require someone to prove their identity and address before they vote.

In conclusion, I would like to ask all members of this House to support the bill in order to bring democracy in this country to a higher level.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue on with the member's reference to committees.

The Liberal Party critic had the opportunity to introduce dozens of amendments, some of which were fairly substantial in their very nature, such as allowing Elections Canada and the commissioner to compel witnesses. The New Democratic Party also brought forward amendments.

As a result of time allocation, many of those amendments were never even discussed. At 5 p.m. on May 1, using its majority, the government passed or did not pass all of the amendments without any due process. That speaks volumes. The same thing applied for second reading and the same thing applies at report stage and will apply at third reading. The government continually uses time allocation.

Bill C-23 is a one-party piece of legislation. It is a Conservative Party bill and that is it.

I am wondering what the member has to say with regard to the way in which the Conservative government has been pushing this legislation through with a lack of respect for the opposition, which in essence, demonstrates a lack of respect for all Canadians.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I consider myself lucky to be able to speak to Bill C-23, especially because time allocation has been imposed at every step of the way. This bill has elicited a lot of debate. Thus, we have not been able to talk about Bill C-23 freely or as much as it warrants.

First, I would like to say something about the Conservative amendments adopted at committee stage. I believe that they would not have been adopted without the work of the NDP, especially my colleagues from Louis-Saint-Laurent and Toronto—Danforth.

As soon as the NDP received this bill, we realized that there were major problems and we decided to take action. Unlike the government, we consulted Canadians, we travelled across the country to hear their opinions and we listened carefully to the experts. As a result of our efforts, the Conservative government agreed to back down on some aspects of this bill. Unfortunately, it still contains many flaws.

The NDP, in good faith, suggested almost 100 amendments to improve this very controversial bill. Unfortunately, the Conservatives put their ideology ahead of the country's interests. The only amendments accepted were those to correct some wording or vocabulary errors. No substantive NDP amendment was adopted by the Conservative Party, which naturally had a majority on the committee.

The worst thing about all this is that the Conservative government, by means of its majority in committee, ended debate even before half of the amendments proposed by the NDP were debated. This is indicative of the government's scorn for the democratic process, even though the bill is actually about democratic reform.

I would like to put things in context. During an opposition day in March 2012, following the robocalls scandal, the NDP moved a motion to strengthen the election process. The motion called on the government to introduce a bill within six months of the motion being adopted. We waited much longer than six months.

I would like to point out that the motion was adopted unanimously. Among other things, it sought to strengthen Elections Canada's authority over investigations and presented measures to prevent more fraudulent calls from happening in the future. One would have reasonably expected the government to want to put things right, but it did not take those measures into account and even made things worse in its bill.

We asked that the Chief Electoral Officer be given more power to conduct investigations and to compel witnesses to appear, for example. Right now, when the Chief Electoral Officer tries to investigate a scandal, such as the robocalls, he does not even have the authority to compel potential witnesses to appear. How can he investigate when the people involved merely have to say that they do not wish to appear? That approach is not working very well. It seems to me that anybody can understand that the Chief Electoral Officer should be able to compel witnesses to appear. The Chief Electoral Officer should have been given more investigative powers to ensure that, in the future, he never finds that his hands are tied and he is unable to make sufficient progress and get the proof he needs, which unfortunately is the case right now.

Not only is the government refusing to give the Chief Electoral Officer the power to investigate, but it is also going to prevent him from educating the public and encouraging people to vote. The only person who can do this sort of work in a non-partisan way is the Chief Electoral Officer.

This work includes encouraging people to vote and finding innovative ways to get young people to vote. The government is now preventing the only person who could have done this in a non-partisan way from doing the job.

These amendments give him back a little bit of power. He will be able to participate in youth engagement programs in elementary and secondary schools. However, unfortunately, he does not have the right to encourage young people between the ages of 18 and 25 to vote. He is therefore only allowed to encourage people who are not yet old enough to vote to exercise the right to vote.

I am very pleased that young people in elementary and secondary schools are being encouraged to learn about the election process and eventually play their role as citizens, but it does not make sense that the only people the Chief Electoral Officer is allowed to approach are those who are not yet able to vote. He does not have the right to talk to students in colleges, universities or aboriginal groups. It does not make sense.

Let us talk about another problem they refused to address. We wanted to keep vouching from the start. They wanted to get rid of it, but in the end they went back on their decision. However, the voter card does not provide proof of address. People like students, seniors and first nations members will have a hard time establishing proof of address.

What is more, the NDP proposed an amendment to include a notice on the voter card that the voter could no longer use that card to vote with or as identification. This amendment seems logical to me, but the Conservatives did not even accept it. This speaks to their illogical thinking.

I know we are not allowed to use props, but I conducted a little experiment. The hon. member for Manicouagan can attest to this because he counted along with me. I emptied my wallet to see what I had on me. If I had to prove my identification today, in my purse I have 21 pieces of ID with my name on them. However, I have only three cards that prove where I live. In fact, I have to exclude my list of drugs from the pharmacy because it is not an acceptable proof of address. The only things left are my hospital card and my driver's licence. They are the only two ID cards I have in my wallet with my address on them.

Needless to say, not everyone has a driver's licence. As far as the hospital card is concerned, what happens when people have not been to the hospital in 10 years? If they moved, the address on their card might be the one they had 5 or 10 years ago, when they last went to the hospital.

If I did not have a driver's licence and had recently changed my address, I would not be able to prove who I am. However, I am not a member of one of the most vulnerable groups. Imagine more vulnerable groups such as seniors, aboriginal people and students, who already have a hard time proving their identity. What will they do?

I encourage everyone to do a test at home by emptying out their wallet. They will see that their address is not shown on many of their cards. A lot of cards will have their name, but not many will have their address.

I do not walk around with my hydro and phone bills in my purse. Not to mention, I cannot even get these bills mailed to me for free. I get them online, like everyone else. Online bills are not considered original documents under the law. They are just copies printed out from a computer.

The bill still has some flaws that have not been fixed. Since more than 70 people testified in committee and only one of them supported Bill C-23, I think the Conservative government could have shown a lot more openness.

Whether we like it or not, the minister is new to his job. It is understandable that he might not draft a perfect bill. I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today to speak in favour of the fair elections act, Bill C-23.

We have heard an awful lot of debate, many hours of debate, on this very important bill. We have heard from an almost unprecedented number of witnesses at committee. Over 70 witnesses have appeared before the committee examining this piece of legislation. We have also heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Without question, Canadians have voiced their pleasure with Bill C-23, the fair elections act, because it deals with a number of very important changes to how we conduct elections in our country.

I should also point out, particularly to my colleagues on opposition benches, that although they have raised their voices in protest against the bill, many eminent Canadians who are incredibly knowledgeable about elections have stated that they believe the bill is certainly be a positive step.

I point out to my colleagues opposite that former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley, after seeing the bill and examining it for the first time, said he rated it as an A-. Once that happened, of course, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform said that perhaps through examination at committee we could bring forward some improvements to the bill and turn an A- into an A+.

That is exactly what we have done. We have listened, and listened carefully, to witnesses. We listened to testimony at committee and we have brought forward 45 amendments to the bill that would strengthen and improve the bill itself.

I think that proves quite convincingly to all that we have listened to much of the testimony throughout this proceeding and we have acted to bring improvements to those elements of the bill that needed to be improved.

However, it seems that all of the elements of the bill have been overshadowed by one single area, the area of vouching.

I want to spend the remainder of the limited time I have before me today talking about the changes we have made to the bill that would, in effect, eliminate vouching.

As the Minister of State for Democratic Reform stated just a few moments ago, up until this bill, it had been possible for any Canadian without a shred of identification to come forward to cast a ballot in a general election.

Quite frankly, we just think that is not what Canadians expect in conducting fair and open elections. We believe, at a bare minimum, that individuals should be able to, and must be required to, prove their identity.

Let me state that the overwhelming majority of Canadians agree with our position on this very fundamental aspect of elections. In fact, not only have we heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast, but there has also been a recent poll that showed with empirical evidence that over 85% of Canadians felt it appropriate that individuals planning to cast a ballot produce identification as to who they are, and over 70% of Canadians agreed with our position that vouching should be eliminated.

For those who are not aware of the term, vouching allows someone to go to a polling station without one shred of identification and ask someone who has proper identification to vouch for them—in other words, to state, “I know this person. This person is a Canadian citizen. I know where they live. They are 18 years of age or older. I know the person's name. Let them have a ballot”.

Canadians just did not feel that was proper. Canadians felt, quite properly, that all those who wanted to cast a ballot and exercise their franchise should, at a minimum, be required to show who they were and show proper identification. The fair elections act would require that. Vouching would be eliminated. If someone does not have the proper piece of identification showing their address, as the minister stated earlier, they will now be allowed to sign an oath that is co-signed by someone who does have proof of identity and address, and then they will be able to exercise their franchise and cast a vote.

When we had debate on this very important question throughout the committee hearings and throughout the debate in the House, if we listened to the opposition, it seemed as though this would be the end of democracy. If people could not vouch for someone without identification, all hell would break loose.

Excuse my language, but I am using a colloquial expression.

That is the farthest thing from Canadians' minds. As I said, over 77% of Canadians felt that vouching should be eliminated.

I would also point out that in that same poll, which I believe was conducted by Ipsos Reid, the pollsters asked those people responding not only where they lived, their age, and other demographic information, but who they would support in a general election. What did they find? They found that 66% of people who said that they would support the NDP also believed that vouching should be eliminated.

We have the unbelievable situation of the NDP, which is in favour of vouching, finding that the majority of Canadians do not agree with its position, and, more interestingly, the majority of people who vote for the NDP do not agree with the NDP's position. It just goes to show once again that the changes we have made in the fair elections act are what Canadians wanted to see.

There is one final point that I should make on vouching and the contradictory nature of the position taken by the members opposite on both the NDP and Liberal benches.

When they conduct their own elections in leadership campaigns, do they allow vouching? Do the Liberals and the NDP, when they turn to their members to elect a new leader, which both parties have done in the very recent past, allow vouching? No, they do not. They require their own members, before they are able to cast a ballot on who they would like to see as the leader of their party, to show proper identification as to who they are and where they reside.

On the one hand, we have this bizarre situation of the members opposite wanting to allow Canadians the ability to vote without identification in a general election, yet when electing their own leaders, they cannot do that. They say no; when we are electing a leader, we want to protect against voter fraud, so we demand that everyone produce identification showing who they are and where they live. However, in a general election, they take the opposite view.

Frankly, it is not only contradictory; it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Canadians have spoken, and we have listened. We have made changes to make elections in this country fairer, more transparent, and more open. It is a good day when Parliament passes Bill C-23.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the minister for bringing back vouching for address. The pressure that Canadians mounted over the total gutting of vouching under Bill C-23 eventually caused someone in the government, for reasons to be seen, to return vouching for address.

I would also like to indicate that for all of the times that the minister tried to convince people that voter information cards can be a source of fraud, he has never once been able to show one example, and all his general examples never worked. The fact is that people need a second piece of ID and if they have received a voter information card that is not their own, in order to vote they have to forge a second piece to do so. How many Canadians would even think about it, let alone do that?

Why did the government not agree to the amendments from the official opposition to require that calling service providers send audio recordings and scripts to the CRTC and that calling service providers have to keep phone numbers? At the moment, they do not even have to keep them, let alone send them. Finally, why did he not agree to require the CRTC to keep all data received for at least seven years?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the leader of the Green Party. I think she hit the nail on the head with her last comment, “This is a dark day for democracy”, in terms of the possible passage of Bill C-23.

The member outlined a number of examples in her remarks, and I would add to that with two areas that the Conservative government has undermined. Canada at one time was seen as a model to strive for in terms of how we held elections, Elections Canada, and so on. The same thing with Statistics Canada; we used to be seen as one of the best in the world, but under the current government, we are seen as one of the worst.

I have two questions for the member. One, given how seriously Bill C-23 undermines our ability to police elections and investigate foul play, does it make it possible for a government to either buy or steal an election? Two, should we be calling for United Nations observers in Canada for the next election?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in report stage to speak, initially, to my two amendments. I had hoped to have substantive amendments at report stage, but members will recall that the committee was allowed to violate its own rules by rejecting my right to speak to my amendments as they were all gavelled through, all being rejected.

I want to express thanks to the minister for being willing to listen to the extraordinary course of denunciation for Bill C-23 at first reading. Unfortunately, even with the number of government amendments that were accepted at committee, the bill falls far short of being what is required to go by the name of a “fair elections act”.

Briefly speaking to the amendments I put forward at committee, which were defeated, it is a shame that we missed the opportunity to open a discussion on getting rid of first past the post and moving to proportional representation. I think most Canadians would be shocked to find that the leaders' debates are not controlled by anybody, and that the opportunity to create a fair system, as presented at committee by Democracy Watch, was not supported by any party other than the Green Party.

On the requirements for people to bring so many different kinds of ID, we still do not have the kind of system that is as reliable as the election system before the Conservatives' first round of amendments back in 2006. I wish we had ensured non-partisan poll workers.

There were numerous amendments from the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Greens on many of these points, for fairer financing and to take steps to increase voter turnout. I also put forward an amendment in the committee to shift the day of advanced polling from a Sunday. I will try again with the amendments I have before you, Mr. Speaker.

All the amendments from any opposition party were defeated at committee, with one exception, which was one when the Conservative leader on the committee pointed out that the Conservatives had been prepared to do that themselves had they had the chance.

My two amendments would do one thing, which would be fantastic, and that would be to remove the name of the political party from the ballot next to the name of the candidate. This would do a lot to reduce the excessive control of political parties over the electoral process. We used to have elections with just the name of the candidate, right up until about 1970.

I want to devote the rest of my time this morning to why we had the demand for a fair elections act, and how this bill falls far short. The initial attempt, and this was mentioned by other members in this place, the initial cry for reform of our electoral process, was in response to efforts at electoral fraud.

The amendments I put forward at committee, among those of Liberals and the New Democrats as well, called for giving Elections Canada the investigative tools it needed, such as subpoena powers, the ability to look into efforts, or deliberate efforts or actually successful efforts, at voter fraud and electoral interference that changed the course of elections. These amendments were defeated.

People have been very quick to assume that the so-called robocalls affair is now settled and nothing untoward took place there. Because the bill remains inadequate to the task of investigating electoral fraud, we can continue to have events like the 2011 robocall scandal without the tools of Elections Canada to respond.

In the time I have remaining, I want to ensure that it is understood we have not once, not twice, but three times seen quite scandalous interference in our electoral process, that if we had heard of these stories from some third world country, with some kind of tinpot dictatorship that ran fake elections, we would just shake our heads and say, “I guess that is how it happens in other countries”.

The first example was the 2005-06 election, when we had the deliberate interference in the election by our state police, the RCMP. We never got to the bottom of why Commissioner Zaccardelli broke all RCMP protocol and issued a press release during that election. According to a finding of fact by the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP, Paul Kennedy, the interference of the RCMP both violated its normal procedures and changed the course of the 2006 election. We had no investigation because there were no subpoena powers to call Mr. Zaccardelli to explain himself.

Second, we had an event that took place in Saanich—Gulf Islands in the 2008 election. I was not personally involved, but it was very clear, and there were multiple complaints to Elections Canada and the RCMP, that a robocall effort targeting NDP voters changed the course of that election and allowed a Conservative to be re-elected when all evidence suggested that he would not have been.

The Liberal candidate was neck in neck with the Conservatives. There was no NDP candidate on the ballot as he had withdrawn. An election eve round of phone calls went out spoofed as though they were from the NDP. The spoofing term is one I have learned. It is the technical term for using the home fax number, as it turned out, of an NDP volunteer to make it appear the calls originated from the NDP, urging people to get out and vote for a candidate who was no longer capable of election because he had withdrawn from the race. That changed the course of the election. Elections Canada was asked to investigate, but basically threw its hands up and said that it could not find anything, that there was nothing to see, so we should move on.

If members detect in my presentation that I am critical of the failure of Elections Canada and the RCMP to get to the bottom of that, everyone can bet I am critical. They utterly failed to defend the integrity of the election process in Saanich—Gulf Islands in 2008, and they did it again in 2011 with the robocall scandal. Thank goodness, The Council of Canadians took the matter to court. Other than Federal Court judge Mr. Justice Mosley, we would not have somebody as a finder of fact going over all the evidence and giving us clear foundational information of what occurred. Right now, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, Mr. Yves Côté, in his report of last month, once again told us that there was nothing to see, so we should move on.

Let me review what Mr. Justice Mosley found, because it is important to put it on the record to understand why this bill is so inadequate and why it should have the powers of investigation to ensure that crimes like this are properly investigated. Mr. Justice Mosley found as fact that “...there was a deliberate attempt at voter suppression during the 2011 election”. That was at paragraph 177.

At paragraph 224, he wrote:

I am satisfied that it has been established that misleading calls about the locations of polling stations were made to electors in ridings across the country, including the subject ridings, and that the purpose of those calls was to suppress the votes of electors who had indicated their voting preference in response to earlier voter identification calls.

At paragraph 246, he stated, “I find that the threshold to establish that fraud occurred has been met...”.

At paragraph 253, he said:

...I don’t doubt that the confidence rightfully held by Canadians has been shaken by the disclosures of widespread fraudulent activities that have resulted from the Commissioner’s investigations and the complaints to Elections Canada.

As well, he stated at paragraph 256:

...[the...] calls appear to have been targeted towards voters who had previously expressed a preference for an opposition party (or anyone other than the government party)...

On the matter of a smoking gun and who is responsible, essentially in this case we have a smoking gun. We know that thousands of calls were made, including in my own riding and across the country. I wrote Elections Canada with my concerns about these widespread attempts at voter suppression immediately following the May 2011 election. Who was responsible? I have made no accusations as to who I believe is responsible, but Mr. Justice Mosley found as fact the following, at paragraph 245:

I am satisfied...that the most likely source of the information used to make the misleading calls was the CIMS database maintained and controlled by the Conservative Party of Canada, accessed for that purpose by a person or persons currently unknown to this Court....the evidence points to elaborate efforts to conceal the identity of those accessing the database and arranging for the calls to be made...

What kind of democracy is this? We have the evidence of a Federal Court judge, thousands of complaints from Canadians across the country, a Commissioner of Canada Elections who says that there is nothing to look at here and everyone should move on, and we have a bill before us that would do absolutely nothing to prevent the illegitimate use of robocalls in future elections.

I concede to the minister and support the part of the bill that sets up a robocalls registry within the CRTC, but it is not sufficient to deal with the illegitimate use of robocalls and to protect Canadians, Canadian democracy and the integrity of our electoral process. This bill falls far short. This is a dark day for democracy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I like the way the member said that it is misnamed. It is not the fair elections act. Bill C-23 is far from that. One has only to look at the process by which the bill has come before us, whether it was the conception of the idea; no consultation with the many different stakeholders; the manner in which it was introduced in the House, where there was again no consultation; time allocation at second reading; or committee stage, where there were numerous amendments made that were never addressed in full because of time allocation or restrictions that saw many of the amendments voted on but never commented on. Here we are today, where again, time allocation has been brought forward.

We change one of the pillars of our democracy when we change laws. The government did not work with opposition parties or with Elections Canada, a true independent organization. Rather, it has forced the bill through.

We are calling for the Prime Minister, at the very least, to allow a free vote in the House on this issue, believing that parliamentarians will put democracy ahead of their own party's interests on this issue. It is an appeal to have a free vote.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, great remarks they were by the member for Winnipeg North outlining fairly strong criticism of Bill C-23, misnamed the fair elections act. It is the foundation, really, of how we elect people in our country. It is a bill that really should be opposed.

I have two questions for the member. Would he explain the importance of having a free vote on Bill C-23? That has been talked about by quite a number of players, and I wonder if he could expand on that. Could he also expand on the government's decision not to compel witnesses? That will certainly impact the ability of Elections Canada to do its job.

If he could answer those two questions, it would be helpful.

The House resumed from May 7 consideration of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think it is appropriate that perhaps it shall be nominated for a fiction award, perhaps for the Governor General's award under the category of fantasy. It bore little relation to anything I have heard or seen anywhere around here in the past week.

However, I am prepared to provide some factual responses on what we will be doing in the week ahead.

This afternoon we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act. If we wrap that up before 6:30, we will resume this morning’s third reading debate on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act.

Tomorrow, the House will not sit in order to accommodate the events of the National Day of honour. Hon. members will recognize those Canadians who served in Afghanistan and, particularly, those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Those ceremonies on Parliament Hill will be the cornerstone of the nation's commemorations. There will be significant events all across Canada, in which all Canadians are welcome to participate.

Next week, on Monday, we will conclude the report stage of Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act. Tuesday will see third reading and final passage of the bill. Wednesday and Thursday shall be the sixth and seventh allotted days. On both occasions, we will debate New Democratic motions.

Friday, May 16 will see Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, debated at second reading.

Finally, Wednesday, May 14 shall be the day appointed, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), for the consideration of the main estimates related to Finance for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, last week and this week, we saw a host of unprecedented attacks by this government. It makes us wonder what is in store for next week.

The government and the Prime Minister attacked the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Before that there were attacks on Kevin Page, the Chief Electoral Officer and even Sheila Fraser. The Chief Justice has now joined the group of eminent Canadians who have been criticized by this government.

Now, as we saw earlier, the government is even attacking our democracy. It is limiting MPs' speaking time after 10 minutes of debate on the electoral “deform”, Bill C-23. After 10 minutes of debate, the Conservatives informed us that they would be reducing MPs' speaking time. Thus they have cut the speaking time of 290 MPs representing 290 ridings across the country.

After the attacks this week against the Chief Justice and the attacks we have seen in the past against Kevin Page and Marc Mayrand, and even Sheila Fraser, a Canadian hero; after the attacks on democracy that we saw this morning, with the government imposing, after 10 minutes of debate on Bill C-23, the unfair elections act, time allocation of closure and forcing that through this morning; after these deplorable attacks, the question is very simple. Will the Conservatives stop their attacks on eminent Canadians who happen to disagree with them and what will the government do in the next week to restore badly shattered public confidence in the government?

Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I have many questions I would like to ask the minister because this bill is so problematic and contains so many elements that will undermine our democracy.

A little earlier on, the minister mentioned the number of hours we had to examine this bill in committee. The reality is that all of the witnesses who came to talk about Bill C-23 pointed out the various problems with it and spoke about how it would be a real problem for our Canada Elections Act. In their opinion, there are many provisions that will not have the intended effect.

I think it is terrible that the minister is quoting the Chief Electoral Officer to justify the fact that he is now limiting the debate, because the Chief Electoral Officer himself came to committee to talk about just how many problems this bill will cause if it is passed.

As a result, I would like the minister to explain how he plans to continue introducing this type of bill when Bill C-23 does not even make any improvements to the Canada Elections Act. None of the requests made by the Commissioner of Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer regarding this bill were granted, and I do not understand why.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is complaining that I am repeating my answers. I do not change them because the truth does not change. I keep repeating the truth.

The debate is on the issue of identification. Under the fair elections act, we will require people to show some ID in order to vote.

The NDP believes that people should be able to vote without showing any ID. None whatsoever. They think that people could simply vote by getting someone to vouch for them.

That does not make sense, and Canadians agree with us on that. Vouching will no longer be an option. People will have to show ID in order to vote, and Canadians overwhelmingly agree that this makes sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely disgusting. This is the 63rd time they have used time allocation or closure to shut down debate. As we know, the government cannot seem to come up with bills that hold water.

In the past six weeks, the Supreme Court has rejected four government bills. I think that we are heading the same way with Bill C-23. I think the people will reject it, and so will the judicial system.

We are talking about 130 amendments that have been tabled to this bad bill, 130 amendments that were supposed to be considered by Parliament, and we got notice of time allocation after 10 minutes of debate for 130 amendments.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the result of this closure, this steamroller that the government is putting in, because it realizes now just what the reaction has been from the public across the country, is that 290 members of Parliament will not be permitted to speak on the bill. For those who choose to vote for this motion, Conservative MPs are muzzling themselves. They are muzzling 290 ridings across this country.

My question is very simple. What kind of disdain comes from a government that invokes closure after 10 minutes of debate and why is the government muzzling 290 members of Parliament on this bill?

Bill C-23--Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, after committee filibusters, points of order, today's spectacle of slow voting and, of course, 145 report stage amendments being presented, it is not surprising that I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, we are at report stage on Bill C-23, and it has been a long odyssey to this point; one of considerable resistance to the bill on the part of the official opposition; many sectors of Canadian society, including organizations who have engaged in the fight, academics and so on; and also, we suspect, considerable pushback from some Conservatives who themselves felt the pressure from the opposition and civil society.

It is worth recapping how we came to be where we are at.

In March 2012, the NDP tabled a motion, which then received unanimous support from everybody in the House, to call on the government to table within six months—that is, by September 2012—a bill that would address the issue of prevention of prosecution of fraudulent election calls and also add to the powers of Elections Canada, including the power of the Chief Electoral Officer to require receipts and documentation for national parties' election expenses, which, believe it or not, currently the Chief Electoral Officer does not have access to.

Well, six months later, by September 2012, a bill with that sort of focus to clearly deal with this kind of fraud and the need to enhance the powers of Elections Canada to investigate had never appeared.

By October, it was clear the government was not dealing with the priority it had promised to deal with in voting for the motion in March 2012, and so I tabled a private member's bill with a proposed, and I would say very minimal, system of voter contact registry to deal with fraudulent election calls, as well as a couple of provisions that also went to beefing up the penalties for that kind of fraud.

I told the minister at the time, which is prior to the current minister, that this was effectively to just prod the government and also help it to begin thinking about this issue, because it was clearly having trouble meeting its deadline. I said that I was available to consult as needed and also that I expected that the government, with its resources, it would be able to come up with an even more effective system.

Well, by April 2013, we still had not seen a bill, despite any number of times I stood in this House and asked when we might.

Suddenly the former minister announced to all, in a highly organized press conference on a Tuesday in April, that he would be tabling the missing bill two days later, on a Thursday. The next day we heard rumours, which were confirmed on that Thursday, that this announced bill would not be tabled after all. We will never know exactly what revolt occurred in the Conservative caucus to lead to that result, but we do know that there was a revolt, and the then-minister was replaced with the current minister shortly thereafter.

We had to wait almost a full year after that event, to March of this year, for the bill to finally be tabled, two years after the March 2012 motion when the government had agreed that it would be tabling a bill within six months and 18 months after that deadline passed.

All that time was spent coming up with a bill that we have dubbed “the unfair elections act”, which explains why the first motion at this report stage is to delete the title of the bill, which the government has called “the fair elections act”. We can think of no more Orwellian a title. The government has come close to titles that were equally unrepresentative of the actual contents of bills in the past, but this one, frankly, takes the cake.

The fact of the matter is that the bill was tabled and within 18 hours, as the critic for democratic reform, I had to be on my feet, having read, analyzed, and formed first views on a 242-page bill to reply to the minister at the start of second reading.

Within very short order, the House leader was on his feet and gave notice of time allocation; time allocation came very quickly thereafter, and very little debate on second reading was permitted.

We then went into the committee stage, where there was an effort on the part of the official opposition, the NDP, to convince the procedure and House affairs committee to allow for hearings across the country in order to hear what Canadians thought. My colleague from Hamilton Centre put on a strong filibuster in order to convey to the government how serious we were about this, but ultimately, after 10 hours, he had to concede that the arguments had not penetrated the brick wall.

We went on in committee to have 71 witnesses, only one of whom was completely in support of the bill. It was one out of 71. Most of the others were critical of large swaths of the bill, and where they were focusing only on one or two things, they were extremely critical of what it would do. They included the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, the previous chief electoral officer and commissioner, the former auditor general, and indeed Preston Manning, and the list goes on.

Then we found ourselves in a clause-by-clause process that ended up having an artificial end date. We had 10 hours of clause by clause, and by the time the guillotine came down at five o'clock last Thursday, we had gotten through only one-fifth of the 242 pages in the bill, one-half of the bill in terms of the clauses, and only half of the opposition amendments. In terms of the amendments that had actually been debated and, after clause-by-clause study, voted on, not a single official opposition amendment was voted in favour of by the government. This was a total farce of a process.

We looked, in a constructive spirit, at the government amendments, voted for those that made sense, tried to amend as it made sense, came up with some proposals that we thought were absolutely impeccable from the government's perspective, and the Conservative members still decided not to vote with us.

For example, when it was clear that the government was not going to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to authorize the use of voter information cards as a second piece of identification, when it was clear that we had lost that fight, we tabled an amendment simply saying that the Chief Electoral Officer had to ensure that the voter information cards were prominently marked with a message to say that this card cannot be used for purposes of identification on voting day, something that was designed to prevent chaos that might occur in 2015 because of the hundreds of thousands who were able to use VICs in 2011. It was the simplest of amendments and the most constructive of amendments.

The government had an entire night to reflect on it, because the amendment was moved at two minutes before closing hour the day before. The government members took overnight, came back, and said they were sorry, they could not vote for that. This was the atmosphere that we worked in.

It has to be said that the efforts of the official opposition and civil society resistance produced some major accomplishments in terms of the government standing down. The fundraising exception that was criticized across the country was removed. The central poll supervisor provision that would allow the first place party in the last election to appoint central poll supervisors was also removed.

Vouching for addresses was restored in the bill because of the pressure that we put on. Retention of documents—some documents, in any case—under the voter contact registry went from one year to three years. Public education by Elections Canada was now permitted for students in schools, even though for everybody else it remains prohibited, and we at least got on record, although the government refused to put this in text in the amendments, that the Chief Electoral Officer will be permitted to communicate freely on any subject that he wishes.

These are major accomplishments, and everyone in Canadian society who pushed back with this effort to resist this attack on our democracy, as Sheila Fraser called it, deserves credit for that.

Nonetheless, the remaining issues in the bill are huge. The bill is much worse than the current Canada Elections Act. For that reason, we will be voting against the bill and seeking, as much as possible, to move at report stage the few remaining amendments that are available to us as the official opposition.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are 145 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of C-23.

Motions Nos. 55, 58, 60, 63, 86, 87, 90, 92 to 95 and 100 will not be selected by the Chair because they were defeated in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note in Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 to 54, 56, 57, 61, 62, 64 to 85, 88, 89, 91, 96 to 99, and 101 to 145 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 54, 56, 57, 61, 62, 64 to 85, 88, 89, 91, 96 to 99 and 101 to 145 to the House.

Before I do so, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Malpeque, National Defence.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, as reported with amendment from the committee.

Report Stage Amendments—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before addressing the selection and grouping of report stage motions for Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts, I would like to address the point of order raised on May 6, 2014, by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for raising this matter as well as the Government Leader in the House, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, and the members for Toronto—Danforth, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, and Winnipeg North for their comments.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands raised concerns that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs adopted a motion requiring all remaining questions necessary to dispose of its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill to be put by a specified time, effectively creating a deadline for the debate to end. She argued that this motion contradicts an earlier committee order adopted on October 29, 2013, which gives members from non-recognized parties the ability to speak to their suggested amendments to bills before they are voted on by the committee. Because of the imposed deadline, the member's opportunity to speak to her amendments was interfered with, pursuant to the committee order of October 29, 2013. As such, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands suggested that substantive amendments, even if already voted on by the committee, should be selected for consideration at report stage. Several members rose in support of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands' point of order.

The government House leader made two central points in response. First, he reminded the House that at report stage the Speaker's authority to select report stage amendments is limited to determining whether they were presented, or could have been presented at committee. Second, he pointed out that the deadline adopted by the committee affected all members the same way, so it is inaccurate to claim that members from unrecognized parties and independents were particularly penalized in this regard.

In examining the matter, it is useful to remind the House of the power of the Speaker to select amendments at report stage. To place the matter in its proper context, it is helpful to refer to the March 21, 2001, statement by Speaker Milliken, found at page 1991 of the Debates, which establishes the guidelines upon which I rely to discharge my responsibility to select amendments at report stage. Speaker Milliken was clear in his intent when he urged:

…all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created, namely for the House to consider the committee report and the work the committee has done…

These principles are also reflected in the interpretive notes attached to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5). House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, further expands on these principles, explaining at pages 783 and 784 that:

…the Speaker will normally only select motions in amendment that could not have been presented in committee.

I would remind all members that the guidelines for selection specify whether amendments could have been presented in committee and whether they were defeated in committee. In the case of the committee's consideration of Bill C-23, all members of the committee, as well as any interested independent member, were given the opportunity to present their amendments at committee, and a certain number of these amendments were defeated. The hon. member is now asking the Chair, in exercising its powers of selection, to evaluate whether the consideration afforded such amendments in committee was sufficient.

It is evident that the committee chose to handle its consideration of Bill C-23 in a particular way. A motion setting out the process to be followed was proposed, debated, and ultimately agreed to. Just as the opportunity to present and speak to amendments was decided by way of a committee motion, the deadline by which debate would end likewise was decided by a committee motion. Such decisions are the exclusive responsibility of the committee. I do not believe that it is for the Chair to second-guess how committees choose to manage their business.

The hon. member has asked that I select motions for consideration at report stage because she was not able to debate them in committee. In doing so, she referred to a ruling I gave on December 12, 2012, whereby I noted that I would continue to select motions from independent members at report stage until such time as a satisfactory method was found for them to participate in the clause-by-clause consideration at committee. I understand that the hon. member found unsatisfactory the opportunities afforded to her at the procedure and House affairs committee in relation to Bill C-23. Other members of the committee echoed they too were not satisfied that certain amendments were not debated once the committee's self-imposed deadline was reached. That said, it remains clear to me that the committee considered and voted on all amendments she is asking me to select.

In 2006, Speaker Milliken dealt with a somewhat analogous situation in relation to Bill C-24, the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act.

On November 6, 2006, the hon. member for Burnaby-New Westminster raised a point of order regarding the decision of the Standing Committee on International Trade to limit debate and set a strict deadline by which point debate would end.

Though the situation was different insofar as he was a member of the committee concerned, I believe Speaker Milliken's response, found on page 4756 of Debates, was instructive:

I do think that committees are masters of their own procedure. They are entitled to make provisions in adopting orders in the committee that govern the way they are going to conduct their business...The committee is allowed to make amendments to the bill. The committee has imposed rules on how those amendments will be dealt with in the committee and how members will be able to address the issues raised by the amendments. It seems to me that [it] is entirely within the jurisdiction of the committee and indeed [it] is [a] quite normal exercise of its powers.

When the bill was taken up at report stage, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster submitted a large number of the amendments that had been defeated in committee, and asked the Chair to select them on the basis that they had not been debated in committee.

In a ruling I gave as Acting Speaker on November 21, 2006, found on page 5125 of Debates, I declined to do so, reminding the House that:

...the Chair selects motions which further amend an amendment adopted by a committee, motions which make consequential changes based on an amendment adopted by a committee and motions which delete a clause. Aside from this, the Chair is loath to select motions unless a member makes a compelling argument for selection based on the exceptional significance of the amendment.

As far as the Chair is concerned, in keeping with past precedents, I cannot see how the imposition of a deadline for the end of the debate could constitute a justifiable argument for the selection of amendments at report stage that were already presented and defeated in committee.

Report Stage Amendments

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the point of order that has been raised.

I want to go back to the very start where the hon. member misapprehends the basis that existed previously, and still continues to exist, for the making of amendments at report stage.

The right to make an amendment at report stage exists using the test of whether it possible to make that amendment at committee. It is only possible to propose such an amendment if it were not possible to do so at committee. That is the test. For independent members, because they were not members of the committee, that was what gave them the right to make any amendment whatsoever at report stage previously, and that was what led us into these voteathons. It was not because there was some rule somewhere that said independent members had rights over and above those of all other members of the House. That was never the case. It was because of the application of the test of whether the amendment could be made at committee.

After a series of rulings and voteathons, Mr. Speaker, you essentially provided to the House, through your rulings, a road map on which committees have since acted to empower independent members to propose such amendments at committee itself. Committees do not have to, but they have in many cases chosen to create that ability in independent members to allow them to make amendments at committee, and that is the situation in which we are commencing.

It should be understood that this is not some right that independent members have that was taken away through a fake process. That is rather insulting to the realities of what occurred here. What occurred here is the application of the rules of the House and the positive encouragement of the Speaker for how those rules could facilitate the full participation of members.

In terms of the particular context of the proceedings at procedure and House affairs committee on Bill C-23, the member is making a request for rights at that committee that no other member of the House has, no other member of the committee would have, no other member of a political party that does not sit on the committee would have. She is saying essentially that she should have a right over and above all of them.

Many members made amendments. They spoke to those amendments at committee, the committee dealt with them, and the clause-by-clause, as I understood it, went on over days. Not at one time in the committee in order to meet its deadlines and manage the bill to achieve the deadlines it had set for itself, did it set up a process wherein the committee would then proceed finally to votes on any remaining not considered clauses at that 5 p.m. deadline.

Before that deadline, I understand the member spoke to dozens of amendments that she had proposed. She was not denied an opportunity to do that at committee. She was afforded an opportunity to speak to literally dozens of amendments she had proposed, so were other members. However, when the period of time ran out, it applied equally to all members, members of the government who were proposing amendments, members of the opposition who were proposing amendments, members of any other political party who were proposing amendments, and to herself. She was treated on an equal basis, the same basis, fairly, as every other member.

What you are being asked to do, Mr. Speaker, is not defend the rights of the minority, but rather impose extra rights over top of those enjoyed by all other members of this place in favour of just that member or of independent members of the House to give them magical powers that nobody else should have. That, of course, is not the intent. That is not the role of the Speaker. That is not the effect of these rules. I put it to you that this is not something that you should accept in this case.

There is not an argument for treating and giving special additional rights. The approach as it has evolved and the process in which it has evolved has shown great wisdom in an iterative process. Obviously, you did not accede in some of my requests previously as to how this matter should be dealt with, Mr. Speaker, and we accepted those rulings and took the good advice and came up with a process that achieved those balanced objectives.

Now we are hearing a request to upset that balance, to say that everyone else, members of the government, members of the official opposition, by virtue of being members of a party will have to adhere to these rules that are established at a committee and that she, as an independent, member should have additional rights to speak to debate over and above those that everyone else has. That is simply not the case.

The fact is that there are many members in the House who do not sit on the committee and do not get to speak at all. Therefore, she already sits in a privileged position compared with them and now she seeks an even more privileged position with regard to the proceedings of the committee over and above every other member of the House. I simply do not think that is appropriate.

The committee is master of its own process, and it did that. She acknowledged herself that the chair did so in a very fair and even-handed manner, and that is how it should be seen. It should be respected. That is why I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you should not accept the proposition that has been put forward in the point of order by the member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time on a point of order to address and advance my rights at report stage under Bill C-23, the fair elections act.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall this is a narrative that has come up a few times in terms of the rights of members of Parliament in positions like mine, members of Parliament of a smaller party that does not yet have 12 members and has not yet become recognized in that sense, and the rights of independent members of Parliament. We know the principles here: that in theory all members of Parliament are equal and that we are here as members of Parliament, as many of your rulings have attested, Mr. Speaker, with the right and responsibility to turn our attention to every single piece of legislation that goes through this place and to have a meaningful opportunity to present amendments to improve legislation.

My intention with this point of order is not to draw it out. I will be as succinct as I possibly can be. I would like to review the factual situation in which I find myself and then distinguish for you the current situation from the normal situation within committees.

The situation in which I find myself is that owing to the rules of parliamentary procedure, members of Parliament in my position—either members of smaller parties or independents—on the face of it have a right to present substantive amendments at report stage because we are not allowed to be full members, or members at all, of parliamentary committees.

Mr. Speaker, since you will recall it, I will not drag out with precedents and reminders of citations the occasion on which the hon. government House leader attempted in November 2012 to suggest that persons such as me—and in fact he referred to the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands as the impetus for his efforts—should not be allowed to present substantive amendments at report stage but should put forward a test amendment, and if that one failed, none of the rest of the amendments would be heard at all.

Mr. Speaker, you ruled in December 2012 that this would not be sufficient. You cited with approval the words of former Speaker John Fraser, who on October 10, 1989, said that “...we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.”

You went on to say, Mr. Speaker, that since I did not have the right to present any amendments at committee, I must have the right to present them at report stage. Then your ruling went on to create something of a crack in the door that said that if a “satisfactory mechanism” can be found for a member in a position such as mine to have amendments considered at committee, then I would not have a double ability to come back at report stage.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives in the House used that crack in the door from your December 2012 ruling to great effect. They created identical motions that were presented by Conservative members of Parliament in every committee right after the Speech from the Throne in the fall of 2013, and I have been living under that new set of rules.

Since my point of order at the moment deals specifically with the House committee on procedure and House affairs, I can refer to its motion, although in point of fact all the motions passed by every committee were identical. This was a motion put forward and approved by the committee on October 29, 2013. I will not read all of it. I will just summarize it.

If I and other members in my position want to have amendments considered for legislation, we must present them to the committee 48 hours ahead of when the committee begins clause-by-clause study, and the committee process will deem that the motions were moved, because not being a member of the committee, I of course cannot move them. As well, I cannot debate them and I cannot participate fully before the committee during testimony of witnesses.

I do not believe that this process is satisfactory at all. Mr. Speaker, the intent of your decision in the fall of 2012 was clear: that the process should be satisfactory to both the committee and to members in my situation.

However, I have lived with this set of rules. I am doing my best to live with this set of rules. I have endeavoured to present amendments 48 hours ahead of clause by clause and to participate, even within the very tight strictures of the rules.

However, here is the key one. At paragraph (c):

(c) during the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a Member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.

Forgive me for taking a moment to say the following. The chair of the procedure and House affairs committee dealing with Bill C-23 did an exemplary job. He was fair to a fault and did an extraordinary job in terms of his personal efforts to maintain an amicable atmosphere among all parties in a very controversial and highly charged bill. I do not for one moment blame the chair for the fact that he was prevented from fulfilling a condition, a condition precedent to anything that then occurred with my involvement in committee.

I presented my amendments. They were deemed to be put forward, but I was denied in the case of the surviving 11 amendments, which were past the point of 5:00 p.m. last Thursday. There was no debate allowed on my amendments, and I was prevented from making any representation, brief or otherwise, on my amendments.

I want to go back for a moment to the normal situation. I think that many in this place, particularly some who want to deny me my rights at this point, will go back to the default position that a committee is the master of its own affairs. A committee made the decision; the committee decided it had to finish its work by five o'clock by debate so that by midnight all the clause by clause could be through. It really does not matter that democracy in this place is diminished by such a rule. The idea is that the committee made the rule and the Speaker cannot interfere.

This condition, this situation, is remarkably different. It is completely distinguished from and different from the ruling that, for instance, you gave in relation to the member for Kings—Hants, who complained of a similar process. Your ruling of November 29, 2012, deals with that particular set of parameters, a committee process in which the Speaker is not engaged. The Speaker, as I know is the usual wisdom, has no business interfering with the business of committee, because the committees are the masters of their own affairs—except in this instance.

It is only owing to your ruling that my rights at report stage can be infringed, my rights at report stage can be reduced, my rights at report stage can be essentially eliminated if a process, pursuant to your ruling, is found to be satisfactory. Only due to your ruling was this new process invented. The new process states unequivocally that the chair shall allow a member with diminished rights, no ability to participate fully, no ability to vote, no ability to even move my own amendments, no ability to ask the witnesses questions. It is a very circumscribed, limited, and I think in some ways fraudulent opportunity.

However, there is a minimum thing that this motion passed in every committee insists upon for every amendment that I have put forward for clause-by-clause consideration as a member of Parliament, with rights equal to everyone in this place. The same applies for the other independents, whether Edmonton—St. Albert, Peterborough, the members who represent the Bloc Québécois, other members within the Green Party, or the member for Ahuntsic: we have the right to work on every bill in this place, whether we are members of committee or not.

This new construct has been created. We have put ourselves within it. Many of us, not just myself, have worked very hard to present amendments during clause by clause, knowing that we will have at a minimum 60 seconds per amendment to describe our amendments and argue for them.

In this instance, I submit to you that the Conservative majority is hoist by its own petard. It cannot shut down debate at five o'clock on a Thursday and gavel through everything, thus precluding independents and smaller parties from presenting their amendments later at report stage. It can have one or the other; it cannot have both.

It forced us into this process of running from committee to committee for clause-by-clause study. At a minimum we must be allowed to present our amendments in the committee. If that right is removed unilaterally, then I submit to you that there is no question but that we revert to the general rules of parliamentary procedure, those found in O'Brien and Bosc, which are very clear that members of Parliament in my position and others in smaller parties and independents have a right to present substantive amendments at report stage. That is what I intend to do tomorrow.

I urge and I hope that you will rule that because the committee failed to live up to its own motion, it is no longer a situation of the committee making its own rules.

The committee has constructed this fake opportunity and herded members of Parliament from smaller parties and independents. We are exhorted—not just encouraged and invited, but in a sense coerced—into a process not of our choosing.

Mr. Speaker, since it was owing to your ruling that this fake process was invented, at a minimum they have to live up to it. If they fail to, then it reverts to our normal rule that we have the right to present amendments at report stage in clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-23.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's exactly what I'm talking to. We could have easily kept him there.

I'm just about done, and then you can have the floor, Scott.

We agreed. Why? Because that's the tradition. Would we have loved to have him here for two hours or more to grill him? Absolutely. But we did respect the fact that it is normal procedure. It does happen—and I've been part of public accounts in minorities that have called ministers back, etc.—but the normal procedure most recently followed by this very committee on Bill C-23 was that the minister came in for one hour. That was it.

We are just seeking the same fairness for Mr. Mulcair that this very committee and which this very opposition extended to Mr. Poilievre.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, listen. In fairness, we just did Bill C-23, a 242-page bill. We accepted that the minister came in for one hour.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My first thought on listening to the amendment on top of everything else the government's doing here was one of lamenting, wishing that the government would spend one one-hundredth as much attention investigating where the missing aboriginal women have gone in this country as they are in terms of a witch hunt on this issue. Make no mistake; that's what this is, it's a vicious witch hunt and everyone can see it and the government knows that's what they're doing, but we know they don't care about these things.

I want to underscore again to my colleagues, and I want to make sure I say it too, that Mr. Mulcair has no problems coming here and answering these questions. If the Board of Internal Economy had found any kind of wrongdoing, trust me, it would have been leaked out and it would have been in the headlines a long time ago. The government is just trying to change the political channel from all the negative press they've been getting around virtually everything they do, the obvious ones being the temporary foreign worker program, Bill C-23, and the attack on the Supreme Court. None of these things are doing them any good, so they try to create a diversion.

The media, of course, has to report what happens here. This is a man bites dog type story, so it gets lots of coverage. The government knows exactly what they're doing. However, the cat needs to be belled here.

Specifically to the amendment, it's just one more vicious piece of rooting around doing the best they can to cause as much damage as possible with no real intent to get to the bottom of anything, no intent other than changing the channel and trying to do everything they can to use their majority at this committee to put the leader of the official opposition under the gun. Demanding this kind of detail leaves no doubt to anyone paying attention exactly what the government is about here.

As I said, make no mistake; while they have a majority and they can use that majority, there will be responses when the government lowers themselves to turning this committee into a political attack dog for the Conservatives. That's what's happening and it's wrong.

Thank you.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments. I might add that there was a great deal of work and we owe a great deal of thanks to our professional clerks and analysts for all the help the committee had. The committee members worked together on a tough issue with over 70 witnesses and many briefs. I thank them all.

Democratic Reform

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the parties are already required to submit receipts following an election.

First of all, there is a mandatory audit, and the fair elections act provides for an additional audit that will require parties to submit their receipts to the auditor.

Second, the Chief Electoral Officer is not required to give the parties the money before he gets all the money he needs to audit their spending.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, we will review the ruling that was just rendered, but we will not support the NDP's proposals to allow people to vote without any identification.

The fair elections act will eliminate the use of vouching. Once this bill is passed, people will have to show ID, and Canadians agree with that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my final petition is from Albertans who are calling on the government to reject Bill C-23 and bring forward a bill that includes genuinely empowering Elections Canada to address fraud and to investigate robocalls.

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

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that in committee, the Conservatives rejected any change that would have truly improved their botched bill. They voted against the amendments that would have forced call centres to hand over to the CRTC the telephone numbers contacted and the transcripts of the calls. They voted against the amendments to limit the influence of money on political parties and to give Elections Canada real investigative powers. It is ridiculous.

With Bill C-23, the Elections Act is going to be worse than it is now. Why is the government forcing legislation down our throats that will set us back many years?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last night the Conservatives delivered its Bill C-23 punchline in the mockery they have made of Parliament and of the committee process.

New Democrats listened to experts. We went out and heard from ordinary Canadians. We came to the table in good faith with over 100 common-sense amendments that would improve the bill. Last night the Conservatives shut down the committee without even hearing half of them. It is a farce.

Will the minister accept some reasonable amendments at report stage, or will he trample ahead with the same arrogance that got him into this mess in the first place?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago that I posed a question to the government regarding the manner in which it had verbally assaulted Canada's Chief Electoral Officer.

I find it most interesting. It was not that long ago, maybe an hour or so, that I was in the procedure and house affairs committee, where I was being forced to vote. I was being forced to vote because the government had put in time allocation at 5 o'clock. All debates and discussions related to Canada's election law had come to an end because the government did not want to hear any more. Clause by clause, every clause came to a vote.

I say that because we have gone through a terrible process in changing our election laws. The Conservative government has made the decision to change the way in which our elections will operate, and it took it upon itself to make those changes without any consultation. It did not work with opposition parties. It is the only political party that supported Bill C-23 coming into second reading, and it used its majority to change the election laws.

When I sat on the committee and listened to the many different presenters who came before the committee, one of the most compelling presenters we heard from was the Chief Electoral Officer. He is the individual who is responsible for conducting Canada's elections. Elections Canada is held in high esteem around the world because Canada, generally speaking, is perceived as a country that has assigned a great deal of value to democracy. That independent organization, which is responsible for the administration of our elections, made a presentation. The Chief Electoral Officer came to the committee and expressed the concerns he had regarding what the government wanted to do with our election laws.

He was very clear that the government had missed the boat in many different ways. The most significant way, which I would like to highlight, is that the government did not recognize the need to compel a witness. It was not prepared to allow Elections Canada or the Commissioner of Elections to be able to compel a witness when they believe an election law has been broken, in order to investigate a matter. This is something that other elections agencies at the provincial level in Canada already have. Many of them have it. Elections Canada wanted to be able to do likewise. Why? I believe it is because of the last federal election.

In the last federal election, there were tens of thousands of Canadians who made contact, directly or indirectly, with Elections Canada, talking about problems. They ranged from cheating, to overspending, to robocalls, to the in-and-out scandal. There was a lot. The government's official response, which came from the minister responsible, was a verbal assault on Elections Canada's Chief Electoral Officer.

My follow-up question for the minister is this. Can he explain the reasons for the verbal assault on the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada?

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

On the same area, financing of election campaigns, this amendment speaks to the changes in Bill C-23 that substantially increase the donation that a candidate can make to their own campaign. Much as Mr. Scott noted what it means that wealthier people can donate more, I think the personal financial situation of a candidate is even more relevant.

We want Canadians of all walks of life to be able to run for Parliament on an equal playing field. Bill C-23 as now written allows a candidate to be able to increase their own donation from $1,200 to $5,000, and for party leadership candidates, from $1,200 to $25,000. These changes substantially increase the ability of wealthier Canadians to put themselves forward within their political party for leadership and on the hustings as a candidate for Parliament.

The effect of my amendment, as recommended by the organization Democracy Watch, is to delete these increases that disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will move amendment NDP-48.

Amendment NDP-48 refers to the fact that Bill C-23 has increased the maximum contribution by individuals to $1,500 from $1,200, which represents a 25% increase. This is one of the provisions that we express concern about, because although to some it may feel like a small amount, it is 25%, $300 more.

We had testimony from a professor from UNB who indicated that in fact wealthier Canadians make up the vast majority of those making donations above $200. Being able to give an extra $300 on top of $1,200 is actually something that will disproportionately favour wealthier Canadians for whom that extra bit is not a big deal. It probably will be enhanced by the fact that there do not appear to be any consequential tax amendments, so there are no extra tax credits available. Anybody giving that extra money would be doing it strictly out of their own pocket.

We do feel that this actually belies the government's claim, at least the minister's claim, that somehow this bill gets rid of big money. There are attempts—I will give him credit for that—in the banking section. We feel their attempts went wrong. They actually won't accomplish the goal, but that was an attempt. Here it's absolutely contrary to the purpose, as is the big provision that would have exempted fundraising expenses for previous donors, which I know the government is now intending to remove. We'll only get to that after five o'clock. Nonetheless, issues of big money and money politics were created by Bill C-23, and this indeed is one of them.

We are moving that the $1,500 individual donation across four different categories be returned to what it currently is, which is $1,200.

[Natasha Kim]

I believe it would. The CRTC gave examples where they had presented notices of offences against calling service providers outside of Canada. But in the case of the fair elections act, the political entities or the third parties would have to be Canadian, or connected to Canada somehow.

First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

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

Mr. Speaker, let us resume where we left off a few minutes ago.

Following consideration of Bill C-33, as well as the study I did with my colleagues and the meeting that took place two days ago with representatives from APTN and the Assembly of First Nations, in the office of the Leader of the Opposition, I have been telling my colleagues that we need to stand back when first nations take assertive action. They want to be heard and they will very likely mobilize in the upcoming months because of this draft bill on first nations education. By that, I mean let us not try to score political points.

In my last few years in the House, all too often I have noticed that some politicians, regardless of their party affiliation, usually try to score political points at public gatherings. Given the identity issue that is primarily at stake in this bill, namely first nations education, we must act judiciously. That is why first nations must be front and centre and their assertive action, their own arguments and their own points must take precedence.

It is also important to recognize that education is chronically underfunded, which naturally affects the quality of education offered in remote first nations communities. Unlike what has been claimed, it is the chronic under-funding that has affected the delivery of education services in most of the remote regions. This contradicts the claims we have heard here and what the bill is trying to imply in a roundabout way, namely that the first nations are responsible for overseeing and maintaining the quality of education and that they should shoulder the blame for their lax approach to integrating and applying the recognized education principles.

Statistics and interventions show that the chronic underfunding has been primarily responsible for the adversity in these communities. My chief said that communities can receive up to 35% less funding than the rest of the Canadian public might receive.

Therefore, the first nations members, teachers, principals and staff who are responsible for education have had to make do with less funding and under less-than-ideal conditions. The very fact that I am here today and that there has been an increase in the level of education in these communities is evidence of the resilience of first nations members.

The government must also try to get the consent and support of community members when it enacts public policy, which has not been done or has not been done often enough. With this bill and with many others, the Conservatives have shown a rather narrow view of the concept of consultation, research and consent. I have witnessed this in my few years in the House.

That is why members of first nations, who are the primary stakeholders, were only somewhat involved. In fact, their degree of involvement remains unclear to this day. The AFNQL told us that it had not been consulted, and the vast majority of first nations members said the same. That is deeply deplorable considering the nature of the issue, the education of first nations people, which is closely linked to their identity and will ultimately lead to self-determination, a basic principle of our justice system and our parliamentary system. Self-determination of peoples can be achieved only by emancipation through education. That is why primary stakeholders must be involved in the drafting and enactment of this particular kind of bill.

It is important to keep in mind that the honour of the Crown and the responsibility of the state are inextricably linked to the enactment of public policies that affect matters relating to the quiddity of being Indian. Identity and quiddity are synonyms, but there are differences. The term “quiddity” is used primarily in a legal and “aboriginal law” context.

The education of first nations is also covered by the fiduciary responsibility that must be observed between the Crown and first nations. That is my understanding, and I think that many jurists in the country would agree. As such, attempting to attribute all of the blame for the questionable outcomes of education in these communities to teachers and first nations is quite inappropriate.

Canada is currently in an uncomfortable international spotlight. UN representatives, auditors and rapporteurs have come here over the past two years because our reputation has gone beyond our borders.

Europeans, who know a thing or two about this, decided to come take a look at what is going on with respect to education, housing and food.

I met two of those rapporteurs, so I know that Canada's human rights reputation is suffering worldwide. That is the subject of another debate.

Education is covered by this fiduciary relationship. The honour of the Crown and the Government of Canada are involved every time that appalling situations come to light. Just six days ago, I was in an Innu community in Pakuashipi where members mentioned that educational adaptation is necessary, given the distance, remoteness and cultural subtleties of aboriginal communities. Teachers had to adapt out of necessity. Sometimes, children are simply brought into the forest because it is nearby. It is culturally relevant and part of the nomadic cycle and life cycle of these communities. Therefore, adjustments need to be made.

The Government of Canada must consider these specific characteristics when it drafts bills like this. Moreover, when this kind of reform is put forward, stakeholders in the community must truly be involved. Otherwise, it remains an empty shell. In this case, I would go so far as to say that authoritarianism is at play here. I will come back to that later.

The substance of the bill submitted for our consideration today shows this desire to control and interfere that is oftentimes selective. The Conservative government is trying to intervene selectively in the things that might cast an unfavourable light on the situation internationally and on education. Given that the government was exposed, it is trying to intervene in a draconian way, just as it did in many other areas in recent years. I was able to gauge this desire to intervene. The Conservatives are cherry picking, meaning that they intervene in matters that expose them and that are somewhat comfortable to them.

Therefore, the legislative instrument submitted for the consideration of the House was to outline the obligations and responsibilities of the federal government in the provision of education services on reserves, rather than to exonerate the government of its obligations by transferring the horrible consequences of the chronic underfunding of educational institutions to the institutions' local administration.

The narrative presented so far by stakeholders, who are most often Conservative stakeholders, is that the communities and stakeholders are responsible for the quality of education, even though the chronic underfunding has now been calculated. Indeed, the chronic underfunding has been calculated at a rate of 35%. My boss, the Leader of the Opposition, announced that.

I would point out in passing that, under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act, the Government of Canada is responsible for Indians and lands reserved for Indians. That is the first building block in our institution.

The government must provide education from kindergarten to grade 12 on reserve, and it must provide measures for post-secondary education. This must involve financial investments wherever they are needed. So far, this dynamic has received the most exposure.

There was tacit recognition in rather oblique language when the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development announced recently, with a great deal of hype, that there would be a huge financial investment in either 2016 or 2017. Those funds are needed now, not in 2016, because there is a dire need.

Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that this is a step forward. There had been no such recognition up until now. The government therefore took a step forward and indicated that if $2.4 billion—if memory serves—needs to be invested in 2016, that means that this area is now drastically underfunded. Now the question is what other areas will it pilfer from to come up with that money, but that is not my problem.

The selective interventionism and punitive nature of the Conservative government's initiatives clearly illustrate the inadequacy of the “my way or the highway” approach to providing services to the public and meeting government obligations regarding basic rights. I am talking about the punitive nature and selective interventionism because I have seen them first-hand, since I travel around to communities that have asserted their rights and have taken a stand, and are now being punished for it.

This is punishment. The government is simply making cuts. The government finds that the number of students does not correspond to the list that dates back to who knows when, and for that reason it is cutting $460,000 from the budget. For a remote community, that is a lot of money. These are punitive measures. Make no mistake.

Now I will say a few words about the moves the Conservatives keep making to off-load their obligations and their responsibility for government inaction on education for first nations youth by shifting the blame onto local stakeholders who have to deal with difficult conditions and limited resources.

The current government is trying to off-load its obligations not only to Canada's aboriginal peoples, but also in terms of providing services. We saw that with Canada Post. It is trying to off-load its obligations. Service delivery is more or less favourable, more or less on this government's agenda. In any case, the government will have to change its position, what with the general election just around the corner. Soon we will likely see the government handing out goodies, if I may put it that way.

Let me read a subclause that was brought to my attention; it belongs to a different time. The last time I had to analyze a section of legislation that reads a contrario goes back at least 13 or 14 years, when I got into law school. That is certainly a different time, but here it is still: clause 41 of the bill before us today reads as follows:

41. (1) The director of education, the principal, the teachers and the other staff of a school must provide all reasonable assistance to enable the temporary administrator of the school to exercise their powers and perform their functions and must provide any information relevant to the administration of the school that the temporary administrator requires. They must also comply with any direction given by the temporary administrator relating to the administration of the school.

Subclause 2 is where the harm lies:

No proceedings lie against any person referred to in subsection (1) for having in good faith provided the temporary administrator with assistance or information or complied with their directions.

Strangely enough, the title of the subclause is “Immunity”. We know, of course, that the Conservatives often use a word to mean the opposite—they talk of transparency and the Fair Elections Act, even though there is actually nothing very fair about it—and this subclause is no exception. If you read it a contrario, it means that the director of education, the principal, the teachers and the other staff members of a school can be sued if they do not provide the administrator with assistance in good faith.

It remains to be seen what good faith is and what level of cooperation is adequate in the eyes of the Conservatives and the minister. Ultimately, I very much doubt that the minister will be the one making the assessment. This kind of not-so-veiled threat is really disgraceful. Circumstances will make the Conservatives see that they are not the only ones able to make threats like that. They may have to put up with some heat this summer.

I submit this respectfully.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, first, let me acknowledge my colleagues', and I say that in the plural, co-operation with respect to both Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, and Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation act, today. We appreciate that co-operation.

This afternoon, we will continue with the second reading debate on Bill C-33, First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act. That debate will conclude tomorrow and we will then proceed with a committee study of this important legislation this spring.

Monday shall be the fourth allotted day. We will debate a proposal from the New Democrats.

The Liberals will then get their turn on Tuesday, which shall be the fifth allotted day. I am still waiting to see a proposal from the Liberal leader on the economy. Maybe he is still finessing his newest definition of the middle class. I recommend to him the recent study from the U.S.A., the one that has been widely reported, which demonstrated that the Canadian middle class, according to his recent definition, that is the median income, is doing better than ever in history. For the first time, the Canadian middle class is doing better than its American counterpart. Perhaps we will see that on Tuesday as the subject of debate in the Liberal motion, since they claim that the middle class is their priority.

On Wednesday, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-23, the fair elections act. I want to take this time to acknowledge the hard work of the members of the procedure and House affairs committee. My friend was just talking about the hard work they have been undertaking and the difficult pressure they are under. Largely, it should be said, it is a result of the lengthy filibuster, of which the New Democrats were so proud, at the start, whereby the committee lost many days, when it could have heard witnesses.

Notwithstanding that loss of work, those delay tactics, and the obstruction by the New Democrats, the committee has got on with its work. It heard from almost 70 witnesses. It had over 30 hours of meetings. Now it has gone on to complete about a dozen or so hours of detailed study of the clauses of the bill and the government's reasonable and common-sense amendments to the bill. I expect that it will complete that work shortly.

Despite the long hours the committee members are putting in, I know that they will be keenly anticipating the appearance, before the next constituency week, of the Leader of the Opposition at that same committee. That will, of course, be in compliance with the House order adopted on March 27 respecting the allegations of inappropriate spending and the use of House of Commons resources by the New Democratic Party. There the hon. member for Outremont will have the opportunity to answer many important questions of interest to all Canadians, including, I am sure, some questions from his own caucus members, who have been dragged into the scheme the NDP leader has put in place.

Finally, on Thursday morning, we will consider Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, at report stage and third reading. After question period, we will resume the third reading debate on Bill C-8.

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

Mr. Speaker, this was not a good month for this government: three of their bills were rejected by the courts because they were flawed.

Given that the government is routinely invoking time allocation and closure, the work on the bills has been sloppy.

This morning, another flawed bill, Bill C-30, was sent back to committee because this government did not do a good job in the first place. Mr. Speaker, you were obliged to reject the manner in which the government put in place this bill.

The government's process is not working. The courts and even the Speaker of the House have to call this government to order.

Now the government seems to be doing the same thing with Bill C-23, the unfair elections act. The committee was working to address many of the problems that exist in the bill. The NDP, as it always does, offered sound amendments to bring forward on this bill so that it would actually work for Canadians and Canadian democracy. However, we have the government now setting an artificial deadline. When the committee still has over 200 pages of the bill to scrutinize and still has hundreds of amendments to consider, the government is saying that the committee has to finish its work within just a few hours.

This is obviously going to be another bill that the government is going to screw up. How can the government expect bills to stand up to scrutiny if it will not allow proper scrutiny in committee and in the House?

My question is very simple. What will the Conservatives do next week to start restoring the confidence of Canadians that has been sorely lost by the amount of botched legislation we have seen coming from the government?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This recommendation, members of committee may recall, was made by Duff Conacher, the witness for Democracy Watch, in which he suggested we take this opportunity under the fair elections act to create a legislative framework for the leaders' debate. I think we'll all agree that the leaders' debate has become a very significant pivot point during election campaigns and I think a lot of Canadians assume that there are some set of rules and that Elections Canada supervises them.

Probably all of us around this table know it's basically a large cartel of public and private broadcasters—CBC, Radio Canada, TVA, Global, and CTV—that makes a decision among the news directors, generally in consultation with the leaders of the more established parties, and there are no rules. Since there are no rules they can be applied rather inconsistently. So this amendment as proposed by Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch would suggest that the Chief Electoral Officer would henceforth have the ability to set the number and date for election debates, supervise them, invite to the debate the leader of every party in the last election that either had a candidate elected under that party's banner or had won 5% of the vote, and then require all the broadcasters in Canada to broadcast the debate.

This is in the interest of fair, transparent, and consistent leaders' debates for greater public information and engagement in electoral campaigns.

So I submit to you amendment Green Party-40.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This relates to a recommendation from Mr. Mayrand in relation to bingo cards. People who are not familiar with voting day procedures won't know what we're talking about, but those of us who have been candidates know what they are. It's the information about who has voted and who hasn't voted on the day of the election. They allow poll workers for the various parties to run around and collect them, figure out who has voted and who hasn't voted, and call out your vote to make sure they get to the polls.

Bill C-23 does something that hasn't been done before with our election laws, which is to allow the cards produced on these days to be collected by the parties afterwards for additional personal information that they build up on the voting base. The purpose of my amendment is to remove this use of bingo cards as a further intrusion into personal information and also as creating a risk that the Chief Electoral Officer has mentioned, that this could, in some circumstances, require the returning officer to unseal a ballot box. The recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer is that this provision should not be included in the bill.

My amendment seeks to change clause 67 on page 34 by just shortening it up. It would delete the lines around the representatives of the candidate’s party, and the providing after polling day, and read as follows:

with one copy of each statement of the vote in respect of the candidate's electoral district.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We have a version that was printed in error. Some members may have it incorrect in front of them. Your chair will fix it, but right now Bill C-23, in clause 58, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 31 on page 29 with the following:

open between the hours of noon and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday that is the 16th day before polling day, and on Friday, Saturday, and Monday, the 10th, 9th, and 7th days, respectively, before

Mr. Lukiwski, are you okay on that now, then? I have the dates now and the numbers right. Okay.

Pardon me?

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

No, that's okay.

No other party has an amendment like this, and it does take some explanation. It also takes some sensitivity as to why I'm bringing this forward.

Let me just state at the outset that a previously non-controversial—I haven't seen anything in the media about it, but I think it's quite significant—portion of C-23 has been to create four new advance poll days. I'm certainly very much in favour of more advance polls. However, one of these days will forevermore, as a mandatory rule, fall on a Sunday. That's the first time in the history of Canada that we have had a profound civic engagement mandated on a Sunday.

Now, this country has moved a long way, and for good reason, since 1906 and the Lord's Day Act. It said that as much as the state could decree it, people could not be busy on Sundays. You couldn't keep your store open; you couldn't do things on Sunday. I'm certainly not trying to prevent people from doing the day-to-day things that an increasingly secular society wants to do on a Sunday. However, had this law been in place in 2011, we would have had mandatory advance polls across Canada on Easter Sunday.

I do know that the Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed concern when there was a mandatory advance poll on Good Friday in the 2011 election.

It should go without saying that the Prime Minister can choose to avoid such things as advance polls falling on such sacred days as Good Friday by choosing an election day that is further out than the mandatory minimum number of days. There is some flexibility about what days on which advance polls will fall.

In this case, there will be no way that any future prime minister, short of amending the act, will be able to avoid an advance poll falling on a Sunday. I have raised this in debate in the House at second reading. Conservative members of Parliament expressed the view that they wouldn't personally vote on a Sunday and that people certainly have the choice of not voting on a Sunday, and that a vast number of Canadians don't find it a trouble to observe the Sabbath because they don't.

My concerns are twofold. One is the impact on those who must attend at advance polls, and they will include scrutineers who volunteer, as well as poll workers, as well as Elections Canada folks. They will have to be engaged on a Sunday. There is an issue of their religious observances, which one might agree for a large number of Canadians happen to fall on a Sunday. The other concern, regardless of religious concerns, bears on the logistics. Quite a lot of polling stations in this country are co-located in churches.

My amendment proposes to move that extra advance polling date to a Saturday. A lot of churches have no problem whatsoever, and as a matter of fact benefit from having the polling station at the church on the corner. Everybody knows where it is. On Fridays and Saturdays, it doesn't make any difference.

But I think it's going to create a lot of logistical problems of real significance. Again, whenever we're changing how people vote, where people vote, it can create more confusion. I think this amendment will resolve and avoid both potential difficulties for practising Christians, as well as avoiding logistical difficulties for churches that serve as polling stations.

I would ask my friends in the Conservative party to support my amendment so there would be four advance polling days, but it will not include a Sunday.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, the assertions made by Mr. Christopherson are incorrect.

The Chief Electoral Officer reports to this committee. Mr. Christopherson will be aware, and others on committee will be aware, of the fact that I have expressed frustration on numerous occasions in regard to the opaque nature of his reporting, of how difficult it is to tease out actual detailed information on things as simple as whether or not any individuals have been prosecuted, and if so, how many and where, for voting fraudulently.

I've mentioned examples of how his reports are frequently very short of information on the specifics that we—effectively, his board of directors—need to review. This committee has the opportunity to ask any question, and indeed, it would be my intention to ask questions about these subjects afterwards.

As everybody knows, I've mentioned on a number of occasions how I was very proud to have set up the meetings of groups of disabled people—or a group of disabled people—that led to the inclusion of certain provisions in clause 7 of this bill, Bill C-23, which will amend section 18 of the Canada Elections Act, specifying and requiring the Chief Electoral Officer to ensure that people can get out and vote and that they know how to exercise their rights, rights that are there in principle but not in practice if people are unaware of how to exercise them.

These are rights such as the right to become a candidate or finding out how to put your name on the list of electors if it was left off. The voter information card simply says, as one knows if one looks at it, that this shows you were on the voters list. But you don't know that you're not on the voters list if you don't have the voter card, right? This includes how to vote—different times and dates and locations, including voting by mail, voting at the returning office and so on—and how to vote if you're disabled, if you have problems getting access to the polling station, and so on.

These are all things that we have to enumerate in the law because they weren't being done adequately. I point to this all to make the point, Mr. Chair, that it's actually pretty difficult to figure out how to make sure that he then reports adequately in the future. I'm serving notice now that, statutory requirement or not, it is my intention—assuming we have someone on the committee after this law goes through after the election occurs, and if I'm still elected—to be asking him how he complied: how much money he spent, did he spend it in both official languages, and did he do a review afterwards.

If he doesn't have answers to that, I'll be very critical. It's his obligation to keep accurate records on these matters, and it's our obligation to ensure that he does so in a competent manner.

There is one final note, Mr. Chair, which is interesting with regard to the issue of competence in the administration of the vouching procedure, something that was, after all, the issue on which the litigation over Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj in Etobicoke Centre took place. In that matter, the CEO did nothing to audit or investigate until such time as the matter was before the Supreme Court.

Then and only then did he ask Mr. Neufeld to prepare a report, so I would not say that alacrity in dealing with problems associated with voter verification has been very high on his priority list, and we seek to make sure that it will be, in order to ensure that all Canadians actually are able to exercise their section 3 right, which includes the right to have my vote count. It doesn't count for much if an election can be controverted where I voted legitimately and others did not, thereby changing the results in the riding.

That, of course, is the entire point of the security measures we're putting in place. They're reasonable. They are absolutely balanced to the issue at hand. We seem to forget—or at least members on the opposite side forget—that there are millions of Canadians who can be deprived of their section 3 right if their vote is cast in a meaningless manner because other votes were cast improperly by those who were not eligible to vote, or perhaps even fraudulently.

Thank you.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you very much.

I thank my esteemed colleague for his intervention. However, I do take issue with a number of things he said. Primarily, he mentioned that in his opinion at least, there's no way the government would have changed any portion of the original bill had it not been for the public pressure.

I take issue with that, because from the outset, even though our government...and the minister responsible for this bill said he thought it was a very good bill, he also said that if there were useful suggestions that came out of committee, he would certainly listen and entertain amendments based on that testimony, and that's exactly what has happened. We have introduced approximately 45 amendments based on the testimony we've heard. I think that's a good thing. I think that certainly illustrates that the government is listening.

With respect, however, to the overarching motion and the request to withdraw this bill, clearly that's an implication, or at least a direct inference, that the bill is not worthy in its current state or as amended in that process we're going through now. I take great issue with that, because I would argue that Canadians think this is a pretty good bill. I'll buttress that statement with a few facts, or at least a few pieces of information, for the benefit of all those who are perhaps watching.

The two most contentious issues that we have heard from witnesses and from members of the opposition with respect to this bill have been identification requirements and vouching. Yesterday I mentioned to members of this committee that in the most recent Ipsos Reid poll, it showed that 87%...or at least I stated that the Ipsos Reid poll demonstrated that 87% of Canadians felt it appropriate that before being allowed to vote, Canadians show identification.

In a subsequent intervention, Mr. Scott, on behalf of the opposition, said I was mis-characterizing that poll, because the exact wording said that 87% of Canadians felt it appropriate that Canadians prove their identity and their residence. The direct implication there was that you don't need ID to prove who you are and where you live. I can only suppose that this means he felt that vouching would be a form of proof. What he failed to inform the committee, however, was that in that very poll, at a later point in the poll, it showed that 70% Canadians disagreed with the concept of vouching.

So if you want to connect the dots, if you have 87% of Canadians feeling that you need to prove your identification and residence, and 70% didn't want that to happen via vouching, what's left? What's left is what we've been advocating from day one: you have to prove your identity through proper ID presented at the time of voting. That's exactly what Canadians feel.

I would also point out that also included in the poll is a breakdown by political support. It found that 66% of people who consider themselves to be supporters of the NDP felt that vouching should be eliminated. So not only in the court of public opinion does the general public disagree with the NDP position on vouching; their own members disagree. Their supporters disagree with the NDP position on vouching.

That's why I continue to say that in the court of public opinion, we are on the right side, and in this argument the NDP has lost badly in the court of public opinion. Canadians expect voters to present ID. They don't like the concept of vouching.

The best analogy I've heard comes from one of my colleagues, so I have to attribute this to him, the Honourable Ed Holder. He put out a piece to his constituents on the concept of vouching. The analogy he gave was this. Let's say two guys walk into a bar. One clearly looks middle-aged and the other one looks much younger. The bartender comes up and says to the younger-looking gentleman, “I'm going to have to see your identification.” The older gentleman says, “That's not necessary, bartender. I'm going to vouch for him.”

Would that be acceptable to anyone? Of course not. It's not acceptable to the laws of the Province of Ontario or any other laws in any other province that have usually the age of 18 required. That's because Canadians expect people to show proper identification in order to do just about anything these days.

Both on the question of identification requirements and on the question of vouching, we believe we've addressed the views of Canadians very appropriately in this bill, and on many other issues where we heard dissenting views from either Canadians or those who chose to join us as intervenors in this committee, we have listened and responded. I think the amended version of Bill C-23 will be a bill that does what it is intended to do: improve the Canada Elections Act.

Again, I notice with great interest my colleagues opposite have not mentioned many other attributes of the bill that were lauded, approved, and applauded by people who came before this committee. Coming in with a robocalls registry, for an example, to stop fraudulent robocalls, was very well received. They talk about the movement of the Commissioner of Canada Elections from Elections Canada to the DPP. Yes, the opposition disagreed with that, and yes, there was some disagreement, but quite frankly it does make the Commissioner of Canada Elections far more independent. Even Sheila Fraser said she would not have a problem with that as long as there was adequate and full communication between Elections Canada and the commissioner. One of these amendments ensures that this will happen.

Without taking too much extra time—and I thank my colleague Mr. Scott for being brief and succinct in his comments, and I'll try to do the same—I think the final, amended package, which we are dealing with today, is a good piece of legislation supported by the vast majority of Canadians. We're very proud as a government to be able to present that to Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

That's great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This motion, which I gave notice of, I'd now like to table and move:

That the Committee present a report to the House of Commons recommending that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be withdrawn.

The idea behind this is that the official opposition would like us to start fresh, albeit benefiting from the process that's occurred to date, which has had all kinds of learning elements in it. This is where we probably should have started with the bill in the House, given the nature of the Canada Elections Act, where much more extensive preparation, engagement with knowledgeable stakeholders from commissioners of Canada elections to chief electoral officers, and so on, should have occurred, not to mention a much more collegial, extensive process with the other parties in Parliament.

The government has backed down on a number of very important areas that have been resisted by the official opposition, by civil society, and I do suspect by Conservative MPs. With the amendments the government's been forced to agree to, this bill will be better than Bill C-23, that is, the unfair elections act, as tabled by the minister, but it will be still much worse than leaving the current Canada Elections Act in place.

41st General Election

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present a petition on behalf of members of my constituency and many Nova Scotians beyond, including South Shore—St. Margaret's, who call on the government to reject Bill C-23 and bring forward genuine electoral reform that will stop fraud, prevent big money from distorting elections, and ensure every Canadian can exercise their right to vote.

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

I would like to move NDP-33.

The amendment would delete proposed subsection 143(3.3) in Bill C-23. The proposed subsection in the bill reads as follows:

A candidate or their representative may examine but not handle any piece of identification presented under this section.

Now, “a candidate or their representative” is effectively shorthand for scrutineers. It's very rare you'll have a candidate bouncing around at every polling station, so it's a representative. What this authorizes is that those who are not actually the desk officers but the people making sure that the process, for your party's sake, for your candidate's sake, is working well can simply say, “Can I see that piece of ID?” They can examine it but not handle it.

I'm not going to say it's a matter of handling; it's just that somebody has to hold it up to them and they can see it. The Chief Electoral Officer brought our attention to this. It was part of his amendments. He suggested that this be deleted, so this is what this amendment does. It would delete those lines, and therefore this new provision wouldn't exist.

I won't give you the number of reasons, just in case I forget what number I gave, but one reason this is a problem is privacy. For average voters there are pieces of ID on the lists, and on maybe expanded lists, that might have information that a person is content that a person at the table could look at but not a random person.

The second thing is it has the potential, and this was actually the Chief Electoral Officer's point, to produce the perception, or the feeling, on the part of the voter of harassment. It doesn't actually have to be harassment for that to occur and for that to produce some kind of a disincentive to voting the next time, or just an unpleasant experience during voting, which has to be avoided at all costs.

The third thing is that it could actually be harassment or intimidation. Let's just say that's unlikely, by and large; I don't assume that average scrutineers will act any more dishonourably than the average voter. We don't believe the average voter is inclined to commit fraud. I don't believe the average scrutineer would intentionally harass or intimidate, but that would be perhaps the result and the feeling.

There's a last thing that's tied to these: lineups. Really, the idea that you have an enthusiastic scrutineer, who does not have to have any bad faith, or simply a scrutineer under instructions to carefully check ID.... It produces lineups. It produces frustration. It could even produce, among people at the end of the line, their deciding not to wait anymore.

Canadians, by the way, however much we are maybe one people who will line up better than others, are not exactly patient when it comes to this kind of thing. People are used to fairly quick voting in this country. This could contribute to a very different experience. There are reports south of the border of the use of asking for ID as a way to create lineups. I would hope we wouldn't get into that kind of scenario, but it's possible.

I would end by saying, Mr. Chair, that I move to delete this new examination of identification documents provision, and leave it in your capable hands.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I will try to keep it very brief, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to make a few points. I don't think I need to go over.... Mr. Reid covered it quite well. When we talk about the accuracy of the voter information card to be used as identification, there are errors with one in six or more of the cards. We don't have to go over that ground again. That's quite clear, despite whatever the opposition wants to try to claim about its accuracy. That certainly is a troublesome rate of error, and one which I think does create some concern.

The other point I'd like to go over...I won't conjure up the spectre of alien abductions again, as my colleague Mr. Reid did, but it certainly was a good, entertaining example. When he was discussing that, he was alluding to the fact that he was finding it difficult, much as I was, to imagine as we went through the hearings, someone who would not be able to provide the identification required. I noted that throughout the hearings we never heard from a single witness who had indicated that they or anyone they knew would not have been able to vote under the provisions in this bill.

A lot of hypothetical examples were given, but never any concrete examples. The opposition likes to talk a lot about concrete examples. We never heard a single concrete example of a voter who would not have been able to vote, who could not have the ID required. I find it hard to imagine. Having said that, obviously we have just made an amendment here to allow someone to co-sign an oath as to their residence. That I could see as quite a reasonable amendment.

In terms of this card, I have just stated that outside of hypothetical examples, we did not hear from anyone who would have had trouble to produce the ID required, especially now that they can co-sign an oath to attest to their residence.

Furthermore, all the hypothetical examples that were given wouldn't apply to the voter information card because it's mailed to their last known address. We heard an example of a homeless person who obviously wouldn't have any mail. Certainly voter information cards wouldn't apply in that case. The student who is at an educational institution away from their parents' home, yet receives all their mail at their parents' home, but is choosing to vote at the poll where they're going to school, their voter information card would go there. I don't see how it would solve the issue, if one existed, which we certainly didn't establish. I've already identified the accuracy rate concerns.

As to some of the other claims of the opposition that indicated we should be prepared for all these people to show up at the polls next election with nothing but their voter information card, I would also point out that one of the other provisions in Bill C-23 requires Elections Canada to better advertise the logistics of voting. That obviously includes things like what identification to bring. Many witnesses came before this committee who indicated they were not aware of what they needed to bring in order to vote.They were quite surprised to learn about some of the possibilities available to them. That obviously indicates a better job needs to be done. That is something this bill requires, something we would expect Elections Canada to undertake, and therefore people would be aware of exactly what would be required to vote. I think that indicates the voter information card need not be used as a piece of identification, and Bill C-23, including the amendment we've just made, would facilitate every voter who wishes to vote to be able to vote in our elections.

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

As long as you have one of the authorized 39 pieces and the VIC, which was primarily authorized to show address, then you could vote.

One of the reasons for the project was that in fact the requirements for the new ID requirements only entered into force after amendments in 2006 and 2007 to the Canada Elections Act, before which there actually was pretty much a trust-based system of voting in this country in terms of ID not being necessary.

What it did is it produced enough evidence that people were not voting, not even going to the voting stations, because they were either confused or couldn't find the pieces of ID to put together, and it was decided that the VIC, which already existed as a notification of registration, could be used and authorized as a form of identification for this purpose. It worked as a major initiative. It led to—now didn't lead directly to, but in Mr. Neufeld's report, he had two corresponding recommendations. He had a bunch of recommendations about how to deal with irregularities, including better training and recruiting, but he ultimately said that one of the other goals should be to reduce the amount of vouching needed, not to get rid of vouching but to reduce the need, and one way to do that was to increase the availability of the VIC as a second piece of ID to show address, and that led to the Chief Electoral Officer saying It is indeed his intention to authorize the use of voter information cards in the next general election.

Perhaps completely unrelated to that, Bill C-23 was tabled in the House of Commons and eliminated the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to authorize VICs, not just in the case of the 900,000 who were able to in 2011, but every Canadian who would have been able to use it in 2015.

The last point is that one of the kind of anecdotal scenarios in the last two months has been the multiplying VIC, the VIC that ends up in somebody's hands with the name in more than one way, with the formal possibility being suggested that the person could thereby try to vote multiple times. Another scenario has been the VIC that travels in groups, in lobbies of residences, and is picked up and somehow or other, in the fictional imagination of one Conservative MP, is then distributed to others who can then vote with them.

The problem with these scenarios, apart from there being no evidence it ever occurs along those lines, is that you need a second piece of ID to vote. You need to produce the ID that shows your name, your identity, that then gets used with the VIC. You would have to be motivated not just to say, “Ah, I can vote with this VIC, and I'm not going to vote in my own name.” You'd have to be that kind of person too, because you're not going to show up at the same polling station and vote twice under different names. The VIC would have to have been sent or get in the hands of somebody who otherwise can't vote, or doesn't want to vote in their own name, and then you'd have to be motivated to forge the second piece of ID.

Not likely, and so therefore it's not that surprising that the minister in the House, I believe it was Monday, giving all the examples to back up his claim that people receiving multiple VICs voting multiple times could not be backed up by virtue of the fact that the only two examples he continues to be able to give is of a satire show, Infoman, charting two people who ostensibly tried to vote with two VICs, but—you know what?—could not, and I won't go into the details about why they could not. So there are, in fact, no examples available to the minister of people using VICs fraudulently.

Yet, we have a proposal by the government to get rid of, certainly, the most accurate piece of federal ID as one piece of ID that can be used in tandem with another. It cannot be used on its own, according to the current system.

All this is, really, is an attempt to return the law to where it was and also, I hope, to avoid huge chaos in 2015, when all the people who were first introduced to the fact they could formally use VICs as part of their voting will now have to be reprogrammed to make sure they do not try to vote in that way this time and instead look for other pieces of ID. Many of them will be able to find these, with different degrees of effort, but certainly, let's say, at least in the thousands will not.

I'd like to move this amendment NDP-27, to achieve the return of voter information cards as something the Chief Electoral Officer may authorize.

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

There's no preface. We know where we've ended up. It's that Bill C-23 be amended in clause 48 by deleting proposed subparagraph 143(3)(b)(ii) as set out in amendment G-5.

I'd like a recorded vote, please.

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

—in the 87% to believe that the question they were asked is about whether you have ID. The question was on proving who you are. No wonder 87% reasonably thought that proving who they are and where they live is essential.

I think that's a fairly important correction.

The subamendment that I'd like to move, Mr. Chair, to amendment G-5 is a short one. It's that Bill C-23, in clause 48, in proposed subparagraph 143(3)(b)(ii), be amended by replacing “they know the elector personally” with “they know the elector”. This would eliminate the word “personally”.

Since we've lost on the other amendment, I'd like again to give the government a chance. This is much closer to the examples that even Mr. Richards was just giving. I hope the government would come halfway by understanding our argument about why the word “personally” is superfluous, especially when the examples given by Mr. Richards included the question, “Do you know the person well enough to know where they live?” which is already there as a criterion.

If we eliminate the word “personally”, I honestly think we have something resembling a fair meeting of minds. I don't think the concerns we've been presenting have been unreasonable. In a context in which the government has yet to vote in favour of a single opposition motion, I would really welcome some support on this one.

I hereby move that subamendment.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Chair, the NDP was absolutely, absolutely thrown off their game when they saw that Ipsos Reid poll that shows 87% of the people believe in our position. They do not believe that Canadians should be allowed to vote without producing any identification. That is what Canadians feel. This reflects that, because now to be able to vote, even if you can't prove residency or you don't have identification for residency, you can do it by signing a note and having a co-signer sign a note that testifies they know this person, they know where this person lives. That is what Canadians want to see, and that's what's reflected in Bill C-23.

Thank you, Chair.

[Philippe Méla, Procedural Clerk]

That Bill C-23 be amended in clause 48 by adding after section 143.3(b) the following: “3.1 No one may be prosecuted for any offence under this Act on the sole basis of not having complied with section 143.3 (b)(ii).”

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, certainly, first off, I would concur in my colleague's remarks. She's absolutely right. Make no mistake that there are going to be problems with this.

However, the first thing I want to say is that this not just an ordinary flip-flop. This is a flip-flop of historic proportions. This is a double backflip somersault with a twist in terms of flip-flops.

Before I get to my argument, the first thing I want to say very clearly is that had there been proper consultations in the beginning with all the people who we ultimately heard from, who convinced the government through public pressure to change their position, we could have avoided all this.

If they had simply knocked on the door of the Chief Electoral Officer, the elections commissioner, and a few other experts, we could have avoided all of this. This is what happens when governments bring in legislation that significantly changes important things and they don't consult with anyone. This is the kind of thing that happens.

Let's start at the beginning. If everyone recalls, the government started talking about this because there was so much fraud, because there was so much potential for fraud. In fact, the minister was reading out Mr. Neufeld's report, holding it up and saying, “There's the proof right here. It's in the report. Mr. Neufeld did this study, this expert study, and here's what it said.”

What did Mr. Neufeld say when the minister used his report to say that there was either widespread fraud or the potential for widespread fraud? Mr. Neufeld said, “I think any fair-minded person who reads that report would come to the conclusion that he”—meaning the minister—“has not been fair in his assessment of my findings.” He also went on to say, “there was no evidence of fraud whatsoever”. He also said that he had “only been privy to a handful of cases of voter fraud” in his career.

That was the argument. That was the foundation the government laid out for denying vouching. Then, of course, we all heard the minister's talking points. They were repeated here for a while, but anybody who has followed this closely saw those talking points soften up just a little. Line by line they sort of disappeared, and as time went on, they stopped defending....

Then they went back, and now we're here with this amendment, and it needs to be said, the Prime Minister in particular.... I don't normally mention the Prime Minister at the committee level, but I have to tell you, I sit right across from him and he's been getting up every day when he has the chance and saying that the NDP has this extreme position that people can vote with no ID.

Meanwhile, the vouching available in the last election meant exactly that. People could walk up with no ID and they could get someone to vouch for them, and Mr. Neufeld's report said, “there was no evidence of fraud whatsoever”. So there's nothing extreme about saying that maybe we should use the same vouching system that let the current Prime Minister be elected Prime Minister.

Now, it's cute, if you'll notice.... I'll be shocked if they utter the word “vouching”. They won't use the word “vouching”, but that's what this is. They've brought it back because they knew they had to. It was not going to stand, so they tried to find a clever little way to make it look like it's not really vouching while at the same time they spin out a political message that the NDP has this extreme position about people voting without ID. Of course, they don't mention the fact that this is exactly how he became Prime Minister, and that this system was in place, and that the experts who reviewed that election said, “there was no evidence of fraud whatsoever”.

So why was this even brought in? Get ready for your tin hat throw-out comment, because this is exactly the sort of the thing that the Republicans in the U.S. are doing, and it's about voter suppression. Make no mistake about it. These little things they're throwing in here, like “personally” and a couple of little factors are all meant to hang on to as much of the voter suppression technique as possible, because it works, unfortunately.

Rather than just being up front, because they have no idea how to be up front; that's just a foreign concept to them, as evidenced by Bill C-23 landing here without even asking the Chief Electoral Officer what he thought.... Rather than being up front and saying, “You know, we got the vouching thing wrong. We really did. We're going to go back to what we had because clearly there's no problem.”

That's not what's happening. Instead, they refuse to use the word “vouching”. They say “attestation”. Fine, call it whatever you want, but it's vouching. Somebody is saying, “I know them personally and I know they live there”, and under any definition, that's vouching.

They're trying to be too clever by half. Nobody is going to be fooled. Is this better? Yes. But make no mistake. It's the bare minimum they could do facing the avalanche of public criticism they received not just in Canada but internationally.

Again, it would have been a lot easier in the beginning, or even now, if you'd come in and said, “You know, we got it wrong”. You'd have taken some heat for the flip-flop, but it's the flip-flop with the double twist and the double somersaults and still trying to come out on top, that you didn't go to vouching but you've still got a bit of your voter suppression technique in there. There will be Canadians who otherwise could have voted in the last election, who can't this time because the vouching has been limited.

I have no doubt that tomorrow we'll see the Prime Minister get back up again and talk about the NDP's extreme position. I want to emphasize again that the extreme position the Prime Minister is saying the official opposition has is exactly the system that was in place in the last election. That was fair enough to let Prime Minister Stephen Harper get elected, but somehow that's not supposed to be a fair basis to have for the next election. Nonsense. It's voter suppression.

Thank goodness for the integrity and honesty of our officers of Parliament, current and former, including Madam Fraser, who came forward and said that this bill is an attack on our democracy. And there were all those Canadians who came in here knowing how vicious this government is. People are frightened of this government, but they still came down here and they said this is wrong.

Thank you to all of those Canadians who did that. Every Canadian who attended a rally, signed a petition, sent an e-mail, all contributed to getting back some of our democracy that this government was trying to take away in this bill.

We will be up front. Our intent is to vote for this section because it is an improvement. It does reintroduce vouching as an important and positive tool in our electoral system, but we will vote against the clause. At the end of the day, the government is still taking away democratic rights and access to voting that Canadians had in the last election. They will not have that in the coming election. We're going to continue to do everything we can do to get this fully changed.

We're not at the end yet, Chair, although I am getting close.

With regard to the process, we're not at the end yet. We still have to go through these amendments. It has to go back to the House for report stage and third reading, so there's still time. There's still time to push them to do all of the right things. If we can get half a loaf of democracy, which is a shame in Canada that we get half a loaf of democracy, we'll take it.

We will continue to persevere so Canadians can have their full loaf of democracy, which they not only deserve but they had in the last election, and this government is going to take it away in the election coming up.

Thank you, Chair.

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

Adding the language “they know the elector personally” is new and it seems they want it to be a little bit additional to the idea they know that the elector resides in the polling division.

To me this is a problem, because it opens up the ability of whatever officer on election day to be able to start asking, “Do you know this person personally?” and make judgment calls. What does “personally” mean? For how long, and in what context?

I can see absolute chaos, as well as potential unfairness. Inconsistency of application is one form of unfairness and then there's the unfairness of turning somebody away because an elections officer says, “You haven't known them for a year. You haven't known them for a week. You just met them an hour ago.” But you reliably know they live at that address because the social agency that has paired you up with them has indicated that they use your services. I think the openness, the generality of this, is going to produce a real problem of application.

I have a second concern. Mr. Richards may remember we had a bit of a discussion on this. Under the current Canada Elections Act, the sections on vouching, there is basically the idea that what I was calling citizen-to-citizen vouching is completely acceptable. The idea is you know the person, where they live, you've come to know them enough that this is the person who lives where you're vouching for them and that's all that has ever been required.

I'm hoping it's not an intention, and I can't imagine it's an intention, but this is by result potentially an anti-homeless clause, because if you use a system like the one described for London or anything that's similar to it, there's a danger that the threshold of knowing the person personally won't be met. The citizen-to-citizen vouching has literally been written out of the possibility by using the word “personally”, and whether that means you live in the same division and it's family, you live in the same division and it's a neighbour, you live in the same polling division and it's somebody else who somehow you know personally, whatever that might mean, I just think it goes far too far for what is otherwise an openness of spirit to everything else that was heard in the days of testimony.

I'm hoping that through some further discussion we can find a way. I will be wanting to amend this to excise it because I think it's completely unnecessary to start with, and then I do believe it can create barriers. I'm hoping that the other side will look at my concerns and say that's not what they intended and therefore we can work with this, and let's see what we can do.

I wanted to flag one last thing about this. Let me take a step back. In the 2011 election, roughly 900,000 or a million people were able to vote, legally able to vote by authorization of the Chief Electoral Officer, by using the voter information card as proof of address alongside a piece of valid ID. Some figures suggested over 400,000 actually did it that way.

We know that one of the government's amendments to the Canada Elections Act in Bill C-23 is to get rid of the use of voter information cards. So we have, let's say, 400,000 people who use these and we don't know what percentage of them can easily find that piece of ID with an address to replace the voter information card, but we do know that this new system will allow them to come out with their ID and if they can find somebody voting at the same time or somebody they know, they can have them vouch.

What percentage of those 400,000, along with the 120,000 who vouched the last time who could find a piece of ID, are going to need vouching?

I actually think there's a big potential for additional red tape here because—and I'll explain this later when we get to voter information cards—a decent percentage of those 400,000 who use the VICs will remember that they did so. A decent percentage of them probably couldn't find a piece of address ID, and the only choice for those people now will be vouching. This will create potential logjams and all kinds of pressures on some polls if that turns out to be the case.

What's the solution? That we happily embrace the government's amendment, hopefully getting rid of this knowing personally business and we keep voter information cards, because then, what will that do? That will accomplish exactly what Mr. Neufeld recommended in his report.

Let's diminish the amount of vouching that's needed. One way to do that is to increase the use of voter information cards and make them generally available.

If the voter information card is available, you don't get to the vouching fallback here for many people because they will actually be listed and will be able to use the voter information card. Some of them will be able to find other pieces of ID with their address; I recognize that.

There's a danger, however, that this well-intentioned amendment, the government's version of vouching, address vouching, will potentially add to the numbers of overall vouching because the VICs are gone. If the government is content with that, then I just hope Elections Canada can find a way to make sure that they're ready for the pile-up that might occur at some polling stations. I think the easiest way, again, is to replace it to make sure the VICs stay, as well as this amendment.

However, there will be people who will not be able to vote because we heard good testimony that made sense just as a matter of logic, that there are some people in society who, by the time an election is called, can't lay their hands even on the one piece of identity that would then allow for vouching, plus they would have to find somebody to vouch. There will be cases, and it may not be nearly as many as otherwise would be the case if this weren't brought in, but because the right to vote is a constitutional right, every possible effort should be made to allow anybody entitled to vote, to vote.

We have to be aware that, as Mr. Lukiwski said, the vast majority would be able to vote using this, and the rest of the provisions, the showing of ID. But he accepted, by using that expression, that some people won't, and that, ultimately, is what the current vouching provisions in the Canada Elections Act are intended to be there for, as the final safety net.

That's also why there are scholars who have begun to write about why not having that kind of final—let's call it—full vouching ability could lead to.... The absence of that may be declared unconstitutional.

I'm delighted to see this. I really do think that the government's bringing vouching back into the Canada Elections Act is a positive. I actually thank the government for doing that, for having bent to pressure, frankly, but hopefully members of this committee also conveyed all the testimony they heard, and that played a role.

After having set out the context, I'm hoping we can have some discussion on this “they know the elector personally” business.

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

Okay. Just for the record, NDP-30 and NDP-31 would have been the NDP's amendments to restore the Canada Elections Act to the vouching provisions that are there, that we've lived with in this country until Bill C-23, but by virtue of the line conflict, we won't be able to move them so we'll discuss vouching in the context of this amendment. I wanted to be on record that those two amendments can't be put forward.

This is welcome, although it also has problems in scope. It's welcome in the sense that the committee did indeed hear among its 71 witnesses a lot of groups and representatives of groups who very articulately set out why it was that removing vouching from the Canada Elections Act could impact them, large numbers of different sectors of society. We already knew about 120,000 people had vouched in the 2011 election, and a face was put on that in committee, I would say, for a good chunk of the folks who would have needed to vouch.

At that level the outcry across Canada about the removal of vouching appears to have had an effect. I can only say I welcome and am glad the government is putting forward an amendment to their withdrawing of vouching that institutes a vouching by address system whereby one piece of ID plus vouching is going to allow people to vote.

I have a couple of concerns I want to flag and see if we can talk through them and get to the point of a possible very small amendment.

I'm not sure if people following the committee remember we had testimony from a Professor Abe Oudshoorn, who works with the homeless in London, Ontario. He described an organized process of vouching in London. Social workers and community workers on the day of the election will take clients who show up at their agency to polling stations and vouch for them. He later explained this meant they would obviously have to pair them up for their specific polling divisions because you can only vouch within your polling division.

This was made easier for a number of elections in one of our biggest agencies. The London InterCommunity Health Centre was a polling station, for example. Staff there were kept busy vouching. He predicted by the end of the day it was very hard to find a London social worker who hadn't vouched for somebody.

He explained it as follows. This was part of our testimony:

When a person experiencing homelessness but without identification enters an agency and expresses an interest in voting—often the agencies have a sign that says, “Ask us how you can vote”—they are connected with someone who can vouch for them, whether it's someone who works in the agency or another person who's homeless who's also said that they would like to vote. They will be accompanied by someone who can vouch for them at the polling station. This is made simpler in our community because one or more of the serving agencies use our polling stations and it makes it a little easier for everyone in terms of the walking.

The reason I've taken the time to set this out is that one of the provisions in amendment G-5 that sets out the conditions for vouching adds a threshold that doesn't currently exist in either the law or the practice of vouching under the Canada Elections Act.

I'm referring to new proposed subparagraph 143(3)(b)(ii). It basically says that one of the conditions of being able to vouch for somebody.... Actually, there are two paired together on the second page of the amendment:

(ii) they know the elector personally,

(iii) they know that the elector resides in the polling division,

At the moment, the law effectively is only the second one, (iii). They know that the elector resides in the polling division because it's taken as a given that when you know that, you actually know the person sufficiently to know that. There's no test for how well or how much better you know the person other than knowing that.

By introducing “they know the elector personally”—

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

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry for jumping in to point out that this wasn't identical. It was in the sense that the representative shall be appointed based on merit.

The significant difference from previous amendments that is found in this particular amendment, PV-27, is based on recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer, as well as from Democracy Watch, as well as from Mr. Neufeld particularly.

There's no question there has been controversy throughout the period since the first reading of Bill C-23 over the content of the Neufeld report. There's no question the review of the 2011 election by Mr. Neufeld commissioned by Elections Canada reflected that there were a number of errors. The errors were not, as you will recall from testimony, related to attempts at fraud, apparent fraud, or even suspicion of fraud. What they did relate to is that our electoral system depends on a lot of people who are hired at the last minute and who do not necessarily receive adequate training.

The key difference between this amendment and previous ones is to allow the returning officer to appoint the central poll supervisors 180 days before the writ. You will recall from Mr. Neufeld's testimony how significant he feels it is that we stick to fixed election dates. Then you know when the writ's going to be dropped and then you can start bringing in the chief election day workers well enough ahead that they get the training they need to reduce error rates.

If you stepped back and were inventing our electoral system from scratch, you wouldn't invent the system we have . We've eliminated the enumeration. We don't have a voters list that's reliable. We're now relying on multiple pieces of identification. We have a bunch of people picked by political parties who are appointed at the last minute and not given adequate training.

This is an attempt to say that in the case of those central poll supervisors who play such an important role, let's hire them early and make sure that they're the bulwark of the system with adequate, in fact excellent, training.

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

I'm moving it.

Again, just for the sake of completeness, we've been moving amendments until this point to make the returning officer, therefore Elections Canada, responsible for all appointments of elections officers, the central poll supervisor. In effect, although with different wording, that is the case in the current act.

Bill C-23 changed that and made central poll supervisors effectively subject to the de facto appointment of the candidates or the parties—this is the provision we have now—who placed first in the last election. Therefore, the whole point was that unbalanced the system that existed. The theory of neutrality was that there'd be a deputy returning officer of the first party, and a poll clerk from the second. This squeezed out any other parties, so it was a problematic system, but nonetheless this would have unbalanced it.

There have been a lot of comments from informed observers from the NDP, from the opposition, to say that was a mistake to include. I won't belabour the point, other than to note that the minister did say it was among the changes that he would support.

I understand that by virtue of voting against clause 44, the government will return us to where the act currently is on central poll supervisors. However, before we get there, I'd like to have a vote on this and get to returning the Canada Elections Act to a situation where the central poll supervisors would not be appointed by the first-place party.

Could we vote on this, and then go to clause 44?

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

All right.

The Canada Elections Act as it stands now says in paragraph 64(2)(a) that the returning officer posts in the returning office a notice of grant of poll with the name, address, and political affiliation of the candidates. Bill C-23 takes out the address. You're adding back in just the postal code but no further information.

Am I correct?

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

I've moved it, and I think it's obvious that this can stand with everything in the Canada Elections Act that has been kept in place or slightly modified by Bill C-23 to this point. It's still the case that returning officers do appoint people, for example, when parties have not used their right to nominate people who end up getting appointed.

In that context, one of the recommendations that has appeared in at least one Chief Electoral Officer report is that one of the best opportunities to inculcate a sense of civic engagement in youth is to realize that they're a source of election day workers. The ones who are in their late teens, in the last two to three years of high school, for example, might potentially be available in by-elections, etc., and for more than one election. As part of this, they may be more likely to be engaged by the democratic process.

That's the thinking behind the amendment, and I'll leave it at that.

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

Everybody has NDP-24 in front of them. I basically would like to move this in the following way: “That Bill C-23, in Clause 23, be amended by adding, after line 34”—although it has been deleted—the following.... Then, where it says section 42, that would read 42(1). Then the text would be the same as you see in front of you: “In making appointments of electoral workers, returning officers shall give special consideration to recruiting youths”—I guess that's English—“who are 16 years of age and older”.

Proposed subsection (2) would read:

The Chief Electoral Officer may develop programs designed to assist in the recruiting and training of youths as electoral workers, which programs may be part of, or otherwise connected to, public education and information programs, including civic education in schools, colleges and universities.

I'm going to hand this over in writing because I've written the “that” part here.

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

Exactly, but at the moment the Bill C-23 amendment adds “registered associations or registered parties” to the existing section 41. So here, having lost all along, I'm just worried that if we vote with Mr. Simms on this one, we'll leave in place a provision that doesn't reference registered associations or parties, which we have already voted to include.

Democratic Reform

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the hon. member is in error about the position of the NDP on this issue. It has always been in favour of proportional representation and still is.

Bill C-23 will be back before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs late tonight. The leader of the Green Party will be tabling substantial amendments to this very flawed bill and we all hope that Bill C-23 looks very different when it returns to the House.

My question this evening has not really been answered. I and hundreds of thousands of Canadians would like a proper response. Will the Conservatives fix the crisis in Canadian democracy resulting from the antiquated and anti-democratic electoral system that discards half the votes cast in every election?

There is no evidence of voter fraud in Canada, but there is lots of evidence of electoral unfairness in the way the government abuses an already flawed electoral system.

I will ask again. Will the Conservative government ensure equal and effective votes for all Canadians through a more proportional electoral system?

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

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand your recognition that these are substantially similar, but they are only slightly differently worded. I think it's important to recognize that we have the opportunity before committee not to make this a pro forma exercise but to really look at each amendment. We have the opportunity here to remove partisanship from the selection of poll workers and registration officers.

The current draft of Bill C-23 solicits the names of candidates for these positions from those parties who have finished first and second in that riding. In that, we have created the perception of partisanship in poll workers. I think that's an important thing to emphasize. That's why all the opposition amendments at this point are trying to put in place the principle that was so well expressed by the evidence of Mr. Neufeld, that choosing poll workers, registration officers, and poll supervisors solely on the basis of merit will increase public confidence in our voting system.

We're running through the amendments relatively quickly at this point, and I understand that, but I want to emphasize the point of principle here, that it will enhance the fairness, and the perception of fairness, in the entire voting process if no partisan operatives are involved in recommending registration officers.

With that, I'll close.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on March 25, I asked during question period whether the minister would fix the real electoral problem and make our electoral system more proportional. The answer I received at the time was completely irrelevant to the question that I posed. I hope the parliamentary secretary will attempt to provide a more on-topic response this evening.

Unamended, Bill C-23 could have prevented thousands of Canadians from voting, and likely violated the charter in the process. I am pleased to see that the minister of state has finally agreed to amend at least some of the most anti-democratic aspects of this legislation, but only after thousands upon thousands of Canadians stood up against this bill.

However, the fact remains. The real problem facing Canadian democracy is our first-past-the-post, antiquated, unfair and undemocratic electoral system, which delivered 100% of the power to the party that received less than 40% of the vote in the last election. And what is the primary symptom of that? Many Canadians believe their vote will not count, and increasingly they remain home on election day. Too few voters is our problem in Canada, not too many. As many voters stayed home during the last election as voted for the governing party. This appears to suit the Conservatives just fine.

What is the solution to this crisis in our democracy? The answer is to move to a more proportional voting system where every vote counts, and all Canadians have a genuine opportunity to have an equal say in selecting their government. First-past-the-post probably harms the electoral prospects of the Greens more than any other party. For example, in 2011, despite receiving almost 600,000 Canadian votes, the Green Party of Canada was only allowed one member in Parliament. In a proportional system where every vote counted, as in the vast majority of countries with real elections, these same 600,000 Canadians would have elected 12 Green members to Parliament.

Yet our electoral system does not target only Greens; it disenfranchises voters from coast to coast to coast whose ballots, whether cast for Conservatives, New Democrats or Liberals, are not reflected at all in the make-up of the House of Commons today. This huge group of Canadians of all political stripes cheated out of their votes adds up to approximately half of all eligible voters. Can we really be surprised that 40% of Canadians could not be bothered to cast a ballot in 2011?

However, there may be hope. I see hope in the thousands of Canadians who spoke out against the Conservatives' unfair elections act, forcing them to accept amendments to Bill C-23. I also see hope in the widespread support that has greeted the important private member's bill, the reform act by the Conservative MP for Wellington—Halton Hills, which would allow MPs to return to working for their constituents.

After eight years under this administration, these questions are increasingly understood as central to the health of our democracy. Electoral reform and restraining the centralized power of the Prime Minister and other party leaders must be understood as central to fixing the crisis in Canadian democracy and restoring Canadians' faith in our government.

I ask this question again. Rather than attempting to invent some fake plague of voter fraud, are the Conservatives prepared to fix the real problem facing Canadian democracy? And what are they prepared to do to ensure that every vote actually counts?

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

I will move amendment NDP-20. This concerns the registration offices.

The system in question within the Canada Elections Act and tweaked by Bill C-23 again involves a system of appointing after nomination lists from parties; those lists can be closed, so that becomes, de facto, pure nominations. Again, to be consistent, this is a whole package, which this would have been if we'd been succeeding on each vote, and it states, “Each registration officer shall be appointed by the returning officer on the basis of merit, following a process that is fair and transparent.”

I should also say that if the government MPs had been onside with this, towards the end of these amendments this would have been NDP-22, closing out the package. Having listened a bit to what the government was saying on their own concerns, we would have proposed the following: that the Chief Electoral Officer shall publish guidelines on the criteria and procedures associated with appointing electoral workers on the basis of merit, following a process that's fair and transparent.

We would have put in a “for greater certainty” clause showing that persons associated with political parties and persons nominated by candidates of parties in any election are fully entitled to be appointed on the same basis as any other person. Also, we would have created a mechanism, not a cumbersome one, but a basic way in which parties could direct people to Elections Canada or the returning officer to make sure they are considered under this process.

If we had succeeded with deputy returning officers, poll clerks, and now the registration officer—I've realized that we're not going to succeed—we would have been trying to assuage some of the concerns of the governing side, in that this process nonetheless would have produced appointments of election day officials that are, in our view, let's just say, fit for the 21st century.

We do think that elections commissions around the world generally are responsible for the appointment of election day workers. Scrutineers are the party's business. Election day workers should be Elections Canada's. That is why this is the third of the three amendments, and I hereby move it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives failed to submit an amendment to Bill C-23 to give the Commissioner of Canada Elections the power to compel testimony. Well, I wonder why.

The Conservative Party knew that the commissioner did not have this power, and that is why it ordered other Conservatives not to co-operate in the investigation of election frauds.

Liberals have submitted the amendments.

Will the minister finally do the right thing and support this amendment, or will he continue to protect Conservatives from election fraud investigations?

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

Thank you, sir.

We're now looking at the makeup of the committee that we were just debating, the advisory committee of political parties.

My amendment, Parti vert 19, is all about the scope of the work of that committee. My amendment proposes to expand the scope of the work by adding these words after what is found on page 11. At lines 8 to 9, it says, “The purpose of the committee is to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with advice and recommendations...”. My amendment would pick up to say:

—related to increasing voter turnout, public participation in the political system, electoral reform and fairness of the electoral system, and upholding principles of fairness and access with regard to political financing.

That encompasses more than the words that are currently in Bill C-23.

As you can imagine, Mr. Chair, there's a substantial movement across Canada that believes that any fair elections act starts with actually making elections fair and making sure that every vote will count. While it would have been beyond the scope of this bill to put forward an amendment that Bill C-23 actually put in place proportional representation, say, mixed member proportional, this amendment would at least draw some attention of the advisory committee of political parties to the issue of electoral reform, among other topics that are listed here in PV-19.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the chance to present this amendment, deemed presented by others in a process which I oppose, but here I am.

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

Yes. This goes back to Monsieur Bellavance's earlier amendment that I foreshadowed in my comments.

So that everybody knows, effectively, at the moment, the Canada Elections Act allows for the Chief Electoral Officer to carry out studies on voting that include alternative voting processes. It could be different ways to organize polls, it could be.... You can imagine what that might mean. It also would include e-voting, electronic voting, as a test or an alternative process.

At the moment, this committee and an equivalent or a parallel Senate committee are the only ones that have to give permission for such tests. What the government has done in Bill C-23 is it has taken one alternative process out of all the others, that's e-voting, and made it subject to the plenary approval, that is, the entire House of Commons and the entire Senate. It's no longer within this kind of committee structure.

Now, e-voting is not just of interest to the younger generation and the Internet-connected generation; it's of interest to anybody who believes that at some point in time the combination of security, efficiency, and encouraging people to vote is going to require us to at least have e-voting as one feature of our system, and we want to be ready. To me, this signals a structural reluctance to even test it. It's also, in some sense, I have to say—I'm speaking clearly as an NDPer here—offensive to add to the authority of the Senate in testing on something that's involving electoral process. Symbolically, it's nuts. I honestly do not see the logic here beyond wanting to create extra hurdles for this one process.

In committee, we had an interesting perspective. I think some of you might remember my saying to the witness, “I hadn't thought about that.” It was disability rights witnesses. In particular, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, if I'm not mistaken, were specifically expressing real concern about this. That also probably involves people with mobility disabilities too; it's less likely for them to easily get out to vote. They basically said that this is a provision that doesn't just affect students, but it's the kind of provision that affects them, because it's through e-voting that they can imagine they would be more included in the electoral process.

I'll end there and simply appeal to the government to let it go back to the way it was and not have this extra hurdle that involves not just us in plenary session, but the Senate.

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

This would modify the proposed new section 18.01. I think it will be helpful if I read what proposed section 18.01 of Bill C-23 says. It's very short:

The Chief Electoral Officer may, at the Governor in Council’s request, provide assistance and cooperation in electoral matters to electoral agencies in other countries or to international organizations.

We heard testimony from the CEO of the Northwest Territories, who actually expressed in quite eloquent terms considerable concern about this, because his view was that, as written it looks to any external agency as though Elections Canada is a foreign policy arm of the Canadian government when it interacts with foreign election commissions or with international organizations' elections operations. The practice tends to be—but I'm not sure it really needs to be stuck in a bill—that the Chief Electoral Officer doesn't go and interact and do missions without having sounded that out and having obtained approval from cabinet.

I think it is a big mistake to include it in the bill, because doing so sends a signal of a compromised independence. For that reason my amendment would delete the words “at the Governor in Council's request” and simply would give him that authority, which he already has.

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

That's where I am.

As we know, the current version of Bill C-23 lists specific measures as the only measures that the Chief Electoral Officer may communicate directly with the public about. It says ''with information on the following topics only''.

My amendment offers a new paragraph 18(1)(f) to extend that new subsection 18(1). It would now be paragraphs (a) to (f), and the (f) would make it, as previous motions from other parties have attempted to do, that the Chief Electoral Officer may also provide the public, both inside and outside of Canada, with:

any other information that the Chief Electoral Officer considers necessary for increasing the participation, in the election and in the political process generally, of any segments of the Canadian public that have been historically underrepresented.

Again, looking over Preston Manning's testimony and that of many other groups, whether indigenous groups, low-income groups, it is strongly supported across Canadian society that the Chief Electoral Officer should have this catchphrase at the end of this list of things that he is specifically entitled to use for educational purposes for those groups that are historically under-represented in the political process.

It doesn't do any significant damage to Bill C-23 in terms of structure. I hope the Conservatives opposite will give it a fair consideration because it would certainly, I think—I can't speak for the official opposition or any other party, obviously—just make the overall reception of this act....

I do want to say on the record that I'm pleased with the government amendments. It's great to have the voices of so many critics and the public in general heard on this matter. It's important for Canadians to know that when they raised their voices and organized demonstrations and did all kinds of things to get the attention of the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, they were heard.

They were heard, and the door opened a crack. Let's open it all the way.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

There was a pitcher of water in front of you. My apologies, Scotty knows I love him.

I have two quick points.

Number one, I take great issue with Mr. Scott who was saying in effect that this would be voter suppression of other demographics. How in the world could you be suppressing the vote when we're saying that Elections Canada should be extensively advertising, telling people how, where, and when to vote? That's telling them to get out and vote and here's how to do it. How in the world could you consider that to be voter suppression?

The other point I'll make very briefly is this. I take great issue with Mr. Christopherson's continued mischaracterization of the fact that he believes, or at least he contends, that Bill C-23 muzzles the Chief Electoral Officer. It does nothing of the sort. This clause only deals with advertising. If Monsieur Mayrand wants to go out and appear on one of the political panels here in Ottawa, he can do so. If he wants to hold a news conference, he can do so. If he wants to go and speak at a university, he can do so. He is not being muzzled and that is apparent. So at the very least, at the very least, Mr. Christopherson is being extremely disingenuous. This bill does not attempt in any way, shape, or form to muzzle the Chief Electoral Officer.

Thank you.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

All right.

It's hard, Mr. Chair, to extrapolate from 17.1 as presented and as defined by our staff and the minister's commitment that he could say whatever he wants. I see the member shaking his head and I'm willing to listen when we get that chance. I asked rather methodical questions. He has the power to do this now with the general public but Bill C-23 all but shuts it down completely, and 17.1 pries it open, but only to the extent of primary and secondary students. They still can't do partnership programs with other community groups that target other populations that are not in secondary school or in primary school.

Is that correct? If you need to further refine that, I'm listening.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes. My question went a little further than that, sir.

Right now, my understanding is—I'm a layperson, so I'll use layperson's language—that the Chief Electoral Officer can partner with any group in Canada and can initiate any program that's directed to any segment of the population or the general population with the sole purpose of trying to instill in people why it's important to vote. That's my understanding of the current law. Bill C-23 as tabled all but eliminated that.

The amendment the government is bringing in, which I would think is supposed to honour the commitment that the minister made publicly, only releases the CEO. He's got everything right now, and in the current bill practically nothing, and now proposed section 17.1 would open it up and allow the Chief Electoral Officer to do these information and education programs, providing they're only targeted to primary students and secondary students.

Is that correct?

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

I think the wording used in the bill is fairly clear. In fact, section 18 states the following: “The Chief Electoral Officer may provide the public, both inside and outside Canada, with information on the following topics only [...]”.

So I think it's very legitimate to feel that the Chief Electoral Officer is being muzzled and that the government wants to make sure he can no longer communicate with the public on any topics other than those set out in the bill.

In addition, as my colleague just pointed out, the minister told us that this was not at all what the bill contained. Therefore, if the minister is saying so, I have a hard time understanding why the Conservatives are refusing an amendment that only clarifies things so as to remove any risk of the Chief Electoral Officer being muzzled. I think this is one of the most dangerous provisions of the bill. A steady line of witnesses have told us how important it was to give the Chief Electoral Officer the power to speak about any topics he deems appropriate. Even Preston Manning said that section 18 should be removed. I am having difficulty understanding how someone can vote against an amendment that simply confirms the minister's statement to the effect that this was untrue and that the bill was doing no such thing. Why not confirm that? Why not set it out, in black and white, to eliminate any doubts?

If we consider the government members' general comments about the Chief Electoral Officer, I think it's normal to have serious doubts about that party's intentions. There really seems to an element of vengeance against the Chief Electoral Officer. I think we definitely need to ensure that the bill's wording is clear and specific, so that the Chief Electoral Officer cannot be muzzled like he currently is under Bill C-23. That's why I will vote in favour of this amendment.

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

I'll try to make it interesting, something like that old joke about Liz Taylor and the seventh husband, but anyway....

This is a very important amendment, because section 18 of the existing act is important. Bill C-23 would eliminate the positive proactive measures the Chief Electoral Officer takes to assist in educating particularly those groups that might not be sufficiently familiar with this. We've certainly seen members in Parliament point out the various easy ways that they know how to vote, but we know there are disadvantaged groups in society who often don't have easy access to that information.

I strongly urge my friends on the Conservative side of the committee to consider the benefits of leaving section 18 of the act as it is, leaving it alone, by accepting this amendment.

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

I think it's important to take a step back. We can have a very spirited debate on whether this minister did or didn't engage in consultations. To me it's absolutely clear as day that he largely didn't, outside of a very narrow circle, and that, at a minimum, if there were consultations, they certainly didn't produce a sense of what was needed, given the fact that there has been so much reflective and reasoned resistance to much of the bill as we saw in the evidence period.

We had 72 witnesses, 69 or 70 of whom found problems with much of the bill or with specific parts. The convention, which is actually in the Elections Act context, is that the government, through the minister, would actively consult with opposition parties and any interested MPs, particularly, I guess, independents. I think that would probably pass the test if it were ever looked at judicially as a convention, even it couldn't be enforced. That was in no way respected here.

I would like to move an amendment that would keep the spirit of this but that would say that Bill C-23 in clause 5 be amended by replacing the first two lines in amendment PV-13— I'm not quite sure if that's the way to go—but where it says, “The minister shall engage in extensive consultations with the Chief Electoral Officer”, it would now say, “The minister shall engage in good faith consultations with the Chief Electoral Officer, opposition parties in the House of Commons, and independent MPs with respect to any proposed amendments to the act”. It continues in the last two lines.

I'm not sure if that's a friendly amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, even with its amendments, the government still refuses to budge on giving more powers to elections investigators. The former commissioner of Canada elections, William Corbett, was very clear in committee. He said that there was nothing in Bill C-23 that will enhance the ability of the commissioner to investigate alleged cases of fraud.

Why is the minister content to have a commissioner of Canada Elections whose hands are tied behind his back? Why is he more concerned about protecting fraudsters than protecting the integrity of the election process?

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

Mr. Speaker, although the Conservatives have made some amendments, their election reform is full of holes. Bill C-23 still does not give investigators the powers they need to uncover fraud. Even with the Conservatives' election reform, perpetrators of the robocall scandal would remain unpunished, because Bill C-23 does not allow Elections Canada to compel testimony and to get hold of the documents it needs for its investigation, nor does the bill force call centres to retain telephone numbers and the scripts of their calls.

Will the minister stop protecting fraudsters and fix the holes in his bill?

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

Mr. Chair, this is going into new territory. I don't think it's duplicated or even close to any other party's amendment. It is based on the testimony before this committee of Professor Emeritus Paul Thomas. It's based on a U.K. precedent as well.

Given the fundamental importance of the Canada Elections Act, before any minister attempts to amend it, this is...and we can see the problems. I don't know that all of us around the table will agree that Bill C-23's course might have been easier had the minister consulted in advance with the Chief Electoral Officer, but in any event, I think that the general opinion of many Canadians is that Bill C-23 would have been much improved had the minister of the day consulted in advance with the Chief Electoral Officer. This would create a mandatory obligation on the minister, obviously for all time, that extensive consultations with the Chief Electoral Officer with respect to any proposed amendments to this act and its regulations would have to be conducted before amending the act.

I think it speaks for itself. I'll just add that it would avoid a lot of difficulty in the future. I think it's the kind of thing Canadians would have expected, in that no one would amend the Canada Elections Act without extensive consultations with the officer of Parliament who is the most knowledgeable on the subject. This would create an affirmative obligation, and there's no harm done by requiring those consultations. It doesn't bind the hands of a future minister to disagree with the Chief Electoral Officer, to even disagree in the most vociferous manner and to put forward amendments that are contrary to the advice, but one would want to see any minister consult with the Chief Electoral Officer before putting forward amendments.

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

We're moving a little fast here.

On page 7, line 1, there's the insertion to allow that in addition to considering the material facts included in an application, in preparing the opinion, the Chief Electoral Officer may take into consideration any other information that he or she believes necessary.

I think the ground has been tread here; we know that the Chief Electoral Officer is, in giving these opinions, guidelines, orders, and interpretations.... Again, this is for greater certainty, to ensure that the Chief Electoral Officer under Bill C-23 is not restricted in the access to information, opinions, and additional information that will inform the decision that is requested within clause 5.

Again, this insertion of proposed subsection 16.2(1.1) would be for greater certainty. I think the arguments are much the same, but I would hope the members of committee would give it new consideration and fresh consideration. There's no harm done in this. They've already made the point that they believe this is already the case, and those same arguments apply. For greater certainty, why not ensure that the Chief Electoral Officer can have access to all of the information they find relevant?

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

Right. The point is to look at them together.

Let's just call them informally external auditors. I think we should realize how important this is. Not only has a CEO suggested it after reflection and analysis, but in the system set up by Bill C-23, the external auditor is the government's response to the demands by the official opposition and others. I think they include those who voted for our motion in March 2012 for direct access by the Chief Electoral Officer and his auditing team to the receipts and documentation of the national parties which at the moment do not have to be produced. The government is saying there has to be external auditors doing it, and that's their answer.

Therefore, it's all the more important, if that's the case, that this should be voted for. You need to at least have that connection between the interpretations of the act in this structure set up by the government's Bill C-23 and the external auditor. If the government does not want to vote for this, I would worry.

One of the worries of the Chief Electoral Officer is that external auditors appointed by the parties from general auditing firms may not have the same kind of expertise as in-house auditing staff in the office of Chief Electoral Officer. As such, his worry is that the auditing may not be as experienced or as informed.

If there's a linkage between the two through Ms. May's combined amendment, and our amendment, as well, I think the circle would be kind of squared, if that's the right metaphor.

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

I think it's a matter of statutory interpretation. I'd agree with Mr. Reid that it's possible to interpret it both ways. I am concerned, though, that under proposed subsection 3 that it's the collection of advice from members of the advisory committee of political parties, but the language “shall” being mandatory language: the Chief Elector Officer under Bill C-23 shall take into account information that is received and advice and comments from the advisory panel of political parties.

It is true that it is not exclusive to only that advice, but it is open to interpretation if that was the intent. I think it's very important and that it be preferable to accept this amendment so it's very clear. If that's what you believe to be status quo, then there's no harm and greater certainty in passing this amendment. If not, it would be helpful to have on the record from Conservative Party members of this committee for any future court interpretation that the statutory intent of this is not to so shackle the Chief Electoral Officer that he can only take into account that advice referenced in proposed subsection (3).

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

I appreciate the argument, and the logic is good, except I think at least in two provisions that I think are the applicable ones in Bill C-23 it says that:

...if the 45-day period coincides or overlaps with the election period of a general election, they shall be published...no later than 45 days after polling day...

In fact, there is no ability.... I think the government's drafting has already taken into account that they don't want the Chief Electoral Officer having to drop things, not just during, but when it overlaps.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that, and given that it is exactly the same, I'll only make the following points.

The Chief Electoral Officer in testimony to this committee pointed out that Bill C-23 would create some rather operationally difficult hurdles: timelines, the ability to consult—in some of my amendments I'll go into some of the details around the consultation that's required with his advisory committee—the nature of the bilingualism that's required.... Under this amendment, we're just trying to ensure, as Mr. Scott has said, that the guidelines and interpretations that the Chief Electoral Officer is asked to provide are in effect practical for him to accomplish.

Obviously, the reason these are so close is that we've taken on board in the Green Party, as has the official opposition, the recommendations made by Mr. Mayrand.

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

It's NDP-1, which will be followed by NDP-2. One is on the definition of “leadership campaign expense”. This is the one we're dealing with. The one on the definition of “nomination campaign expense” is of the same ilk.

The Chief Electoral Officer in the table of amendments that he provided as recommendations gave fairly detailed reasons why there's a problem in the definitions of leadership and nomination campaign expenses in Bill C-23. He explained that definitions of leadership and nomination campaign expenses are not amended, but at the moment these definitions include only expenses incurred during the contest proper, and none of those incurred before the formal start of the contest or after its conclusion. As well, they don't include the use of non-monetary contributions, like gifts or goods or services.

Without going into more detail about the extra reasoning he gave, this amendment is an attempt to follow his recommendation, which was to modify the definition of “leadership campaign expense” in the definition section so that it would read, “'Leadership campaign expense' means an expense reasonably incurred by or on behalf of” and then we would insert, “leadership contestant related to a leadership contest, including a personal expense as defined in section 478, as well as any non-monetary contribution.”

If everybody's had a chance to look at it, I won't need to say anything more.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Chair, my two amendments to Bill C-23 I think logically have to be considered together. IND-2 is on page 86 of the package and IND-1 is on page 1.

Simply, what I am attempting to do is, based on the evidence provided to this committee by Mr. Casey regarding the unlevel playing field between independent candidates and those associated with political parties, it proposes to change the amendment of what is a candidate by adding a new candidate definition in proposed subsection 67(7), which would be my second amendment on page 86. It would allow an individual not affiliated with a political party to apply outside of a writ period directly to the Chief Electoral Officer with the same requisite documents that a candidate would apply during a writ period, that is, $1,000, 100 nominators, and an official agent, and therefore could be declared a candidate outside of a writ period by a Chief Electoral Officer, thereby allowing all the rights and privileges of a candidate, including raising money and issuing tax receipts.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Pardon me, minister. If I have understood your point of view correctly, you feel that the bill is constitutional. I think that is strange because the Canadian Bar Association expressed some doubts about this legislation's constitutionality. That makes me think about the way Bill C-23 was presented, but regardless, my question is about the intent to reside in Canada, which is covered in Bill C-23.

If someone accepts a contract abroad shortly after becoming a Canadian citizen, could they have their citizenship revoked, yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member was proud when the court found that fraudulent calls were made with information from the Conservative Party database.

Four hundred and sixty academics, two Nobel Prize winners and 18 past presidents of the Canadian Political Science Association have all strongly criticized the Conservatives' electoral “deform”. Like us, they are calling for extensive consultation with Canadians and are particularly critical of the fact that Bill C-23 does not give Elections Canada the power to compel witnesses to testify or to compel the parties to produce documentation justifying their election expenses.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge these comments and make more amendments to Bill C-23 or will he, as Tom Flanagan said, continue to show his vindictiveness toward Elections Canada, which has so often taken the Conservatives—

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

Mr. Speaker, the Competition Bureau has this power, but the government does not want to give it to those who investigate electoral fraud. That is really problematic.

The Conservatives were found guilty of using an in and out scheme to cheat in the 2006 election.

They also cheated in the 2008 election and they are still awaiting trial.

In 2011, fraudulent calls were made with information from the Conservative Party database. The Conservatives tried to stack the deck for the next election before abandoning the move. It is therefore understandable that people are suspicious of the Conservatives' amendments to Bill C-23.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to give Elections Canada the power to compel witnesses to testify and to compel the parties to produce documents justifying their election expenses?

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

Yes.

I could also say it in French. I love you.

First of all, I want to welcome Mr. Saunders. Ironically, the last time we saw each other he was questioning me on a previous court matter.

What I want to do is to clarify very specifically your concern that this change in Bill C-23 could place you, as Director of Public Prosecutions, in a situation of perceived conflict of interest, particularly around this issue of certification of appropriate expenses. As things now stand, the Chief Electoral Officer has direct access, within budget, to the consolidated revenue funds without anyone having to certify.

I'd like to ask you if you would agree with me that the status quo presents no difficulties for your office, and the status quo allows the Chief Electoral Officer to have access to previously approved budgetary funds without anyone else in a supervisory position having to certify the appropriateness of those expenses.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Saunders, welcome to the committee.

I want to pick up on the point that to the very best of your knowledge, you had no sense or understanding of being consulted in any fashion prior to the introduction of Bill C-23. Is that correct?

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

So the short answer is that it sounds as though it is at least nothing different from your relationship with any other law enforcement agency.

Let me take you through three provisions, one of which you did mention. I'll just ask whether this isn't going to be some kind of a hindrance on your relationship with the commissioner.

First of all, Bill C-23 expressly prohibits you from consulting with the Chief Electoral Officer with respect to an appointment of the commissioner. So any knowledge the Chief Electoral Officer may have with respect to either criteria or candidates would be blocked from your view. Are you willing or able to answer on whether such a ban is helpful to your ability to appoint the DPP?

[Brian J. Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada]

Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today as you continue your consideration of Bill C-23.

Through the clerk, I've provided all members of the committee a brief overview of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I do not propose to take up the committee's time by going over this background information now. I'll get right to the matter at hand.

The only proposal in Bill C-23 that affects the Public Prosecution Service of Canada is the transfer to the PPSC of the position of Commissioner of Canada Elections and of the commissioner's staff. While I have concerns in respect of certain aspects of the proposed transfer, I believe that it could be made without affecting the PPSC's ability to carry out its prosecution function independently of the investigative work carried out by the commissioner.

I say this for three reasons.

First, prosecutors are bound to respect the constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence. This means that we must make our decisions to initiate or continue a prosecution independently. This fundamental principle is ingrained in and followed by all prosecutors. It is part of the culture of prosecutors and will continue to be respected by prosecutors.

Second, Bill C-23 keeps the investigative and prosecutorial functions separate. The bill does not in any way give the DPP the authority to conduct investigations under the Canada Elections Act. In fact, the bill is clear that the commissioner alone has that authority and that he or she is to conduct the investigations independently of the DPP. Therefore, prosecutors would not be able to initiate or direct an investigation. While prosecutors would be able to provide advice to the commissioner during an investigation, they would do so only if the commissioner asks.

Third, although the commissioner would be housed in the PPSC and the employees who work for him would become PPSC employees, the commissioner and his employees would form a separate and autonomous unit within the PPSC. The commissioner, not the DPP, is identified as the deputy head of this unit for the purposes of hiring staff and of managing all human resources.

Let me now turn to the concerns I have with respect to two aspects of the proposed transfer. The concerns flow from provisions in the bill that might create the perception that the DPP is too close to the investigative function to conduct the prosecution function independently.

The bill proposes that the DPP have the authority to hire the commissioner and to dismiss him or her for cause. This authority could be seen as giving the DPP a degree of control over the investigative function. Another concern relates to the payment of investigative expenses. The bill provides that expenses incurred by the commissioner shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund on the certificate of the DPP. This authority may also give rise to a perception that the DPP has a degree of control over investigations.

These two concerns must be viewed, however, in the context of the safeguards of prosecutorial independence that I mentioned at the outset and against administrative measures that could be put in place to enhance the separation of the two functions. So viewed, I believe that the perception of prosecutorial independence would mirror the reality of that independence.

Finally, I should note that I also had a concern with respect to the original proposal in Bill C-23 regarding the annual report. The proposal was to amend the DPP Act and require the DPP to report on the activities of the commissioner. This may have created a perception problem similar to the ones I mentioned just now. Among the proposed changes to Bill C-23 announced last Friday is one that would address this concern. Under it, the Commissioner of Canada Elections would prepare his or her own report.

I have no comments on the other measures proposed in the bill, as they do not affect the PPSC's operations.

Thank you. I'd be pleased to answer your questions.

Opposition Motion—Time allocation and closure

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of the member for Burlington in explaining the process of allocating days with respect to debate and how that is used as a management tool for keeping the House efficient in terms of all the matters it has to consider at every stage of reading. Legislation can flow to committees to keep them focused on important matters and legislation and can move to the Senate, which can consider these matters as sober second thought.

In some countries, because of debate and other means, they do not pass a budget for year X until year Y or year Z. We had a situation in the U.S. Senate, when it did not pass a budget for four years. It debated budgetary matters, when matters have to be decided efficiently.

In the case of Bill C-23, I understand that there are aspects of the bill that have to be implemented in advance of the next election. To do that, it has to clear not only this House but the Senate in a specific amount of time. Can the member talk about how time allocation relates to meeting that standard?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak today. Just so my colleague across the way understands, when we get back to this fine institution in a couple of weeks, as a backbench member of the government I will be voting against the motion that is in front of us.

I have done a bit of research and have thought about the motion here in front of us. I basically broke down my presentation into two or three different areas, and hopefully I can get to them all.

First, so the public understands, let me talk about what is happening today.

Today is a supply day. Supply days were a creation of the Liberal government in 1968. They have been around for a long time. Previous to that time, the estimates, the actual allocating of money, was all dealt with in the House. It took up a tremendous amount of time. There was no time, or very little time, for creating legislation. The Liberal government of the day, in conjunction with the opposition members, came to the conclusion that things could be done more efficiently and effectively by allocating 25 days of the year to supply.

This means that the opposition parties can bring forward any motion that they would like on any topic that they would like. I am just guessing, but I think the vision of the day was that opposition parties would be able to bring a non-confidence motion forward and either criticize the government's policies or programs or maybe even present an alternative. That was the fundamental reason for supply days to begin with, and that is what we are doing here today.

I find it a bit strange that the Liberals are using this valuable time in this way. Because the Liberal Party is now in third place, it gets fewer days. Because the days are allocated by the size of the opposition, obviously the official opposition would get more days than the Liberal Party, and today the Liberals are using one of their two spring supply days to talk about process. I thought that was very strange, but I am happy to talk about process if that is what they want to talk about.

I thought maybe they wanted to define “middle class”. In part of my research, I was looking up “middle class”. The leader of the third party has been talking about the middle class quite a bit, so he must know a lot about it. His father was the prime minister of Canada and his upbringing was not really in the middle class, but I thought maybe it was his grandfather who instilled the middle class piece in him.

I looked in The Canadian Encyclopedia. I know my family and the vast majority of Canadian families are not mentioned in the The Canadian Encyclopedia, but the Trudeau family is. I found out that the former prime minister's father, the grandfather of the present leader of the Liberal Party, was listed there as being a wealthy businessman from Quebec and part of the elite even back in that generation.

I find it very strange that the Liberals are using today to talk about process. Maybe it is because they would have a difficult time talking about what they would like to accomplish, because they really have not indicated a whole lot to Canadians about what they want to do.

This brings to me to the actual motion, which is about time allocation.

The Liberals have chosen two specific areas to talk about in relation to time allocation. I want to make clear that what they are talking about is time allocation. Let me go through the three ways that it can happen.

There is a difference between closure and time allocation. Time allocation is allocating the amount of time in this House to deal with whatever the item happens to be. It makes it much easier and more convenient for us to determine how many speakers we have, when we will do it, and what days we will allocate to speaking on whatever item. It is purely organizational.

There are three ways that I know of that time allocation can happen.

First of all, the public should know that the House leaders from each party meet. They discuss the agenda, or the orders of the day as we call it here, such as, what is going to happen in the House, when things are coming forward, and how much time will be put to them.

It is my understanding that in the past the number one way of allocating time was by agreement between House leaders. For example, a House leader would agree to put up 20 speakers and another House leader would agree to 5 speakers. There would be an agreement on how much time is spent on a particular item. That is how it has happened in the past and it can happen in the future.

Then, when there is agreement, members would come back to the House. The House leaders go back to their whips and organizations, in our case the parliamentary secretary in charge of that area, and they would organize the speakers from our side who would speak to a particular item. The same thing happens with other parties and their critics.

A second way of allocating time is to have an agreement with the majority of the parties in the House. There are three recognized parties in the House, and two of the three can come together to figure out what we want to do. Technically they can allocate the time for whatever the discussion will be on a particular area.

The third way to allocate time is unfortunately what we have had to come to, but it is completely legal and fair. It is that the government of the day can allocate the time. That is not closure; it is not saying that we are not debating something.

I spoke earlier this week when we were debating our budget implementation bill. I was the 69th speaker, and there was going to be a speaker after me. There were 70 speakers at second reading, and five days were allocated to the debate in second reading.

The bill then goes to committee. If there are amendments at committee, it comes back here to report stage, which I did not know about until I got here. That was not mentioned much in the political science books that I read in university. However, there is a report stage. Again, there is an allocation, which may be done through the House leader on the government side or through a negotiation and discussion at the House leaders meeting. However, there is an allocation of time to debate the item, based on the amendments.

As members know, there could be a lot of amendments. The Speaker could group amendments together and we could then have debate on single sets of amendments. It is not just amendments in total, but on single sets. That could go on for a lengthy period of time. The bill then comes back for third reading. Third reading in this House has another time allocation piece to it.

Unfortunately, what is happening is that we are not able to get agreement from the other side on allocations, so the House leader on our side has to tell the House how much time will be allocated. There is always a 30-minute discussion on the government's allocation of time.

On the budget implementation bill, for example, we allocated five days to it. People can say that five days is not a lot. However, I did a little research on this, and I want people to understand the agenda in terms of the length of time that we are here.

In this calendar year, we will be sitting for 27 weeks in Ottawa, doing Canada's work. We all do plenty of work in our ridings, of course, but this is work on legislation that comes to the House. I then took all of the days that we have in a week and broke it down.

I do not know if people understand this, but there are 20-minute time slots for the speech and 10 minutes for questions and answer. Technically, one could split one's time. Today we have 20-minute slots, but to maximize the amount, it could be 10-minute speeches with a 5-minute question and answer period.

For example, on Monday, we are in the House from 11:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. We have to remove an hour for private members' business and an hour for question period. There are a lot of other things that eat into the time, but I am being judicious in saying that those two things automatically happen. There is also routine procedures and so on, which is another 15 minutes or so. In actual fact, we have about five hours and fifteen minutes on Monday, which is about 21 slots, if we split the time slots.

On Tuesdays there are six hours and fifteen minutes for discussion. That is 25 slots. On Wednesdays it is only a couple of hours, at two hours and fifteen minutes of actual time, which is nine slots. That time gets eaten up with trading over. On Thursdays we are back to the same as Tuesday, with 25 slots. On Fridays we have two hours and fifteen minutes, the same as Wednesday, with another nine slots.

If everything went absolutely smoothly and there were no interruptions or points of order and we went right to the minute and moved along, that is maybe 89 or 87 spots in a week.

I heard a few minutes ago that members of Parliament get elected here to talk about the items. Can members imagine if all members, all 308 of us, were required to speak to every item? We have about 88 spots a week. We are here about 27 weeks of the year. We then have supply days thrown in. We have other items. We have voting. If everything was as smooth as glass, based on my math, we would get maybe two pieces of legislation through every year.

That is not including the budget and the budget implementation bills, because in a sense those are automatics. We have a budget presented by the finance minister. There is debate and discussion on it. Then there are also two budget implementation bills, one in the fall and one in the spring, and time is allocated for debating those bills as well.

My estimate is that if we followed the rule or the expectation that all 308 of us would get a chance to speak to every item, we would get through a maximum of two pieces of legislation in the House.

That is not including committees. The public should know that. As I was saying this week, I was the 69th speaker at second reading. The bill then goes to committee. At committee, members of Parliament hear witnesses and get involved in debate and discussion about the legislation in front of us. The bill then comes back here for the report stage and third reading.

In my view, if there was no such thing as time allocation, as members of Parliament we would get virtually nothing done. I am not sure that the public of Canada is sending us to Ottawa to do absolutely nothing. The public expects some legislation to be passed.

The public expects discussion to take place, and there is discussion. There are speeches from both sides, from one side or the other, and there are often areas of concern or interest. On our side, normally we promoting. On the opposition side, members are often taking exception. Those discussions will happen.

People will notice that comments are often repeated over and over again. We do the same thing on our side. I am not saying that it is a one-sided thing. We repeat the same thing, or something very close to it. I know that the rules of this place are that we cannot say the exact same thing as somebody else. I do not really use speeches, as members can tell by my standing here. I have some notes, but I do not have actual speeches.

What I am saying is that time allocation does not stop debate. It assists debate. It allows fair discussion on the issues, and the limited time that the House has to deal with legislation requires time allocation.

We are being criticized, partially in this motion, over time allocation as if it had never existed before and as if it were something new that we had come up with. As far as I know, time allocation has been part of the process here forever, because it would not make sense to do otherwise.

Stanley Knowles, a New Democrat member of Parliament many decades ago, has been quoted as saying that it is important to have time allocation, that it is important that we have an understanding of how much time we are going to spend on a particular item and move forward to make decisions on whether we are going to support or oppose something.

The Liberal motion today tries to focus on two specific types of bills. In my view, they have done that because they know very well that time allocation is an important process around here, and they are using these two items for political reasons, not for practical reasons of improving how this place operates. We have a reform bill by one of my colleagues here before us. But in my view, if we really want reform of this place, and we know how little time we have to debate different issues, and given the scheduling that we have to arrange between committees, and so on, I think there are better ways to operate the House of Commons. I have made some suggestions on the number of committees, the timing of committees, and how much time we allocate for House time. We could be much more efficient than we are, strictly from a business perspective.

My concern is that when we hear the opposition say they did not have time to debate it, if we look at the actual speeches they make, they are repetitive and clearly not supporting the actual legislation in front of the House. That is fair. That is their job, to be in opposition. However, they should be able to make their points and then move on. That is not what is happening.

Time allocation and closure are two different things. Closure is a motion invoked when a piece of legislation is required by a certain time, whether it is in other statutes, or a Supreme Court decision has been granted on a certain item and the House has to report back by a certain date. If we check the records, closure is rarely used.

Another item I have heard about recently, aside from the debate on the fair elections act, is omnibus bills. The opposition are concerned about the size of bills, and they will quote big numbers. This week they were quoting it as 489 pages long. I agree that the particular piece we were dealing with this week is 489 pages long, but it is in both English and French, so it is actually about 250 pages. The fair elections act is not even that long, but it is in two languages.

If, say, we have to read a couple hundred pages, I am pretty sure that most Canadians believe that members of Parliament can read a couple of hundred pages. Additionally, what is also great about the way the system works here is that despite the fact legislation arrives before us in legalese, there are summary pages at the front of every piece of legislation highlighting what is important and what each section does.

What happens is that I, as a member of Parliament, read through the summaries and look through the parts of the legislation that are of concern or interest. If there is something I do not understand, I read it in more detail. Then I have an opportunity to talk to the minister. That opportunity is open to every member of Parliament. They normally have a session with a briefing that anyone can attend, including staff. They are briefed at the bureaucratic level on what is in a bill so they will have an understanding of it.

With the amount of time we have, which I am running out of now, I do not think we should support the motion. Time allocation is getting a bad name because people do not understand what it is used for and how it works. It is something that makes the House operate. If we were to ask people on my street, they would believe we are way too slow in getting legislation through the House.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I really did just answer that question, and members will note that the Liberal Party, in introducing this debate, wants to try to do what is achievable.

We know Conservative members on the other side could not support not limiting debate on everything. They could not do that for various reasons; but we wanted to do what was possible, what was achievable.

These two pieces of legislation are fundamental to our democracy. All Canadians know, with Bill C-23, how the regime over there would undermine our democracy, would actually take away the right to vote from some. Experts after experts have talked about their concerns on the bill, so Canadians know this is a bad bill.

This is the opportunity to put a motion that deals with two pieces of legislation, the foundation of our democracy, that any members in this House should be able to stand and support, whether they are government or opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, perhaps the NDP members could bring it up at their next opposition day. They could do quite a large motion if they so desire. That is the beauty of having these opposition days. We can debate certain motions.

My question for my colleague and friend is this. I want to talk specifically about Bill C-23 here. What I find most egregious here--and I understand there are certain circumstances where time allocation would be used for dilatory movements within the House--is that we have a party and a government, as a result, abusing the system that is supposed to help out the daily functions of Parliament.

The government has decided, after only three speakers, to impose time allocation to cut the number of speakers down.

I agree with the member wholeheartedly that, when we vote for this in a few weeks, we need to say to the backbenchers here that they have the chance, a golden opportunity not given to the vast majority of people in this country, to speak in this House. They should exercise that by ensuring that the laws allowing us to speak in this House are as open and flexible as they can be.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to support my colleague, the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, on the Liberal opposition day motion.

I will not read the actual motion, which is rather technical. The motion speaks to a very serious flaw in Canada's democracy. That flaw was especially revealed in the way that the Conservative government has operated with respect to Bill C-23, the fair or unfair elections act, whatever members want to call it, depending on their perspective, and how the regime would impose its will to the exclusion of all other views. That is a part of what is forcing this motion today.

I listened closely to the member for York Centre earlier, going back through a lot of history and where closure, time limitation, and debate have been used. There is no question that sometimes it is necessary in regular business as a government, in terms of doing the business of a nation.

However, let us understand what has been happening in recent years. There have been omnibus bills, 400 pages in length, dealing with sometimes as many as 40 different pieces of legislation that have nothing to with the budget. In previous times, most of those pieces of legislation would be broken out so that they could go to the appropriate committee. They would be debated here and would have a full hearing.

It has to be noted that in terms of this motion today that we are only dealing with the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act. What more important business could Parliament have than with those particular acts, which are the underpinnings of our democracy?

We need to ensure, at least on those particular pieces of legislation, that a slight majority government in Canada cannot impose its will in this place. It is one of the flaws in our democracy. The government needs to get things done, but it does not have the majority of the votes in the country.

The Conservative government, in particular, fails to operate for all Canadians; it tends to operate for a certain ideological base. As a result, these laws are not debated and analyzed in a proper, open, and transparent fashion, with the necessary witnesses. As I said, the government is imposing its will on the people and without proper debate.

The rationale behind this motion is that changes to legislation that are fundamental to our democracy should only be made through a consensus-based process. The Conservatives are treating Bill C-23 as another piece of partisan legislation to be rammed through Parliament at their convenience. This needs to be prevented from happening, now and in the future. That is what this particular motion would do. It would ensure that there is the proper debate.

Again, I listened to the member for York Centre, when he said that if we had the opportunity to debate every bill over the course of a term, members would only get to speak on eight bills in the whole term. Nobody is talking about every bill. We are talking about the way that government members continue to operate. They try to misrepresent and mislead the facts by saying something that is spinning it a little, that is a bit close to what the motion is talking about but is not the real thing.

How many hours would it take up in the House of Commons if the committee studying Bill C-23 travelled to every region of the country to hear what Canadians have to say on the bill? Would that not be the proper thing to happen in a democracy, that a committee goes out there to the country with the bill in hand, with all the parties present, and allows witnesses to have their say directly in their own areas, rather than either transporting them to Ottawa or doing a video conference? It should get out in the country where people can be heard, where people from the countryside can come into the meeting, rather than in the kind of bubble that is Ottawa.

Changes to legislation like the Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act, which are fundamental to our democracy, must be achieved by broad consensus and be backed by solid evidence. That is what the proposal by my colleague, and this motion, is all about, that there be proper debate, in a proper forum, with the proper amount of time on these two pieces of legislation. That is why we, as a party, have introduced the motion today that will change the Standing Orders of the House of Commons to prevent any government from using time allocation and closure to shut down debate on changes to the Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act.

As a member of the Liberal Party, I would point out that if the government continues to run roughshod over Canadians by forcing through its bill, our leader has committed that a Liberal government will repeal the Conservatives' undemocratic changes to our country's Elections Act. That is a sure thing.

How serious is this particular bill? There was an article in iPolitics this morning that fairly aggressively states where Canada will be left if this bill is passed. The article in iPolitics is entitled “The Fair Elections Act is a global disgrace”. It is written by Anita Vandenbeld.

Ms. Vandenbeld worked for a number of years internationally, on democratic development with the United Nations Development Programme, the National Democratic Institute, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the Parliamentary Centre. She has considerable experience on viewing democracies around the world.

I will not go through all of our arguments; I will go to some of the witnesses before committee. However, I would encourage people, and especially the Conservative backbenchers, that rather than just accepting the speaking points from the PMO, to read this article. She spells out the serious flaws and how Canada is becoming an embarrassment around the world with the way the current government is operating and how it is trying to seriously undermine the main foundation of our democracy.

The key point she makes, which in stark reality shows what her view is on this particular bill and the way that the government is handling it, is this. She states:

The last time I worked in a country where a government used its majority in Parliament to ram through changes to an election law without public input was in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2011. I never would have expected this in Canada.

That tells us how the people with the experience in looking at democracies around the world are looking at the actions of the government.

I have to say this because I hear some chirping from the backbench over there.

People who are on the back bench have to understand that they are not members of the government. The cabinet is the government. They are members of the governing party. They have the right, if they so desire, to stand up in their own right and represent their constituents and Canadians. They do not need to follow the whipped moves from the PMO.

They can stand up and express their own opinion, and on something as fundamental as Canada's election laws and the Parliament of Canada, I would love to see them tonight, or whenever the vote is held, standing up in support of this motion. We would applaud them for showing that, under this regime, democracy could even work in this place. That would be quite startling, and I would love to see it.

Legislation affecting our democratic institutions is too important to be rammed through in a partisan manner by any government. Such legislation should be able to get support from at least one other party in this place. We are all here representing constituents. We cannot be that far apart on issues such as democracy.

One would think that the government would be able to get at least one party on side in support of its legislation. As a result, though, of its not gaining that support, we are seeing an abuse of processes in this place in situations like those with Bill C-23, which is horrible legislation in my view. It seems there is no support from anyone other than the Conservative Party, but it intends to ram it through Parliament.

As such, I maintain that this is an affront to our democracy. Canada was previously seen as a model for other developing democracies, with Elections Canada, government representatives, and spokesmen being asked to profile how we operate in Parliament, how we run elections in this country.

That is all going to be gone, because we are now seen, such as at the United Nations, very differently from we used to be. We are no longer seen as a global leader in terms of peace and democracy around the world. It is because of the way the government operates.

The member opposite says it is because of Bill C-23. No, it is because of the attitude and the way the government has operated in the last eight years. This is a government that came in talking about accountability and transparency, and we have not seen it be accountable for anything.

The minister certainly does not stand up, apologize, and be accountable for what he said to the Chief Electoral Officer. There is no such thing. The minister was responsible, and if the Prime Minister would show some leadership, he would force that minister to apologize for the way he is treating parliamentary officers in this country.

It is an attitude that has pervaded that whole Conservative Party since it came to government, which is making us disrespected around the world.

We are now witnessing in Canada the undermining of debate on bills. I have heard others say this and I think it may in fact be necessary for us in the next election to ask for United Nations observers to come in to observe the election.

The members are laughing over there. However, when we look at this bill, we can see that we may need United Nations observers in this country of Canada because the government is undermining democracy so much. Moreover, as we will see when the vote comes up, not one of those backbenchers will be willing to stand up for Canadians. They are only willing to stand up for their Prime Minister.

Bill C-23, the so-called fair elections act, is quite literally nothing less than the most comprehensive voter suppression effort in Canadian history.

The bill was designed to exclude, to manipulate, and to undermine the democratic process in Canada, which is the bedrock of our democracy: our election process. The Minister of State for Democratic Reform has performed his task well. He has delivered for his leader the kind of legislation that would only serve to increase the cynicism among Canadians as to the political process, with the result, the Conservatives hope, of driving more voters out of the system, young people in particular.

All one has to do is listen to some of the witnesses who were before committee and listen to what some people are saying in the press. This is a government that views the manner in which Canada conducts federal elections not as something that all parties in the House have an equal share in ensuring works properly but as a system it manipulates to its advantage. That, to the Conservatives, is acceptable.

There are only two kinds of Canadians according to the government party opposite: good Conservatives or bad Canadians. Those who oppose the government are less Canadian, unCanadian, the enemy, subversives. That is the kind of government this legislation is revealing to Canadians that we have in Canada at the moment. There is something suspicious about a government that is attempting to manipulate the democratic system to ensure the disenfranchisement of Canadians, while fearing to allow thorough, open, cross-country public hearings to hear the voices of Canadians. A government with any integrity would have worked with all parties in the House on this legislation and, if not that, would have had the integrity to take the legislation into the country and road test it. It can still do that, if it really wanted to. It could go out and hear from Canadians.

As I said earlier, backbench members over there have the opportunity to stand up and be counted to ensure that there is proper debate, long-term debate, cross-country hearings where everyone can be heard on the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act.

This legislation, Bill C-23, to which the motion today relates, has to be placed in the wider context. That is the fact that the former auditor general, Sheila Fraser, stated that the government would undermine the credibility of virtually every arm's length agency of the government that performs any kind of oversight. Ms. Fraser said, according to The Globe and Mail of April 9, that the attack on Mr. Mayrand “disturbed” her greatly, was “totally inappropriate”, and that such comments “undermine the credibility of these institutions”. She also warned that the bill would unduly limit the Chief Electoral Officer, threaten Elections Canada's independence, and block people, including her own daughter, from voting with the tightened ID requirements. We all respect Sheila Fraser. She is a former auditor general. When she makes those kinds of serious comments, it is time we listen.

Let me list the bill's critics so far. They include Mr. Mayrand; Commissioner of Canada Elections, Yves Côté; two of their predecessors; Ms. Fraser; former Reform Party leader Preston Manning; provincial chief electoral officers; Harry Neufeld, the author of an authoritative Elections Canada report; law school deans. There was a list on March 11 of well over 100 university professors saying this bill should not go through as is.

I will conclude by saying that this motion would lay down criteria where proper debate has to be held on the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act. I encourage backbench members to stand in their own right to support it.

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

Great, thank you, and thank you, all three, for such powerful and articulate presentations.

I particularly want to recognize Leadnow with respect to this particular bill. Right from the beginning you helped raise the alarm with Canadians and you said something very important, Mr. Shedletzky, near the beginning of your presentation. You said there are many problems in Bill C-23 and a focus on voter ID risks diverting our attention from those other elements. I'll come back to that because I'd like you to, after I've made a couple of other comments, just to summarize what you think really needs attention beyond the voter ID stuff.

On the encouragement of voting, it's also worth noting that this bill makes it much harder to do experiments with online voting. It's singled out for not just full House of Commons approval and thus, blocking, but Senate blocking of any such pilot projects, which I would have thought from the student perspective is not something all that welcome because I hope students would want us to be ready when the technology and public confidence level is there for online voting to be used at least in a supplementary way.

The last thing is that I very much hope that at some point we will have a fair elections bill that's about fair voting, that's about making every vote count, and that it would include proportional representation within our electoral system, which we know more or less can increase the vote by 2% to 5% as well.

That said, Apathy is Boring, this is an amazing document, this card, but the irony is that if we were to look at this in terms of post Bill C-23, it's not even clear Elections Canada would be able to partner with this at all, because the new language of proposed section 18 talks about an exclusive list of things that Elections Canada can do, and, “The Chief Electoral Officer may provide the public...with information on the following topics only”.

Those topics include this side, but they would never include this side:

The future is ours: 50% of the Aboriginal population is under...27. It's up to us to own it.

Elections Canada would be banned from helping with this side. They might even be banned from helping with this side because the language in the existing act of, “The Chief Electoral Officer may implement public education information programs”, is removed, and the provision that says “The Chief Electoral Officer may, using any media or other means” is removed. So it's not at all clear that the current provision will even allow partnerships with bodies such as yourselves. I think that should be a real concern given how you are advancing the ball down the field with this kind of stuff.

Back to Mr. Shedletzky. I'm wondering if you could just tell us what you think we should be paying attention to. You have about a minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what happened 120 years ago, I was wondering if the hon. member could talk specifically about Bill C-23, in this particular case. He talked about the enfranchisement of voters, or really the disenfranchisement. Obviously, the way this bill has been handled, there is no consensus whatsoever.

I want the member to rely upon a third person, outside of this House and outside the structure of party politics, and to quote from that person as to why Bill C-23 is so good.

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

I agree with you completely.

My next question is for Mr. Shedletzky and has to do with provisions in Bill C-23.

I'd like to talk specifically about the powers that the bill doesn't grant Elections Canada. The ones that come to mind are the authority of the commissioner to compel a witness to testify and the authority of Elections Canada to request documentation from political parties.

Could I get your thoughts on that?

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during this debate today, we have heard from the members for Western Arctic and Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor. They are from far-flung regions of the country. That is why we have debate and why we should allow all members of Parliament to speak when we are discussing issues related to the foundations of our democracy, as in how to run elections.

The last two questioners are excellent examples of why it is important to hear members of Parliament from all parts of Canada.

When we ask questions about Bill C-23 in question period, we hear pretty much uniquely from the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, who represents a suburb of Ottawa. We keep hearing from him over and over again. That is not as good as hearing from members who represent all parts of Canada.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the House another fine example of what the member for Western Arctic is talking about.

The health card belonging to the sponsor of this motion, the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, does not have his address. His driver's licence has a P.O. box. If when he went to vote the officials were to follow the rules, they would say, “Sorry, you do not have something that proves where you live”. There would be 20 people there saying, “This is my member of Parliament. I know that person lives here and is my member of Parliament. You have got to let him vote”. This is the sort of thing that Bill C-23 overlooks. It is a fine example of how even a member of Parliament does not have the identification to officially prove his residence. Therefore, there has to be some sort of allowance for vouching.

[Youri Cormier, Executive Director, Apathy is Boring]

Thank you very much for having me here.

I am Dr. Youri Cormier and I'm the executive director at Apathy is Boring.

Apathy is Boring is a national youth-led non-partisan charitable organization that has been working to educate Canadian youth about democracy since 2004.

In keeping with our strict non-partisanship policy, we do not advocate on matters of public policy, and this includes not taking a public stance for or against the Fair Elections Act.

Our goal today is to provide an accurate, impartial and balanced analysis of the youth electoral context in Canada in relation to this bill, with the hope that this will be a valuable addition to the current debate.

Youth voter participation is not a partisan issue. Youth do not form a voting block that sways as a whole one way or another. This in fact has been proven by various studies. One example of this is the student vote program, which has shown that high school mock election results roughly mirror actual electoral results. Also, a recent poll found that 18-to-24-year-olds support Canadian political parties in proportions that are similar to those for other age groups. Even the issues they prioritize are roughly the same as those of older generations, including people over the age of 60.

Despite these similarities between generations, voter turnout in Canada is not evenly distributed amongst age groups. Youth vote at a rate significantly lower than that of their elders. This is happening throughout the western world, not only here in Canada.

The other problem is that the decision to vote or not is a habit one develops at an early age. Young people who don't vote in the first two elections in which they are eligible to do so tend not to vote for the rest of their lives.

Study after study has shown that the key factor determining voter participation is motivation. Non-partisan motivational campaigns have had a measurable impact on voter turnout. And the evidence exists to back that up.

We recognize that elected officials and political parties have an important role to play in motivating citizens to vote. That said, non-partisan actors are also key, because they do not have a stake in the outcome of any given election. While political parties may choose to speak to those in their base and to undecided voters—both of which are current voters—non-partisan actors play a fundamental role by encouraging non-voters to become voters, thereby continually renewing the pool of electors and the health of our democracy.

If Elections Canada is no longer empowered to invest in and conduct outreach campaigns that promote voting, who then will actively reach out to non-voting citizens and youth who are deciding for the first time whether or not to vote? Will Elections Canada be able to continue to invest in research projects that aim to understand the trend in youth voter turnout and identify which strategies are cost-effective for turning the trend around?

Another barrier to voting is that youth have high levels of mobility. They move away from home, they go off to college, and they move again to find work—the unemployment rate in Canada for youth is very bad. As a result, these young adults are less often correctly inscribed on the electoral lists.

To make voting easier for youth, Apathy is Boring recommended in a report commissioned in 2008 that Elections Canada could capitalize on changes to ID requirements to increase accessibility to elections. VICs were deemed to be a logical choice, because even before Elections Canada piloted their project with these cards, our research found that many people thought the VIC was an acceptable form of identification because it seemed to contain all the information listed as being acceptable.

Voters may have 39 alternative forms of authorized ID, but the problem is that if high mobility results in someone's address being incorrect on one of these, it usually means that it is incorrect on the remaining ones as well. In such circumstances common to young Canadians, vouching and VICs can indeed facilitate access to voting.

If tighter ID requirements are implemented, it will be indeed crucial to ask this question. What means will be put in place to counter the potentially challenging impacts of tighter voter identification on young eligible voters who are not correctly on the voting list? In attempting to safeguard democracy from administrative risks, how can we also ensure that we do not expose our democracy to another important risk, that is, the immediate and continued decline of youth voter turnout and the impact this might have on long-term voting habits?

A democracy may be very well-administered and free of irregularities, but what worth would it have if this “regularity” came at the expense of citizens opting out of the democratic process?

Apathy is Boring hopes that engaging youth as voters will be an important part of the debate around Bill C-23. We continue to be committed to our non-partisan charitable mission of educating Canadian youth about democracy. And in so doing, we need the support of the many critical stakeholders: government, political parties, electoral agencies, community groups, donors and, of course, youth volunteers.

Thank you.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing we discovered in talking to people in the last election is that it is hard for students to prove where they live. It is easy for people to prove their identity. Lots of people have pieces of ID with their picture and their name. It is quite a bit harder to prove where one lives. We discovered that a lot of students and young people do not have easy access to that identification. That example is an excellent one.

The member may or may not know that when it comes to the commissioner of elections, I have mentioned it a number of times and it has been mentioned in the press as well, we know that one of the problems with Bill C-23 is that the commissioner does not have the ability to compel witnesses. For example, when we found out that somebody impersonated my campaign manager in my riding, even with those pieces of information we had it was hard for the commissioner to force somebody to testify. We know that voters were misled and told to go to a different poll very far away from where they lived. The commissioner does not have the power to compel witnesses to figure out who did that.

[Éliane Laberge, President, Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec, or FECQ, represents 21 college-level student associations across Quebec, with a total of 70,000 members.

Since its creation, the federation's first priority has been to advocate on behalf of CEGEP students. The federation also works to increase student involvement in public debate and government.

Our remarks today are based on the efforts of independent and government organizations working towards a common goal: increasing voter turnout among young people and educating the public.

Also underlying our remarks are observations we've made with the help of our members, especially over the past few weeks, in the lead-up to the provincial election. The federation worked actively to get CEGEP students out to the polls and took the time to speak with thousands of them. We have the benefit of being the same age as our members, so they feel they can be open and honest when they speak to us.

Youth voter turnout during general elections is a matter of great concern to the FECQ. We believe it is imperative for young people to assume their rightful place in public debates and for political parties to take young people into account. Our country's well-being and development are at stake. Excluding a generation, whether indirectly or directly, is one of the worst things a country can do.

Voter turnout among Canadians at federal election time has been steadily dropping since the 1980s. In 2008, just 58% of Canadians went to the polls. The trend is even more evident among 18 to 20 year olds; only 38% of them cast their ballots in 2011.

It's a troubling picture because it's likely to get only worse with time. If young people don't exercise their right to vote at their very first opportunity to do so, they will become less likely to vote later on. In other words, poor turnout among first-time voters leads to poor voter turnout overall, down the road. This is a serious problem that requires all sides to do everything in their power to fix it.

We fear that the passage of the election reforms in Bill C-23, especially the changes to section 18 of the Canada Elections Act, will do nothing to make things better. In fact, they will do the reverse.

The FECQ has noted that voter turnout among youth is determined by four major factors. The first is the view that voting is a duty. The second is a solid grasp of the electoral process. The third is an understanding of politics, the way government works, the issues of the day and the political parties, themselves. And the fourth and final determinant is an interest in politics. All four need to be present. Someone who feels a sense of duty to vote but isn't the slightest bit interested in election issues, or doesn't understand how government works, won't necessarily go out and vote.

Clearly, it's not the responsibility of the Chief Electoral Officer to make equal efforts on all four fronts. But we do feel he should at least be mandated to help spread the message that voting is a duty, as is currently the case, in addition to informing people about when, where and how to vote. Section 18 of the act shouldn't be amended to diminish the Chief Electoral Officer's scope of activity.

Keeping up public education is imperative. In 2011, Elections Canada commissioned a study to ascertain young people's motivation for voting or not voting. The study revealed that barriers tied to motivation, so determinants one, three and four, were just as much to blame as barriers having to do with access, so determinant two—knowing when, where and how to vote—if not more.

Naturally, some youth cite not having received information on when, where and how to vote as an excuse. But our experience, especially in recent weeks, has led us to realize that that excuse is often used to conceal a lack of political knowledge, trouble understanding the differences between the parties and a poor grasp of the impact voting has. Only when we told students they needn't be embarrassed about not being experts on political matters did they open up about feeling uncomfortable because they knew little about politics or which party they were going to vote for.

We would tell them about tools to help steer them in the right direction, doing more than just giving them factual information. That could mean, for instance, telling them about the Vote Compass tool on CBC's Web site or providing comparisons between the various parties' platforms. We would stress how important it was for them to vote in order to have their say. And that's what would convince them to cast their ballots.

Of course, making sure young people know when, where and how to vote is important, but so is ensuring they know who they are voting for and why. And that can absolutely be done in a non-partisan way. We did it for four weeks. Bear in mind that a young person won't go to the trouble of voting if they don't know who they are voting for.

The Chief Electoral Officer already provides factual information about the voting process. So we don't understand the desire to pass legislation preventing him from eliminating the second barrier to voter turnout—the biggest one, in our view—motivation. The government's decision is even harder to understand given the compelling evidence that shows motivation is indeed a barrier.

Elections Canada commissioned a study showing that the Student Vote program had a positive impact on numerous factors tied to voter turnout. The program helps young people better understand the political issues and parties, develop an interest in politics and realize that voting is a civic duty, all while introducing them to the voting process. Therefore, the program is active on all four of the fronts that lead to improved voter turnout. The same goes for major public awareness campaigns, which Quebec's chief electoral officer credits with getting 34% of those who see the ads out to the polls.

In conclusion, our position is this. We share the government's concern about providing voters with quality information. Nevertheless, we believe that Elections Canada can, and should, continue to impress upon young voters the idea that voting is a duty, help them better understand our political system and encourage them to become more interested in politics.

Section 18 of the Canada Elections Act should stand in its original form. That would ensure the Chief Electoral Officer retained the independence and freedom to educate the public not just on when, where and how to vote, but also on why voting is important.

Thank you for your consideration. We sincerely hope all the parties will be able to reach some common ground and amend the bill in a way that improves youth voter turnout, not the opposite.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by making a point about the importance of the legitimacy of government. We trust government with our security, our rights, our tax dollars, and many of our important interests. Even the Conservatives would agree with this point.

Let me give an example. On April 3, when we were debating the last omnibus budget implementation bill, I stood up and asked the Conservative speaker why the omnibus bill had corrections to the previous omnibus bill, which had corrections to the previous omnibus bill, which had corrections to the previous omnibus bill. I said that perhaps we should not be limiting debate but instead taking our time and getting it right for once.

The answer the parliamentary secretary provided was simply that they were right because they won the elections in 2006, 2008, and 2011. That is what the Conservative member said. They are relying on the legitimacy of their own election when they are cornered and do not have a good argument in debate. Therefore, even the Conservatives must believe in the importance of the legitimacy of the people's government, and as far as we know, fair and democratic elections are the most legitimate way of choosing a government.

If we want to have fair, legitimate elections, we have to have a consensus among MPs from different parties if we want to change the rules or the laws surrounding how elections work or how Parliament works under the statutes. Elections and elections law serve the people of our country, not the parties. Parliament serves the people of our country, not political parties.

If we really believe this, then we must accept that all Canadians must have a voice through their members of Parliament when changes are considered in the structure of elections or in the structure of the people's Parliament. These are two of the fundamental institutions of our democracy. During debate, there have to be real answers. There has to be solid evidence that is presented, poked, tested, and confronted. Through debate, questions have to be answered. We have to have real questions, and real debate has to occur.

For example, under Bill C-23, 120,000 Canadians who relied on vouching to vote in the last federal election would no longer have that ability. Why get rid of vouching and risk disenfranchising them or other Canadians who want to vote?

It is not good enough for me to just ask that question here in the chamber on behalf of Canadians. It is necessary for me to demand and insist on a real answer to that question for Canadians over and over again, because so far all I have heard are deflections on that point. We need time to insist over and over again on real answers from the government. At some point, even the Conservatives will become embarrassed by how they are not answering the real, tough questions that are being posed by MPs.

Time is needed for all MPs from all over the diverse parts of our country to be heard. Every Canadian, through their MP, needs to be heard on questions involving the fundamental parts of our democracy. Elections and Parliament are too important to be changed by a partisan bill that a majority pushes through.

Canadians perhaps want to be governed by a majority. Sometimes they will say they want to give another party a chance to govern. What they really mean is they want to hand the ball to the other team, not change the rules of the game. If we try to change the rules of the game, as Bill C-23 proposes to do, we cannot just have one team deciding, especially when Parliament and the clash between political parties is not just a game. It is an adversarial system, and in order to make the best laws and to spend money in the wisest way for Canadians, it ensures that no stone is left unturned.

With Bill C-23, it certainly appears that the Conservatives are changing the rules for elections to help themselves. They would make it harder for students and seniors and aboriginals to vote. Wealthy donors would be able to donate more. Central poll supervisors would come from a list provided by the incumbent party, which in most ridings is the Conservative Party, instead of through the simple option of letting all recognized parties in the House of Commons provide a list from which Elections Canada could choose central poll supervisors.

We have also seen the government try to intimidate the Chief Electoral Officer with some procedural manoeuvres, such as trying to cause votes in order to break up his testimony at committee. Not only do the Conservatives want to change the rules; the Minister of State for Democratic Reform also personally attacked the Chief Electoral Officer and was even publicly reprimanded by former auditor general Sheila Fraser for doing that. To put it in simpler language and draw a picture, the Conservatives want to change the rules of the game to favour themselves, and if the referee protests, they punch out the referee.

In changing the law around elections or Parliament, it is important to do it right, and it is more important to do it right than to do it quickly. There is a case for expediency when managing a fast-moving economy; for example, we have a bill to encourage rail companies to move grain to ports, so there are certain advantages for our country when it is governed by a majority government and majority powers are used judicially. However, when amending the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act, we should be acting as representatives of all of our constituents, not just the ones who voted for us or our parties. Every constituency should get to speak, but with time allocation, not all MPs get a chance to speak. Every MP should get a chance to speak if he or she wants to, and that is why we should pass this motion today.

To conclude, I want to call on all Canadians. I understand that the vote on this motion will take place in a couple of weeks, on Monday, April 28, after Easter. MPs will return to their constituencies and will be interacting with the people who live in their ridings. I am calling on all Canadians to contact their MPs and tell them that they want all Canadians to have a say on laws that change how elections are run. Election law is not made to serve parties that are fighting each other; it is made to serve the people, by ensuring that the vote is as fair as possible and the government that is elected is as legitimate as possible.

To all Canadians I say that if they believe that MPs work in Ottawa to represent the people back home, then their MPs must support this motion. If Conservative and NDP members believe when they go home that they are only the representatives for the Conservative Party or the NDP, then they should go ahead and vote against this motion. I think a lot of Conservative MPs do not believe that, and I encourage them to follow their beliefs and to vote for this motion.

I believe I represent Kingston and the Islands in the Parliament of Canada and I chose to be in the Liberal Party not because I want to represent the Liberal Party but because I believe the Liberal Party is best for Canada. I represent the people of Kingston and the Islands in Ottawa and I challenge the member for Calgary Southwest, who is the Prime Minister, to stand on guard for Canadian democracy and to forswear closure when debating changes to the Canada Elections Act or the Parliament of Canada Act.

Finally, I repeat, I ask all Canadians to contact their MPs over the next two weeks and tell them that they want all Canadians to speak through their MPs if laws about elections or Parliament are being changed.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a very specific question for our two witnesses.

I'd like you to give us your opinion on what happened in 2011, in other words, the extensive electoral fraud and the robocalls aimed at suppressing the votes of Canadians. I'd like you to comment on two recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Well, actually, since he's persona non grata, we're really talking about the commissioner, who is in charge of investigating election fraud and other problems that arise. The commissioner, himself, asked for these powers, pointing out that they would significantly help him tackle election fraud in Canada.

The two powers in question would authorize the commissioner to compel someone to testify and Elections Canada to require political parties to submit documentation to ensure their elections spending is compliant with the Canada Elections Act.

Do you think Bill C-23 should include those two recommendations, which many people have made?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Yes, thank you very much, Chair, and thank you Mr. Hawn.

Just to follow up a little bit on what Kevin was saying, one of the provisions of the elections act, Bill C-23, is to oblige Elections Canada to advertise and communicate more aggressively with voters as to the hows of voting, as well as the wheres and whens. “How” meaning what kind of ID to present, which would eliminate a lot of the problems with the VICs, but I would also point out that the only true way to eliminate voter fraud—because of the problems everyone has with databases and I fully agree with that—is to produce proper identification, not through vouching, not through voter information cards, but through proper identification.

As an example, someone told me just a day or so ago that if you wanted to renew your Ontario health card now—do you know the process you have to go through? You have to produce three pieces of ID to get your Ontario health card. Every single societal privilege or right that we seem to have, except for voting, requires one to produce proper identification. That's just a normal function of who we are and the times in which we live.

I would just suggest that, getting back to the root of this whole discussion, whether or not vouching should be eliminated, or whether VICs should be allowed.... We have roughly 18 months or slightly less before the next election. If people were educated now as to the kinds of identification that are required, and the options to produce identification that are available, I think a lot of the problems that we see, if there have been problems, would be eliminated. I'd just like to see if you have any comments on that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be splitting my time today with the opposition House leader, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. He has done an incredible job of standing up to the government in the short time he has been in the position, holding them to account and pushing back on what has been a continual and constant abuse of Parliament and our democratic and fundamental principles which we all share as Canadians. I believe that Conservatives share them as well, when they are able to unleash themselves for that split second and realize what their jobs are meant to be here.

We see a motion today that we welcome from the Liberal Party, although we find it passing strange, on two fronts. We welcome the opportunity to talk about free and fair debate in Canada's Parliament, to talk about the abuses that the Conservatives have unleashed more than 55 times on Canada's Parliament.

There are two considerations and concerns that we have with what the Liberals have put forward. I am sure my hon. colleague the opposition House leader will elaborate on these, so I will pass over them briefly. The first issue is that the motion as it is presented today is too limited. It only seeks to curtail the government's power to use time allocation and the extraordinary power of shutting down debate in too narrow a way. We would seek to perhaps expand it, and my friend from Burnaby—New Westminster will elaborate on that.

The second piece is that this may be a new-found love for accountability and transparency from the Liberal Party. As we have seen, when it held the same position as the Conservatives currently do, it too used this same extraordinary power.

Canadians can tolerate a lot from their political representatives, and we know that we ask them to do that. They tolerate the various assortment of scandals and unfortunate choices, and the bad choices, made by the current government. However, they will not tolerate hypocrisy. They do not appreciate hypocrisy from any party, in this case, the Liberals, who used time allocation on certain bills that it should never have been used on.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was you, in 2011, who moved a motion to limit the powers of shutting down debate by the government, which was rejected. It was the NDP who also sought most recently to give increased powers to the Speaker. That was to discern between when the government was using time allocation as it was designed, for when a debate has gone extensively beyond what would be considered a normal parameter for discussion, and limiting it to that instance rather than what we see from the government.

As my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster said, it was on a massive omnibus bill, or ominous bill as some people call them now. They are Trojan Horse bills. We have seen Bills C-38 and C-45, and the most recent budget implementation act, Bill C-31, that are incredibly expansive in their nature. They are hundreds of pages long, and in this case affects more than 40 Canadian laws. It would change 40 Canadian laws in this one case.

The extent of these massive bills would be enough that most people would consider a full and extensive debate to be proper. However, after a short 25 minutes, the Conservatives said that is enough. They said that we need to shut down the debate on this most recent ominous bill; we need to shut off any conversation about all of these laws that are being affected.

When we look through the debates of the past when the Liberals used the same tactics that the Conservatives are using, it is passing strange that it was the Conservatives, who were then in opposition, who had so many problems with that abuse of power.

Let me read one quote. This is one of my favourites. It is good. It is someone being prescient and intelligent, and doing their job as a parliamentarian. Let me quote the following from a debate on November 26, 1996, which took place right here:

In my view, the procedure of using time allocation for electoral law, doing it quickly and without the consent of the other political parties, is the kind of dangerous application of electoral practices that we are more likely to find in third world countries.

Who would say something like that? Who would say that the abuse of power that the Liberal government of the day was using to shut down debate on changing our electoral laws was representative of something “that we are more likely to find in third world countries”? It was the current Prime Minister who said that. It is true.

The current Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, was faced with a Liberal majority that was unilaterally changing electoral laws—not nearly as extensively as the Conservatives are now doing, by the way—and sought to shut down debate in the House of Commons, having achieved no consensus or agreement from the other opposition parties. It was the current Prime Minister who said that this was an abuse of power; this was wrong.

Lo and behold, we now have Bill C-23, the unfair elections act, which the Conservatives have designed in its very DNA to be unfair, to be undemocratic, and to allow an advantage to Conservative candidates in the next election rather than winning fairly. They have put that into their election bill with no agreement from any other political party.

Then, to add insult to that abuse, to that injury, they have shut down debate prematurely and rushed it to committee. They are now in the Senate doing the same thing—the unaccountable, unelected Senate that this same Prime Minister appointed. The hypocrisies and irony in this instance are so rich that they approach the level of appalling.

To my Liberal friends, I hope this new found love of democratic principles is sincere and will be sustained, regardless of which side of the House they are sitting on. New Democrats have a long and proud record of standing up against the abuses of time allocation, of shutting down debate, of allowing members to freely express themselves on behalf of constituents. That is what we are here for. It is not to advance one political party or the other. The very structure of the House of Commons is simple, yet beautiful in its nature: to hold the government of the day to account.

As I said to my Conservative colleague across the way, that is a responsibility, not only of the opposition parties but of those who sit in the so-called government backbenches. That is their job. Unchecked power eventually becomes corrupted, as we saw from the Conservatives as soon as they gained their majority.

It was a very slight majority. If we look at the design and the build of the seats in the House of Commons, it is what we call the rump, the little section of extra flow over the Conservative seats in the corner that we see during voting time. It is called the rump, by all parties; I do not mean to pass any judgment on the quality of those members. However, it is that tiny group over there who represent the majority that the government has, having achieved just 38% of the vote in the last election. When we break it down, it was only 25% of all eligible voters in the country, and they ended up with 100% of the power.

What do the Conservatives do with that power? Do they act responsibly? Heavens, no. They introduce these massive omnibus bills and then slap on time allocation, shutting down debate on legislation that is so incredibly complex that nobody on the government benches actually understands what they are voting for. That is a shame.

This motion is about a democratic principle that is essential for Parliament to work properly for Canadians. I fully understand that Canadians are quite cynical about the current state of our politics, and for good reason. It is only natural, what with this corrupt, anti-democratic, and by all accounts very weak government. What is more, this government is short on ideas. The budget implementation bill is short on tools for rebuilding our economy.

There is a shortfall of some 300,000 jobs in the industrial sector and for young Canadians who are still trying to find work. They are coping with an unemployment rate that is twice that of the rest of Canada. What are we seeing in the government? We are seeing an extremely corrupt system, a shortage of ideas, and a problem, namely that of disliking democracy.

What is that terrible expression that I have seen in a comic strip somewhere: “that the beatings will continue until morale improves”. The Conservatives heap abuse upon abuse on Parliament and ask why it is that the opposition parties are so resistant to their mandate and to their practices?

Well, with what we have seen, time and time again, whether it is the unfair elections act, these massive omnibus bills, the way it approaches trade negotiations with other countries, or the general approach that the government has to democracy, I look back, almost fondly, to those days of the Reform Party. It seemed to at least have stood for something. I did not agree with it, but it seemed to have stood for something. Now we see what these guys have become. Power seems to have corrupted them and left them without those principles. It is a shame.

We will be supporting the motion. I look forward to the continued debate.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That is something this committee should be considering and I know it is as part of the study of bill C-23. So I would leave it to the wisdom of the committee in the final result.

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

Mr. Speaker, in light of the situation of Bill C-23, they have spent a lot of time discussing this bill. We should focus. Maybe the member would like to look at the motion itself and focus on these particular acts and what is happening here today. The key here today is to focus.

[Bill Casey]

I believe that Bill C-23, the fair elections act, is an opportunity to correct a very unfair aspect of Elections Canada rules that have been in place for many years.

I'm referring to the set of rules that allow a candidate belonging to a recognized party to begin to raise money, issue tax receipts, and prepare for the next election long before the election is called. A different set of rules governs independent candidates, which prevents them from doing anything in preparation for a campaign until after the election is called.

As a for instance, all of you can issue tax receipts, through your EDAs, to contributors today in order to encourage supporters to make contributions to your anticipated 2015 campaign. An independent candidate running against you in the same riding cannot do this. An independent candidate can only begin to raise money and issue tax receipts after the election is called.

There are two sets of rules and they are very unfair.

I'm sure that some of the members of Parliament at this table had funds left over from their campaign account in the last election. That money was probably transferred to your riding association account, and now those funds are available to be returned to your 2015 campaign account to be used in the next election. If an independent candidate running against you had funds left over in his or her campaign account after the last election, the money had to be surrendered to the Receiver General for Canada. It would not be returned to them if they decide to run again in the next election.

Again, there are two sets of rules.

I'm sure that all of you have signs available and information prepared well ahead of the next election, or you will have. An independent candidate running against you can only commit to any purchase after the election is called; again, two sets of rules.

As an interesting example, I've attached an invitation, from the Internet, to a fundraiser event being held to raise money for the riding of the Honourable Pierre Poilievre in anticipation of the next election. The fee to attend is $125 per person, and attendees are provided with a tax receipt for $99. An independent candidate running against him is not allowed to do this. Only after the next election is called is an independent candidate allowed to raise funds and issue tax receipts.

The two sets of rules are very unfair.

I don't mean to pick on the minister, as most MPs from all parties will be raising funds in the coming months in exactly the same way, but it is a good example. Further, $75 from every $125 ticket for Minister Poilievre's fall fundraiser will come from the taxpayers of Canada through the tax credit system. An independent candidate running against him cannot access these tax credit benefits in the same way prior to the election being called.

Please ask yourself if you would consider it fair if your opposition in the next election could raise money earlier than you could, raise more money than you could, and could make campaign arrangements earlier than you for the next election. Ask yourself if you would consider it fair if you had to forfeit cash left over from your campaign, but all the competitors that ran against you could keep theirs.

In fact, I ran as an independent in the 2008 election. The Conservative, Liberal, and NDP candidates in my riding were all able to keep the excess funds from the campaign. As an independent, I was required to surrender my remaining funds.

Again, two sets of rules.

Although these rules have been in place for many years, Bill C-23 seems to exacerbate the disparity. The provision that would generously allow political parties to exempt certain campaign expenses incurred over the previous five years before an election would provide no benefit for independents. I believe this inequitable situation could be corrected relatively easily if independent candidates were allowed to provide a mechanism so they could establish an entity similar to an electoral district association. It would perform the same function as EDAs for party candidates, and most of the problems would be resolved.

In any case, I'm sure that knowledgeable officials would be able to resolve these inequities if directed to do so by this committee. After the election of 1993, and again after the election of 2000, Elections Canada referred to these disparities as draconian and recommended that they be changed. This is the chance to do it. The fair elections act is an opportunity to correct this most unfair aspect of our election rules.

I urge you to amend the bill to ensure that independent candidates are governed by exactly the same rules as party-sponsored candidates.

Thank you. I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll go ahead and start our meeting this morning. This is the 32nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We are here pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, February 10, talking about Bill C-23.

We have with us, in the first panel, two good friends actually. Mr. Casey, it's great to see you. It was great to have a little chat with you this morning. I haven't seen you in a long time, and it's good to see you.

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

moved:

That Standing Order 78 be amended by adding the following:

“(4) No motion, pursuant to any paragraph of this Standing Order, may be used to allocate a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of any bill that seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act or the Parliament of Canada Act.”;

and that Standing Order 57 be amended by adding the following:

“, provided that the resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, being considered do not pertain to any bill that seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act or the Parliament of Canada Act.”.

Mr. Speaker, in light of what just took place, I have never seen a larger, more concentrated effort to keep me silent since I last spoke to my own lawyer.

I appreciate the efforts from all members to encourage us to debate and to have a robust discussion on what we consider to be the changing of some of the Standing Orders that we have here today. Essentially, that is what we are doing here today.

In light of the debate that has taken place over Bill C-23, we have proceeded with second reading, we have voted, and it is now with the committee on procedure and House affairs. The substance of that debate, of course, was about the ability of Elections Canada to do its job. It was also about the ability of the average Canadian citizen surpassing the three elements of being over the age of 18, being a Canadian citizen, and residing in a certain riding in which they are entitled to vote.

I say “entitled”, because that goes to the very core of many of our values, such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are talking about section 3, which is the ability to vote.

What brings us here today in this motion is talking about changing the Standing Orders, because there are two elements of the Standing Orders that must be addressed. We feel, in light of the debate we have had about Bill C-23, basically changing the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act, that there are two elements of the Standing Orders being used quite often that should not be.

I will discuss those two elements right now. This is from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, 2009, edited by O'Brien and Bosc. The two elements are time allocation and closure. One is used more often than the other, which of course would be time allocation. I will get to that in just a moment.

Let us talk about closure and how it is addressed in this publication. It says:

Closure is a procedural device used to bring debate on a question to a conclusion by “a majority decision of the House, even though all Members wishing to speak have not done so”. The closure rule provides the government with a procedure to prevent the further adjournment of debate on any matter and to require that the question be put at the end of the sitting in which a motion of closure is adopted. Apart from technical changes as to the hour at which debate is to conclude, the rule has remained virtually unchanged since its adoption in 1913.

I assume one of the reasons it has not been changed that much is that we do not use it as much as it was used before. It is time allocation that is used a lot more often. The text goes on:

Closure may be applied to any debatable matter, including bills and motions. The rule was conceived for use in a Committee of the Whole as much as in the House, but it cannot be applied to the business of its standing, special, legislative or joint committees.

That is closure. Let me get to what is more frequently used, which is time allocation. It seems to be used on every piece of legislation that we see fit to bring into the House these days. Certainly, from the standpoint of government legislation, time allocation is used quite frequently. In O'Brien and Bosc, it says:

The time allocation rule allows for specific lengths of time to be set aside for the consideration of one or more stages of a public bill. The term “time allocation” suggests primarily the idea of time management, but the government may use a motion to allocate time as a guillotine.

I like how O'Brien and Bosc use the word “guillotine”. In other words, it is just cut off at a certain point after so many speakers.

Usually, it is a form of limiting debate within the House. The original concept was to use it for timely matters and certain legislation that had to be passed very quickly. However, it is used so often now that it more for political expediency, dare I say it. It seems to be more toward that than anything else.

The text continues:

In fact, although the rule permits the government to negotiate with opposition parties on the adoption of a timetable for the consideration of a bill at one or more stages (including the consideration of Senate amendments), it also allows the government to impose strict limits on the time for debate. This is why time allocation is often confused with closure.

This is what I mentioned before. It continues:

While it has become the most frequently used mechanism for curtailing debate, time allocation remains a means of bringing the parties together to negotiate an acceptable distribution of the time of the House.

Notice here that this book refers to participation of all parties within this House. We do not see a lot of that these days. We see time allocation. We see some smaller discussions. I wish time allocation were used in a more responsible manner, but I do believe that unfortunately it has become an issue mostly of time allocation for political expediency.

The Standing Orders of the House of Commons and the Conflict of Interest Code do address this. Today we propose amending Standing Order 78 and Standing Order 57. We are considering, “Closure. Notice required. Time limit on speeches. All questions put...”. Following Standing Order 57, we are proposing that the wording be:

, provided that the resolution of resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, being considered do not pertain to any bill that seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act or the Parliament of Canada Act.

We are also calling for the same under Standing Order 78. We are calling for a new subsection (4) saying:

(4) No motion, pursuant to any paragraph of this Standing Order, may be used to allocate a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of any bill that seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act or the Parliament of Canada Act.

This is time allocation “that seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act or the Parliament of Canada Act”.

Let me go back to Bill C-23 for just a moment. We are making major amendments to the Elections Act for people voting in this country, which of course is enshrined within our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We want to talk about the fact that people have the inalienable right to vote and participate in our democracy. These are fundamental concepts.

In practice, since the conception of this House back in the 1800s, we have always looked and striven toward a consensus among all members of differing parties, of differing opinions, whether they be Conservative, Progressive Conservative, Liberal, NDP, CCF, Green Party, and so on. We have always looked for consensus in dealing with something as fundamental as this. Therefore, before the bill was tabled, there were always public consultations, yes, but also House consultations with the different constituents here or the different parties.

It has always been by convention, meaning that it has been a tradition to do that. Nothing has been codified to make sure the governing party of the day, whenever it has introduced legislation of this magnitude, would always seek out consultation with other parties. However, that did not happen this time.

That is why, on this particular day, the Liberal Party is proposing that, if we make amendments to something this consequential, some of this needs to be codified. If we are actually debating on second reading, third reading, or reports stage any changes to the Elections Act or the Parliament of Canada Act, time allocation and closure need not apply. It basically codifies a convention in this House, a tradition we should respect, which is to say that if we are making changes to the way Canadians express their opinions by the fundamental right of democracy, then it should be codified. I hope every member of this House will agree with us that closure and, specifically, time allocation would be set aside because of something of this importance.

I want to focus more on Bill C-23 because the pattern has been such that this has to be codified. It is unfortunate that we have to do this, really, if we think about it. There have been traditions in the past where the government, putting forward a motion regarding something as important as this, would get the leader of the official opposition to second the motion.

It seems as though more and more of these traditions of consensus within the House are going by the wayside. They are certainly disappearing. If we let more of this happen, the congenial way that this House deals with issues of such magnitude, those conventions and those traditions, will slowly disappear. There we find a degradation of debate in this House.

There are many things happening in this House that require focus to make sure that the sanctity of the debate is respected. I do not like the fact that when a bill is introduced in this House, someone stands up and says right away that our party or our group will disagree with it. I do not think that is respectful, because a full and robust debate was not allowed to happen, but we are observing this more and more.

I want to touch on Bill C-23, which is of course the bill that we are dealing with in the procedure and House affairs committee right now. Making changes to legislation such as the Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act, which is what is happening in Bill C-23, requires measures such as this. Unfortunately, time allocation was used after only the third speaker, and I was number three.

That was an unfortunate passage. There was not even an indication that debate was going to be prolonged or that it was going on far too long and that salient points were being repeated, which members have the right to do. The points were not being repeated to the point where the government was exacerbated and therefore had to use time allocation.

We had only three speakers. That was it. That was all. We had the mover, who was the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, and the critic from the official opposition, and me. Then, all of a sudden, down came the guillotine. The guillotine came down and debate was cut off, literally.

As we look at the background of Bill C-23, we see that there would be fundamental changes in the way Canadians exercise their vote. There are couple of these issues, and one is in regard to vouching. Vouching has been a tradition not only of this democracy but of other democracies as well. It is enshrined within the Elections Act. It is enshrined in how Elections Canada deals with people who do not have the appropriate identification on hand.

Here is the problem. People are eligible for that identification, but they do not have it on their person. They could be transient. They could have moved.

They can prove that they are above 18. They can prove that they are Canadian citizens. I can do that with my health card. I can produce it right now, or perhaps not. Nonetheless, it is here somewhere. My health card can prove that I am a Canadian citizen. I can produce ID that proves I am above the age of 18.

Here is the crux of the matter: proving residency has become problematic for a wide swath of our population. Half a million people use the system of vouching in order to vote. They may have had ID, but just did not have it on them, as in the case right now. I mean that literally.

As of right now, according to this legislation, I cannot vote. My driver's licence shows a post office box on as the address. I cannot use my voter information card anymore. That is what a lot of seniors use, incidentally, if I could pick out one sector of the population. I cannot use that anymore. My utility bills come electronically, so now I have to call my local power supplier and tell them to send me a paper bill. I think I have to pay $4 for that.

There we see a fundamental change in the elections act. We have shortened debate because we want to ram this through very quickly, and that is unfortunate. That is why today I am hoping that all members, especially the Conservative backbenchers, will say this is the way to go. They should use their conscience here. If they are going to fundamentally change the system by eliminating vouching and disenfranchising up to half a million voters, I would suspect that many people here on the Conservative backbench would say we need debate.

Let us remember that time allocation took place after only three speakers. Therefore, the Conservative backbenchers were told they could not talk. They may have been brimming over with joy as they anticipated talking about how wonderful the government is, which many of them do on occasion. Such is their right. However, because of time allocation, they did not have the right to speak. That is unfortunate. I would hope that they would see that this particular motion today would satisfy them.

A member from southern Ontario had a bill about changing the way we function in the House. He tabled a private member's bill for democratic reform. He then faced a barrage of questions from all members of Parliament. What did he do? He took it back, changed it, and brought it back to the House.

There is a reason he did that. It was because there were fundamental changes that went beyond the scope and the principles of the bill that was tabled. If we vote yes at second reading, we have to accept the principles of the bill. One cannot go beyond the scope of the bill if one is looking for amendments within committee. That is called responsible law-making. That is called responsible debate. Unfortunately, we are in a position now where we have gone past second reading vote.

Let me get back to Bill C-23 once more. I talked about vouching and the fact that the office of the election commissioner, the investigative arm of Elections Canada, has now been moved from Elections Canada into the public prosecutions office.

The Conservatives keep talking about the independence of the elections commissioner and how fundamental it is. There is nothing wrong with achieving independence for an elections commissioner in order to do due diligence and do the job. However, here is the problem. They said they want to put the referee's jersey back on the elections commissioner by putting him in the prosecution office. That way he would get to be the referee that he was meant to be. They may have put the referee's jersey on the commissioner, but they took away his whistle. He does not have a whistle to blow in case of serious infractions.

That is a key investigative tool. Many elections commissioners in certain provinces across the country have this tool. Many other departments federally, such as the Competition Bureau, have this power, and they move it frequently. They told us in committee that they use it quite often. It is obvious, without saying, that it is an essential tool. The tool can compel testimony.

In the case of the robocalls, thousands of names were just introduced to the House to talk about robocalls and how bad it was. There are not enough answers regarding this situation. That is unfortunate. Having the right tools to investigate is the way to go, but unfortunately the government did not see fit to do that. Now what we have was not an exercise in independence for the commissioner but an exercise in isolation to isolate the investigative arm of Elections Canada.

Finally, I hope through the course of the day and in the vote that will follow in a fortnight, we will say that debate on fundamental changes to the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act should not be limited.

Remarks by Minister of State for Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I just wish to support the official opposition in concern. The debate in this place on Bill C-23 could very well lead to not just it misleading Parliament, but my concern is that it would mislead the Canadian electorate.

We have had the repeated reference to 39 pieces of ID as though any one of them would allow a Canadian to vote. I know that slips are made when people are in debate, but it is very clear that one could go to the polls with six or seven pieces of ID off that list and still be denied one's right to vote, without recourse to vouching. Therefore, we need to be very careful. This is one of the reasons why bills that deal with the fairness of Canadian elections should never be dealt with in circumstances of limiting debate and pushing things through without full political consensus to support something so fundamental.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say I am rising today with great exasperation and frustration on a question of privilege pursuant to section 48(1) of the Standing Orders, regarding misleading information that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform has provided to the House. I say I am exasperated because members know as well as I do that in the past few months, my colleagues and I from the NDP official opposition caucus have had to stand up many times in the House to denounce misleading comments by members of the opposite side.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read from a statement you made yesterday in the House: “As has been suggested, the information shared in this House does hold extraordinary value as it forms the basis upon which decisions are made in the House”.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that we raised a similar question of privilege in March 2012 with regard to the comments made by the then minister of Human Resources and Social Development, who said that there was no quota system for recovering EI payments when in fact there was.

We also raised a similar question of privilege in October 2013, when we brought to the House's attention the Prime Minister's misleading statements concerning his office's involvement in the Wright-Duffy scandal.

We raised a question on the 100% fabricated evidence from the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, who said in this House he had witnessed cases of voter fraud when, in fact, he simply had not.

Finally, just two weeks ago we raised a similar question regarding misleading comments from the minister of state for finance, who manipulated numbers to justify his party's opposition to the NDP's CPP expansion plan.

My colleagues and I do not just raise these questions of privilege for fun, far from it. I would rather not have to rise in the House and waste the precious little time that we are given for debates—which is often cut short by this government—to ask the House to look into misleading comments once again made by a minister.

However, as the opposition House leader, it is my duty to raise these questions and to hold the government responsible for what it tells the House and Canadians.

Therefore, it is with some irritation that I want to present to you today the facts concerning the specific case at hand: the comments made by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

During question period in this House on Wednesday, April 2, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform was asked why he was ready to disenfranchise thousands of Canadians by removing voter ID cards as possible forms of identification for voters. This is what the member replied on April 2:

There are regular reports of people receiving multiple cards and using them to vote multiple times. That, too, can be found on the Elections Canada website.

If this were true, it would indeed be concerning. As we all know, voting multiple times is a serious legal offence. That is why the NDP followed up on his statement. We searched Elections Canada's website and we asked witnesses at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, currently studying Bill C-23, if there were, in fact, cases of people using multiple cards to vote multiple times.

The answer we found is unambiguous. There is only one documented case of this, as we well know, which was a gag by the Quebec TV show Infoman. Therefore, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform is blatantly misleading the House when he said there are “regular reports” of voters voting multiple times.

We tried to give the minister of state a chance to correct the record during question period on April 3, the following day, when the leader of the official opposition, the NDP leader, asked him to give us examples of these “regular reports of people receiving multiple cards and using them to vote multiple times”. At that time, the minister of state actually changed his story.

On April 3, he replied:

In fact, there are documented cases where people received multiple voter information cards. I gave the example, which was documented by the French CBC, where two Montrealers each received two voter information cards and therefore each voted twice.

In his reply, the minister of state could only resort to citing, again, one single example that exists of voters voting multiple times, but he changed his story from “regular reports of people receiving multiple cards and using them to vote multiple times” to “cases where people received multiple voter information cards”.

In his answer on April 2, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform was referring to the reports showing that there are cases of people receiving more than one voter card. However, none of these reports say that the people in question actually used these to vote more than once. The minister of state knew this, and therefore misled the House when he manipulated the information to add, from his own fertile imagination, that people had used their voter cards to vote multiple times.

Mr. Speaker, if you are still not convinced, allow me to tell you about the many witnesses who appeared before the committee and who all told us that there was no evidence of systemic or organized voter fraud.

Harry Neufeld, the former chief electoral officer of British Columbia, said:

“There was no evidence of fraud whatsoever”, in the cases he reviewed, and that he has “only been privy to a handful of cases of voter fraud” in his entire career.

Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada, also said that there was no systemic or organized voter fraud.

How, then, can the Minister of State for Democratic Reform claim that Elections Canada has documented multiple cases of voter fraud?

I will not take the time here today to mention all the precedents where it was found that prima facie contempt had occurred when members misled the House. I will spare members in the House from that today, since we have talked about those cases before when other similar incidents occurred, incidents which are unfortunately far too frequent.

Let me simply remind the House that, according to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, on page 115, “...Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege”.

Moreover, and this is the essence of the matter, the Parliamentary Practice, 22nd edition, by Erskine May states the following on page 63 that “...it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”.

Mr. Speaker, I see that you are getting tired of this, as are New Democrats, and so are Canadians. Canadians are tired of the misleading comments from the other side. We are tired of the Conservative government’s misleading the House in order to justify its wrong-headed policies.

The opposition to the unfair elections act is mounting and virtually unanimous. Conservatives stand to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters who, by many assessments, are coincidentally not usually Conservative voters. To justify this, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform had to resort to making up stories in the House because he simply could not find real evidence to bring forward. All he has is one single gag by Infoman.

The Minister of State for Democratic Reform has, one, offered misleading statements to the House; two, did so knowingly; and, three, he did so with the deliberate intent to mislead parliamentarians. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to find that a prima facie contempt of the House exists in this case.

More than that, Mr. Speaker, since the problem of ministers knowingly misleading the House seems to be becoming endemic in the Conservative government, I would appreciate receiving guidance from you as to how we can put an end to the practice of government benches providing misleading information to parliamentarians and to the Canadian public.

Democratic Reform

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my nine years in this House, I have never before had a petition of this nature with this volume of signatures. Thousands upon thousands of people are concerned with the 41st general election campaign and the accusations of fraud. As well, they are concerned about Bill C-23 and they are petitioning this House to put in electoral reform that takes into account the recommendations of Elections Canada to establish enforceable standards. In my time here, I have not before seen anything like this.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if my friend from Kingston and the Islands knew me better, he would know I have an answer for just about anything.

Let me again say that there is absolutely nothing unusual in the provisions contained in Bill C-23. It has been common practice for the party that finishes first in a particular riding to be able to appoint, or at least recommend, appointees to do election service on election day.

This is just a continuation of a practice that has been carried on for many decades. I think if my colleague went back in time, he would find out that this practice started when there was a Liberal government in place. Liberals were the ones that first determined or recommended and put provisions in their own Elections Act that the first place party should be the one with the ability to recommend candidates for election official positions.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his kind comments, inviting me to participate in the debate without talking points.

I noticed with interest, however, that the member opposite who was asking me to try to participate in a lively debate without any prepared talking points from the government was himself speaking from prepared notes. If he, at any time, wants to engage in a lively debate on an extemporaneous basis, I would be more than willing to accommodate him.

In fact, members in this place know, if they have been here any length of time, that I have never made a speech from a prepared text in my 10 years in this place, nor will I ever. I am a firm believer that if one cannot make a speech without prepared notes, whether it be 4 minutes, as in this case, or 20 minutes or even 30 minutes, one is probably in the wrong business.

That aside, let us deal with the issue at hand. The member opposite was saying that there is really no need to have a central poll supervisor recommended by any particular party. It has been a longstanding practice in elections over the last number of years that officials, whether they be deputy returning officers or poll clerks, are appointed from a recommended list of candidates from respective political parties.

The member opposite is quite right, the deputy returning officer is usually appointed from a recommended list from the party that finished first in that particular riding. The poll clerk in that riding is usually appointed from a recommended list from the second place party, and so forth.

Making another appointment of the central poll supervisor really does nothing more than extend the practice we have seen for literally decades in Canada.

I would also point out that, even though the member opposite feels this would be perhaps open to abuse, there are many checks and balances that we already have in place during elections. Not only do the poll clerk and the deputy returning officer tend to balance one another, but each party and each candidate has scrutineers throughout all polls. If there are any disputes, obviously the scrutineers would be the first ones on site to be able to challenge the ruling of any official on site.

I would also point out, with respect to both deputy returning officers and poll clerks, that even though they are normally appointed from a recommended list from various political parties, the returning officer has the ability to remove those officials if the returning officer feels there is just cause. The returning officer, as we all know, is appointed by Elections Canada.

The ultimate check and balance is the fact that Elections Canada and its appointee can remove even the central poll supervisor if they feel there is just cause. What would just cause be? Well, perhaps it would be if the central poll supervisor was trying to influence the outcome in any way, shape, or form.

That is why I suggest that there is simply no need to change the provisions we have contained in Bill C-23.

Finally, I point out that I am sure the situation is the same in Kingston and the Islands as it is in my riding back in Saskatchewan. Almost every single candidate I know of and every single riding I am aware of is usually contacted by Elections Canada towards the latter part of the election to see if there are additional names that could be supplied. Quite frankly, over the last 20 or 30 years, Elections Canada has had great difficulty in filling all of the positions, so it asks for additional names to come from parties.

That is the status of Bill C-23. That is why it makes sense. I ask my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands to please consider that in his response.

[Dr. Abram Oudshoorn, Chair, London Homeless Coalition]

I also extend my thanks to the committee for having me here today.

I present to you today on behalf of the London Homeless Coalition and the London Community Advocates Network; however, my comments also draw heavily on my experience working front-line as a nurse with people experiencing homelessness at the London Intercommunity Health Centre and on my current position as an assistant professor in the Arthur Labatt Family School of Nursing, where my research and teaching focus on the intersections of poverty, housing, and health.

There are two brief pictures I hope to paint for you, to in some small way bring you the realities, as the other witnesses have, of Canadian citizens experiencing homelessness. These are obtaining identification and then a picture of what happens on typical election day in London, Ontario.

Maintaining and obtaining identification is one of the key challenges faced by people experiencing homelessness in terms of barriers to exiting homelessness and exiting poverty in general. Both qualitative and quantitative research studies have continually highlighted the rapid decline of possessing current and accurate identification starting from the date of first homelessness. That is to say, the longer one is homeless, the exponentially less likely one is to have current and accurate identification. This particularly impacts those living with a mental health challenge as well as women fleeing domestic violence.

How is identification lost? Unfortunately, as others have said, it's frequently stolen along with one’s personal possessions. It's also lost in the chaos of people's lives. At times it's left behind if a person is unable to return to a shelter where their belongings are temporarily stored or if women fleeing violence are unable to go back and access their possessions.

Once identification is lost, as has been mentioned, the process to replace it is laborious, expensive, and long. Individuals often have to start right back at connecting with their community of birth to obtain a birth certificate, then wait four to eight weeks for this to come in before accessing the next piece of identification. This process is also a challenge as one requires a permanent address throughout the process for where that ID is going to. Fortunately, many agencies that serve people who are homeless are well-equipped and used to serving as a permanent address on a temporary basis. Unfortunately, due again to the chaos in people’s lives, the process of replacing lost identification is often interrupted. There are many times when pieces of ID, after being ordered, end up sitting unclaimed as the person enters a new cycle of distress. Therefore, on any given day a significant number of people experiencing homelessness in Canada find themselves without identification.

This is a challenge, but historically in London we've been able to rise to that challenge. Health and social service agencies in London mobilize every election day to ensure, as much as possible, that citizens who want to vote are able to in spite of their housing status and identification challenges. This community-wide mobilization focuses firstly on ensuring that individuals are using an agency for their permanent address and are thus able to obtain the voter ID card. For those who have not received that or if it's gone to a different place, the next level of mobilization is with the provisions under 143(3) of the Canada Elections Act, known colloquially as the vouching system.

As you are aware, under this section of the act, those with proper identification are able to vouch for another citizen within their polling area. Part of what we do is first make sure that the agencies serving the homeless know how it works—so, workers across health and social service agencies are made aware of these provisions and people self-identify who live within polling areas where many people who are homeless are located.

When a person experiencing homelessness but without identification enters an agency and expresses an interest in voting—often the agencies have a sign that says, “Ask us how you can vote”—they are connected with someone who can vouch for them, whether it's someone who works in the agency or another person who's homeless who's also said that they would like to vote. They will be accompanied by someone who can vouch for them at the polling station. This is made simpler in our community because one or more of the serving agencies use our polling stations and it makes it a little easier for everyone in terms of the walking.

So this gives you a bit of a picture of what we do.

To this statement I would like to add a bit of a clarification on the letter of attestation because this is something that, unlike the previous witnesses, we do use quite frequently within London. Unfortunately, the wording is that the person ordinarily resides and receives services at such-and-such agency. That works well for some people. If people have been in a shelter for a while, that works. For others, whether they're sleeping rough, transient from city to city, couch surfing and their address is changing, or whether they're recently admitted into social housing so their housing status is changing, that doesn't work. Although we do use the letter of attestation quite a bit, it still leaves a big gap, which is where the vouching fills in.

Under Bill C-23 the provisions of subsection 143(3) are removed. This will present a very real challenge to people experiencing homelessness across Canada and disenfranchise them from a significant part of the democratic process. Unfortunately, a full identification replacement is simply not achievable on time, in most cases. As hard as we try, it just often isn't there on time, and the agencies do try their best. This means that if Bill C-23 proceeds as written, a particular subset of the population would be adversely impacted. In any policy analysis, when a particular subset is affected, that is a red flag.

Thank you.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to revisit my question on Bill C-23, the so-called fair elections act. I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for being here tonight to answer the question. I invite him to deviate from the prepared script and we will have a nice debate here this evening.

My question is about the fact that under this bill, the central poll supervisor would be chosen from a list provided by the candidate or the party that won the previous election in that riding. The problem is that there is no particular reason for making the central poll supervisor another partisan person. I know that there are already officers at each poll who are selected from lists provided by the party that finished first and the party that finished second. They are the deputy returning officers and the poll clerks. The idea is to make sure that at each poll there is someone representing each side of the fight so that at least there is someone from each side to make sure that things are fair. However, we do not need to make the situation more partisan.

Let me explain a little bit about what the central poll supervisor does. In my riding of Kingston and the Islands, there are a couple of places I can mention, Portsmouth Olympic Harbour and Winston Churchill Public School. They have a large room with a number of poll stations. When that is the case, there is a central poll supervisor, who is selected by Elections Canada at the moment. That supervisor's job is to interpret rules, to make calls, and to adjudicate. In short, the supervisor is something like an umpire. If the umpire is partisan or is perceived to be partisan, I think that can hurt public faith in the elections process. It can erode trust and reduce the legitimacy of the government.

I know that the current government likes to talk about how it won the last election, so I think it should be interested in the legitimacy of its own election. If people are feeling that the political system is going to become more stacked against them, people who are already under stress economically, who are wondering if the economy is stacked against them, if the systems and the institutions we have in this country that make it a strong country are stacked against them, I think that is not good for the country. It is not good for the economy and the long-term health of this country.

Let me close with another analogy. Imagine a hockey playoff series, and the team that wins one game in the match gets to appoint the referee for the next game. This is kind of like what is happening.

What is even worse in this case is that the referee has no whistle. The reason for that, of course, in this analogy, is that under Bill C-23, another reason it is a bad bill, Elections Canada and the people who work to make sure elections are fair do not have the power to compel witnesses to testify. For example, in Kingston and the Islands, when someone impersonated my campaign manager, something that was documented, Elections Canada could not compel a witness to testify. When someone told a voter to go from one part of the city to a totally different part of the city to vote, we got some documentation, but Elections Canada could not compel people to testify.

This is like a referee with no whistle. That is why I think Bill C-23 is a bad bill.

[Wanda Mulholland, Community Development Coordinator, Burnaby Task Force on Homelessness]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for the opportunity to present a submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

I specifically wish to speak to the importance of vouching in the election process.

My name is Wanda Mulholland. I am the community development coordinator for the Burnaby Task Force on Homelessness, which was formed in January 2005. The task force is non-partisan and comprises representatives from government agencies, the health authority, RCMP, social service and community organizations, business improvement associations, housing providers, faith communities, and concerned citizens, who are all committed to working together to identify and address issues of homelessness in the city of Burnaby.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 25, section (1) states:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

I speak on behalf of Burnaby citizens who live in extreme poverty and homelessness. These Canadian citizens do not benefit from many of the basic rights proclaimed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We know that poverty is the leading cause of homelessness. Twenty per cent of the homeless are visible on the street. The other 80% are the hidden homeless, staying temporarily with friends or on a couch.

Many of the men and women living in poverty are employed—the working poor—or are students or citizens living on low income. All are living in temporary and unsuitable locations, facing challenges regarding safety, adequate sleep, clothing, food, access to medical care, and access to suitable housing.

Each person has his or her own life circumstance that led to homelessness. Some of the influencing factors include loss of employment, fire, illness, traumatic incident, disability, family issues, mental illness, drug addiction, or combinations thereof.

Many people who are currently homeless have led what others would consider to be productive lives until something caused their life to unravel. These are people who held careers that included firefighter, teacher, business owner, successful university student, published author, loving parent. Many have, through homelessness, lost their families, their community, and their sense of self-worth.

At every turn the homeless are ostracized from mainstream society. People living in poverty have obstacles in utilizing public transportation because they do not have the funds for the transit fare. People living in poverty are prevented from using washrooms in businesses because those facilities are only for paying customers. People living in extreme poverty are isolated and rejected because they often do not conform to society's expectations of hygiene, appearance, and behaviour. People living in poverty are often fearful for their own safety because they do not have the security of a home to protect themselves from the vengeance of others.

People who are homeless frequently are without identification with which to access medical or government services. The lack of identification also impedes a person's ability to vote. In municipal, provincial, and federal elections, the Burnaby Task Force on Homelessness has worked with a member agency to offer assistance to marginalized people interested in voting. We have offered the use of attestation forms to vouch for a person who is without all of the proper identification required for voting.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that

every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

Removing the option of vouching prevents marginalized people from exercising their right to vote as Canadian citizens. It is yet another way of ostracizing people from the rights of citizens in mainstream society because they are poor.

On behalf of Canadian citizens all across the country who are living in extreme poverty and homelessness, including citizens from Burnaby, British Columbia, the Burnaby Task Force on Homelessness recommends that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs view the proposed amendments to the Elections Act as unconstitutional and undemocratic, and as a significant infringement on the basic rights of many vulnerable Canadian citizens.

Thank you.

[Leslie Remund, Associate Director, RainCity Housing and Support Society]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee members, thank you.

Thank you for inviting RainCity Housing and Support Society to speak to the committee. l'm Leslie Remund. I have worked for RainCity Housing for 18 years. I'm currently in the role of associate director, responsible for the day-to-day operations of our programs.

Here's a little bit about our organization.

RainCity Housing is a service delivery organization, incorporated in 1990. We offer a wide range of housing and support services to the people in Vancouver. We have over 500 supported housing units, 100 emergency shelter beds, and a variety of specialized support programs, including outreach and clinical health services. Our primary operations are located in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, one of the most vibrant and yet poorest neighbourhoods in Canada.

I'm going to talk a bit about the community, because that's what I have to offer here.

The Downtown Eastside of Vancouver is unique in its concentration of low-income housing, most of which is operated by non-profit organizations like ours. The overwhelming majority of the 18,000 residents live below the poverty line. Eighty-eight per cent of our community members are renters. In terms of housing security, one-third of those live in single-room occupancy hotels, one-third live in non-market rental suites, and 6% live in community care facilities. We have over 1,600 people who are homeless, living either in shelters or on the streets in Vancouver.

As mentioned, single-room occupancy hotels comprise a substantial stock of low-income rentals. These units are small rooms, most often with communal bathing and shared cooking facilities. It is an intimate environment, with strong internal communities, yet these hotels often lack the security afforded to those who live in their own apartments. In the emergency shelter system, many people share a common large space with mats on the floor and little privacy.

We have a significant seniors population, making up over 21% of our community, and urban first nations peoples, who constitute 10% of our community.

RainCity Housing and Support Society has issue with two aspects of Bill C-23, the fair elections bill. These are the removal of vouching and the removal of the use of voter identification cards as a means to verify a person's address. My following statement will focus on the practicalities of voter identification for our community members, as this is the grounds for which we have expertise.

There are currently 38.... I've been hearing 35. But I went to the website and counted. So I might be off a few.

[Carolann Barr, Executive Director, Raising the Roof]

Thank you, everybody.

My name is Carolann Barr. I'm the executive director of Raising the Roof. We're a national charity focused on long-term solutions to homelessness. We do that through partnerships with front-line agencies, research, and public education.

I want to thank the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for inviting me today to speak on Bill C-23 to amend the Canada Elections Act. There has been lots in the news, and I was watching some of you being interviewed by Evan Solomon just a little while ago. A lot of what I'm going to speak about, I think, is what a lot of people are saying around this issue. I'm going to focus my comments around my expertise around working with vulnerable populations, and specifically the homeless.

I have over 20 years of experience working in this sector, working in front-line agencies, managing programs. I'm in different health and social service sector environments. I've worked with a diverse group of people—youth, adults—who are facing different issues, from mental health to addictions to homelessness to poverty. Really, I have devoted my career to helping reduce barriers that people who are disadvantaged face.

In fact, I was part of the original consultations; I remembered that as I was being invited here. I believe it was in early 2000. It was by Elections Canada and it was round table discussions about how to help people who were struggling with accessing their identification for various reasons, and how to help them vote. So I'm very pleased to be here today.

Elections Canada accepts the voter identification cards as proof of residence in specific locations, such as long-term care facilities, on campuses for students, and it really is a common-sense initiative that has worked. Certainly, I feel very proud to live in a country where you can support your neighbour in this way to help them vote.

Ensuring that all Canadians can exercise their right to vote is what makes the voting process a legitimate process. As we all know, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 3, guarantees that all citizens have the right to be involved in the election of their governments and the right to vote in federal, provincial, and municipal elections.

Bill C-23 proposes to get rid of the cards and disallow them as proof of identity or residence. This would certainly have a serious repercussion, potentially, and infringe on the rights of individuals under the charter. Some groups of electors, as I've mentioned, seniors, students, first nations, people who have recently moved, the homeless.... There's a recent report that estimates there are 200,000 homeless people in Canada. We know many of them struggle to keep their ID and maintain their ID.

The government claims that eliminating the cards will cut down on electoral fraud. I think we heard you talk about that, Wosen, and it certainly is much more of an issue around voter participation. My understanding is that there really isn't clear evidence about fraud. My question, then, is: why, if this is working, is this being put forward at this point?

At Raising the Roof we work closely with our partner agencies and work directly with the homeless. From my experience in working with these agencies, I know that we all feel that individuals who face losing their housing should not be further marginalized by being unable to exercise their right to vote. We need to ensure that the voter information card is maintained as proof of identity.

The bill also revokes vouching. We know that 120,000 people in the 2011 election relied on that to vote. So it was a significant amount of people. Also, considering the number of homeless, we know it's significant. The Chief Electoral Officer has indicated that there was a 90% accuracy rate in evaluating these. So we don't want to, as the chief is saying, take away the last safety net for those who do not have the necessary documents.

I'll just quickly talk about homelessness.

Homeless Canadians were denied the right to vote, but measures were put in place over the years whereby they could use a shelter as an address. In terms of where we've come today with the voter information card and vouching, I'm really hoping the government will listen to everyone's comments and keep this in place.

People don't have ID because they're struggling with issues, not because they don't want to follow the rules. I think it's really important that we not revert to a time when the most marginalized in our society were denied the right to vote. People who are otherwise disadvantaged have already lost a great deal, and they should not lose their charter right to vote.

[Wosen Yitna Beyene]

Thank you very much, Chairman

Good evening, everybody.

My quick presentation this evening will focus basically on one major element of the bill itself, Bill C-23. I will focus on civic participation in the electoral process and particularly refer to the experience of Ethiopians in Toronto. This is all based on my observations and my engagement within the community.

My role in the community is president of the association. I'll just give you a quick briefing about the association. It has been serving Ethiopians and other newcomers for the last 34 years. It was established in 1980, and we have been providing services for settlement, crisis, for seniors, for youth, HIV/AIDS, and all other types of community initiatives within the community. Although our capacity has been significantly reduced recently, that's part of our mandate and focus, the community service we provide, and again, we are not limited to providing service to Ethiopians. We provide service to all other eligible newcomers as well, based on the specific program or service we offer.

To give you a quick profile of the Ethiopian community, although we don't have a very clear number, we estimate that about 50,000 Ethiopians reside in Toronto and the GTA. Some of the challenges in the community, based on some of the research, are the huge unemployment and underemployment in the community and some barriers in terms of access to services and programs in very specific areas.

The community is relatively new to Canada, here for the last 30 to 40 years. As a community, although we are trying to address the specific needs of the community, there is a huge gap, and there are a lot of areas that still need to be addressed, one being the active participation of community members—Ethiopians—in the electoral process of different levels of government in Canada, the municipal, provincial, and federal governments.

So on this line, I will just quickly go through my presentation about the bill itself. I would like just to quote the remarks given by the Chief Electoral Officer to this committee, I believe, the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs on March 6:

It is essential to understand that the main challenge for our electoral democracy is not voter fraud, but voter participation. I do not believe that if we eliminate vouching and the VIC as proof of address we will have in any way improved the integrity of the voting process. However, we will...have taken away the ability of many qualified electors to vote.

So with this quotation from the Chief Electoral Officer, I would like to emphasize the key wording about voter participation. I will quickly go through my points: one, how we can engage a community like the Ethiopian Association to be actively involved with voting and the whole electoral process; two, the community engagement that we already have—we engage our community members—could be an opportunity to disseminate and educate the community members with civic education about the Canadian political arena; and three, how we can encourage voters. I don't have concrete data or figures to use here, but from my understanding and observation, I would assume not that many Ethiopians really vote, again, because of factors like social exclusion or inclusion elements, employment, time spent with the family, and time spent at work in support of families.

These are generic features that we hear of in other ethnocultural groups or ethno-specific groups, but again, this is true also in the Ethiopian community. So we need to have a strategy here, along with Bill C-23, which I understand has quite a broader scope than what I'm trying to present here.

But in the participation of our community, the community engagement work can really be done through another organization like the Ethiopian Association in partnership with the electoral office and other relevant organizations. For example, Canada's democracy week in September could be an opportunity where we can educate our community members in the electoral process.

I was involved in training with the Maytree Foundation here in Toronto. It started in 2011 to educate community members on how the different levels of government work. That type of model is also very important in tapping into the existing resources.

I know there are a lot of documents and resources in civic education but there also needs to be access in appropriate language and cultural ways because one of the elements here is the experience of new Canadians. For example, Ethiopians in their home country or in the country of origin and their political culture...political participation has oftentimes a negative impact on the participation of these new Canadians in the Canadian political system. Their experience may not have been a positive one. That will leave them in a situation where they always behave indifferently to the political system. They think their voice wouldn't make a difference or generally they are more reluctant to be part of any political engagement.

The education process has to be customized in a way to address the uniqueness of each community, and each voter as an individual or as part of a group or community. It is at that level that an organization like the Ethiopian Association could be a resource or a potential partner with other existing resources to disseminate education.

Again, first-time voters are also an issue. We need to work at the early stages in engaging parents and young voters within the community to get this education and awareness. That's actually another element. We know that parents and schools are playing a very significant role in the decision-making of their young children in the voting process. So we need to spend resources and effort in educating parents because it will have a compound effect. Although children can get some basic civic education in the schools, which also has an effect in educating their parents, we need to work at both ends to make it really significant and meaningful.

I am aware of the time so this would be my opening remarks.

Thank you very much.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, we think it is reasonable to expect Canadians to bring ID when they vote. Now, it is not necessary to bring photo ID. Canadians can choose from 39 options. The fair elections act will require Elections Canada to inform voters of these options so that they can all vote.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, too many Conservative ministers have a casual relationship with the truth on Bill C-23. The Minister of the Environment is claiming that she was in the provincial cabinet in 2001 and helped to solve a crisis with identification following the September 11th attacks. Yet, she was not even elected until 2004.

The minister claims that every hamlet has photo ID, yet the MLA for South Baffin said that his constituents have to fly to Iqaluit.

Will the Minister of the Environment come clean on voter ID cards for northerners and agree to stop reinventing history?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is doing no such thing. He is simply requiring, through the fair elections act, that people present ID when they cast their ballot.

It is not necessary to bring government-issued photo ID, though that is an option. There are 39 different forms of ID that are accepted when people show up to vote. We think that is reasonable, and Canadians agree with us.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the leader of the NDP thinks it is indefensible to ask people to bring ID when they vote just shows how out of touch with reality he has become.

There are 39 different forms of acceptable ID that Canadians can use when they cast their ballot. We think it is reasonable in a democratic society for people to bring ID when they vote. That is all that the fair elections act requests.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today to assist us in our study of Bill C-23.

I'd like to raise a particular point about the powers of investigation, which hasn't yet been raised this evening. There's another provision that has been ignored in Bill C-23. The CEO and a number of experts have for a long time been calling for the power to require political parties to provide documentation on election spending in order to ensure compliance with the Canada Elections Act.

Currently, Elections Canada can require this documentation from the candidates of political parties, nomination contestants and leadership contestants. However, they cannot require it from political parties.

It has been shown that something along the lines of what a number of experts are calling for could really help Elections Canada to combat fraud and, in general, to investigate various situations.

Do you have any idea why this provision is not in Bill C-23?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you very much.

I have a couple of quick points for Ms. Fraser. I read, and I'm assuming this is correct, it was regarding your testimony today at the Senate, where you talked about the provisions of the bill and said your daughter under the current provisions of the bill would not be able to vote.

I take it from your comments that she's a university student living at home, so she gets all her correspondence or utility bills, whatever, via email. A couple of things, obviously there are 18 months before the next election. I would assume she would be able to get the proper identification or at least confirmation of address by that time. Second, even though she's getting perhaps all of her information by email, I know you can request written transcripts, hard copy transcripts from the university, which would be sent to her home, would they not? Would that not be able to comply with the regulations contained in Bill C-23?

My point is that when you say she wouldn't be able to vote, with all the greatest of respect, I just can't agree with that, because there are certainly ways that she would be able to vote. She would just have to go that extra mile by asking for a hard copy rather than electronic.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Manning, Ms. Fraser, and Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, for being with us today.

My first line of questions will be directed to both Mr. Manning and Ms. Fraser, and it deals with the provisions contained in Bill C-23 to remove the commissioner of elections from Elections Canada and place him within the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, because our contention is that this would give far more independence to the commissioner of elections.

Currently, although the commissioner himself thinks he does have independence, under questioning from myself at his appearance here, it was ascertained that in fact the Chief Electoral Officer—Elections Canada, in other words—can hire and fire the commissioner of elections. Elections Canada controls the commissioner of elections' budget; Elections Canada can direct and compel the commissioner of elections to conduct investigations whether or not the commissioner himself wants to; and the CEO of Elections Canada can stop an ongoing investigation by just requesting that the investigation be halted. To me, that's not independence whatsoever.

What we are suggesting is that the commissioner of elections be removed from that, so then he would have, number one, the ability to control his own budget, to hire his own staff, to determine what investigations he wishes to conduct, but he is not compelled to do so. I think by anybody's common-sense examination, it would be very apparent that this gives the commissioner of elections far more independence than he has now.

Mr. Manning, I know you suggested that you like that part of the provisions of Bill C-23 and I think, Ms. Fraser, you disagree, so I would like to hear both your comments on why you support your particular position and the position as advocated by the government in Bill C-23.

Mr. Manning, you first.

By the way, Mr. Manning, I should start off by asking a question. Ms. Fraser has voluntary disclosed her remuneration by being on the advisory board for Elections Canada, and I should ask you the same question. Mr. Manning, are you being remunerated by Elections Canada?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Former Member of Parliament, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I'd like to address the issue of preventing electoral fraud. The assumption that organized electoral fraud happens elsewhere in countries we send Canadian observers to, and not in our Canada, can no longer be assumed. The Neufeld report states that in Etobicoke Centre there was judicial agreement that, despite the presence of irregularities, there was no evidence of fraud or ineligible voters being provided ballots.

I support all the recommendations in the Neufeld report; however, the above statement would have been more accurate if it had added that there are legal limitations to the Canada Elections Act and the Privacy Act that practically limit evidence of fraud from being admissible or proven in court—in fact, they make it impossible. As an example, the table in annex C of the Neufeld report points out that, in statistical analysis of three byelections, the incidence of ballots being handed to people not on the voters' list and no registration certificates being completed occurred in 0.4%, 0.5%, and 3.8% of cases. Yet in the court sampling of 10 polls in Etobicoke Centre, the number was 48.2%, almost 1,000% higher.

I've been an electoral observer overseas and have organized electoral observer missions on behalf of NGOs, Canada, and the OSCE, since 1991. When we have found such patterns of statistical anomalies, we've concluded the likelihood of fraud. However, the Canada Elections Act precludes statistical findings of fraud. The standard is to prove that individual ballots are fraudulent. However, the Canada Elections Act and the Privacy Act prevent us from questioning the voters who cast those ballots, nor could we compel election officials to answer questions—a legal Catch-22.

In June of 2011, after being given an anonymous tip that ballots were being handed out in one poll without IDs being shown, we followed up with a statistical analysis of all Etobicoke Centre polls. We found disturbing results. For example, in poll 31, voter turnout increased by 70%, and the Conservative vote percentage increased by 50%. When poll 31 documents were examined at Elections Canada's secure facility, 20% of all votes were by registration certificate, 1 in 5, whereas the overall Etobicoke Centre and Canadian averages were 5%, or 1 in 20. Of the 86 RCs, a majority turned out not to live in the poll. Towards the end of the Superior Court hearing, Elections Canada tabled emails in which both the DRO and registering officer in poll 31 made contradictory and false statements as to whether non-eligible voters were allowed to vote. Has Elections Canada investigated these officials?

There were significant numbers of other similarly problematic polls. To maintain the public's confidence that those elected by the narrowest of margins are in fact a reflection of the people's will, statistical evidence must be allowable and the legal standard ought to be the balance of probabilities and not beyond the shadow of a doubt.

In addition, I disagree that the office of the commissioner of elections' independence be jeopardized by putting it under the wing of a government department. However, I also believe that an arm's length investigative unit should be foreseen in legislation in cases of serious allegations of administrative failures or fraud against Elections Canada officials. Both investigative bodies must have the powers to subpoena and to compel people to give evidence. I also suggest that there be a legal requirement to bring resolution to cases within a one-year timeframe as opposed to the decisions rendered five or more years after the fact, making them moot, as by then the next federal election has occurred.

In Etobicoke Centre, alleged vote additions occurred in an atmosphere of vote suppression, including the disruption and shutting down of two of the strongest Liberal polls by identified Conservative campaign team members, including the campaign manager. Consequential penalties need to be applied in cases of direct vote suppression. Campaigns whose team members engage in such tactics need to face the penalty of having their candidate's election disallowed. A democracy's foundational social contract is that we all have a voice. Young or old, it's one person, one vote. Rich or homeless, it's one person, one vote. White or aboriginal, it's one person, one vote.

If the rules that provide the framework for the act of voting are overly restrictive, the representative nature of a government is questionable. If rules are not followed by officials due to lack of training and resourcing, we have no confidence in the results. If rules are broken by vote suppression or vote addition, a government's legitimacy is called into question. If the government introduces Bill C-23 without serious amendments, it will have facilitated all of the above.

[Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General of Canada, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to be here and would like to thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee with regards to its study of Bill C-23.

I would like to emphasize that my comments are mine alone. I do not represent the Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada nor the advisory committee to that organization, which I co-chair.

In the interest of full disclosure, I would like to advise the committee that I have received an amount of $2,450 for my participation to date on that advisory committee. I have also been engaged as a member of boards of selection for various positions within Elections Canada, and was paid $976 in 2013 and $3,240 in 2012 for those services.

As you are aware, I had the privilege of serving as the Auditor General of Canada for a 10-year term, which ended close to three years ago. The Auditor General is one of seven officers of Parliament who play a very important role in our democratic system.

The Privy Council Office refers to these officers as agents of Parliament, and states:

Agents of Parliament are a unique group of independent statutory officers who serve to scrutinize the activity of government. They report directly to Parliament rather than to government or an individual Minister and, as such, exist to serve Parliament in relation to Parliament's oversight role. Agents normally produce a report to Parliament to account for their own activities, and their institutional heads are typically appointed through special resolutions of the House of Commons and the Senate. To maintain the independence of the Agent, the degree of influence exercised by the executive arm of government is minimal.

The independence of the officers of Parliament, both in fact and appearance, is critical to their credibility and their ability to carry out the mandates entrusted to them. I was very pleased that government recognized the importance of this independence in 2007-2008, when a number of administrative policies were amended.

These amendments recognized that it is the officer of Parliament who is responsible for implementing these policies and ensuring compliance with them, rather than, as was previously stated, a minister. For example, some requirements of the government communications policy do not apply to officers of Parliament. The Treasury Board Secretariat worked very cooperatively with the officers at the time to address our concerns.

In light of that, I am very concerned with two provisions of this bill that would affect the independence of the Chief Electoral Officer and his organization.

The first is proposed section 18, which restricts the Chief Electoral Officer’s communications with the public to certain specified, limited information. Outreach activities, encouraging people to vote, and educational initiatives would no longer be permitted. An independent officer of Parliament should be able to bring any issue that he or she believes important to the attention of Parliament and the public.

The second is proposed section 20, which will now require the Chief Electoral Officer to obtain Treasury Board approval to “fix and pay...[the] remuneration and expenses” of “persons having technical or specialized knowledge” engaged on a temporary basis. This is clearly an infringement on the independence of the Chief Electoral Officer.

In comparison, the Auditor General Act explicitly states that the Auditor General does not require the approval of the Treasury Board. In addition, the government's contracting policy specifically exempts the officers of Parliament from obtaining Treasury Board approval.

I am also concerned that should this article be adopted, it could create operational difficulties for Elections Canada in managing an election, given the hundreds of people with specialized assistance that it requires.

In 2005, the Office of the Auditor General conducted a performance audit on the operations of Elections Canada. At that time, we concluded that Elections Canada plans, manages, and administers the federal electoral process well, according to applicable authorities, and that it plays a key role in supporting the fairness and transparency of the electoral process.

I encourage the committee to ensure that this proposed legislation does not alter that.

In closing, Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the clerk of the committee and House staff for their assistance to me in preparing for this hearing.

I would now be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have. Thank you.

[Preston Manning, President and Founder, Manning Centre for Building Democracy]

Thank you first of all for this opportunity. I should make clear that I'm speaking solely on my own behalf and on behalf of the Manning Centre for Building Democracy. I'm not speaking on behalf of the advisory committee to the Chief Electoral Officer of which I'm a member. I want to just confine my remarks to four points. I think you've been given a one page brief from me.

First, I do think this is a commendable democratic initiative, Bill C-23 in particular, because it seeks to eliminate those practices like robocalling that discredit elections, parties, and candidates associated with them. So that would be the first point that I'd like to make.

Second, I do think there is merit in separating the administration of the elections from the enforcement of election law. I just think that this would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to focus solely on the election administration and allow the independent commissioner to focus entirely and independently on the law enforcement.

The one area where I'd like to suggest the bill can be improved, and I know you've heard a lot of suggestions for improvement, is this. I would like to see the role of Elections Canada and Chief Electoral Officer strengthened with respect to the promotional and educational activities needed to increase voter participation. It seems to me that the biggest challenge that we have with the Canadian electoral system is not its fairness, although one has to address that, but it is this declining participation in elections generally. If we profess to be democrats and I think no matter what our ideological or party divisions are, that we are all democrats here that everybody, Elections Canada, the parties, the candidates, the NGOs should do everything conceivable to get that participation rate up.

I suggest adding a section to the bill where it lists the only topics on which the Chief Electoral Officer can provide information. I suggest adding a fifth clause that says, public education and information programs to make the electoral process better known to the public and increase voter participation should be one of his duties.

The last point I'd make is this. As some of you know, ever since I got out of Parliament, I've been a strong advocate of getting more training and preparation for people seeking elected office, not just themselves but the constituency organizations, campaign managers, anybody that's actively participating in the process. The old idea that we can learn on the job has been the conventional wisdom for a long time. I think in this age of rapid communication it's just not workable.

I've been involved in trying to persuade people to take training if they're going to get into the political arena. When you run into prospective candidates and campaign managers, there is some confusion as to whether investments in training prior to the election might be considered an election expense or a contribution in kind.

To eliminate that confusion, I'd propose an amendment to the bill that simply says that training course expenses, including expenses for education on the subject of the act or on election campaigns, are not election expenses, personal expenses, or electoral campaign expenses under the act.

I do think that one change would make it crystal clear. Our lawyers say that actually these things are not expenses now, but it is unclear. I think that one change would make that crystal clear.

So those are my four points, Mr. Chairman. I won't take longer and I'd be happy to elaborate on any of those or to answer any other questions that you might have.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you for that.

The reason I'm bringing that forward, of course, is because the opposition continuously says, and I've heard it from some of our witnesses as well, that if the commissioner of elections had the power to compel testimony then we could have gotten to the bottom of the Pierre Poutine case already by merely getting witnesses forward. You could not use that information in court afterwards. That's why that would never be used. I'm glad you confirmed that.

This may be an unfair question, but I'll ask it anyway. If you were analyzing Bill C-23 comparatively, the issue about the ability to compel testimony, do you believe the ability you currently have would enhance the ability of the commissioner of elections to receive the type of information he would need in the course of his investigations, or do you have any opinion?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you very much.

I have questions for our representatives from the Competition Bureau.

I'm trying to get some clarity here because we've heard from members of the opposition throughout this examination of Bill C-23 that they believe the commissioner of elections should have the power to compel testimony, something that you currently have in the Competition Bureau.

My point is simply this. The power to compel against an individual that the commissioner of elections is trying to pursue, or is pursuing, couldn't ever be used because any testimony that came out of that wouldn't be accepted by the courts afterwards.

My understanding, in your particular case, is that the power to compel testimony is mainly due to, or for, administrative issues. Would that be a correct assessment? Or have you used this to try to compel an individual to come forward and provide testimony?

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

Okay. Thank you very much.

At the moment, Bill C-23 would require the commissioner to give written notice that a person is being investigated, with some possibility of deciding “I won't do that”, but the primary obligation is that they must. But we also have a provision that makes it very clear that the commissioner cannot provide after-investigation information, such as the kind of summary you've suggested your commission can do on occasion for the benefit of the public. That's actually prohibited by proposed section 510.1.

The other thing is that the standard set out in Bill C-23 for a commissioner to even begin an investigation is an interesting standard. I'm hoping the minister remains open to amending it. It basically says that the commissioner may conduct an investigation if he or she believes on “reasonable grounds” that an offence has been committed. My understanding, at least from other areas of law, is that this is a much higher standard, which I am used to seeing in criminal law areas, for example, to be able to even start an investigation. I understand from your presentation that the simple fact of market condition fluctuation might be enough for you to start an investigation.

Is the standard of reasonable grounds a standard that you would use, or do you have a much lower standard? This is not to compel testimony or anything like that; this is just to start investigating.

[Keith Lanthier]

As I said, I've never been prevented from voting. If I wanted to vote, I have been able to vote. None of the people I know have been prevented from voting.

I guess this is my issue. Canadians, as I indicated, are talking about this. When Canada negotiates a free trade deal, that takes years and years. You're working out details back and forth. But for some reason, for the Fair Elections Act, we have to somehow get it within six months. Somehow we have to do all of this.

From my perspective, I think Canadians are being robbed of their opportunity. I'm here today, but I could have 50 people sitting in this chair who want to express the same kinds of issues. We may disagree, but I'm here because of the process. The process has to be fair, and I don't believe it is.

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

Let's move on to something else.

Section 7 of Bill C-23 would replace section 18 of the Canada Elections Act by the following:

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

(a) how to become a candidate;

(b) how an elector may have their name added to a list of electors...;

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

(d) how an elector may establish their identity and residence...;

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

Perhaps we need another paragraph indicating that the Chief Electoral Officer has an obligation to inform Canadians of their language rights in an election and when dealing with Elections Canada. He could provide them with information on, for example, where they can vote in the language of their choosing as well as any other rights they have.

[Marie-France Kenny, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

Thank you very much.

I would like to take a few minutes to clarify one point and I hope that this time will not be taken off my five minutes.

I am the sole proprietor of two businesses, one of which is a consulting business that has had Elections Canada contracts. When I became President of the FCFA I entrusted the management of my two businesses to a third party. I therefore cannot tell you if that business still has contracts with Elections Canada at this point in time. However, I would be happy to give you any information you require. I can provide you with copies of current or previous contracts if the committee so wishes.

That said, I am appearing today as President of the FCFA of Canada and it is in that capacity that I will be speaking.

Thank you for inviting the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada to appear before you today.

The FCFA is the principal spokesperson for 2.6 million Canadian men and women who speak French in nine provinces and three territories. The federation's mission is to foster the vitality of francophone and Acadian communities, support the promotion of linguistic duality throughout the country and advocate for the rights of French-speaking Canadian men and women in minority situations. The federation also plays a leadership role with the network of organizations and institutions within the Canadian francophonie.

To our knowledge, no one has to date examined Bill C-23 from the perspective of the obligations set out in the Official Languages Act. That is what we will be speaking about today. In that sense, there are two aspects of Bill C-23 that we are greatly concerned about.

I will speak first about section 7 of the bill.

The changes proposed in the bill will put an end to the Chief Electoral Officer's power to communicate with the public in order to inform them about the electoral process. From our communities' perspective, this would mean that the Chief Electoral Officer would no longer be able to initiate information programs in order to promote participation in the democratic process by francophone citizens in minority communities.

That civic education and public information role would be left to political parties. However, contrary to the Chief Electoral Officer, they are not bound by the Official Languages Act. So how will francophones be encouraged to vote in those areas where our communities are either spread far apart or where they are a very small minority? Will anyone bother?

Restricting the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to communicate with francophone minority communities goes against the spirit of part VII of the Official Languages Act. Under part VII, the federal government is committed to enhancing the vitality of English and French minorities in Canada and supporting their development, as well as fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

The FCFA is therefore opposed to the proposed changes under section 7 of the bill. In fact, if any change is made to section 18 to the Canada Elections Act, it should be with a view to strengthening the Chief Electoral Officer's obligations towards official language minority communities. A provision could be added that would clearly define the Chief Electoral Officer's role in promoting civic participation of these communities by exercising their democratic rights. That is what we recommend to this committee.

We are equally concerned about the changes being proposed under sections 18, 19, 21 and 44 of the bill.

Currently, under the Canada Elections Act, deputy returning officers and poll clerks are appointed based on a list of candidates provided by the party that came first or second in that riding during the previous election. This current provision is already very problematic for francophone citizens who wish to receive services in the official language of their choice at polling stations.

Far from resolving this problem, the proposed changes extend this process to other positions, including that of central poll supervisor, and add party associations and political parties to the list of bodies that can recommend candidates for these positions. Neither the candidates, nor the party associations, nor the political parties themselves have any obligations under the Official Languages Act. This means that Elections Canada, a body that is, would no longer be able to ensure that the candidates on those lists for election officers' positions would be able to comply with those obligations.

How will we be able to prevent that situation from getting worse in a context where Elections Canada is not able to ensure that election officers have the ability to provide services in both official languages?

The FCFA is therefore opposed to the measures proposed in sections 18, 19, 21 and 44 of Bill C-23.

The FCFA also recommends that the positions being filled by the same process under the current Canada Elections Act be filled through Elections Canada and not through a list submitted by the candidates, who are not bound by the act.

The democratic rights guaranteed by the charter not only include the right to vote, but also the right to effective representation and the right to play a significant role in the electoral process. In our opinion, Bill C-23 in its current form infringes on the right of electors in francophone and Acadian communities to exercise their rights.

Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Keith Lanthier, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you and this committee for inviting me here this evening.

As I indicated, my name is Keith Lanthier. I live in the riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's in Nova Scotia.

When I heard that these hearings were only going to be in Ottawa, I knew that I needed to do something. One option would have been to discuss it with my member of Parliament, but there was not enough time, and I was not confident that I would even get a response. It was important for me to have a voice.

Fair elections are the cornerstone of any democracy. I must admit that in the past I really didn't give it a lot of thought. I had very few expectations when there was an election. There was always a sense of accomplishment after voting, but that's where it ended.

This changed for me in the May 2011 federal election with the robocalls scandal, and the changed mood intensified with the introduction of Bill C-23 in Parliament. Canadians from across this country are discussing the fair elections act and thinking about the critical role that fair elections play in our democracy.

From my perspective there are two basic questions. Will the fair elections act strengthen Canada's democracy by ensuring that every eligible Canadian is able to exercise his fundamental right to vote? Will it ensure that our elections are fair? While there may be some positive provisions in this bill, from my perspective the answer to both of these questions is no.

First, there are provisions in the bill to remove two methods of voting that have proven to be effective in ensuring that voters who do not have standard ID documents showing their name and current address can vote. These are the voter information cards and the vouching system.

In the last federal election more than 100,000 Canadians used the vouching system in order to cast their ballot. There are many reasons they may not have had the necessary documentation. Every year 13% of Canadians move house, and roughly four million Canadians don't have a driver's licence. There are many groups that may be negatively impacted if these changes are implemented.

The minister has repeatedly stated that these changes are necessary to ensure that there is no voter fraud. Harry Neufeld acknowledged that there were irregularities in 1.3% of the cases but that there was no evidence of voter fraud. He also noted that there are multiple reasons for these administrative errors. Mr. Neufeld made a number of recommendations, and none of them included the elimination of vouching or voter information cards.

It is also extremely important that elections be independent and transparent. One of the problems with Bill C-23 is that it changes the rules by which election officials, including central poll supervisors, are selected. There are concerns that these changes will compromise the non-partisan nature of these roles.

The role of the Chief Electoral Officer will also significantly change. The bill will prevent him and Elections Canada from engaging with the public in the same way with respect to our democracy. This includes engaging with children and youth, who are the next generation of voters. The student vote program reached more than 500,000 students in the last election. The decline in voter turnout is clearly an issue, I think we can all agree, but not reaching the next generation of voters is clearly not the solution.

Finally, when there is suspected voter fraud, there must be the necessary mechanisms in place to conduct thorough investigations. Bill C-23 simply states that an independent investigation will be initiated, if there are sufficient grounds. The investigator will still have no power to compel witnesses to testify. That is the key reason that Canadians still have limited information about the improper use of robocalls in the last election.

This is in sharp contrast to section 11 of the Competition Act, whereby a judge can order someone to present evidence under oath or to produce documents, if the court is satisfied that the information is relevant to the inquiry.

These are just some of the serious flaws with this legislation that I can mention in the time that I have. It is for these reasons and other concerns that Bill C-23 must be withdrawn.

All Canadians deserve to be part of this conversation, and not just those who've been able to make a written submission or appear before this committee. It is too vital to our democracy to be a ball bouncing back and forth between political parties.

It is also my strong belief that any serious discussion of electoral reform has to include the possibility of adopting some form of proportional representation. This way, every vote counts. Canadians want to be engaged in this discussion—I've certainly had many around my own area—and it is necessary to respect this. There can be no legitimacy without a comprehensive and consultative process.

Thank you.

Employees' Voting Rights Act

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to speak briefly to Bill C-525.

I have to say that if the mover of the private member's bill believes that this is so important and is worthwhile, then why does the government not introduce legislation to do what is clearly trying to be done through the backdoor? It is because the government does not have the courage to take its own action and clearly stand up to introduce legislation if it wants to see changes.

Previously we had Bill C-377. Now we have Bill C-525. If government members have some concerns and think that changes need to happen, they should do it the proper way and introduce legislation as a government.

I am happy to have a chance to speak to a bill that according to the government's sponsors is to help empower workers.

Specifically, Bill C-525 would amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act to provide that the certification and decertification of a bargaining agent under these acts must be achieved by a vote-based majority through a secret ballot.

Members will forgive my apprehension, but as this bill does come on the heels of the government's last union-busting bill, Bill C-377, I have to wonder again about the real motivations behind it.

Bill C-525 would affect more than 1.2 million employees working as public servants or for an employer under federal jurisdiction. This would include everyone from my own staff to their own staff to the local postmaster to the teller at my local bank or credit union. This means we need to ensure that we get this right, because the bill would impact on real people every day.

The Conservatives have made it clear from the beginning of their term that they are prepared to smash unions at all costs, even when the cost would hurt middle-class workers. Liberals see this as unacceptable. We will be casting our votes in favour of middle-class workers and their families and in favour of fairness and full consultation. If the Conservatives want to change the Labour Code or anything in it, then they should sit down with the partners and discuss those things and make the changes.

My first concern with Bill C-525 is that it proposes to fundamentally change how a union can be formed and dissolved in the federal jurisdiction, yet the evidence shows there is no need, and the major stakeholders have neither asked for this change nor even agreed with it.

Despite the fact that the federal labour relations system is respected and supported by both labour and employers as a result of a genuine and proven consultative and consensus process that has been followed for decades for amending the Labour Code, the bill clearly ignores all the good work that has been done over the years through discussions between labour and the employer as to what changes need to be made. It seems Bill C-525 is again rooted in ideology rather than in sound policy based upon need.

There has been no proven need for the legislation. Those supporting the bill suggest that the rationale for Bill C-525 was a mountain of complaints regarding union coercion of workers. However, according to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, there have only been two founded complaints against unions out of 4,000 decisions in 10 years, so all of this is about just two serious complaints. Even the chairperson of CIRB stated in committee testimony, “It's not a huge problem”.

For labour relations legislation to be effective, it must be developed and implemented by the stakeholders through pre-legislative consultation based upon evidence, not by backdoor government manoeuvring of private members' bills that are, again, based solely upon ideology. This is not the first time we have seen bills that are clearly based upon the ideology of the Conservatives rather than upon substance or science.

Bill C-525 ignores long-established processes and like its sister legislation, Bill C-377, would impose radical changes that are not supported by the stakeholders or by the facts. The result of the legislation would not be labour harmony or efficiency; it would be an upsetting of the balance and stability in labour relations in Canada. This may be what the government is attempting to spark, but it is not in the best interests of employers, workers, or the Canadian economy in the long term.

However, I am not here just to poke holes today. In fact, as someone who has a strong union base in my own constituency, I have seen the positive contributions made to my communities by organized labour over many years. Indeed, this kind of social benevolence is something that has long underscored the labour movement in Canada, and those of us in the Liberal caucus continue to support these middle-class workers and their families very proudly.

Kicking labour around is tantamount to an attack on our communities, and the government should be ashamed of the approach it is taking. Bill C-377 was bad enough, and now Bill C-525 has appeared on the scene. When will it stop?

The bill is neither about union democracy, nor balanced labour relations. Bill C-525 fundamentally changes the way that workers can unionize, without any consultation or support of the stakeholders, and based on zero evidence for its need.

Rather than this kind of knee-jerk approach, the Liberal Party has called for a certification process that, one, allows workers to make free and informed decisions about whether they want to join a union or not, and, two, that has been created through a fair and balanced consensus tripartite process that is based on fact, whereby the changes to be made come from the stakeholders themselves.

Bill C-525 is yet another example of the Conservative government abusing the private members' bill process as backdoor government legislation to promote its ideology, not the views and wishes of the stakeholders or their constituents that would be affected or when the facts at hand show it is not needed.

What are the Conservatives so afraid of? When they tried this very same thing with Bill C-377, their own senators admonished them for doing it. They stymie debate, curtail committee study, and act like their fingerprints are not all over the document.

For example, the human resources committee only studied this for two and a half hours, and almost every witness, including government witnesses, spoke out against the bill. Somehow it sounds a bit like Bill C-23. Specifically, the witnesses that were heard expressed concern over the bill.

George Smith, a labour relations expert, said:

...we are dealing with a private member's bill to amend a significant section of the Canada Labour Code without any view of how this change will impact overall labour relations policy in the federal sector, without any of the necessary due process and public consultation to examine the intended and unintended consequences to such amendments.

Dick Heinen, executive director, Christian Labour Association of Canada, a union that is often viewed as employer friendly, said this about the current card-check system, “It has worked, and I don't know what the problem is. I don't know why we need to change that”.

Elizabeth MacPherson, chair of the Canada Industrial Relations Board, with respect to the effectiveness of the current card-check system, said, “In our opinion, it is working well. With the board having the discretion to decide when a vote must be held, it works”. Why do we need to change it? Why is the government refusing to listen? Is it anything else but clear ideology?

Conservative abuse of this process has been so terrible in the past that the Conservative member for Edmonton—St. Albert resigned from the caucus in disgust. I see that they have learned nothing from the past.

It has already been said that power over a person's wallet is power over their will. That is what Bill C-525 is really all about. As just one example, research has clearly shown that moving from a card-check-based system to a mandatory vote system reduces unionization rates. This is the true motivation behind the bill. Bill C-525 proposes to abolish the card-check model in favour of a mandatory representation vote in all certification applications. It is no more complex than that.

Labour unions have been defenders of employee rights, and they have a long-standing track record of helping our communities in many ways. Of course, unions are not perfect, and there have been many occasions when I have differed with them. However, I do believe in due process. Bill C-525, like its sister bill, Bill C-377, is a partisan attack on middle-class workers and their families. It is wrong, and as the Liberal industry critic, I will be voting for workers and against this sneaky backdoor legislation.

Democratic Reform

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-23 is an absolute failure. In fact, it is anti-democratic, and, quite frankly, the Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself for the manner in which he is forcing this bill through the House of Commons today.

Today we witnessed the Prime Minister's democratic reform minister verbally assault the Chief Electoral Officer. How shameful it was. We are looking to the minister to do the responsible thing and to recognize that verbally assaulting the Chief Electoral Officer is wrong. He should apologize to all Canadians. When can we—

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

Great.

At the moment Bill C-23 provides that calling service providers have to keep the data they're required to keep under this new scheme for one year. Certain data goes to the CRTC. We're not yet sure how long they have to keep it, because they haven't yet replied to my question on that, but we do know that audio recordings, scripts, and the phone numbers do not get sent to the CRTC under this, so they are subject to one year, after which calling service providers can delete them.

Would it be difficult for audio recordings, scripts, and the numbers called to be sent to the CRTC for them to keep, and for us to then require the CRTC to keep all this data for seven to ten years? Would that be a problem?

[Miriam Fahmy, Director, Research and Publications, Institut du Nouveau Monde]

Thank you.

Hello everyone.

As the chair of the committee mentioned, my name is Miriam Fahmy and I am the Director of Research at the Institut du Nouveau Monde, a non-partisan, non-profit organization that is based in Montreal. Its mission is to increase and support citizen participation in democratic life.

I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to testify about Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act.

I will now provide you with some information about the INM.

The INM organizes public debates in which ordinary citizens are invited to participate. These activities help to strengthen citizenship skills and citizens' knowledge of social issues. The INM also organizes citizenship schools for college-aged youth and young adults in their 20s.

Since 2012, the INM has been working with the chief electoral officer of Quebec in order to develop and implement promotional campaigns to encourage young people and the general public to vote.

Finally, the INM stays abreast of research on democratic life, more specifically, voter turnout. The INM is concerned about a number of aspects of Bill C-23. However, given our practices and expertise in civic education, my speech today will focus on a single aspect of the bill and that is the amendment proposed to section 18 of the Canada Elections Act, which would take away Elections Canada's public education mandate.

As you all no doubt already know, there has been a very strong decline in voter turnout in Canada. However, an even more serious trend has emerged since the 1980s, and that is a consistent, significant drop in initial turnout or turnout among members of a new cohort of electors who are eligible to vote for the first time. This rate went from 70% in the 1960s to 50% in the 1980s and 40% in the 1990s. Since the beginning of the 2000s, this rate has stayed below 40%.

All of the studies show that voters who do not vote the first time they have the right to do so are unlikely to do so later on. Given that, today, so few new voters tend vote when they come of age, the general rate of voter turnout is expected to continue to drop. According to experts, there is no doubt that the drop in voter turnout in federal elections is mainly due to the drop in initial turnout.

That is why the INM believes that an overall strategy, the objective of which is to reverse this trend that is threatening the legitimacy of the electoral process, should focus mainly on young people aged 16 to 24, or young people who are on the verge of acquiring the right to vote or of voting for the first time.

Like the INM, Elections Canada conducted research in order to understand why young people do not vote. The results of this research show that the main reason is that young people are not interested in politics. When young people are asked what could be done to pique their interest, they said that civic education would be the best way of doing so.

Elections Canada took note of this and began working to reverse this trend. In co-operation with civil society organizations, Elections Canada is piloting public education programs, innovative election day voting simulations in schools and campaigns to promote voter participation.

All of these initiatives seek to provide the non-partisan, civic education needed to encourage young people to vote. However, rather than strengthening Elections Canada's role as a non-partisan educator, the amendment to section 18 proposed in Bill C-23 takes that mandate away from Elections Canada.

In light of this information, the Institut du Nouveau Monde recommends that Bill C-23 be amended to not only maintain but reinforce the role and responsibility of Elections Canada as a provider of civic education programs and public awareness campaigns.

It is our belief that more studies should be conducted to further understand what stimulates youth voter turnout, that current education programs should be extended as much as possible, and that new initiatives should be developed targeting the issues that research results point to.

Any and all efforts that can encourage youth to go out and vote should be encouraged and strengthened, not abolished.

I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[Pierre Lortie]

That's not what Bill C-23says.

[Duff Conacher, Co-Founder and Board Member, Democracy Watch]

Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify on this very important bill. I'm especially honoured to be testifying beside Monsieur Lortie.

I really need to practice my French.

There are many technical terms with regard to this proposed legislation, so I will make my remarks in English. I welcome your questions afterwards.

Democracy Watch's position is that there are 10 measures in Bill C-23, the so-called fair elections act, that are of concern that will actually make federal elections more unfair. I'm going to focus on six priorities that we've identified and summarize those. I'll go through a few measures that the bill fails to include, and those measures are needed to make federal elections more fair.

The six really unfair measures in Bill C-23 are as follows.

As Monsieur Lortie highlighted, there's the prohibition of one voter vouching for the identity of one other voter, and the prohibition on the voter registration card ever being certified as a piece of valid ID. Together, these changes will make it more difficult for hundreds of thousands of voters to vote, and so they should be removed from Bill C-23.

Instead, the voter registration card should be added to the list of valid ID. To solve the problem of irregularities with vouching that has been documented, Elections Canada should be empowered and provided with adequate funding to hire and fully train all election workers well before each election, and to also make the voter registration list and ID checking even more accurate. I'm quite sure there is a compromise, as other jurisdictions have found on this issue, that will remove and not increase barriers for hundreds of thousands of people voting.

The second area of concern for Democracy Watch is the failure of the bill overall to democratize the federal political finance system by reducing the annual donation and loan limits to an amount an average voter can afford, and the failure to re-start the annual per-vote funding for parties, which was the most democratic aspect of the political finance system, given that it was based on votes received by each party.

There are still loopholes that are left by the bill on gifts and donations to certain types of candidates. The hike in the donations limit for individuals in Bill C-23 are huge hikes in some cases and hugely undemocratic. An average Canadian cannot afford $3,000 a year. That would be the new maximum limit when you combine the donation to parties and the combined donation that's allowed to riding associations of each party.

Certainly, many candidates will not be able to afford to donate $5,000 to their own campaign, or as a party leadership candidate, $25,000 to their own campaign. If you're going to uphold the fundamental democratic principle of one person, one vote, donation limits must be set at a limit that an average person can afford; otherwise, you're allowing wealthy people to use money to have unethical and undemocratic influence over parties and candidates.

In the area of loans, while the loan limits on individuals are good, allowing banks to make unlimited loans to parties and candidates is dangerously undemocratic, as well. Banks are federally regulated and they will be able to pick and choose candidates to support with loans. That's a huge favour for a candidate, even though the candidate has to pay it back.

If the candidate wins, just the fact that they were boosted by a bank loan will be a favour that will put that MP, if they're elected, in a conflict of interest. It's better if all candidates have to reach out to as many voters as possible and build a democratic base of support, not a base of support from wealthy interests and banks.

The third area of concern is the change, as Monsieur Lortie also highlighted, to not count the amount spent on communications for fundraising purposes in the total amount parties are allowed to spend during election campaigns.

This is the first loophole that has been created in spending or donation limits since spending limits were first established in 1974. Forty years have passed and the trend through the whole 40 years has been to close loopholes. This is the first loophole that has been actually created, and like any loophole, it will very likely be abused to hide millions of dollars of unaccountable spending.

The failure to empower Elections Canada in the bill to appoint the auditors for all the parties, riding associations and candidates, and allowing these entities to choose their own auditors is the fourth area of concern, and relates to the spending loophole because Elections Canada will not have the right to all the documentation needed to ensure that loophole has not been exploited to exceed the legal campaign spending limits. This is essentially allowing the parties, candidates, and riding associations to audit themselves, and in combination with this loophole, is essentially a recipe for corruption.

The fifth area of concern is the failure to empower Elections Canada to appoint all election workers, and instead move in the other direction by extending the dangerously unethical power of political parties and candidates who won or came second in the previous election to force returning officers to appoint even more front-line election workers.

The sixth area of concern is the failure to require that the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Director of Public Prosecutions disclose all of their rulings on all complaints. Instead, the bill requires them to keep all of that information secret. This will make it impossible to hold the commissioner and the director accountable if they make unfair, biased, or improper rulings or enforcement decisions.

Overall, even if these six changes that we're calling for were made, there are other areas that need to be addressed to make federal elections actually fair. We need an honesty in politics law so that parties and candidates can't bait voters with false promises or break promises after elections. We need to change the voting system so that it is more fair and gives parties the number of MPs based on actual voter support, regulate nomination races, have Elections Canada run the debates, and overall give all of the watchdogs more powers, and more clear powers, to ensure compliance and investigate.

I'll leave it at that. I welcome your questions on this very important bill that, unfortunately, includes many measures to make federal elections more unfair, and only a few measures—the registration of robocalls, the limits on loans, and the increasing of fines—that will make elections more fair. There are many more measures that make elections unfair and also fail to address current flaws in our federal elections system.

Thank you very much.

[Pierre Lortie, Senior Business Advisor, Dentons Canada, As an Individual]

Mr. Chairman, first I'd like to thank you for the invitation to testify before your committee.

The Canada Elections Act is one of the few federal statutes that is consulted and used by a large number of Canadians. Whenever elections are held, thousands of Canadians must be able to understand this legislation, which sets out the procedures for the registration of voters, the administration of the vote and the conduct of election campaigns.

The scale and scope of such an operation must not be underestimated: there were 66,146 polling stations in the election of May 2, 2011, including 1,669 mobile polling stations, and approximately 350,000 volunteers and temporary election officers participated in the process.

In my opinion, any amendments to the Canada Elections Act must reflect the values upon which Canadian society is founded and must flow from the fundamental principles that characterize a sound electoral democracy. One of those key principles is guaranteeing and promoting citizens’ right to vote.

During the 1980s, Canada took pride in the fact that the average proportion of citizens who participated in federal elections was 75%—a voter turnout rate far in excess of those reported in many western democracies, including the United States. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case: the average voter participation rate for the five federal elections held since the year 2000 is only 61.9%, which is not much higher than the participation rates for U.S. presidential elections. This is a shamefully low voter turnout rate. Any properly thought out reform of our electoral statutes and regulations must, first and foremost, seek to correct this situation.

The provisions of the bill extending the voting period at advance polling stations constitute a measure that meets this fundamental objective. Unfortunately, other measures, such as those concerning the use of voter information cards as proof of identity and the practice of one elector vouching for the identity of another, are ill advised. This last provision undoubtedly contravenes the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter is unequivocal on this issue. It says: “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote...” It has been clearly established in case law that a right guaranteed under the Charter can only be restricted insofar as an overriding public interest is demonstrated and, in that case, only insofar as the imposed restrictions are justified within the meaning of section 1 of the Charter and have a minimal adverse effect on a fundamental right enjoyed by Canadian citizens.

Banning, for specious reasons, these practices that have not so far been the subject of widespread complaints from candidates across Canada and which the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada considers essential for allowing thousands of Canadians to exercise their right to vote, does not meet the criterion of proportionality and is not consistent with the sense of ethics that must prevail when such matters relating to the very pillars of our democracy are being considered.

The second key principle is ensuring the fair and equitable nature of the electoral process. To ensure that the electoral process remains fair and equitable, the Canada Elections Act imposes spending limits on all who participate in election campaigns, including private individuals and groups who are independent of the candidates and parties. Bill C-23 does not call into question these basic provisions, the just and reasonable nature of which has been confirmed in decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada. However, this goal is undermined when ambiguous provisions, encouraging circumvention of the rules and undermining Elections Canada’s ability to verify and confirm that the practices adopted do not contravene the Act, are incorporated into the legislation. This is the case with section 376(3), which makes it possible to exclude from election expenses the commercial value of services provided to a registered party for the purpose of soliciting contributions from individuals who contributed at least $20 in the five years preceding the date of the vote.

I do not deny that it would be worthwhile for a party to solicit individuals who have previously supported a party or one of its candidates. However, if the cost of this activity is too high to fit under the expenditure ceiling, transparency should be exercised and the ceiling raised by a reasonable amount, rather than undermining Canadians’ confidence in our electoral system by adopting provisions that encourage reprehensible behaviour and imposing additional persnickety rules on our parties.

The third principle is that of bolstering the primacy of political parties in Canada’s political system.

Political parties play a vital role in our parliamentary democracy, in particular through the profound influence they have over access to the House of Commons. The erosion of Canadians’ confidence in political parties, as evinced, among other things, by how difficult it is for parties to recruit new members, does not bode well for the future. Although this phenomenon is only a partial reflection of current social trends that find expression in so many other ways, political parties are not helping their situation by refusing to conform to social standards that are perceived as normal requirements in an advanced society.

Bill C-23 would have made a useful contribution in this regard if provisions had been added to ensure that political parties were required to produce documents in support of their spending reports. Parties received more than $30 million in public funds in 2011. Also, political parties should be subject to rules concerning the protection and use of personal information. Such requirements are imposed on businesses, and rightfully so. No legitimate reason exists to exclude political parties and their associations from a similar requirement.

The final principle is that of boosting Canadians’ confidence in the integrity of the electoral process. In its work, the Royal Commission clearly identified the need for a mechanism that would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to issue interpretation notes and guidelines on the application of that act. Such a mechanism is included in the electoral legislation of many of the world’s leading democracies, and the resulting benefits are well documented. Consequently, Bill C-23’s establishment of such a mechanism is to be commended.

As to the detailed terms and conditions involved, I believe your committee would do well to examine how other democracies, such as the United Kingdom, for example, fared in their implementation of such provisions.

Bill C-23 fills another important gap in the existing legislation by adding provisions concerning elector calling services. Overall, the proposed measures are consistent with the recommendations of the groups of experts who studied this issue, particularly those formulated by the IRPP. You have already heard suggestions for improving the new regime, in particular with regard to the information retention period and the advisability of adding to the list information that must be kept, such as the telephone numbers that have been called. In any case, it is crucial that the mechanism concerning calling services be in force when the next election is held.

The proposed regime does not prevent a third party from signing an agreement with an elector calling service provider; it frames this activity. That being said, I think it would definitely be preferable for the cost of such a service to be expressly recognized in the definition of election advertising expenses.

In conclusion, I would like to say that Bill C-23 concerns several other fundamental aspects of our democratic regime, some of which I could not touch upon in the amount of time allotted to me. I would of course be pleased to discuss them during the question period, should you deem it appropriate to bring them up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I call to order meeting number 29 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, February 10, 2014, for the study of Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts.

We have Monsieur Lortie with us this morning. Mr. Conacher is supposed to be joining us, but I'll let Monsieur Lortie go ahead with his opening statement and if, by then, Mr. Conacher has come, he can give his opening statement. If not, we'll proceed with questions, and put Mr. Conacher on the next panel, I think.

Monsieur Lortie, welcome. It's great to have you here today. If you have an opening statement, we'd love you to give it now.

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

In light of what witnesses have told the committee up to, and including, today, I would like to give a notice of motion. It reads as follows:

That the Committee, in conjunction with the current study of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, request that the Library of Parliament create a summary of the evidence presented to the Committee on this Bill, and that this summary not include any recommendations to the Committee on how to proceed with the legislation, and that this summary be presented to the Committee on or before Tuesday, April 29, 2014, and that this summary of the evidence be subsequently presented as a report by this Committee to the House of Commons

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Jessica McCormick]

I do think that would, in fact, be the case. It's not a bad thing that we are taking a look at the Elections Act. We should be taking steps to improve it and create a more flexible system of voting. The survey that was done after the last federal election cited a number of different reasons why people weren't casting a ballot. Many of them were that they were too busy or that they had obligations at work or school. Having polling stations on campuses eliminates some of those barriers.

We should be trying to reduce those barriers. Having polling stations, having opportunities to use the voter information card, for example, as a proof to cast a ballot, those are ways to reduce the barriers to voting. I think that many of the measures that are contained in Bill C-23 would in fact create more.

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

Good evening and thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for listening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the recommendations of the Canadian Teachers' Federation:

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—the Chief Electoral Officer—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We recommend that this mandate be properly restored.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

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

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

There's a point of order.

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

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

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

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

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

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

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

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

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

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

Election of the Speaker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democratic Reform

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

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

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

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

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

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that it has been a tough week for the government.

Ms. Sheila Fraser, who is a personal hero to many Canadians for standing up and speaking the truth, has condemned the unfair elections act as an attack on democracy. Her voice is joined with those of current and former chief electoral officers, current and former elections commissioners, many witnesses, and Canadians who are speaking internationally as well. These individuals are all speaking out against this attack on democracy, Bill C-23.

The government's reaction is to try to impose the bill on the House. They have done this about 60 times. It is a sad track record, if not the worst track record in the entire history of all the governments in the country.

Unfortunately, as members know, the government's legislative agenda has been unravelling in the last two weeks. Two bills have been rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada because they simply were not drafted correctly.

In light of the government's unravelling legislative agenda, on behalf of the NDP official opposition caucus I would like to ask the government House leader what he will put forward next week to start to restore the confidence that Canadians have lost in the Conservative government.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the so-called minister of so-called democratic reform claimed that the experts who are against his electoral reform are so-called experts.

The only problem is that the current and former Chief Electoral Officers, the current and former Commissioners of Canada Elections, and provincial elections officials are against this reform. Today, it was Sheila Fraser who talked about Bill C-23 as an attack on our democracy.

Is Sheila Fraser going to be treated like all the other officers of Parliament and experts who have criticized this reform?

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

Mr. Speaker, Sheila Fraser, Canada's former auditor general, who exposed the Liberals' schemes in the sponsorship scandal, says that Bill C-23 is an attack on Canada's democracy.

Ms. Fraser, who currently co-chairs an advisory board on the electoral system, laments the fact that Bill C-23 would disenfranchise thousands of voters, undercut the independence of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, and impede investigations into wrongdoing.

Will the government listen to Sheila Fraser, withdraw its bill and go back to the drawing board?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

—well prepared as Mr. Lukiwski is on this particular point of order. I just want to state what I believe is the obvious, Mr. Chair, and that is the fact that we are dealing with a motion at a time when we are attempting to deal with Bill C-23, which has some very strong timelines. By May 1, it all has to be passed through the system. It concerns me greatly. I wouldn't want to see anything that would interfere with that.

As for the motion itself, I can understand the leader of the official opposition has been ethically challenged on this particular issue, and he will get his day before the committee, I understand, before May 16. If there are motions of this nature it might be best to have them debated thoroughly if it's ruled as being in order effective May 2, after we have actually dealt with what is the most important bill, I would argue, this committee has had to deal with for many years.

I would suggest to you that we just move on, and leave it at that.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Yes, thanks. I just have a point of order respecting David's motion. I'll read it into the record, Chair, and hopefully you can deal with it either at your leisure or as quickly as you can.

I believe Mr. Christopherson's motion is out of order, Chair. The second half of the motion calling for this committee to study activities other than those of the official opposition is simply beyond the scope of this committee's mandate. We all know what happened, Mr. Chair, a week ago Thursday. We entered a UC motion or asked for a UC motion to have Mr. Mulcair appear before committee. That was denied. We then invoked Standing Order 56.1 and the NDP didn't have 25 members to stand to oppose it, so it was passed. That was their procedural bungle, but I think by trying to enter this motion, they bungled once again.

I'll illuminate what I mean. First, the motion itself says that it was made pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House last Thursday. For the benefit of everyone, I'll read that motion into the record:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to consider the matter of accusations of the Official Opposition's improper use of House of Commons resources for partisan purposes; and That the Leader of the Opposition be ordered to appear as a witness at a televised meeting of the committee to be held no later than May 16, 2014.

Mr. Chair, that motion in itself is quite specific. There's nothing in there about the government, the Conservative Party, or even the Liberal Party, just the matter of how the official opposition, the New Democratic Party, is using parliamentary resources.

Mr. Chairman, not only is this motion out of order with respect to the order of reference adopted by the House last Thursday, but the elements related to the activities of the government, and specifically the Prime Minister's Office, are beyond the scope of any order of reference this committee possesses.

Page 993 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, says:

With a few exceptions, all studies conducted by committees are based on an order of reference or instruction from the House of Commons (and the Senate in the case of joint committees). The order of reference is the formal means by which the House mandates a committee to consider a matter or defines the scope of its proceedings. Committees receive orders of reference when they are established and may receive others from time to time.

While most standing committees possess a general and wide-reaching standing mandate under Standing Order 108(2), the procedure and House affairs committee is exempted from that provision. Standing Order 108(3)(a) contains most, but not all, of our own standing mandate.

Page 962 of O'Brien and Bosc captures the extent of our various mandates set out in the standing orders. Again I'll quote:

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs deals with, among other matters, the election of Members; the administration of the House and the provision of services and facilities to Members; the effectiveness, management and operations of all operations which are under the joint administration and control of the two Houses, except with regard to the Library of Parliament; the review of the Standing Orders, procedure and practice in the House and its committees; the consideration of business related to private bills; the review of the radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees; the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons; and the review of the annual report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with respect to his or her responsibilities under the Parliament of Canada Act. The Committee also acts as a striking committee, recommending the list of members of all standing and legislative committees, and the Members who represent the House on standing joint committees. It also establishes priority of use of committee rooms, and is involved in designating the items of Private Members’ Business as votable or non-votable.

Mr. Chair, what is clear from reading that is that our mandate relates to the House of Commons and its administration, functioning, business and members, including the process by which we were elected to the House of Commons, something we are seized of right now with part of our order of reference on the study of Bill C-23, the fair elections act.

Page 994 of O'Brien and Bosc is quite clear. I quote once more:

Committees are bound by their orders of reference or instructions and may not undertake studies or present recommendations to the House that exceed the limits established by the House.

How does this relate to the motion proposed by Mr. Christopherson? I believe that on page 1054 of O'Brien and Bosc they have an answer for us:Generally, the rules governing the admissibility of motions in the House of Commons apply in the same manner to parliamentary committees....Furthermore, motions moved in committee must not go beyond the committee’s mandate....

Our standing mandate, quite frankly and quite clearly, Mr. Chair, does not allow for us to explore the activities of the government, and the motion adopted in the House on Thursday last is expressly limited to the official opposition's use of House of Commons resources.

Now that we've clearly identified that the motion is at least in my estimation wounded, what is the appropriate course of action?

The answer to that can be found in pages 533 and 534 of O'Brien and Bosc. Although it describes the admissibility of amendments, it is I submit analogous here in informing how a motion beyond the scope of our mandate should be treated. Once more I quote:

An amendment is out of order procedurally, if: it is irrelevant to the main motion (i.e., it deals with a matter foreign to the main motion, exceeds its scope, or introduces a new proposition...); ...any part of the amendment is out of order;....

Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that I believe you have no choice but to rule Mr. Christopherson's motion entirely out of order. I'm sure they are kicking themselves for getting outfoxed procedurally a week ago, but I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the second procedural bungle they have made, because quite clearly this motion is outside the mandate and scope of our committee, and therefore out of order.

Thank you, Chair.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Sorry, let me finish, because I think we have actually...although you may not see that yet. Let me explain what I'm saying here.

What has been indicated today is that, say, for example, we did talk about the fact that a driver's licence obviously is something that qualifies you for all...you know, it has the address, it has the name, it has the identification required. If one doesn't have that, we've indicated, on the reserve for a status Indian, that the status card, which you've indicated you were not sure how many have, but that is certainly one option available to prove identity.

There's a whole host of others and I could list off a few of the more common ones. There are 39, of course. You know, a health card, a birth certificate, a passport or other proof of citizenship, a credit or a debit card, any other kind of provincial ID card, those are just a few that I'll list and there are many others that could be used. If one has that and then has the attestation that can be provided by any authority from the council or the band office, that's what would be required to vote.

I know in earlier questioning, Ms. Christiansen, you indicated that you weren't aware of that. I suspect there are probably others who are not aware of that. That tells me that the provisions that we have in the fair elections act, which require Elections Canada to better inform people and better educate people about the ways that they can vote, would be very helpful and useful for individuals all across Canada. But we think we've identified that, particularly on the first nation reserve today, it would be helpful to you because you had indicated you weren't aware of that.

What I'm curious about is whether you feel that if you were better informed about that, more people would be able to get out and vote. If they were aware that with one piece of ID and an attestation, they could get out and vote with that, would that be something, requiring Elections Canada to better inform people, that would be helpful?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to speak to the witnesses in French. You can listen to the simultaneous interpretation of my questions by using the headsets.

I thank both of you for your statements. You work is very important.

Ms. Edwards, I really appreciated how you explained all of the difficulties certain persons encounter to obtain that piece of identification.

Ms. Christiansen, I agree with you entirely that there is a real problem when we place the burden of providing these ID cards on band chiefs. I think that a lot of people have a lot of other things to do aside from producing paperwork to allow people to exercise their franchise.

Certain witnesses who represented homeless people raised this same problem with us. They explained the difficulties raised by the fact that they can no longer resort to vouching. The government gave them the same answer by saying that soup kitchens and missions can provide them with proof. Do we really want to cause soup kitchens and shelters to use their resources and energy to provide ID papers to the thousands of people who use them?

Currently, there is a solution to that problem which is the use of vouchers and the use, at large, of the voter's card. I do not understand why we would make these changes and put more obstacles in the way of potential voters than there are currently.

My question is for Ms. Edwards.

I know that Elections Canada had a contract with the Native Women's Association of Canada regarding civic participation programs that targeted young women particularly. Can you talk to us a bit about that experience? What is your opinion about the fact that this program will not continue under Bill C-23?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Actually, it does. It's contained in Bill C-23.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Yes, it would, but in lieu of that, I'm saying that there's really no impediment to voting for anyone on reserve, because those options contained in Bill C-23 are available. Thanks for the commentary, but—

[Teresa Edwards, In-House Legal Counsel, Director, International Affairs and Human Rights, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Thanks so much, Gladys. I feel like I don't need to speak after that. It was very thorough and says it all.

Wela'lin. [Witness speaks in Mi'kmaq]

My name is Teresa Edwards and I am a Mi'kmaq of the Listuguj band. I am here today in the capacity as the legal counsel and director of human rights for the Native Women's Association of Canada.

I want to acknowledge the territory of the Algonquin people, where we are gathered today.

The Native Women's Association of Canada, otherwise known as NWAC, has worked for the last 40 years to advance the well-being of aboriginal women and girls, as well as their families and communities through activism, policy, trying to change legislation, making presentations such as these, and all forms of advocacy.

NWAC was incorporated in 1974 and is one of the five nationally recognized aboriginal organizations whose purpose is to represent and speak at the national level, on behalf of aboriginal women, primarily first nations and Métis. We do have some Inuit members, but defer to Pauktuutit to speak for them.

NWAC has identified a number of very specific concerns with Bill C-23 and the changes it makes to the Canada Elections Act. As you may or may not know, prior to 1960, registered Indians were not able to vote in Canadian elections or they would no longer be considered Indians under the law and would not be able to live within their territory, community, the reserves. The fact that some aboriginal peoples only fairly recently acquired the right to vote explains, in part, the low number of aboriginal women and men elected to the House of Commons. Since 1867, approximately only 18 people who have self-identified as aboriginal have been members of the House.

The relationship between first nations and the government has not always been positive, particularly as it relates to voting and elections. This has had an impact on first nations participating in elections for all levels of government, federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal, outside of their own communities. It's quite the reverse when you talk about participation in their communities. It's not a question of apathy or being ill-informed. It's a choice they are making, generally speaking, from what we've learned at NWAC, from what the women have shared with us and what our research has shown.

These first nations are extremely active in running as chief and/or council within their own communities and in voter participation. It's not a question of their not knowing about the process. They are very well-informed and do partake in the process within their own communities.

In the work that we've done on elections, aboriginal women have listed numerous reasons why they don't participate in federal elections. A few are: they don't see themselves as being represented by the government, particularly with this government; they don't recognize the federal government as their form of governance and leadership; and/or they don't believe the federal system will positively impact their lives. That's some of the reasons.

I would never want to speak for Six Nations, but for example they have their own passports. They have their own position on why they would never participate, from what we've heard from our women, in elections. It would be seen as complying or going out of their sovereignty, if you will.

Although there may be many reasons to explain why aboriginal women do not participate in federal elections, such as the ones I've listed, there should not be barriers put in place, as Gladys so eloquently listed, by this government to further limit their ability to vote, if they so choose.

Aboriginal young women are often single mothers. They live in poverty and have high rates of mobility, and are often forced to move several times a year, possibly. They could be moving on and off reserve or from different provinces to be with other family members. Sometimes it's due to housing crises, poverty or they're going after jobs, going away to school, or perhaps they are fleeing violence.

NWAC has been working this last year on a project for Elections Canada, and we hope to continue to do similar work in the future, to increase voter turnout among Aboriginal women and youth. We are targeting this group because statistics show that if you vote when you are young, you will continue to vote when you are older.

In 2007, in advance of the general election, a number of changes were made to the Canada Elections Act with respect to ID requirements. These changes required voters to have two pieces of ID, one photo ID and the other had to show a home residence.

Many aboriginal women do not use home addresses and are serviced by post office boxes. In fact today I was just filling out a form to be submitted to Canada Revenue, and two of our board members have post office boxes. There was a criteria that said “not allowed: post office boxes”. Well, that is their address, that is where they live. I'll have to go reconcile that problem when I get home, before I can file those papers for our board.

There's another form that is commonly used, as there are also many aboriginal women who live in urban areas, including students, or who have moved multiple times throughout the year, who may not have ID that corresponds with their current address at the time of voting. So that was mentioned by Gladys, and I mentioned that earlier.

A major problem is the form of ID that is used as the Indian status card. Right now there is no standard for service with the Indian status card within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. NWAC deals with cases of women who have been waiting three years, five years, twelve years, for their status card. Or in a case like mine, I'm an expired Indian. Just out of sheer rebelliousness, I refuse to go and get my card renewed, because what other race would expire at a certain date. Sorry, I just had to add that.

That would be an acceptable ID. I've tried to use that. I expired last year in July, at my birthday, and I've tried to use it on numerous occasions. Although it's supposed to never be refused for services, if you can show other ID such as a passport, driver's licence, which I have, I'm constantly refused service because I'm expired.

As Gladys mentioned, that's the case for many aboriginal women. In the case of Bill C-3, the law that just came into effect a couple of years ago, where aboriginal women want to register their children they have to have birth certificates for each of their children. Perhaps she is a single mother with five children and she needs birth certificates for each child. The cost of that birth certificate could be up to $90, depending on the province or territory that you have to pay, for each child. Then you have to have pictures taken, and that could be $25 at your Shoppers Drug Mart to get passport-size pictures. Then you send the forms into the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

I know, for example, my daughter sent hers in three years ago. They have sent it back three times. The process took so long. They said everything she sent was accurate; however, the picture had expired. After a year, it was no longer any good. They hadn't finished processing it and it was sent to a new department, so she had to pay for the pictures to be done again. They also needed a new copy of the original birth certificate, and the first one hadn't been returned to her. So there she had two charges of $90 for birth certificates and two charges for.... This is all just to get an Indian status card, which is a primary card that is used in this process.

Bands were aware of the ID requirements and options available to resident voters, including the option to have authorized band officials using an attestation of residence; the use of voter information cards to establish current residency; or the option of vouching, as Gladys mentioned, where someone who is already a registered voter at the same polling division is able to confirm a person's residence and identity.

AFN's efforts in 2012—and they did this with Elections Canada—included phoning bands and using a series of scripts developed jointly with Elections Canada, basically, to inform eligible voters of what they needed for ID. What we found at NWAC, in the work that we've been doing with Elections Canada, is that there's a clear role for independent organizations such as NWAC or AFN to work with our populations, in collaboration with Elections Canada, to give information or workshops or help inform our people regarding election processes, and so on and so forth.

There are so many other things that can be done to enhance first nations participation in federal elections, such as the ones that we're doing and AFN's done in the past, in relation to Elections Canada, to build on past campaigns. Or we could even learn from the U.S. in this one instance with the Indian vote campaign.

It's in this context that we have specific concerns with the changes proposed under Bill C-23: the restrictive ID requirements and disallowance of vouching. So the provision of Bill C-23 that disallows the use of voter information cards as proof of residency will create a whole new barrier for us, and for women, in particular, especially for those residing in first nation communities that don't use their home address or have PO boxes.

Further, with the removal of vouching as an option, it's possible that some of these aboriginal women and elders, in particular, will have no other options available to them to enable them to vote in the next election. For example, you have students who are living away from home, a single mom, as I mentioned, who moves multiple times throughout the year, or an elder who is living with the family.

I know I'm running out of time. I also want to talk quickly about NWAC's working with Elections Canada. Basically, the changes we see happening to the current section 18 of the Canada Elections Act, which provides a broad mandate for Elections Canada with respect to public information and engaging with electors, would limit the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to communicate with electors to provide information through unsolicited calls. We had hoped in the future to deliver the guidebook we're developing for aboriginal women and girls about voting and to work with our provincial and territorial member associations in a way that could be described as similar to this. This would prevent us from doing that work.

The role of Elections Canada has included providing impartial support for fair and accessible elections that enable all eligible voters to exercise their right to vote if they so choose. The changes noted above will limit or prevent this role from being fulfilled.

Therefore, NWAC recommends removing from Bill C-23 any amendment to section 18, so as to retain the current mandate for the Chief Electoral Officer to implement public education information programs to make the electoral process better known to the public.

Additionally and finally, NWAC recommends that provisions that remove the ability to use the voter information card as proof of residency and that disallow vouching be struck from this bill.

Thanks very much. I'm sorry for going over.

[Gladys Christiansen, Director of Human Resources, Lac La Ronge Indian Band]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon.

I want to begin by thanking the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for inviting aboriginal and first nations people to appear as witnesses on this panel.

My name is Gladys Christiansen. I'm a band member and a first nations member of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, which is still our legal name. It is the largest first nation in northern Saskatchewan with 9,935 members, 6,399 who live on reserve and 3,536 who live off reserve. Of these, 6,136 are of voting age, and 3,778 of those live on reserve and 2,358 of those who are able to vote live off reserve.

We don't know how many La Ronge band members voted in the last election, but we do know that voters were denied because they did not have voter information cards or any of the required forms of identification. We also know that vouching was used to vote in the last election.

I am not an expert, and that's not the reason I was invited here. You've heard many experts already, but I can speak to the concerns we have of Bill C-23 and how it will impact the future participation of first nations in the federal elections.

I am a status Indian who has lived on an Indian reserve for most of my life. Bill C-23 proposes to eliminate vouching and the use of voter information cards. As we heard from the Chief Electoral Officer here on March 6, Bill C-23 will further reduce the number of first nations members who are able to vote in federal elections.

Harry Neufeld, a former B.C electoral officer, on the TV program The West Block just this past weekend indicated that in 2011, 400,000 Canadians used voter information cards, and 120,000 used vouching in order to vote. The majority of these were aboriginals on reserves—this is what he said—students in residences, and seniors in old folks homes. Bill C-23 will eliminate all of these voters.

The majority of Canadians are able to vote with just their driver's licence, as long as it includes their address. However, as the Chief Electoral Officer indicated in his presentation to this committee on March 6, there are approximately four million Canadians who do not have a driver's licence. Furthermore, I have a valid Saskatchewan driver's licence, and it does not include an address. This means that in addition to the four million Canadians who do not have a driver's licence, there are many more who cannot use a driver's licence that meets the identification requirements.

The other option for voter identification at the polls is to produce two forms of authorized identification, one of which must have an address. There is a list of 38. Of these, only 13 may include an address. I have reviewed that list, and unlike the Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre, who has numerous pieces of identification in his wallet, most first nations people do not have any of those pieces of authorized identification and documents, much less one that contains an address such as a utility bill, a bank or a credit card statement, vehicle ownership, a residential lease, or an insurance policy.

The reality on the reserve is that many first nations people living on reserve are unemployed and live in crowded housing, often with three and four generations within one household. This is the way that I grew up on my first nation. This means that only one person in that household receives a utility bill. When a person is living on $320 a month, how can that person be expected to have credit cards, bank accounts, vehicles, mortgages, residential leases, and insurance policies? Many do not have a driver's licence and they do not have any other forms of identification.

Even obtaining a treaty card has been difficult for the last several years. First nations are still waiting for new cards to come from Ottawa because the cards can no longer be issued at the first nation's or even the regional Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada's offices. Applicants have been waiting for up to two years to receive their treaty cards.

If the government is issuing new cards, we hope that they have given some consideration to accepting the treaty status membership card as the acceptable form of identification. It is a government issued picture ID. Why can't it be just as acceptable as a driver's licence?

We support the past initiatives of Elections Canada in their attempt to increase voter participation for disadvantaged Canadians, such as the voter information cards and vouching. This was a relatively new process and can be improved, but it should not be eliminated.

How can the Canadian government continue to monitor the voting procedures and processes in other countries when they are excluding the most disadvantaged voters in Canadian federal elections?

The government continually stresses the accountability of first nations. What about the government's accountability to Canadians? The Chief Electoral Officer has numerous experts and these experts have been calling for amendments to Bill C-23 and the government and Minister Pierre Poilievre continue to ignore these experts. First nations hope that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will be able to influence the minister and the government to make the required amendments to Bill C-23.

If Bill C-23 is not amended, the number of first nations people that will be able to vote in the next and future federal elections will be significantly reduced. It will be eliminated for many of them.

Thank you.

[Peter Dinsdale, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you for inviting us to appear here today on unceded Algonquin territory. My name is Peter Dinsdale. I am a member of Curve Lake First Nation and acting chief executive officer of the Assembly of First Nations.

I am joined by Karen Campbell, our director of policy; Tonio Sadik, an associate director; and Aaron Asselstine, one of our policy analysts. They are much smarter than I am and can answer all the tough questions if I need them to.

You may be aware that the Assembly of First Nations is the national political advocacy organization representing more than 630 first nation governments in Canada. We've identified a number of very specific concerns with respect to Bill C-23 and the changes it would make to the Canada Elections Act.

Frankly, the relationship between first nations and Canada is complex. This is also the case of engagement of first nations citizens in elections for all levels of government. We need to keep in mind that previous to March 31, 1960, registered Indians were not able to vote in Canadian elections. If they did, they would no longer be considered Indians under the law and couldn't even live in their home communities.

While we don't have precise information on first nation voting rates, estimates range between 35% and 75% across Canada's different regions. There are a number of reasons why first nations citizens may not participate in federal elections but none of them should arise as a result of barriers that are created at the federal level.

The first nation population is very young. Almost half the population is under the age of 25 and they have very high rates of mobility and high representation among transient groups. There's no question that this subset of first nations citizen votes at a very low rate.

An AFN resolution from 2004 on electoral reform and increased first nation voter turnout directed the AFN to embark on a voter awareness campaign for first nations, given the direct impact that the Canadian Parliament has on first nations rights and interests. Additionally, the resolution directed AFN to explore options for electoral reform.

In 2005, the Assembly of First Nations and Elections Canada hosted a two-day first nation voter turnout forum that recommended the development of a communications strategy and collaborative public education outreach focused on sharing information with first nation voters. The AFN undertook a number of joint initiatives with Elections Canada to do so, developing information materials on how to vote, hosting a first nation voter kiosk at first nation gatherings, and broadcasting public service announcements, featuring former national chief Phil Fontaine on APTN. AFN also worked in partnership with Elections Canada to provide information to first nations on how to vote.

In 2007, in advance of the 2008 election, a number of changes were made to the Canada Elections Act with respect to ID requirements. These changes required voters to present two pieces of ID, one with a photo and another to include a home address of the voter to prove their residency. Many first nation communities don't use home addresses in this manner and many are serviced by postal boxes. Additionally, many first nation citizens living in urban areas, including students, may not have ID that corresponds with a current address at the time of voting.

The AFN contacted first nation communities directly in both 2008 and 2011 to help ensure that bands were aware of the ID requirements and options available to resident voters, including the option of having band officials issue an attestation of residence, the use of voter information cards to establish current residency, or the option of vouching, where someone who is already a registered voter from the same polling division is able to confirm a person's residence and identity.

Our efforts since 2011 have included phoning band offices directly, using a series of scripts developed jointly with Elections Canada, in 20 electoral districts, which were selected based on their geography, primarily north of the 55th parallel, and where the proportion of eligible voters, meaning those with high numbers of first nations people and election participation history, were deemed to have low participation.

What we found in this work is that there is a clear role for an independent organization to work directly with first nations to provide information about voting. While Elections Canada has some materials that could be made available to electors generally, they were assessed as less than optimal for first nations for a variety of reasons, including their legalistic tone and their generic approach.

During the election, returning officers are responsible for administering electoral processes in their ridings through direct contact with the first nations. AFN found that the amount and quality of information transmitted to first nation communities by these returning officers varied significantly.

Much more can be done to enhance first nation participation in federal elections and our relationship with Elections Canada has sought to build this over the past several elections. I'm not sure how many witnesses you have coming before you that can speak to this direct level of participation in order to raise awareness and encourage participation in this manner.

In this context, we have two specific concerns with the proposed changes under Bill C-23. The first is the restrictive ID requirements and disallowance of vouching. These provisions that disallow voter information cards as proof of residency will create a new barrier to first nations citizens wishing to vote, particularly those residing in first nation communities who don't use a home address or who have recently moved or are living in overcrowded housing situations, which we know exist.

Further, with the removal of vouching as an option, it is possible that some of these first nations citizens will have few or no options available to them to vote in the next election.

The second concern is the limits on communication between the Chief Electoral Officer and voters.

As I mentioned, we worked productively with Elections Canada in a non-partisan capacity over the past three federal elections to help ensure that first nation voters had information on how to participate in elections. Bill C-23 proposes significant changes to current section 18 of the Elections Act, eliminating the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to communicate with electors or provide information through unsolicited calls.

These changes, it would seem, would eliminate our efforts to reach out to band offices to provide information for an upcoming election. The role of Elections Canada has included providing impartial support for fair and accessible elections that enable all eligible voters to exercise their right to vote if they so choose. The changes noted above will limit or prevent this role from being fulfilled.

Therefore, the AFN recommends removing from Bill C-23 any amendments to section 18 so as to retain the current mandate for the Chief Electoral Officer to implement public education and information programs and make the electoral process better known to the public, particularly to those persons and groups most likely to experience difficulties in exercising their democratic rights.

Secondly, the AFN recommends that provisions that remove the ability to use voter information cards as a proof of residency and that disallow vouching be struck from this bill.

First nations are determining how they want to interact with their own governments and more broadly with the Canadian state. These changes limit their options and ability to be engaged in a Canadian electoral democracy and to have equal say in its outcomes. We believe this is a step backwards.

Meegwetch. Thank you very much.

[Prof. Paul Howe]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I teach political science and have general research interests in Canadian democracy, as well as a particular interest in voter participation among young Canadians. I’d like to address two aspects of Bill C-23 that have some connection to my research: the proposal to restrict the role of Elections Canada in promoting voter participation, and the increase in the annual political donation limit to $1,500.

My research focus on voter participation was triggered by the sharp drop in turnout at the 2000 federal election to just over 60%. Around that same time, Elections Canada also turned its attention to the issue in a significant way, conducting its own work and facilitating research by others. The result has been the development of a network of researchers doing focused work on this important issue.

Fourteen years on, we know a lot more and are in a better position to tackle the problem of declining turnout among young Canadians. There is some general consensus that the problem is rooted in deep-seated changes of a generational nature. An erosion in the sense of civic duty and a more individualized society are background cultural changes working against voter participation.

Relatively low levels of political knowledge and interest among younger generations are also key barriers. An important point is that many young people today are habitual non-voters. They do not just miss voting in the occasional election but instead vote in no elections. Much of this suggests that the problem runs deeper than simple administrative barriers, though these can be an additional obstacle for some.

Out of this research, various initiatives have been introduced to try to address the problem of low voter turnout. The criticism that’s been directed at these programs is that the bottom line has not budged since 2000. Turnout has not increased. It’s remained around the 60% mark with some minor variations since 2000.

I’m not persuaded by this criticism. First, it’s impossible to isolate the effect of any given initiative to increase turnout, because unless it has truly dramatic effects, its impact will likely be washed out by a multitude of other factors. These would include some that would tend to drive turnout down.

For example, attack ads by political parties have become more common in the past 10 years, now running for extended periods outside election campaigns. Some would suggest this is likely to have a negative effect on turnout. So as Elections Canada has been trying to increase turnout through its promotional efforts, parties have been engaging in activities that may discourage people from voting.

I’m not suggesting there are easy solutions to this issue. The pattern of turnout decline is deeply entrenched and will be difficult to reverse. But I believe Elections Canada has been taking many steps in the right direction. One of these is simply raising public awareness about the issue, something it could not do under the provisions of this bill.

It has tried to address administrative barriers where they exist, encouraged voter participation through advertising campaigns, and sponsored civic education initiatives such as the student vote program. It will require sustained and more intensive efforts along these same lines to generate robust democratic engagement among younger citizens.

One further idea, for example, would be to allow or perhaps even require young people to pre-register to vote at age 16, as happens in some other countries. An annual registration drive could then be coordinated through high schools, which would be a very effective way of registering new voters as well as providing a further civic learning opportunity.

Seeking to abolish Elections Canada's educational mandate is clearly counterproductive and unacceptable.

The other issue I would like to address is one that has not received as much attention in debate around Bill C-23. That is the increase in the amount an individual can donate to a political party on an annual basis, from $1,200 to $1,500. I recently carried out a study relevant to this issue with some of my students at the University of New Brunswick.

The study was prompted by concerns about changes to the rules around the financing of political parties, in particular the phasing out of per-vote subsidies. I think there is a perception on the part of some that this was a reasonable move because the rules around party donations create a fairly level playing field. All parties must depend on relatively small donations from many thousands of individuals rather than being bankrolled by a few large donors.

But a couple of findings from our study suggest there are significant inequalities in patterns of political donations that should be of concern. First, donors of amounts over $200 account for only one-quarter of all donors, but their contributions represent nearly two-thirds of all donation dollars. So larger donations, not surprisingly, count for a lot more.

Second, among these donors of amounts over $200, there is a strong skew towards wealthier individuals. There are nearly four times as many people donating that amount in the top 20% of household incomes as there are among people in the bottom 20%. In short, political donating is not as widely spread as we might think and is instead significantly dominated by smaller numbers of relatively wealthy Canadians.

Our conclusion in the study is that raising the donation limit to $1,500 is a move in the wrong direction. The limit should instead be decreased and probably quite substantially.

In raising this issue that has received little attention, my more general conclusion is that there are so many provisions in this omnibus elections bill that there is not adequate time to give proper attention to all of them and their potential ramifications. So finally, I would echo the sentiments of those who have said the bill needs to be substantially rethought and rewritten.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll call our meeting to order. We're here this morning, obviously, still studying Bill C-23. We have three witnesses today.

Mr. Howe, can you hear me?

41st General Election

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

The first has to do with electoral fraud during the last election, specifically regarding robocalls. The petitioners are calling on the government to launch a serious investigation into this crime.

If Bill C-23 goes ahead as unamended, we will have the investigation into the robocall fraud of the last election dropped and not completed. These petitioners want a full inquiry.

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

It in effect would be a motion to kill this bill.

I think we've seen non-stop articulate reflective condemnation of this bill from all quarters. Whether it's voter ID rules, or undermining Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer, the massively problematic fundraising exemption, the undermining of the commissioner for Elections Canada by moving that office to the Director of Public Prosecutions, all sorts of fetters on his work, not giving him the powers that have been requested, total focus on citizen fraud, and not on the kind of fraud we thought was going to lead to this bill, consequently, I would like to give notice of a motion that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs present a report to the House of Commons recommending that Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts, be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, this is just a notice of motion and at some point we will move that.

[Prof. Patti Tamara Lenard]

I am also an assistant professor of applied ethics at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, and I am here as a research associate with the CCPA. I'm also—some of you may know this—a co-author with several Canadian professors of an open letter concerning Bill C-23, published in the National Post earlier in March.

The views I express today, though, are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of my co-authors or of the 180 signatories to that letter. Of the many difficulties presented by the fair elections act, I’d like to focus on just one, which Mr. Quail has already talked about, and that is the way in which it would undermine political equality in Canada, by making the right to vote more difficult to access in general, and most particularly but not exclusively, for vulnerable Canadians.

It does this—as we've already heard today—by proposing to eliminate vouching and by imposing stricter voter ID requirements. Let me begin by pointing out that Canada’s voting ID requirements are already more restrictive than in many countries. Indeed, in leading Westminster democracies, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand, all that is required is that one be on the voter registry; no identification is required. In other democracies, vulnerable citizens are exempt from identification requirements entirely.

According to international best practices of electoral law, governments that require ID should ensure that these are provided to citizens free of cost, as with the VICs that this bill would disallow.

The purpose of beginning here is simply to highlight that the proposals to eliminate vouching and to impose stricter voter ID requirements will move us away from widely accepted international best practices by which states protect the right to vote of their citizens. In Canada—we already heard this today—the right to vote is protected in section 3 of the charter. In my view, the constitutional protection of this right imposes a duty on all of us, particularly our government, to protect that right for each one of us.

In my view, the proposed fair elections act is anything but fair. As we've already heard, it risks excluding some of Canada’s most vulnerable citizens such as seniors and students, first nations' citizens, low-income Canadians, and homeless Canadians. We know from Elections Canada that these groups relied on vouching most frequently in recent elections. It should go without saying that in our Constitution, these citizens’ right to vote is no less important than that of any other Canadian. This bill, regrettably in my view, makes it necessary to underline this point.

In its recent decision in the Etobicoke Centre case, the Supreme Court acknowledged the multiple values at stake in elections such as integrity, transparency, and efficiency. It then gave pride of place to the constitutionally protected right to vote. I quote from the decision:

...the Act seeks to enfranchise all entitled persons, including those without paper documentation, and to encourage them to come forward to vote on election day, regardless of prior enumeration. The system strives to achieve accessibility for all voters, making special provision for those without identification to vote by vouching.... The goal of accessibility can only be achieved if we are prepared to accept some degree of uncertainty that all who voted were entitled to do so.

In other words, our electoral system relies on a certain amount of trust in our fellow citizens not to abuse our most basic democratic right. In my view, this bill rests on the false premise that we should distrust one another.

Bill C-23 will effectively take the right to vote away from some Canadians. How then can we claim to be a democratic country?

The right to vote is not something the government grants us permission to do, like driving, hunting, or practising medicine. It belongs to each of us by virtue of our citizenship status. The job of a truly democratic government is to protect our right to vote by securing the conditions that make it possible. This act does the opposite.

The government’s reason for restricting the right to vote rests on the importance of eliminating fraud from our electoral system. As has been said repeatedly in the media and before this committee, there is no evidence of fraud, only of record-keeping errors that can be dealt with in ways that do not threaten the integrity of Canadian democracy.

So let there be no mistake. The government proposes to protect against imaginary dangers by creating real and significant harms. There is something gravely wrong when we plan to turn away citizens at the voting booth because we imagine they might be trying to cheat the system. There is something wrong with a policy that slanders hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens as potential fraudsters because they are vulnerable in ways that make it difficult to get a driver’s licence or to have a stable address.

The so-called fair elections act is inconsistent with a commitment to political equality on which Canada’s democracy is built. In my view, Bill C-23 should be rejected.

Thank you for listening.

[Cara Zwibel]

Chair, I'm happy to start.

I would say that the fundamental premise underlying this is that we assume that any restrictions that are placed on the right or the opportunity to vote should have a reason behind it. There should be evidence to demonstrate that this is necessary.

To the best of my knowledge at least, the provisions in Bill C-23 aren't correcting a problem. There's an administrative problem with how things are recorded when people vouch, but there's not a problem in terms of ineligible voters being allowed to vote or at least there's no evidence of that problem. So I would say that with other changes that have been made in the past that are more restrictive, I'd have to look at the evidence that existed there, but I would say that no, we wouldn't have supported those changes either. I can't speak to what the CCLA did or didn't do at that time. I wasn't with the organization at that time.

We're talking about people's right to exercise their democratic will, so we should be correcting a problem if we're placing more restrictive parameters on their ability to do that.

[Cara Zwibel, Director, Fundamental Freedoms Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to speak to you today on behalf of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

The CCLA is a national non-profit, non-partisan, non-governmental organization that promotes respect for and observance of fundamental human rights and civil liberties. This year marks the CCLA's 50th anniversary defending the rights and freedoms of Canadians. It's in this capacity, as a defender of core rights, including the fundamental right to vote, that I am here to express our very serious concerns about certain aspects of Bill C-23.

I know that my time is short, so for the purposes of my opening statement I want to focus on those aspects of the bill that will have the most direct and immediate impact on the electorate, and in particular may erode the fundamental right to vote. CCLA has submitted a written brief to the committee that outlines a number of our concerns in more detail.

With this audience, I don't think I have to go on about the importance of the right to vote and how crucial it is to our democracy. The right to vote is protected in our charter, and it is excluded from those rights subject to the notwithstanding clause. As our chief justice has held, “In a democracy such as ours, the power of lawmakers flows from the voting citizens, and lawmakers act as the citizens’ proxies.”

With all due respect, it would substantially delegitimize our system if, in your role as proxies of the people, some of whom helped to elect you, you in turn denied some of them their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote.

CCLA's biggest concern about Bill C-23 is the proposal to do away with vouching and to preclude use of the voter information card as a form of identification. We know that over 100,000 Canadians established their identity by vouching in the last election. There are very strong reasons to believe that these individuals will be disenfranchised if Bill C-23 passes as it currently stands.

I appreciate that people in this room may have trouble understanding why vouching may be necessary. For many of us, myself included, having basic identification is something we take for granted. However, those people who don't have the ID necessary to vote are often from marginalized groups. In general, these are not people who will be testifying before this committee. In fact, I did have to show identification to get into this building.

Those people stood up and chose to participate in the last election. They chose to express their democratic will. Many of the people who rely on vouching are students, seniors, aboriginal persons. Many live in rural and remote communities. Please do not ignore those people, and please don't erect barriers to their ability to vote. It's a fundamental precept of our system that every vote counts. If the changes made in this bill disenfranchise a single person, in our submission that is one too many.

We appreciate that the basic purpose of the proposed change is to address concerns about voter fraud. I have to repeat what you have by now heard likely many times before, from a number of witnesses who have appeared before the committee, including those sitting next to me. There is clear evidence that vouching has resulted in administrative problems and irregularities, but there is no evidence that it has resulted in fraud. There is no evidence that individuals who were not eligible to vote were permitted to do so as a result of vouching. In fact, the evidence that we do have is to the contrary.

The appropriate response to a concern that something may be broken in the administration of our electoral system is to take steps to fix it. A response that results in disenfranchising eligible voters is simple indefensible. In our view, this is a problem from a public policy perspective as well as a legal constitutional perspective.

The safeguards that are built up around vouching—for example, the need for record keeping, the fact that one person can only vouch for one other person—are procedural safeguards. In a recent Supreme Court of Canada case, the court made the very important point that these procedural safeguards are not ends in themselves. They are provisions that help to ensure that only those who have a right to vote may do so, but they are part of the Canada Elections Act, and the broad purpose of that act is to enfranchise all persons entitled to vote. It's to facilitate the right to vote.

Furthermore, the court remarked that they apply a stringent justification standard when considering laws or actions that result in a denial of voting rights. In the absence of any evidence that vouching has resulted in allowing ineligible persons to vote, it is hard to see how this stringent standard could be met. The CCLA believes these provisions of the bill will disenfranchise voters, may cost taxpayers money in protracted litigation, and may ultimately, if tested, be found wanting from a constitutional perspective.

I'm just going to briefly mention a few of CCLA's other concerns with this bill, the details of which are laid out in our written submission.

First, we urge the committee to remove the proposed changes to section 18 of the Canada Elections Act, which place significant restrictions on the role of the Chief Electoral Officer. This provision undermines the important role that the CEO currently plays. If there are concerns that basic information is not being communicated, that should be addressed, but not at the expense of other important public education and outreach done by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Second, we are concerned about provisions that shroud in secrecy investigations into allegations of fraud or other electoral improprieties. We certainly recognize the importance of upholding the presumption of innocence and the need to respect privacy, but the current bill doesn't strike the right balance between these interests and the need for transparency and the public's right to know.

Finally, we're concerned about provisions in the bill that attempt to draw a distinction between fundraising activity and advertising, and that exclude some of the expenses associated with fundraising from the quantification of election expenses. A bright-line distinction between advertising and fundraising is simply not possible. In excluding fundraising costs from the calculation of expenses there's both the potential for unlimited spending and a lack of transparency with respect to what is spent.

The same applies to the provision that would exclude from election expenses the value of services provided to a party to solicit funds from those who have made prior contributions of $20 or more in the last five years.

To conclude, CCLA strongly urges this committee to reconsider and remove those provisions that I have discussed.

I welcome the chance to answer any questions, and thank the committee again for this opportunity to appear.

[Leilani Farha, Executive Director, Canada Without Poverty]

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this evening.

I find it somewhat ironic that just over 50 years ago aboriginal peoples were granted the right to vote in Canada, and here we are just a short while later struggling to defend their rights. This has been a huge reminder of how fragile democracy is and how vigilant we have to be to protect it.

I am Leilani Farha, the executive director of Canada Without Poverty.

CWP, whose board of directors is composed of people living in poverty from every province and territory, is deeply concerned with the impact of the fair elections act on the right of poor people to vote in Canada. In particular we are concerned that the bill bans Elections Canada from promoting the right to vote, and we're concerned about the elimination of vouch voting without a suitable alternative. I'll address each of these in turn.

The ban on Elections Canada from promoting the vote is simply illogical. It is illogical in the face of the lowest voter turnout in our history, suggesting a near complete loss of faith in the democratic process by a huge percentage of Canadians. As well, it is illogical in light of the fact that poor people are experiencing unprecedented social and political exclusion. Surely it is precisely now, in the moment of this democratic deficit, that Parliament should be pouring resources into efforts to promote the vote. Elections Canada must be allowed to continue to do its work to foster democracy.

With respect to vouch voting, CWP is concerned that its elimination without a suitable alternative will disenfranchise tens of thousands of low-income voters and violate their section 3 charter rights. Vouch voting is used particularly by those who are poor, homeless, or otherwise marginalized. Though the government seems to find it incredible that over 100,000 people in Canada don't have adequate ID for voting purposes, it's a reality.

Let me give you one example from my work. Imagine a woman living in a situation of domestic violence. In the midst of a particularly brutal incident she manages to escape to safety by fleeing to a friend's house. She leaves behind all of her belongings, including her wallet, thinking only about saving her life. She has no photo ID, no proof of residence. She has nothing but the clothes she is wearing. Eliminating vouch voting is not going to provide this woman with voter-appropriate identification. Eliminating vouch voting will do only one thing. It will prevent her from exercising her right to vote.

What troubles CWP about all of this is that the government has yet to articulate an understanding of how important the right to vote is, particularly for those who are socially and politically excluded. Perhaps they don't know.

Imagine being the woman I just described. She has absolutely nothing. Ensuring that she has the right to vote allows her to be more than just her circumstances. It allows her to engage her nation and it restores something to her. As the South African constitutional court said so simply, “The vote of each and every citizen is a badge of dignity and of personhood.” Why wouldn't the government want to ensure the right to vote for this woman? Isn't that what democracy requires?

CWP is offended that Minister Poilievre wants us to imagine that allowing this woman to vote might compromise the electoral system. The minister has invented the myth of fraud by conflating fraud with vouching irregularities. I remind this committee that no evidence of fraud has been found with vouch voting, only administrative errors.

In conclusion, CWP recommends that the government just pause for a moment and reflect on the fact that it is about to deprive tens of thousands of disadvantaged Canadians of their democratic citizenship and their constitutionally protected right to vote.

CWP recommends that Bill C-23 be rejected in its entirety. If the bill continues to stand, however, we recommend at a minimum the following: first, the provisions narrowing Elections Canada's mandate with respect to promoting voting be removed from Bill C-23; and second, and this has two parts, maintain vouching and fix it so it functions more effectively, or adopt a new system for in-person identification that treats voters with dignity and respect.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Committee, it's great to have you all here tonight.

This is the 26th meeting of the procedure and House affairs committee on our study of Bill C-23.

We have three witnesses tonight. We have Raji Mangat, counsel from the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association; Leilani Farha, executive director of Canada Without Poverty; and from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Cara Zwibel, and I've been her tour guide earlier today.

We're all set tonight and we've decided that for opening statements we will start with Ms. Farha.

Ms. Farha, you have five minutes or less, please.

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23

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

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that, during its consideration of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the Committee be granted the power to expand the scope of the Bill in order to strengthen the role of the Commissioner of Canada Elections by allowing the Commissioner to seek relief through the courts to compel testimony.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by mentioning that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who seconded the motion.

The reason for the motion today, just to give some background, is that our attempt to have Bill C-23—the so-called fair elections act, but what New Democrats are calling the unfair elections act—channelled to the committee after first reading, at which time the bill could be more open to amendment, failed. Our attempt in the House did not receive unanimous consent.

There is concern that some areas of the bill that should be subject to amendment may not be because the admissibility rules in the House with respect to committee amendments are a little arcane, to put it mildly. They are complex. The clerks do their best to enforce the rules, but I am not completely certain I am going to get a ruling on admissibility on this point, that the Commissioner of Canada Elections be able to go to court to seek relief to compel testimony of witnesses. Therefore, out of some kind of excess of caution, we are seeking a motion of instruction from the House to permit such an amendment.

All this motion would do is permit the amendment. It does not say the amendment would occur. It would simply allow the committee to consider this kind of matter, and in committee, if the majority declines to adopt the amendment, that will determine it. However, what we do not want to have happen, after all the witnesses who appeared suggesting that the power to compel testimony through a judicial order be included in the bill, is for that to be ruled out of court from the beginning as beyond the scope of the bill. That is the reason I am standing in my place at the moment.

I also want to provide a bit of context.

Last night one of several witnesses, the current Commissioner of Canada Elections, Mr. Côté, appeared, and in no uncertain terms gave support to the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Mayrand, and other witnesses, who have said it is absolutely, as he put it last night, “essential to give the Commissioner the ability to seek a court order to compel testimony”. This is something that was in both the commissioner's 2012-13 report and the report entitled “Preventing Deceptive Communications with Electors” by the Chief Electoral Officer, and it comes from painful experience.

The commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer are all too aware of how difficult it has been to have witnesses, who are themselves not suspect but are members of a political party, actually talk to investigators. The context of the Commissioner of Canada Elections' report is at page 13. Although he is talking in general terms, nobody in the House is under any illusion that he is talking about anything but the investigation into the fraudulent calls that occurred in 2011. He stated:

When investigating matters where the stakes are perceived as significant...investigators often face reluctant witnesses. Frequently, key individuals will simply refuse to be interviewed or they will initially accept, only to later decline. In some cases, they will participate in interviews but will provide only partial information and incomplete answers, often citing a faulty recollection of events or the inability to retrieve key documents. In other cases, a potential witness will profess a complete willingness to cooperate, but the process will take time – resulting in information being provided slowly and in an incomplete fashion.

He goes on to explain why the model in the Competition Act, which is a model very similar to over half of the provincial elections acts, should be adopted by the Canada Elections Act. Basically, it allows for the chief investigative officer within the Canada Elections Act system, the commissioner, to go to court to show that there is a need for witnesses to be forthcoming and to receive a judicial order for witnesses to indeed testify to investigators, with important safeguards.

Three of them were listed in the testimony last night by Mr. Côté, as follows: one, a prior judicial authorization, based on affidavit evidence showing that the person likely has information relevant to an investigation of an offence under the Canada Elections Act; two, the right to be assisted by counsel and to have counsel present at the interview; and three, the right not to have the evidence used against the person—this is obviously very important—who is required to testify. These are basically safeguards taken from the Competition Act.

The commissioner said, “These safeguards would present, in my view, a balanced approach to ensuring more effective enforcement.”

Here is probably the most important and most forceful statement by the Commissioner of Canada Elections last night about the need. He said, “I want to be absolutely clear: if this amendment is not made, investigations will continue to take time, and in some cases a lot of time. And, importantly, some will simply abort due to our inability to get at the facts.”

I grant to the minister that the new voter registry that would be overseen by the CRTC would be beneficial and get us somewhere within the legitimate telecom system, but what has become very clear is that however much that is true, there are all kinds of reasons to know that those who are technologically sophisticated know how to get around the system, effectively setting up proxy servers in their basements or in other countries and not ever having to use the legitimate system.

If that is the case, it is all the more necessary that the investigative powers of the Commissioner of Canada Elections be bolstered in exactly the way that he and the Chief Electoral Officer have requested for the last two or three years in light of their experience of all the recalcitrance and all the resistance they have received investigating the fraudulent calling scheme that undermined the 2011 election.

We only discovered with clarity yesterday, when we were asking questions of witnesses from the CRTC in committee, how important this could be in terms of the internal limits of the voter contact registry. It turns out that although calls are defined as including live voice calls, there is an exclusion for live voice calls from any group or person as long as that group or person is using internal services.

Let us forget about the minister's image of the grandmother at the local level calling with regard to lawn signs. The concern is the national party with its capacity to have internal services for live voice calls. What are live voice calls normally used for? They are usually used for not just getting out the vote and that kind of stuff. They have to be used for fundraising.

There is another exception in the bill. This one would allow for fundraising calls to anybody who has given $20 or more in the last five years to be exempted from the expense ceiling, which basically means that a whole operation has to be set up at the national level to make those phone calls. We have been concerned from the beginning that those calls could be a cloak for all other kinds of pitches to be made under the guise of fundraising requests. What we have found is that such live calls at the national level, using a national phone bank that is part of the internal services of a party, are not part of the CRTC's regime. The CRTC testified that this is an exclusion. Live voice calls coming from external telecom providers would be, but not those from the national party.

We have no problem with making sure there is no red tape for grandmothers helping out at the local level by calling for lawn signs. Our concern is at the national level, with the phone bank problem of live calls using that exemption for fundraising as a Trojan Horse that will be completely unmonitorable because it is not part of the CRTC regime and because the Chief Electoral Officer has already testified that he cannot monitor it.

One of the reasons it is so important to have the power to compel testimony through a judicial order is that the voter contact registry is only going to go so far. It is only going to provide prevention and detection for a certain kind of person who unwittingly uses the system, not the sophisticated rogue who now knows that legitimate telecom operators cannot be used to call perhaps hundreds of thousands of numbers and who would use available technology to skirt that system. The system is not useless, but it would do almost nothing for the knowledgeable, technologically sophisticated rogue, especially using offshore resources, to call into elections.

Therefore the back-end investigation is all the more important, and therefore the power to compel testimony of witnesses through a judicial order is an absolute must as an amendment to Bill C-23. Out of an excess of caution, I am asking the House through this motion for instruction to allow PROC to amend the bill in this respect to give us that authority if the committee agrees in its discussions that it is a valid amendment.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister should tell that to the experts in the United States and throughout the world who are opposed to his reform.

Another American elections expert, Élisabeth Vallet, says that the Conservative movement likes to focus on cases of fraud and is feeding conspiracy theories in order to disenfranchise society's most vulnerable people and thereby serve its own partisan interests. Bill C-23 follows squarely in the Conservative's pattern of prejudice and partisan interests.

Will the minister withdraw his bill and agree to reopen discussions and start over?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I will call us back to order. We are still in meeting number 25 and we are still televised and in public. We have a new guest, Mr. Corbett.

It is great to have you here and I apologize for the lateness of the hour but we have been working what seems like around the clock on Bill C-23. You have an opening statement I understand, so please go ahead and tell us your thoughts and then we will ask you some questions.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I'm going to suggest to you a better analogy than the Competition Bureau because your presentation reminded me a lot of law school over a decade ago and some work I did, particularly because you described yourself as the enforcer of the legislation. That was a line you used.

A better comparator would be securities commissions because they are commissions that regulate and administer securities in the public interest, and confidence in the public markets is critical. In the last 15 years, securities commissions with commissioners—and a very similar structure—have moved away from also being multi-functional agencies with investigative, prosecutorial, and even adjudicative functions that would be similar in some ways. In 2003, Justice Coulter Osborne had what was called the fairness committee about bifurcating the OSC, much as the B.C. securities commission did.

The reason I use that is that it's clear to me. There was the creation in 1974, where you said the Chief Electoral Officer had some concerns about this being housed within the agency, and then the splitting off of the prosecution mandate to the DPP in 2006. Is Bill C-23 not really the completion of that bifurcation? So now we have Elections Canada running something in the public interest, in the public good, from an administrative standpoint, and to respect all principles of natural justice, the backward-looking function—the investigation prosecution— is housed entirely distinctly. Now not just the prosecution but also the investigation is housed within the DPP. Is that not just the completion of that bifurcation and is that not in line with modern public administration practices?

[Yves Côté]

Mr. Chair, I don't think I would phrase it in the way it has been stated. What I would say is that the current scheme as it exists should be and must be improved so that we have more tools in our box, and what I find is that in Bill C-23, in spite of the fact that the CEO and I have called for this additional power, I have to of course note that the additional power is not being given to us.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have been listening to you, Mr. Côté, and what you do is reinforce in my mind just how bad...how this legislation, Bill C-23, is a destructive force to democracy here in Canada. This is not a step forward. This is a significant step backwards. I feel insulted in regard to the degree in which you weren't even consulted, you said, in regard to your position as the commissioner and having that position transferred out of Elections Canada.

I think you've been exceptionally clear. I had a few questions that I would like get on the record with you.

The in-and-out scandal, robocalls, overspending, and cheating: these are things that the public as a whole feels have taken place in the last election. There is a general feeling of public confidence...of a lack thereof, because of the thousands of phone calls that were made because of the last election. There's this huge expectation that you, as the commissioner, are going to be able to get to the bottom of a lot of these very important issues.

I'm not asking you to comment on any specific issue, but what I'm thinking about is, going forward, if this legislation were to pass without amendments such as compelling a witness, would you clearly state that it would in fact make it more difficult for you to acquire any sort of a prosecution?

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

Apparently some people do have that perception despite all evidence to the contrary.

So basically you're saying for anything done in this act that is a benefit—for example, security of tenure is built into Bill C-23 in a way that it doesn't exist right now for your office—there's no reason that couldn't have been done by keeping your office within Elections Canada, for example.

[Yves Côté]

I'd say at least two things on this.

One is that I certainly would see any cases involving an electoral officer or an employee of Elections Canada where fraud or misbehaviour of some sort was alleged as being a very serious matter. I can assure you that, as commissioner, this is something that I would get to the bottom of with all the energy and all the tools that I have at my disposal. That would be point number one.

Point number two, there are many benefits—as I think I alluded to in my opening remarks—in our being now part of Elections Canada, and it has to do with the day-to-day operations. It's very important for us, as enforcers of the legislation, to understand the priorities, to understand the environment in which decisions that we take have to be taken. We cannot operate in a separate world, on a separate planet. We have to have that access.

More importantly, if Bill C-23 is passed as it is now, there will be serious issues that will come up in terms of what information the CEO may communicate to me as commissioner. Right now, we're both within the same organization so the flow of information is free and it goes quickly. If I am to move into a different organization, which now would be a department of the government, there will be all kinds of issues having to do, for example, with privacy and personal information in terms of whether or not the CEO has the power to disclose and communicate that information to us. Certainly this is an issue that should be addressed because that kind of uncertainty would create no end of problems and headaches.

I would put it to this committee, Mr. Chair, that this is a very important issue. There has to be clarity in the law in terms of what the CEO can communicate to me, if Bill C-23 is passed as it is, and also in terms of what I may request of the CEO.

I would go one step further. It seems to me that there should be a provision in the bill, again if it is passed as it is, that would compel the CEO to respond to any request I make for information and to give me that information. In the same way, Bill C-23 provides—with the new scheme that might be created—that the CRTC would have to disclose to me any information that I requested of them, in terms of the new scheme that is being created for voter contact.

[Yves Côté]

Well, there's an act of Parliament that specifies the circumstances in which the Chief Electoral Officer may ask me to conduct an investigation. So Parliament has spoken and has said that this is the way it should be. Again, I think it's very important that, if the CEO does that, then I decide how I'm going to do that, in the same way that if Bill C-23 is passed as it is now, if our office were to move with the office of the DPP, I would decide how investigations are to be conducted.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

But under Bill C-23, and this is the distinction I'm trying to make.... I'm certainly not trying to be argumentative here, but I think it's an important distinction. Under Bill C-23, you would not be directed by anyone. It would be your decision and your decision alone if you wished to conduct an investigation. It would be based on a complaint or if someone requested, but it would be your decision. Currently, you're suggesting, or you're saying, to this committee that if the Chief Electoral Officer directs you to conduct an investigation, you will. You may conduct it in your own fashion, that's great, but you have no right to refuse.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I know, and I'm sorry, but I always gone on the principle that if someone can hire me and fire me, then that person is in effect my boss. But I'll take you at your contention.

Why I'm trying to get at is that Bill C-23 would make you truly independent. In other words, the Chief Electoral Officer now can direct you to investigate a certain case. Bill C-23 would give you full independence. The Chief Electoral Officer, for an example, could request an investigation be conducted, as anyone else could request an investigation, but you would have the full authority to investigate based on your own decision, not a directive from someone else? So I think that increases and enhances your independence, which I would think would be a good thing, particularly—and I don't know if this has ever happened before, I honestly don't, but theoretically, since the Chief Electoral Officer has the ability to appoint and dismiss you, as you've mentioned—in terms of what would happen if in fact there was a case where you felt you had to investigate an employee of Elections Canada. Would you not think there would be a conflict there?

[Yves Côté, Commissioner of Canada Elections, Elections Canada]

Indeed, sir.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to testify today regarding the changes proposed by Bill C-23 and their impact on my role as commissioner of Canada Elections.

I am accompanied today by Audrey Nowack, senior counsel, who provides us with legal counsel.

Before discussing the bill itself, I believe it would be useful if I first reminded the committee of why the position of commissioner of Canada Elections was created 40 years ago in 1974 and placed within the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer.

The traditional view of the Department of Justice at the time was that it should not be involved in prosecutions under the Canada Elections Act. Such prosecutions, to quote the attorney general at the time, in 1974, should be the responsibility of the Chief Electoral Officer “whose independent position could not be questioned”. At the same time, the Chief Electoral Officer was concerned that his own involvement in the investigation and prosecution of election offences could be seen to diminish his impartiality. This led to the creation of the position of commissioner of Canada elections, in 1974.

The position was placed within Elections Canada so that it would be fully independent from the government. The mandate of the commissioner initially was confined to offences involving election expenses, but was later broadened, in 1977, to include the enforcement of all election offences, including prosecution. With the creation of the office of the director of public prosecutions, in 2006, election offences are now prosecuted by the DPP.

Let me now turn to my comments on the bill that is currently before you.

The first point I'd like to address has to do with the organizational changes proposed by the bill.

Bill C-23 proposes to go much further than what was done in 2006, by placing the commissioner within the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, or DPP.

As you consider this proposal, I think it is important for you to understand the benefits of the current model which, in my view, strikes a proper balance between investigative independence and a coherent and informed application of the Canada Elections Act.

Indeed, I must stress that, as commissioner, I have enjoyed complete and unfettered independence with respect to the conduct of investigations and the choice of enforcement action, including the decision to refer a matter to the DPP.

I have been in the job for almost two years, and there has never been any attempt by the Chief Electoral Officer, or by anyone at Elections Canada, to interfere in any way with the manner in which I and my investigators do our work. In other words, and I think it is important that I state this, I alone as commissioner decide what to investigate, how to conduct my investigations, and what measures are to be taken, including possible referrals to the DPP.

At the same time, my presence within Elections Canada allows me to have direct insight into how the law is administered and also to understand the main challenges faced by Elections Canada with respect to compliance. This informs my interventions and reduces the risks that regulated entities, such as political parties and candidates, are caught between conflicting interpretations of the rules.

The need for such coherence explains why to my knowledge, in the vast majority of regulatory regimes, the administration and enforcement of the rules are vested in the same agency. Examples of this would include the Canada Revenue Agency, the Competition Bureau, Fisheries and Oceans, and the Canada Border Services Agency.

This, by the way, is true even for the CRTC, which under the very terms of Bill C-23 would be granted the mandate to administer and enforce the rules on what is referred to as “voter contact calling services”.

With the separation of the commissioner from Elections Canada, there is, in my view, a danger in the long term of a disconnect between the administration of the rules and their enforcement. To avoid that risk, it is critical that an ongoing relationship between the two entities be preserved and nurtured.

This goes beyond transfers of information in support of investigations—something which, in fact, Bill C-23 does not explicitly provide for and which requires amendment to ensure timely and effective investigations.

It also means that the two entities will need to create structured mechanisms to continue to work in an open and collaborative fashion. For example, a joint committee on regulatory compliance may need to be established to discuss trends or new issues that arise as a result of evolving practices by political parties and candidates.

Moreover, given that under Bill C-23, political parties would be able to request written opinions from the Chief Electoral Officer on the application of the act and that these opinions will be legally binding on the commissioner, there need to be mechanisms for consultation between the commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer.

In placing the commissioner within the office of the DPP, Bill C-23 would bring under the same roof two functions that are normally, and for good reasons, kept separate.

This structural change raises important questions with respect to the separation of the investigative and prosecutorial functions—a separation that was deemed sufficiently important in 2006 to remove prosecutions from the commissioner. It also raises concerns with respect to at least the perceived independence of the commissioner from the government of the day.

Bill C-23 provides that the commissioner's investigations be conducted independently of the DPP. I do have, of course, every reason to be confident that neither the DPP nor the Attorney General would interfere in my investigations. However, the fact that the commissioner would be placed within the office of the DPP—and that the DPP reports to the Attorney General on the commissioner's activities—does, it seems to me, present challenges, at least in terms of perception.

For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the proposed move to the office of the DPP is a step in the right direction.

The second matter that I wish to address relates to the commissioner's investigative powers. The CEO mentioned in his appearance how important it is to have timely and effective enforcement of election laws. It is fair to say that, among Canadians, there is an expectation—and I would say an entirely reasonable one—that significant violations of the rules governing elections will be dealt with swiftly and within a normal four-year electoral cycle.

When the very legitimacy of an elected office is at stake, the need to resolve allegations of electoral wrongdoing is, by definition, a pressing matter. This is why, as I indicated in my annual report, I believe it is essential to give the commissioner the ability to seek a court order to compel testimony.

My experience to date has been that it is not uncommon for individuals who are not directly concerned with an investigation, but who may possess important information, to refuse to co-operate. In a political context, where partisan loyalties are strong, this should probably not come as a surprise. However, this can cause significant delays or even compromise an investigation.

A power to compel testimony in the context of election investigations exists in many provinces and territories, including Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Alberta and Yukon. Other regulatory agencies have similar power. The recommendation that both the Chief Electoral Officer and I have made is that this power be given to the commissioner with a number of appropriate safeguards, as exist in the Competition Act. These safeguards include the following.

First, before obtaining a court order, a prior judicial authorization is required, based on affidavit evidence showing that the person likely has information relevant to an investigation of an offence under the Canada Elections Act.

Second, every person has the right to be assisted by counsel and to have counsel present at the interview.

Lastly, and this is extremely important, the person being interviewed under these circumstances would have the right not to have the evidence used against the person who is required to testify.

These safeguards would present, in my view, a balanced approach to ensuring more effective enforcement. Mr. Chair, I want to be absolutely clear: if this amendment is not made, investigations will continue to take time, and in some cases a lot of time. Importantly some investigations will simply be aborted due to our inability to get at the facts.

Bill C-23 should also be amended to improve the regime proposed for voter contact calling services. First, whether it is a live or an automated call, there should be an obligation to identify the source of the call immediately at the start of the message. Second, and most importantly, entities providing automated services or making live calls should be required to preserve a record of the telephone numbers that were contacted and to make that record available to the commissioner through the CRTC. Without telephone numbers, it is difficult to see how the proposed regime can be of much use.

Finally, with respect to the powers of the commissioner, I want to express my deep concern with the limitations imposed by the bill on my ability to inform the public of the results of my investigations. There are certainly excellent reasons to preserve the confidentiality of investigations. These mainly include considerations of privacy and fairness, as well as the need to protect the integrity of ongoing investigations. For this reason, I, like my predecessors, will generally not comment on or disclose information related to investigations—except where necessary in the course of the judicial process.

There are, however, rare but important exceptions to this. Where allegations have been publicly made that cast a doubt on the integrity of an election, and where an investigation shows these allegations to be unfounded, it is important for the commissioner to be able to reassure Canadians by making his findings public, including by providing factual details of what was uncovered. My predecessor has twice done this in recent years, and it is important that my successors and I be able to do the same in the future.

Finally, I'd like to mention the addition of a number of new offences and the proposal to increase fines. The increased fines in particular are a significant and welcome improvement to the regime. However, as I indicated in my annual report, achieving compliance with election rules should not rely primarily on criminal offences and sanctions. The criminal process is inherently slow and heavy-handed. It is ill-suited to the vast majority of instances of non-compliance that we in the commissioner's office encounter, which are of a purely regulatory nature such as, for example, late filings of reports.

Administrative sanctions such as the proposed automatic reduction of reimbursement of election expenses in cases of overspending are generally much better suited to deal with compliance issues related to political financing. In this regard I hope that this measure in Bill C-23 would point the way for future reforms.

In concluding my remarks, I would like to indicate that I fully support the amendments relating to enforcement that the Chief Electoral Officer suggested at his appearance a few weeks ago.

I am aware of the fact that the Minister for Democratic Reform has written to the committee and that he appears to be open to some amendments dealing with the limitation period as well as the threshold to initiate investigations.

And, in closing, I would strongly encourage the committee to also consider the other amendments on enforcement proposed by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Now that I am finished with my introductory remarks, I would be pleased to answer any questions, insofar as they do not relate to the particulars of investigations.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's call this meeting to order, please.

This is meeting number 25 of procedure and House affairs committee, on the study of Bill C-23.

The meeting is in public and televised tonight. We have, to start off with, the commissioner of Canada elections, Monsieur Côté.

Mr. Côté, will you introduce your guest? I understand you have an opening statement.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the member is indeed wrong, and very wrong again.

There are three types of calls. There are automated calls, which must be registered under the fair elections act.

There are telemarketing calls, which are probably the largest number, and they involve hiring professional firms that make tens of thousands, in fact, hundreds of thousands of calls. Those calls must be registered, and the scripts must be retained.

Then, there are calls that are done by parties themselves, almost exclusively by volunteers. They do include the volunteer calls, the types of which I just described, and no, we are not going to bury these people in red tape.

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

Mr. Speaker, on another unfair elections act front, today in committee my questioning of CRTC lawyers confirmed my suspicions of a huge loophole in Bill C-23's voter contact registry scheme, which was supposed to prevent fraudulent calling to voters. Live calls by a party's internal services are not covered, so Conservative Party phone banks can live-call Canadians during elections with no oversight.

My question is to the minister. Is this massive omission deliberate?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the Fair Elections Act is very reasonable. It creates a new registry to oversee the robocalls and telemarketing calls that many Canadians receive, as well as to protect the legitimacy of those calls. The bill creates new penalties to punish those who mislead voters with fraudulent calls. It also guarantees that the legislation limiting donations will be obeyed. Yes, the Fair Elections Act will require people to present a piece of ID when they vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know which world the Minister of State for Democratic Reform is living in, but it is clearly not the same one as most Canadians.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to hear professor Paul Thomas express his views on Bill C-23. He emphasized the fact that other countries that conduct free elections recognize that election laws must not be changed unilaterally, without consultation. As well as being dangerous for our democracy, the Conservatives' electoral deform bill will undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process. It will not help the Conservative government earn the trust of voters.

Will the minister listen to the experts at last?

Opposition Motion—Government Aircraft

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of today's opposition motion by the member for Timmins—James Bay, because it identifies an abuse of the public trust, which, unfortunately, is part of a much larger pattern by the Conservative government. In this case, we are talking about the use of government planes to transport Conservative Party fundraisers around the country.

Let me be clear. I am not disputing the use of government jets to transport the Prime Minister, his family, his security detail, or even public servants assisting the Prime Minister with government business. To me, the line is crossed when party fundraisers are flying on government jets. As we have now learned, that was a regular practice for the Conservatives. In particular, the flight logs reveal that Mark Kihn, who lists his job as a fundraising projects manager for the Conservative Party, has been a regular passenger, travelling with the Prime Minister on government jets every year from 2007 to 2012.

While this may seem to some a narrow issue for an opposition day motion, it tries to shine a light on a failure by the Conservatives to recognize the importance of respecting the line between the public interest and party interest. On those grounds, it is clearly wrong to use government jets to transport Conservative Party fundraisers.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this example illustrates a larger pattern by the Conservatives, which is to seek every partisan advantage for themselves, whether by using their majority to change the rules or by running as close to the line as possible when it comes to the existing rules. We have certainly seen this in Bill C-23, where the Conservatives have included a provision exempting fundraising expenses from election spending limits. Spending limits, as many will know, were introduced in Canada in the 1974 Election Expenses Act in an attempt to level the playing field for elections, so that those with the most resources would not automatically win elections.

Public support for spending limits as an essential part of electoral fairness has always been and still remains very high. The comprehensive Canadian election study conducted in 2000 specifically asked about this and found that 93% of Canadians supported spending limits for candidates and political parties, but what this motion points to is an attempt to get around those kinds of spending limits by using government resources for partisan purposes. Both the transport of Conservative Party fundraisers on government jets and the attempt to undermine spending limits in Bill C-23 violate the fundamental sense of electoral fairness that is an essential part of our Canadian democracy.

These attempts to skirt the rules on election spending limits are not new for the Conservatives. In fact, they began with the first omnibus budget bill. In that bill, the Conservatives used their majority to eliminate public funding for political parties. Normally, in seeking to change fundamental rules in our democracy, we would expect the governing party to consult widely and seek the broadest support for changes to the rules. We would expect this in Bill C-23, and we have not seen it. We would certainly expect them to hold those kinds of consultation and not to sneak in changes through what should have been a technical budget bill.

As in the case of Bill C-23—

[Christianne Laizner]

The registry will contain the information that's required in Bill C-23. That information would be the name of the calling service provider, the name of the group or person on whose behalf the services are made. It will not contain the phone numbers, but at the time that the registration notice is filed, there's an obligation on both the calling service provider and the person or group who entered into an agreement with the calling service provider to provide the CRTC with their name, their address, and their telephone number, and a copy of the identification that the CRTC has authorized them to use. You get the registration notice to the CRTC, and that information that I just explained to you. The script and recordings are required to be kept for a period of one year. The purpose of that is if there's an investigation, the CRTC may request those, but they don't form part of the registration notice.

[Christianne Laizner]

Yes. Just to clarify, the obligations under Bill C-23 are for the calling service provider or the group in question to retain the script or the transcript of the messages. When the CRTC conducts investigations, we can request those as part of our investigation, but they don't actually provide the script to us in advance.

They do have obligations to make sure that when they enter into these agreements, both parties are aware of the identities and name and address and all that important information that was not a requirement before.

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

Thank you to the witnesses for coming.

I'm going to do something a tiny bit unusual. I have a whole series of questions I'd like to read first. That will also put them in the record in both official languages and then we'll start to get to some of them, the most important ones probably in the second round. I'd appreciate it if you could consider providing written answers to some of them if we don't get to them, but that's something we can discuss later.

I'm going to refer to them by numbers.

One, assuming that the CRTC was consulted or otherwise worked with the minister or his officials on the new division in the act that you've described, is the present text of Bill C-23 what the CRTC understood would be legislated, or are there differences, and if so, what are they?

Two, is it the case that current technology would permit technologically sophisticated persons to use their own call delivery systems consisting of their own server, intermediary proxy servers, and so on to conduct a calling operation without needing to use any calling service provider as defined by these new sections, and if so, does that mean such persons would not be registered in the new system, let alone caught by it, if they were engaging in voter suppression calls?

Three, if there is the just described coverage gap, does it stand to reason that other preventive measures and/or effective investigative tools, notably on the part of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, such as the power to seek a judicial order compelling testimony, and such as access to all receipts for national party campaign expenses, will be needed to deal with such voter suppression calling that takes place outside the system overseen by CRTC?

A lot of these will now be technical.

Four, regarding proposed section 348.01, are text messages or similar communications like BBMs covered by the definition of calls?

Five, again regarding proposed section 348.01, under the voter contact calling services definition, one purpose covered is indeed the raising of funds. There are two questions. Could you confirm that calls made within the new fundraising exemption for campaign expenses found in proposed subsection 376(3) of the act are covered by this voter caller contact services definition? Within question five, to what extent will the CRTC oversee the compliance of parties with the new fundraising exemption, as the minister has claimed it will in the House?

Six, proposed sections 348.03 and 348.07 use the language “a person enters into an agreement” and the question is, should this not read “a person or a group enters into an agreement”? In the definition, political parties and other collective entities are defined as being within the category of groups. If they're not put there, will this end up meaning they're not covered by theses duties in those two sections?

Seven, there are two pairings of provisions and I'm wondering if there's a gap. There may not be. Proposed sections 348.08 and 348.09 go together. Proposed sections 348.18 and 348.19 go together. Is there a gap here that means that groups, including political parties, do not have to account for live calls if those live calls are made using their own internal services? If so, is an amendment needed?

Eight, regarding proposed section 348.11, could you confirm that the voter contact registry will not contain phone numbers called through voter contact calling services or through the internal services of groups like political parties, and will also not contain scripts and recordings? There is no duty to provide either of them to the CRTC. For maximum effectiveness, should both of these be required to be retained by the calling services providers, as we know for a designated period, but also conveyed to the CRTC to be part of the voter contact registry?

Nine, there is nothing explicit in the voter contact registry provisions on either a CRTC duty to retain information or a period of retention. The question is whether this duty is implicit, and if so, for how long. Does the CRTC already have policies that would apply? Should the duty to retain be made explicit? If so, for what length of time? Is the 10 years suggested by former Chief Electoral Officer Kingsley a good period?

Ten, there are no tag line requirements in the bill. Should all calls have to have specified caller information that must be included in scripts and recordings, and also conveyed for inclusion in the voter contact registry?

Eleven, calling service providers must retain data for only one year. Should this be longer? If so, for how long?

Twelve, should there be an express power, as recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer, for the commissioner to apply for a judicial order for any person or group or calling service provider to retain data beyond the specified period should the commissioner believe he may need access to that data as part of an investigation?

Thirteen, is the voter contact registry public, or is it only the registration notice as referenced in proposed section 348.12 that is public?

Fourteen, is the voter contact registry accessible at will to either the Chief Electoral Officer or the Commissioner of Canada Elections, or is access limited by proposed section 348.15, which requires a request only from the commissioner, and using a necessity test?

Fifteen, according to proposed section 348.15, the commissioner must ask for documents or information. Must the commissioner know exactly what document or information he or she needs? Within the same question, there's no explicit, proactive duty on the part of the CRTC to inform the commissioner of any suspicions so as to trigger a request from the commissioner. May the CRTC do so? Should the duty be made explicit? In any case, will the CRTC be likely to discern any problems that would give rise to suspicion, given the nature of the oversight regime? Is the threshold too high for the commissioner? It's a “considers necessary” threshold. Should it be “considers helpful”? Should the bill be amended to give the commissioner unfettered access to the voter contact registry?

I'm going to skip two questions, but I'll come back to them.

There's no express clause dealing with extraterritorial service providers. Should there be?

We'll come back to these questions in the second round. Thank you.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Madam Laizner and Madam Bombardier, for being here today.

Obviously, the provisions contained in Bill C-23 were to address the situation commonly known as the Pierre Poutine scandal, in which some still unknown culprit apparently attempted to use voter suppression tactics by sending out phone messages to voters, primarily in Guelph, I suspect, but perhaps on a far wider range than that. Since we haven't had the ability yet, or at least the Elections Canada investigation has not produced any evidence as to who this culprit may be, provisions were put in Bill C-23 to try to prevent that sort of situation from occurring again.

We've had the former Chief Electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, appear before the committee. When I asked him directly whether he thought the provisions put into Bill C-23 would prevent the situation from occurring again, he just simply said yes.

I would like to ask both of you a twofold question. Number one, in your opinion, do you believe the provisions in Bill C-23 would prevent the type of Pierre Poutine situation from occurring again? Two, and perhaps even more important, perhaps you could expand upon your thoughts as to the ability of the CRTC to administer and maintain such a registry, and whether or not you have the full level of confidence within your own organization that this could be accomplished. Perhaps, finally, you could add a bit of a timeline for us, since you mentioned this could not be done overnight.

Madam Laizner, perhaps I could start with you.

[Manon Bombardier, Chief Compliance and Enforcement Officer, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

As you already likely know, the CRTC administers and maintains the national do-not-call list as a tool to protect the privacy of Canadians, but also to reduce the number of unsolicited calls that they receive from telemarketers.

To date, the national do-not-call list includes over 12 million telephone numbers that are registered to the list. There are also over 10,000 telemarketers who have registered. In the nearly six years that the do-not-call list has been in effect, the CRTC has helped those telemarketers both understand what the requirements of the regulations and rules are and comply with those rules and register with the list.

We have received to date over 800,000 complaints and conducted over 1,300 investigations under the unsolicited telecommunications rules, and we have levied over $4 million in administrative monetary penalties in relation to those violations.

I mention all of those accomplishments not only because the CRTC takes great pride in these accomplishments but also because new responsibilities that would be given to us under the new bill, if it were proclaimed into law, would follow a similar model as we have under the unsolicited telecommunications rules.

Under such a scenario, we would be able to leverage our experience and expertise in the administration and enforcement of those rules and apply them to the new provisions of the bill.

For instance, the CRTC has significant experience in building and overseeing lists of registered telephone numbers and telemarketers. We could draw on that experience if it was required to build a similar record to meet the requirements of Bill C-23.

We also maintain rigorous processes for investigating possible violations of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules. Under the process, complaints submitted by Canadians are assessed and used to prioritize investigations and determine whether or not the rules were complied with.

Finally, our methods for ensuring compliance with the rules—such as issuing citations and notices of violations, imposing administrative monetary penalties, and working with violators to correct improper practices—can be adjusted to suit new purposes.

Mr. Chair, it would be imprudent of us to suggest that we could simply and quickly adapt our National DNCL systems and processes to suit the requirements of Bill C-23. No new law can be administered with that degree of simplicity.

New tools would need to be purchased and processes likely created to handle complaints. We would also need to ensure candidates and telephone service providers were aware of their new responsibilities, and provide timely information to the public.

Yet we, at the CRTC, are confident that we have the expertise to meet any new responsibilities given to us under the bill.

Thank you, and we would now be pleased to answer your questions.

[Christianne Laizner, Senior General Counsel, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon. My name is Christianne Laizner and I'm the senior general counsel at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. With me today is Manon Bombardier who is the CRTC chief compliance and enforcement officer.

We are pleased to appear before you as you study Bill C-23, which proposes a number of amendments to the Canada Elections Act. I would like to start by reminding the committee of the new responsibilities that would be given to CRTC if Bill C-23 were proclaimed.

My colleague, Madam Bombardier, will then speak about how the CRTC would be prepared to fulfill its mandate under the proposed legislation.

If the bill is adopted in its current form, the CRTC would be tasked with establishing and maintaining registration information for voter contact services. This means that any person, group, or company engaged in voter contact, including those using automatic dialing announcing devices, which we also refer to as robocalls or ADADs, for voter contact purposes, would be required to register with the CRTC. Registrations would be made available to the CRTC within 48 hours after a call is made.

The ability to verify the identity of the calling party is another important aspect of the bill. Any person or group using a calling service provider or making robocalls for voter contact purposes would have to provide identification to both the CRTC and the calling service provider.

Additionally, the bill would require recordings of messages and scripts to be retained for one year after the date of an election.

Breaches of these roles could cost violators penalties of up to $1,500 for individuals and $15,000 in the case of groups, such as political parties or companies. It is important to note that these penalties can be assigned per violation and that each day constitutes a separate violation.

Let me now open the floor to Ms. Bombardier.

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

Thank you. That's very kind.

I want to thank the both of you for your remarks today. They were very informative. We're quite glad we were able to hear from you.

Today, I'd like to discuss one of the biggest changes being made to the Elections Canada Act. It concerns the role of Elections Canada as described in section 18.

Bill C-23 would amend the Elections Canada Act in such a way as to prevent the Chief Electoral Officer from giving the public much information as regards people with disabilities. That information concerns “the measures for assisting electors with a disability to access a polling station . . . or to mark a ballot.” Those are the changes being sought.

Section 18(1) of the Elections Canada Act currently reads as follows:

The Chief Electoral Officer may implement public education and information programs to make the electoral process better known to the public, particularly to those persons and groups most likely to experience difficulties in exercising their democratic rights.

Would you say that the groups you represent are among those who have greater difficulty than the general public when it comes to exercising their democratic rights?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank both witnesses for being here today.

Your input today is really helping us to understand the problems we're studying and the various amendments that could be brought forward to improve the bill.

Under the bill, one of the biggest changes to the Elections Canada Act has to do with the role of Elections Canada as described in section 18. Right now, the Chief Electoral Officer can communicate with the public in a way that will change once Bill C-23 is passed. The changes under the bill...

Can you hear me, Mr. MacKenzie?

[Diane Bergeron]

Yes, there are various things. Some of the stuff that's happening in Bill C-23 addresses some of those issues, in that it ensures that information provided about getting to polling stations, which poll to vote at, and what that process is, those tool kits about how someone with a disability could vote, is going to be made accessible. That's good news for us.

There is also good information for us in the bill. People with vision loss who have a CNIB identification card can use it as identification at the polling station.

One of the issues, though, for people who are blind or partially sighted is that it's not law that they have to be a registered client of CNIB if they are blind. Many people who are blind or partially sighted are not registered with CNIB, and they do not hold that identification card. Those of us who are blind don't drive, so despite the fact that many people ask me for my driver's licence even with my guide dog at my feet, I inform them that we are not given those. For us to get identification, we need to get it from the registry. The registry often asks us for ID that we don't have.

It becomes a big process for us. Part of it also is around identifying one's location through bills. I have a stack of papers on my table and I don't know what most of them are because most of my bills don't come in Braille. If they did come in Braille, it wouldn't do a lick of good if I took the Braille copy of my phone bill to the polling station, since I doubt anybody there reads Braille. It becomes an issue in that sense.

[Diane Bergeron, National Director, Government Relations and Advocacy, Canadian National Institute for the Blind]

Mr. Chair, I'd just like to let folks know how I'm doing this presentation so you understand the technology. I'm using a talking computer so I'm having it speak in my ear and then I'm going to repeat it. If the computer stutters, then I also may stutter, so my deepest apologies in advance for that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you as well to the other committee members for this opportunity to offer testimony today on behalf of CNIB.

CNIB, otherwise known as the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, is a registered charity that has been offering vital services to individuals with vision loss for nearly 100 years. We are proud to provide community-based support, knowledge, and a national voice to ensure that Canadians who are blind or partially sighted can have the confidence, skills, and opportunities to fully participate in life. Whether a person is living with a disability like blindness or not, voting is a fundamental aspect of participation in a democracy. However, the ability for Canadians who are blind or partially sighted to exercise this right to vote depends heavily on the way that elections are designed and conducted.

CNIB is pleased to see that accessibility is being raised as an issue for consideration in Bill C-23, and we appreciate the opportunity to offer feedback on how this bill may affect voters with vision loss.

Canadians not only have a right to vote, but a right to vote in secret. The right to a secret ballot includes the right to mark one's ballot in private with no one else knowing for whom one voted. Voters in Canada also have the right to verify their choice to be sure that their ballots were marked in accordance with their wishes and were not spoiled.

Unfortunately, the right to a secret ballot is regularly denied to voters with vision loss in Canada. There are two primary means used to accommodate voters who are blind or partially sighted. First, election acts at all levels provide for registered voters to appoint a designate or election official to assist in the marking of a ballot based on the voter's instruction. However, this approach does not respect the right to a secret ballot. Voters who are blind or partially sighted must tell someone else, potentially a total stranger, for whom they wish to vote. The voter must trust that that person will mark the ballot in accordance with the voter's wishes, will not intentionally or accidentally spoil the ballot, and will keep that choice forever secret.

Alternatively, many election acts, including the Canada Elections Act, require that a template be provided to electors who are blind or partially sighted to assist them to mark their ballots. Unfortunately, this template also does not provide a full and effective accommodation of the right to a secret ballot. Unless they were to show the ballot to another person, voters with vision loss cannot check to be sure that their choice was correctly recorded on the ballot or that they did not accidentally spoil their votes.

The inability of voters with vision loss to exercise their right to a secret ballot is of significant concern to CNIB. Although we are extremely pleased to see that this issue is being brought forward through Bill C-23, this bill as it's currently written does not adequately address this issue.

The appropriate solution to this problem is to make available alternate voting processes such as voting by phone, by Internet, or other accessible electronic means. The ability for the Chief Electoral Officer to test alternative voting processes has been in place since the Canada Elections Act was amended in 2000. To the best of our knowledge, this type of testing has been extremely limited and has not yet opened new opportunities for voters with vision loss to exercise their rights. Bill C-23 would amend the Canada Elections Act to require that the Chief Electoral Officer obtain the prior approval of the Senate and House of Commons before testing an alternative electronic voting process in an official vote.

Considering that the CEO has not exercised the power to test alternative voting processes in the 14 years the option has been available, we fear that this approval process will put more burden on any chief electoral officer who wishes to do so.

We believe it is unlikely that making the process more onerous will result in voters with vision loss finally realizing their right to a secret ballot.

As an alternative to what is proposed in Bill C-23, CNIB recommends that the CEO be required to test an alternative electronic process in the future general election or in a byelection, not merely permitted to do so. Without directing the Chief Electoral Officer to test alternative electronic voting processes, we fear that further decades may pass where voters who are blind or partially sighted are denied their right to a secret ballot in a federal election.

Thank you so much for listening to my comments today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

—on that issue, but we're here to discuss Bill C-23.

Mr. Willard, if I could turn my attention to you, please, I think, like every parliamentarian here, we've had dinners and meetings with young Canadians through the Forum for Young Canadians. They've been some of the greatest experiences I've ever had.

Unfortunately, on the last couple of trips to Ottawa, I haven't had any members from my riding, but those that I have met over the years, and I've been here for 10 years, I have found to be some of the most engaged, knowledgeable, enthusiastic, and industrious young people I could possibly have met. It has been a true pleasure for me.

I say this because I don't think there's ever a difficulty or a problem motivating that group of individuals, or young people like them, to vote. I think they fundamentally understand whether or not....

You gave the example of someone who, when she first came here, didn't think she would ever vote, but after leaving Ottawa said that she was now waiting for her 18th birthday. I think that almost would be the exception rather than the rule. I have found that most young people who come to the Forum for Young Canadians are absolutely motivated by the time they get here.

That being said, you talked about the need, in your opinion at least, to maintain the provisions contained in section 18 to promote voting among young people. As you would know, in Bill C-23, we are suggesting that the primary role of the Chief Electoral Officer at Elections Canada should be to advertise and to promote how to vote, where to vote, and what identification is needed to vote. Studies have shown that most young people don't vote for the primary reasons that they don't know where or when to vote and they don't know what ID.... We're trying to focus on the how-tos rather than on the motivational factor. In fact, I suppose you could say that any advertising is, in effect, promoting the need to vote.

In your experience, or your opinion at least, if Elections Canada were to concentrate on simply advertising, and advertising significantly, informing Canadians in the lead-up to an election of the requirements for voting—the right ID to bring, how to vote, and where to vote—do you think that would have an effect on increasing voter turnout among young people, or do you think the advertising generally, trying to convince people that they should vote, would be a better way to go?

[Bob Brown, Member, Transportation Committee, Council of Canadians with Disabilities]

Thank you very much for hearing me. I'm not as fast a reader as some of the others, so I'm just going to highlight some of our points. I understand that you have the full presentation.

Council of Canadians with Disabilities, CCD, is a national cross-disability organization with nine provincial, one territorial, and seven national disability member groups. Through CCD, Canadians with disabilities have been speaking out and taking their rightful place in Canadian society by causing the removal of barriers to participation. Approximately 3.8 million, or 13.7% of Canadians—we'll talk about that—15 years of age and older report a disability.

Thank you for hearing from the CCD on the barriers regarding Bill C-23. We want to talk about four points that we feel are of great concern.

On the public education campaigns, unfortunately Bill C-23 ends the Chief Electoral Officer's power to implement information programs about the electoral process. Barriers, such as the lack of plain language information, Braille, large print, ALS-LSQ information for the hearing impaired and deaf, have prevented some persons with disabilities from being knowledgeable about the electoral process. Accessibility and inclusive public education campaigns enable people with disabilities to overcome information barriers and to promote participation. CCD recommends that the Chief Electoral Officer continue to have the authority to implement information programs.

The next is alternative voting process. The printed ballot is inaccessible to some voters. For example, voters with vision impairments cannot independently verify if a printed ballot is correctly marked. Adoption of electronic and telephone voting processes will overcome this barrier, hopefully, but will require testing. Bill C-23 proposes House and Senate approval of future tests of electronic processes. Currently, committee approval is sufficient. As additional approval requirements could hinder barrier removal, CCD recommends that only committee approval be required for the test of electronic voting systems.

Next is voter identification rules. We've heard quite a bit about that tonight. Bill C-23's proposal to eliminate vouching and prohibit the use of voter information cards, VIC, for verifying a voter's residence will disenfranchise voters who do not have full identification of their address. Persons with disabilities living in long-term care facilities and homeless people with disabilities will be among the disenfranchised because they experience barriers to obtaining necessary ID, not because it's not available, but they just can't get it. CCD recommends we retain the current safety net provided by the VIC and vouching.

On campaign contributions, more people with disabilities are seeking public office. People with disabilities experience a disproportionate level of poverty. CCD disagrees with the Bill C-23 exemptions that allow increased contribution from a candidate's personal funds because it will place less affluent Canadians at a disadvantage.

Finally, on enforcement, the Commissioner of Canada Elections should not work for the government of the day. To protect the fairness of the electoral process, CCD recommends that the Commissioner of Canada Elections report directly to Parliament.

Thank you for your time.

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

I completely agree with you.

I also have a question or comment for Mr. McLaughlin.

In the article you wrote for The Globe and Mail, you raised an extremely important point, in my view. In that article, you said that young people who are starting to exercise their right to vote at the first election when they have the right to do so are often those who become systematic voters, meaning that they go back to vote at subsequent elections. In connecting the dots between the two, you also mentioned in your article that research shows that turnout decline is mostly driven by young voters not participating.

With specific reference to clause 18 of the bill and the power of Elections Canada to encourage youth voter turnout, do you think that other provisions in Bill C-23—such as the one about the use of voter identification cards, which were accessible only to students in the last election—could also undermine the participation of young people in the electoral process if this possibility was removed?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Continuing with you, Professor Dawood, in your remarks you talked about Bill C-23 failing to provide the commissioner with the power to compel witness testimony and, in addition, receipts and supporting documentation. Vouching is a crucial issue, because it means a lot of Canadians aren't going to be able to vote.

There are other critical issues in here. I wonder if you would comment on that. My understanding is that of $66 million spent in the campaign by the national parties, $33 million was reimbursed by way of the rebate system we have and not one receipt has to be provided. There are no receipts and there's no ability to compel testimony to determine whether or not the submissions were accurate.

Could you comment further on that, but with a view to a Canadian who may be listening? A lot of people are getting cranked up about this. They hear about the vouching, but then they say that doesn't affect them. Can you start to give a reason why other Canadians should care about this bill? Also, what are your concerns in that area of compelling witness testimony?

[Dr. Paul Thomas]

Yes, I think it has happened in Manitoba over the last two general elections. According to the experts in and around Elections Manitoba and me as a commentator, I have not encountered any problems with it. There are alternatives to vouching, but I think there are sufficient safeguards, protections, built into the vouching process that there isn't the likelihood of widespread fraud. I hear the message from the proponents of Bill C-23 now saying it's the potential for fraud. If you're balancing the potential for fraud and ensuring people the greatest amount of access to the vote, I would think that vouching would still be satisfactory and acceptable to most Canadians.

[Dr. Yasmin Dawood, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good evening.

My name is Yasmin Dawood and I'm an assistant professor of law at the University of Toronto. My areas of specialty are election law and constitutional law.

Two weeks ago my colleagues and I wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Harper and the members of Parliament to express our profound concern that the fair elections act, Bill C-23 , if passed, would damage the institution at the heart of our country's democracy voting and federal elections. The open letter has been signed by over 170 professors at Canadian universities who study the principles and institutions of constitutional democracy, including 16 past presidents of the Canadian Political Science Association. This overwhelming and unprecedented level of support from democracy experts across the country is a measure of how damaging we think this legislation would be for the future of our democracy.

Our primary concern is that Bill C-23 would seriously undermine the integrity and fairness of the electoral process. Although we have multiple concerns, I'm going to focus briefly on four issues.

The first issue is on vouching. As Mr. Neufeld has testified to this committee, there is simply no evidence of a link between vouching and fraudulent voting. Although there are record-keeping errors associated with vouching, such errors do not justify the disenfranchisement of thousands of eligible voters. I would like to emphasize that the Supreme Court has made clear that incorrect record keeping of vouching does not amount to an irregularity that would overturn an election result. The charter protected right to vote is fundamental and may not be abridged on account of administrative mistakes.

The second issue is on the role of Elections Canada. Bill C-23 prevents the Chief Electoral Officer from engaging in citizenship education campaigns aimed at increasing voter turnout. While political parties undoubtedly play an important role in motivating citizens to vote, we think that Elections Canada, a non-partisan agency, plays a special role in reaching out to voters that political parties are less likely to target. Historically, political parties have not focused on younger citizens because of low turnout among youth, nor do they reach out to citizens who are unlikely to support them. We need a non-partisan agency like Elections Canada to reach out to all voters.

The third issue is on ensuring a level playing field. We are concerned that certain aspects of Bill C-23 create the actuality and appearance of a partisan bias in the electoral process. For example, Bill C-23 would exempt fundraising expenses from the spending limits for political parties. This loophole would increase the influence of money on politics, and it would be particularly beneficial for the party with the longest list of donors, which in this case happens to be the governing Conservative Party. Bill C-23 also provides that central poll supervisors would be selected from lists provided by the candidate of the party that won the district in the last election. This provision violates the norm that the administration of the electoral process should be strictly neutral.

Fourth is the issue of effective compliance. Bill C-23 fails to provide the commissioner with the power to compel witness testimony, an essential power that is required by the commissioner to effectively investigate electoral infractions. Bill C-23 also fails to require political parties to provide Elections Canada and the commissioner with receipts and supporting documentation about their election expenses. In addition, we are concerned that Bill C-23 would remove the commissioner's ability to speak with the public. Under the new confidentiality requirements of Bill C-23 , members of the public and members of Parliament would have no access to information about the commissioner's investigations into electoral infractions, such as the robocalls affair, unless charges are laid.

Finally, the process by which Bill C-23 was drafted departs from a long-standing political practice in Canada whereby electoral reforms were undertaken through widespread consultation with all the political parties and close collaboration with Elections Canada. We are deeply concerned that the unilateral process by which Bill C-23 was drafted will establish a new precedent in our country's political practices. Rather than providing a neutral structure for political competition, the rules of democracy will themselves become the battleground for partisan control. This political precedent will be deeply damaging to democracy as successive majorities in Parliament rewrite the electoral rules in an effort to gain a partisan advantage. We urge the governing party to consider the long-term consequences of its approach. It will hurt all the political parties and will diminish the strength, fairness, and vitality of our democracy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Dr. Paul Thomas]

Thank you very much for the privilege of coming before the committee.

I submitted a brief earlier. Tonight, I'll just touch upon several points that were contained within that presentation, and then I'd be pleased to answer any questions that might arise.

I start with the observation that there has been considerable decline of public trust and confidence in politics and democracy in Canada. A similar trend has been happening in established democracies. There are many long-term causes and short-term factors that have contributed to public disillusionment with the political process. I fear that both the process by which Bill C-23 was formulated and is being passed in Parliament and the substance of the bill will further weaken public trust and confidence in the integrity of the election process, the one democratic activity in which a majority of Canadians participate.

Sound electoral governance arrangements based on as much consensus as possible contribute in important ways to public trust and confidence in the election process and to democratic legitimacy.

Turning to the process of electoral law, on process I would observe that the Canada Elections Act is not ordinary legislation. It provides a foundation and framework for fair and free elections. Other countries have recognized that such fundamental laws should not be changed hastily and unilaterally by the governing party.

In the U.K., most election laws require advanced consultation with the national electoral commission. Usually this involves a review of draft bills with the commission officials to ensure that the proposed legislation is workable.

In New Zealand, the Electoral Act 1993 requires a supermajority of members of the House of Representatives to repeal or modify a list of eight key features of the election law framework. This provision ensures that there is some measure of cross-party support for those changes. This leads me to recommend that the bill be amended to provide for mandatory consultation with Elections Canada concerning future changes to the Canada Elections Act.

I also recommend that before the fixed-date election scheduled for 2019 that a comprehensive evaluation of the framework of election law and administration put in place by Bill C-23 be conducted by an all-party committee of the House of Commons.

Turning next to the mandate of Elections Canada, the proposal to restrict communications by Elections Canada to the mechanics of voting is wrong. Of the five other national election bodies that I have studied, none has such a narrow restriction on its communications activities. Informing Canadians on when, where, and how to vote is a core role of Elections Canada that the agency has always taken seriously. The agency did not unilaterally assume broader educational and outreach roles. On February 17, 2004, a unanimous motion was passed in the House of Commons calling on Elections Canada to expand its activities to ensure accessibility for disabled voters and to encourage younger Canadians to participate in the electoral process.

Politicians, political parties, and Parliament have the primary responsibility to promote a more vibrant democracy. Other groups and organizations within society also have responsibility to inform and engage Canadians. Elections Canada is one of those organizations that should be involved. Therefore, I recommend that if Parliament decides to reinforce the core task of Elections Canada by passing the new section 18, it should add a parallel provision that recognizes the right of the agency to study, report, and comment on the conditions within the domain of electoral democracy.

Moving the Commissioner of Canada Elections to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is the next topic. I've not heard compelling arguments nor seen strong evidence to justify this relocation. My understanding is that the commissioner acts independently of Elections Canada when conducting investigations and recommending prosecutions. The current location within the administrative framework of an officer of Parliament provides more assurance of independence from political pressures than the proposed location within a department headed by a minister. As part of a department, the commissioner will be restricted in his freedom to report on investigations and prosecutions.

There are other issues associated with the proposed relocation that are discussed in my brief. I recommend that the relocation of the commissioner function be dropped from the bill. If there is a perception that the commissioner needs more autonomy, this could be provided through amendments requiring structural and procedural separations inside Elections Canada.

My next topic is on adding to the tool kit of enforcement. Changing political practices and new technologies of campaigning require that a broader range of enforcement tools be provided to Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections. Whether the commissioner is housed in Elections Canada or in the DPP, the commissioner needs the authority to compel testimony subject to judicial supervision.

In five provinces the CEO or an election commissioner has such power to compel testimony. Currently, most violations of the Canada Elections Act must be treated as criminal matters and processed through the courts. To achieve greater flexibility and fairness in the enforcement process, a broader array of tools should be included in the law.

The U.K. example is instructive. Back in 2009, the election law was amended to provide a range of civil penalties such as monetary penalties, stop notices, enforcement undertakings, and forfeiture orders.

Therefore, I recommend that Bill C-23 be amended to provide authority to the Commissioner of Canada Elections to compel testimony. Also, a non-legislative recommendation is that the procedure and House affairs committee develop, in consultation with Elections Canada, procedures to ensure due process to guide the use of compelled testimony and to develop a plan for a wider range of enforcement mechanisms for the 2019 election.

Turning to the control of election spending, Bill C-23 makes a couple of improvements to the rules on the raising and spending of political money. It imposes sensible restrictions on the use of loans to skirt the limits on donations. It imposes higher fines for overspending.

However, the bill also creates a loophole by exempting from ceilings on spending the costs of electronic communications with past donors for fundraising purposes. It is difficult to imagine that communications for fundraising purposes would not involve appeals for votes and other types of support, and could even include attacks on political opponents.

There is no conceivable way that Elections Canada, with its present authority, could monitor and enforce compliance with this provision. I recommend that the exemption for the cost of fundraising communications be dropped from the bill.

Turning to voter information cards and vouching, the proposal to eliminate VICs and vouching is wrong. No hard evidence of voter fraud has been presented. There are already controls on the use of these devices and more safeguards could be introduced if this were deemed to be necessary. Elimination, however, does not strike the right balance between upholding the constitutional right of Canadians to vote and the highly remote risk of voter impersonation.

Already, more and more election administration activities and campaign finance reporting takes place online. The legislation should anticipate a continuation of this trend, working toward a day when online voting becomes an option. Therefore, I recommend that instead of eliminating VIC and vouching, Bill C-23 should grant authority to Elections Canada to conduct pilot projects with online voter registration and authentication of voter identity with the findings and recommendations being presented to Parliament.

I'll depart a bit from my script, and briefly say that if this committee was looking for a principled compromise to ensure the right balance between accessibility and integrity in the electoral process, they might look to Manitoba. In that province, over the last two elections, a voter who appears at the voting booth with two types of identification, neither of which has an address on it, can still vote, if they sign an oath to the effect that they live within the constituency. It has worked well and there have been no problems. This might be a compromise the minister might consider.

There are two areas where, I think, the bill fails to move election law forward.

Political parties now collect a large amount of personal information about individuals. It's past time that the provisions of privacy laws were extended to political parties. It is also time that political parties developed, with the support of Elections Canada, codes of conduct that will guide the behaviour of their candidates, paid staff, and volunteers. This is more than a symbolic gesture. Codes can help political parties to comply with not just the letter but also the spirit of the election law.

Changes to the Canada Elections Act should not lead to real or perceived advantages for one political party, nor should they put the convenience of political parties ahead of the voting rights of all eligible Canadians. Research in other countries indicates that political attacks on election agencies and partisan involvement with election administration weaken public trust and integrity in the election process.

We have an enviable reputation in this country. Elections Canada is the longest standing independent and impartial election administration body in the world and we want to ensure that we have fair and free elections and they're perceived to be such.

Thank you very much.

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

Great.

To wrap up, I would like to go back to what Mr. Lamoureux was saying.

One of the important requests that had been made has to do with the power given to the commissioner to compel testimony. As we know, in the 2011 fraud, that was a major obstacle that prevented the commissioner from doing a proper investigation on what had happened. Do you agree with me that it is unfortunate not to see that aspect in Bill C-23?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Could you expand upon that?

The debate we're having in Canada on Bill C-23 right now is whether proper ID is required, or whether there should be alternative methods, such as vouching, to allow everyone to exercise their constitutional right.

In your studies have you found there is a direct relationship between the requirement for proper identification and voter turnout, and what would those findings be?

[Dr. Leslie Seidle, Public Policy Consultant and Researcher, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I don't think I can compete with Professor Lee on the humour.

I have quite a lot of experience in this area, including at the Lortie commission on electoral reform 20 years ago, and two years at Elections Canada as the director of research and policy 10 years ago. In light of that, I want to begin my comments on this bill from the perspective of policy development.

I find that on a number of important matters, Bill C-23 proposes major policy changes that are not backed up by solid evidence. By this I mean, what is the nature and extent of the problem that needs to be rectified? I researched the answer to this question by checking the backgrounders on the democratic reform website, ministerial speeches, and other documents. I'm now going to talk about three policy changes to demonstrate the point about the lack of evidence.

First, the bill proposes to abolish the voter education mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer. Members probably know that this responsibility dates from 1993, and to my knowledge no political party has ever called it into question until now. Research has shown that the decline in turnout observed in Canada and most advanced democracies has been particularly sharp among youth. In the early 2000s, concern about this rose and not just among researchers and election administrators, but on February 17, 2004, almost 10 years to a day, the House unanimously adopted a motion, part of which reads as follows:

That the House direct the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada to expand its initiatives to promote the participation of young Canadians in the electoral process, and that these initiatives include making available educational material to schools and other organizations.

When I was at Elections Canada, which coincided with the adoption of that motion, I was pleased to lead the development of the first partnership with the organization that came to be known as Student Vote. We also consulted with a number of aboriginal organizations about ways of encouraging more aboriginal Canadians to exercise the franchise. Since then, a decade ago, the voter education activities of Elections Canada have expanded considerably. In the last election, for example, Student Vote reached over half a million students who participated in mock elections in schools as a voter education program.

This mandate is not unique to Elections Canada. Interestingly, the Australian Electoral Commission, the federal body, has a mandate to educate and inform the community about electoral rights and responsibilities. Similarly in New Zealand, its Electoral Commission has a mandate to promote public awareness of electoral matters by the conduct of education and information programs.

The government's backgrounder on the voter education mandate change describes this move as “back to basics”. Sounds nice, but to me this implies that voter education is not really very important. After all, we should be focusing on the basics, not on these things that are tangential, or perhaps it also implies that this is not a legitimate thing for a public management body in the field of elections to do. I strongly disagree.

Turning to political finance, there are a number of changes in the bill, but one of them is particularly puzzling. I want to highlight it because this is an area we worked on at the Lortie commission. The definition of election expenses was made comprehensive in 2004. Now the government proposes to exempt the costs of fundraising. Once again, the evidence is scanty. I could find none at all in the backgrounder that is subtitled, “Keep Big Money Out of Politics”. Why should this important activity no longer be subject to spending limits, which themselves are being raised through the same bill? I think we can predict difficulties with enforcement. After all, as you're fundraising, you're also promoting your own party or candidate, or possibly opposing the other side, or doing a bit of both. We could see that the commissioner is going to have some difficulty with this down the line. I think it's a potential Trojan Horse. It opens the door to a lot of potential difficulty and confusion.

Finally, on the Commissioner of Canada Elections, I must say it has not been demonstrated that the theoretical argument for separating the administration and the enforcement of elections is a compelling one. In my experience, according to the witnesses who have been before you, the Commissioner of Canada Elections has not been hamstrung in carrying out his duties in an independent manner. The commissioner is not a puppet of the Chief Electoral Officer, even though the commissioner is appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer.

If this bill is adopted, the appointment method will change. Rather than being appointed by an officer of Parliament, the commissioner will be appointed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, an office that was established in 2006 as part of the Accountability Act. In other words, the commissioner will become part of a departmental bureaucracy, more or less at the level of a director general, if I can look at things in the hierarchy and that sort of thing; we haven't seen the salary range and so on, that's not in the bill, of course. The commissioner will be within a departmental bureaucracy, reporting to the Attorney General who is the minister in cabinet responsible for the administration of justice. It's quite a difference in the architecture.

I find it particularly strange that the bill doesn't even allow the commissioner a public reporting role on himself or herself. Rather, it provides that the Director of Public Prosecutions will cover the general work of the commissioner in his or her annual report. So, I'm appointed to an office, I'm the commissioner of Canada elections, and I can't even report on myself. It's the Director of Public Prosecutions who reports on me.

Within a bureaucracy, where often reports are shared, things are nudged, things are nuanced, and so on. You can see the point I'm making about diminished transparency and accountability.

All in all, setting aside some of the increased penalties and that sort of thing, the commissioner's position has been significantly downgraded in the architecture of election administration and enforcement.

Based on my professional and research experience which dates back some 35 years, I would say that in a number of important respects, Bill C-23 is a step back. It is a regressive measure in the evolution of Canada's election law. If adopted in its present form, it can be expected to diminish accessibility to the vote, particularly for youth, because the education and information function will no longer be there, will no longer be part of the basics of election.

The bill could also weaken the fairness principle that lies at the core of the regulation of political finance and election spending that dates back to 1974 and was significantly enhanced under the Chrétien government, and also under the Harper government.

Finally, it will lessen transparency and accountability with regard to the role of the Commissioner of Canada Elections. The bill is flawed in a number of respects and in my view should not proceed unless amended on the matters that I mentioned and some of the other matters that have been pointed out by a number of the witnesses.

We are in the most unusual situation also, I would add, just in closing, of having a bill that is not only dividing political parties sharper than ever before, but has the incumbent Chief Electoral Officer opposed on a number of very major counts. This is unprecedented in the three decades and more during which I've been studying election law. It in itself is, I think, quite a worrying development.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's get started, committee. We are studying Bill C-23, the fair elections act.

We have three witnesses in this hour.

First we have Jason Mycoff. Do you hear me okay?

Democratic Reform

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Bill C-23, the unfair elections act, says that the party who wins one election will get to choose the central poll supervisor for the next election.

Do Canadians want more partisans running elections? Before the Conservatives unfair elections act came along, the central poll supervisor was non-partisan, appointed by Elections Canada.

Why do honest, hard-working Canadians trying to take care of their families need one more thing stacked against them by the Conservative government?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the fair elections act would keep everyday Canadians in charge of democracy by pushing special interest groups to the sidelines and rule breakers out of business. It would close loopholes to big money. It would protect against the risks of fraudulent voting. It would crack down on rogue callers who impersonate either parties or Elections Canada. It would give the commissioner, the law enforcement watchdog, sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

It is a good bill.

Government Decisions

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about what I have been hearing from the people of Jeanne-Le Ber.

People talk to me about how they are struggling to make ends meet and about the need to make life more affordable. They have pointed out the importance of social housing, and I received several hundred responses about maintaining door-to-door mail delivery.

The government talks about its mandate and having consulted with Canadians, but who are the Canadians that the government is consulting with? Is it Canadians who were asked to consult on bill C-23? I think not. Maybe it is the Canadians who demand rail safety, or maybe it is Canadians who will no longer be receiving home delivery. No, I think not.

From train derailments to the insipid attacks on the Canadian elections process, the citizens of Jeanne-Le Ber know that their representative and the NDP are there to listen and to hold the government to account when they cannot—until 2015.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, between Harry Neufeld's credibility and that of the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, there is no comparison whatsoever.

Harry Neufeld said that Bill C-23 will compromise voter turnout for the sake of the minister's obsession with a problem that exists primarily in his overactive imagination. Mr. Neufeld said repeatedly that there is no link between the vouching system and voter fraud. To quote Mr. Neufeld, “...voters were not the problem”.

Many experts oppose the minister's bill. When will he listen to them?

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning we had the opportunity to hear from Harry Neufeld on Bill C-23. He oversaw elections in Canada and around the world for over 33 years.

The Minister of State for Democratic Reform has distorted Mr. Neufeld's report to justify much of this bill. However, Mr. Neufeld confirmed unequivocally that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform has misinterpreted his report. He gave several examples of how his conclusions have been used maliciously.

How many other reports has the minister misinterpreted?

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

Mr. Speaker, Harry Neufeld's report is misused constantly by the democratic reform minister to justify Bill C-23's flawed measures.

Mr. Neufeld testified today that none of the remedies his report proposed have ever been mentioned by the minister, let alone included in the bill. He also said that his report is being wrongly interpreted and unfairly invoked by the minister. He said, “At no point in the report do I link vouching with fraudulent voting”.

When will the minister stop distorting the Neufeld report?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I am. Thank you, Chair. That saves me from having to say it.

I would also like to use my time to advise you of a notice of motion.

Earlier today, the government attempted a drive-by smear and, in addition, tried to find a political diversion from the train wreck that is these hearings in terms of their shredded bill C-23. This is a referral from the House. Given the fact that it attacks my party and my leader, we feel that it should be dealt with immediately.

Not only are we in compliance with all of the rules, but we're proud of the outreach work that we're doing, and therefore, I move the following motion:

That, pursuant to the motion adopted by the House of Commons on Thursday, March 27, 2014 relating to the Official Opposition, the Committee invite the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, and also invite the Right Honourable Prime Minister to appear before the Committee to address the many partisan activities undertaken by his government, specifically by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and by the Conservative Research Group (CRG), and that furthermore, the current study on C-23 be extended by the same number of days as those scheduled for the study on the referred motion.

With that, I turn the floor over to my colleague, Madam Latendresse.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by thanking Craig Scott for being so generous with his time.

I don't think we ever hear enough from witnesses when they're on panels and forced to speak so quickly, so I want to ask one question, which I will ask each of you to speak to, and I hope you can get as much as you can into your time and still breathe.

All of you represent non-partisan, non-profit organizations, with expertise on the issues currently plaguing Canada in terms of voter turnout and fair elections. I appreciate your evidence today. I want to know from each of you, do you believe Bill C-23, the so-called fair elections act, will help or hurt the health of Canadian democracy?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you for that. I think your comments echo what Mr. Kingsley was saying.

Mr. Kingsley did go a little further. You mentioned you were not here to give any absolutes. He did, in effect. He said his examination of the bill, with the provisions contained regarding what we commonly know now as robocalls, would prevent that orchestrated voter suppression attempt by whoever Pierre Poutine is from occurring in the future.

However, I guess one thing still is up for discussion, and that is how long records should be kept. Bill C-23, the fair elections act, recommends that all records be kept for one year so there is a record of what's happened and what occurred, in terms of script, calls made, calls received, and that type of thing.

Some of the opposition has been criticizing that. We feel that one year is a good balance because right now there's no requirement to keep records for any period of time.

One of the reasons that we are suggesting one year would be adequate is that if there is to be another situation—hopefully, there will not—where something like voter suppression through a robocall system is alerted, in all probability the investigation would commence almost immediately. With the trail that we propose to now regulate, we feel one year would be adequate.

Does your organization have any thoughts on whether keeping records for one year is adequate or too little?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you very much.

And thank you all for being here today.

Before I begin with my questions, I just want to for the record perhaps set something straight. There was commentary that was provided by Mr. Lamoureux's mirror image, Mr. Simms, who was with us during the presentation by Mr. Neufeld, and that is that Mr. Simms brought the example forward of a woman in a care facility in his home province, in his riding actually, who he stated would not have been able to vote without the voter information card, because he said it was the only possible piece of identification that showed where she lived.

I point out that's absolutely false, because contained in the act is the ability for seniors who live in care facilities to merely get an attestation from the head of the facility, saying, “This woman lives here.” That's all they need. So she would have been able to vote, despite the protestations of Mr. Simms. I want to have that on the record.

For my question I think I'll first start with Mr. Fox. I think most Canadians who were paying any attention know, after the last election, the biggest controversy surrounded the robocall situation and Pierre Poutine, the still-unknown Pierre Poutine, who apparently had a fairly widespread and fairly orchestrated attempt of voter suppression. Now, the fair elections act, Bill C-23, deals with that very situation in that it uses the CRTC as the central repository for all voter contact services to register, and in fact without going into all of the details....

I know, Mr. Fox, your organization did fairly extensive studies on voter contact services, but when I asked former chief electoral officer Kingsley, who testified before this committee on Tuesday, if he believed the provisions contained in the fair elections act would prevent that very situation from occurring in the future, he said an unequivocal yes. I would like your opinion, since your organization did so much work on this very issue, about the government's proposal on regulating voter contact services and the role of the CRTC that is contained in Bill C-23.

[Taylor Gunn, President, Civix]

Thanks. That's the fastest 15 minutes that's ever gone by.

My name is Taylor Gunn, and I'm the founding president of Civix. I have spent the last 12 years working with students, teachers, schools, governments, and election agencies to encourage youth democratic participation.

My organization, Civix, primarily provides experiential civic education programming for elementary and secondary school students. Our rationale is that the best way for a young person to learn about their democracy is to experience it rather than to read about it in a textbook.

Our farthest-reaching and longest-running program is called Student Vote. It's a parallel election for students under the voting age. Many of you have participated in it. Basically, it helps schools put democracy on the curriculum throughout the course of an election campaign. Kids go home and they engage their parents in the election. They meet the official election candidates. They run the vote in the school for their peers, and they vote on the official election candidates.

In the last federal election, for the second time, we had over 500,000 students from just under 4,000 schools across the country. The cost of the program, in partnership with Elections Canada, was approximately $750,000. That equates to about $1.32 per student.

We now offer other programs between elections, because we know that being a citizen means more than just casting a ballot at election time.

You might have heard about the student budget consultation that we coordinated with Finance Minister Flaherty and the opposition party leaders, including Ms. May, thank you. It was all about getting kids to understand the federal budget.

We launched something this school year called Rep Day, which many of you have taken part in as well. Through that we're trying to help you get face time with your local high school students to break down their occasionally negative stereotypes of politicians and the political process.

I'm here with you today because I want to work with you on this act. We've enjoyed the privilege of working with Elections Canada over the past four federal elections through section 18.

This draft of the fair elections act would disempower Elections Canada from supporting us working in schools across the country. This is very important to me, because we think that in 2015 it will be possible to be in half of all schools in this country and to increase our numbers significantly. I don't feel that I can do that without the support of Elections Canada.

We have two short recommendations for you, but I first wanted to touch on something that's very important to us.

For us to be welcomed into schools, being in partnership with Elections Canada, along with the authenticity and credibility that creates, is critical. It is an irreplaceable badge of honour. Everyone knows that Elections Canada is our electoral agency and it can't be replaced with support from say, a Fraser Institute, or a Tides Canada foundation, or another group, for example. It's critical that we maintain that relationship.

The two recommendations we have are as follows. The first one may be obvious. We've enjoyed working under section 18. It's allowed us to come to them with new ideas. Obviously it's up to interpretation what they decide to support or get involved in, and maybe you'd like to narrow that. So our first recommendation would be to keep section 18 as it is and reserve the time of the committee to focus on some of the other major issues like vouching, etc.

Our second one—and you can look at the last page of the little booklet we gave you—deals with the new section 18, where the sidebar says “communication with electors”. What we do is teach the when, where, and how of voting. It's not even really in the bill; it's just describing what the new section is. If that could be changed to “communication with Canadians” I think that would allow us to have permission to teach the when, where, and how of voting, with the support of Elections Canada, to non-electors—those under the voting age.

Outside of that—I can't believe I did that in four minutes. I'm so sorry. That must have been too fast—I'd like to say thanks for having the opportunity to have four and a half minutes. I'd just like to point out that in our opinion, the most significant and important actors in our democracy right now are teachers and our schools. Schools play such an important and integral role in civic education. They don't need a whole curriculum around social studies or around how to be a citizen. They just need great teachers who care about this. They can bring these opportunities into the curriculum. I hope that you'll help us continue to do that.

[Graham Fox, President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute for Research on Public Policy]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also thank the members of the committee for giving me this opportunity to comment on Bill C-23.

The Institute for Research on Public Policy is a national independent, non-partisan think tank headquartered in Montreal. Our mission is to conduct research on issues of importance to Canadians and their governments, and bring academics and senior decision-makers together for discussion and debate based on that research.

As some of you will know, the IRPP has had a long-standing research interest in strengthening Canadian democracy and its institutions. Our most recent initiative, directly related to today's hearing, consisted of a consultation process with Canadian and international experts that led to our March 2013 report entitled Issues Arising from Improper Communications with Electors.

The report was distributed to committee members, so I'll dispense with a description of the process and focus my remarks on the recommendations coming out of our work as they relate to Bill C-23.

First, let me note that there are portions of Bill C-23 that are supported by our work and echo our own recommendations regarding improper communications with electors. The provisions related to increasing penalties for existing offences, and creating new offences, received strong support from our experts. The report also calls for requiring parties to document their use of voter contact services and preserve those records. Creating a voter contact registry, as is proposed, would be a positive step forward in regulating communications with voters.

However, other provisions proposed in Bill C-23 stand in sharp contrast to the conclusions drawn by our experts. For instance, our group felt strongly that the public education role of Elections Canada needed to be enhanced and considered a crucial element of its mandate. To see it curtailed in the way that is proposed seems to be a step in the wrong direction. Enumeration used to play a vital role in informing citizens about elections, but with enumeration gone, the public awareness campaign takes on renewed importance and should be preserved.

Some have raised some good and important questions about the success of past efforts in increasing voter turnouts. I think that's an important point and should be studied further, but if the ad campaign is ineffective, I'd suggest that means get a new ad agency, not stop advertising.

I raise a similar concern regarding the elimination of vouching. To be clear, our experts did not examine the issue directly. It was beyond the scope of our initiative. That said, we did stress that a primary goal of the system should be to make voting as easy as possible for as many citizens as possible.

Be vigilant about fraud, absolutely, but when in doubt, err on the side of the voter. The elimination of vouching seems to run counter to that principle and may further marginalize groups who are already marginalized by the elimination of enumeration and its replacement by the permanent voters list. I would add quickly that I think the discussion you were having in your last session about alternatives to vouching was an important step forward. My point is simply that we don't know enough about the consequences of eliminating it outright to simply proceed without due consideration.

With regard to what's not in the bill, our group also noted that even with legitimate communications with electors there are significant policy gaps that need to be addressed regarding personal information held by party databases. As parties become more sophisticated at collecting information about voters, we need a privacy protection regime to regulate how that information is stored, used, and protected. Voters would be surprised to learn how much parties know about them, and probably shocked to know that the information is not protected. If there is still scope to add to the bill, I would urge the committee to consider seriously a regulatory regime to frame how parties manage and protect our personal information.

Finally, our experts felt strongly that when making any changes to the Elections Act, Parliament should do its utmost to seek as broad a consensus as possible before it proceeds. Given how fundamental the act is to the conduct of our politics, we should avoid making changes on division, and aim for all-party support to the extent that is possible.

In light of what I think is a strong consensus on some issues covered in Bill C-23 and the great divisions that remain on others, I would suggest that the committee consider splitting the bill in two. Move quickly to enact the provisions that address improper communications with electors and perhaps other sections of the bill, and hold back on the public education role of Elections Canada, vouching, and perhaps other issues that would benefit from further debate and reflection.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[Nathalie Des Rosiers, Member of the Board, Dean, Faculty of Law, Civil Law, University of Ottawa, Fair Vote Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be speaking French and English.

My name is Nathalie Des Rosiers and I am here as a member of the Board of Fair Vote Canada, Représentation équitable au Canada. I am also currently with the Law Faculty, Common Law Section, and not the Civil Law Section, at the University of Ottawa.

Fair Vote Canada is a civil society group that aims to improve Canadian democracy, particularly through improvements to the Canadian electoral system.

Fair Vote is a grassroots organization and multi-partisan platform for electoral reform, and has been so since its beginning. My involvement with Fair Vote Canada came from a report that the Law Commission of Canada did, Un vote qui compte, which recommended some addition of an element of proportionality to avoid some of the problems of our current first-past-the-post system.

These proposals to reform our electoral system are on the table and must seriously be considered. I will be presenting certain concerns that Fair Vote Canada has with regards to the bill, as well as what it would like to see in a bill that would aim to improve Canadian democracy.

In the course of its work on improving democracy, Fair Vote Canada examined two aspects that are raised by the bill. First of all, the powers and autonomy of Elections Canada, as well as the system to control election expenses.

We have a more general concern with the integrity of the electoral system. The second part I'm going to talk about is as we said,

the effects of restrictions on voting, that is to say shrinking the pool of electors. That concerns us also.

Fair Vote Canada has always been concerned that the first-past-the-post system, the winner-takes-all aspect, undermines voter confidence and voter participation. It does undermine the motivation because your vote doesn't count the same. In a sense, I think we are concerned that some of the depositions in this bill may further erode voter confidence.

Certainly I think we support the recommendations for the increased power of Elections Canada to engage voters and do public education. We should encourage Elections Canada to have the power to communicate with the public widely. In that context I think the restrictions that Bill C-23 put on the power of Elections Canada to engage in public discussions and do research seem unwarranted at this time.

I think it is very important as well that we ensure the integrity of the system in a way in which appearances may make the difference here. Elections officers should be appointed by Elections Canada so they can be trained early and the appearance of neutrality be maintained. Central poll supervisors particularly are very important to maintain appearances here.

In our view the fundraising exceptions could lead to some difficulty in enforcement and to further scandals that undermine voter confidence at this point. I think it's well known that given that trends in voter participation are quite low, it seems to us to be the wrong time to do this.

Let's talk about the effects of restricting voting, that is to say shrinking the pool of electors. The purpose of any electoral reform should be to facilitate and encourage the exercise of one's right to vote. This is the very essence of our democracy, not only for the legitimacy of decisions taken by our Parliament, but also for the sense of civic belonging.

People who are encouraged to vote feel they belong. I am just going to end on this.

A lot of studies have established that political disengagement often leads to economic and social disengagement. It is very important that we not place obstacles or limit the exercise of people's right to vote in any way whatsoever.

In conclusion, in addition to the bill I think we should continue to pay attention to the possibility and encouragement of electoral reform. The mandate should continue to include doing research on why people vote or not, and what could improve voter participation in Canada.

Merci beaucoup.

[Alison Loat, Executive Director and Co-Founder, Samara]

Certainly. Thank you.

My name is Alison Loat. As the chair said, I am the co-founder and executive director of Samara, which is an independent non-partisan charity that works to improve political participation through research and education.

Today I'd like to suggest changes to Bill C-23 that our research suggests would help realize the ambition Monsieur Poilievre set out in the bill's introduction, to “ensure everyday citizens are in charge of democracy”.

Our concern at Samara is with the declining participation of Canadians, both at elections and in between elections. In 2011, as this committee I'm sure well knows, only 38.8% of young people voted. Should these trends continue, this will further drive down turnout in Canada, already one of the lowest among western democracies. It's fair to assume that if only 38.8% graduated from high school, we might consider this a national emergency. We should be similarly concerned with our dismal turnout.

Apart from voting, Samara's research indicates that Canadians' political activity between elections, which includes such things as joining or donating to political parties or campaigns, is at or below 10%, and much lower for youth. This low participation is the largest problem facing Canadian democracy. Addressing it should be a paramount concern of every parliamentarian and a stronger focus of the bill.

Samara's focus group research confirms that people don't vote for two main reasons: access and motivation. Access includes things like not knowing where to vote or not having a registration card. Motivation includes things like believing that one's vote doesn't make a difference or that politics doesn't matter.

First, and in general terms, we recommend several changes to increase access. These are detailed in our submission, and include support for provisions to oversee telephone calls to voters and suggestions for improving efficiencies at polling stations.

Second, we have three specific suggestions to address the deeper problem of motivation and that seek to further citizens' participation through both multi-partisan and non-partisan means.

First, enhance the role of the Chief Electoral Officer to provide and support non-partisan public education on Canadian democracy. Elections Canada should be encouraged to do a much better job here. Given the severity of the turnout problem in Canada, a well-funded independent organization focused on engagement should be strengthened rather than eliminated, particularly given its support of programs—like Student Vote—that have proven results.

Second, we recommend that working with and through non-partisan civil society organizations, Elections Canada administer an innovative funding and research program based on current understanding of what is actually effective in increasing participation, and then measure and report on those results. This would be a valuable resource for political parties, teachers, academics, community groups, and others who seek to address Canada's declining political participation.

Third, in order to ensure that political parties fulfill the spirit of Mr. Poilievre's appeal in the House that parties “reach Canadians where they are in their communities”, we propose that parties allocate a portion of the increased funds, proposed in this bill, toward voter education and engagement in between elections. Mr. Poilievre is correct in highlighting that parties and candidates play a critical role in encouraging participation, and no doubt that is part of why they are so generously supported with tax dollars.

However, declining voter turnout, together with Samara's research, suggests there is room for parties to improve. In a recent survey, we asked Canadians to clarify what they expect from political parties and grade their performance. Over half of Canadians agreed that parties' most important job is “reaching out so Canadians’ views can be represented”, but they gave parties a failing mark of 43% in that role.

Dedicated expenditures could be used to facilitate visits of candidates and party members to classrooms, or provide funding to organizations performing engagement work. That's to cite just two examples. This investment in citizen engagement could help improve Canadians’ perceptions of parties and bolster their involvement in them.

These three recommendations, coupled with further enhancements to voter access, will substantially improve Bill C-23 and Canada’s ability to tackle the most pressing problem facing our democracy—Canadians’ increasing disengagement from our very own political process.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to answering any questions.

[Harry Neufeld]

Well, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, this is a fundamental right. The franchise is an absolutely fundamental right that's guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in treaties that Canada is a signatory to, and in the charter.

There's this balance between the integrity of the process and the accessibility of the ballot. There's a tension there, but what I find is that there's no improvement as a result of Bill C-23's elimination of vouching and the elimination of the voter information card as a form of address ID. There's nothing in it that improves integrity, but what it does is that it very seriously and negatively affects accessibility and, I would say, disenfranchises voters.

[Harry Neufeld, Electoral Management Consultant, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to you and this committee for inviting me here.

I will make some short introductory remarks, after which I will be pleased to answer the questions you have with regard to Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act.

Last week, I worked at an orientation conference for senior election officials in one of our provinces. It was attended by a great many newly appointed returning officers and election clerks who had never managed elections before.

I found the trainers were particularly effective in offering a window on democratic first principles that are supported in law around the globe. The universal and equal suffrage guarantees that Canada has supported, both in article 21 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 25 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, were rightly described as foundational to the conduct of free and fair elections.

Consistent with these principles, the trainers described their provincial election act as a legal vehicle providing all resident citizens over the age of 18 with opportunities to exercise their constitutional rights, guaranteed by section 3 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, where it says:

Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

The inclusive and unqualified scope of this charter clause, which I have read and heard quoted hundreds of times since it became law in 1982, caused me to reflect on how electoral franchise laws in Canada have evolved and how Bill C-23 departs markedly from that evolution.

There is a healthy but constant tension in every voting system between the two equally important goals of providing broad accessibility, based on the fundamental franchise rights I just mentioned, and ensuring procedural integrity that maintains citizens’ confidence in the process itself. Canada is no different in this regard.

By accessibility, I mean the ease and flexibility by which all eligible voters can obtain a ballot at election time. The considerable extensions to advance voting provisions are one clear example of this.

By integrity, I mean employing administrative mechanisms to ensure that only eligible electors vote, that they only vote once, that their vote is kept secret, that each ballot choice is counted accurately, and that, except for maintaining the first principle of ballot secrecy, the entire process is conducted in a fully transparent manner. The introduction of voter ID laws in 2007 are an example in this context.

In its current form, Bill C-23 creates a fundamental imbalance between accessibility and integrity. It introduces a requirement that every elector must provide acceptable documentation to prove both their identity and address of residence prior to being issued a ballot. The bill would eliminate the current ability of a registered voter, who has the prescribed identity documents, to vouch for one other elector who does not possess sufficient documentation to prove both their identity and address. Further, it bars the voter information card, which Elections Canada mails to each registered voter to advise them where and when to vote, from being used as documentary proof of residential address.

The Minister of State for Democratic Reform has stated that vouching must be eliminated to crack down on voter fraud. He has also stated that voter information cards must be eliminated as identification for confirming a voter’s address because these cards are a replacement for acceptable ID.

The minister has used the “2013 Compliance Review Report”, which I authored, that drew attention to administrative errors made by election officers during the 2011 general election, as the basis for justifying the elimination of vouching. He characterizes vouching irregularities in the context of undetected voter fraud.

I was engaged to audit aspects of the 2011 general election as a third-party election expert, and it is important to me that my report is properly understood. Having listened carefully to what the minister has said, it is my opinion that he has not interpreted my report correctly.

Yes, my report articulates that there were serious problems with vouching during the election, as well as even greater numbers of irregularities in administering voter registration in conjunction with voting. But voters were not the problem. The problem was with the system. My observation was that election officers, ordinary citizens willing to work a very long day without breaks for minimum wage or less, had trouble completing a series of exceedingly complex procedures on their first and only day on the job.

My assessment focused on the fact that election officers are responsible for administering 17 different exception procedures, of which vouching is just one, and that they often completed these procedures imperfectly.

My report concludes that this is a systemic problem related to our antiquated voting model. At no point in the report do I link vouching with fraudulent voting. I've heard the minister articulate that the absence of evidence of voter fraud doesn't mean it hasn't been happening. I heard him further suggest that Elections Canada simply isn't aware of the level of voter fraud with vouching because the agency hasn't investigated the many instances where legally required vouching procedures were not followed. However, over the course of my study I heard of no candidate scrutineers, voters, or media representatives ever raising an issue with respect to vouching fraud. I am not aware of any formal complaints in this regard.

Around the globe, I know of no election administrators who would launch an investigation into voter fraud without solid evidence or any credible allegations or complaints. During the Etobicoke Centre court case, both the Ontario Superior Court and the Supreme Court of Canada were very clear that there was no evidence that persons who were ineligible to vote were allowed to vote due to procedural errors made by election officers. My compliance review report clearly states this in several places. So do the written court judgments themselves.

In addition, the Supreme Court judgment established a new precedent for deciding whether or not to accept votes when procedural irregularities are alleged. This involves a two-step test. First, the occurrence of election process irregularities must be proven. Second, evidence must be presented that satisfies the court that those procedural irregularities actually resulted in ineligible persons being permitted to vote.

Bill C-23 would eliminate vouching on the basis that the minister thinks my report proves the process is so fraught with irregularities that it could lead to courts overturning election results. Irregularities identified have been equated with voter fraud by the minister, as he implies that both legal tests have been met and that elections will be overturned if vouching continues. In the name of improved procedural integrity, the bill would see fit to disenfranchise more than 100,000 eligible voters. Most of these eligible voters have no difficulty in providing ID that proves who they are, but they are challenged to produce documentation that proves their current residential address. Expanded use of the voter information card could remedy this, but Bill C-23, as currently drafted, would disallow any such use.

Here's the thing. A large number of irregularities did occur, but there's no evidence whatsoever that any voters fraudulently misrepresented themselves in the vouching process. There is only evidence that the current voting process model needs an urgent administrative redesign and significant modernization. Our current model has served us well since Confederation, but it must be re-engineered to function in a way that measures up appropriately to 21st century expectations of what universal and equal suffrage should mean. It needs to be redesigned in a way that permits temporary election officers to easily perform their role in a fully compliant manner.

For the past 33 years, I have worked on planning, organizing, and conducting elections in Canada and around the world. I've performed this work in places as diverse as South Africa, Guyana, Libya, and Russia. My interest has always been to ensure that the fundamental rights people have to participate in free and fair electoral processes are upheld. My principal goal today has been to offer clarification with respect to what I wrote in my report on compliance during the 2011 general election. In that light, I believe it is clear that parts of Bill C-23 require careful reconsideration.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I turn things back to you.

Statements by the Member for Edmonton Centre

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise this morning because I am concerned about the statements made by the member for Edmonton Centre on March 24, earlier this week.

That day we were debating Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which is the government's term, when the member for Edmonton Centre, I believe, deliberately intended to mislead the House. I do not say that lightly, because that is a form of contempt of the House.

I would like to refer to a ruling you recently made, Mr. Speaker, dealing with another statement, made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

I will first go to what the member for Mississauga—Streetsville stated and then to your comments, Mr. Speaker, as to why it is important that we be very careful in what we say.

I am going to refer to your ruling from just the other day, if I may, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that on February 6, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville stated:

I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.

Mr. Speaker, you articulated a ruling that many of us in the chamber actually supported, because we believe that you were right in your assessment. This is, in essence, what you stated, Mr. Speaker:

This incident highlights the...importance of accuracy and truthfulness in our deliberations. All members bear a responsibility, individually and collectively, to select the words they use very carefully and to be ever mindful of the serious consequences that can result when this responsibility is forgotten. In calling on the Chair to arrive at the finding of prime facie in this case, the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition cited my ruling of May 7, 2012, where at page 7650 of the Debates, I reminded the House that, before finding that a member had deliberately misled the House, three conditions had to be met:

Then you stated those three conditions, Mr. Speaker:

...one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House.

I really want to emphasize what we were debating at the time. It was, once again, much like your ruling, on Bill C-23. It is an extremely important piece of legislation, and as you know, Mr. Speaker, it is exceptionally controversial. We have had emotional debates on both sides of the House. However, it is expected that when members participate in a debate, they are not going to try, in any way, to intentionally or deliberately mislead. This is what I believe has happened here.

Let me quote what the member for Edmonton Centre actually stated. Please keep in mind that the debate on that day was all about vouching. The government's position on vouching is that we should not allow vouching. That is what the Conservatives were trying to espouse throughout that day.

Here is what the member stated, and this can be found on page 3778, March 24:

In the 2006 election, I was called personally and offered hundreds of voter cards that had been left in apartment buildings and so on. Like an idiot, I said, “No, we don't do that sort of thing”. I should have said, “Yes, come on down”, and had the police waiting.

It is obvious that the member for Edmonton Centre instantly recognized that something was wrong with that phone call. In hindsight, he felt that it was illegal, because he believed that the police should have been contacted on the matter. To the best of my knowledge, I do not believe that the police were contacted. I hope that the member will address that issue.

More importantly, since this statement, we have found out that the voter cards we are debating today were not being used back in 2006. This comes from Elections Canada. The reason the member was focused on the voter cards was that he was trying to discredit the idea of Canadians being able to be vouched for. That is of critical importance.

On page 65 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, “parliamentary privilege” is defined as:

...the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively [...] and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions...

I was here on Monday when I heard the member make the statement. There is no doubt in my mind that in making that statement, his intent was to try to give the House the impression that illegal activities were taking place and that vouching was wrong.

If we review some of the statements put forward by the member at the time, they were contradicted by media reports by, for example, the CBC, The Hill Times, and others. They seem to contradict what the member for Edmonton Centre was trying to lead members of the House to believe on March 25. I would suggest that such a review would be appropriate.

I look forward to the member for Edmonton Centre's contribution on this issue. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you find that there are grounds that this is a prima facie contempt of Parliament, at which point I would be prepared to move a motion to have the matter referred to the appropriate committee for further study.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, some time ago, the Chief Electoral Officer formed an advisory board of notable Canadians like Michael Wilson, Preston Manning, and Sheila Fraser.

Given the government's attacks on the CEO, will the Minister of State for Democratic Reform assure Canadians that the Treasury Board would never deny requests under Bill C-23's proposed subsection 20(1) to cover costs associated with engaging these advisors on a temporary basis?

Will the government agree to amend this deeply flawed bill to make that change?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the government's Bill C-23 will do is increase the annual political contribution limit by 25%, bringing it to $1,500 per person. The other major impact of Bill C-23 will be to exempt from campaign expenses the amounts spent to solicit donations from people who have made contributions in the past.

Can the minister explain where he got those ideas? Can he quote even one independent expert who believes that these measures will strengthen our democracy and reduce the influence of money in politics?

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' fair elections act is anything but fair. Bill C-23 would turn voters away from the polls. Too few voters is our problem, not too many.

Bill C-23 would do nothing to fix our undemocratic system. It would grant 100% of the power to a party with less than 40% of the vote.

Will the minister fix the real electoral problem and make our electoral system more proportional?

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

Mr. Speaker, as Jean-Pierre Kingsley testified today, the unfair elections act only requires data about potential voter fraud to be retained for one year, one short year. This is made worse by the fact that without the power to compel testimony, witnesses can refuse to co-operate, just as we know that so many Conservatives have done during the 2011 robocall investigation.

Will the government now commit to change this part of Bill C-23?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the former chief electoral officer has previously made very positive comments about the fair elections act. Today, he repeated a number of those comments.

In terms of Elections Canada's advertising, two things motivate voters: first, information and, second, inspiration. The information about where, when and how to vote should come from Elections Canada. However, the inspiration should come from the candidates and political parties. That is how we will proceed with the fair elections act.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform is trying to prevent Elections Canada from informing and educating young people and the general public. However, this morning, former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley pointed out that the changes in the Conservatives' electoral “deform” to part 18 of the Elections Act should be completely removed from Bill C-23. His remarks echo those made by the current Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand.

Does the minister promise to take the advice of experts and delete the proposed changes to part 18 from Bill C-23?

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

Switching gears for a moment, you said earlier, Mr. Brock, that being an agent of Parliament, you report to the legislature, which to you is the most important piece of what you call your independence in doing what it is you do and being separate from the executive.

Do you feel that Bill C-23 is a step in the wrong direction in doing what it does? It's not so much about independence, but without the right tools, it's more like isolation. Would I be correct in saying that?

[Keith Archer, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections BC]

I thank the chair and members of this committee for inviting me here this afternoon.

I'm Keith Archer, the Chief Electoral Officer of British Columbia, an appointment I have held since September 2011. Prior to this appointment, I was a professor of political science at the University of Calgary for 27 years.

Bill C-23 contains more provisions than I can address in the short time available to me. Consequently, my comments focus on two themes that go to the heart of some of the key provisions of the bill and which were discussed by the minister responsible in a newspaper article yesterday. They are first, voter identification and accessibility of the ballot, and second, citizen engagement in the electoral process.

Let me start with voter identification and accessibility of the ballot. Because Canada does not maintain a national citizen registry or issue universal national identity cards to all citizens, the federal jurisdiction and many provinces have adopted some variant of the same framework to provide proof of identity and current residential address for voting. That is a type one document, which is a government issued identity document with photograph, name, and residential address; or two type two documents, one of which has the person's name and one of which has the name and residential address; or a type three process as a fail-safe mechanism, which is the use of vouching.

Bill C-23 makes it more difficult to satisfy voter identification requirements by removing the voter information card from the list of approved type two documents and by eliminating vouching, the fail-safe method. I would encourage a rethinking of both these changes.

Only about 85% of Canadians possess a type one identity document, such as a driver's licence. For those 18 or 19 years of age, it's about 60% and falling. For those over 65, it's about 70%.

Type two documents are necessary to ensure that the millions of other eligible voters who don't have a current driver's licence can still exercise their section 3 charter right to vote. The list of type two documents that are approved is quite extensive. The independent non-partisan election administration agency approves type two documents usually following extensive discussions with various service providers to ensure that classes of voters are not administratively excluded from voting. We recognize that these documents considered individually are imperfect. Requiring that voters produce two such documents increases one's confidence that they establish that the voter is who he purports to be. This is added to other checks in the system such as having voting taking place in a public space, providing candidates the opportunity to scrutinize the voting process and to challenge voters on their right to be registered and to vote, hiring election officials from their local communities, and levying substantial penalties for voter impersonation.

The type two identification requirements strike a balance between proof of identity with certainty while ensuring an accessible ballot. The only document on the type two list controlled by the election agency is the voter information card, or in the case of British Columbia, the where to vote card. As we focus our efforts on continually improving the quality of the voters list, we continue to improve the quality of the VIC or the where to vote card.

The other identification issue in Bill C-23 is the removal of the vouching procedure.

In the 2013 general election in British Columbia, vouching was used by about 14,000 voters. It was just under 1% of all votes cast that were by voters who were vouched for.

Our analysis reveals that vouching is more common in rural districts and in mixed urban-rural districts. There is no doubt that vouching adds complexity to the voting process in B.C., and since the election official overseeing this process only receives three hours of training on all aspects of voting administration, we recognize there may be minor administrative errors in completing this process.

However, let's not confuse minor administrative errors, such as a voter not signing a vouching form in the right place, with election fraud. An analysis of administrative errors in vouching in B.C.'s 2013 election showed that fewer than 1,000 such minor errors occurred among the 1.8 million votes cast, and there was no indication of election fraud in any of these cases. Simplifying vouching procedures can dramatically reduce error rates.

The bottom line to vouching is this. Vouching allows tens of thousands of voters in B.C. and hundreds of thousands of voters in federal elections to exercise the franchise for which their citizenship entitles them. There is no evidence which I am aware of that links vouching provisions in Canadian elections with voter fraud, and there are many safeguards in place to ensure this is the case.

Let me talk briefly about citizen engagement. The last point I wish to make concerns citizen engagement in Canada's electoral process. In British Columbia, Elections BC is the province's window into the world of election administration. We are the people who are engaged to think about these issues every day of the year, to understand current research, trends, and best practices in other jurisdictions, and to ensure that expertise benefits our citizens and provides the best advice possible for policy-makers.

We have a particular role to play in removing barriers to participation so that all eligible electors can exercise their franchise. At times this could mean focusing extra efforts on citizens who face more substantial barriers than their neighbours. The right to vote is not diminished because a citizen is young, or a new Canadian, or because they have recently moved and their identity documents have not been updated.

It also means that we have a role to play in fostering public discussion about electoral matters. I was very pleased recently to head a panel in British Columbia that issued a report to the legislative assembly regarding the issue of Internet voting. We've benefited considerably from the previous work of our colleagues at Elections Ontario and Elections Canada. We also recently collaborated with the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, at UBC, on a conference on the 2013 B.C. election.

All of that is to say there are a number of groups that have an interest in fostering the democratic process: political parties and candidates, civil society organizations, scholars, activists, and not least of all, election administration agencies. Indeed, our election administration agencies in Canada are the only group specifically designed to take an independent non-partisan approach to citizen engagement.

I would encourage the committee to reconsider limiting the role of Canada's independent election agency from this important work. Elections Canada's current and past work stands as an international exemplar of election administration best practice.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to turn the floor back to you.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I respect the plea, and I hope we won't get rid of it. Hopefully that will be an amendment.

On it you also indicate, and I am quoting you directly, “Let me be clear: absent the rescinding of the proposed section 18 in Bill C-23, Canadians will lose their trust and their confidence in our elections.” You are stating that this is not acceptable. What is it that you're referring to? This is the Chief Electoral Officer's ability to communicate with the public without limitations. Obviously you're really concerned about this.

You conclude by saying that with these changes to Bill C-23, there is potential....

Are you saying that if the government does not make the types of changes we've just made reference to, this is a bill that really should not be passed by the House of Commons?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Kingsley, welcome to the committee.

I have a number of questions that I would like to get on the record.

Let's go back to the ability to compel. You state, “Bill C-23 would certainly provide longer reach and sharper teeth”—an interesting choice of wording, I thought—“should the authority to compel testimony be granted to the Commissioner of Canada Elections...”.

Without the authority to compel a witness, we would argue that the legislation, when a violation has occurred, in fact, is going to get weaker, because those individuals.... Now it's becoming even that much better known that if you don't want to say anything to Elections Canada, you don't have to say anything to Elections Canada. Many independent election authorities today across Canada already have that authority, so in the past we were saying that in fact this should have been brought in, in the form of a change, to allow Elections Canada to compel a witness.

Could we have a clear statement from you: do you not concur that having the ability to compel a witness would in fact directly help in getting prosecutions for things such as the robocalls?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the clerk as well as the translators for the translation of the text you are about to receive.

Good morning, also, to all of the members of the committee.

I would also like to thank two people who shall remain nameless, who are good friends and colleagues who have worked days on end to help me prepare for this appearance.

Honourable members of the committee, it is always a privilege to appear before you. I am here today to speak to Bill C-23.

I followed the appearance of Mr. Mayrand on CPAC and I agree with his testimony. Canada's electoral democracy and our electoral agency, Elections Canada, stand second to none throughout the world because our elections enjoy the confidence of Canadians. They are built upon five values: participation, fairness, impartiality, transparency and accountability. I have evaluated the bill from their perspective.

A number of the proposed changes in the bill will sustain the values underlying the act.

The provisions respecting voter contact calling services will help avoid the repetition of the infamous robocalls during the 2011 election, or help trace them by providing an information trail for investigators.

On that, the committee should consider extending the requirements respecting the retention of records so that they mirror the time limitation for prosecutions. Moreover the records should include the phone numbers of persons contacted in order to maximize their usefulness to investigators. This latter information would not become public and would be accessible only for investigative and prosecution purposes.

The significant increase in potential fines for conviction of breaches of the act up to $100,000 for some offences, along with the potential for jail time, will help enhance deterrence significantly.

The graduated and significant reduction of the reimbursement of campaign expenditures will apply automatically in all cases where the spending limits are breached.

The provision of a fourth day for advance polls will benefit electors who increasingly vote in advance of polling day — a number in excess of two millions Canadians in the 2011 election.

The reformed legislated schemes for loans and unpaid claims will help ensure that rules concerning contributions are respected.

The Advisory Committee of Political Parties will be established in law. This committee has operated since 1977 and has proven an invaluable mechanism for exchanges between Elections Canada and all the registered parties, including the smaller ones, that often have a very different take on issues.

And lastly, the new statutory provisions respecting interpretations and advance rulings by Elections Canada will benefit participants and the public, albeit the time requirements imposed on Elections Canada will have to be adjusted to be workable.

There are also a number of major changes that are relatively neutral in their effect.

One is the decision to move the Commissioner of Canada Elections from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer to that of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

This move constitutes an extension of the decision Parliament made in 2006 with the Accountability Act to transfer the authority for the prosecution of offences under the Canada Elections Act from the Commissioner of Canada Elections to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Parliament fixed a problem that did not exist. It bears repeating, Mr. Chairman, that as a result of that decision it has been the Director of Public Prosecutions, not the Commissioner of Canada Elections, and not the Chief Electoral Officer, who has decided when to prosecute under the act since that time. The commissioner serves only an investigative and advisory role in that process. It has always been the courts that have determined guilt, not the Chief Electoral Officer, not the commissioner, and not the Director of Public Prosecutions. In the performance of his investigative functions, the commissioner has always operated independently of the Chief Electoral Officer and will continue to act independently of the Director of Public Prosecutions with the protections afforded those operations in this bill and in the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. What is lost is the simplicity of the previous enforcement regime, its cost-effectiveness, and the timeliness of prosecutions.

The increase in spending and contribution limits is another one.

Under the bill, spending limits will increase by 5% and contribution limits will increase by 25%. As well, individuals will be able to donate more of their own money to their candidate and nomination campaigns. This should increase their ability to meet their start-up obligations, reducing their reliance on loans without seriously impacting the overall role of money in the process.

There are aspects of the bill that will benefit from further consideration. Several changes are essential.

The proposed exemption from a registered party's election expenses of those related to party funding communications with persons who have donated more than $20 over the preceding five years to emanations of the party is not justified. It is simply not possible to seek funds without including reasons for giving, and this can only constitute advertising for or against a party or a candidate. Moreover, it favours richer and established parties to the detriment of small and especially newer parties.

Nor will it save taxpayers any money. The established parties will continue to spend very close to the newly increased spending limits and will be reimbursed accordingly. The only way to reduce the amount of the reimbursement is to reduce the election expense limits.

Respecting registered party returns, your committee should consider vesting in law the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer to access and inspect relevant documents supporting the information on party returns when relevant. This recommendation has been before your committee previously as part of the report on the 38th general election, and it was included in Parliament's unanimous resolution of March 2012 in the wake of the robocalls scandal.

Bill C-23 would certainly provide longer reach and sharper teeth should the authority to compel testimony be granted to the Commissioner of Canada Elections when he investigates breaches of the Canada Elections Act, as agreed as well in the 2012 unanimous resolution.

The need for this authority, which is possessed by most of the electoral authorities in Canada and by many other federal agencies, is demonstrated by the apparent lack of progress in the robocalls investigation. Persons in positions likely to be able to provide important information now know they can refuse to talk to investigators. Their lawyers know. I would note in passing that this authority could only be exercised once approval is granted by a court upon application by the commissioner.

I would now like to address two vital matters that must be changed to maintain fundamental values of our electoral democracy. As they stand, these provisions will impact very negatively on the values of participation, impartiality, and transparency.

First there is Bill C-23's proposed abolition of the legal provision whereby one elector can prove his or her identity through vouching by another elector. This will directly affect the constitutional right to vote of a significant number of Canadians without justification. Strict measures surround the vouching process under the act allowing those electors who present themselves at their designated poll without the requisite documentary proof of ID and/or proof of address to establish them through another elector from the same poll who has already provided the required documentary proof to the satisfaction of the electoral officials.

The voucher takes an oath that the voucher knows the person to be vouched for and his or her address. The person being vouched for similarly takes an oath. One can only vouch for another once and a vouchee cannot vouch for someone else. In practice, in many cases vouching is employed in circumstances where there is no risk. In the majority of the cases, vouchers are related to the person for whom they are vouching and the person being vouched for may already be on the list of electors.

Moreover, Mr. Chairman, vouching is often used where proof of ID is provided and proof of address is lacking. For example, vouching occurs on reserves, which are defined territorially, and where the person being vouched for already possesses a status Indian card, acceptable proof under the Canada Elections Act. Each reserve usually constitutes one or more polls, and consequently the possession of such a card should constitute sufficient proof of address. It does not; hence the need for the vouching process.

Similarly, in the cases of students, poll officials obtain certifications by university housing authorities concerning those who reside in their residences. Again, this does not constitute sufficient proof of address. A large number of vouching cases take place in institutional residences where Elections Canada send revising agents as part of the targeted revision process during the election and determine who the residents are. Virtually all these facilities are designated mobile polls, when they don’t already constitute a regular poll, thus amounting to a totally controlled environment where the required proofs are already in the hands of election officials.

Mr. Chairman, the errors identified with the vouching process earlier in this committee have been administrative in nature, owing to failings of poll officials rather than being indicative of fraudulent voting. The resolution of this administrative problem lies in the simplification of processes, the rigorous application of the requirements by electoral officials, and the reinforcement of their obligations during their training.

I note the bill currently proposes to add greater certainty in circumstances where it appears at a poll that an elector's name has been crossed off the list in error, or it is purported that someone else has voted under that person's name. In such circumstances, the Canada Elections Act requires that the elector take an oath before being permitted to vote. The bill proposes to amend these requirements so that the elector will now be required to take the required oath in writing.

Amending the vouching provisions to require that the requisite oath also be given in writing will address the concerns which have been raised respecting vouching. There is a fundamental inequity when a federal statute requires documentary proof of identity and address before one can exercise a constitutional right, and no federal agency provides such proof in one readily available form.

Also, I wish to address Bill C-23's amendment to section 18 dealing with the Chief Electoral Officer's ability to communicate with the public, limiting it to four basic voting elements: who, when, where, and how, touching candidates as well.

The Chief Electoral Officer must retain the authority to reach out to all Canadians, to speak to them about our electoral democracy, the importance of our constitutional right to vote, and the methods and the values at the core of our electoral system. He speaks without regard to partisanship. Candidates and parties do so typically in a partisan manner with the legitimate purpose of obtaining their vote, which is not a problem.

The Chief Electoral Officer must be able to sustain important endeavours by academia such as the Canada election study, and by NGOs such as Student Vote and Apathy Is Boring. In total disclosure, I chair the latter's advisory council. We have a major problem of participation in our elections. Less than 40% of young people between 18 and 24 actually vote in this country right now.

The Chief Electoral Officer must retain the authority to provide the information requested by the media, and to share any information he deems pertinent with Canadians at any time. His overarching concern is the integrity of our electoral system. Any concern by a political party can be raised at the proposed advisory committee of political parties for consultation. It can also be raised at this very committee at any time.

Let me be clear. Absent the rescinding of the proposed section 18 in Bill C-23, Canadians will lose their trust and their confidence in our elections. That is not acceptable.

With these changes as proposed, Bill C-23 has the potential to maintain our electoral process and Elections Canada second to none in the world.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Changes to the Elections Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise here this evening and support the motion the member for Toronto—Danforth has put forward, and I would like to thank him for his work on this file. He has done a tremendous job not just on this issue but on all the issues he is handling regarding democracy in this country.

I would just remind you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Democratic reform and protecting democracy in Canada are issues that are very close to my heart. I have studied and worked on this topic for 20 years, both as a student and as a professor. There are many concerns we have with the so-called fair elections act that has been put forward by the government, and this motion directly calls for its rejection. It is really worth reading the motion in detail, because it sums up our problems. It says:

That, in the opinion of the House, proposed changes to the Elections Act that would prohibit vouching, voter education programming by Elections Canada, and the use of voter cards as identification could disenfranchise many Canadians, particularly first-time voters like youth and new Canadians, Aboriginal Canadians and seniors living in residence, and should be abandoned.

This really sums up what will be the crux of my speech and the concerns many Canadians have, regular Canadians but also those who have, as I have, spent their lives studying this issue. In fact, I hope to show in this short speech that the Conservative proposals are not in the best interests of Canadians and that our motion should be passed.

Canada has long been seen as one of the most democratic countries in the world. Indeed, Elections Canada is consulted internationally so that other countries can learn how we do things here. The way we conduct our elections is the gold standard of how elections are conducted around the world and is something we should be proud of. However, I look now at how our democracy is performing overall, and I wonder if we have not hit a bit of a peak or have even passed our peak.

Voter turnout has been on a slow decline since the 1980s, and what is worse, we are creating cycles of non-voting. Citizens, for example, no longer join political parties. Less than two per cent of the citizenry is active in political parties. Once held in high regard, politicians are now loathed by the public, and in fact, both provincial and federal legislatures do not reflect the populations they represent. We could go on and on about where things used to be better and are declining.

I want to focus my remarks on voter turnout and use this to show why the Conservatives' proposed act is not only wrong in detail but is wrong in spirit and in the process by which it would be implemented.

In the 1960s, almost 80% of those eligible to cast votes did so. In the 2011 election, voter turnout dropped to just over 60%, a decline of 20 percentage points. This is not a one-off decline. It is not a dip in voter turnout. This is really a pattern. Turnout has not been higher than 65% in this country any time in this century. It has declined, and we are entering a period of further decline. That is why I am saying again that I think democracy has perhaps peaked in Canada.

The reasons for the decline in turnout are many, but some have to do with declining government investment in efforts to help get people to the polls. The Conservative proposals not only would take money away, for example, for door-to-door registration but would actually add additional barriers to participation. Why I say that this violates the spirit of what we try to do here in Canada is that it is going to make our low turnout problem even worse.

This is a very serious situation from two perspectives. First, many would agree that high voter turnout is in itself a good thing, and low voter turnout, in turn, is a bad thing. Second, and perhaps more serious, is that disengagement can undermine the legitimacy of the government, and in the extreme case, lead to instability. The low levels of turnout we now have will only get worse, especially if the Conservatives force this bill through Parliament.

It is worth noting the kind of cycle we are having of low voter turnout. Of those eligible to vote for the first time in 1965, almost 70% voted. By 2008, the turnout of voters who were first eligible to vote in 1965 had increased to 75%.

If we look at first-time voters in the year 2000, of those eligible to vote in 2004, only 34% voted. By the 2008 election, this group was still stuck at 34%.

What we are getting is a cycle of non-voting. Of those born in the sixties, 70% voted and have continued to vote in those numbers as we moved forward through elections. Of those born in the 20th century, one-third are voting, and they are stuck with one-third voting.

This is the cycle of non-voting of which political scientists speak. It is something we have to work to fix rather than what this Conservative bill proposes to do, which will make things worse.

Turnouts are low and dropping, non-voters are continuing to be non-voters, and there are more groups that are permanently disenfranchised from our voting system.

It is important not to take my word for it. Recently, over 150 political scientists wrote an open letter to the government on this matter. It is worth repeating what they had to say. These 150 professors are the cream of the crop as far as political scientists go in Canada. They are mostly chairs and full professors as well as people who all parties in the House have called upon to serve on boundary review committees, to head up royal commissions, and to advise on any matters to do with democracy. It is a multi-partisan group, one that some parties would favour and others would not favour. It is the grand collection of political scientists.

In their open letter to the Prime Minister and the Parliament of Canada, they said that if Bill C-23 was passed, it “would damage the institution at the heart of the country's democracy: voting in federal elections”.

Further, these 150 political scientists urged the government to heed the call for wider consultation in vetting the bill.

This is another problem with what is happening here in terms of the spirit of democratic reform. In the past, any changes to elections would be done in a non-partisan or multi-partisan way. Not only would we consult Elections Canada and experts around the country and perhaps outside the country, we would definitely be consulting the Canadian public. This has been abandoned with Bill C-23. We have had closure on debate, and this bill is being rammed through without any real discussion and without discussion with Elections Canada, which seems absurd, since that is the institution at the centre of this legislation.

These 150 political scientists are urging the government to consult more widely. While they agree, and we have heard today, that there are some things that could be looked at with our electoral system, they are worried about the serious damage that will occur with the passing of Bill C-23.

It is worth noting who these folks are, the drafters of this open letter, which can be seen in many publications, such as the National Post or The Globe and Mail. Professors Deveaux, Williams, Cameron, Dawood, Lenard, and Fuji Johnson are the main drafters. However, this letter has also been signed by 16 past-presidents of the Canadian Political Science Association: Caroline Andrew, Michael Atkinson, Keith Banting, Sylvia Bashevkin, André Blais, Kenneth Carty, John Courtney, Elisabeth Gidengil, Richard Johnston, Peter Russell, Grace Skogstad, David Smith, Miriam Smith, Reeta Tremblay, Graham White, and Robert Young.

If we put all of these signatories together in a room, I would hazard a guess that we could solve any political science problem we have in this country. Of course, none of these people have been consulted on this bill. It is outrageous that these changes are going ahead and are being forced through Parliament without any consultation at all and without any expert advice. It has been drafted in a back room. It is something that would advantage one party over other parties, and it violates the spirit of what we have done here in the past. That is why I support the opposition day motion that has been put forward today.

I call upon the government to drop Bill C-23. Let us go back to the drawing board and consult with experts and regular Canadians to figure out how to make democracy better and how to improve our falling voter turnout.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in my colleague's speech. By the sound of things, maybe the whole 2011 election should have been null and void, if that kind of fraud or potential mistakes were happening all across the country.

Of course, we know that is not the case. We know that Elections Canada does great work and that we are the gold standard of conducting elections in Canada and around the world.

Instead of looking at anecdotal information, perhaps we should look at what 150 political science professors across Canada have been saying about the Conservatives' proposed act and why we should be voting yes to the motion we have put forward today. These professors are saying, and many of them have been on boundaries commissions or royal commissions, that, if passed, Bill C-23 would damage the institution at the heart of our country's democracy: voting in federal elections.

Instead of drilling down to minutia on a couple of cards that were problematic, perhaps my colleague could say why he disagrees with the top political science minds in the country.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this motion is all about the struggle for the vote.

I think it is important for this place to be reminded that it was not until 1918 that women could finally vote in a federal election. I would like to credit Alberta's own Nellie McClung for her strong efforts across the country to ensure that women could exercise their suffrage at the provincial, local, and federal level.

It was not until 1960 that Canada's first nation peoples were allowed to vote with no strings attached and without giving up their aboriginal rights.

However, as many in this place have mentioned, there has been broad concern across Canada over the decrease in voter turnout. Therefore, the last thing we would expect the government of the day to do is to put measures in place that would put further barriers in place, making it difficult for people to exercise their franchise.

An open, fair, and inclusive electoral system is the foundation of a modern democracy. The right to vote is now enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is not a minor matter. Jean-Pierre Kingsley has been quoted as saying, “Canada's electoral system is often mentioned as an international model for both its fairness and effectiveness”.

Because of our reputation for having a credible electoral system, Canadians have been invited to serve as election monitors in elections around the world, recently, in Ukraine. I had the privilege, in 2012, of attending in Ukraine to help monitor its election. Other members attended again last December, and we are going to be welcoming those invitations again.

I had the privilege in the last week to travel with colleagues from this place to two African countries, Mozambique and Madagascar. These are lesser developed nations that have gone through war and suffered extreme poverty. Yet, they have established electoral commissions and are bending over backwards to educate the populace and get them enumerated to enable them to vote. However, here we are moving in reverse.

We should perhaps be shamefaced going overseas, professing to have expertise in the democratic electoral process, when the current Conservative government is moving to a more regressive version. We might have to have election monitors here, to engage and encourage us on how we can make our process more democratic.

Today we have a motion put forward by the member for Toronto—Danforth, which says, in part:

That, in the opinion of the House, proposed changes to the Elections Act that would prohibit vouching, voter education programming by Elections Canada, and the use of voter cards as identification...

The concern is that first-time voters would be disenfranchised, including youth and new Canadians, aboriginal Canadians, and our seniors living in residence.

I wish to speak to the process deployed in the passage of these proposed election laws.

Reforms have been long awaited. Many times, the ministers of the government of the time stood in their places and said that any day they were going to table an election law, but then they would withdraw it. We have been waiting for quite some time. Everyone agrees in this place that we do need some reform to the law going forward to the next election, which will be within a year or year and a half. It is important that we have enough time to get these laws in place and that Elections Canada be ready for them.

The question is, why now the rush, having waited so long to bring forward changes?

The Conservatives have brought the bill forward with no consultation with Elections Canada, which is in breach of past protocols. It is also a breach of the past protocol to not consult all the parties. Again, in my visit to these developing African nations, those governments have reached out to their opposition members. What kind of example is the Conservative government setting? Why the need to fast-track Bill C-23?

A reasonable request was made to have the bill immediately go to committee so that more substantial amendments could be made. We had the public calling for more time to consult, and there have been calls by our party to take this bill across Canada to hear from Canadians, all of which has been denied.

Despite the significant issues identified, we are rushing the bill through. We plea once again with the government to apply some common sense, dignity, and democratic process to the reform of the most critical law in our nation, the right to exercise one's franchise.

I would like to speak to a couple of issues under the bill that are raised in the motion. One issue is the proposed prohibition of vouching and any reliance on voter ID cards.

As has been mentioned by many of my colleagues, in the past there has been some level of reliance on vouching. Why is that? It is because there are some members of our society who simply do not have readily available identification. In my riding of Edmonton—Strathcona, within the city of Edmonton and province of Alberta, it is well known across the country and by the government of the day who brag regularly about the work that has been created in Alberta. It suggests that people should move to Alberta. There are jobs, and it welcomes people from other countries to work in Alberta, in many cases in the oil sands.

As a result, we have an incredibly mobile population. In going door to door in three successive elections, I can attest to the fact that many people had just moved in. They had moved across the city, relocated, had no mail with their address, no licence with their new address, and so on. At household after household, we were giving out information on how people could be enumerated. It would be a very serious problem if we took away the voter ID cards, and particularly if we also took away the vouching.

I can also attest to the serious concerns expressed by university students in my riding. I am privileged to have three university campuses in my riding, and there is an additional campus across the river in another riding. I have received letters, from the students' unions from MacEwan University, University of Alberta, and King's University. Those students' unions were all voicing deep concern about the removal of the opportunity for vouching. Why? In many circumstances, as many have attested, students share a residence and only one name will be on the lease or on the bills that come to the house. They have no way of proving their place of residence.

I can attest that I personally have seen young students coming to vote in my riding who have been turned away. Parents have arrived with them, and they are still turned away. In other cases, students have been misinformed and told they must vote in the town they come from, that they cannot vote where they go to university. We need to move in the direction of enabling our youth to vote, not discouraging them.

Second is the category of first nation peoples. In my city, there are many first nation people who, sadly, are displaced, homeless, even though the city is trying to address that. There are wonderful services, including the Boyle Street society, which at the time of an election come forward to assist homeless people. They vouch for them to enable them to vote. They have personally expressed deep sadness to me, that by banning vouching for the people who are trying to exercise their rights, they are going to be banned from that opportunity.

Additionally, as I am sure is the case for all members of this place, there are many seniors residences and long-term care institutions in my riding. We were told by the operators of these institutes that on many occasions they have had to vouch for the residents so that they could vote.

The obvious question is, why is the government moving to disenfranchise these voters? We have not heard one credible or rational argument for this. We should be encouraging people to vote. We heard the government trying to defend that this practice has to be undone because Mr. Neufeld, who was commissioned by Elections Canada to advise on reviewing the act, said there was fraud and that vouching needed to be removed. He has since clearly stated that at no time did he suggest that ineligible voters have deliberately tried to cast illegal ballots. The only other information provided by the minister to the House was information that misled the House and has since been withdrawn. We still await the rationale for disenfranchising over 100,000 voters.

Finally, on voter education, the public, many experts, and certainly my colleagues, are stunned that the government is choosing to diminish the powers and mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer and his officers to educate and encourage the public to vote.

My final point is that I am absolutely dismayed at the decision to deny the strongest recommendation from Mr. Mayrand, which was to give him the powers of investigation to compel evidence. There can only be two reasons for this, both of which are reprehensible.

One is that the government is intentionally blocking the ability of Elections Canada to enforce the act. The second is that it simply does not understand the enforcement system.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

Bill C-23 has been criticized as undemocratic by academics, elections officials, and, more importantly, by many Canadian citizens. Just this morning, on my trip to Ottawa, I had a chance to read The Globe and Mail. It has been editorializing on Bill C-23 for over six days now, sharing more information on this unfair elections act than the government is with Canadians.

I thank The Globe and Mail. In today's piece, it decried the bill, saying to kill this bill for the good of the country. I could not agree more with what the The Globe and Mail's editorial said.

I would like to share some more of what I read today:

The government has touted the bill’s changes to voting rules as needed to prevent voter fraud. That’s a red herring. There is no evidence that vouching, a process the bill eliminates, led to widespread fraud. The government has resorted to defending itself with out of context citations from experts, whose conclusions are the opposite of what the government pretends. Tightening the rules will prevent many eligible Canadians from voting; those affected are mostly not Conservative voters.

Other changes create a giant, partisan loophole in campaign spending laws, to the advantage of the Conservatives. Why? The bill gives incumbent parties in each riding the power to name key election officials, instead of leaving the job to an impartial Elections Canada. Why? Bill C-23 also takes direct aim at Elections Canada in other ways – neutering its ability to conduct public outreach campaigns and encourage voting. Why? It also meddles with Elections Canada’s ability to investigate wrongdoing or communicate the results of investigations. Why?

It is not just me or The Globe and Mail; many Canadians are asking the same questions. Why are the Conservatives trying to stop voters, stop Canadians, from actually participating in our general elections? Time and time again, experts have been saying that Bill C-23 aims to fix problems that are not really there.

The bill is actually exacerbating the real problem with Canada's electoral system, which is low voter engagement. Voter participation is low, and engaging new voters in a time when Canadians are cynical about government is an uphill battle. Why are the Conservatives trying to make voting harder, when we should be making it easier and as accessible as possible? The answer is simple, and very discouraging: it is because the unfair elections bill makes it easier for the Conservatives to win. They want to make it harder for people who do not vote Conservative to vote at all.

Hundreds of thousands of Canadians rely on vouching and voter identification cards to prove that they have the right to vote. This is especially true for young people, new Canadians, aboriginal people, and seniors living in residence. Bill C-23 would put an end to vouching practices. Vouching has long been an accepted practice; not everyone has the financial means to secure an ID, and not everyone in Canada is wealthy.

Aboriginal people, university students living away from home, the homeless, and seniors in residence are all groups that are less likely to have eligible ID or mail on hand, thus requiring someone to vouch for them. In the last election, approximately 100,000 people used vouching to exercise their right to vote.

In addition, voter cards will no longer be accepted to confirm identification. The use of voter ID cards, the notice of registration on the electoral list that is sent to voters, benefits those who face challenges in establishing their address when it is time to vote. Examples are youth on campus, seniors, and aboriginal people. Many aboriginal people wait months to get their treaty cards. They may not have access to alternative forms of ID. Elderly couples may need to have a spouse vouch for them, because only one of their names was on the registered mail.

The rate of error is very small when using voter ID cards, and the allowance worked to enfranchise many, so why get rid of it? The only reason I can see is to disenfranchise voters.

My riding of Scarborough—Rouge River is large and diverse. We have a high population of new Canadians who may face some difficulties when they go to the polls next election. For some, the 2015 election will be their first opportunity to vote federally. What a warm welcome to their new home to be told they cannot vote.

We also have the highest youth-to-population ratio in the greater Toronto area in Scarborough—Rouge River. There are approximately 32,000 people between the ages of 18 and 34. The national youth survey conducted by Elections Canada after the 2011 election found that among Canadians aged 18 to 34 who did not vote, 15% said that their decision was influenced by their inability to provide proof of identification, while another 16% indicated that they were influenced by their inability to provide proof of address.

However, members need not take my word for it. Although the Conservatives did not feel the need to consult the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, he had more than enough to say about vouching in testimony that he provided at the procedure and House affairs committee that we know the Conservatives wish they could forget. Luckily for us and for all of Canada, it is on the public record.

The Chief Electoral Officer, when he spoke at the committee, had this to say on vouching:

It has been pointed out that vouching is a complex procedure and that numerous procedural irregularities were found to have been committed at the last general election in connection with vouching. It is critical to understand that, as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, the vast majority of these were strictly record-keeping errors by poll workers documenting the vouching process, and not fraud or even irregularities that could compromise an election. There is no evidence tying these errors to ineligible electors being allowed to vote.

That is a fairly clear demonstration that vouching is not leading to election fraud.

When asked publicly about why they would ban vouching and the use of voter information cards, Conservatives say that it is because they are trying to cut down on fraud. However, that does not make sense. We know they are not cracking down on fraud. Elections Canada has been clear that there is no evidence to suggest that vouching or the use of voter information cards has actually led to fraud. There is no evidence to suggest vouching or voter information cards are connected to electoral fraud. There is no evidence to show that this legislation would be justified in ending vouching and ending the use of voter information cards.

The only example of voter fraud using voter ID cards that the Conservatives could give us was, of course, the statement by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville that he had witnessed with his own two eyes that voter fraud was happening using voter ID cards. Of course, as the House knows now, this was not the case, which invites the question of why the member for Mississauga—Streetsville brought it up if he knew it was not true.

Unfortunately, this unfair elections act is not just an attack on voter access but also on education. Bill C-23 would strip the Chief Electoral Officer's power to engage in public education. Under the unfair elections act, the Chief Electoral Officer would be limited to discussing only certain aspects of the electoral process: when, where, and how to vote. That is literally the least amount of information that the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada could give to Canadians. That is all they would be allowed to say. This is absolutely not a way to increase voter participation. This is very much a departure from many western democracies.

Traditionally, bodies that oversee elections have the mandate to educate the public on how to vote. If Elections Canada is not allowed to do the job, then who will? The Conservatives are counting on the probability that nobody will. The Conservatives would rather change the rules of the game than play by the rules. We know that with their majority government, the Conservatives have been writing their own rules, making them up as they go along.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have a track record of breaking election laws with their in-and-out scheme, robocalls designed to suppress opposition votes, and rule-breaking overspending by Conservatives ministers, not to mention charges against the Prime Minister's former ethics spokesperson, the MP for Peterborough.

The Conservatives had a chance with Bill C-23 to do the right thing and introduce a bill to crack down on real electoral fraud, but they could not stop themselves from tacking on cynical measures designed to tilt the playing field in their favour and make it harder for some groups of Canadians to vote. As I said before, those include young people, seniors, aboriginal people, and homeless people.

I want to say one last thing. As The Globe and Mail's editorial said this morning, for the good of this country, let us kill this bill.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to express my views regarding the New Democratic Party's opposition day motion concerning various reforms the fair elections act would bring to voter identification procedures under the Canada Elections Act.

The motion before the House also deals with the effects of these important reforms for specific groups in Canadian society. My remarks today will focus on this dimension of the issue and will demonstrate why the fair elections act would have beneficial effects on the voting rights of the groups listed in the motion.

I welcome this debate today, because it gives me an opportunity not only to contribute my perspective on what the real impacts of the voter identification reforms and the fair election act would be for the groups specified in the motion before us today but also because it will be an opportunity to provide colleagues with some of my thoughts on the multiple and significant advantages the fair elections act would bring to Canada's electoral system. In particular, I would like to highlight the importance of upholding the integrity of our elections and of protecting Canadians' right to vote.

I would like to make it clear to the House from the outset, however, that I disagree with the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party today regarding the bill.

The motion would have the House pronounce an opinion against the needed reforms the fair election act would bring to the current voter identification procedures set out in the Canada Elections Act. Furthermore, the motion would have Canadians believe that the fair elections act would have negative effects on the voting rights of the groups specified in today's motion, but I am pleased to say that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the fair elections act would have just the opposite purpose, that of protecting all Canadians' electoral rights from the risks of fraudulent voting and high rates of administrative errors, factors that can undermine confidence in the integrity of elections.

I would like to begin my remarks today with a few preliminary observations regarding the important enhancements the fair elections act would bring to our electoral system. The fair elections act proposes comprehensive changes to the Canada Elections Act. It is unquestionably important legislation that will reinforce the integrity of Canada's elections and will revitalize our democracy.

An element of particular relevance in today's debate is that the fair elections act would provide better customer service for voters by focusing Elections Canada's advertising on the basics of voting: where and when and what identification to bring. This measure will benefit all Canadians, including by facilitating the voting processes for all the specific groups referenced in today's motion.

For example, Elections Canada concluded in its evaluation report on the 41st general election that a top priority to increase youth turnout would be, and I quote, “increasing awareness about when, where and how to vote, by providing information in formats suitable for youth”. The fair elections act would ensure that Elections Canada would focus its communications messages on this crucial information for our electors.

I would like to add that the act would also establish an extra day of advance polling. The proposed change would give Canadians access to four advance polling days: the 10th, 9th, 8th, and the 7th days before election day. This important measure would also benefit all Canadians, including, again, those specific groups in society that are the subject of our debate today.

This would be an appropriate point to note that among the most important initiatives included in the act are measures to combat voter fraud and increase the confidence of Canadians in the electoral process. I think all members can agree that the prevention of electoral fraud is a very worthwhile goal and that every fraudulent vote not only undermines confidence in our elections but also, in effect, cancels out the legitimate vote of a Canadian.

In light of the fact that the motion before the House today refers specifically to the prohibitions in the fair elections act on the use of the vouching procedure and the voter information cards as replacements for acceptable identification, I would at this point like to take a few additional minutes to outline for the House precisely why it is imperative that those practices be prohibited.

I will first provide a little background information to explain precisely how the use of the vouching mechanism and the voter information cards for identification purposes relate to the current voter identification procedures under the Canada Elections Act.

With the passage of Bill C-31 in 2007, a mechanism was introduced for verifying the identity of electors and their residence upon registration at the polls and for voting. This was a significant advancement that our government brought to voter identification for federal elections in Canada. It helped bring us closer to restoring the confidence of Canadians in the electoral process.

As a result of those legislative changes, an elector voting in a federal election at an ordinary polling station must prove his or her identity in one of three ways. The first is by presenting one piece of identification issued by a government that includes a photograph of the elector and his or her name and address. The second is by presenting two pieces of identification, each of which establishes the elector's name and one of which establishes the elector's address. The third is by taking an oath, if accompanied by another elector whose name appears on the list of electors and who, after providing the piece or pieces of identification referred to, vouches for the elector on an oath. That is what is known as the vouching process.

There are certain safeguards in place that are intended to make the vouching process more reliable and accurate. For example, the voucher must have the required pieces of identification. He or she cannot previously have been vouched for. The voucher must reside in the same polling division as the elector. The voucher can only vouch for one elector; multiple vouching is prohibited. Most importantly, there is also supposed to be a record of who the voucher is and who he or she vouched for. This ought to create an effective deterrent to anybody who gives thought to vouching for an unqualified elector. However, in practice, those safeguards are undermined by the fact that there are high levels of irregularities being reported at the polls regarding the use of vouching.

Studies commissioned by Elections Canada demonstrate mass irregularities in the use of vouching. According to the Neufeld report relating to administrative deficiencies at the polls in the 2011 election, vouching procedures are complex, and there were irregularities in 42% of cases where vouching was used.The report indicates that even with increased quality assurance, the problem would not be remedied. The report found that in 38% of the cases where vouching was required, there was no record in the poll book that clearly indicated both who the voters and the vouchers were. This clearly does not mean that all of these cases were instances of voter fraud. However, it does mean that polling day irregularities by elections officers regularly undermine an essential safeguard in the vouching mechanism, which is to have a record of who vouched for whom.

While Elections Canada has estimated that as many as 120,000 voters chose to use the vouching procedure on election day, those voters could have proven their identity and their residence by other means. The fair elections act will require in law that Elections Canada communicate what forms of identification would be acceptable at polling locations. This important measure would provide voters with the basic information they need about what identification to bring to the polls before they go to the polls.

I would also add a few words about the measures in the fair elections act regarding voter information cards, which play an important role in informing Canadians about where and when they need to vote. It is important to recognize that voter information cards are not currently authorized forms of identification and cannot be used as proof of identification and residency. Since the voter identification requirements were established in 2007, we have had one general election when voter information cards were permitted to be used on an exceptional basis and one general election when they were not authorized forms of identification at all.

Potentially serious problems could arise if those cards were used as replacements for acceptable identification, since there is evidence that the use of voter information cards as identification presents the risk of voter fraud. For instance, studies commissioned by Elections Canada showed a one-in-six error rate on voter information cards. Such inaccuracies could allow those attempting to subvert election laws to use them to vote more than once or to vote in the wrong riding.

I would like to take a few moments to outline the current situation regarding the various forms of identification available to voters and to address the question of whether the reforms in the fair elections act would have any effect on their availability. This will illustrate quite clearly that the important voter identification measures contained in the fair elections act would not in any way disenfranchise the groups mentioned in today's motion: first-time voters, such as young people and new Canadians; aboriginal Canadians; and seniors living in residences.

I would also like to emphasize that the flexibility of the Canada Elections Act would not change. Rather, the goal of the fair elections act is, as I mentioned earlier, to prohibit only those specific administrative procedures that are risky and counterproductive, in particular the use of vouching and voter information cards as replacements for acceptable identification. In this way, it would minimize the risks of fraud and error in the voting process.

Nevertheless, even with the new protections introduced by the fair elections act, voters would still be able to choose from among 39 forms of authorized identification to prove their identity and residence, including a lease, bank statements, library cards, hunting licenses, Canadian Forces identity cards, and many more. In fact, the current authorized list includes not only about two dozen different kinds of identity cards but also a wide variety of original documents that contain a name and an address.

I would like to emphasize that this latter point is of particular importance with respect to certain groups in society that for various reasons may face challenges in proving their identity and residence. I would like to take a moment to elaborate on this point.

The kinds of original documents with a name and address that are among the 39 forms of authorized identification include a statement of government benefits, which would be employment insurance, old age security, social assistance, disability support, or a child tax benefit. It is unquestionable that this option would facilitate the identification process, for example, for seniors who live in a residence. They would be able to use their old age security statements to provide identification at the polls.

Moreover, the list of original documents considered to be suitable identification for the purposes of voting would also include letters from a public curator, a public guardian, or a public trustee. It could be documentation, such as a letter of stay or an admission form, issued by the responsible authority of a shelter, a soup kitchen, a students residence, a seniors residence, or a long-term care facility.

Clearly the option of presenting a letter from the responsible authority of a student or seniors residence could be quite useful for seniors who live in a residence or for young first-time voters who may be students living away from home while they attend an educational institution. Students would also have the ability to use correspondence issued by a school, college, or university to provide their identification. All of this would be in addition to the fact that student identification cards and old age security cards are both authorized forms of identification.

I have not yet mentioned the forms of authorized identification that would be of specific benefit to aboriginal Canadians. Specifically, the forms of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer would include certificates of Indian status, also known as status cards. This is in addition to attestations of residence issued by the responsible authority of a first nations band or reserve.

I would also like to emphasize at this point that the Chief Electoral Officer would continue to authorize acceptable forms of identification at the polls. Furthermore, the Chief Electoral Officer would be encouraged to continue his efforts to ensure that the list of authorized identification contains documents to allow those with particular challenges in proving their identity and their residence to be able to do so. In fact, this is the central message of my remarks here today in the House.

The fair elections act would do nothing to detract from the flexibility and adaptability that is inherent in the current system of voter identification under the Canada Elections Act.

The government recognizes that these are key strengths of our electoral system, and as a consequence, the reforms in the fair elections act would serve to enhance those positive elements in the current system while minimizing the very real risks of electoral fraud.

With specific regard to new Canadians, those who are eligible electors would have been resident in Canada for some time prior to obtaining their citizenship and being able to vote in their first election, and so would not face greater challenges than any other Canadian in obtaining one or more of the 39 forms of authorized identification I have just talked about.

Additionally, I would like to note that Elections Canada has produced, in 27 languages in addition to English and French, a document concerning voter identification at the polls, which is intended to make this important information more easily accessible to voters from ethnocultural communities.

The fair elections act would do nothing to impede such important and fundamental advertising on the basics of voting: where, when, and what identification to bring. In fact, the fair elections act would ensure that Elections Canada focuses its advertising on this crucial information.

The reforms that the fair elections act would bring to the voter identification procedures under the Canada Elections Act are important and much needed measures that would help to ensure that our electoral system operates with the integrity that all Canadians expect and deserve.

In particular, the prohibitions in the fair elections act on vouching and the use of voter information cards as replacements for acceptable identification are designed to protect the vote of Canadians. This certainly includes the specific groups that are mentioned in today's motion: first time voters like youth and new Canadians, aboriginal Canadians, and seniors living in residences.

As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, the fair elections act actually has just the opposite purpose, that of protecting all Canadians' voting rights. With the fair elections act, our government continues to respond to emerging challenges in order to ensure fair elections in which the voice of every voter is counted.

I will bring my remarks to a close today by reiterating my opposition to the motion that has been put forward by the New Democratic Party today concerning the important reforms the fair elections act would bring to Canada's voter identification procedures.

I certainly hope hon. members will join me in opposing this motion and supporting the important changes in the fair elections act.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this unfair elections bill.

Our elections process is going backwards. For the first time in Canada's history, we are disenfranchising people who have been enfranchised in the past. At every other step of the way, whether it was allowing women or aboriginal people to vote, or providing mechanisms for persons with disabilities or for persons who had difficulty proving their identity, we have always moved forward.

We have always moved to enfranchise people, and the Conservative government is moving backwards for the first time in our history. I think it is shameful.

Canadians expect us to fix some of the problems clearly identified by a number of events over the past, since the 2011 election, and even before that. Those events displayed to Canadians that there was a problem with voting: officials of Elections Canada were not following procedures appropriately; the lists are no good; the lists need to be improved; there is a considerably amount of potential cheating happening by political parties; and Canadians expect us to do something about it.

This bill does not do any of those three things. In fact, the bill makes cheating easier in some circumstances. It has absolutely no impact whatsoever on the list itself and on whether the list will in fact be improved—it will not. In terms of voting, all the bill does is disenfranchise a number of individuals who were able to vote before.

First, the minister and others keep talking about these 39 pieces of ID that Canadians can use. In fact, that is not true. None of them are in the bill. These pieces of ID are set by Elections Canada, with the exception that the bill says voters cannot use the voter information card. There are 38 pieces of ID. Those 38 include 25 pieces of ID that can prove who a person is. Then a person needs to find 1 of 13 pieces of ID to prove where he or she lives.

We are really looking at 13 pieces of ID. Those 13 are sometimes completely unavailable to some individuals. For example, a student living not in residence but at the home of another individual in another city wants to be able to prove that he or she lives there.

Those students do not receive a utility bill. They do not have a bank or credit card statement. They do not have vehicle ownership or insurance there. They do not have correspondence issued by a school, college, or university to that place because that is not their original residence. The correspondence would have gone to their other place. They do not have a statement of government benefits because they are not getting them. They do not have an attestation of residence on a first nations band or reserve. They do not have a government cheque or cheque stub. They do not have a pension plan statement of benefits.

They do not have a lease or a mortgage statement. They do not have income or property tax assessment notices because, again; it goes back to their original home. They do not have an insurance policy. They do not have a letter from a public curator, public guardian, or public trustee. They do not have a letter issued by a shelter, soup kitchen, a student residence, or a long-term care facility because they are not in any of those places.

Those students cannot prove their location. It is physically impossible. The government says there are 39 pieces of ID, but not for a student living not in residence and off-campus in another city. It is impossible for them to prove where they live. What are they to do?

In the days before this bill, these students could have been vouched for by someone who knew them, who did have the ability to prove where they live and who lived in the same riding. Now, that is absolutely being taken away from them. That is wrong.

I want to list three other cases of individuals in my riding who, in the last election, actually voted but who will not be able to vote in the next election because their ability to vouch is being taken away.

One of them was a senior citizen who had been living in the same place for the last 55 years, I think it was. For some reason, the voter information card did not arrive. We know what the reason for that was now: Elections Canada decided to change the postal code to the wrong one; another problem that needs fixing that is not being fixed by this bill.

That individual did not have anything to prove her location of residence. She had nothing, and she was terrified. I knocked at her door and reminded her to go vote. She said, “I cannot vote because I cannot prove where I live. I did not get a voter information card, which I would normally have used. I cannot do it now because I cannot prove where I live. I do not have my name on anything here.”

Her husband was standing next to her, and I told him that he could vouch for her. All he had to do was take her to the polling station, and with his ID he could vouch for her. They were overjoyed. However, that would be gone. The next time they would not be able to do that.

Another senior in my riding, who has lived in Canada for about 40 years, cannot get Ontario picture ID. She has been trying for two years. She cannot get it because she does not have the appropriate ID. She has a Canadian citizenship certificate, but it is not the card type; it is the big certificate type, which they will not accept in Ontario. She has a birth certificate, but it is from the wrong country, which they do not accept in Ontario. She has a passport. However, again, it is from the wrong country, which they do not accept in Ontario. She cannot get Ontario picture ID. She is in a position of not being able to use picture ID. She does not have the right kind of ID to vote in terms of proving where she lives. That is the nub of this problem, being able to prove where one lives.

She is now in the process of spending $130, which she does not have because she is a senior, to buy herself a passport. That passport will give her the ability to go to the Ontario government to prove who she is so she can get an Ontario picture ID card. That will cost her another $60. She is spending $190 to get enough ID to vote next time.

Why is it that Canadians have to spend money to vote? That should not happen, but that is happening in her case. It is going to take months. If this happened during the writ period, she would never be able to do that.

Finally, we have a person on disability payments, whose door I knocked on in the last election. I told her that she just needed to show the cheque stub that comes from the Ontario disability system to prove where she lives. She had nothing else. Persons on disability in Ontario are very impoverished. She could not afford cable or a phone, and she had no hydro bill. She had nothing to prove where she lived. Therefore, I suggested that she use the cheque stub.

A stub from a government cheque is a legitimate way of proving one's address. The trouble is, the Ontario government does not put a name and address on the stub. It is only on the cheque itself, which had already been deposited. She had no way of proving her address. In her case, she managed to find somebody in the building who would vouch for her; otherwise, she would not have been able to vote.

Those are three examples.

There is also the issue that Canadians want us to deal with of potential cheating by political parties during an election. There have been a number of allegations, news stories, and various things about robocalls, which were delivered to people to fraudulently send them to the wrong polling station. There were a number of issues regarding overspending by political candidates. There were issues regarding overspending by political parties, particularly the in-and-out scandal of 2006.

However, none of those issues are being dealt with in this proposed legislation. There would not be a way for Elections Canada to investigate properly, to subpoena evidence, to compel testimony, or force a political party to actually disclose what it has done. In fact, the bill goes one step further. It would permit a political party, in the guise of campaign fundraising, to have no limits on what it spends on communications with constituents, or with all of Canada.

The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt very much that the Conservative Party would give out a list of who it has sent communications to if asked by Elections Canada. The Conservatives have not been very forthcoming to this point, and I doubt they would do that to prove that individuals they communicated with have donated money in the past five years. That is unlikely and not going to happen. They are going to send stuff out willy-nilly. That is what will happen.

We would have no limit to the amount of communications that the party can send out during an election writ period, even though right now there is a limit on the amount of money that can be spent during an election. That is a very damaging piece of this puzzle.

I appreciate the time to explain why Bill C-23 does not work, and I urge members opposite to rethink their position and defeat the bill. Take a kill-the-bill position, as we like to say it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member suggested that we go back to the fundamentals of Bill C-23. The government likes to call it the fair elections act. Nothing could be further from reality. For all intents and purposes, it is a Conservative elections act, and I do not say that lightly, in the sense that we have received very little. The only support I have detected for this legislation comes from the Prime Minister's Office and members of the Conservative Party. There is no other political entity in Canada that I am aware of that endorses this legislation. Elections Canada has very real problems with this legislation. It is weakening our elections laws. There was no consultation done. This deals with a fundamental pillar of our democracy and the government is forcing this legislation through using its majority.

Does the member not see the irony of a majority Conservative government forcing through changes to elections laws, given the many other events taking place around the world, especially when academics and others around the world are saying that what the government is doing with the elections laws is wrong? Why does he not recognize that what is happening to the fundamental principle of democracy with this piece of legislation is wrong?

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, last week 19 international scholars published a letter calling the fair elections act a threat to Canada's reputation as “...one of the world's guardians of democracy and human rights”. This was just one week after 159 experts here in Canada published a letter condemning the minister as a threat against democracy.

Today, a national newspaper ran an editorial with the headline simply, “Kill this bill”.

Will the Conservatives stop treating Bill C-23 as a piece of partisan legislation that is only to be rammed through Parliament?

Opposition Motion—Proposed changes to the Elections Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to emphasize in regard to Bill C-23 that we need to acknowledge it is fundamentally flawed. It is flawed to the degree that we have had editorials, and many different stakeholders from across the country who have expressed a great deal of disappointment, saying that the bill would be better off being killed than being allowed to continue in its current fashion.

I wonder if the member would support the idea that the government should leave the bill, work with opposition parties, with Elections Canada, and with other stakeholders, who have a vested interest in ensuring that Canada has good sound election laws. These would be election laws that would, for example, allow the Chief Electoral Officer to have the ability to compel witnesses.

We would be far better off doing this overhaul of Bill C-23, as opposed to even attempting to have it passed in its current state. Would the member not agree with that?