Bill C-33 (Historical)

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

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to
(a) remove limitations on public education and information activities conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer;
(b) establish a Register of Future Electors in which Canadian citizens 14 to 17 years of age may consent to be included;
(c) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information about permanent residents and foreign nationals for the purpose of updating the Register of Electors;
(d) remove the prohibition on the Chief Electoral Officer authorizing the notice of confirmation of registration (commonly known as a “voter information card”) as identification;
(e) replace, in the context of voter identification, the option of attestation for residence with an option of vouching for identity and residence;
(f) remove two limitations on voting by non-resident electors: the requirement that they have been residing outside Canada for less than five consecutive years, and the requirement that they intend to return to Canada to resume residence in the future; and
(g) relocate the Commissioner of Canada Elections to within the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, and provide that the Commissioner is to be appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer, after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, for a non-renewable term of 10 years.
In addition, the enactment contains transitional provisions and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

A lot can happen in two minutes.

Minister, I just want to thank you for coming.

Of course, I didn't have the pleasure of being there when Bill C-33 was introduced in the House. I wasn't present and I apologize for that. As a result of my absence, I inadvertently missed it.

I might be in the minority relative to all of my colleagues, but I'm not fussed, David, by the minister's introduction of Bill C-33 in the House. From my perspective, the minister has a clear executive mandate, which is very publicly accessible. She has every right to introduce legislation that the political executive deemed is important.

We have clear work, which is mandated legislatively and through the Standing Orders, for us to review the results of the previous Parliament and the report from the Chief Electoral Officer, and as legislation comes to this particular committee, when it finally gets referred to it from the House, we pivot accordingly. I actually don't see much substantive divergence. I think folks here are a bit fussed with respect to the process and the minister is committed to finding, I think, a better way to communicate that better.

I'm here to work with you. I think we want to achieve the same substantive outcomes at the end of the day and I think we should just get on with it and get that particular work done. When Bill C-33 comes from the House, we'll make adjustments accordingly. As I've already indicated, I am not fussed by what has transpired.

I think there are substantive questions that my Conservative friends would like to ask and I think the government has already demonstrated more than it's willingness and openness to deal with any substantive questions that they want to pose, so we'll get answers from the minister accordingly.

My invitation to my colleagues on the opposite side is, when we come back in the new year, let's get back on to the work that we're doing and when Bill C-33 is referred to us from the House, we will then pivot accordingly. Until the House has spoken and we are seized of that legislation, I think it's premature for us to get into a lot of the details, without knowing the substance of what we're allowed to actually review and study. From my perspective, the work that we're already doing is good work and let's get on with it.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Okay.

Are you satisfied with the process with regard to Bill C-33 and if not, what would you do differently?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Minister, for being here with us today.

Bill C-33 is great legislation. I've been long awaiting for these changes to take place, but I think, as Mr. Christopherson said, that the upset was the timing of the legislation, not so much the content of the legislation.

I'm very much in favour of the content of this legislation. I just want to hear from you why you felt it was important to put forward this legislation and to reverse those portions of the Fair Elections Act at this time. What was the thinking of the government, or the ministry, behind that?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

I'd also like to ask about an element that is not in the Chief Electoral Officer's report, but is in Bill C-33. It is one that is of personal interest to me, having worked overseas for many years with the United Nations and other organizations. There are some very good Canadians who are abroad, who are doing work promoting Canadian values. In my case, I even received a peacekeeping service medal from the Governor General for the work that I was doing in Kosovo with OSCE, and yet, had I continued that work, I would have become ineligible to vote in Canadian elections, as have many other Canadians, because of the changes that were made by the previous government.

I understood you to say earlier that you were looking to our committee, not only to look at that aspect of Bill C-33, but to decide on some of the parameters and how this would actually apply.

I also know there is a court case right now, a charter challenge, Frank v. Canada.

Could you elaborate on why it is important that a young generation of Canadians who are going around the world and starting businesses...? We have doctors and teachers who are going around the world. There are all kinds of Canadians who are doing very good work around the world. To lose your right to vote because you have gone abroad to promote Canadian values, I think, is wrong.

Could you elaborate on that and tell us what you see our committee doing in that regard?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thanks very much, Minister, for being here today and for being so willing to come before our committee to answer our questions.

I'd like to take a moment to pick up on what Mr. Christopherson said. My understanding from your testimony just now is that you are very open to having amendments to Bill C-33 that could be informed by the discussion that we have been having. We can't discuss what we've been doing in camera, but if there are aspects where we've had deliberations and dialogue, the work that we've done is going to be useful when we receive Bill C-33, and we're able to put forward amendments.

Could I clarify that you would be open to amendments that are informed by the dialogue we've been having?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague for his work and clarify that the repealing of the unfair aspects of the Fair Elections Act did not come out of nowhere. They were very much publicly shared through my mandate letter, as given to me by the Prime Minister.

I continue to have a great deal of respect for the work that you do. There are areas within Bill C-33, which I outlined earlier, that I'm counting on you to do further analysis and study on.

Can we do things better? Absolutely. Am I committed to that? I can guarantee that to you, Mr. Christopherson.

I will end on this. In March 2014, I watched you advocate for the very changes that we brought forward in Bill C-33. That's the important work that we're here to do. Mr. Christopherson, I'm going to count on your expertise and wisdom to make sure that more of the recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer make it into legislation so that we can improve access and engagement for all Canadians.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Minister, thank you very much for coming. We very much appreciate it.

I have to tell you, you being here is a complete shemozzle. I am so confused. I am further confused as to why you're here talking to us about this bill.

The fact of the matter is there's only so much I can say in terms of our in camera talks, but there are smart people in this room, such as Kady O'Malley, who can look very carefully at the chronology of what has happened to get some idea of why you're in front of this committee. I can assure you that it wasn't to talk about the pleasantries of Bill C-33.

The fact of the matter is you say things such as “eagerly awaiting”, “walk the same path”, “if we all work together”, and “collegial”. The fact is that we started an excellent process of working together on this committee to review the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer. We were going along working, and we have dual tracks and lots of stuff. We're doing good work; we thought we were doing good work. We're feeling good about it. That's not to say we've agreed on everything, but in terms of process, we were working as a team trying to come up with rules that everybody thought would be fair. Then, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, thump, and Bill C-33 lands in the middle of the floor of the House of Commons on the very same day that we're about to meet and continue working. We're left, or at least I was left, wondering what the hell? What is going on?

On the one hand, we have a committee that's working together. Your government, Minister, promised that you were going to treat parliamentary committees with the respect they deserve, that you were going to bring back the importance of parliamentary committees, yet all we've seen are insults, especially with this committee as a result of Bill C-33. Then, I won't dwell on it but I have to say, we watched the absolute disgrace of the government's response to the electoral reform committee's tabling of that report, where you were on your feet apologizing.

Again, I'm kind of stuck here because I can't talk about what was said in camera, but I can say—and if somebody wants to hold me for telling tales out of school, fine, but I think I'm walking the line carefully—that Mr. Graham, to his credit, came to me immediately afterwards, when we were seized of the bill being tabled, and said, “How can we fix this? What can we do?” I said my goal was to get us back to work, that after all these decades in public life I didn't need another headline, and that what I wanted to do was some good work.

Then I happened to bump into you, Minister. I won't talk about the full conversation, but I think it's fair to say that we actually bumped into each other twice in the hallway on that day, and you were asking the same as Mr. Graham, “How can we fix this?” My response was the same, that an apology would be a good way to start. I still haven't heard one.

You go on and on about Bill C-33. We didn't call you in here, Minister, to talk about Bill C-33, because it hasn't been referred to us yet.

What I as one member of this committee want to know is how do we continue to do the work that we're doing—which is supposed to show the respect and importance that this government was going to return to committees—when you drop that bill on the floor, looking for all intents and purposes as nothing but a diversion to get you and your government out of trouble for the heat you were taking on the broader file that was going down in flames?

If it's not that, at best it's a lack of respect or consideration for this committee. At worst, it's a total disregard for committee work, which happens to have been reinforced by the comments. I accept that you've apologized; nonetheless, it happened. I happened to walk into the House as you were beginning and I couldn't believe that was the response.

Minister, I am still angry about the process. At least the previous government didn't pretend to want to make the committees important. They at least were clear about their disdain for parliamentary committees and the work they do. Fair enough; that has been dealt with. Those chickens came home to roost, and that's why you, Minister, are sitting where you are sitting, in large part because of that attitude. You can say you're going to do something different, but so far we hear talk, talk, talk, but none of the walk.

So, Minister, I need a couple of things from you, starting with an apology to this committee, as you apologized to the last committee, for the way you have treated the work of this committee. Second, I'd like to get some idea of how you think this parliamentary committee is going to continue to do its work in light of you dropping bills on the floor that cherry-pick issues we're working with.

I'll end on this final point. When you say things such as, “When will your report be ready,” it is a very good question, but that is the kind of question that should be asked at the beginning of the process of our work if your ministry is serious about coordinating it with the work of your government. Right now, there's a disconnect.

I need to hear from you, Minister, how you think we are going to respond and get back on track, or are we not going to be able to? Are we just going to continue to have this government pitted against its own parliamentary committees?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank my neighbour for his question. The work that I'm doing is guided by my mandate letter. I think it was the Clerk of the Privy Council who said that, of all the government web pages, the page with our mandate letters is the most frequently visited one. So there's some interesting trivia for you, if that's helpful in any way to guide the work that you do.

Repealing the unfair aspects of the Fair Elections Act is part of my mandate. Putting together a process for appointments to the Senate has been part of my mandate. The establishment of an all-party committee was part of my mandate. Moving forward, creating the office of a debates commissioner is something that is going to require significant deliberation, coordination, consultation, and study. That's something that I'm counting on this committee to help support. Moving forward, areas around the review of the Elections Act itself as it pertains to various ways that our elections are governed is in line with my mandate. I'm looking forward to working with this committee.

The changes that we proposed in Bill C-33 were relatively straightforward.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

It's nice to see you again. Given the fact that you're here at this committee to talk about Bill C-33, and the fact, as Mr. Reid was saying, that it kind of jumped ahead of the study we're doing in committee, you also mentioned in your speech that there is further legislation coming. I think Mr. Graham asked the question, but I just want to clarify a little sooner, based on the timeline that we don't come back until the end of January, and you said, I believe, that in the spring you're coming.... That doesn't really give us much time to get the study done, get the information to you or to Parliament, and allow that to be incorporated into your legislation. Given the fact that you're here because you kind of jumped ahead, how are you going to have the correct information in front of you and be able to get in a piece of legislation in time to actually make our work worthwhile?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We were at one minute and 45 seconds when we stopped.

First of all, Minister, thank you for coming here to talk about Bill C-33.

Minister, I've been on this committee for over a decade, through a number of election cycles, starting under the Chrétien government, and every election cycle, the minister, or rather, I correct myself, the Chief Electoral Officer submits a report on recommended changes subsequent to the election and the experiences that he—it's been a he so far, so that's not sexist language—Mr. Kingsley or Mr. Mayrand, thinks ought to be made based on the experience.

Then the procedure and House affairs committee engages in an exhaustive review of that report, makes recommendations based on a riffing off, if you like, of the CEO's recommendations, submits those, and the government responds. It may respond in a way the committee judges to be satisfactory or unsatisfactory, but the fact is that you wait for that process.

You moved ahead without waiting for our report, and although we're not permitted to say what we were discussing, I can tell you that some of what we were discussing in our report was, I thought, of enormous use, and cannot be dealt with in some supplemental piece of legislation because it very much featured some of the key issues that you're dealing with and setting in stone in this piece of legislation.

May I ask why you didn't follow the precedent of all your predecessors in this regard and wait until our report had been submitted? If I may say so...well, let me just stop there and ask that question, Minister.

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

That's fantastic.

I do want to move to Bill C-33. In order to facilitate that, now that we know you'd be willing to come back, Mr. Chair, I move:

That the Committee invite the Minister of Democratic Institutions to appear for not less than two hours to answer questions regarding MyDemocracy.ca and the government’s planned agenda for electoral reform.

I take it, Mr. Chair, because we moved off the topic, that we can conclude that I haven't used up my seven minutes yet. I'm not using up the time for the questions to the minister.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you.

Once again, thank you so much, Minister, for joining us this morning. I realize you're busy, and we appreciate having you at the committee.

Over the course of the summer, I had an objective that I was going to have one town hall on electoral reform. When I had my first town hall, I realized that many people at that town hall were oftentimes the same people I had at most of my town halls. I took it upon myself, however, to go out and to meet with different groups of people I wanted to meet with, specifically our marginalized population, our youth, and people who are oftentimes not engaged in the political process. Could you please specify how this legislation, Bill C-33, would involve more Canadians in the electoral process, especially among disproportionately under-represented groups?

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

The last three sections of Bill C-33 deal with the Frank decision and repositioning the elections commissioner. None of those topics were addressed in the election officer's report. What I'd like to know from you is, what approach you think we should take to reconcile our recommendations, which we cannot disclose at this time, with the bill that is already out. You're open to amendments, but they could become quite significant, so I want to get your take on that.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his very thoughtful question.

While I'm not privy to the conversations you folks have through your in camera deliberations, I understand that reviewing and making recommendations on the Chief Electoral Officer's report is very much within your mandate. It's something I'm counting on. These changes we put forward in Bill C-33 I believe are straightforward. I'm not sure where you are in your review of them, but you're right that there's quite a bit more work to be done. I understand that you will be providing a report to the House in the new year. We're eagerly awaiting your recommendations.

On this particular bill, too, there were areas where we could have gone further, but the decision we considered to be the most thoughtful one was to just wait. An example is expanding the right to vote to Canadians living and working abroad for more than five years. We've expanded the right to those Canadians who have at one time lived here in Canada, but something that we're counting on this committee to study further and provide its recommendations on is the status of the children of those Canadians living abroad who are still Canadians but who have never lived in Canada. Do we expand the right to vote to them?

Ultimately, I believe my main goal with my mandate letter, the reason we all work very hard every day, is that we want to see more Canadians participating in their democratic process, whether as engaged and informed voters or as active participants and candidates. That is an area of key priority for me: accessibility and inclusion. That is something I think we can do in the months, if not years, ahead. That's something we can improve upon. These are some of my priorities that I think are important for you to know, but I'm also happy to have conversations with colleagues around this table about what you would collectively like to see moving forward.

I know that what you do in this committee, one of the things that's quite impressive, is you're able to work collegially. You're able to put partisan interests aside. You see the big picture and you move forward based on what's in the best interests of all Canadians. That's the spirit that I think we need to work towards to improve democratic participation. If there are areas you believe need to be at the heart of our focus, then talk to me.

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

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

I find Bill C-33 is a very important bill. As staff to the Liberal critic for democratic reform in the last Parliament, I was very heavily involved in fighting the unfair elections act. That said, you are aware that we were studying the election office's report and from the announced report there are five overlapping sections of the bill with our study.

I don't want to get too much into that, but I wanted to make sure you're aware of that part, which you've addressed, and I thank you for that. There are 132 recommendations in that report, of which there are 127 left. You just said there are going to be more bills coming. I'd like to get a sense from you of what the priorities are for us to study so we don't have the situation again where the bill comes before our study is complete.

I'd really like to make sure that we have the opportunity to study it in advance. I'd like to know, of those 127 remaining recommendations that didn't get addressed in Bill C-33, where your priorities lie for us to get through.