Bill C-76 (Historical)

Elections Modernization Act

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

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to establish spending limits for third parties and political parties during a defined period before the election period of a general election held on a day fixed under that Act. It also establishes measures to increase transparency regarding the participation of third parties in the electoral process. Among other things that it does in this regard, the enactment
(a) adds reporting requirements for third parties engaging in partisan activities, partisan advertising, and election surveys to the reporting requirements for third parties engaging in election advertising;
(b) creates an obligation for third parties to open a separate bank account for expenses related to the matters referred to in paragraph (a); and
(c) creates an obligation for political parties and third parties to identify themselves in partisan advertising during the defined period before the election period.
The enactment also amends the Act to implement measures to reduce barriers to participation and increase accessibility. Among other things that it does in this regard, the enactment
(a) establishes a Register of Future Electors in which Canadian citizens 14 to 17 years of age may consent to be included;
(b) broadens the application of accommodation measures to all persons with a disability, irrespective of its nature;
(c) creates a financial incentive for registered parties and candidates to take steps to accommodate persons with a disability during an election period;
(d) amends some of the rules regarding the treatment of candidates’ expenses, including the rules related to childcare expenses, expenses related to the care of a person with a disability and litigation expenses;
(e) amends the rules regarding the treatment of nomination contestants’ and leadership contestants’ litigation expenses and personal expenses;
(f) allows Canadian Forces electors access to several methods of voting, while also adopting measures to ensure the integrity of the vote;
(g) removes limitations on public education and information activities conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer;
(h) removes 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
(i) extends voting hours on advance polling days.
The enactment also amends the Act to modernize voting services, facilitate enforcement and improve various aspects of the administration of elections and of political financing. Among other things that it does in this regard, the enactment
(a) removes the assignment of specific responsibilities set out in the Act to specific election officers by creating a generic category of election officer to whom all those responsibilities may be assigned;
(b) limits election periods to a maximum of 50 days;
(c) removes administrative barriers in order to facilitate the hiring of election officers;
(d) authorizes 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;
(e) removes the prohibition on the Chief Electoral Officer authorizing the notice of confirmation of registration (commonly known as a “voter information card”) as identification;
(f) replaces, in the context of voter identification, the option of attestation for residence with an option of vouching for identity and residence;
(g) removes the requirement for electors’ signatures during advance polls, changes procedures for the closing of advance polls and allows for counting ballots from advance polls one hour before the regular polls close;
(h) replaces the right or obligation to take an oath with a right or obligation to make a solemn declaration, and streamlines the various declarations that electors may have the right or obligation to make under specific circumstances;
(i) relocates the Commissioner of Canada Elections to within the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, and provides 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;
(j) provides the Commissioner of Canada Elections with the authority to impose administrative monetary penalties for contraventions of provisions of Parts 16, 17 and 18 of the Act and certain other provisions of the Act;
(k) provides the Commissioner of Canada Elections with the authority to lay charges;
(l) provides the Commissioner of Canada Elections with the power to apply for a court order requiring testimony or a written return;
(m) clarifies offences relating to
(i) the publishing of false statements,
(ii) participation by non-Canadians in elections, including inducing electors to vote or refrain from voting, and
(iii) impersonation; and
(n) implements a number of measures to harmonize and streamline political financing monitoring and reporting.
The enactment also amends the Act to provide for certain requirements with regard to the protection of personal information for registered parties, eligible parties and political parties that are applying to become registered parties, including the obligation for the party to adopt a policy for the protection of personal information and to publish it on its Internet site.
The enactment also amends the Parliament of Canada Act to prevent the calling of a by-election when a vacancy in the House of Commons occurs within nine months before the day fixed for a general election under the Canada Elections Act.
It also amends the Public Service Employment Act to clarify that the maximum period of employment of casual workers in the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer — 165 working days in one calendar year — applies to those who are appointed by the Commissioner of Canada Elections.
Finally, the enactment contains transitional provisions, makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Special Voting Rules.

Firearms Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was astounded that my colleague from Kenora would actually accuse someone like me of having mental health issues, because I am one of the law-abiding firearms owners he is talking about. On the fact that he is suggesting that changes to the law made in Bill C-71 would address the issues in the United States, I might suggest that he would be better off pursuing a Congress seat than representing the fine folks in Kenora. To imply that making the changes we need to make here in Canada is the result of U.S. legislative policies is simply misguided.

I wish I actually did not have to rise in the House today to talk about this. I wish that the public safety committee, when the current government first took office, had been tasked with actually going across Canada and talking to people. If we were going to have a serious conversation about creating a safer Canada and increasing public safety, we could have had a thoughtful discussion. We could have had a less partisan discussion on this issue. Instead, the bill just came out of the blue. Bill C-71 came late in the mandate of the government after several years of trying to get electoral reform through. The Liberals cannot pass their marijuana legislation without the Senate pushing it back. They are trying to rig the election system again through Bill C-76.

This is where we are at. We are three years into a four-year mandate, ramming legislation through with a handful of hours at second reading, one meeting with the minister and bureaucrats at committee, and three more meetings with a handful of witnesses, a mere fraction of the number of people and organizations that wanted to be represented and have their voices heard. Now we just had notice from the government House leader that the Liberals are going to move time allocation, not only at the report stage of this bill but also at third reading, making sure that the voices that are reasonable and need to be heard will not be so that they can push through what can only be described as an emotionally based agenda when it comes to firearms.

There is not a single member of Parliament in this place who would not do the right thing if given the right options and good advice and empirical evidence to suggest that the legislation was going to improve safety for Canadians. If that actually happened, if that was the approach the government had actually taken, we might have come up with some legislation that had unanimous support. In fact, my colleague from Kenora who just spoke suggested the mental health side of things. There is nothing in Bill C-71 that would actually address mental health issues. There is nothing in Bill C-71 that would address any co-operation between federal investigators, law enforcement agencies, or firearms officers and anything to with any of the provincial mental health acts.

Here is why this bill is so offensive to the law-abiding firearms community. The Liberals say that nothing about this is a firearms registry. Nothing could be further from the truth. In a previous life, before I came here, I was a tenured faculty member at Red Deer College teaching systems analysis and design. I was a database architect and a database administrator before I came here. I understand information technology. I understand how to cross-reference information. Whether it is a distributed computing system or the technology we have today, with clouds of information out there, it is very easy.

The bureaucrats, the minister, and the police officers who came before the committee made it painstakingly obvious to anyone who was paying attention that with Bill C-71, every time there was a transaction and a firearm changed hands, whether through a sale, an estate inheritance, a gift, or lending or borrowing, Canadians would have to get permission from the government. If they were at a gun show on the weekend, if they were going to Cabela's, if they were selling a firearm to their neighbour, or if they were lending their rifle to their hunting buddy to go on a trip and were not on that trip too, they would have to get permission from the government to do this first.

Here is how this would work. The Liberal government today says that it is going to have someone on staff, 24/7, 365 days a year, to pick up the phone when the buyer and seller want to have a transaction. The Liberals' original legislation actually said that for every firearm that was going to be transacted, they would need a separate reference number. This is a registry, because there would be the seller's licence and the buyer's licence.

Here is my buyer's licence. It is a document. It has my licence number, my name, my address, and the type of licence I have. Every one of those reference numbers is going to transact the serial number, make, and model of that firearm, to be cross-referenced with distributed store records. I specifically asked the bureaucrats how this would work, and they said it would be no trouble for the central transaction database, with all the reference numbers, to easily go back to a store and find out where a firearm was originally purchased.

If I buy a firearm from Cabela's or another store, and I choose to sell that firearm to a hunting buddy, who then sells that firearm to someone else, and that firearm is stolen and used in a crime, the police would have the ability to implicate me and everyone in that entire chain of sales in the act that was eventually done by a criminal, rather than focusing on that criminal.

If I sold 40, 50, or 100 firearms in one transaction as a single individual and not as a business, maybe that would trigger some kind of threshold and someone would ask what was going on. Was it an estate dispersal? Was I getting rid of all my firearms? That might have done something to increase public safety, but unfortunately, this bill would not do anything.

As a matter of fact, all it would do is create more red tape, more bureaucracy, and more expense. It would make gun shows on weekends that Canadians participate in more difficult. When I asked the bureaucrats what would happen for a large gun show in Canada, they said they would need a few weeks' notice. Now it would be up to every gun show organizer in this country to let the firearms centre know that on a weekend, it would have to staff up. Do members know how many gun shows there are in Canada? Virtually every weekend of the year there is one somewhere in Canada.

We did not talk to anyone. We did not talk to any gun show organizers. We did not hear from anyone from the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association, which is in the retail business. None of those organizations were brought in to testify before the committee so that the government would have an opportunity to understand what it was it was going to do.

Bill C-71 would create a registry of firearms transactions, to be maintained by the firearms centre, which would be cross-referenced with all the records that would now be mandatory for store owners to keep for a period of 20 years or more. The period would be 20 years or more, because the legislation does not say for just 20 years. It says that if Canada acceded to an international treaty that required Canadians to store the records for even longer, it would be automatic in law that those records would need to be kept longer. It would not even come back before Parliament.

We have discovered that Canada is already involved in negotiating one of those treaties, so it is very convenient that the legislation would be there so that we could keep the records even longer.

It is a $3-billion boondoggle. We have not had a single government official say how much more the government is going to spend on the firearms centre to ramp up the staff to keep track of the new gun registry.

Classification is another thing that frustrates firearms owners. Bill C-42, the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, actually put the decisions back in the hands of elected representatives so that at least there was some recourse for law-abiding firearms owners who, by the stroke of a pen, went from one day being law-abiding firearms owners to the next day being in possession of prohibited property.

The Liberals could have adopted a very simple fix. We simply suggested taking it out of the hands of one individual and creating a panel. I put a recommendation before the committee to have five technical experts, including police, military, and civilian experts, advise us, thereby depoliticizing the issue altogether. In this way, it would not be in the hands of one entity or in the hands of politicians. We could get a panel of actual experts to make those recommendations and fix the rules.

We know that there are three basic criteria for handguns: rimfire, centrefire, barrel length, and so on. These criteria tell us if a firearm is restricted or prohibited. There is nothing that prescriptive in the long-gun classification system. It is very subjective, and that is the problem with the rules. The minister says that it can hide behind the RCMP, because the RCMP simply has to follow the rules, but the rules are not clear. They are very subjective. It is very frustrating.

Last but not least is the notion of licensing. As my colleague from Kenora rightly pointed out, if we go back to the passage of legislation in 1977, there are firearms owners in Canada who have had licences for almost 40 years. They would now, when they went to renew their licences, have to answer for everything they did back when they 18 years old, some 20 years before 1977, for example, as if the mental health issues from 60 years ago were going to be the basis for denying them a licence. Mark my words, someone is going to go back and dredge this up, and a current law-abiding firearms owner who has had a licence for 30 or 40 years is going to be denied a licence. Do members know how to appeal that? A person has to make an application before a court. A person has to hire a lawyer, go before a court, and get a judge to overrule the decision of the chief firearms officer.

We provided an amendment at committee, which the Liberals shot down. As a matter of fact, it was an amendment proposed by a rural Liberal member from Ontario, who suggested that we create a system of appeal so that law-abiding firearms owners were not caught up in being denied their licences if they had had them for a number of years.

I could go on for another couple of hours about the failures of Bill C-71, but my time is up, so I will happily answer any of the misguided questions the Liberals have for me.

Democratic Reform

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal elections bill, Bill C-76, would do nothing to modernize our democratic process. In fact, this dangerous bill would encourage foreign entities to interfere in our elections and undermine our democracy.

Other countries have seen the consequences of foreign interference in elections. It would be naive to presume Canada is immune. In fact, reports indicate that foreign third parties spent millions of dollars in the 2015 federal election. The American Tides Foundation alone donated $1.5 million to influence its outcome.

We should not allow our elections to be decided by foreign organizations or individuals with deep pockets.

I have tabled Bill C-406 to address this very issue. Bill C-406 would amend the Canada Elections Act to ban foreign contributions to third parties for election advertising purposes.

Canadians, and Canadians only, should be determining the results of our next election. It is the right thing to do; it is the patriotic thing to do.

I look forward to the debate on this bill and seeing where the other parties in the House will put their interests, either with Canada or their own. Any member who votes against the bill is voting in favour of foreign interference in our elections. I guess we will see.

Impact Assessment Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, if only the Liberals were as efficient in governing as they are in skullduggery around such issues, Canada would be a much better place.

My colleague brings up some very valuable points. The U.S. treasury department is, right now, investigating Russian interference in its energy industry. Russia views the U.S. and Canada as major energy competitors. Without its energy industry, Russia would be bankrupt, so it is against the interests of the U.S. and Canada to grow their energy industries. Russia is funnelling money, as the U.S. treasury department says, into Tides U.S.A. Tides U.S.A. sends its money to Tides Canada, which then funnels it to Leadnow, which campaigns on behalf of the Liberal government of Canada.

Now the government is introducing Bill C-76 that will open the floodgates for more foreign money coming into Canada and Bill C-69 would also allow equal standing for radical environmentalists from the U.S., Russian activists, and a Canadian appearing before the regulatory regime.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member for Edmonton West about the issue of standing in Bill C-69. Peeling that back to the last election, we saw an unprecedented assault on Canadian democracy with U.S. money funnelled to third parties that, in turn, backed the Liberal Party. Now we have Bill C-69, which opens standing up to foreign anti-oil sands activists. The government has now introduced Bill C-76, which leaves a major loophole with respect to foreign funding of third parties, which essentially says that it is open season for foreign entities to fund registered third parties if the monies are transferred before June 30.

Does the hon. member for Edmonton West think that this is all a coincidence or is this just a case of the Liberal Party trying to benefit from foreign funding to help it during elections and to advance its activist radical agenda to keep Alberta energy in the ground?

[Jeanette Ashe, Chair, Political Science, Douglas College, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me here today. My academic specialty is political recruitment, and I publish and advise parties on how to increase women's representation in legislatures. Today I'd like to make three key points about the barriers facing women in politics.

First, I'll talk about the problem. In terms of political representation, Canada is doing comparatively badly.

Second, I'll explain why Canada is doing badly. Party selection processes are the main cause of women's under-representation. There's a misconception that women's under-representation is caused by a lack of supply rather than a lack of demand. The opposite is true. Women do come forward in sufficient numbers, but party selectors and officials disproportionately select men.

Third, I'll tell you how we can improve. Because the problem is more due to demand, demand-side solutions will work best. The biggest difference that the Canadian Parliament can make is by legislating quotas for political parties, meaning that parties would be required to run 40% to 50% women candidates. If this isn't possible, Parliament should financially incentivize parties to run more women candidates. At the very least, Elections Canada must collect more information about nomination races and report this information to Parliament to increase the transparency of these processes and the accountability of political parties.

Point one is that comparatively, Canada is not performing well. Women hold 27% of the seats in the House of Commons. That puts us at 61st place out of 193 countries. As women are 50% of the population, fair selection processes would mean that they would win 50% of the seats. That's 169 seats, 78 seats more than the 91 they currently hold. Why does this happen?

Point two is that party selection processes are the problem. We need to better understand supply and demand. To get elected, women must first get selected as candidates. In 2015 women won 26% of the seats and were 30% of the candidates, a historic high. This means that 67% of the candidates were men. Looking at percentages can be misleading. It leads many to believe that women's under-representation is a problem of supply, but the raw figures tell a different story. Of the 1,792 candidates, 535 were women. We only need to elect 169 women to get sex parity, yet 535 women stood for office. That's a surplus of 366 women.

I want to repeat that: in the last election, we had a surplus of 366 women candidates. That means it's not a supply problem.

These data reflect only one stage of the selection process. Let's dig deeper and look at when people put their names forward to become candidates.

While Elections Canada doesn't collect all the data we need on nomination contests, we can use other academic work to estimate what happens during candidate selection processes. Although we know that some candidates are acclaimed, we also know that local party members vote in contests to select their candidates. Many of you in this room have been through it.

Let's imagine, because we don't have the full data, that two competitors vie for each of the 1,792 candidacies, for a total of 3,584 coming forward in the hopes of getting selected. That's the supply. To repeat, I estimate that about 3,500 people came forward to stand as candidates in the last election, but only 1,792 were selected. That's the selection process. That's what the filtering or winnowing process does. If 30% of those coming forward were women, the supply of women would be over 1,000. That's 1,075 women coming forward when we only need 169 for sex parity, so we have more than enough women coming forward. This should help undermine the idea that supply is the problem.

Of course, what this analysis is missing is the impact that parties play on selection process outcomes—that is, who gets selected as candidates. My own research shows that in some Canadian cases, men are six times more likely to be selected as candidates by party members than are women.

I want that to sink in: men are six times more likely than women to be selected as candidates, and that's when everything is held constant, so again, it's not supply; it's more demand. It really comes down to the will of the parties, regardless of the electoral system that we use. If party leaders want more women candidates, they'll make it happen.

Since the problem of women's under-representation is due more to demand, point three is that we need to consider more fully the demand-sized solutions. In an ideal world, Canada would bring in sex quotas for women, and this is already done in more than 100 countries. For example, some countries entrench reserved seats or legal candidate quotas in their constitutions, while others simply pass new laws.

As Canada is unlikely to change its constitution, changing electoral law would seem to be the most palatable way forward. For example, under Belgian law, parties that fail to run sex-balanced candidate lists are disqualified from participating in the elections. The mildest option is to financially incentivize parties to run more women candidates, as is the case in Ireland and France.

This mildest of measures was rejected by this Parliament in 2016 in the form of Bill C-237, the candidate gender equity act. I would strongly advise this committee to revisit the measures proposed in Bill C-237, but if doing that isn't possible, then at the very least empower Elections Canada to compel political parties to provide additional data on candidate selection contests on all those who come forward to stand for selection and on all those who win and on all those who lose so that the two pools can be compared.

More specifically, I recommend that subsection 476.1(1) of the Canada Elections Act be amended to make mandatory the provision of intersectional data on all aspiring contestants who participate in selection contests, including information on sex, gender identification, race, indigenousness, physical ability, sexual orientation, and so on.

Right now you're actually amending the Canada Elections Act through Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, and you can easily make these changes so we can better understand how women fare in selection processes.

Thank you.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

That's one way that you could do it. You could say, “Look, as a matter of fact, you're required to be here, and if you're not here, then that's a criminal offence.”

Another way that you could do it would be to do it under the Canada Elections Act. If you did it under the Canada Elections Act, particularly if the punishment for not showing up was some kind of fine, then you would actually be generating revenue. If we knew that a new process for federal election leaders debates was going to be revenue generating, then we would have to consider that as we consider this price tag of $750,000 because perhaps then the costs both of developing and then implementing this new process would be offset by revenue. We can imagine that federal leaders would be likely to want to show up and not incur that cost, but it would be an open question as to whether or not they do.

Even as we think about that, another question comes up. Which leaders of federal parties would be eligible or would be required under the legislation? Would it just be leaders of official parties within the House of Commons prior to the last election? Would it be leaders of any registered political party that would then be part of this debate? Would it be leaders of federal political parties that are polling at a certain amount on the eve of the debate? I think there would be some considerable debate about what the qualification is. The reason this might have a cost implication is simply that if we're looking at whether or not a fine structure would generate revenue, it's going to matter how many federal political party leaders are required to be at the debate. If there's a whole bunch of them that are required to be at the debate, it's more likely that this will be a revenue-generating proposition than not.

Of course, there's another question that comes up with respect to trying to forecast revenue and, therefore, what it's appropriate for Parliament to approve if every leader of a federal political party is required to be at this debate. Of course, we know that some parties have more resources than others, and there may be a number of small parties without the means to fund their leader getting to that debate. In that case, they're going to have to undergo or submit to the fine. That is a question that bears on this.

Those are just the some of the most extreme versions where you have the government say that it's going to set the date and that it's going to require that they be there as a matter of criminal law, in which case we're amending the Criminal Code, or as a matter of administrative requirement under the Canada Elections Act, in which case there may be fines that could generate revenue. The government in Bill C-76, in the omnibus election reform bill, has actually used this mechanism as a penalty for other measures. In that bill, the government has proposed that if political parties fail to live up to the privacy policy that they post on their websites, a potential outcome of that could be that the party would be deregistered. That's pretty severe, but that's a consequence that's been put on the table by this government already. If it was inclined to use some of the mechanisms that it is already suggesting for certain important breaches of the election law, then we might see a scenario where if leaders of federal political parties don't show up to the federal election leaders debate, the party itself ends up deregistered. Again, that's quite extreme, but it's certainly something that is within the realm of the possible.

I'd remind you, Mr. Chair and the committee, that the debate we're having on this particular initiative is so wide-ranging because when we had the departmental officials here and we asked questions about what they wanted to do with the money, they left virtually every possibility open. They in no way restricted our thinking in terms of what they may or may not be doing with that money. That's why I think it's quite relevant to be exploring some of the possibilities of what they might ultimately come up with.

Certainly, if I can think of these things, and if we hear other suggestions from other members of the committee, then it's by no means beyond the ability of government to contemplate these things as well. That would be the issue if they were contemplating legislative changes in the most basic, strict way.

Another way they might introduce legislative changes that would be relatively complex and I think actually require more funding.... Although as I said,, I think it would be important for them to make those legislative changes and then ask for the funding. This is another reason I think we can in good conscience support this amendment and remove this money from vote 40.

One other kind of legislative change would be not to have government decide the dates of those leaders debates but to actually constitute, through legislation, some kind of independent commission that would then be the organization that does that and does it in a way that's arm's length.

You will recall, Mr. Chair, some of the complaints—and this was kind of an important discussion in the last election but some of these grievances certainly predated the last election; the last election wasn't the only time they came up—had to do with a media consortium without any particular mandate or authority deciding when and where these debates would take place as well as how these debates would unfold. That's something that any new legislation establishing a commission would want to address. We don't know that it would because we don't have the proposed legislation. We don't even know if the government is really contemplating that legislation. It does say in the budget, and if somebody ever wanted to find the page.... Maybe I'll look for it as I speak, Mr. Chair, because I think it would be beneficial, and I do have a tab here that does mention it. The problem is that there are so many tabs. I was trying to identify programs where there was an issue with not having sufficient information about a budget item before providing approval, and the PCO is definitely in here because that was one of them.

[Carlos Monje, Director of Public Policy, Twitter - United States and Canada, Twitter Inc.]

Thank you, Chair, for the invitation to appear today and for the opportunity to share our perspective.

My name is Carlos Monje. I'm the director of policy and philanthropy for Canada and the United States. With me is Ms. Michele Austin, the head of government, public policy, and philanthropy at Twitter Canada.

I apologize that we are not able to be with you today, though I was pleased to travel to Ottawa in January to brief Elections Canada and the Office of the Minister of Democratic Institutions on Twitter's approach to information quality, generally, and ads transparency, specifically.

Twitter connects people to what's happening around the world. One of the reasons people come to Twitter is that it is the best place to engage with and learn from political leaders and policy advocates. Twitter works with political parties across Canada to connect them with users, including through advertising.

We are committed to increasing transparency for all ads on Twitter, including political ads. In late 2017, we announced first steps in a series of changes on our platform to further promote freedom of expression, privacy, and transparency. Specifically, Twitter has launched a program to dramatically increase ads transparency. In addition to providing additional transparency for all advertising on the platform, we are piloting an effort in the United States to protect the integrity of our platform and our users by imposing additional eligibility restrictions and certification requirements on all advertisers who wish to purchase political ads.

We're going to increase awareness of paid political messaging by appending a visual badge on the face of paid political communications to make it clear when users see or engage with the political ad.

We're going to include disclaimer information regardless of the method of advertising—whether that's text, graphics, video, or a combination of those—in the most technologically practical way, and we're launching a political ads transparency centre that will provide users with additional details regarding the targeting demographics of each political campaign ad and the organization that funded it.

Once we have analyzed our U.S. experience with this pilot, and have made the necessary refinements, we will launch it to other markets, including Canada. There are ways in which digital communications are functionally and technologically different from ads placed on other media, including television, radio, and airplanes, as we heard in the panel beforehand.

We offer self-service to give advertisers control over what products they want to use on our platform and who sees them. Advertisers also create their own content. Often advertisers will use multiple advertising tools on the platform, using media like video or creating an emoji. Advertisers will often want to manage more than one @ handle associated with their brand. They want to work with multiple internal team members, with partners, with agencies, or with clients who also have access to that account. Advertisers often want to update or change content quickly as the campaign unfolds in real time.

Twitter supports the intentions of Bill C-76, the election modernization act. Twitter supports efforts to provide clear rules to advertisers who wish to purchase paid political communications on digital media and devices.

We ask the committee for some clarity, specifically around two clauses in the bill—clauses 282.4 and 491.2—which regulate how ads are sold and how the new rules will be enforced. These concerns include how “intent” and “knowingly” will be measured and proven with regard to hosting ads, how Elections Canada will enforce these changes, how suspicious activity will be reported, the ability of Elections Canada to act in real time, and misidentifying accounts of real users and how that will be remedied.

Twitter will need more time to complete our due diligence on the proposed changes and on how the platform will comply with them to host advertising, including by political parties.

In conclusion, Twitter is dedicated to and proud of our users' and advertisers' rights to speak freely. We also believe that giving users more context about political advertising is key to a healthier democratic debate. We look forward to continuing our work to improve our services and to working with you.

We look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

[Kevin Chan, Global Director and Head of Public Policy, Facebook Canada, Facebook Inc.]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. My name is Kevin Chan, and I am the head of public policy for Facebook Canada.

I want to begin by acknowledging the importance of the subject at hand today, the integrity of our elections.

Facebook stands for bringing us closer together and building community, creating a healthy environment for civic engagement. It is crucial to our mission as a company. We know that a service that fosters inclusive, informative, and civically engaged communities is critically important to the people who use Facebook.

I want to point out that we know how vital a platform Facebook is for your respective political parties and leaders in engaging citizens, and that it is an important means of communication that Canadians use to contact you directly. The Prime Minister used Facebook Live last week to announce Canada's new tariffs on the United States.

The leader of the opposition recently took part in a question and answer session with Canadians via Facebook, and the NDP leader live-streamed on Facebook his speech at the recent Kinder Morgan rally on Parliament Hill.

We recognize that Facebook is an important tool for civic engagement and that is why we take our responsibility to election integrity on our platforms so seriously.

In Canada, we understand the degree to which Facebook is a key platform for your respective political parties and leaders as well as an important way for Canadians to engage directly with you. The Prime Minister used Facebook Live last week to announce Canada's new tariffs on the United States. The Leader of the Opposition recently engaged in a Q and A session directly with Canadians on Facebook. As well, the leader of the NDP live-streamed his speech at the recent Kinder Morgan rally on Parliament Hill.

We recognize that Facebook is an important tool for civic engagement, and that is why we take our responsibility for election integrity on our platform so seriously. We have been engaged on the issue of election integrity in Canada for many years. Following the last federal election in 2015, the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections noted that Facebook's “cooperation and swift action on a number of key files helped us to quickly resolve a number of issues and ultimately ensure compliance with the Canada Elections Act”. It is our full intention to be equally vigilant in the next federal election in 2019. As referenced by the chair, a copy of the entire letter from the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections to Facebook has been sent to the committee for your consideration.

As you may know, the Communications Security Establishment published last year a report outlining various cyber-threats to the next federal election and identified two areas that Facebook sees a role in addressing: one, cybersecurity—the hacking into the online accounts of candidates and political parties; and two, the spreading of misinformation online.

In response, we launched last fall our Canadian election integrity initiative, which consists of the following five elements. First, to address cybersecurity, one, we launched a Facebook “Cyber Hygiene Guide” created specifically for Canadian politicians and political parties. It provides key information for how everyone who is administering a political figure or party's Facebook presence can help keep their accounts and pages secure. Second, we are offering cyber-hygiene training to all of the federal political parties. Third, we launched a new cyber-threat email line for federal politicians and political parties. This email line is a direct pipe into our security team at Facebook and will help enable quick response for compromised pages or accounts. Fourth, to address misinformation online, we have partnered with MediaSmarts, Canada's centre for digital and media literacy on a two-year project to develop thinking, resources, and public service announcements on how to spot misinformation online. This initiative, which we are calling “reality check”, includes lesson plans, interactive online missions, and videos and guides that will promote the idea that verifying information is an essential life and citizenship skill. Fifth, we launched our ads transparency test, called “view ads” here in Canada last November. This test, which is ongoing, allows anybody in Canada to view all ads a page is running, even if they are not in the intended audience. All advertisers on Facebook are subject to “view ads”, but we recognize that it is an important part of our civic engagement efforts. Candidates running for office and organizations engaged in political advertising should be held accountable for what they say to citizens, and this feature gives people the chance to see all the things a candidate or organization is saying to everyone. This is a higher level of ads transparency than currently exists for any type of advertising online or offline.

The “Cyber Hygiene Guide” and more information about these five initiatives can be found at facebookcanadianelectionintegrityinitiative.com. I have also circulated copies of the “Cyber Hygiene Guide” to this committee for your consideration. This is only phase one of our Canadian election integrity initiative, and we intend to launch additional measures to address cybersecurity and misinformation online in the lead-up to the 2019 federal election.

I want to also share with you some measures we have taken in advance of the Ontario election happening today. We conducted outreach to all Ontario candidate page administrators, sharing best practices to keep their accounts secure and ensuring that they have access to our cyber-threats crisis line. We sent an in-app notification to all Ontario candidate page administrators, which appeared at the top of their feed, reminding them to turn on two-factor authentication, and we launched a new MediaSmarts “reality check” public service announcement focused on how to access the validity of information online during a campaign. This video, which has been running since May 3, has been viewed more than 680,000 times. We will be rolling out similar initiatives for other provincial elections in Canada in the months to come.

With respect to Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, it is legislation that is about a broad range of election issues, many beyond the scope of Facebook. Bill C-76 does include a provision to require organizations selling advertising space to not knowingly accept elections advertisements from foreign entities. We support this provision.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I will be pleased to answer your questions.

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

Thank you.

I have two questions, or possibly only one, for Professor Sirota.

First of all, Leonid, it's good to see you again. I want to dwell on what I think is the central theme of what you're drawing attention to, which is that there are a number of restrictions on Canadians' charter rights contained in Bill C-76. You mentioned voting by Canadians overseas and how this deals with a charter challenge that's under way right now.

I'll just observe that there are still Canadian citizens living overseas who will be exempted from voting. For those who were born overseas, I'm not sure that from a constitutional point of view I see the distinction that their charter rights are somehow inferior to those of their parents. I guess if you argue that the section 3 right to vote is subsidiary to or limited by section 1, then you can make that argument, but I don't think that's the direction in which the Supreme Court has been heading, given that it allows prisoners to vote and so on.

More substantially, I think you raised a really interesting point. If we are fighting against the idea that there is a permanent campaign, and we want to say as a society that we don't want there to be a permanent campaign, then, I think you're implying, we start heading down a slippery slope in saying that we have to restrict political speech further and further out from the actual election date versus the writ period. Then it's this pre-writ period that starts on June 30 that will inevitably be found inadequate after zillions of dollars get spent in the next election prior to June 30, and then we will see further restrictions.

Is there a danger that we're heading in the direction of seeing substantial restrictions on freedom of speech, or is that too much fearmongering?

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

One of the questions that we're also talking about here is in terms of participation, and not just the participation of voters but also the diversity of those who seek to represent voters. A very good aspect of this bill is that child care costs, as I think you mentioned, can now be used as an election expense. You've also written about trying to get more women in particular into the system, which is what this primarily directed towards, I would estimate, but not necessarily.

I'll quote you here. You've said:

There’s a strong association between the type of electoral system adopted and the representation of women. Proportional representation electoral systems tend to have twice as many women in parliament than those that use first-past-the-post or single member plurality....

If you were forced to choose between provisions that exist within Bill C-76 and provisions that would, say, bring in the government's promise and bring in a more proportional system, and if the only lens you were looking through was greater diversity for our 75%-male-dominated Parliament, which would you choose?

[Leonid Sirota, Lecturer, Auckland University of Technology, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. I'm terribly sorry for whatever has happened here. Thanks for having me.

I will start by commenting on one thing that Bill C-76 does, which is to lift restrictions on Canadians who are voting overseas, abroad, like me. Maybe this is special pleading on my part, but I will be happy to answer questions on why I think it's constitutionally a very commendable thing to do.

I will focus on the ways in which Bill C-76 continues or, indeed, increases some restrictions in Canadian election law on freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is central to the elections, and the elections are central to freedom of expression. This connection was recognized a long time ago by Canadian courts, well before the charter. F.R. Scott, the great constitutional scholar, once wrote that as long as the word “parliament” is in the Constitution, we have a bill of rights. That was the case before the charter, and yet no debate in Canadian society is as regulated as the one that occurs during election campaigns. Some of these regulations are important and necessary, some not so much.

I will focus on three particular restrictions on freedom of expression in Bill C-76.

The first of those is the definition of “election advertising”. The bill continues from the existing Canada Elections Act. The problem I see with it is that the exemptions it provides for communications from individuals and groups apply both to individuals and groups so long as communications are through traditional media, newspaper editorials, and that sort of thing, but so far as the Internet is concerned, only personal communications by individuals are exempted from the definition of “election advertising” and not the communications of groups. I see no good reason for that distinction. I see no good reason that, for example, the president of a union can tweet under his or her own name, but not under the institutional account of that union. I see, again, no reason for this difference. I think the definition should be amended to be technologically neutral.

The second point is the pre-campaign communications that Bill C-76 would restrict. Those restrictions are not in the current Canada Elections Act. In the Harper case, where the Supreme Court upheld restrictions on third party communications during election campaigns, the court said that one reason restriction was acceptable in a free and democratic society is that political speech is not restricted except during election campaigns.

While some people have said the absence of regulations on pre-campaign communications is a loophole that needs to be closed, in my view, it's actually an important constitutional safeguard that must be preserved. The British Columbia Court of Appeal considered restrictions on pre-campaign communications twice, and both times said they were unconstitutional. Now, the laws at issue were not exactly the same as Bill C-76—they were broader—so I'm not making a prediction on how the Supreme Court would rule on what's in Bill C-76, but at least there is a non-trivial chance that Bill C-76 is unconstitutional.

More importantly, the issue is one of principle. The problem that restrictions on pre-campaign communications are supposed to address is not called a “three-month campaign”. It's called a “permanent campaign”. The problem is that three months will not be enough to remedy the so-called issue with a permanent campaign. My concern is that Bill C-76 is a first step on the road to long-term and perhaps permanent restrictions on political communications in Canada, and it's not a road that we want to walk.

The final point I want to address is the restrictions on third party communications, both before and during the campaign. The Supreme Court has upheld what's in the Canada Elections Act now, but that's just the constitutional baseline. That doesn't mean Parliament cannot be more protective of freedom of expression than the Supreme Court. It's important to remember who third parties are. It's a term of art in election law, but what does it mean? It just means civil society. It means individuals. It means unions. It means groups. It might mean the scary rich, but in the Canadian experience, for the most part, third parties that want to communicate during elections are mostly unions.

Some people, like Professor Tom Flanagan, have said, “Great. We want to curb those people's freedom of expression.” I actually happen to agree with Professor Flanagan's dim view of unions. I don't agree with his view of freedom of expression. I think that whether or not we like people, they should be free to communicate.

The caps on third party spending in the Canada Elections Act now and those that will be under Bill C-76 are very low. They are less than 2% of what political parties are allowed to spend.

By comparison, in New Zealand, which is actually ranked higher in the transparency international corruption rankings than Canada is—it pains me as a Canadian, but there it is—the spending caps are at about 7.5%. This is a less restrictive regime. It's still a very low cap. There is no danger that third parties will interfere with communications by political parties themselves, but it's a more permissive regime than the one under Bill C-76.

The last thing I will note, also in relation to third parties, are the thresholds. For registration it is $500. As soon as you spend $500, you're required to register. Once you spend $10,000, you're required to submit to auditing. These rules are bound to be a deterrent to freedom of expression. They are very low thresholds. There is no reasonable chance that somebody spending $500, or even $10,000, is going to swing an election. They, as I said, are deterrents to public participation. These should be raised.

I will give you the figures by way of comparison. In New Zealand, the registration threshold is at about $12,000 Canadian. The reporting threshold for expenses, not auditing but just the report, must be filed once you spend about $90,000 Canadian. The electoral commission can require an audit, but nobody is obliged to submit to one.

Again, New Zealand does not seem to have a huge political corruption problem. It would be an example to at least consider it, maybe hopefully follow, in providing more room for members of a civil society to express this.

Thank you. I'm looking forward to your questions.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I want to go back to Phoenix, because my life seems to revolve around Phoenix. Obviously, it's a big issue right now, and we've heard comments that it might be an election issue.

How do you think Bill C-76 is going to affect PSAC's ability to communicate to its members about, say, Phoenix being an election issue?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

My first question is for Ms. Nagy. Your testimony has been received, and from what I understand—I'm looking at a copy of the commissioner of Canada elections' compliance report in front of me—the compliance agreement was between Elections Canada and Dan Ryder, the official agent for the 2015 Green candidate.

I understand the compliance agreement clearly indicates that what occurred was deemed unintentional on the part of Mr. Ryder in his use of Green Party signs, and that, despite a complaint that a thorough investigation of almost two years by Elections Canada was undertaken.... I'm referring to information from the Canada elections commissioner to Mr. Ryder that in the end, the commissioner decided that the allegations were not supported by the available evidence and that, at that point in time, considerable resources had been expended already on the investigation. The commissioner felt that there was no reason to pursue this and that this person went into a compliance agreement with Elections Canada with regard to this.

I also understand that, based on the information that I have, you were aware of this agreement that had been very well communicated to the Green Party members in advance of the writ being dropped in August. The MOU signed by the Green Party membership regarding the agreement between the Liberal Party candidate as well as the Green Party candidate was something that was communicated very extensively to people. People were aware of the fact that this agreement had been put in place.

Even though you had some concerns, you yourself had, based on an email of September 14, 2015 to the Kelowna Green board, asked Elections Canada to confirm in writing if having generic GPC signs out with Liberal signs, given the underlying MOU, could get you in any hot water if any party wanted to charge you with inadvertently supporting the Liberal Party's campaign.

He had already clarified, as I believe someone did to you, that it was fine from Elections Canada's perspective if Liberal and Green signs appeared together because of our unique situation. I want to be extra sure that we can push back against criticism.

From what I understand, Elections Canada had communicated that this was fine by them, and maybe the rules need to be tweaked based on what happened, but at that time, from what I understand, you were instructed that it was fine to have both Green Party signs and Liberal Party signs at an event.

Subsequent to the election and a complaint, it was decided that a compliance agreement would be put in place and that it will be looked at going forward. Maybe that's the point of your testimony here today, to look into that, whether or not in such an agreement be put in place if it were to occur again in a subsequent election.

I wanted to clarify the record to make sure that we all understood that.

My next question is for Professor Norris.

Professor Norris, you talked about issues that you think we should address in Bill C-76. You talked about the legal framework, including mixed member proportional, gender quotas, cybersecurity threats, and participation.

Out of those that you talked about, in terms of Bill C-76, what would be the priority? We just heard from a previous panel, and cybersecurity is obviously something we're hearing a lot about right now. Obviously we all want higher participation rate, and I think in Australia, if I remember correctly, it's mandatory voting. Obviously, with mandatory voting, 90% is fantastic.

[Chris Aylward, National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the committee for allowing us to appear today.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada represents 180,000 members. We are the largest union in the federal public service.

Bill C-76 proposes extensive changes that have a significant impact on our democratic process. We strongly support the amendments in the bill that will remove barriers to voting and make it more accessible.

My comments will focus on changes related to third parties.

Our usual election activity is to inform our members about issues and encourage them to exercise their political rights and to vote. We do this by communicating with them in a number of ways, including advertising. During the last federal election and in a number of previous elections, the Public Service Alliance of Canada registered as a third party.

Bill C-76 has not changed the definition of third party election advertising; however, the definition curtails our right to represent our members' interests during an election period. Messages we transmit that can be received or seen by the public, such as information posted on bulletin boards or included in flyers, are considered to be election advertising if they take a position on an issue that a registered party or candidate is associated with or if the message opposes a registered party.

I challenge you to think of an issue that affects Canadians and our members that cannot be associated with a party, leader, or candidate at some time or another. The vast majority of our members are employed by the federal government and by federal agencies controlled or regulated by the government, and we take on issues associated with registered parties on an ongoing basis. It is our role and responsibility to advance their interests and concerns, and our right to do so has been upheld by the courts.

The existing restrictions on third party advertising, the proposed changes to the election period, and the introduction of new pre-election periods deny our legitimate advocacy role. This is particularly crucial when governments attempt to prevent our members from speaking out on issues and to restrict their political rights and activities because they are government employees.

During the last federal election period, we were in the middle of bargaining with Treasury Board for approximately 100,000 members. When we demonstrated against the government's proposals, Elections Canada advised us that the messages on our picket signs and banners might be considered election advertising under the Elections Act. They were seen as transmitting a message to the public during an election period that could be seen as opposing a registered party or speaking out on an issue associated with a registered party—in this case, the previous governing party.

Bill C-76 proposes to extend similar although not identical restrictions during a new pre-election period. The difference is that advertising during the pre-election period excludes messages that take a position on an issue associated with political parties and their candidates or leaders; however, the restrictions could still be interpreted to put limits on what we can say publicly about positions being taken by our government employers.

I refer you to the landmark 1991 Supreme Court case of Lavigne and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. In that decision, the court affirmed the interconnected nature of political activity and union interests, or democratic unionism. The court said that many political activities, “be they concerned with the environment, tax policy, day-care or feminism, can be construed as related to the larger environment in which unions must represent their members”. Note that the court said “must represent their members” in this “larger environment”.

We are also concerned about the unnecessary burden the proposed legislation would put on unions to track and report all advertising expenses between elections. PSAC is a large organization, with 15 relatively autonomous components and over 1,000 locals; however, the third party provision treats us as a single entity. We would now be required to monitor all those parts in order to report expenses related to messages to the public amounting to $10,000 or more between an election and the pre-election period.

In conclusion, we ask the committee to review the proposed sections on third party advertising very carefully before proceeding with the bill so as not to affect the legitimate rights of unions to speak out on behalf of their members. We also ask you to consider splitting the bill and moving quickly to deal with the sections where there is general agreement and support, such as the sections that were originally contained in Bill C-33, and spend more time assessing the changes proposed by Bill C-76 before making other adjustments to the federal elections process.

Thank you for your time.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you.

My next question, if I have a few seconds left, is for Mr. Moscrop.

You talked a little bit about fake news and digital threats. I sit on the Standing Committee for National Defence, and we've done some interesting studies on hybrid warfare, fake news, Russia's attempts to infiltrate with fake news in Crimea in the Ukraine, and a lot of the misinformation campaigns that you're referring to. We've heard recently in the news here in Canada the likelihood of misinformation campaigns occurring in the next federal election.

Do you feel that Bill C-76 adequately prepares us for this new reality that we are facing? As you said, this generation wants news quickly. My own mother will call me up and say she that saw something on Facebook and that it must be true.

What do we do? People want information. They want it quickly. They're looking at sources online that maybe can't be verified, so what can we be doing, and does this piece of legislation move far enough in that regard?

[Kayleigh Erickson]

I'm not familiar with Bill C-76, but I can expand on what I'm talking about in terms of nomination races. It starts with your recruitment. I know, for example, that the Liberal Party of Canada has set voluntary internal targets, but has had issues in terms of being able to fulfill them. We need to be ensuring that we have enforcement mechanisms within parties, if it's going to be voluntary, to ensure they're reaching their targets in terms of having diverse candidates.

I will give an example in terms of nomination races and what that means in terms of eventual candidates. We know that women are likely to win in very diverse communities. We know that, in the 2015 election, for example, women running for the Liberals and Conservatives won less frequently than their male colleagues. I think it matters who you're recruiting, because that then translates into potentially who can be nominated, and that has significant impacts for the types of women who are being elected into politics.

I'll give an example of a solution. Recently New Brunswick released its first proactive strategy to increase women's representation, and it actually tied per-vote subsidies to the gender of the candidates who are being nominated. Not only does this encourage parties to run women, but it provides a real financial incentive to put them in winnable ridings, where they have the opportunity to actually get elected.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is great. Thank you so much to both witnesses for your presentation. Obviously, we have some different approaches, which is great. I always say in politics pick a lane, just get involved, and fight for your views. We have different paths to get to the same goal: to have a better Canada, a better society. Thank you both for your different opinions here.

Ms. Erickson, you spoke in your opening statement about nomination races and some barriers. Can you outline some of that for the committee? Also are you familiar with Bill C-76, the legislation that has just been submitted, and do you have any suggestions or comments related to that legislation?

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

Actually, if you recall, under the old guard Rhinoceros, 1990 was their last election, under Bryan Gold, if our guest can remember that, but probably not. He's a bit young. I ran that campaign. We came last, by the way. I've since crossed the floor, and things have been better since then.

That being said, Mr. Corriveau, you talked about many things, but can we go to Bill C-76 for just one moment? You believe in the limitations that we're putting on for third parties to get involved. By how many rubles would limitations be in your world?

[Sébastien Corriveau]

Okay. Take up your headphones. I will speak French also.

Ladies and gentlewomen, please turn on your cellphone and play Candy Crush; call your husband; reheat your dinner; text your lawyer; take a nap; take an emergency exit; close your eyes and stop listening: here comes the Dealer of the Rhinoceros Party of Canada. Hello.

Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Larry Bagnell, do you know that you used to be my member of Parliament? That was for three months in the summer of 2009, when I spent my summer in Whitehorse.

Dear committee, merci for welcoming me ici and now.

This is my first time appearing before a parliamentary committee and I think it is very appropriate to invite the leader of the Rhinoceros Party. Thank you. The members of the party and I do have good ideas at times.

It's always great to share them with you.

I would like to draw your attention to the public funding of political parties.

There is nothing about it in this bill. That was removed. The public funding of political parties was removed by the Stephen Harper government because he does not believe in corruption inside political parties.

It was Pierre Elliott Trudeau who established public funding for political parties in 1974. The purpose was to fight corruption in political parties and in the awarding of public works contracts. Abolished by Mr. Mulroney, the public funding system was reinstated by Jean Chrétien after the sponsorship scandal.

I would like it back.

The Prime Minister of Canada lied to Canadians when he said 2015 would be the last election with the first-past-the-post electoral system.

Our nation still has an archaic electoral system inherited from when Great Britain was our overlord, MPs listened to their local populations, and political parties had no party line that it was mandatory to follow.

In 2008, the Green Party of Canada received almost one million votes, yet they had no elected MPs—zero, nobody. At the same time, the Conservatives got 5.2 million votes, which is only five times more votes, and they elected 143 members of Parliament.

You call Canada a democracy? How cute. Five members of Parliament were elected with less than 30% of the vote, 69 members of Parliament were elected with less than 40% of the vote, and, 60% of the members of Parliament—206 MPs—were elected with less than 50% of the votes in their ridings.

Bill C-76 is off the track: you forgot to talk about what really matters in our democracy.

I agree that we have to make sure no interest groups will buy advertisements right before the election. You are right when you say that no other countries should interfere in our electoral process—except Russia: I would like money from Russia.

You can't tell me that you lack time to implement an electoral reform that is right—and right now.

I know that is not true, however. You have decided to set aside this change. When the time came, you decided not to go ahead with it. It is the same as with climate change: one day we will wake up and it will be too late.

I know that the only thing I can really change today by coming here is the public funding of political parties. Let me end with that.

In the report of the Special Committee on Electoral Report tabled in December 2016, entitled “Strengthening Democracy in Canada: Principles, Process and Public Engagement for Electoral Reform”, the committee recommended in chapter 7, section G — g like government — that the per-vote subsidy and funding of political parties be reinstated.

It had been eliminated in 2015.

That same report states that: “ [...] the current system of individual donations to political parties is less equal, as donations vary greatly between Canadians of different socio-economic levels.”

Public funding makes Canadians feel that their vote counts.

Appearing before the committee, Ms. Melanee Thomas stated:

[...] internationally, most countries do have some form of public financing. It's broadly seen to be a good thing, because the political party is a key institution linking representative institutions and the voting public.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the former chief electoral officer of Canada, recommends that it be reinstated.

Thank you.

[Victoria Henry, Digital Rights Campaigner, Open Media Engagement Network]

Hi there. Thanks so much for having me here to discuss this issue.

I'm Victoria Henry. I'm a digital rights campaigner specializing in privacy issues with OpenMedia, which is a community-based organization committed to keeping the Internet open, affordable, and free of surveillance. The revelations stemming from the Cambridge Analytica and Facebook scandal have highlighted the extent to which our privacy laws are failing to protect the privacy of ordinary people in Canada and how this can influence elections.

While Bill C-76 makes some positive steps to protect the integrity of elections and safeguard our democracy, the omission of political parties from privacy legislation is a concerning gap, and that's the issue I'd like to talk about today.

People around the world are increasingly concerned, of course, about how their personal information is gathered, used, and stored. More than 10,000 people in Canada have recently signed on to a letter asking for reform of our privacy laws. The key demand in that letter is for Canada's political parties to be subject to federal privacy laws.

The existing privacy exemptions for political parties have left many Canadians convinced that the current system is not working in our best interests. We need guarantees that our government's political interests will not take precedent over our privacy and our security.

A national online omnibus survey conducted from May 7 to May 14 of this year revealed that a large majority—72% of Canadians—supported changing the law so that political parties follow the same privacy rules as private companies. In fact, only 3% support the status quo policy of fewer restrictions for political parties. This polling also showed that support for extending PIPEDA to political parties has broad support from partisans of all stripes. I can provide the full polling results, as well as the letter from Canadians, to the committee members with my notes.

These views are supported by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in his testimony to this committee. The commissioner stated that information about our political views is highly sensitive and therefore worthy of privacy protection. Because of this, simply asking political parties to have their own privacy policies without defining the standards that must be applied is not enough.

For example, the standards set by Bill C-76 do not include measures such as limiting collection of personal information to what is required; obtaining consent when collecting, using, or disclosing personal information; or collecting information by fair and lawful means. Because of this, the Privacy Commissioner calls for internationally recognized privacy principles, not policies defined by parties, to be included in domestic law, and for an independent third party to have the authority to verify compliance. We support this call as well as the recommended amendments put forward by the commissioner's office.

The recent scandal clearly demonstrates how weak privacy safeguards can have serious effects that go beyond the commercial realm. With federal elections due in 2019, we need to safeguard our democracy and protect against undue influence stemming from online privacy violations. Many ministers have indicated that they're willing to strengthen our privacy laws. The status quo is at odds with the wishes of most people in Canada, whose confidence in our political processes is undermined by the singling out of political parties when it comes to privacy.

On behalf of the vast majority of people in Canada who support stronger privacy rules for political parties, I'm asking you today to strengthen the protection of our democratic institutions and to make these changes now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, and welcome to the 114th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, as we continue our study of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments.

We are pleased to be joined by David Moscrop, who is appearing as an individual by video conference from Seoul, South Korea, and I don't know what time it is there; Sherri Hadskey, the Commissioner of Elections, Louisiana Secretary of State, who is appearing by video conference from Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Victoria Henry, digital rights campaigner from OpenMedia Engagement Network, who is appearing by video conference from Vancouver; and Sébastien Corriveau,

leader of the Rhinoceros Party, who is also appearing by video conference from St-Donat-de-Rimouski, Quebec.

Thank you all for making yourselves available.

I just want to say something I'd forgotten to say. We have made the clerk's job quite interesting over this study so far, so I think we should really give our appreciation to the clerk and his huge staff for getting all these witnesses on short notice.

Democratic Reform

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, we introduced Bill C-76, which will create a pre-election period before the general election. We have also made commitments as a government, since the government cannot run ads in the 90 days preceding a general election.

[Jean-Luc Cooke, Member of Council, National Office, Green Party of Canada]

I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to address the bill. The Green Party of Canada is especially grateful for the time allotted to prepare for this appearance.

A good portion of this bill is not so much modernization but rather restoration of the Canada Elections Act pre-Harper, which is mostly good, but the central promise of no longer voting in a first past the post system is unfortunately absent. I will not be obtuse. This is a clear promise, clearly and unapologetically broken.

In consultations across the country, the majority of Canadians favoured reform and a form of proportional representation. It is regrettable that a government without a popular mandate gets to continue perpetuating a system that silences the voices of Canadians who are not represented in a so-called representative democracy.

Some important modernization changes have been taken, though, but the Green Party of Canada wonders whether the government has given Elections Canada sufficient time to update their technologies, their administrative processes, and to put in place training programs. After all, a quarter of a million Canadians work the polls on a general election. We are 15 months away from the 43rd general election and nothing has been put into law.

Improvements that are of particular note are the use of voter information cards as a piece of valid ID. This should speed up the voting process and improve accessibility. Allowing young people, 16- and 17-year-olds, to register is a good first step toward having them vote. Studies show that engagement in the voting process at an early age translates to lifelong voting behaviour. The Green Party commends you here, and would like to draw your attention to Ms. May's private member's Bill C-401.

This being said, there are two items I want to underscore as being insufficient.

First, the privacy provisions are inadequate. Political parties possess enormous amounts of data and personal information on Canadians, and they are currently exempt from most of the provisions under the Privacy Act. Moreover, in a day and age where politically motivated hacking is no longer a possibility but a reality, it is imperative that the parties work together to ensure that their information is safe. The big political parties, if hacked, could compromise the electoral system as a whole. Our democracy is run on trust and the big parties are currently the weakest link.

The Green Party urges the parties to coordinate their efforts informally, and that Bill C-76 contain provisions that are in keeping with Canada's Privacy Act.

Second, more needs to be done in curbing the influence of money in politics. Returning the per-vote allowance would lessen the influence of donors on politicians, and be more cost-efficient than the current 75% tax credit system. We all know the distorted effect that money and donors have on American democracy. So, at all costs, we should be avoiding these excesses that we see south of the border.

The Green Party suggests that we redefine the pre-writ period as starting the day after an election and ending when the writ is dropped in the following general election. Spending limits during this redefined pre-writ period should remain the same as they are and be indexed to inflation. Redefining this reflects the realities of what some have called the permanent campaign. There are only two periods in political advertising in reality, writ and pre-writ.

We need to set limits to the election process to avoid excesses, but also to ensure that citizens, political parties, and lawmakers alike focus on the business of good, democratic governance, and not being constantly distracted by the demands and, sometimes, fanfare of politics.

Thanks.

[Dr. Paul Thomas, Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual]

Thank you very much. I have submitted a brief to the committee, and it has been translated and circulated. I will try to stay strictly within the five-minute limit and make five brief points in five minutes so the chair doesn't have to bring down the guillotine on me.

The first point, and an integrating theme of my brief to the committee, is that Bill C-76 is an excellent illustration of how technical and complicated election law has become in response to changing social, technological, and political activities within Canada and elsewhere. Under those conditions, Elections Canada needs a very diverse and flexible set of policy tools in order to plan for and execute elections. In other words, unlike the traditional Canada Elections Act, which is very detailed and prescriptive, we need a future act that grants broader authority to the professionals within Elections Canada. Bill C-76 goes some way in this direction. It grants the CEO of Elections Canada more authority to conduct the operations of the election, it grants the commissioner administrative monetary penalties, and it makes use of written interpretations and opinions, and so on.

Second, overall, this bill is worthwhile. I endorse it in general terms. I endorse the features that are brought forward from Bill C-33 that made changes to the more problematic features of the so-called Fair Elections Act. I like some of the new features that are included within the bill, such as the creation of a pre-writ period ceiling on party and advocacy advertising, tags on all advertising, and so on.

Then I shift in my brief to three concerns I have. The greatest disappointment for me is the failure to bring political parties under the provisions of the privacy acts in Canada and to provide a route to address privacy concerns through the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. This bill essentially says that the parties will be left to regulate themselves with respect to privacy practices. Not my preferred one, but a second-best solution would require the Privacy Commissioner, not Elections Canada, to give the parties' privacy policies and practices a Good Housekeeping seal of approval. On the second part of that concern, another option I would suggest is that annually the parties publish online a statement of what has gone on with respect to their privacy activities, including the education of their members and staff, and so on, on any privacy complaints that have come up.

My fourth point has to do with the flow of foreign money and foreign influence into Canadian elections. As I read the bill, and I'm not a lawyer, there appears to be a loophole in the bill that allows for the commingling of foreign and domestic funds, including the support to advocacy groups, third parties as they're called in the bill. I don't see any easy fix to this problem through legislation or regulation, but I note the provision in the bill for a prohibition on collusion. It may be over time, through the operation of the collusion clause, that precedents will develop that will restrict but probably not eliminate completely the potential for foreign influence in Canadian elections.

My fifth point and final concern has to do with the pre-writ period beginning on June 30. The point I'm making there in the brief is the need to align the timing of restrictions on partisan and advocacy advertising with the ban on government advertising that currently flows out of an administrative policy statement. It is not based on legislation. That ban requires the ads to stop 90 days before voting day. The two periods should be aligned so that you set up a situation where the government is, in effect, in a caretaker situation and any benefit that might come to the governing party from government advertising would be eliminated.

My final observation is that this bill should have been proceeded with much earlier, or an earlier version of a bill, perhaps. It has been left late.

I know the professionals at Elections Canada do their utmost to execute the provisions of the bill, but we have to get into the habit of treating these deadlines for planning an election more seriously.

Thank you very much. I look forward to questions.

[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?

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

Bill C-76 is an opportunity to put that pressure on.

[Chris Roberts, National Director, Social and Economic Policy Department, Canadian Labour Congress]

Mr. Chair and committee members, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

I am here on behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress, Canada's largest labour central. The CLC is the voice on national and international issues for three million working people in Canada. It brings together 55 national and international unions, 12 provincial and territorial federations of labour, and over 100 local labour councils.

The Canadian Labour Congress broadly supports Bill C-76. In particular, the CLC is supportive of the measures in the bill to ensure a fair, accessible, and inclusive voting process. We strongly support the bill's measures to improve access for voters with physical disabilities and to include child care and expenses related to a disability in a candidate's expenses.

Bill C-76 restores the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to authorize the notice of confirmation of registration, the voter information card, as identification. This is a welcome step in our view. We also support the restoration of the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to undertake public education and information programs to promote awareness of the electoral process among the voting public, especially groups facing barriers to access.

Bill C-76 reintroduces the option of vouching for the identity and residence of an elector, a step that we support. We agree, however, with Monsieur Mayrand that the option of vouching should be extended to staff in long-term care facilities and nursing homes, even when the staff person is not an elector in the same polling division.

I want to turn now to the bill's ramifications for third parties, such as unions and labour organizations.

Bill C-76 introduces significant additional requirements for third parties participating in elections. Under the bill, reporting requirements on third parties will become more extensive than for other participants in the electoral process.

During and between elections, unions and labour centrals engage with their members and with Canadians about issues that are important to working people. This education and engagement is vital to the informed and effective participation of working people in civic life and democratic debate.

We appreciate the fact that subclause 222(3) of Bill C-76 excludes from the definition of “partisan activity” the act of taking a position on issues that parties and candidates may be associated with. This is in the pre-writ period. Nevertheless, we urge the committee to carefully evaluate the additional restrictions and reporting requirements in Bill C-76 to ensure that the ability of labour organizations to engage with members and the public on workers' issues is not impeded.

A leading concern of the CLC is that if and when Bill C-76 is enacted, Elections Canada will issue an updated handbook for third parties that establishes the identical interpretative guidance for pre-writ partisan activity and partisan advertising over the Internet, as Elections Canada established for Internet election advertising during the writ period.

This established that Internet-based messaging during the writ period is only election advertising if there is a placement cost, that is, the cost of purchasing the advertising space. If there is no placement cost, then social media, email, and own-website messaging do not fall within the definition of election advertising. We hope and expect that Elections Canada will apply the same definition to pre-writ messaging. This is especially important now that, effectively, the period between elections—from polling day of the previous general election all the way up to the current pre-writ period—will be subject to regulation and reporting requirements.

With that, honourable members, I'll conclude my remarks.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[Cara Zwibel, Director, Fundamental Freedoms Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak with you this morning on behalf of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, or CCLA.

I know my time this morning is short so I want to highlight CCLA's two primary concerns with respect to Bill C-76. The first relates to political advertising, particularly the restrictions on third party advertising. The second concerns political parties' treatment of personal information.

With respect to political advertising, we wish to highlight that what the legislation currently does, and what the bill would continue to do, is place significant restrictions on political speech, speech that is considered to lie at the very core of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' protection of freedom of expression. We appreciate and take seriously the concern that wealth should not be translated into the ability to dominate political discourse. However, we have not seen any evidence that justifies or even purports to justify the restrictions that are placed on third party advertising, or that would justify the distinctions that this bill makes between different types of political expression and different political actors.

We are aware that the act's third party spending limits were upheld by a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Harper case. In our view, however, the majority of the court was wrong in that case. The evidence before the court could not justify the significant restrictions placed on third party advertising. As the dissenting judges in that case noted:

The law at issue sets advertising spending limits for citizens—called third parties—at such low levels that they cannot effectively communicate with their fellow citizens on election issues during an election campaign. The practical effect is that effective communication during the writ period is confined to registered political parties and their candidates.

The dissenters pointed out that the spending limit was less than what it would cost to run a full page ad for a single day in national newspapers. Even with the increase in spending limits brought in by this bill, it's not clear if third party actors would have an effective voice in an election campaign. In our view, this is a serious infringement of charter rights that can only be justified with clear and compelling evidence. To date, we have yet to see or hear any of that evidence.

The bill also restricts political parties in the pre-writ period, only in terms of their partisan advertising, while the restrictions on third parties are much broader. Again, it's not clear on what basis this distinction has been drawn or how it can be justified.

At a more general level, CCLA has concerns about the value and practicality of differentiating between partisan and election advertising, or more generally, attempting to limit issue-based advocacy when an issue is one with which a “registered party or candidate is associated”.

The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that what separates issue advocacy and political advocacy is a line in the sand drawn on a windy day. By continuing to restrict issue-based advocacy, the limits on third party advertising may simply serve to unduly narrow the parameters of public debate around government policy or proposed policy options, rather than limit the kind of expression that we're trying to limit here, that which influences or aims to improperly influence elections.

We also question why spending limits are set out in legislation set by the individuals and parties who stand to benefit from restricting voices that may be critical of them. We urge the committee to consider, either in the context of this bill or in a future study, whether an independent body should be established to address the question of spending limits for third parties and political parties and candidates.

The second issue I'd like to address is Bill C-76's provisions aimed at empowering parties to better protect the privacy of Canadians.

Put simply, this scheme proposed by the bill is inadequate. It contains no meaningful privacy protections and no independent oversight of how the parties protect personal information or consequences for failing to do so. In light of what we are beginning to understand about the information that can be harnessed from social media and other tools and used by political parties to engage in micro-targeting of voters, the failure to truly address the privacy issue in this bill is disappointing, to say the least.

I'm aware that the committee has heard about this issue from a number of witnesses in the last few days, so I won't belabour the point. I'll simply state that the CCLA is in general agreement with the amendments proposed by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

Finally, CCLA wishes to note its support for portions of the bill that reverse some of the negative changes that were made when Parliament passed the so-called Fair Elections Act. We welcome the provisions that allow for the use of voter information cards, the return of vouching, as well as the loosening of restrictions on the educational activities of the Chief Electoral Officer. We also welcome the reform that will allow Canadian citizens who reside abroad to participate in federal elections.

I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you for having me this morning.

[Dr. Elizabeth Dubois, Assistant Professor, Department of Communication, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Perfect. Thank you for having me. I am happy to be here, speaking on Bill C-76 today. As mentioned, I am a professor at the University of Ottawa, in the communication department, and my research focuses on how people access and share political information and specifically, the role of digital media, social media platforms, and search engines, for example, in that process. An example here is a report that Dr. Fenwick McKelvey, who is at Concordia University, and I wrote, which is the first, and I believe only, report on the state of political bots in Canada, which was part of the University of Oxford's computational propaganda project.

Today, I want to draw your attention to three key aspects of Bill C-76 in my opening remarks. They are computational approaches to voter suppression, technology and platform companies, and political party privacy policies.

First up, based on evidence from recent elections and referenda internationally, we know that individuals and groups are experimenting with computationally supported tactics for political communication with the electorate. This could lead to voter suppression.

These techniques might include creating automated social media accounts, which we call bots. They are non-human. They could include creating fake accounts or troll accounts, which are run by humans, but aren't necessarily representative of actual voters. They could be targeted advertisement strategies which involve quickly removing ads, so they are very hard to track.

By using computational approaches and automation, it is possible to amplify and spread information very quickly. It is also possible to dampen messages and suppress ideas. This can be used for obvious and explicit forms of voter suppression, such as telling people to go to the wrong polling place. One could imagine a bot-driven version of the robocall scandal. It could also be used for more covert forms of suppression, such as creating an environment of distrust in the electoral system or encouraging political apathy. This could be done via a chatbot, for example. Emerging forms of artificial intelligence become pretty important when we're thinking about securing the integrity of our elections.

Notably, most research currently considers the role of political bots on social media alone, but increasingly, tools such as WhatsApp and other instant messaging applications are being employed. Voter suppression in these contexts is even harder to track, trace, and then enforce our existing laws.

This is clearly against the spirit of the law, but not explicitly addressed. Nor are there adequate mechanisms in place to prevent or identify these practices. A requirement to register use of automated techniques, which would also include emerging artificial intelligence approaches for communicating with the electorate, would be a very valuable addition to this legislation.

I would like to note that I say register and not ban. I believe there are valuable and legitimate uses of automated techniques for communicating with the electorate that should not necessarily be discouraged.

Second, considering the role of platforms, such as major social media companies and search engines, I think there could be better direction within Bill C-76. The bill requires organizations to not knowingly sell election advertisements to foreign entities, which of course will affect platform companies. However, beyond that, the bill ignores the substantial role platforms play when it comes to enforcing many aspects of Canadian election laws.

For example, the low cost of online advertisement and the ability to micro-target means that hundreds of versions of advertisements can be delivered throughout various Internet platforms. They are hard to track and therefore, it can be difficult to establish if and when illegal activities are happening, such as voter suppression or advertisement spend which exceeds spending limits, is purchased by foreign entities or is purchased by unregistered third parties.

Having been confronted with this problem elsewhere, for example, in the U.S., platform companies are starting to create advertisement transparency tools which are useful, but this is voluntary and could be changed at any moment, if it's not required legally.

This poses significant risk to Canadian elections because platforms make decisions in an international and commercial context, which does not necessarily align with the needs of Canada's democracy.

Finally, Bill C-76 requires political parties to make a privacy statement about protecting information of individuals. This proposed legislation does not include any form of audit or verification that the policy is adequate, ethical, or being followed. There are no penalties for non-compliance. There are no provisions that permit Canadians to request their data be corrected or deleted, which is the case in many other jurisdictions.

It is certainly fair to say that this issue is much broader than elections. The fact that political parties are not covered by PIPEDA or other privacy constraints, and the fact that elections are fundamental to the functioning of our democracy mean it's an issue that I don't think we can ignore. It needs to be discussed further, in the context of this bill.

Ultimately, I think there are useful aspects in this bill, but there are also substantial concerns regarding such things as computational approaches to voter suppression, the role of technology companies and platforms, and privacy, which I hope will be considered in more detail.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to questions.

[Michael Morden, Research Director, Samara Centre for Democracy]

Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to address this committee.

My name is Michael Morden and I'm the Research Director of the Samara Centre for Democracy. Samara is an independent, non-partisan charity that is dedicated to strengthening Canadian democracy through research and programming. Samara welcomes this effort to comprehensively refresh our elections law. This is a significant bill for Canada's democracy as it touches the democratic process itself. We think it deserves time and close scrutiny in Parliament, and a sincere effort to find cross-partisan consensus wherever possible.

Due to the length of the bill, I will also contain our analysis to the elements that touch most closely on Samara's past research, particularly related to voter participation and electoral accessibility, with a very brief note in closing on the parties.

First, on methods of voter identification, we suggest the following as a guiding principle: that the greatest priority be given to permitting as broad and flexible a range of methods for voters to identify themselves as possible, and where potential accuracy or administrative problems may exist, Elections Canada should exhaust other options first before addressing those problems before closing off possible, valid methods of identification. Therefore, we support restoring vouching and enabling the use of voter information cards as valid methods of establishing voter eligibility, in the latter instance with additional ID.

Second, we also support expanding the mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer to provide non-partisan public education on Canadian democracy, which addresses not just how to vote, but also why to vote, not just in classrooms, but beyond classrooms. Elections Canada is uniquely placed to fulfill this role as one of the few well-funded, non-partisan organizations focused on Canadian democracy. Following the example of most other electoral agencies in the country, Elections Canada should be empowered to advertise and educate both during and also between elections, making use of partnerships with community organizations, and contributing to building our capacity in the area of civic education, civic literacy.

Third, regarding young voters, a register of future voters could be very useful for preparing and engaging young people, but this is likely only the case if it's paired with enthusiastic programming. There is research evidence to suggest, looking at other jurisdictions, that where young voter preregistration has been introduced and promoted, it can result in an increase in voter turnout in the 18 to 24 age bracket. The research differs on the magnitude of that change, but they generally find a statistically significant improvement. However, when we're just dealing with the text of the legislation here, I think it should be noted in passing that it could have resourcing implications that can touch on the work of this committee. It's simply creating a system of pre-registry itself; it should not be expected to have significant effects. Pre-registry can be effective, but again experience from other jurisdictions suggests this is only true if it's paired with strong engagement efforts and energetic promotion.

We are happy to see that many of the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations are reflected in Bill C-76. I also want to briefly highlight an exception. This bill does not adopt a suggestion that the law be amended to permit holding election day on a weekend. I'm aware that this is something the committee has discussed as well. We think the idea may be worth again exploring. It's true that there's not systematic evidence to suggest that moving to weekend voting necessarily results in increased turnout. There are other immediate benefits as described by the Chief Electoral Officer, like making it easier to hire election workers, and having a wider selection of possible poll locations.

We also think it's possible that weekend voting could support higher turnout if it's one piece of a broader state and society partnership to change how we experience elections to make elections more social, more festive, and community-based.

One amendment this committee could consider would be to change the law to permit, but not require or prescribe, a weekend polling day. This could initially apply only to by-elections. In other words, the law could be amended to allow for experimentation such as holding a set of by-elections on a Saturday or Sunday. That experience could then help inform Parliament whether or not to move the polling day for general elections.

Finally, just briefly, on political parties, we believe it is important that the Chief Electoral Officer be given the power to compel receipts from parties. This is a power that provincial electoral agencies hold. It's a long-standing oversight. We support correcting this, and in fact, we think we should be asking for increasingly greater transparency in how parties spend the money that taxpayers reimburse.

Thank you.

[Nicolas Lavallée, Strategic Advisor, Citoyenneté jeunesse]

Hello, Mr. Chair, members of parliament, dear members of the committee.

My name is Nicolas Lavallée. I am a Strategic Advisor with Citoyenneté jeunesse, formerly known as the Table de concertation des forums jeunesse régionaux du Québec. It was under that name that we appeared before this committee in the spring of 2014.

The core mandate of regional youth forums is to encourage the civic participation of youth and to serve as an advisor on youth matters. Various projects of these youth forums are funded by Quebec's youth secretariat and Quebec's ministry of immigration, diversity and inclusion. For provincial and municipal elections, we have also had various financial partners, including Élections Québec.

We also work with Élections Québec to conduct an election simulation exercise in Quebec called “Voters in training”, which was developed by one of our members, the Forum jeunesse de l'île de Montréal. The youth forums conduct activities year round to increase young people's interest in politics and their sense of competency. For example, we offer activities and workshops on politics for young people. During an election period, we reach out to young voters on the ground to encourage them to exercise their right to vote and to tell them about the different voting procedures.

I will now tell you a bit about civic education and its impact on the youth vote.

In the last federal election, just 57.1% of young Canadians aged 18 to 24 voted, and just 57.4% of young Canadians aged 25 to 35 voted. That is about 10 percentage points below the overall voter turnout of 68.3% for that election. So it is essential for us to get young people out to vote since studies show that a young person who votes as soon as they are of age to do so is very likely to continue voting throughout their life. Getting young people to vote is ultimately a way of getting the whole population to vote.

Why do young people not vote? There are two types of factors at play. Essentially, there are motivational factors, such as interest in politics and knowledge, and voting access factors, such as registration on lists, lack of proper identification, and ignorance of voting procedures. The 2015 National Youth Survey, which measured the relative importance of all factors in the decision to vote, also identified both motivational and access factors.

We need to conduct civic education activities because they are effective. In the fall of 2016, Elections Canada also commissioned an independent evaluation of the Student Vote program. The study showed that the Student Vote program has a positive impact on the many factors involved in electoral participation. In particular, the program increases knowledge of and interest in politics, and also strengthens the view that voting is a civic duty.

If these campaigns are effective for grade school and high school students, they are of course also effective for young people who have just become eligible to vote. It is precisely that age group that needs more information and public education. So we are very excited to see that Bill C-76 would once again allow Elections Canada and the chief electoral officer to act independently to address factors relating to motivation to vote and access to voting. Campaigns for the general public also play an important role and help create healthy social pressure to vote.

Research has also shown that people are sensitive to those around them when it comes time to vote. Young people are especially influenced by their family, their peers, and society. Following the general elections in Quebec in 2014, Élections Québec had an evaluation done of its own voting promotion campaigns, which found that 75% of the population studied had seen the ads.

Finally, here are a few recommendations.

We think it is possible and desirable to once again address the motivational and voting access obstacles.

First, we recommend that the new wording of subclauses 18(1) and 18(2) of the bill be adopted. That would once again allow the chief electoral officer to conduct campaigns focused more on motivation or information, at his discretion, with full independence and, of course, without any restrictions.

Secondly, we support initiatives to increase voter participation, especially among young people. Citoyenneté jeunesse is very interested in measures such as creating a registry of future voters and extending the opening hours of advance polling stations.

Finally, we also ask that education remains at the core of Elections Canada's activities, whether through its own initiatives or by providing funding for other organizations, which are obviously non-partisan and whose mandate is civic education. Promoting the vote and democracy, whether through friends, family members, teachers, peers, and so on, is essential in order to prevent youth voter turnout from plummeting.

To turn the tide, society has to work as a whole and play a role, especially Elections Canada, which is responsible for conducting elections and has a great deal of expertise in this area.

I sincerely hope that this bill will be passed and that all the parties can agree to work together to strengthen the health of the country's democracy.

Thank you very much.

[Dr. Leslie Seidle, Research Director, Institute for Research on Public Policy, As an Individual]

Thank you, Chair and committee, for the opportunity to come before you today.

You have a huge bill in front of you. I'm going to dig down or at least somewhat down in one area, the limits on the spending by third parties prior to and during the official election period. This is an area on which I've done research in the past and recently did a fairly large comparative report. It's also one of the major issues that were addressed in the early nineties by the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, often known as the Lortie commission, on which I served as senior research coordinator.

I'll start with the third party limits during the writ period.

At present, the limit on advertising expenses for a third party nationally is $214,350, of which no more than $4,287 can be spent in a particular riding. The bill you have in front of you will expand the scope of spending, subject to limits, to include partisan activity expenses and election survey expenses, in addition to the advertising expenses that have been covered since 2000. In consequence, the limits have been raised considerably according to the backgrounder that was released when the bill was tabled. The new national limit on third party spending is estimated at around $500,000 for 2019. The level that's printed in the bill, $350,000, is adjusted for inflation from 2000, not from now. I find it reasonable to expand the scope of third party limits because the additional activities, such as surveys, are linked to, and indeed may even support, third party election advertising. The level of the new limits also seems reasonable to me.

There's a related amendment that limits the writ period to 50 days, and this will mean that, for political parties and candidates, a pro-rated increase of the third party limits will no longer be possible. I support this move. The pro-rated-limits provision that was brought in under the previous government was a very odd piece of public policy, and dropping it is definitely a good step, not just for third parties but obviously also for parties and candidates.

I'll now turn to the pre-writ spending limits for third parties.

Before commenting on the scope and level of these limits, I want to say a few words about the rationale for this move and the experience in some other jurisdictions.

On the rationale, the government has decided that spending limits for candidates and parties will be extended to the pre-writ period. I think it's fair to say that this is consistent with Canada's long experience with party and candidate spending limits, which date from 1974, and also with the broad public support for such limits. The new third party limits will apply as of June 30 in an election year, along with candidate and party limits, so they will cover a period of almost four months.

As members know, there's a fairly widely held view that to be effective, limits on party and candidate spending need to be paired with limits on third party spending. They're seen as complementary and, in a sense, mutually supportive. Indeed, the Supreme Court in the 2004 Harper decision stated that third party election spending limits are necessary to protect the integrity of the financing regime applicable to candidates and parties. If party and candidate limits are introduced for the pre-writ period, if that decision has been taken, it follows logically that third party spending or at least some aspects of that spending should also be subject to limits, otherwise that linkage, that complementarity, that exists during the election period will not apply.

Other jurisdictions have taken similar steps. In the U.K., there have been pre-writ spending limits for parties, candidates, and third parties since 2000. They're quite long. They apply for an entire year, give or take a few days depending on when the election is held. In Ontario, pre-writ limits for the three entities were introduced in 2016. They are applying in the election that's ending today, and the period there is six months. In your bill, it's somewhat shorter. It's close to four months. I find the duration in Bill C-76 to be reasonable.

As for the scope, the new limits will cover three areas: partisan activities, partisan advertising, and election surveys. This may appear analogous to the expanded scope of the election limits, but there's an important difference to be noted.

Unlike the definition of election advertising, partisan advertising does not include advertising messages that take a position on an issue with which a party or person is associated. You have, in the copy of my notes, the two definitions appended at the end. This means that if a third party sponsors advertising on an important public policy issue, but the messages do not promote or oppose a registered party or candidate, the cost of such advertising will not count against the pre-writ spending limit for the third party.

To illustrate this, here are a couple of examples of advertising that a third party might sponsor: Message A: Marijuana can harm your children's health, so don't vote Liberal. Message B: The Trudeau Liberal government legalized marijuana, which can harm your children's health.

Based on my reading of Bill C-76, third party spending on the first message would be subject to a limit, but spending on the second message—The Trudeau government legalized marijuana, which can harm your children's health—would not be because there's no promotion of voting for Liberals or against Liberals. This is often referred to as “issue advertising”.

If that kind of a message were sponsored during the official election period, it would count against the third party limit. There's a policy difference between the pre-writ limits and the election limits for third parties.

I'll finish on the question of the level of permitted spending.

The pre-writ limits on third party spending are estimated at about $1 million nationally, and $10,000 in a single electoral district. Third parties' national pre-limit will thus be twice their election limit, and two-thirds of what registered parties will be allowed to spend in the pre-writ period. For the parties, it's estimated at $1.5 million.

Moreover, in light of the difference between the definitions of advertising expenses that I just explained, the pre-writ limits for third parties will cover a narrower range of activities than their election limits, so they have additional room. The spending on issue advertising is not subject to limit. In light of what I just said, I am not convinced it is necessary to set the pre-spending limits for third parties at such a high level.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Welcome to meeting 113 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

This morning we continue our study of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments.

We are pleased to be joined by Leslie Seidle, Research Director from the Institute for Research on Public Policy; Nicolas Lavellée, Strategic Adviser, from Citoyenneté jeunesse; and Michael Morden, Research Director from the Samara Centre for Democracy.

Thank you for being here this morning.

I'll now turn the floor over to Mr. Seidle for his opening comments.

[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.

[Brian Marlatt]

The concept that's driving the notion that June 30 should be the beginning point for Elections Canada auditing of expenses is a good one, but because we see that, in effect, it's beginning well before that, some oversight is required for a longer period. The period, and even the method—the Electoral Commission in the U.K. provides us an example—is worth investigating.

In looking at the implementation of Bill C-76, discussions with the Electoral Commission in the U.K. would be advisable, just as we did with the report of the McGrath Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons. It's the same concept.

[Brian Marlatt]

We are, in Bill C-76, proposing that auditing in a new pre-writ period begin with June 30. This is a period of time that is basically the summer months in advance of the dropping of the writ, a maximum of 50 days before the call of the election. That, I don't think, is sufficient. There is an opportunity for third parties, for political parties themselves, for the government by way of advertising programs that are subject to parliamentary approval—that is to say, if we get elected again—

[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.

Bill C-59—Time Allocation Motion

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from the 41st Parliament, we have reams of quotes from Liberals regarding the use of time allocation by the then Conservative government. The quotes we have from the member for Winnipeg North would fill several pages.

What we have seen over the last couple of weeks is the government's use of time allocation and using the bare minimum, allocating five hours for debate on this legislation, on Bill C-69, which was done just before this, on Bill C-75, and on Bill C-76. The list goes on.

I have a simple question for the Minister of Public Safety. Given his party's record when it was the third party in the 41st Parliament, does he not feel the slightest bit of shame and contrition over the complete reversal of his position, now that he occupies that side of the House?

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

Does Bill C-76 give you the power you need in that context?

[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.

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

I have one final question, Minister, about the issue of foreign interference in elections.

Again, I think the public record will show the answer that was given and the question that was asked.

With respect to Bill C-76, this is the bill the government has put forward that references the issue of foreign interference in elections. I know that this is something you're concerned about and that you've personally been a victim of to some extent.

The law allows a foreign entity to transfer money to a Canadian organization outside of the writ period, and the Canadian organization, as long as that foreign money is mingled with its own money, can then use that money in the process of the election because it has now become part of their organization. Theoretically, the Russian government could give a Canadian organization millions of dollars and, as long as it was mingled with Canadian money outside of an election, that could be used during an election. That's the present reality under Bill C-76.

Given the concerns you've raised, do you think Bill C-76 as presently written has sufficient tools to address the possibility of foreign interference in Canadian elections?

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

“For the most part”; that's a generous term.

I find it inconsistent. I like your enthusiasm and your energy for this stuff. It would be really great if you kind of splashed that around to the folks who were pushing for say, oil and gas or pushing for more fish farms in Canadian waters thereby threatening things that you say—and I believe you when you say you care about them. It seems to me if we want to ban foreign influence, which is something that we're trying to put into Bill C-76, we don't get to try to ban it from one side and raise cases from one side. I think it would offer a lot more credibility to this conversation and the discussion if there were some fair treatment of the obvious cases in which foreign actors have played significant roles with enormous amounts of money. The Fraser Institute's budget is $11 million a year. You're concerned about $1.5 million over a 10-year budget and yet something almost tens times that amount draws less concern from you. A little consistency would be good.

Mr. Chair, how am I for time?

[Vivian Krause]

Hang on a second here. We're here to talk about Bill C-76.

[Anna Di Carlo, National Leader, National Headquarters, Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada]

It's the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada.

Esteemed members, I'm very happy to be here.

I'll start by saying I'm quite familiar with the election law, and I have been since about 1991 when we had the Spicer and the Lortie commissions, the last time that any really serious study of the electoral law was done.

We also have a lot of experience being on the receiving end of the unfair and undemocratic aspects of the law since 1972, when we started participating in elections.

In our opinion, Bill C-76 is a missed opportunity. It missed the opportunity to uphold democratic principles and to contribute to alleviating the perception we have today that party governments don't have the consent of the governed. It did nothing to address how the electoral process and electoral results themselves don't inspire confidence that a mandate that is supported by the majority of Canadians has actually been achieved.

I'd like to highlight just two problems today, because of the brief amount of time we have. One is the right to an informed vote and the need to have equality of all those who stand for election. The other is the matter of privacy.

The unequal treatment of candidates results from the privileges accorded to the so-called major parties, and it violates the right to an informed vote. We're told that we have political equality because of an even playing field that is supposed to be created by the fact that everybody has to meet the same criteria. For example, everybody has to do exactly the same things to become a candidate. Everybody has to respect the spending limits and so on. On top of this, we're told that public funding mitigates the inequalities we have.

All of this is meaningless when privileges are accorded to some, and the rationale is presented that only the so-called major parties are considered to be contenders for government, and that therefore, only they deserve to be heard. Others are dismissed as being fringe or incidental. This is not democratic by any standard. The only ones who see these arguments and don't see that they're undemocratic are those who are passing laws.

Canadians see it for what it is: a violation of fundamental democratic principles that exacerbates the crisis of credibility and legitimacy of both the electoral law and governments.

I'd like to give just one example of how this time around we could have taken the opportunity to address this problem. For over 17 years now, the Chief Electoral Officer has been recommending that the allocation formula in the law be removed from the privileged status now in the formula that's in the law, and instead that allocation be on an equal basis, particularly the free time. I sit on the advisory committee of Elections Canada, and I attend the broadcast meetings, and this very simple recommendation that the free time should both be increased and allocated equally has been rejected repeatedly for 17 years because, as has been said, it needs to be referred to study.

In the next election, we'll face the same situation in which, first of all, the parties in the House will have the majority of time, and within that, the Liberal Party—the ruling party—will have the lion's share of that time, while the smaller political parties get a token, not to mention all the complications with the airing of it.

The second point I'd like to make relates to privacy. We stand with the Privacy Commissioner in believing that political parties should be subject to the law. We see no reason why they shouldn't. I want to highlight the hypocrisy in this, because even if political parties are subject to the privacy law and PIPEDA, the election law itself, in our opinion, violates the right to privacy.

The election law does not recognize the right to informed consent, in our opinion. In 2006, the Conservative Party, when it was in the vanguard of micro-targeting with its constituent information management system, used the power that it had at that time, although all the parties agreed, to introduce unique, permanent identification numbers for electors, and to introduce bingo cards, the practice of Elections Canada workers that replaces the work that was once done by scrutineers to inform the political parties as to who has voted when. They don't tell them how they voted, but with data analytics, we're very close to that situation.

The Conservative Party wanted the ID numbers so as to make data integration and micro-targeting easier. The bingo cards were designed to address the problem of not having enough volunteers, which is a problem that all political parties are facing. In our opinion, again, this violates the principle of informed consent. It is just wrong. Electors should have the right to not have their unique ID numbers handed over to political parties to facilitate uploading their information into elector databases. They should also have the right to opt out of having their names put on the bingo cards, so that parties know whether they've voted or not voted.

Finally, I want to make a different point about these developments. Privacy is one concern, but the significance of this development in campaigning, which involves tracking electors and building profiles about them, is of greater concern to us. In our opinion, it does nothing to raise the level of political discourse in the country. It's not enhancing the involvement of people in the political process. The privacy debate, which is focused on things such as the Cambridge Analytica scandal or Facebook and how it's being used, clouds precisely how micro-targeting is impacting the process and particularly how it relates to political parties fulfilling their purported role of being primary political organizations and being the organizations through which people are involved in debating and discussing the problems facing the society, and in deciding the agenda and policies the society needs.

Our conclusion is that these developments, along with the fact that there hasn't been a serious study of what's going on in the electoral process since 1991-92, requires that we have public deliberations on all the fundamental premises of the electoral process to renew it once again: how mandates are arrived at; how candidates are selected; the use of public funds; and the fact that all people and all members of the polity, regardless of whether or not they belong to a political party, should be treated as equals.

How do we achieve this? Our position is that funding the process should take priority and should replace funding political parties. We think political parties should raise funds from their own members and not be recipients of state funding. So long as state funds are allocated, they have to be allocated on an equal basis. Otherwise, we have a situation where power and privilege are influencing the outcome of elections.

Those are the opening remarks I wanted to make.

[Vivian Krause, Researcher and Writer, As an Individual]

Good evening, everyone. Bonsoir, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I will make my presentation in English, but I'll be happy to answer your questions in either language afterwards.

Thank you very much for inviting me to join you this evening to contribute to your work in relation to Bill C-76. My understanding is that you are interested in my input with regard to the issue of undue foreign influence in Canadian elections; therefore, I will do my best to speak to that first.

By way of background, perhaps it would be of interest to the committee for me to introduce myself briefly and to sum up why I believe undue foreign influence in our elections is a serious issue not only for our country but also for the sovereignty of our country.

By way of background, I am a Canadian citizen. I'm a resident of North Vancouver. For the last 10 years I have been following the money and the science behind environmental activism and, more recently, behind elections activism. I have done all my work on my own initiative. I am not funded or directed by anyone, and I've written a series of articles that sum up most of my work published in the Financial Post and elsewhere.

As you may be aware from some of the articles I've written, there is a significant extent to which non-Canadian influence had an impact in the 2015 federal election in our country. I reported this extensively to Elections Canada. I would just sum up for you briefly that there are at least three U.S.-based organizations that have claimed credit for having had a significant influence in the 2015 federal election. Two of these are Corporate Ethics International, based in San Francisco, and the Citizen Engagement Laboratory, based in Oakland, California.

How do we know these American organizations influenced the outcome of the 2015 federal election? Well, we know this because they've told us in writing. I'll cite one example.

In the 2015 annual report of the Online Progressive Engagement Network, which is part of the Citizen Engagement Laboratory, its executive director, referring to the year 2015, wrote:

We ended the year with...a Canadian campaign that moved the needle during the national election, contributing greatly to the ousting of the conservative Harper government.

That's a written statement by the executive director of a non-Canadian organization. How do they do that? Well, the Citizen Engagement Laboratory has a project called the Online Progressive Engagement Network, OPEN for short, and it had a program called strategic incubation. That program helped to create, launch, and back behind the scenes a Canadian-based organization called Leadnow, based in Vancouver.

Leadnow, with the support of OPEN, ran a “get the vote out” campaign in the 2015 and 2011 federal elections. In the 2015 federal election in particular, they ran a campaign that targeted Conservative incumbents in 29 ridings. In some of these ridings, it stands to reason that this group had an impact. For example, in Winnipeg, in the Elmwood—Transcona riding, where Leadnow had full-time staff for more than a year, as far as I'm aware, the incumbent was defeated by only 61 votes.

Bill C-76 aims to close some of the loopholes that have allowed non-Canadian influence in our federal elections. I understand that a lot of work has gone into the preparation of this bill, and as a Canadian I would like to acknowledge and thank everyone who's worked so hard on it so far. I regret to say, though, that unfortunately I think with the way the bill stands today, what happened in the 2015 election would be able to occur and reoccur. I don't see that this bill has been changed in the ways that would be needed to deter and in fact make illegal what happened in 2015 and keep it from happening again.

Specifically, I would refer the committee to proposed section 282.4 under “Undue influence by foreigners”. It's paragraph 282.4(1)(b) in particular that I think needs some work.

I'll leave it at that as my opening comments, Mr. Chairman, and I would be glad to answer any questions that you may have.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'm just going to make a point. In the name of brevity, I'll keep it short.

I sit on the Standing Committee on Finance, and we're going through a statutory review of the anti-money laundering act. We've been at it for eight months—maybe even nine months—at this point. I think we have easily reached almost 100 hours. The committee is travelling this week to study the issue.

I think Bill C-76 is a much bigger deal than the statutory review of the anti-money laundering act. The provisions contained within it have a direct impact on our democracy. The anti-money laundering act provisions are important in and of themselves, but they're not fundamental to what happens in 2019, which is a general election. I understand there is a certain amount of urgency to deal with it.

That being said, you want to get it right in the first place. You want to have all the right witnesses, and the right amount of feedback. You want to keep your list open, as has been the practice on two committees that I have been on, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, as well as the finance committee. Keep the list open, because as you're questioning witnesses they might say that they know this professor who could provide you with this type of information.

This is a big bill. It's 354 pages. I have gone through it myself. It's a lot to read and compare to what the act says right now. These documents aren't easy to read. Bills aren't made in a format that are simple for anyone to pick up.

I think it's more than reasonable to keep it open, so that witnesses can come in when they can. As you're questioning individuals who come before the committee, they provide new names and you have the opportunity to go and find additional information to test what's in the bill, and its validity. Either it is, and you find evidence out there that confirms the direction that the Government of Canada has taken is the correct one, or they say it's faulty, because of an experience in their jurisdiction.

Commissioner Therrien, who was here today, provided a lot of information about the European context, and how political parties comply with privacy rules. He didn't name specifically that in Italy, they do x, y, and z, or in Greece, they do the following.... He could have said that in Greece, I have the contact for so and so, a commissioner who could provide you with that information. You never know what you're going to get until you start to process off.

Again, I'm just dropping in on this meeting to make a contribution. Other committees have dealt with this in other ways. By keeping it open and not restricting themselves to a strict timetable, they've had a better outcome.

It's an observation.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

It's to extend witnesses to Monday if there are any of those who we can re-ask, I guess. If we so choose, we can instruct the clerk to canvass those same witnesses again and let them know that there's another slot available. That gives them four more days and a weekend to prepare and come before committee.

Most of the witnesses, with the exception of maybe the chicken farmers...I'm not sure if they have a good grasp on this type of material about elections.

What my colleague, Filomena, has said it that we've been through a lot of this material with the Chief Electoral Officer's report because 80% of what the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations were are in Bill C-76. We have thoroughly gone through it. We had the Chief Electoral Officer sit here meeting after meeting with us and also explain to us every time we had any question on any issues.

So we had the foremost expert on elections law here throughout that whole time. I can't even recall how many meetings that was at this point. I would have to go back to take a look. There were 25 meetings. That's over 50 hours there of meetings at that point. There's 50 hours plus the 30 hours of witnesses, now.

I'm just saying that it's not on this legislation but a huge chunk of it really was discussing whether these recommendations were good or not and what they entailed. We have a good understanding, I believe.

Let's put it out there to see if any of those witnesses want to come forward with another time slot. There's at least another six hours of options for them. Then we would have to naturally progress after that. That's the only way I see it. That's what we do as a committee, right?

Once we've had the witnesses, we have to go on to the next stage of the study.

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

Surprisingly, and we'll step off this topic. The evidence isn't that strong in supporting that, which surprises me, especially amongst youth voters.

However, I want to get over to the statement you made about the integrity and the belief in the integrity. You said not just the integrity but “the belief in the integrity of the voting systems”.

I want to talk about privacy for a moment. Under Bill C-76 the status quo is maintained: political parties are not exposed to any significant duties under the privacy laws of Canada, very few.

The data we all collect as political parties is shielded from the privacy commissioner or any independent observer of what we do with the data. There is no obligation to seek consent of voters or to inform them about what kind of data, personal information, we collect on them. Banks are obliged to do that, and private corporations. Do you think political parties should be as well?

[Arthur Hamilton, Lawyer, Conservative Party of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am the legal counsel for the Conservative Party of Canada, and I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear here this afternoon.

There is one particular feature of Bill C-76 that I propose to address, and in fact, it's an omission in the legislation that has now been proposed. Specifically, while the bill seeks to further restrict the spending of registered parties by a newly defined official pre-writ period, it ignores the larger issue of third party financing and the types of third party activities that are not even regulated.

The integrity of federal elections is an issue on which we all agree. Our federal election should be determined by Canadians. If that is agreed, we can also agree that this bill does not go far enough in plugging several holes that permit foreign influence in Canadian federal elections via third party activity. To illustrate my point, I refer to correspondence from Elections Canada prepared in the year 2015. During the 2015 general election, it became clear that several groups, including one referred to as Leadnow, were engaged in several aspects of the election and that they used foreign contributions.

By a letter dated October 1, in response to the concerns the Conservative Party of Canada had raised, the Office of the Commissioner of Elections Canada responded in part:

As provided for in the Act, Leadnow Society cannot use, for election advertising purposes, any foreign contribution that was received by the third party. It can use foreign contributions, however, to finance any of its activities that are not related to elections advertising. For instance, they may use foreign contributions to call electors, hold events, survey the opinions of electors, send e-mails or give media briefings. Such activities, if carried out by a third party independently from any candidate or registered party, are not regulated under the act.

Elections Canada's interpretation of the Canada Elections Act on this point is open to serious challenge, but rather than endless debate on this point, this Parliament can and should act decisively to ensure that foreign contributions cannot influence Canadian federal elections.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the importance of the strict regulation of third parties in its decision in Harper v. Attorney General of Canada, where it cautioned:

For voters to be able to hear all points of view, the information disseminated by third parties, candidates and political parties cannot be unlimited. In the absence of spending limits, it is possible for the affluent or a number of persons or groups pooling their resources and acting in concert to dominate the political discourse....If a few groups are able to flood the electoral discourse with their message, it is possible, indeed likely, that the voices of some will be drowned out...Where those having access to the most resources monopolize the election discourse, their opponents will be deprived of a reasonable opportunity to speak and be heard. This unequal dissemination of points of view undermines the voter’s ability to be adequately informed of all views.

That's from paragraph 72 of the Supreme Court's reported decision.

Later in that same decision, the Supreme Court of Canada recognizes that:

If individuals or groups were permitted to run parallel campaigns augmenting the spending of certain candidates or parties, those candidates or parties would have an unfair advantage over others not similarly supported.

That appears at paragraph 108 of the reported decision.

The interpretation by Elections Canada quoted earlier must be corrected by clear legislative language. Our Supreme Court has been decisive on this point. This Parliament should regulate all third party activities and ban all foreign contributions. When it does so, and only when it does so, we will have secured electoral fairness in this country.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Daniel Therrien]

My suggestion would be that the party privacy policies align with international privacy principles, which are reflected in Canada's federal privacy law, which is PIPEDA. I think the policies of parties should be consistent with PIPEDA principles, which are the same as international principles.

Point two, parties should be legally required to comply with these undertakings, which is not the case under Bill C-76.

Point three, whether or not parties are in compliance should be subject to oversight through a complaint mechanism to an independent third party, likely our office.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Okay.

The Minister of Democratic Institutions has suggested to this committee that we should revisit the issue of parties and privacy rules to recommend a more robust framework.

I understand that you're disappointed it's not within Bill C-76. However, that does not preclude us from being able to revisit the topic in the future and putting together our best framework.

What would you suggest that framework contain, if this committee does do a study on that? You had mentioned following international principles. Is that going far enough, or do you have other suggestions?

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

That's good to hear. It may not be particularly pertinent on Bill C-76, but certainly your message that maybe Elections Canada step up a bit to inform people about the statement of ordinary residence, and so on.... It's not to say that you're not. I'm just thinking you could always use some help.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have a quick question for you, Mr. Therrien. It may be a longer question than I anticipate, and if so, I apologize.

In going through the legislation, something came to my attention that I thought was somewhat positive. Under Bill C-76, if a party intentionally misled someone in their policy, which is now to be required under this legislation, there would be serious ramifications. I mean, the leader could face serious punishment. There would be a deregistering of the party, as it's laid out here.

Is that a positive step, to you?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being here.

Partisan questions sometimes come up.

Ms. Shen, I had a strong reaction to what you said regarding services for members with young children. I have a little girl who will be four years old. So she was born during my first term as member of Parliament. We formed a group of four members and fought for at least a family room to breastfeed and for all Parliament washrooms—both women's and men's—to be equipped with a changing table. It took a long time, but we have finally managed to get it done.

That said, there are still barriers that make things difficult for women with young children. The parliamentary daycare gives priority to members' children, but it does not accept children under the age of 18 months. In addition, we don't have access to it if we do not pay for five days of daycare per week. However, those of us who do not live in the Ottawa-Gatineau region are often here only three days a week.

Christine Moore and I have created a nanny service. It is pretty nice to be able to have our child in the House of Commons. That is quite tolerated in the case of children under the age of two, but this was not the case when we had our children in 2014 or 2015.

Something else made me react in Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, which talks about the “treatment of candidates' expenses”. This is an improvement, but it is still stated that those are expenses for the care of a person with an incapacity or a dependent. I cannot believe that, in the reimbursement of expenses, having a child is considered a handicap for the mother or father who would like to run for office.

In short, progress has been made, and I hope things will continue to move in that direction. I may have misunderstood, but I also hope the notion of handicap could be changed.

The two witness panels—especially the Status of Women Canada representatives—talked a lot about initiatives taken for the advancement of women. Can you tell us a bit more about unconscious biases? Is relevant training planned on the Hill? You have mostly talked about the situation within the federal government. People talk about intellectual self-defence. Could intellectual self-defence courses be provided for women?

Women have been consulted through programs aimed at encouraging them to run for office. They said they did not know how to respond to degrading comments, both by women and by men. When they hear those kinds of comments, they freeze up and don't know how to respond. That has happened in committee. It is also because we are young women—at least I am. We have not received training or information on that, and I think that is a failure.

Another issue is that the media do not show female models. That is a problem because people are under the impression that no women are interested in politics, but some are, although there is still a long way to go. Is any funding set aside for interviews with women in politics to show that it is done, that it is positive, enjoyable and useful?

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

Yes. Thank you so much.

Colonel, I think we heard in your testimony—if not, I apologize—that the voter turnout for armed forces members is much lower. To my understanding, it's 45%. Do you think the changes in Bill C-76 will have an impact on voter turnout?

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

Right.

I'm quoting you. You said there is “nothing of substance” in Bill C-76 to raise the bar in terms of privacy for Canadians.

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

Thank you, Chair. I had only asked my Conservative colleagues, but I appreciate it from the Liberals as well.

First, Colonel Joshi, thank you very much for your testimony. There's nothing in what you've said, nor in Bill C-76 as it pertains to our women and men serving overseas, that we object to. I'm glad these reforms have come about. I'm going to devote much of my questioning to Mr. Therrien. Don't take any offence. It's hard to ask questions of someone when you're agreeing with them a lot.

It's not that I disagree with what you said, Mr. Therrien, but there are some things in this bill that cause concern, and that's what I would hope to get at.

To clarify, in Europe, for 20 years, political parties have been subjected to some privacy provisions and some limitations.

[Riri Shen, Director of Operations, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office]

Madam Chair, I'd like to start my opening remarks by thanking the chair and the committee for inviting us to come before you today on the important topic of barriers facing women in politics in Canada.

My name is Riri Shen. I'm the director of operations for the democratic institutions secretariat at the Privy Council Office. I'm here today with Selena Beattie, director of operations, cabinet affairs, legislation and House planning, and Joshua Bath, an analyst at democratic institutions.

I would like to focus my remarks today on the current state of representation of women in Canada's democratic institutions, including in the Senate, and outline some of the recent actions brought forth by the government to increase accessibility to our democratic institutions. I will focus my remarks on the federal level.

As I am sure this committee is aware, the 2015 election set new records for women's participation and in terms of the number of women elected to the House of Commons. Roughly 30% of candidates in the 2015 election identified as women, and 26% of members elected to the House were women. Following a number of by-elections, which have occurred since the 42^nd general election, the proportion of women in the House has risen to 27.1%.

While these are historic highs in terms of women's representation in the House of Commons, the fact remains that women's representation continues to sit at rates far below parity and at rates below those in a number of like-minded democracies.

Academic research has identified a number of barriers to the participation of women in Canadian federal politics. In terms of Canada's electoral system, academics have noted barriers ranging from access to funds and financing to networking, as well as internal party policies, such as nomination contests, lack of party support to women candidates, and placing women candidates in unwinnable ridings. Additionally, academics have found that factors outside of our electoral system play a role in women's representation, including but not limited to the tone in the House of Commons, family-friendly policies for members, the harassment of women representatives online, family commitments, and other broad social phenomena. Increasing women's participation and representation is a complex issue. With that said, the government is continuing to take action to remove or alleviate some of the barriers women face when running for office.

The government announced in Budget 2018, tabled on February 27, that it is supportive of, and will work with Parliament on, the recommendations put forward in the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs entitled “Support for Members of Parliament With Young Children”.

This includes working with Parliamentarians to ensure that the House of Commons is flexible, compassionate and reasonable in making accommodations for members with needs for young children that are related to their parliamentary functions—which we would be happy to detail further if you have questions.

The government has also followed through on its commitment to amend the Parliament of Canada Act to provide for the creation of maternity and parental leave for parliamentarians. That amendment is part of Bill C-74, the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1.

Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, which was introduced by the Minister of Democratic Institutions on April 30, 2018, proposes a number of updates to the Canada Elections Act that are aimed at making our electoral system more accessible to Canadians.

I wish to highlight provisions contained in Bill C-76 which are meant to reduce barriers to candidates in the treatment of regulated expenses to increase equity and accessibility in seeking election.

The bill would amend the Canada Elections Act to indicate that candidates may opt to pay expenses related to child care, to a candidate's own disability, or to the provision of care of a dependant's disability out of their personal funds in addition to campaign funds. This means that candidates would not be disadvantaged by requiring such expenses to count toward their expense limits during an election.

I would add that these expenses would be eligible for reimbursement following an election at an increased level of 90% rather than the current reimbursement rate of 60%. While these amendments would benefit both women and men, evidence suggests this would be more likely to benefit women candidates. In ensuring that women and men, in all their diversity, are able to participate in our elections, Bill C-76 would additionally make numerous amendments to reduce barriers to participation by persons with disabilities.

These include increased support and assistance at polls for persons with disabilities, increased accommodation to participate in the political debate, and broadening the application of existing provisions in the act so they do not apply only to individuals with physical disabilities.

[Colonel Vihar Joshi, Deputy Judge Advocate General, Administrative Law, Canadian Forces]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I'd just like to thank the committee for the opportunity I've been given to speak to you about Bill C-76 and its positive impact on members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I am Colonel Vihar Joshi. I'm the Deputy Judge Advocate General, who is responsible for the Administrative Law Division of the office of the JAG and I'm the coordinating officer designated by the Minister of National Defence for the purposes of section 199 of the Canada Elections Act.

I'll first make a few opening remarks and then I will gladly answer any questions the committee may have.

The special voting rules, presently set out in division 2 of part 11 of the Canada Elections Act, were developed at the end of the 1950s and have undergone very few significant changes since then.

Currently, Canadian Forces electors must complete the statement of ordinary residence upon enrolment and maintain it for election purposes. Exceptionally, the statement of ordinary residence allows these voters to choose the electoral district in which they will vote during federal elections. For example, they may choose to vote in the riding in which they were living when they enrolled, the riding in which they currently reside because of their military service, or a riding in which a loved one lives and with whom they would be living, if not for their military service.

However, once an election is called, members can no longer modify this address during the election period.

Canadian Forces electors who wish to exercise their right to vote must do so within their unit during the military voting period, which is between 14 and nine days prior to the civilian election day. When they vote in a unit, Canadian Forces electors are not subject to any identification requirements. Only the few members who qualify may exceptionally vote at a civilian polling station and may only do so on polling day.

In the most recent federal general election, the participation rate of Canadian Forces electors was significantly lower than that of the general population. There are certain factors that may explain this.

In his report entitled “An Electoral Framework for the 21^st Century: Recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada Following the 42nd General Election”, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada recommended a complete review of the special voting rules that apply to Canadian Forces electors. Mr. Chair, I understand that the members of the committee unanimously supported such a review.

Over the past two years, we have been working hard to review the provisions of the Canada Elections Act that affect Canadian Forces electors.

The aim of the amendments to Bill C-76 that are of interest to us is to make the federal electoral system more accessible to members of the Canadian Armed Forces. These amendments also help to ensure the integrity of the vote and maintain the flexibility the Canadian Armed Forces require as they operate around the globe in a broad range of security and operational contexts.

Mr. Chair, before taking questions from committee members, I would like to draw your attention to certain key amendments Bill C-76 makes to the special voting rules that apply to Canadian Forces electors.

First, the bill eliminates the statement of ordinary residence, or SOR, procedure. This measure will allow our members to register on the National Register of Electors, as all other Canadians do, and to update their registration during the election period. In so doing, Canadian Forces electors will be required to register in the riding of their ordinary place of residence or, if they reside outside Canada, their last ordinary place of residence before leaving the country. This change will allow our members to vote in the same riding as their loved ones, in addition to preventing certain Canadian Forces electors from having to vote in a riding to which they no longer have a connection.

The bill also eliminates the obligation for Canadian Forces electors to vote within their unit. Our members may now choose to exercise their right to vote by using the voting method that best meets their needs.

As all other voters, they will be able to vote at advanced polling stations, at polling stations on polling day, at the offices of returning officers across Canada, or by mail from Canada or abroad. When they choose to vote elsewhere than at their unit, members of the Canadian Armed Forces will be subject to the same identification rules as other voters, including proof of residence.

The bill does, however, maintain the possibility for full-time members of the Canadian Armed Forces to vote within their unit, whether in Canada or abroad. Bill C-76 will also allow our part-time members to benefit from this opportunity, which is currently not an option for them.

At the military polling stations, Canadian Forces electors will now be subject to new, clear, and consistent identification rules. Using identification documents issued by the Canadian Armed Forces, they will be required to prove their name and service number in order to receive their voting ballot. Our members who are participating in operations or exercises in Canada or abroad, on land or at sea, generally cannot bring documents that show their residential address with them. This security measure aims to ensure the protection of our members and their families. As a result, Canadian Forces electors voting within their unit will not be required to provide proof of address. They will, however, be required to declare that they are voting in the riding where their ordinary place of residence is located. Any misrepresentation may be subject to an investigation and could lead to charges before civil or military tribunals.

The bill also allows for a more fluid exchange of information between Elections Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces. These exchanges will lead to increased integrity of the vote, in particular by ensuring that the names of Canadian Forces electors voting at military polling stations are removed from the list of electors used at civilian polling stations.

Lastly, I would like to draw the committee's attention to one more significant legislative modification. Many civilians accompany the Canadian Armed Forces abroad: for example, foreign service officers, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, civil support staff for the Canadian Armed Forces, and dependants of these individuals and our members. Currently, these civilians could have difficulty exercising their right to vote by mail from abroad, in particular because of restrictions related to postal service in certain areas of the world. Bill C-76 would correct this imbalance by giving a clear mandate to the Canadian Armed Forces and Elections Canada, which must work together to help these electors exercise their right to vote.

To conclude, members of the Canadian Armed Forces demonstrate courage, determination, and resilience in their service to Canada. They do this in Canada and abroad. The Canadian Armed Forces is therefore enthusiastic about this Parliament's modernizing the provisions in the Canada Elections Act that affect the Canadian Forces electors.

I would be glad to answer any questions you might have.

[Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. I would like to thank the committee for the invitation today to discuss the privacy implications of Bill C-76.

As you are well aware, citizens' concerns have been voiced globally around how their personal information is being gathered from online platforms and used in the political process. Allegations about the misuse of the personal information of 87 million Facebook users are a serious wake-up call that highlights a growing crisis for privacy rights. Not only is consumer trust at risk, so too is trust in our democratic processes.

As you know, no federal privacy law applies to political parties; British Columbia is the only province to cover them. This is not the case in many other jurisdictions. In most regions of the world, laws provide that political parties are governed by privacy laws. This includes jurisdictions such as the E.U., the U.K., New Zealand, Argentina, and Hong Kong. Canada is becoming the exception.

We recently reviewed the privacy policies of political parties. While these policies have some positive features—for instance, all make provisions for people to update personal information or correct details that are out of date—they all fall way short of globally accepted fair information principles.

Similarly, the standards alluded to in clause 254 of Bill C-76 also fall short. In fact, Bill C-76 does not prescribe any standards. It simply says that parties must have policies that touch on a number of issues, leaving it to parties to define the standards that they want to apply. In terms of privacy protection, Bill C-76 adds nothing of substance.

For instance, the bill does not require parties to seek consent from individuals, limit collection of personal information to what is required, limit disclosure of information to others, provide individuals with access to their personal information, or be subject to independent privacy oversight.

By contrast, in British Columbia, parties must apply all generally applicable privacy principles, and B.C. otherwise has very similar legislation to the federal legislation. In B.C., consent applies, but it is subject to other laws, such that consent is not required for the transmission of lists of electors under electoral laws.

I've heard much support, including from federal politicians, for the idea that political parties should be subject to privacy laws. The government, meanwhile, appears to think that political parties are not similarly situated to private companies as they relate to privacy.

For instance, ministers seem concerned that applying privacy laws would impede communications between parties and electors. This is an interesting proposition, but I have not yet seen any evidence to that effect. That evidence may exist, but it has not been presented for public discussion.

I would note that in Europe, however, political parties have been subject to privacy laws for over 20 years. I understand that such protections have now become part of the culture of how elections are run.

What we know at the end of the day is that democracy appears to still thrive in those jurisdictions where parties must comply with privacy laws.

The precise law where privacy rules should be found does not much matter. It could be the Elections Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA—in other words, an act governing privacy protection in the private sector—or another act.

What matters are that internationally recognized privacy principles, not policies defined by parties, be included in domestic law and that an independent third party, potentially my office as we have expertise, have the authority to verify compliance.

Independent oversight is necessary to ensure that privacy policies or principles are not just empty promises but actual safeguards applied in practice.

Together with Elections Canada, we have developed amendments that would achieve these goals. We provided these suggestions to the committee today. If you wish, I can explain them during the question period.

In conclusion, the integrity of our democratic processes is clearly facing significant risks. If there ever was a time for action, this is it.

I welcome your questions.

Thank you.

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

I appreciate the timing piece—I get that—but your remedy is contained in Bill C-76. That's the answer.

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

There are a number of initiatives included in Bill C-76, including the CEO's mandate to educate, the national voter's registration, and the dropping of the age to hire students. I take it that you are very supportive of all of those initiatives.

With respect to the court case, if in fact Bill C-76 were to become law tomorrow, would you be dropping that court case? Is everything that you are fighting for in your court case contained in Bill C-76?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

The legislation we're studying right now, Bill C-76, reverses that and brings back the voter information card. Do you think more students would be likely to go out to polls if they were able to use that as one of their pieces of identification?

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Good afternoon. Welcome to meeting 111 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as we continue our study of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments.

We are pleased to be joined by officials from the Communications Security Establishment, Scott Jones, Deputy Chief, Information Technology Security; and Jason Besner, Director, Cyber Threat Evaluation Centre, Information Technology Security. As well, from the Canadian Federation of Students, we have Coty Zachariah, National Chairperson, and Justine De Jaegher, Executive Director.

I have some good news for the committee. Twitter has agreed—

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

Professor Turnbull, we just spoke about accessibility.

My focus now is on a question for Mr. Emery.

There are provisions in here that I am proud of with respect to enhancing access for people with disabilities. Included in that is the expansion of the definition of what disability means beyond physical disability. Can you speak to the importance of the provisions that you see in the bill and how you feel about their inclusion in Bill C-76?

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

With respect to this bill and the voter information card and the vouching, as well as the commissioner's enhanced ability to enforce the Canada Elections Act, can you talk about those three points and how you feel about them in Bill C-76?

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

You pointed out in that letter that the right to vote is enshrined in the charter as a fundamental part of society. I know you've suggested it hasn't gone far enough, and we've gone into some of the things, but can you comment on the changes in Bill C-76 and how it is protecting or preserving that charter right to vote?

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

Professor Turnbull, back in 2014, you were one of 450 professors who signed an open letter to describe the Fair Elections Act as an irremediably flawed bill that should be completely rewritten. Do you believe that Bill C-76, if passed, will undo what was done in the Fair Elections Act?

[J. Randall Emery]

Well, certainly the expat community would have welcomed that to move forward.

We are where we are. We hope that Bill C-76 moves.

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

One of the questions—and forgive me if I've missed this—is the cross-mixing of money, that you can have a Canadian entity set up a Canadian bank account, which this bill requires, yet you can commingle the financing. They can have foreign money in their core financing. When we asked the minister and Elections Canada how you pursue it to the end of the conversation to find out how much is commingled, is any money displacing....

I'm having a hard time articulating questions today. I'll give you a scenario. If an organization has a $2-million budget, normally, an operational budget, and they get an extra $1-million donation from the United States, Russia, it doesn't matter, and they displace their core budget and spend all of their $2 million now on elections or to the prescribed limit, $1.5 million, it's essentially using through a loophole foreign money to advocate a position. I don't see under Bill C-76 how we'd catch that scenario. Do you follow?

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

Thank you, sir.

Dr. Turnbull, thank you for coming here today. I have just one broad, general question to begin with.

I notice your book that you co-authored with Mr. Aucoin and Mr. Jarvis, Democratizing the Constitution. Are we a step towards democratizing the Constitution in Bill C-76?

[J. Randall Emery, Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I'm the executive director of the Canadian Citizens Rights Council, which brings together organizational and individual members to invest in a vision of a renewed Canada leading the world in citizens' rights and freedoms.

Our comments today centre on universal voting rights. Bill C-76 does the right thing by restoring full federal voting rights to Canadian citizens abroad. Canadians support this universal right. We urge you to preserve these provisions in the bill and support a timely and fair implementation.

First of all, supporting the right to vote from abroad is the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do because doing nothing harms Canadians. Canadian history has been marked by a steady progression towards universal voting rights, beginning with the enfranchisement of women, then racialized minorities and people who don't own property, Inuit, first nations peoples, federal judges, people with mental disabilities, people with no fixed address, and lastly, prisoners, yet the current five-year rule at issue before the Supreme Court of Canada denies at least one million citizens the right to vote and sends a clear message of exclusion.

These are not hobby voters. Canadians abroad are subject to tax laws, criminal laws, foreign anti-corruption laws, and special economic measures, and they benefit from the right of entry to Canada from foreign soil, Canada pension benefits, citizenship laws, and immigration laws.

Moreover, it's the right thing to do because Canadians abroad benefit Canada. Canadians living and working abroad are directly and indirectly responsible for billions of dollars in bilateral trade. They are exceptionally well educated, linguistically adept, and culturally bilingual. They are our cultural and economic ambassadors. The more we as a country engage them, the more Canada will prosper.

Second, Canadians get this. Over time, Canadians maintain an overwhelming connectedness to Canada, but less so to their home province or municipality. Correspondingly, in 2011, the Environics Institute found that 69% of Canadians thought Canadians abroad should vote in federal elections. This bill strongly aligns with public opinion.

Finally, we ask you to support enfranchising provisions in this bill and to support a timely and fair implementation. When amendments are offered at clause-by-clause consideration, we ask members of this committee to preserve enfranchising language as is, without amendments that would limit the population of eligible voters. We also ask you to support a timely and fair implementation.

Recognizing Elections Canada's time constraints, we urge swift passage of this bill. We also urge members to avoid new identification or other requirements that have been demonstrated to reduce turnout elsewhere.

This is a historic opportunity to let all Canadians vote. It's the right thing to do, and Canadians support it. We applaud the enfranchising provisions of this bill and urge their preservation and timely implementation.

Thank you. I welcome any questions you might have.

[Dr. Lori Turnbull, Associate Professor, Dalhousie University, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for the invitation to appear before the procedure and House affairs committee on Bill C-76.

Before I get into the bill, I'll make some general comments about political finance regulation in Canada. We've been regulating spending and contributions for candidates, parties, and third parties in some form or another since 1974. Every once in a while, the rules get reviewed or reconsidered in light of new realities with respect to democracy, elections, political culture, and things like that. At the heart of all these debates about political finance are some fundamental questions about democracy and political expression. It's always a balancing act between freedom of expression and the public interest, and maintaining a level playing field for political competitors. Neither of these is pursued by regulation to the complete detriment of the other: we need the balance, and that's where the charter comes in. The charter protects that.

It's been the norm historically, in connection with the charter, for political finance laws to end up in court, and there's been some very thoughtful jurisprudence on the role of the state in regulating money in politics. The terrain is shifting now, however, and I would say that money is no longer a reliable proxy for political expression. It used to be that debates and paid prime-time ads were the way to reach people, but now—and in connection with Mr. Cullen's comments—it's Twitter, Facebook, clickbait, Instagram, and micro-targeted email messages. This type of political expression poses a completely new regulatory challenge because, for the most part, it is low cost or free. Talking about spending limits and contribution limits is a little bit offside. Spending limits only get to part of the issue, and, I would suggest, an increasingly smaller part as we go on.

Nevertheless, here we are on Bill C-76. The theme is modernization. Democracy is changing for many reasons, and the law needs to catch up. The bill, as members are aware, covers a lot of ground. Some major areas of concentration, like establishing pre-writ spending limits for parties and third parties, aren't a huge surprise. We've seen this in Ontario. Given the constant campaign, campaigning all the time, imposing limits only once the writ is dropped is seen as arbitrary. The bill limits the writ period to 50 days. It increases transparency around the activities of third parties in a few ways: by requiring third parties to identify themselves in political advertising; by requiring them to keep separate bank accounts to allow their political activity to be seen a bit more clearly when you open up the books; and including things like polling in the expenditures that are limited, which is not the case now. It's an area where third parties are now able to spend in a way that's unlimited, but political parties are not. Also, there are measures to make voting more accessible, including the creation of a register of future electors.

I have a couple of comments on what the bill doesn't do. Third parties can still take unlimited donations from organizations, while political parties and candidates cannot. For over a decade now, contributions coming to candidates and parties from organizations, as opposed to individuals, have not been allowed. This creates an unbalanced playing field and perhaps creates an incentive for wealthier people or organizations to make unlimited donations to third parties.

The issue of foreign money is very tough to regulate, and largely because third parties are often doing many things. They're not just political actors, and they're not just contesting elections. They're also doing charitable work, advocacy work, educational work, and working with partners in other countries. So it's very difficult to impose particular rules during the campaign period or for election spending by third parties. You used to be able to take foreign money for some things, but now for this purpose, during this time, you can't. It's very difficult to police. On some level you don't want to go too far with it because then you're choking off funds used for other purposes, and we want organizations to be able to do those things, presumably. It comes down to how to regulate third party spending and activity that relates to elections.

Many observers have expressed concern over the possibility of foreign involvement in Canadian elections. We have to work on that. We have to be able to make Canadians feel that it's not going to be a problem, and that we are aware of what foreign influence could look like. Again, I think this relates significantly to issues of digital democracy, cybersecurity. Regulating money is not really going far enough and it's not really getting at what people's major concerns are.

I'll leave it there and allow my colleague to speak.

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

We're under the gun, as you know. Elections Canada has told us already that they can't implement all of C-76 if we were to pass it tomorrow. Does that cause you any concern?

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

Well, that was my question, sir. My goodness, you're smarter than I ever realized.

I don't have much time left, but perhaps you want to comment on that part. One of the things, in addition to that, is to allow Elections Canada to have more freedom to go beyond just telling people where and when to vote, which was the contentious issue. We also have the fact that we're allowing people between the ages of 16 and 18 to register to vote—or is it 14 now? Nevertheless, they can register to vote.

Do you see how Elections Canada can do more on the education aspect now that in Bill C-76 they have the freedom we just talked about?

[Prof. Henry Milner]

At this point, I think, in adopting Bill C-76, adding things like political debates and so on is what I would recommend. I would think, though, that we shouldn't say the issue is closed especially on the political knowledge side. I think there are things we could do.

One of the problems.... I shouldn't call it a problem. The situation in Canada, which is not the case in the other countries we've mentioned, is that we have two different levels of government, and education is at the provincial level. In those other countries, linking political knowledge to the educational system through civic education is done through the same people who are concerned about national elections and so on.

Here, of course, education is provincial. Although Elections Canada does have some relationship to the schools, and I don't think provincial governments have a problem with that, nevertheless in the countries that I know there's a very close relationship between—

[Prof. Henry Milner]

Let me say to the specific aspects of Bill C-76 that I think we're doing what we can. We're not going to change our entire institutional system to be like theirs, but within our institution, I think we are applying it appropriately. They have other institutions. I can't speak for every country, but essentially they would certainly not be inhibited in terms of informing people and making various kinds of institutional access available, especially to young people.

I could talk about my last book, The Internet Generation, and some very interesting examples from other countries I've been to, including Norway, Sweden, Finland, and so on, in terms of how to inform young people about politics. In fact, if we do have a bit of extra time, I'd love to tell you about it because it's really quite interesting. It's not directly relevant to this but it's very interesting, and it's something that a version of which we could actually do at both the provincial and federal levels.

Specifically, of course—this brings me back to my last point—one of the things we could learn is to change our electoral system. I've argued and written about how I think a proportional system does in fact result over time in a more informed citizenry. It's a long academic argument based on evidence and so on, but I have made it in the past, and I think it can be made.

If one is interested in a citizenry that—again, none of these things are absolute and black and white—is more likely to inform themselves about relevant issues before an election, I would argue that we can learn from these countries. Most European countries, as you know, have proportional representation, as does New Zealand now, and Australia has it for the upper chamber. There is a relationship, but again, that's not the issue of importance at this committee.

[Professor Henry Milner, Associate Fellow, Department of Political Science, Université de Montréal, As an Individual]

I was under the misapprehension that I was going to be one of five, but it turned out that the five are the entire morning session, rather than just this hour. That is okay with me, but it means that I haven't prepared an exhaustive critique or analysis of Bill C-76. I'm just going to talk about the things that are of particular interest to me and where I think I can make a contribution.

The first thing is you will see in my presentation that I've done this before. It's nice to come to such a situation and be basically positive, rather than be here to criticize and be negative, which is the more normal situation for people like me. Much of my efforts have been around electoral reform. That experience was slightly less positive, if I may say, than this one will turn out to be, I think.

I think that I was in front of the same committee—although I think it was across the street from Parliament—being critical of the Fair Elections Act for various problems with it that seemed to have been rectified in Bill C-33, which I was happy to see presented way back when. I had assumed that this issue was now going to be resolved, but it turns out it's only now that the process continues. It has been widened, as I don't have to tell you, with a number of other areas.

From my point of view, the crucial aspect is access to make it easier for people to inform themselves. That's my specialization, political knowledge. I've published a great deal about that, including the political knowledge of young people, by comparing different countries, including Canada, and physical access to the voting booth in terms of some of the restrictions that were brought into the Fair Elections Act that have been removed in Bill C-76.

In my own work, my particular concern has been on the political knowledge aspect, so I was very concerned with the Fair Elections Act's efforts to reduce the ability of Elections Canada to provide information, especially to young people, but not only to young people, so they would be more able to participate in an election at the right time. I think that those aspects of Bill C-33 have found their way into Bill C-76, in terms of the role of Elections Canada, in terms of allowing registration before the age, in fact, encouraging young people to register before the age of 18, as well as other aspects, which are not just for young people, but for people with handicaps and so on. I'm very happy to see that.

In terms of what I would like to see added, there's only one aspect that seems to me to be missing. Once one is really looking at the entire electoral process—and I know there was some discussion of it in the consultation process that took place—perhaps regulate the question of leaders debates during the election period. Set up a process that would be standardized, so that people could expect it. I know that's a complicated issue and I certainly don't want to delay the implementation process, but I do think it's missing from a law that tries to be quite comprehensive about the way we run election campaigns.

My other problem wasn't part of the Fair Elections Act, but with the way the last election was run. It was that it was so long. I don't have to remind you that it lasted more than 11 weeks, I think. That was tied to a change—a change which I had something to do with—namely, fixed election dates. I testified before that, especially in the Senate committee, that was responsible for that issue. I have talked about that in other places, including the House of Lords in London.

When fixed election dates were adopted—and the 2015 election took place under fixed election dates—this silly idea of now doubling the time for the campaign was combined with it, which of course made us look bad, those of us who favoured fixed election dates. People were saying now it's a free-for-all, that it lasts forever, and all kinds of money is being spent. I'm glad to see that we're going back to a seven-week campaign like in the Fair Elections Act. That's the one additional factor that I think is very important, and there are some other specific procedures around this that I'm in favour of. I don't have anything particular to say about them.

My real concern is that this happen. We have an election coming up in a year and a half and I'm concerned that the necessary aspects of this law won't be implemented early enough so that they can actually work appropriately. I'm torn between wanting to improve Bill C-76 in any possible way and wanting it to move quickly. Having it move quickly is, I think, in many ways more important, especially the information aspect and so on. We would like to see Elections Canada again able to implement its various information programs.

I have to tell you—and I don't know how many of you are aware of this—that there's a very absurd thing taking place next week in Toronto. I'm not sure how many of you are aware. Probably none of you are aware, but a citizens' group tied to the Canadian Federation of Students.... I think I have it here if you'll just give me a minute. The Council of Canadians, the Canadian Federation of Students, and some individuals hired a law firm to contest the Fair Elections Act. I was one of those who wrote affidavits for this contestation, which is only now coming before the Ontario Supreme Court. All of us—there are several of us, though not as many as you'll be hearing from—those of us who opposed the Fair Elections Act, are required now to be cross-examined by government lawyers to defend our criticism of the Fair Elections Act, which, of course, will no longer exist, hopefully, very soon.

I guess the business of Parliament moves slowly. I found it quite strange, but when I was speaking to the law firm that's running all of this, I asked them why they wouldn't just drop it. They said they weren't sure that the new legislation replacing the Fair Elections Act would be implemented in time, so they had to go ahead. This will all be taking place in Toronto next week.

Finally, I want to stress that I am anxious to see this move ahead, so that it will all be in place in time for the next election.

I have to say that one of the reasons I'm a little bit cynical about how this body moves on it with what seems to be happening or should be happening is my experience with the electoral reform. I was one of a great many political science and other experts in this area who came before this body. We were a very large majority of experts who testified in favour of electoral reform, and it seemed that our voices were going to be heard as part of the process, and then, as I don't need to tell you, we know how that came out.

I don't want to be too cynical but I do want to stress the importance of moving forward with this so that this bill will be in place in time to be implemented correctly for the next election.

Thank you very much.

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

Would you agree that Bill C-76 will result in more voter participation, that the provisions are in there to increase voter participation with things like accessibility, voter information cards, and the like? Would you agree with that?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Gunn and Mr. Conacher, for being here today. I'll start with Mr. Conacher.

I know that your passion is democracy and ensuring that people have an opportunity to participate in the democratic process. Can you speak about the way you believe Bill C-76 will contribute to voter participation? What are the strengths in Bill C-76 that you see?

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

Right now, under Bill C-76, what responsibility do they have?

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

Let's talk about social media for a second. As it is right now, you call it self-regulation. If some foreign entity or someone breaking one of the laws in Bill C-76 buys $500,000 of Facebook ads, which would be a lot, to advocate for a political party or for an issue, unless Facebook reports that, unless the third party, the foreign entity, reports it, how would we know it happened?

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

Let's deal with limits, because that's what Bill C-76 deals with.

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

Let's run that scenario under your ideal, if Bill C-76 dealt with false statements and false promises. Let's just walk through one.

The last time you both appeared we were talking about electoral reform. We were talking about a specific promise that 2015 would be the last election under first past the post.

In your ideal scenario, what would happen next if the law prevented parties from making false statements?

[Duff Conacher]

I think Bill C-76 goes further than B.C. because of this special bank account you have to set up.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Conacher, I'll start with you.

When you were before this committee—I think it was about a year or so ago now—you stated that you'd like to see disclosure for lobby groups or third party groups in their spending between elections. I'm assuming that's still your position. Given that this is not addressed in Bill C-76, do you think that this legislation should be amended to include that kind of disclosure requirement so that it's out of the writ and the pre-writ periods?

[Duff Conacher, Co-Founder, Democracy Watch]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to testify before you today.

I am testifying here in my role as co-founder of Democracy Watch, which, if you are not aware, is a citizen advocacy group. We've been working since 1993 to make Canada the world's leading democracy, pushing for changes to require everyone in politics to be honest, ethical, open, and representative, and to prevent waste. A total of 190,000 people have signed up to send a letter or petition in one or another of our campaigns from across Canada.

Today, my submission is based largely, as Mr. Gunn mentioned, on earlier submissions made to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.

Bill C-76 makes many good changes, reversing many of the unfair changes made by the 2014 so-called Fair Elections Act, but the Democracy Watch position is that the negative effects of many of the changes in that act were exaggerated. As a result, the reversal of those changes will likely have little overall effect on what actually happens in elections. Like the 2014 Fair Elections Act, Bill C-76 unfortunately doesn't live up to its name. It's called the elections modernization act, but like the Fair Elections Act, it allows many old-fashioned, unfair, and undemocratic election practices to continue, as follows:

Number one, of course, the vote-counting system doesn't count votes in a fair way, and usually produces false majority governments. It also doesn't allow voters to vote “none of the above”—a key option that voters should have, and already have in four provinces—and it doesn't fully fix election dates, as the U.K. has, to stop unfair snap election calls.

Number two, it continues to allow the baiting of voters with false promises in ads. The Canada Elections Act prohibits inducing voters to vote for anyone by—and this is the actual wording—“any pretence or contrivance”. However, the commissioner of Canada elections refuses to apply that measure to a blatantly false promise or false statement made during an election. A clearly worded “honest promises” requirement, with significant penalties, is clearly needed. It's the number one hot-button issue for voters: even if they vote for the party that wins, they don't get what they voted for because of blatantly false promises.

While clause 61 of the bill adds some specifics to the measures in sections 91 and 92 of the Canadian Elections Act concerning false statements about candidates, the measures actually significantly narrow the range of prohibited false statements. That is a move in the wrong direction. Dishonesty in elections should be broadly defined and discouraged. It's a fundamental voter rights issue. They have the right to an honest campaign so that they know what they're voting for honestly, and misleaders, as opposed to leaders, should be discouraged with significant penalties.

Related to that, the bill does not do nearly enough to stop the new form of false claims, secret false online election ads, including by foreigners. Bill C-76 trusts social media companies to self-regulate, only holding them accountable if they “knowingly” allow a foreign ad, but not saying anything at all in terms of their knowingly or in any other way allowing a false domestic ad. Again, clause 61 narrows the definition of “false statements”, but it still would be illegal to make a false statement about a candidate.

In terms of the “knowingly” standard, the social media companies will easily be able to come up with evidence that they didn't know an ad had been placed. It's not going to be enforceable. They'll get off every time, so that doesn't discourage them from allowing secret, false, online election ads by people in the country or foreigners.

Media and social media companies should be required to report all details about every election-related ad to Elections Canada during the six months leading up to an election, so that Elections Canada can check whether the ad is false, whether it exceeds the third party spending limits, and whether it is paid for by a foreigner. All those three things are illegal, but if Elections Canada can't see those ads, which they can't because they're micro-targeted, how are they going to enforce those laws against false and foreign-sponsored ads, and ads that exceed the third party spending limits?

Don't trust the social media companies to self-regulate in this area. Require them to report every ad to Elections Canada. During those six months, empower Elections Canada to order a clearly false or illegal ad because it's foreign or exceeds the spending limits to be deleted from a media and social media site and impose significant fines on the violators.

In terms of what the bill also does not address, annual donations are still too high. Bill C-50 doesn't do anything about this. As a result, the parties all rely on a small pool of large donors who donate thousands of dollars or more. That facilitates funnelling as SNC-Lavalin was caught doing. It also facilitates lobbyists bundling donations to buy influence. That's all undemocratic and unfair.

There are seven practices the bill does not address that should be switched to be overseen by Elections Canada or other watchdogs.

One is unfair nomination races. Elections Canada should be running all of them. The reform act has not changed anything. All the parties have handed back to party leaders the power to approve election candidates, sometimes with someone in their party headquarters' office as a screen.

Another is unfair leadership races. Elections Canada should be overseeing them.

Another is questionable auditing. Elections Canada should be auditing parties, candidates, and third parties.

Another is unfair election debates. Elections Canada or a commission should be running them with their rules. Hopefully a bill making that change will come soon, before the next election.

Another is biased election polling station supervision. The ruling party and second party choose those people and can force the returning officer to appoint whom they want. Elections Canada should be appointing all the polling station returning officers.

There is the questionable use of voter information. The bill does not extend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, to the parties. The law should be extended to the parties with the Privacy Commissioner doing enforcement.

Another is unfair government advertising. Hopefully there will be a bill coming on that as well with the Auditor General or Elections Canada empowered to stop any ads that are partisan in the six months leading up to an election, and a full prohibition on government ads during the three months before an election.

There is the third party spending limits area. There's no way to stop Canadian businesses and citizen groups receiving foreign money from entities that frees up other money they have to use for third party election advocacy activities, unless you're going to prohibit foreign-owned businesses in Canada and foreign contributions to citizen groups completely. This bill does go quite far in requiring the separate bank account to be set up. I think the problem with it is it's discrimination against citizen groups that take donations versus unions and corporations that are also third parties. It's very easy for them to shift money into this bank account, but a third party is going to have to do special fundraising to get money into that account if it's a citizen group. It's going to make it much more difficult for citizen groups. They are allowed to donate into the account from their own funds that they may have gathered throughout the year, obviously not foreign funds. I think the overall effect is going to make it much more difficult for citizen groups to gather any funds compared to unions or corporations.

The disclosure of the reports and the limits are all good as well, but you need a limit on government advertising as well to make it fair for everyone leading up to the pre-writ drop period and the election period. Overall, I don't see any reason to increase the third party limit during the election period. That's a bad idea. That's a move in an undemocratic direction because it would allow wealthier interests to spend more. The cost of online ads is much less than traditional advertising was when the limits were first set. Even though the new limit covers more expenses, including surveys and going door to door and things like that kind of outreach, I don't see a reason to increase the limit. I think it's a move in a bad direction. How was the limit chosen? How were all the limits chosen? Are they based on anything? Are they based on looking at what parties spent on ads in the pre-writ period in the 2015 election, before the 2011 election?

It's the same with third parties. Is it based on anything that's been reported to Elections Canada? I know that the figures in 2004 limiting third parties were arbitrary, but now we have some track record and I think it should be examined.

I'll just finish with this point. The limits as stated in the government's backgrounder are not the same as what's in the bill. I'm quite confused by huge discrepancies in the amounts. The pre-writ limit for party spending says $1.5 million in the backgrounder, but in the bill, it says $1.1 million. In the backgrounder, it says it's adjusted for 2019 figures based on inflation, which is 30% inflation which we don't have now. All the limits are the same. For third parties, there's a $300,000 gap between what it says in the bill and the backgrounder, and for a riding there's a $3,000 gap.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 110th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Today we continue our study on Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments.

We are pleased to be joined today by Taylor Gunn, president and chief election officer of CIVIX, and Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch.

For the committee's information, you have the list from the clerk of the total number of witnesses. The good news is that they've all been invited—all 300—and we've accommodated everyone who's interested. If there are any more who express an interest, we have slots this week and can fill them. We should be finished with witnesses this week.

We can do some opening statements.

Mr. Gunn, maybe you could start, and then we'll hear from Mr. Conacher.

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

What I'm asking for is that within Bill C-76 itself, what part of the disabilities section, the access to voting, is key to you?

[Ryan O'Connor, Lawyer and Director, Ontario Proud]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee members for inviting me here today.

My name is Ryan O'Connor. I'm the lawyer for and director of Ontario Proud, which is a registered third party political advertiser in the province of Ontario for the current provincial election. We're a social media-based political advocacy group. We're not-for-profit. We promote ethics and accountability in government, fair taxes, personal freedom, and Ontario culture. We started in February 2016 as just simply a Facebook page, and have grown to over 400,000 supporters on the web. Millions in Ontario and throughout Canada view our content online, to the point where Ontario Proud is one of the most engaged and popular Facebook pages in Canada and is the most engaged and popular Facebook page in the province of Ontario.

Since November 9 of last year, Ontario Proud has been registered as a third party political advertiser in Ontario. That was the first day we were required to do so under that province's Election Finances Act. We've advertised on television, but we've largely focused our efforts on non-traditional fora for political advertising, including YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram, in order to maximize our reach in the most efficient manner possible while remaining compliant with the very strict spending and disclosure requirements of the Ontario Election Finances Act. We receive support from donors throughout the province of Ontario. We also comply with the legislation by not accepting contributions for advertising expenses from anyone outside of Ontario.

The legislation on election procedure and campaign finance is arguably some of the most important legislation that Parliament enacts. It sets the ground rules for the exercise of our constitutional right to a free and fair franchise and sets the ground rules for those who participate in the electoral process. Because such legislation is so important, Parliament must carefully and properly consider any changes to the conduct of Canadian elections. This is especially so with Bill C-76 as proposed. Neither this committee nor the House and Senate should expedite the passage of this legislation before the House rises in the summer if it cannot give due consideration to the serious infirmities contained in the legislation as proposed. These infirmities, if not rectified, will have as their result the opposite effect of what the legislation intends and will work to stifle political discourse, discourage third parties from participating in issue advocacy, and perhaps more alarmingly, cause them to ignore the requirements of the legislation altogether.

I will focus my remarks on two primary areas of concern. First, the onerous registration rules, compliance costs, and spending limits outside of elections in relation to third parties are likely unconstitutional. Secondarily, the attempts at limiting the foreign funding of political advocacy will have no measurable impact on the foreign influence that has occurred previously in the Canadian political discourse.

With respect to the constitutional concerns, the legislation as proposed will, for the first time, impose spending limits and registration and donor disclosure requirements on third parties outside of election periods and for a specified pre-election period that commences on June 30 of a fixed-date election year. The legislation goes further than most regimes in the country insofar as it will not only regulate third party political adverting spending; it will also regulate “partisan activity expenses” and “election survey expenses”. The former specifically refers to, in the draft legislation, holding rallies, canvassing, and encouraging electors to vote.

Furthermore, the proposed legislation purports to expand the government's role in policing election advertising, partisan activity, and survey spending even before the pre-election period by requiring third parties, after registering with Elections Canada once incurring expenses, to file an interim return if the third party has received contributions or incurred expenses for regulated activity of $10,000 or more from the time of the preceding election until the time of registration.

The leading Supreme Court of Canada case, which I'm sure many members of this committee are familiar with, is the 2004 case of Harper v. Canada. In that case, the majority of the court found that although the third party spending limits that currently exist in the Canada Elections Act violated paragraph 2(b) of the charter, which is the right to free expression, those were justified, under section 1 of the charter, as reasonable. However, it's critical to note that the spending limits, which remain in the legislation but are indexed to inflation, are only applied during the writ period and only applied to advertising spending. The majority of the court in Harper v. Canada found that the limited time period within which these limits applied was minimally impairing of the right to free expression and proportionate to the objective of promoting electoral fairness. In disagreeing with the minority's position, in that case, that spending limits meant that—to quote from the decision—“citizens cannot effectively communicate their views on election issues”, the majority said that “this ignores the fact that third party advertising is not restricted prior to the commencement” of the campaign period.

More recently, the B.C. Court of Appeal found in a 2012 case, the Reference re Election Act (BC), that the proposed third party advertising spending restrictions on a 40-day period prior to the writ period violated the charter right to free expression and was not justified under section 1 of the charter. Part of the rationale of the court in that decision was that the B.C. government had advanced no evidence that restrictions on third party advocacy had the benefit of ensuring electoral fairness outside of a period when electors would actually be voting.

Currently in Ontario there is a coalition of trade unions that has initiated a constitutional challenge to the third party spending restrictions of the Election Finances Act. A constitutional challenge is inevitable, I would say with all due respect, if the legislation as drafted passes in its current form.

When organizations regularly participate in the political discourse in this country and are forced to comply with onerous regulatory requirements such as those proposed in the legislation, they may simply refuse to do so. They will do so in two ways. They will either ignore the legislation—which in any event is impossible to police in an era of digital campaigning—like many third parties are currently doing in Ontario, or they'll simply not participate in the democratic discourse. Parliament shouldn't be prioritizing the political expression of candidates and parties at the expense of ordinary citizens.

Parliamentarians also need to consider how Bill C-76 will affect issue advocacy. Any trade union that publicly advocates on labour legislation outside of a pre-election period will now have to account for its spending on that issue to Elections Canada. An environmental advocacy group that wishes to organize a rally related to forestry development would have to do the same. Also, a small citizens advocacy group that supports lower taxes will simply stop participating in the public discussion of issues, both during the pre-election period and during the writ period, because it is afraid of running afoul of the legislation or cannot afford the significant compliance laws that Mr. Lavergne had alluded to. This is hardly the intent of the proposed legislation, but that's going to be its effect, and its effect is an unconstitutional one.

I want to turn now briefly to foreign finance loopholes that exist in our current electoral financing legislation. Foreign influence in elections has been a concern in western democracies over the last half a decade, although that may be putting it mildly. One of the most common examples cited is the previous presidential election in the United States. Canada has not been immune to foreign influence in our elections. Foreign-funded groups have bragged about funding third party campaigns against parliamentarians, most recently in the 2015 federal election. Senators—notably, Senator Frum—have been encouraging Parliament to close any loopholes that allow foreign financial influence in our elections.

The proposed legislation before you prevents foreign entities from financing third parties for their advertising efforts or their partisan activity; however, it only does so during the pre-election period and the writ period. It doesn't specifically prohibit financial support for third parties outside of these periods. It would still be legal for foreign foundations, governments, corporations, and trade unions to financially support third parties.

Going further, it would allow third parties to avoid the disclosure requirements of the act altogether if they simply chose not to register during an election period. If members of this committee really wish to address the mischief of foreign involvement in Canadian politics, it would do well to completely close this loophole and either ban or heavily restrict foreign involvement in our electoral system at all times, not just between June 30 and election day.

The government that proposed this legislation often refers to itself as the party of the charter. If it truly wishes to live up to that mantle, it would support amending the proposed legislation, limit any domestic third party spending requirements to the writ period, and defend the right to free expression instead of causing its suppression.

Thank you.

[Réal Lavergne, President, Fair Vote Canada]

Thanks very much.

Thank you for inviting me. I see a few familiar faces in the room. I'm happy to be here.

I thought I'd help out by handing out my speaking notes, but I understand that if they are not translated, you're not going to see them for a while. But I would like to point out one thing in particular, which you'll find on page 5. I've actually listed a few items in which we have comments on how the bill might be easily amended, if you were interested in doing that.

I know you are busy. You have a 350-page document in front of you. This would hopefully make it easier. I'm happy to email this to anybody who'd like to see it. Just be in touch with me and I can send you the link. It's a Google doc.

You know what Fair Vote Canada is. I'm not going to go into any detail about that, but as a representative of Fair Vote Canada here—I'm the president—I'd like to address mainly issues of third parties, because there is some new material here and I'd like to express a few thoughts about that, which I think you will find useful.

Before I get into that, I'd like to acknowledge a couple of things with regard to our general issue, which is equal opportunity in the electoral process, levelling the playing field. I'd like, first of all, to acknowledge how much the bill actually does, without going into detail—because you already know what it does—in terms of ensuring greater access for a wide range of specific groups of people, including people with handicaps.

One thing I have to acknowledge, and that we all have to acknowledge, that it does not do—and my colleagues would not forgive me if I didn't mention it—is, of course, anything to ensure that every vote counts equally in terms of effectiveness regardless of where you live and who you vote for. The only way you could get that is with proportional representation, and this act doesn't deal with that. I'm putting it on the table, but I'm not going to harp on it. I know that's not what you want to hear today.

Let's talk about the third party issues. Here I'd like to speak about five different points. The first one is whether Bill C-76 is restrictive enough with regard to third parties. There is one important point to be made on what we in Fair Vote Canada and, I think, many others would think it is not restrictive enough, and that is with regard not to how much third parties can spend, which is fairly generous, and I'm okay with that. We can't spend that much money anyway. We couldn't spend a fraction of what the ceiling is, so it's not a problem for us. However, there is no restriction that I could find on contributions to third parties, so what you have is a system whereby moneyed interests can channel large amounts of money to third parties. They can create more third parties if they want to, and therefore, have a disproportionate influence on the results of elections.

I would like to point you to the B.C. Election Act, which I think is a very good example of restrictions that can be added with regard to third parties. I'm familiar with it because we're working on the referendum there. It restricts contributions to third parties in the same way as it restricts contributions to political parties, with a maximum of $1,200 per individual. I believe there are also restrictions on corporate and union donations as well. I think that is worth looking at. I don't know if you have time to look at it, but I'd like you to put that issue on the table as one that needs to be dealt with in the future.

I am speaking now as a representative of a third party, and I turn to whether the bill is too restrictive in any way. I have four points to make. From my very careful reading of the bill, it is not too restrictive on these two points, but it's not very clear. I'd hate for us, in Fair Vote Canada, to spend hours arguing back and forth on whether it applies to us or does not apply to us, so I have a couple of suggestions on how to make it clearer, assuming that my understanding of what's intended is correct.

First of all, with regard to the pre-election period, third parties have to register if they engage more than $500 in partisan activities, partisan advertising, and election surveys. Never mind election surveys; we don't do a whole lot of those, but maybe that's something we'd have to do. Partisan activities and partisan advertising, the way they're defined here, we do. We are a multi-partisan organization and we focus strictly on the issues, and the bill seems to exclude from consideration advertising that's focused on issues.

It sounds as though we're off the hook, but where it's not clear is whether we can name parties and candidates and the position they have taken when we provide information on our issues.

Does that constitute partisan advertising or is that simply informing the voter? I think it's only informing the voter, and I think the bill is intended to allow naming provided that it's with regard to the issue. That needs to be clarified. It could be clarified with some very simple wording where, when you talk about it with reference to “an issue”, it actually says, “otherwise than with reference to an issue”. If you're referring specifically to an issue, you can name and you can describe, and that's okay. That needs to be clarified: which is it? That's the first point.

With regard to the “election period”, the election period is more demanding. In terms of the election period it says that even when you're dealing with the issues, if you are promoting or opposing a candidate or a party, that counts as election advertising. Fine. I think that makes perfectly good sense.

What we're concerned about here, and I think it could be useful—we ran into this with the Ontario election, where there are similar clauses—is what happens with a general brochure that doesn't promote or oppose any party or candidate but advocates for proportional representation. It's clearly about the issue, but it doesn't promote or oppose. The spirit of the bill seems to be, no, that's not election advertising; that's general advocacy around an issue.

For almost any issue in the country, there's going to be an advocacy organization that works on it. Do we expect every advocacy organization in the country on any issue to register whether they promote or oppose? I think not. If you could be clear about that, it would be really useful. I've proposed that in those “not including” clauses—there are five of them now—you add a clause that refers to business-as-usual advocacy that does not oppose or promote. That's my suggestion on that one. Make it clearer. That will make everybody's lives a lot easier.

The third point has to do with the $500 trigger before a third party has to register. This is nationwide. If we spend more than $500, we have to register. If we spend more than $500 on election advertising, we have to register. Now, that depends on what you consider to be election advertising, hence my two points that I've made and that are important to clarify.

The point is this. For example, in P.E.I. right now, they're discussing Bill 38. Bill 38 is about the referendum. Their trigger for a third party to have to register is $500. They have a population that is about equivalent to that of a riding anywhere else in the country, and here we're talking about a whole country and you want the same threshold of $500. To me, that's way too low. You should be talking about probably at least $5,000, which is 10 times that much. I'd like you to consider that having to register is a huge burden on a third party. We have to hire a financial officer. That's expensive. It's going to be more than $500, I can tell you that; it will be several times that much.

Basically, then, if you say that if we spend more than $500, we have to register, you're basically saying that we're not in the game at all. I think we need to be fair. I think it's going to have to be higher than that. That's worth thinking about.

Finally, there are the new clauses on collusion. There are clauses in the Canada Elections Act—or a clause—on collusion already. The logic of it is obvious. If third parties are working with a political party in order to circumvent limits on election spending, that's against the law. That's collusion.

The existing Canada Elections Act is as clear as day on that. You're not allowed to circumvent limits on spending. You're not allowed as a third party to make in-kind contributions. If you own a storefront, you're not allowed to just lend it to a party. That's obvious. It's included already in the Canada Elections Act. However, for an advocacy organization like ours, Fair Vote Canada, we have to work with politicians or we are never going to get electoral reform in this country.

If we are not allowed to talk to politicians to find out what they're prepared to do if they're elected.... Are they prepared to take some leadership on proportional representation? If they are, we might want to consider endorsing them and supporting them. We need to talk to them to do that, just as politicians need to talk to voters. They're prepared to tell voters what they're prepared to do and not do, and voters are prepared to push back. There has to be that kind of dialogue with third parties as well, without circumventing the electoral spending limitations.

I think, and my colleagues in Fair Vote Canada think, that the new clauses on collusion are over the top. They should simply be struck out. They're not necessary. They are handicapping third parties from doing what they need to do, which is to be part of the political process and to talk with politicians to see where alliances can be forged in order to pursue our reform agenda.

Thank you very much. You have the notes. As I said, if you need them more quickly, just contact me. There is a summary. There are proposed amendments. The definitions I was talking about are included at the back. I think you'll find this useful.

Thanks very much.

[Prof. Michael Pal]

I have to say that when I read Bill C-76 the fact that the parties were required to have a position at all on the sale of data was quite surprising. I like to think I read pretty widely on what political parties do, and I don't think there was a widespread sense that the sale of data was happening at all.

I think it does really matter in the sense that parties now have a lot of information about voters. We're in a world where that data has real monetary value. I do take very seriously the point that we want to facilitate and encourage conduct between political parties and individuals, so this may mean that whatever the privacy rules are in Bill C-76—or may come in the future—they may be very different from the public sector generally or from the private sector. I think that's appropriate. The trade-off, then, is that parties need to be using that data for political purposes. A part of the rules for registration is that the party has to prove they're actually engaging in political purposes and that they're not actually a commercial entity pretending to engage, pretending to be a political party. There's case law on that.

I viewed the issue as potentially broader than what you've suggested. What did occur to me is that perhaps parties—members of the committee may know better than I do—sell data to provincial or local branches of a party because you may not be able to make a non-monetary contribution, which the giving of a dataset may be. Selling data might be the way to actually comply with provincial rules. That would be one narrow exception where I think it would be entirely appropriate, but then selling to a private entity what's collected under the offices of a public political purpose still does trouble me.

[Prof. Michael Pal]

There are already in the act some provisions related to robocalls. I think the provisions in Bill C-76 that deal with foreign interference and unduly influencing Canadian elections will go some way to reducing opportunities for interference from abroad.

The act is always trying to catch up with new technologies. Robocalls were the new thing, potentially, in the 2011 election. It's still an issue, but I'm not sure that's where we should necessarily focus all our energy. I think potential voter suppression efforts, especially from foreign entities on social media platforms, are concerning. I go to a lot of events around the world on emerging electoral practices, and one of the big things that I keep hearing about is campaigning on WhatsApp.

WhatsApp is a direct messaging system that is famously end-to-end encrypted, so no government can see what is happening. That's one of the reasons why people like it, but it also means that it's very hard to regulate political advertising or campaign finance laws if people are using mass WhatsApp groups to distribute misinformation, say, or voter suppression, or incorrect information about a polling location.

I would suggest that Facebook, WhatsApp, and new platforms that are emerging are where we're going to see the problems that we have to address for 2019 and beyond.

[Andrea Furlong]

I think that looking at students or young people in general is a really good example of that. What we know, aside from a bump in the last election, is that generally young people are voting less. What we know about education is that it would promote a really strong electorate.

With young people being first-time voters, you want to bring people in when they have their first opportunity to vote. You want to educate them on how, where, and what the process is so that they become voters for their entire lifetime. Bill C-76 would provide for them, as well as for people who haven't engaged in the system, those education pieces about what the changes are. It was very disheartening to see in the current legislation that the Chief Electoral Officer wouldn't be able to do those things to really promote a vibrant democracy in Canada. That's what we want to promote through Bill C-76.

[Prof. Michael Pal]

Collusion is already illegal, so this just adds it into the pre-writ period, and then building into some of the other rules on foreigner interference. Bill C-76 doesn't transform what already exists.

If you do move to a coordination standard, though, you do end up needing to be very specific.

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

But Bill C-76 could do something about that.

[Prof. Michael Pal]

I wouldn't say it's a Bill C-76 issue. It's that the Elections Act uses that collusion standard. There are other mechanisms to try to get compliance agreements and things like that, but you don't see a lot of prosecutions and convictions for these, and not a lot of compliance agreements.

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

If I'm a Russian billionaire and I spread $500,000 across 20 different groups, they can coordinate efforts on an issue that I care about or attempt to elect somebody I want to elect. Is that a workaround as to how Bill C-76...? Is that a loophole in the bill right now?

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

That's interesting. So right now with Bill C-76 the bar to prove that a third party is essentially using its influence to affect an election is a standard of collusion rather than a standard of coordination?

[Prof. Michael Pal]

There's one other area, which might seem small, but we have a brief period of time. The standard legal language in the act is mainly about preventing collusion between third parties trying to evade the existing rules, or between a third party and a political party. Collusion is a high legal standard and it's something that is hard to actually prove. The legislation supplied by the Federal Election Commission in the U.S. and the Ontario legislation that came into force in 2017 use what you would call a coordination standard. It actually sets out some activities that are permitted in terms of what can transpire between a political party and a third party, and what activities are deemed not to be permitted.

One of my concerns with Bill C-76 is that it talks about sharing information between a third party and a political party. The other legislative regimes give great detail on what that means. You as a political party might want to say you're having an event at this place and time to discuss this issue. That's sharing information but it's not what we would typically understand to be collusion. In the situation of, say, someone who works for a political party who then goes to work for a third party—and that does sometimes happen—what do we imply from that?

Other legal regimes go into much more detail on what the standard is for collusion or coordination, so that is one area where more could be done. Other than that would be to specify what sharing information means under the act, or to consider moving to a coordination rather than a collusion standard, because it's easier to prove and it perhaps provides more clarity to political parties and candidates and to third parties.

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

I mean the coming into force of Bill C-76.

[Andrea Furlong]

It would. We're mostly concerned about the timeline.

As you know, Bill C-33 stalled, and now we have Bill C-76. Our timeline is very intentional, because we want this to be provided for the next federal election, and for Elections Canada to be able to have the time. Our understanding is that they need at least six months, so we're going to continue with our court challenge until the bill has reached royal assent.

To answer your question, yes, it would.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, guests, for joining us today. I really appreciate this as we delve into Bill C-76.

Ms. Furlong, does the gist of Bill C-76, the main thrust of it and all that it's hoping to accomplish, also satisfy what will be in front of the Ontario superior court in the fall of 2018?

[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.

[Professor Michael Pal, Assistant Professor and Director, Public Law Group, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, members of the committee, for having me. I really appreciate the invitation to speak to these important issues.

I'm a professor of constitutional law and election law at the University of Ottawa, just down the road. I'm going to focus on what I think are four or five of the key take-aways in the bill. It's 349 pages, by my count, so I'm happy to discuss issues other than the ones I raise in my initial presentation.

The first one I want to flag, which Mr. Mayrand discussed, is the pre-writ spending limits. As of June 30 in an election year, there will be a spending limit, with the inflation factor, of about $1.5 million for political parties and $1 million for third parties. I think this is an extremely important and overdue amendment to the Elections Act. We've seen third parties and political parties from across the political spectrum—I think it's a non-partisan issue—using one of the large loopholes that exist in the Elections Act.

We have very tightly regulated spending during the election campaign period. That was found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called Harper. The obvious loophole was that spending rules were not applied in the pre-writ period, so you could simply spend millions of dollars, unregulated, uncapped, prior to the start of the official campaign. Third parties have increasingly been doing that in Canada, especially since the 2011 election, as have political parties, so having a pre-writ limit is extremely important.

If anything, I would have liked to see an even longer pre-writ period. I know there are constitutional concerns. The Harper case was about spending limits during the campaign period. This is pushing the constitutional envelope a little bit by putting in spending restrictions in the pre-writ period. The bill tries to deal with that by having it start only on June 30 rather than earlier, as occurs in some jurisdictions; changing the definition of “election advertising” to call it “partisan advertising” so that it will capture less advertising; and then also having quite generous, I would say, spending limits in terms of the total amount that's permitted in the pre-writ period. All those provisions in the act to try to manage the constitutional risk make sense to me, but I think that given the example we have in the United States and given the data we have about spending by third parties and political parties in recent Canadian elections, the bill could have been even more aggressive in pushing out a longer pre-writ period. I do think it's very necessary to have in the pre-writ period spending limits of the kind the bill has put in place.

I should say it would also apply to some activities beyond just advertising, which is important given that third parties are now doing many of the things we would traditionally understand political parties to have done in the past. There's been tons of evidence in the United States, in a number of recent election cycles, of their version of third parties doing things like Get Out The Vote, organizing campaign events, doing messaging—all the sorts of things that parties traditionally have done. I think that's an important feature of Bill C-76.

The second aspect of the bill that I'd like to discuss is the non-resident voting provision. Previously, you would lose your right to cast a ballot if you lived overseas for five or more years. The bill would get rid of that restriction. I also think that's a long overdue change and a really positive development for the more than one million Canadian citizens who may wish to exercise their right to vote. Even among those Canadians who are abroad for fewer than five years, there's been a small percentage voting. I think this will encourage parties and encourage citizens to be more engaged in the electoral process, and hopefully, will drive voter turnout up.

There is a Supreme Court case, which the committee will be aware of, Frank v. Canada. We are waiting to hear what the Supreme Court will say about the constitutionality of the five-year limit. Even if the court decides it's constitutional, it is still within the jurisdiction of Parliament to decide whether or not to get rid of the rule. Another feature of Bill C-76 that I applaud is expanding the right to vote to non-residents who are abroad for more than five years.

One area in which I'm a bit more critical of the bill is voter privacy. I paid great attention to Mr. Mayrand's comments. As you'll know, the bill requires parties simply to have policies and to address certain specific issues in those policies. Political parties do already have policies on privacy.

I would like to see provisions expanded so that parties will be obliged to actually follow specific rules, to not just have a policy on an issue but to meet certain standards, which the public and private sectors more generally do. Political parties are one of the only exceptions to PIPEDA and the Privacy Act. I think that is an anomaly that needs to be rectified, because parties, as you well know, now collect, use, and analyze enormous amounts of personally sensitive data.

In the earlier round of questions, there was a question about how it could be adapted to political parties. I think people should have a right to be notified if there is a breach of the rules. They should have a right to know what information a party holds about them.

Also, under very limited circumstances, I don't think political parties should be permitted to sell the data they collect. We want to facilitate the connection between citizens and parties. That's something we don't want to stop, but part of the trust mechanism there is that voters believe their data is going to be used for the political process, not for profit-making.

Second-last, on social media platforms, there is a new offence in the bill in terms of how social media platforms or advertising platforms generally should not be able to sell space to foreign entities. I think that's a very positive move. I would just draw the committee's attention to the current rules in the Elections Act that are imposed on TV broadcasters. They cannot charge more than the lowest basically available rate to any political party seeking to advertise. What this effectively means is that it gives political parties a right to have advertising time at a reasonable rate, but it also means that the same rate has to be charged to all political parties.

Political advertising is now happening to a great extent on Facebook. There is nothing in the current Elections Act or in Bill C-76 that would prevent Facebook, through what they call their “ad auction system”, from charging differential rates to different political parties. The current rule for broadcasters is in the Elections Act for a reason. There's no principled reason why that shouldn't also apply to social media advertisers, which may have commercial interests at heart when they're making decisions about their algorithms.

I would just conclude by saying that one of the other very positive features in the bill, which I don't think has gotten enough attention, is the 90% reimbursement for child care expenses for candidates. That is an important and quite practical measure to try to encourage a more diverse array of candidates in the political process.

Those are my initial comments. I look forward to your questions on any of those issues or the other matters in the bill.

Thank you very much.

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

I'm very glad to hear your support for that. I've worked with youth for over 20 years, and I think their engagement is extremely important.

There has been some concern raised with respect to the privacy of information with regard to the early registration of youth. Do you have any concerns in that regard with respect to Bill C-76?

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

Good morning. Thank you for your presence here today. We really appreciate your expertise and your testimony.

Let me begin with this. Overall, what's your feeling on this legislation? How do you feel about Bill C-76?

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

You say “hopefully”. Hope is a wonderful thing to have. Does Bill C-76 require parties to seek the consent of voters before selling their data?

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

Let me go to privacy. I'm thinking through your testimony, and I think this was the one aspect that you were most clear on in terms of the shortcomings of the bill.

In terms of the application of basic privacy laws to the political parties, you've said this bill fails to set proper standards and lacks oversight—I'm paraphrasing—but there are no significant penalties. Why is this so important? A lot of Canadians would ask why it matters that parties are not subject to privacy laws. All Bill C-76 does is say “please post your policy on the web”, but that's it. It doesn't change any of the fundamental wording....

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

Because I like specific examples, let's look at that. Let's say somebody is setting up a misinformation robocall scheme, sending voters to the wrong polls and putting out misinformation. Does Bill C-76 do enough to prevent that threat from happening again?

[Marc Mayrand]

As I said, I think this has been achieved mostly through the misuse—I characterize it as that, as “misuse”—of social media and electronic media. In that context, I'm not sure Bill C-76 does make a difference there, honestly.

I think the issues are broader than the electoral process.

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

Does Bill C-76 go far enough in terms of our being able to go into the next election knowing that there is no similar circumstance that could take place in Canada with misinformation or with the amount of money that can flow through Canadian organizations who are participating in our election?

[Marc Mayrand]

Certainly, I think, my view is that there's been very...if any, evidence of that in Canada.

That being said, I think it would be wise to be proactive and not wait for something to happen. I think Bill C-76 tried to do a few very valid things there, but again, as I mentioned, there's the whole area of social media and the whole area of being able to track the funds that come through the system.

[Marc Mayrand]

There are a few things.

Bill C-76 prohibits foreign contributions. The problem is that third party entities receive funds from various sources, and those sources lose their character as they get commingled in the general revenues of the third party. That is one aspect. Bill C-76 prohibits contributions but does not address the commingling.

Personally, I am of the view that if third parties, specifically in the context of a short electoral period and a short pre-writ period, want to run political campaigns, they should be governed around generally the same principles as other participants in the system. This is recognizing that third parties are distinct, with a purpose other than to achieve office—in fact, they don't—but still, if they wish to participate in the campaign, fine, but they should be subject to a regime that limits their influence proportionate to the message they want carried.

[Marc Mayrand]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am really happy to be before this committee, which has been part of my professional life for close to 10 years. I am here today as an individual, so any views or comments that I may make as part of this appearance are my personal views only and do not represent the views of Elections Canada.

In my opinion, Bill C-76 manages to significantly modernize services to electors. It makes the electoral system more accessible and inclusive, and it improves the fairness of our system.

You will not be surprised that, consequently, I very much endorse the proposed legislation. Bill C-76 was informed by the feedback of electors, the experience of the 2015 election, and the experience of field officials, candidates, parties, which fed into my recommendations report of 2016, which was itself reviewed and the object of three reports by this committee. My point here is that much in the bill has already been extensively studied and generally endorsed by this committee.

I have heard there are new issues—issues that have emerged or become more acute since the various studies. The third party regime has become seen as overly exposed to foreign influence, as well as being somewhat unfair in the context of fixed-date elections. Foreign influence or interference in national elections in some countries suggests that Canada needs to be proactive. Social media and technology bring great value to public discourse and civic engagement, but as you all know, we are increasingly finding that they can be used to disinform and manipulate opinion and undermine confidence in our institutions.

There are a few key areas that I would like to stress for the committee today. The first one is the privacy regime. Bill C-76 proposes to establish a requirement for political parties to set and maintain a privacy policy as a prerequisite of their registration. It's a good but very small step, given our context. It fails to set clear standards that would be consistent with universal principles of privacy protection. It lacks independent oversight and an effective compliance mechanism.

A possible approach would be to set out clearly that parties must adhere to PIPEDA principles; provide an independent review, either by the Privacy Commissioner or an independent auditor; and provide for appropriate remedies for failing to adhere to the principles.

The third party regime also sees significant and very substantial, probably the most substantial, reform that is contained in Bill C-76. It expands the regime to include not only advertising but also partisan activities as well as election survey expenses, setting a limit of $350,000 during the writ period and $700,000 during the pre-writ period, excluding, in that case, issue advertising. It does require three reports to be filed by a third party. I'm not sure why this is needed. It seems to be a lot more than is required from candidates or any other participants in the electoral process. They must maintain a separate bank account to pay for their expenses. They are prohibited from using foreign funds and are subject to anti-collusion provisions to circumvent spending limits. Their returns must be audited, and the auditor must certify that no foreign funds were used.

What Bill C-76 does not do is put an effective restriction on the commingling of funds. Foreign money may be laundered through various Canadian entities to make it look Canadian—that's also an issue, to my mind. There's no limit on the source or amount of contributions except that they cannot be from foreign entities, of course.

A possible approach to addressing those concerns would be difficult to conceive in the context of Bill C-76. Designing a new system would require that we set up a system of contributions analogous to what exists for other political entities, yet it would be fraught by challenges in meeting the test of the charter. With the time being what it is, I am not sure this can be done effectively, but who knows? I am sharing that with the committee.

Foreign influence is another issue that is being addressed by Bill C-76, which does prohibit contributions by foreigners. Foreign third parties are forbidden to spend on advertising or partisan activities, including election surveys, during the pre-writ and writ periods. It prohibits the sale of electoral advertising to foreigners, and many of the new generic provisions would, of course, apply to foreigners.

What Bill C-76 does not do is prevent the circumvention of the prohibitions, especially relating to the flow of funds to Canadian entities. A possible approach here would be making sure that a solid anti-collusion provision is added to the act. Beyond that, we would need to look, I believe, at a coordinated international approach to limit the interference and prevent the interference of foreigners in national elections.

The last emerging issue I want to raise with this committee today is the one regarding social media platforms and technology. In my view, Bill C-76 does little regarding the abuses in this area, possibly because issues are much larger than electoral matters and may be better handled through other legislation. Also, it is a truly emerging issue that few countries have successfully regulated today. It is compounded by the fact that social media and technology have no frontiers. It adds to the challenge of regulating those activities.

Bill C-76 does not prevent disinformation, propaganda, or artificial promotion of pseudo-info through trolls and bots. Maybe that's something this committee should consider, or at least provide clarity in this regard. A possible approach would be to create a repository of all digital advertising related to an election. Make sure that platform owners are accountable for illegal use of their platforms, and—to my mind quite important—task an organization to undertake public education on how to assess the reliability of information that you see on the web or on various platforms. I think the more Canadians are aware of the issue and the traps of misinformation, the better they are at recognizing it and the better they are at exercising their judgment during the election.

Finally, I have a few other considerations. They're maybe not of significant importance, but I would like to raise them for the attention of the committee.

The first one is vouching. Bill C-76 does reintroduce vouching in our electoral system. Personally, I would have liked to see it extended to staff in seniors homes and long-term care facilities. I am struck by the Etobicoke case where a nurse, serving electors in a long-term care facility, out of her goodwill simply vouched for the electors who were present there and who had insufficient or inadequate ID or documentation. When the case proceeded before the court, all the judges who looked at it—the case went up to the Supreme Court—found that there was no leeway there. Since the nurse did not reside in the same polling division as the residents in the long-term care facilities, the ballots were void, yet there was no question about the eligibility of those electors.

I put that on the table for your consideration. I think the risks in those confined, closed residential establishments are very limited in terms of possible fraud. All the people can be tracked easily. The worst thing is that Elections Canada visits those long-term care facilities to establish who resides there during the election. It's unbelievable that two weeks later, we can't recognize those people. I leave that for your consideration.

The other issue that I'm not sure was an oversight but I thought was concurred in by this committee was the provision of a subsidy to candidates' official agents. I think quality official agents are difficult to find and difficult to retain. They bear the crux of the burden imposed by the act in terms of reporting and tracking expenses, and I feel very strongly that these people—who devote an exceptional number of hours, these days mostly as volunteers, for well beyond 36 days and in fact, sometimes off and on for a year easily—would greatly benefit from a small compensation for the service they provide, because they make such a contribution to you as candidates but also to the integrity of our system. Again, I thought this matter had been agreed to in committee. I proposed it in 2016, and I'm bringing it back again today as I have this occasion.

I know also that there is nothing in the bill on the leaders debate. My only point here is not suggesting it should be part of this bill at this point, but certainly time is pressing to address the issue if we are to have any independent framework set up for 2019.

In closing, the points that I made earlier this morning should not be seen as undermining the importance of Bill C-76, which is a sound piece of legislation that is squarely anchored in the core values underpinning free and fair elections. Like any draft legislation, it is susceptible to improvement through the work of parliamentarians. I hope, however, that the best does not become the enemy of the good, as we say, in the quest for improvement.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will be happy to take questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Good morning. Welcome to the 109th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Today, as we continue our study of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments, we are pleased to be joined by Marc Mayrand, the former chief electoral officer.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Mayrand. We had you here at the beginning of our study on this, and it's great to have you back. I hope you're enjoying retirement.

Democratic Reform

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, as I told my hon. colleague in committee, Bill C-76 does not limit travel at all. When he is talking about advertising, it limits it for any party during the period, and that is only with regard to advertising. Perhaps he is thinking about a previous Conservative minister who perhaps put a CPC logo when he was delivering Canada child benefit cheques. That is why we are doing this, because Canadians want to ensure integrity in our electoral system.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, we introduced Bill C-76 and we hope we can work with all of our House of Commons colleagues to improve democracy so Canadians can vote. Many Canadians, 176 in fact, were not able to vote in the last election. This is a real problem for future voters. What are we going to do about it here? We are going to work together to make sure everyone in Canada can vote.

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.

Democratic Reform

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-76 is a generational overhaul of the Canada Elections Act for the 21st century.

In 2014, Elections Canada struck its Advisory Group for Disability Issues to provide advice about accessibility. All Canadians have the right to participate fully in the electoral process.

Can the Prime Minister update the House on the measures introduced to ensure that more Canadians can vote?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we know that the Prime Minister does not care too much for any opposition, but we are here to hold the government to account and to stand up for the interests of Canadians whether he likes it or not. It is evident that he is trying to ram through his new electoral legislation using closure, time allocation, or whatever other trick he has up his sleeve. Will the Prime Minister commit today to allowing Bill C-76 the proper due diligence and study that Canadians know it deserves?

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

Mr. Speaker, here we go again: another spring, another motion from the Liberal government to sit until midnight. In fact, it is exactly the same motion for midnight sittings that the Liberals used last year. It also has the same flaws that last year's motion contained, and quite frankly, the issues dominating debate in the House are pretty much the same.

Last spring, the Prime Minister was under an ethics investigation. This spring, now that the Ethics Commissioner has found the Prime Minister guilty in four different ways, it is the Prime Minister's friend, the fisheries minister, who is embroiled in what has become known as “clam scam”. Of course, the finance minister is under investigation as well. Boy oh boy, round and round we go.

Last spring, the Liberals were getting ready to ram through the House major changes to the way Parliament works, all to their benefit, of course, because the Liberals never do anything unless it is going to benefit them. Conservatives fought tooth and nail when the Liberals tried to ram through those changes that would erode our democracy. Well, this spring it is the very rules about electing members of Parliament to the House that the Liberals are trying to rig, and to rush those changes through Parliament as we speak.

We see this time and time again. When the Liberals are failing at something, they try to change the rules to benefit themselves. Last spring, the Liberals tabled a budget with a runaway deficit and no balanced budget in sight for decades. This spring, another whopping deficit and still no plan to bring the budget back to balance. Today, they made an announcement of another $4.5 billion to buy a 60-year-old pipeline, which did not need government money as we already had a private investor who was putting billions into it and creating jobs. However, now the federal government is giving them $4.5 billion to take down to Houston. Who knows what the costs will be to build this pipeline.

Let us remember that the federal government is not that good at building much of anything. We can look at its records on ships, planes, and the Phoenix system. I do not really trust the government to build anything.

I digress. My point is that more and more billions of taxpayers' dollars are being spent by the Liberal drunken sailor government. We see questionable ethics and self-serving rule rigging, taxing, and spending. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Now let me turn to the principle of government Motion No. 22. Let me be clear. Conservatives believe in hard work. We believe in doing hard work rather than just talking about it. We do not have a problem at all with working a little extra in the spring. In fact, it is something of an annual ritual around here. We usually work harder in the spring as we gear up for the summer.

The last Conservative government also asked the House of Commons to put in some extra hours in the spring, but one thing we never did in government was to steal time for government business on opposition days. The current government did this last year and is proposing to do it again. It is probably going to ram it through again this year.

Let me just explain once again, for our constituents who are watching, what this means. Paragraph (j) of Motion No. 22 would shortchange the opposition, both the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party, on the only four opposition days remaining this spring. Let me just offer a quick explanation. Over the course of one year, the rules of the House of Commons require the government to set aside 22 sitting days for discussion of topics of the opposition's choosing. That is 22 days in total for the NDP and the Conservatives to talk about issues they believe are important.

We get to discuss the opposition topic all day. Regardless of whether it is a short sitting day, such as a Wednesday, when we have our caucus meeting, or a longer day, such as a Tuesday, we debate the opposition topic all day. That is why we call them “opposition days”. It simply does not matter how long the day is. We get to debate our opposition topic from the beginning of the day to the end of the day.

We have brought forward some very important topics during our opposition days, topics such as support for Kinder Morgan. Interestingly, the government voted against that topic when we brought it forward, but it is now buying the pipeline. That is quite something.

We have brought forward very important topics, such as helping Yazidi girls and women who were victims of ISIS terrorists. We have brought forward motions supporting Israel. There are a number of topics that we have brought forward on opposition days. As I said, it does not matter how long that day it is; it is our day.

If the government is asking the opposition to work longer days, we are fine with that. It only makes sense and it is only fair for the government to also be willing to discuss the opposition topics on those longer days as well, but it is not willing to do that. We have two opposition days left, and I believe the NDP has two as well. Even though we are going to be sitting longer hours, according to Motion No. 22, on opposition days the government is going to stop us earlier from talking about the issue that we have brought forward, probably at 5:30 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. The government will then continue with its business for the rest of the day, but we, the opposition, will not be able to talk about the topic we have brought forward. We do not have a lot of days to do it, and those days are important.

Again, let me remind everyone that when we were in government we did not do that. We might have sat a little longer in the spring, but opposition days also went longer in the spring. It is unbelievable that the Prime Minister, who was elected promising to respect parliamentarians, disrespects the job that we do here so much that he will not even let opposition topics be debated on these longer sitting days.

Wait, did the Prime Minister not recently fly down to New York and encourage people to listen to those who disagree with them? I think I remember that news coverage. There was our Prime Minister, standing at second base in Yankee Stadium with hand on heart, which we have come to learn is the Prime Minister's telltale sign that sanctimony and hypocrisy will soon be following. Nonetheless, there he was, telling university graduates about the importance of tolerating and listening to other people's views. However, our “do as I say, not as I do” Prime Minister has a different attitude when he comes back to his own country and our House of Commons.

Let us not forget that the Liberal Prime Minister, who claims to believe in tolerating other people's views, has imposed a values test on Canadians and organizations looking for help to hire summer students. Those views he does not want to listen to. Their views he is not going to tolerate. Their views have to be shut down because the Prime Minister does not think they are worthy of listening to. He will go to the U.S. and lecture people in the United States about listening to other people's views, but when he comes back to Canada he does the exact opposite. It is unbelievable.

The same Liberal Prime Minister surely did not seem to have tolerance for opposing views when he fired the former chair of the fisheries committee, the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, because he disagreed with the Prime Minister over the summer jobs values test.

The same Prime Minister kicked the hon. member for Saint John—Rothesay off the committee as punishment for disagreeing with the Prime Minister about his dangerous and reckless plan for small business tax changes. Do members remember all that?

Do they remember the feminist Prime Minister? This one was particularly galling for me. He ordered his MPs to veto the election of the hon. member for Lethbridge, who was duly elected to the House of Commons, as chair of the status of women committee, a role which was filled by nomination of the official opposition, because he did not agree with her views on an issue of personal conscience. He was telling an elected member of Parliament what she can think, what she can believe, and what she can hold dear to her heart. It is utter hypocrisy.

Sadly, this sort of behaviour is not limited to just the Prime Minister. Let me be very clear. I do not think that all Liberal MPs are like this, but, sadly, a lot of them are seeing their leader do it, and they think it gives them permission to do the same thing.

Leadership starts at the top. This is not just a cliché; it is true. An organization's culture is often shaped and moulded, and the signal is sent by the boss. That fact of life is no different with the government. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change was on national television a few weekends ago, saying she has no time for politicians who disagree with her.

Earlier this spring, the Minister of Finance called our deputy leader, the hon. member for Milton, a neanderthal because she did not agree with him. There was no apology, no outrage. They will say one thing and do something completely different.

Now we have the government House leader bringing forward a motion that cuts off debate on opposition motions. No longer will they be opposition days, but opposition half days. The Prime Minister apparently cannot stomach having to listen to opposition ideas for a few extra hours. Maybe the Prime Minister should not have flown off to New York City to give a sermon on tolerance of different opinions. Maybe he should be reflecting on his own words, and at next week's cabinet meeting, maybe he should lay his hand on his heart and give the same speech to all of his colleagues. Certainly the disrespect the Liberals have been showing for ideas is matched by the disrespect they have for Parliament.

However, it is not just weeks of legislation that the Liberals have decided to hinder Parliament with, but also that we have not talked about recently that is incredibly important. Parliament has not been consulted on ordering Canadian troops into harms way as part of a United Nations mission in the west African nation of Mali. In a breach of tradition and practice, the Prime Minister is refusing to consult Parliament on this deployment. The seriousness of this deployment of our soldiers into an active war zone, which is widely considered to be the most dangerous UN mission in the world today, warrants a debate and a vote here in the House of Commons.

Again, the Prime Minister does not want to hear any voices that might disagree with him, that might challenge him, or that might ask him questions that he has no answer for. The Prime Minister, instead of doing what a leader does and taking the heat that comes with leadership, refuses to show the respect that this House, but mostly that our soldiers and their families, deserve.

On the security front, indeed, all Canadians have a vivid memory of the fiasco the was the Prime Minister's journey to India in February. The fumbling and flailing around that we saw from the government and the Prime Minister in the days that followed led to a full-blown diplomatic incident with our ally India, the largest democracy in the world. Conservatives wanted the national security advisor, Daniel Jean, to appear before a parliamentary committee to explain how those conspiracy theories came to be and his comments to the media. Members will recall that for weeks and weeks, because we had seen media reports about Daniel Jean telling the media that India had been part of this so-called conspiracy, we had wanted to talk to him. We wanted him to explain what was going on when a man convicted of attempted murder of a former Indian minister was invited to pal with and hang around with the Liberals at swanky parties in India.

By the way, we have a question on the Order Paper on that. The government will not tell us how much it cost. It is saying that there are just so many departments that it has to look into to find out. How much did all of those parties cost? I am pretty sure they cost a whole lot of money. We are not going to give up on getting those answers, because taxpayers deserve to know. However, the Prime Minister was going to have nothing to do with that kind of exercise and accountability.

Members will remember the Liberal convention in Halifax last month, where the party's outgoing president, the same Anna Gainey who joined the Prime Minister on his illegal vacation on the billionaire's private Caribbean island, told delegates that “now more than ever, we need to have his back”, referring to the Prime Minister. Well, just a few weeks before that, the Liberal caucus got a taste of having the Prime Minister's back. The Liberal whip told those on the Liberal backbench that they needed to have the Prime Minister's back and would have to be voting for close to 40 hours. They would have to have his back by voting down the opposition day motion to have the national security advisor appear at committee. They would have to have his back by voting for potentially up to 40 hours. That was quite something. They were not going to give in. At the end of all of that, “Oh captain our captain”, they were cheering on the Prime Minister.

Then a week later they realized they had better make sure the national security advisor appeared. He appeared, lo and behold, miraculously. I just want to know how good it felt for the Liberal back bench to have the Prime Minister's back. After all that was said and done, after the extreme pressure laid on by our amazing Conservative team, the government relented. The national security advisor appeared at the public safety committee. It must be so fulfilling, so rewarding to be part of the Liberal caucus, when things like that happen. It must make them proud to go home and tell their constituents what they were doing.

The Liberals wanted to change the way the government asks for spending permission and the way the House of Commons studies these spending proposals. That is what has brought us to where the main estimates have changed. This year the main estimates include a single $7 billion lump sum under the buzz phrase “budget implementation”. The government claimed it would be focused on initiatives announced in this year's budget. The wording provides no assurance.

Again, the Liberals are ramming this through. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, a dedicated public servant who has had a long career here on Parliament Hill, told the Senate committee he had never seen anything like it. His office stated:

While the Government has included a new Budget Implementation Vote for $7.0 billion, the initiatives to be funded through this vote are not reflected in the Departmental Plans. Hence, there remains a lack of alignment between the Budget initiatives and planned results.

Let me summarize that: Liberal slush fund. That is what the $7 billion amounts to.

There are so many more things I could go on talking about. Last year the government tried to ram through changes to the Standing Orders. It wanted to eliminate Friday sittings. The Prime Minister did not want to be here to answer questions. Of course, the list goes on.

Is there a pattern here? Yes, there is. When the chips are down for the Liberal government, its go-to move is to change the game, to rig the rules, to tilt the scales in its favour, always to regain and have its own advantage. We have seen a pattern.

I will close with this, in Bill C-76, the so-called elections modernization act, here is what is happening. The Prime Minister is having a hard time raising money, even with his cash for access. His policies are so bad, people who have supported the Liberal Party for generations cannot support it anymore. Today, I think Kinder Morgan is going to be another example for these lifelong Liberals. Liberal policy is so bad, so destructive of our competitiveness, and so destructive of our foreign relations that longtime Liberals are done writing cheques to the party. The Prime Minister cannot raise money anymore.

What is he going to do? He is changing the election rules in Bill C-76 so that third party funding can flow before the election and help him, but he is limiting the ability of parties that have raised money, who have had people donate willingly to their party. Those parties, like the Conservatives, actually have had a lot of people, hundreds of thousands of people, support them through financial donations.

The Prime Minister says that he does not like that, because he cannot raise money, because he is doing such a terrible job and is such a failure that nobody wants to donate to his party. However, the Leader of the Opposition, our leader, is doing well and the Conservatives are doing well. We have good ideas, stable, strong ideas that are getting donations from supporters right across the country.

The Prime Minister says he is going to change the rules so that the party cannot spend it. The Prime Minister has not learned that he cannot get away with it. I know he does not respect Parliament, but we do respect Parliament. I believe that members of Parliament who have been duly elected, in the end, will also respect Parliament and will follow through and do the right thing.

I hope that the government accepts our amendment. All we are asking for is that on opposition, days we have the same ability to to bring our issues forward, even if it is uncomfortable for the government. It is called democracy. Even if the Prime Minister will not respect democracy, I sincerely ask my colleagues on the other side of the House to respect democracy, support our amendment, and then we can finish the work that we are doing here in the House of Commons.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North very often makes it difficult to dignify his comments with a response, but I am going to make an exception in this case and respond to what he said, because I just think it is factually way off base.

First of all, I do not think he even realized that I moved an amendment initially, but if he did and had he been listening to what I was saying, he would know that the amendment is actually trying to establish an offer to the government to make the amendment by the Conservatives more palatable to the government.

That is a negotiation. I am not saying that there are not good ideas coming from various places in this debate, but the idea of moving the amendment was to actually try to make an offer so that we could all come to an agreement on the later sittings.

The principle of that offer is simple. It is just to say the business that comes from the opposition should not be accorded any less importance or value than the business coming from the government. That is not unreasonable.

The member will recall that many times throughout this session the NDP has proposed unanimous consent motions to move bills through many stages at once in an effort to help expedite the passage of legislation by the government. If the member, who apparently spends a lot of time in the House but not necessarily paying attention, would go back and consult the Debates, he would see that the NDP has been making many attempts on various pieces of legislation to try to expedite the passage of the government's legislation. In fact, in some cases we are more responsible for the success of the government's legislation than the government itself.

I would repeat again in this House the fact that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley made an offer to the Minister of Democratic Institutions on how to move forward with Bill C-76 in a fair and timely way and allow Canadians to contribute to that conversation, but the offer was not even dignified with a response from the minister.

The Liberals say they want to work with us, but when we write to them with a proposal on how to work together, they do not even get back to us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed in my New Democratic friends. I would have figured that they would see the benefits of having active debate in the legislature on important pieces of legislation. Rather, what I have witnessed, which I will have the opportunity to expand upon, is a variation of different games being played.

I have spent over 20 years in opposition and I am aware of many different types of games. Having said that, I would argue that the types of legislation we are talking about are in democracy's best interest. When we talk about Bill C-76 and when we talk about other pieces of legislation, we are talking about really good stuff for Canada's middle class in many different ways, yet time and time again New Democrats and Conservatives have one objective: to not let anything pass. They work together. It is that unholy alliance. Nothing is good; prevent everything from passing.

Does the member not realize that being a constructive opposition means that at times he might have to work a few extra hours? That is really what this motion is all about. All governments of all political stripes have moved this motion in the past. Why does the NDP not want to put in those extra hours in order to pass some good legislation that Canadians will benefit from?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Hopefully you'll be able to understand this. I'll read it.

Number one is that notwithstanding any motion adopted by committee in relation to the submission of proposed amendments to bills, the members of the committee, as well as members who are not part of a caucus represented on the committee, shall submit to the clerk of the committee all of the proposed amendments to the bill no later than end of day on June 8, 2018, in both official languages, and that these be distributed to members.

Number two is that the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member of Parliament who is not a member of the caucus represented on the committee to inform them of the beginning of consideration of the bill by the committee, and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to the bill for the committee's consideration prior to the deadline.

Number three is that the committee commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-76 on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at 11 a.m.

Number four is that if 80 or more suggested amendments are received, the chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party, per clause.

Number five is should the committee not complete its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 9 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the chair shall put the question forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the bill to the House, order that it be reprinted, and order the chair to report the bill to the House as soon as possible.

Number six is that the committee travel across Canada from June 4, 2018 until June 8, 2018, and the clerk be authorized to organize travel with meetings in communities in the following regions, as discussed in committee: 1. Atlantic Canada; 2. Québec; 3. Ontario; 4. Prairies—or I guess Alberta——and, 5. British Columbia.

Then, in brackets, we can put the specific locations that we're going to. I would do that, and then end with that the travel budget for the required travel be approved.

Then we have number seven which is that no substantive motions be passed in committee while the committee is on travel.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to the motion before the House. Of course, the essence of this motion has to do with the government's treatment of its own business and its capacity to move legislation through the House of Commons. It has certainly been the case in the past that various governments have decided to extend sittings to try to accomplish some of the business they were not able to accomplish throughout the year.

However, I think that my hon. colleague who just spoke and moved an amendment raises an excellent and fair point. His amendment is a good one in addressing one of the issues of equity in the House. We know that it is the job of the Speaker and the House to balance the needs of the minority against the majority. The amendment recognizes the fact that some people in this place have more power by virtue of the number of MPs within the governing party, and that others do not. I think that point is very well taken in the Conservative amendment. It really is just about making sure that in the government's attempt to create more time to pass more bills in the lead-up to summer that the business and the issues that matter to the opposition are given their equal due.

Of course, some members of this House will know, and certainly you, Mr. Speaker, will know, that supply days originated for the airing of grievances before the crown, before Parliament approves funding. That is why they are kind of archaically called “supply days”. We most often refer to them as “opposition days”, but they are an acknowledgement of the importance of non-government members being able to bring forward important issues for consideration by the House as part of the process of the government's hearing those concerns before Parliament grants it the authority to spend money. Supply days are not just some sort of trivial part of the process. They are not just some sort of tangent. They are certainly not a favour that the government grants the opposition and they are not something the government gets to do what it wants with willy-nilly, as it were.

The proposed amendment simply tries to give that equal weight and value to the issues being brought forward by the opposition, as well as to the government. I think that is perfectly reasonable and it is something we will be supporting.

In the absence of having that fair treatment and the right balancing between the needs of the government and the legitimate needs and purposes of opposition members of the House, it does make it really hard to support the main motion, because in that case we would fail to find that right balance, as it would somehow be implied that simply by virtue of the fact that the government is bringing certain issues forward, those issues are more important and more deserving of time in the House when I think the Standing Orders are very clear that the opposition is entitled to a certain proportion of the time in the House to bring forward the issues that matter, not just to it as the opposition but also to many Canadians whose view the opposition brings to this House and who are not represented within the government.

It is a good amendment. It is one that we will support, and I think in the absence of that amendment's going through, it would be very hard to say this is a fair and balanced motion. It is therefore hard to support.

One of the reasons we are in this predicament, of course, is that there is a lot of government legislation that has yet to be passed. One only has to look at the Order Paper and the number of bills on it, with a little bit of an understanding of where some of those bills come from, to know that the government, remarkably, has not been very ambitious with its legislative agenda. There are bills like Bill C-76, for instance, that have just rolled in other bills. While one could point to the bill number and look at all the bills that have been before Parliament, the fact is that a number of them are simply routine appropriation bills having to do with the business of supply. There are also a number of bills on public service labour issues to repeal some of the nefarious legislation of the Harper government with respect to public servants that, for all the announcements and talk about those bills for years now, have not actually gone anywhere.

One bill gets presented, it gets talked about for awhile, and then a new bill gets that does something a little differently gets presented, and that one gets rolled under, and then there is some talk by government at various events about how there is a new bill before the House and so on. For a government that has not brought a considerable amount of legislation before the House, it is somewhat surprising that the Liberals are having to resort to extraordinary measures to try to get more legislation passed before summer.

It is particularly surprising, notwithstanding some of the comments by the government House leader during the closure debate, because the fact is that our party on an important bill with a deadline, Bill C-76, which makes a large number of modifications to the elections regime in Canada, did make a proposal to government via my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, to move forward with that bill in an expeditious way. By that, I mean not just in a way that allows more members to speak to it, but one that would allow a whole bunch of Canadians in their home communities to speak to the bill and the changes it proposes.

My hon. colleague presented the Minister of Democratic Institutions with a proposal for how to go out across the country, and central to that proposal was ensuring that the bill gets passed by the end of the summer. For the government to say that it sure would be nice if the opposition worked with it, I note that we have been quite willing to work with the government to get legislation passed. When my hon. colleague sent that proposal to the minister, she did not even dignify it with a response. It is hard to hear from the government that it wants to work with opposition members when it does not even bother to respond to proposals by the opposition on how to work together to get a bill passed. It is a bill that has to be passed on a timeline because the government did not act and bring that legislation forward.

Apropos to my point about bills being rolled into each other, Bill C-33 was an act to make a bunch of substantive changes to the Elections Canada Act and other acts that go together in order to, according to the government, improve our elections process. That bill sat on the Order Paper for 18 months and went nowhere. Now we are being told there is a big rush and that we have to get this bill through.

The NDP would like to see that bill passed, but it is a little cheeky of the government to wait so long to bring a bill forward to make those important changes when it knew all along, as did everyone else, that Elections Canada had been very clear about when those changes needed to be introduced and passed by Parliament to be implemented in time for the next election. The Liberals did not meet that deadline and now they are crying foul, saying that opposition parties are being obstructionist despite the fact we sent them a proposal on how to do it more quickly. We wish to goodness that they had just bothered to move it forward 18 months ago when they had a bill on the Order Paper.

None of this is rocket science. There is no black magic here. There is no opposition making unreasonable demands. It is just an opposition disappointed that the Liberals had 18 months to move forward with changes to the elections act after they tabled their own proposals. We wish they had moved forward with them. However, we did not get that opportunity, as we do not say which bills get debated during government orders.

While that was going on and we were not debating Bill C-33, we were debating some bills like Bill C-24, which was a complete and utter waste of time. I will refer members to my comments on Bill C-24. All that bill did was affirm what the government was already doing and what was clearly within its legal mandate to do. If it were not, then the government should tell us, because then it would be an issue of its acting outside its legal mandate and illegally paying ministers of state more. However, it did not seem to be doing that, so presumably we did not need a change in the law.

All the while we debated that bill, the other bill, Bill C-33, was sitting on the table. It could have been taken up and we could have been working on that and meeting the Elections Canada deadline. The government did not need to be in a panic as it is now to get that legislation passed. We could have spent time scrutinizing that legislation and trying to make it better, not just here in Parliament but also by travelling across the country to make sure that Canadians had an opportunity to weigh in on it in their home communities.

However, that was an opportunity they squandered for reasons that remain unclear. I will say that part of it has to do generally with what has become a theme of the government in terms of a serious lack of respect for Parliament. I know the Liberals will say otherwise. We hear a lot about the great respect they have for the work that is done in committees, but let us consider the fact that many committee recommendations are never taken up. We have certainly had instances where committees have amended legislation, only to see the government come in with a heavy hand at report stage and wipe out the amendments that were passed by its own members at committee. That does not make one feel that the Liberals are talking in good faith when they talk about the so-called good work of committees.

Who could forget the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, where the government did not have a majority and a number of parties came together in order to propose a way forward for the government to meet its own election commitment? Who could forget how the Liberals took that work and threw it in the garbage? The day the report was tabled, I remember the minister, with great fanfare, disrespected the work of the committee, because apparently the government thought it would fail and it did not.

Earlier today, we heard the government's own House leader get up and insinuate that concurrence debates were just a waste of time and there was no way an opposition party could move concurrence in a committee report seriously because it actually cared about what the committee said and wanted the House to pronounce on the recommendations of the committee. Of course, that is the whole reason committees do reports and report them back to the House. The current government really does not understand Parliament's place in the system and does not have a lot of respect for it.

I will come back to this theme after private members' business.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

There are several separate paragraphs to the motion.

Number one is that notwithstanding any motion adopted by the committee in relation to the submission of proposed amendments to bills, the members of the committee, as well as members who are not part of a caucus represented on the committee, submit to the clerk of the committee all their proposed amendments to the bill no later than the end of day on June 8, 2018, in both official languages, and that these be distributed to members.

I'll summarize. This is basically allowing all the parties and all of those who are not represented here to make submissions.

Number two is that the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member of Parliament who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee to inform them of the beginning of the consideration of the bill by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to the bill for the committee's consideration prior to the deadline, which is June 8, 2018.

Number three is that the committee commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-76 on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at 11:00 a.m.

Number four is that 80 or more suggested amendments are received, the chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party per clause.

Number five is that should the committee not complete its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the chair shall put the question forthwith and successively, without further debate, on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the bill to the House, order that it be reprinted, and order the chair to report the bill to the House as soon as possible.

We can say as number six that no substantive motions should be passed while the committee is on travel.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to rise in this House, although it is on a sombre note today, given the motion that we are debating. With Motion No. 22 again we see the government trying to do everything it can to restructure the rules of the game to compensate for its own significant failures. The opposition is frustrated and Canadians are frustrated at the many abuses we see of the parliamentary process and in the dissonance between the commitments that were made around transparency and respect for this institution and the reality we see, which is a total and unprecedented lack of respect for this place, for this institution, and for democracy itself.

I just have a few notes about where we are on this particular motion, Motion No. 22, which proposes to dramatically extend the hours of debate every day. It is an attempt by the government to try to ram through more of its legislative agenda. The Liberals brought in closure on this motion before it had even been debated. There was no debate on this motion, and the government wanted to immediately propose to bring about an end to that debate. I am actually the first person speaking to the motion. The government put forward the motion, but the government House leader cannot even be bothered to defend the approach the Liberals are taking, so debate then falls to the opposition. This shows how much respect the government has for the important debate that happens in this sacred place, the people's House. Even in the process by which the Liberals bring forward this motion, we see a lack of respect for this institution and for democracy that underlines the opposition's frustration.

I want to highlight a number of the principal grievances we have with the way the government is operating in this respect. I would appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if you would give me a signal when I have one minute left, because at that time I will be moving an amendment as well.

We have this whole issue of the government shutting down debate before it has even begun. There are important issues to be debated with respect to the structure of the motion. We do not oppose in principle any extension of the hours, but we are going to be moving an amendment, adding the idea that if the government extends hours for government orders, then a fair corollary is that we have a similar extension of hours with respect to opposition motions. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

However, the government has put forward a motion that says opposition days will remain with the limited hours that they have, while government orders will have the extended period that has been proposed with the motion. We see again a pattern from the current government, which is always setting up the rules to its advantage. We saw this pattern with the Liberals' approach to electoral reform. They wanted to change the electoral system to their advantage, and when it became clear that it was not going to work, they said, “Let's scrap the whole exercise.”

We saw it with respect to changes they wanted to make to the Standing Orders. They wanted to change the Standing Orders to weaken the role of the opposition, to make time allocation automatic and take away various important powers that the opposition has. We resisted that. We engaged public concern on that and eventually forced the government to back down.

We see Bill C-76, government legislation that is trying to make changes to the rules governing elections to the Liberals' own advantage, and we see changes with respect to the way in which the extension of hours is happening. Again, the Liberal Party is trying to change the rules to its own political advantage. We have the government shutting down debate before it started.

In this session of Parliament as well, we have expected of the government some basic level of transparency. The Liberals promised in the last election that they would go above and beyond with respect to transparency and sharing vital information with Canadians, yet we see a complete lack of transparency from the government. The most egregious case of the lack of transparency we see from the current government certainly is the carbon tax cover-up.

As the opposition, we have asked the government to give basic information about the impact its policies will have on Canadians. Here is how it works. The government has said that it wants every Canadian to have to pay a carbon tax. Wherever someone lives, it thinks that person should have to pay higher taxes, and it will not let any provincial government get away with not charging those higher taxes.

The government has said that if a province does not set up its own carbon tax, the federal government will impose a carbon tax. It has defended that as consistent with the philosophy it has, which is the government taking more money. From its perspective, a bigger government is the solution to every problem. We have said that this is not the solution to the environmental challenges we face, that there are many different ways, such as the binding sector-by-sector regulatory approach and other kinds of incentives we can use and have used in the past, to bring about environmental improvement.

The government does not think that is the right way to go. Instead, it thinks that imposing higher taxes on Canadians is the way to go. We disagree with that and we have tried to have debate about it. We have challenged the government to defend its position. It has not really defended its position, except to suggest that perhaps its plan is the only possible plan, even though its carbon tax is not even connected with specific targets. It knows it should understand that the very nature of the carbon tax as an instrument is to impose a tax but is not to set a particular total cap on emissions.

We see this policy from the government and we disagree with it. We can can have some discussion about it, but at the end of the day the government will not even release the information that would allow Canadians to understand what the impact of that carbon tax will be. The information it has released about the impact the carbon tax would have on ordinary Canadians has all the critical information blacked out. This is an issue of the taxes Canadians pay and is an issue of the impact this policy would have on hard-working families in terms of the affordability of basic needs like home heating and transportation. Absolutely, on behalf of Canadian taxpayers and families in my riding and other parts of the country who are looking for real affordability, we raise these concerns about the affordability of the carbon tax.

However, this is also an issue of respect for this institution. We have a government that does not respect this institution and is covering up key information about how much the carbon tax would cost Canadians. We have repeatedly asked the government to show the numbers and defend its policy. If it thinks a carbon tax is the right way to go, then it should release the numbers, tell Canadians how much the carbon tax is going to cost them, and make the case to Canadians about whether they think that is a good idea. Then we can have that debate.

By the way, when these questions are asked, it is very interesting. The finance minister will talk about the specific structures in place in some provinces, but then when asked about the federal carbon tax that would be imposed in jurisdictions where a province is unwilling to give in to the bullying of the government, we are not told how much individual Canadians would pay.

By the way, we know how much it would cost the Canadian economy. It is a massive cost to the Canadian economy, but the government is covering up the information about how much it would cost individuals.

In shutting down debate before it has even begun, in trying to constantly change the rules to its advantage, and in covering up key information about the policy decisions it is making, the Liberal government displays the profound disrespect it has for our democracy and for our institutions in general.

Now, in the same vein, I would like to speak as well to what is happening right now with the government's attempt to ram forward the bill dealing with changes to the Canada Elections Act, Bill C-76. We are very concerned about how this legislation would not protect Canada from foreign interference in our elections and how this legislation would create certain advantages for the government over the opposition. We have repeatedly raised these concerns, but the government has shut down debate.

Not only that: we have a situation in which the Chief Electoral Officer, on the instruction of the government, is actually already in the process of creating the mechanisms for the operation of an election on the basis of legislation that has not even passed Parliament.

The Prime Minister tells us that the government is open to amendment, but how plausible is it that the government is really open to substantial amendments when it has already asked the Chief Electoral Officer to begin the process of preparing for the implementation of the original unamended bill?

We know that when the government proposed this legislation, we were getting close to the time of the next federal election, but rather than proposing legislation earlier so that there could have been opportunities for discussion and building consensus among parties, the Liberals waited until this later stage and then pushed the Chief Electoral Officer to begin the process of quasi-implementation before the proposed legislation has even passed, which makes it very clear that they are not serious when it comes to the issue of receiving feedback from experts and receiving amendments.

I sat in on the environment committee when over 100 amendments were proposed, many of them by government members. It clearly shows that the committee process can reveal problems, even from the viewpoint of government members with government legislation. However, what happened at the environment committee is again an interesting example in terms of the way the government operates when it comes to democracy. There was a motion in place that meant that there was absolutely no discussion on many of the amendments that came forward. There were many amendments from all corners of the House, and the movers of the amendments in each case did not even have an opportunity to make their case with respect to their amendment. It was simply a matter of “Here is the amendment and here is the vote.”

This is how the government wants to operate. It wants to ram through legislation. Already we see with these electoral changes the government forcing the process of implementation through before the legislation has passed the House.

What is so concerning about Bill C-76? Well, Canadians I have talked to are very concerned about the possibility of foreign interference in our elections. Yes, the way the legislation is structured would prevent foreign entities from directly and explicitly campaigning under their own name during a Canadian election; however, there are absolutely no rules to prevent the transfer of funds from a foreign entity to a Canadian entity prior to that election period, and that money could then be used during the election for the advantage of that group and no doubt for the advantage of the foreign entity.

Let us take a purely hypothetical example. Let us suppose there was an organization called Vladimir Putin Incorporated and that it was interested in influencing the Canadian election. It transferred $5 million to a Canadian organization called Canadians Against NATO Membership, and that was mingled with $50 million raised locally. The $5 million and the $50 million were mingled, so it was totally indistinguishable as to which money came externally and which was raised by Canadian donors. That money could then be used in a Canadian election. There would be caps on the advertising that this third party could do, but it could still be doing a significant amount of activism and mobilization work under the radar.

Canadians should be very concerned about that. This is an example that could happen, and it could in fact fully conform with the law as it is written.

We think, as Conservatives, that strong measures are needed to prevent foreign interference in Canadian elections, but for whatever reason, the Liberals, although they spend some time talking about this situation in certain cases, have not brought forward legislation that would actually address it. However, again, they have now asked the Chief Electoral Officer to begin implementing proposed legislation that has not even passed the House.

There are many other issues in Bill C-76 that we could talk about in terms of ID requirements and so forth, and there is an important discussion to be had there. However, I will specifically address the artificial advantage created by the government.

The government has done this. Right now we have a writ period. It has said that it does not want the writ period to be too long. On the other hand, it has created this formalized pre-writ period, which some might argue effectively increases the writ period. We have the pre-writ period and the defined writ period, which together we might see as really forming something like what the writ period used to be.

In any event, that pre-writ period has restrictions on political party advertising, which will hit opposition parties very hard. They do not have the same resources the government has when it chooses to engage in advertising itself. The government has all the resources of being in office, of continuing to be in office, and it can continue to proceed with government advertising, as it would be able to outside of a writ period.

Therefore, we have this problem where the pre-writ period is kind of a quasi half writ period and half not. It is like the writ period insofar as there are restrictions on political parties. In particular, the impact is hardest on what opposition parties can do, but we do not have the same restrictions that would normally exist during the actual writ period with respect to the activities of government.

Therefore, we have the tilting of the scales through this bill in a way that works to the advantage of the government and foreign entities that would want to potentially influence Canadian elections and, at the same time, works to the disadvantage of the opposition. This is the consistent pattern we see from the government with respect to this issue. It is a consistent disrespect for Parliament and democracy, a consistent effort to tip the scales in the government's favour.

At the same time, I am conscious that, as we resist these efforts in Parliament, in committees, and elsewhere, Canadians will also see the importance of what we are doing and will not succumb to these attempts by the Liberals to tip the scales. They will observe the way in which the actions in Parliament do not match the high-minded rhetoric of the last election.

I think Canadians believe, when they see the way the current government acts, that “better is possible”, to coin a phrase. Better is always possible, and it is particularly possible now, when we have measures like Motion No. 22, which is again shutting down debate before it has even started.

I was going to make some comments on the pipeline issue, but I am running relatively short on time. However, briefly, it is a source of great frustration to me and my constituents that we had a government before that did not actually build four pipelines but created the conditions for the private sector to build four pipelines, which is an important difference. Now we have a government that on the one hand has created conditions that make it very difficult for private sector investors to want to proceed with pipelines. On the other hand, it has said that it will pour a whole bunch of public money into buying an existing pipeline and hopes to build onto that pipeline, undertaking the expansion.

It is perverse that before the government took office we had the private sector eager to build a pipeline. The approval of the northern gateway pipeline, energy east, and the Trans Mountain pipeline were there in process. The Conservatives approved every pipeline that was proposed, which included the construction of four pipelines. We now have a government that has made it so difficult for the private sector to build pipelines that it requires this massive multi-billion dollar bailout. Again, I think Canadians will see through the government. Something that could have been done by the private sector is being done by the public sector.

With that in mind, I move:

That the motion be amended by:

(a) adding to paragraph (b) the following: “and if a recorded division is demanded in respect of a motion moved pursuant to Standing Orders 78 or 57 in relation to any bill dealing with the Canada Elections Act or the Parliament of Canada Act, it shall stand deferred to December 5, 2018, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions; and

(b) deleting all the words in paragraph (j).

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we do not talk about committee business in this place. However, now that the member opposite has welcomed the opportunity, I do so as well.

I believe that my colleagues on this side, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, has more than welcomed opportunities. However, rather than debate the important legislation that would allow more Canadians to vote in the next election, what are the opposition members doing? They are currently in committee right now filibustering rather than getting to important government legislation. That legislation is Bill C-76, which brings forward 85% of the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer. It is the right thing to do for Canadians after what the previous government did to vandalize the opportunities for Canadians to vote. We are changing that so that many Canadians can vote. The NDP, rather than stand for Canadians, is today standing with the Conservatives to take away the right of Canadians to vote. That is disappointing—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with a brief remark. I have to say that I do take exception to the implication by the government House leader that there is something wrong with the House's debating and voting concurrence on committee reports. That is in fact why committees report back to the House, so that those reports can be considered. If the House decides it wants to concur in a report by a committee, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Therefore, for her to somehow suggest that there is something untoward going on, that there is something wrong in principle, or that it is a bad thing for members to be concerned about the good work they do in committee that has come before the House to be discussed at large and then voted on by the House is just ridiculous. It would be nice to have a government House leader who actually understood this place well enough to know that there is nothing wrong with moving concurrence in a committee report.

I will digress from that point and move to my main point. The government moved time allocation on Bill C-76. My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley proposed to the minister a way forward that would include the right amount of debate and consultation with Canadians. The minister said no and moved time allocation. Therefore, the demand for extra sitting time is odd coming from a government that is refusing to respond to proposals by the opposition on how to effectively study bills.

Democratic Reform

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, the Prime Minister has tasked me and our government to ensure that we defend Canada's next federal election against cyber-threats. It is also important that we ensure we look for new ways to deal with data and digital breaches. That is why in Bill C-76 we have a provision against the malicious use of computers.

I look forward to working with colleagues in the House to do what is necessary, as these new technologies evolve, to ensure the integrity of our elections.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thank you.

I do want to speak to the motion itself. I appreciate the indulgence of everyone on that. It was obviously a mistake on my part to have done it that way to begin with, and now we've resolved that.

We had the task of taking a look at whether we would agree or confirm or give our recommendation to the House that the appointment be made. That duty is something we as a committee should take quite seriously. We have that duty.

In that spirit, we had the chosen appointee—sorry, it was the second appointee chosen. The first one, for some mysterious reason, was withdrawn. It seems that no one is yet aware of why that is, including, to my understanding, the person who was actually the original appointee. It's a very odd circumstance, to say the least, and is certainly suspicious. I would think that the minister would want the opportunity to clarify what occurred, what happened and why. I would think that would help us in determining whether the right decision was, in fact, made.

When the person who has been chosen, the acting CEO, has been before our committee, I've always been satisfied with his level of knowledge and so on, so that's not of concern to me. Certainly we want to make sure the right decision was made with regard to this appointment. Part of the right decision being made is ensuring that the process was proper and fair. When there is something as odd as what occurred in this situation in a process, that is in doubt.

It may well be that there is nothing all that odd or suspicious to the situation at all, but there's only one way to find that out and that's to ask. Obviously, the best person to do that with is the minister. That is the reason I am making this suggestion.

I'm obviously aware of the logistical challenges that are now created by the government trying to ram through this piece of legislation, Bill C-76, but I'm hopeful we can find some way to undertake this and do it properly. It would only make sense. I would certainly hope that all members of this committee would support it.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

That does present a bit of a problem, obviously, given the suggestions and discussions that took place last night about travelling next week. That would put us into a position where....

I guess the government in trying to rush through this elections bill, which they waited forever on, puts us in a position where we're not giving that bill anywhere near the due justice it deserves. I would argue, frankly, based on what's before us there, that we're not going to do our jobs properly as legislators on that piece of legislation. It simply is not going to happen. The fact of the matter is that we will not be meeting what I would say is our proper duty as legislators on that bill. At the same time, we are also going to say that we're not going to meet our proper duty as members of this committee in dealing with an appointment for a new Elections Canada CEO. If we put ourselves in a position to travel next week, we will be left with a situation where we actually cannot perform our duties by having the Minister of Democratic Institutions come and speak to the process.

This really, really is troublesome to me. Actually, I'll be frank that I'm at a little bit of a loss as to what to even suggest. That said, I suppose I'll still bring forward the motion and move it here. As a committee, I guess we can try to decide how best to deal with that. I think it's a travesty, frankly, that we're not going to give either one of these things due justice, but that's the reality. If the government chooses to force through this motion that they handed around to us last night, then that's the reality we're faced with. I guess we'll see how that goes.

Having said that, we can move this, and I will have some amendments to make to it. The reality of the situation is that some things have changed since the notice of motion was given. I'll get to those in a second. At the end of the day, I think we should still be trying to do our proper duty here. If the efforts that are being made by the government to ram through their Bill C-76 prevent us from doing our jobs properly not only on that legislation but also on this motion, and therefore the appointment of the CEO, I think at the very least we still should undertake to do our duty properly even if it is after the fact, which would be significantly unfortunate.

Having said that, I'll read the motion that I gave notice of, and then I will suggest what I think are the appropriate amendments. The notice of motion was the following:

That the Committee invite the Acting Minister of Democratic Institutions, Scott Brison, to appear within two weeks of the adoption of this motion, to answer questions regarding the appointment of a new Chief Electoral Officer, for no less than two hours, and that this meeting be televised.

There's an obvious amendment required here. I was unaware that the minister would be returning so shortly after this notice of motion was given. It was my mistake. I probably should have just used the title of the minister, and of course the acting minister would have come in place of the minister. I did not do that, and therefore I'll make that amendment now.

The amendment would change “Acting Minister of Democratic Institutions, Scott Brison” to “Minister of Democratic Institutions”. It would be replacing that wording for obvious reasons.

I'll make that motion for the amendment first, I guess.

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

Mr. Speaker, a while ago I received a petition about unilateral changes to our electoral system, which should not seem immediately apropos after the government backed off its initial plan to make unilateral changes to our electoral system, but in light of Bill C-76, it seems apropos again. I am pleased to table today a petition from people who are concerned about the Liberal Party trying to unilaterally change aspects of our elections to its own advantage. In particular, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to pass a motion affirming the need for a national referendum on any proposal to change Canada's current method of electing members of Parliament before the proposal is implemented into law.

[Stéphane Perrault]

I'll try to be clearer.

The current provisions in the Canada Elections Act, not this bill, covers impersonation in general. They include impersonation of an Elections Canada official as well as a partisan impersonation. Bill C-76, pursuant to recommendations made by us, would clarify this to also cover fake communication material. Just to be clear, on fake websites, fake....

[Stéphane Perrault]

It is in Bill C-76.

However, what we did not recommend and should have and what we're recommending today is that it be tweaked to include documents that are presented to be from Elections Canada, not just fake partisan material but also fake—

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

Is it in Bill C-76?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Correct.

I think that's something I tried to point out at the outset, but I'm happy to emphasize it here. The proposed bill includes very significant improvements on the third party regime. In particular, it expands very significantly the scope of regulated activities well beyond the sole issue of advertising. So this is what you're referring to. It also has the effect of regulating foreign funding with respect to those activities.

Currently, for example, a third party can do canvassing—it's not regulated—and can solicit funds from a foreign source for canvassing activities, which is permissible under current law. That would certainly not be possible under C-76.

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

Youth are a passion for me. I think it's critical that we get them involved in the democratic process, because we're all going to benefit from their contributions. How do you see Elections Canada using the restored education mandate if C-76 passes?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Bill C-76 expands it beyond physical disability.

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

Is the requirement for that a physical disability, or does it also go beyond physical disability, in Bill C-76?

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

With respect to the attempt of C-76 to make it easier for people to vote, particularly those with disabilities, how does the technology work if someone is voting at home? How does that happen, if they opt to vote at home because they're going to have a problem getting to the polling station?

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

What does C-76 do in that regard?

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

In addition to Bill C-76 provisions aiming to prevent misinformation in advertising, is Elections Canada taking any proactive measures to prevent bots and other malicious media manipulators that could impact elections?

[Stéphane Perrault]

That's okay.

Again, on privacy and on third parties, these are two areas that may warrant, in my view, some further discussion and examination by the committee.

Before I get into the table, I just want to say a few words about the third party rules.

Overall, the proposals in Bill C-76 are a major improvement on the rules governing third parties. They expand the scope of the rules to include not just advertising activities but also all kinds of partisan activities. The scope is expanded. They also provide for rules that not only apply during the writ period but also the pre-writ period. They contain a number of measures to deal with foreign funding.

I want to note that there is some imbalance between the rules as they apply to third parties and parties in the pre-writ period. Parties would be limited only in their advertising expenses. Third parties would be limited in all of their partisan activities. They would have to file up to two pre-writ reports, and parties don't have to do that. I just note that. I don't have recommendations to that effect, but I did want to bring that to the attention of the committee, when you consider the overall regulatory burden on third parties.

While there are some important rules to deal with foreign funding, there is in my view a residual opening for foreign funding through third parties. There are some ways that this can be addressed. I will be making one particular recommendation in that regard.

I've not made a recommendation on the table in terms of the contribution rules to third parties. I think this is an area where there are a range of options. You need to balance Charter of Rights considerations. You need to look at the overall regulatory burden. I'm quite prepared to have a discussion on those topics with the committee, but I have not made a specific recommendation.

If you turn to the table, I'll take them in the order they appear on the table.

The first issue is a narrow but important issue. There is now in this bill a solemn declaration for voters. Voters would be required in some circumstances to say that either they are 18 or will be 18 on voting day. That's quite correct. However, they also are required to say that they are citizens or that they will be a citizen on polling day. That's something that they cannot make a declaration for. They do not know whether in fact they will become citizens on polling day. They don't control that. The ceremony has not taken place. It may not take place. My view is that certainly only citizens should be able to vote, even in the advance vote or special ballot. The oath should be amended to reflect that. Someone should not be called upon to say that they will be a citizen on polling day.

The second point is one of the issues related to foreign funding of third parties. One of the ways in which the bill improves the regime is that not only does it ban contributions made by foreign sources for the purpose of regulated activities, but it in fact bans the use of foreign funds. In some cases a third party may receive foreign funds and not be able to use them. They could have turned around and passed it on to another third party. That third party could then spend it. I would recommend that there be an anti-avoidance clause in the bill. There are other examples of such clauses in this bill, and the Canada Elections Act. That would deal with those kinds of situations where a third party is turning around and passing on foreign funds to avoid the restrictions in the act. That's an improvement that I'm recommending on the bill.

The third point relates to convention fees. The rule right now is that when a person buys a ticket to participate in a convention, the contribution that this person makes is then determined by looking at the price of the ticket minus the tangible benefits that he or she receives at the convention, such as the meals, beverages, and so forth. The bill recommends to also deduct from the ticket price a reasonable allocation of the overhead costs of doing the convention. It also allows for another individual to not only pay for that ticket but also deduct from the amount the overhead costs. The effect of that is that a wealthy person could, by buying all or most of the tickets, essentially pay for all of the party's convention costs.

There are number of ways to deal with that. The first way would be to simply not accept that there be a deduction of the overhead costs from the amount that constitutes a contribution. That is my preferred approach. In the alternative, one could say that this deduction only is allowable for a single ticket, not multiple tickets. It's a bit more complicated to administer. If that is not acceptable to this committee, then perhaps the law should be amended so that the party's annual return reflects the fact that a person has paid for tickets for more than one person to attend a convention, so that if a person buys a slate of tickets for a convention, that is simply reported in the annual report. At least there is some transparency in this regard.

The fourth point I want to raise is in regard to the issue of privacy that we have discussed. As I indicated last week, I am concerned by the fact that there are no minimal standards. Each party would decide which standard is appropriate for them. Perhaps more importantly, I'm concerned about the absence of oversight. On the first issue, the standards adopted by the parties in their policies should be consistent with those set out in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which is usually referred to as PIPEDA, and I do believe that the Privacy Commissioner is the appropriate person to provide oversight. I have discussed this with the Privacy Commissioner and he is in agreement with that.

The fifth point that I want to raise is.... This is actually a recommendation that came from Elections Canada. It's reflected properly in the bill. It's a recommendation to deal with the possibility of disinformation in cases where there's a publication that claims to be made by a party or a candidate, but it is not. In our recommendation, we should have made an additional element to that, which is that publications, whether electronically or traditionally made, that are claimed to be by Elections Canada, but are not, should be covered by the same prohibition. That's just an expansion of that same rule to cover false Elections Canada material.

The sixth one relates to an important clause in the bill dealing with cyber-attacks. I believe that is an important issue. There is a proposal in the bill relating to the misuse of or interference with a computer. However, in order for an offence to be committed, there is a requirement to show that there was an intention to affect the result of the election. In some cases, a foreign state or a third party may wish to interfere simply to disrupt the election or simply to undermine trust in the election, so the requirement to prove an intent to change the result goes too far. I think it needs to be expanded to cover other intents, which I've just mentioned.

Finally, the last one is a really technical one. It's a transitional provision regarding the reporting obligations for candidates. There should be a clause in the bill that says that if the rules come into force midway into the campaign or after the campaign, the reporting obligation at the end of the campaign should match the substantive obligations during the campaign. That's sensible. The drafting of this clause can be improved and should be improved. There are similar clauses in the bill that we feel are better drafted in that regard and we refer to those in the table. That is strictly a technical amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Good evening and welcome back to the 106th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as we continue our study of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments. We are pleased to be joined by officials from Elections Canada. Here with us again today are Stéphane Perrault, Acting Chief Electoral Officer; Michel Roussel, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Electoral Events and Innovation; and Anne Lawson, General Counsel and Senior Director, Legal Services.

Thank you all for being here.

I forgot to ask, but the clerk will have to know who is going to travel with the committee. The Liaison Committee has a limit of seven people. As soon as parties find out, can you let the clerk know?

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

Yes. Thanks, Chair.

Thanks, Chris, for the comments.

Let me preface this very briefly by saying I don't blame anyone around this table for the circumstance we're in. Clearly, on the government's side, I don't think the timing of the bill and the study was of the choosing of any of the committee members—certainly not you, Chair, and certainly not the opposition—yet the bind that I feel myself in is that I have a similar objection because I don't like some of the rules that exist right now on voting reform. Bill C-76 addresses some of those things that we've talked about openly, vouching and whatnot.

As a parliamentarian, I also see and feel the responsibility of getting whatever we do to Bill C-76 right—amend, reject, whatever those options are—simply because in my experience if you rush legislation, particularly omnibus, it's inevitable you'll make some mistakes. The question is how grievous those mistakes are, and you realize them too late. Elections Canada tries to handle something voters experience at the election and it doesn't work the way that we were told and the way we hoped. I feel myself in a bit of a bind.

I'll start with the witness list and work backwards to the travel proposal. Mr. Christopherson is back and re-engaged, and I just got a witness list from him and, yeah, it's exhaustive and exhausting to look at. We're going to spend tonight whittling some of that down because I have a few thoughts. I was borrowing a little bit from the electoral reform experience, because I think through those many long months of study we found some witnesses who don't immediately pop to mind who I think would be very helpful on this.

I appreciate the efforts in terms of the travel component and the way the motion is worded. As we know, in urban and rural experiences voting is different, and particularly first nations people have a different experience as well.

The initial proposal for travel makes sense. I would hope we would talk today about what a day would look like, because sometimes committees travel and it looks a certain way and other times it looks another way. We had raised the issue of talking to young Canadians when we're out on the road. We had raised the issue of potentially having.... When we go to towns sometimes we go to Halifax or Toronto and we see only experts, so-called experts, people implicated by it, but we have no access to average Canadians who don't have a Ph.D. behind their name. I think we're made more poor for it if we do that. I would advocate some small version of an open house, if we go places in the evening, and then in the daytime we give over to the experts who have lots of opinions about this.

In terms of the rest of the meetings, I remain very open to what we're doing right now. I know it's not always comfortable and it's hard to schedule with extended hours and sitting, simply because we've been given a Sisyphean task here and we ought to try to do as much as we can to get it right.

Other than that, my only other reservation, which I expressed to Andy before, was the proposal of doing clause-by-clause all in one day. We have a philosophical objection to the custom that, if there are more than 80 amendments, suddenly we go on the clock, and that reduces us to five minutes per party per clause, I believe. I've seen from both sides, government and opposition, bills just brutalized because you're hammering through clauses by the end, by the evening sittings. Committee members don't really.... I think we stop doing our jobs at some point. It gives me angst to see a day of clause-by-clause on a bill that's 250 substantive pages. That's a lot.

The last I'll say is that the government talks about different numbers, but 85% of the bill was prestudied or 85% comes from Elections Canada. That's fine. The percentages are fine in terms of public relations or media, but I don't want to suggest that simply because 85% of the bill has been looked at, the 15% is going to be fast. It may not be 15% of the effort because of the stuff the government has added into this bill on top of the previous legislation. It's not simple or obvious things. We're talking about freedom of speech and some things that are potentially complicated. I don't have a pre-opinion as to what that will look like.

All that said, I think the travel is short, but it will work. If we can reconsider the clause-by-clause, that would be good, and we should talk about what a travel day looks like. If we go to Halifax, what does it look like? If we're in Toronto, what does the day look like? That will inform my feelings toward getting out on the road.

[Allen Sutherland]

Well, they're not trying to win power directly. In Bill C-76 you do have restrictions, both during the writ and in the pre-writ period.

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

Okay.

Above and beyond those two clarifications, can you comment on the changes in Bill C-76 that make voting more accessible for those with disabilities and for those in remote areas?

[Allen Sutherland]

Yes, and one of the provisions in Bill C-76 is the commissioner's ability to initiate an investigation.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Currently there is an exception for the five-year limit for dependants of Canadian Forces members residing abroad with those members, so no, they currently don't fall within the five-year rule.

If I may add to that, however, Bill C-76 will bring an improvement for the dependants of Canadian Forces members residing with them abroad and also to other civilians who accompany the Canadian Forces members abroad. For example, RCMP officers could be participating in a mission with the Canadian Forces, or Global Affairs Canada, GAC, officials could be participating in a mission as well. They would still vote under division 3 of part 11 of the act. Currently, they are experiencing some difficulties voting under that division, due to the fact that Canadian Forces members serve in remote areas. With the postal services in those areas, it might not always be easy to get their special ballot kit and send it back to Elections Canada so that it would be received before 6 p.m. on election day.

Bill C-76 brings with it a legal obligation for Elections Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces to collaborate in order to make sure these civilians who accompany the forces abroad, including dependants, have an easier way to vote.

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

Did the government of the day, in doing a generational change to our voting laws, say that thou shalt never transfer, for incumbents, for those working in political office, information gathered through your work as a member of Parliament over to the party database side? We all hope that we all have good ethics and that every office prevents that transfer, but does Bill C-76 have anything to say about that?

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

Well, this is an interesting thing when we're dealing with Bill C-76 and we're talking about data.

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

I understand, but in some European countries, a voter can phone up a party and say, “Tell me what you know about me.” The party has to say, “Well, we know your address and information. We also acquired information that you signed a petition in 1990. We know that you registered this.” Parties collect a data-rich source. They're trying to. The Liberals used to brag about it. They bragged until recently, until Cambridge Analytica, about just how they won the 2015 election: great data management, great data harvesting.

I'm wondering if there's any provision under Bill C-76 that allows a Canadian to petition a party to give them even the source points of data, i.e., “What points of data have you collected about me?”

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

Right now, Bill C-76 says tell us what your policy is, and if you don't tell us what your policy is, then we may deregister you.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

There were several consultations held. In his report following the 2015 general election, the Chief Electoral Officer recommended that the special voting rules applicable to Canadian Forces members be reviewed given their age. This committee accepted this recommendation in principle, so there were consultations between Elections Canada and the Canadian Forces for about six months, which led the Chief Electoral Officer to table supplementary recommendations before this committee in June 2017. Following June 2017, the Canadian Forces have been collaborating with the Government of Canada to make sure the amendments included in Bill C-76 would be reflecting concerns of flexibility, but also operational security, for example.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Absolutely. Currently, Canadian Forces members must vote in their military unit between the 14th and the ninth day prior to polling day. Only a small proportion of Canadian Forces electors are able to vote at civilian polls on polling day. These rules were designed at the end of the 1950s. They haven't changed much ever since.

Bill C-76 opens the voting opportunities for Canadian Forces members, and therefore, all Canadian Forces members will be able to choose whether they want to vote at ordinary polls, advance polls, at the office of the returning officer, or by mail from Canada or abroad. When they do vote using one of these opportunities, they will have to comply with identification requirements, including proof of address. Bill C-76 in maintaining the military polls in military units. This is the flexibility that the Canadian Forces needs given the wide variety of contexts in which they operate in Canada and around the world.

In those military polls, Canadian Forces electors will now be required to prove their identify and their service number. As the minister said in her presentation, Canadian Forces members who are on exercises or operations in Canada or abroad often cannot wear a document that would prove their address. That's for maintaining their personal safety and the safety of their family. We're also making it easier for Canadian Forces members to register on the national register of electors. Currently, they have to fill out a paper form that is called the statement of ordinary residence. Now the statement of ordinary residence is being repealed, and they will be able to register on Elections Canada's website on the national register of electors and change their address in order to vote with their families in the communities they serve and where they reside.

[Lieutenant-Commander Jean-François Morin, Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office]

Currently, the voters who vote under division 3 of part 11 of the Canada Elections Act have to fill out an application for registration and special ballot. They have to provide sufficient proof of identity, but not sufficient proof of residence. That is the current state of things in the Canada Elections Act.

Bill C-76 doesn't change that. However, Bill C-76 eliminates some options that were available to expats. Currently, they have the choice to determine as their place of ordinary residence the place of ordinary residence of a person whom they would be living with if they were in Canada. Bill C-76 is changing that. Expats will only be able to choose their last place of ordinary residence in Canada and once they are registered on the register of international electors, they cannot change their place of ordinary residence anymore.

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

The challenge we have is that we're going to have to, under the government's direction, move quickly through this bill, being able to cite and locate the legal remedies that you've outlined. The only definition I read of a third party is that definition.

All the limits we're talking about in terms of spending and declaration, as far as I can read, are about advertising. Of course, as you've said, there are a whole bunch of activities.

It would be very helpful—your office having constructed this bill—to be able to point and say “advertising, and this, and this” all fall under the restrictions that we've placed under Bill C-76.

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

The previous government introduced fixed election dates but didn't seem to abide by that. What changes are in Bill C-76 to help respond to how fixed election dates have changed campaigns?

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

What does Bill C-76 do to help under-represented groups participate in our democracy?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

I think it's a conversation we should be having with regard to privacy. Bill C-76 puts that conversation on the table.

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

Let me challenge two things.

One is on that first relating of how PROC said nothing about bringing the parties under political privacy. There was conversation. It was Mr. Christopherson who was sitting in this chair, not me.

Second, things have happened since then. We've seen Cambridge Analytica, which your government gave a contract to. We've seen the effects of data mining through social media, and the ability to manipulate elections—I won't even say attempt to manipulate; I will say manipulate—through that ability to gather unbelievable amounts of information not just about voting groups, but about individual voters, to try to send them only certain information, some of it true, much of it not, as seen in both the Brexit experience and the recent U.S. presidential election. Many privacy experts and the interim and potentially permanent CEO of Elections Canada say that we need to do a lot more than Bill C-76 does when it comes to protecting voters' privacy.

Is your government open to doing more in considering bringing political parties under the privacy laws of Canada?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to apologize to the committee for my tardiness. As the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley noted, I am going to blame my three-month-old son for that, who decided he was hungry just as I was leaving. Anyway, I want to thank the committee for inviting me here and for your commitment to study Bill C-76.

I would also like to thank Minister Brison, who acted as Minister of Democratic Institutions during my parental leave.

I am accompanied today by two officials, as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, from the Privy Council Office: Allen Sutherland, the Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet for Machinery of Government; and Manon Paquet, Senior Policy Adviser, Democratic Institutions Secretariat. The DI team at PCO is small but mighty. I cannot say enough about the work they have done to prepare Bill C-76. I really want to thank them for their hard work and dedication on this issue, but also on all things in our file.

Our government is committed to strengthening Canada's democratic institutions and restoring Canadians' trust and participation in our democratic processes.

We believe the strength of our democracy depends on the participation of as many Canadians as possible. By undoing the unfair aspects of the Conservatives' so-called Fair Elections Act, we are making it easier and more convenient for all Canadians to vote.

We are making the electoral process more accessible to Canadians with disabilities, as well as members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and we are restoring voting rights to more than one million Canadians living abroad.

We are strengthening our laws, closing loopholes, and bringing in robust enforcement regimes to make it more difficult for bad actors to influence our elections. We are requiring greater transparency from third parties and political parties so Canadians can better understand who seeks to influence their vote. This legislation will result in a modern, robust, and enforceable election law that addresses the realities of a modern election campaign.

Of course, none of this would have been possible without the hard work of this committee last year while it studied the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, after the 2015 election.

I believe you will find your work reflected in the legislation. Approximately 85% of the CEO's recommendations are contained in Bill C-76. This committee has already agreed in principle with over 50% of this bill.

There are also components of Bill C-76 that this committee has not studied. I appreciate that the committee may want to focus on these elements of the bill. Please be assured that my officials and I are prepared to provide whatever assistance you need.

Bill C-76 makes our electoral system more accessible for all Canadians. It increases the opening hours of advance polls, strengthens obligations towards Canadians with disabilities, expands voting rights to about a million Canadians living abroad, and makes it easier for Canadian Forces members to vote. The elections modernization act also encourages candidates and registered parties to campaign in a manner that will be more inclusive of persons with disabilities.

This bill also modernizes the administration of elections to make it easier for Canadians to vote, while maintaining strong and proven integrity measures.

As Minister of Democratic Institutions, one of my top priorities is to lead the Government of Canada's efforts to defend the Canadian electoral process from cyberthreats. Recent events on the international stage are a reminder that Canada is not immune from such threats. Bill C-76 proposes changes relating to foreign influence and online disruption that can be addressed within the Canada Elections Act.

While foreign entities were already banned from making contributions to political parties and candidates, our government is closing a loophole that allowed foreign entities to spend up to $500 on election advertising during the election period. In addition, all third parties will be required to maintain a Canadian bank account for all of their election-related revenues and expenses.

I also want to address the concern that foreign funds can be donated to third parties before June 30, then used during the writ or pre-writ period. Under Bill C-76, third parties are required to disclose the source of all funds they used during the writ or pre-writ period, regardless of when they received the funds. Further, any attempt to conceal the use of foreign funds for regulated activities in the pre-writ or writ period will be illegal under Bill C-76.

New provisions of the Canada Elections Act will clearly prohibit publications and advertisements—online and off-line—aimed at misleading the public as to their source. Similarly, fraudulent uses of computers aimed at affecting the results of an election will be strictly prohibited.

We all have a responsibility to combat foreign influence in our elections. Therefore, organizations selling advertising space will be banned from knowingly accepting foreign-funded election advertising.

In order to ensure compliance and enforcement, the elections modernization act includes several measures designed to make the commissioner of Canada elections more efficient and independent. The commissioner will now have the power to compel testimony and we will restore his power to lay charges. A new enforcement tool and administrative monetary penalties regime will also be at the commissioner's disposal.

Canadians expect electoral processes will be fair and transparent. They want to hear from all sides, not only from voices with the deepest pockets. These values have shaped Canadian electoral and political financing regimes for over 40 years.

However, the advent of fixed-date elections has been a game changer. Political actors and third parties are now able to plan partisan advertising campaigns ahead of the election period and, by doing so, circumvent the spirit of our laws.

Bill C-76 will define a pre-election period during which reporting requirements and spending limits will apply to registered parties and third parties.

The pre-election period will begin on June 30 of a fixed-date election year. It will provide more transparency by requiring third parties who spend more than $500 on partisan advertising, partisan activities, and election surveys to register with Elections Canada. Third parties will also have a legal obligation to identify themselves in advertising messages.

New spending limits will also apply to both third parties and political entities during that pre-writ period.

Mr. Chair, we cannot take for granted Canadians' trust in their democratic institutions. The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that our electoral process is transparent, accessible, reflective of modern best practices, and secure and sheltered from undue influence.

I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Good afternoon, and welcome to the 106th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. For members' information, this meeting is being televised.

Today, as we begin our study of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments, we are pleased to be joined by the Honourable Karina Gould, Minister of Democratic Institutions. She is accompanied by Allen Sutherland, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, and Manon Paquet, Senior Policy Adviser.

Thank you for being here.

Thanks for coming, Minister. I'll turn it over to you for your opening statement.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said in the House many times, the Prime Minister did not tell Elections Canada to put this bill forward. What happened is that this government, like every other previous government except the former Conservative government, consulted Elections Canada when drafting Bill C-76. Do members know why? It is because we, on this side of the House, are not afraid of Elections Canada.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-76 does a lot to ensure that we have integrity in our elections. In fact, it returns the commissioner of Elections Canada to Elections Canada, something the previous government took away. It also enables the commissioner of Elections Canada to lay charges, something the previous government took away. In addition, it also gives the commissioner of Elections Canada the power to compel, something that might have aided his investigations of previous scandals.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the parliamentary process is still structured so that a piece of legislation must pass the House of Commons and then the Senate and then receive royal assent before it is implemented. If that is the case, will the Prime Minister instruct Elections Canada to halt the implementation of Bill C-76 until it actually passes Parliament with amendments, instead of trying to rig the system in his favour?

[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.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will to continue. Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, would strengthen—

Democratic Reform

[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.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives wanted to protect the integrity of our electoral system, they allowed for 84 hours of debate. I repeat, 84 hours of debate. When the Liberals introduced Bill C-76 to rig the election in their favour, they invoked closure to put the bill to vote yesterday, after just two hours of debate.

What are the Liberals afraid of? Are they afraid of losing the next election?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wants to talk about things broken, let us talk about broken rules. With Bill C-76, our government makes it easier for Canadians to vote and toughens the sanctions for those who break the rules. The defeated Harper Conservatives, on the other hand, made it tougher for Canadians to vote and broke the rules.

We will not be taking lessons from the Harper Conservatives, who paid a $250,000 fine for breaking the rules and used robocalls to send people to the wrong polls. The parliamentary secretary to the former prime minister went to jail.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I am incredibly proud of Bill C-76, and I am delighted that it is going to the procedure and House affairs committee so it can get the study and the interrogation it deserves.

I am looking forward to members opposite asking questions of witnesses to ensure that we encourage Canadians to participate in our democracy, to encourage young Canadians to be registered for elections, to ensure that Canadians without identification can have vouching and can use their voter identification card, and to ensure that Canadians living abroad and every single Canadian have the right to vote.

[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.

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

As some members will know, there's been.... I'll speak to the bill. I don't have any particular comments on timing in terms of Blake's motion. The other pieces seem to be set in, and we have to work around that.

Bill C-76 is very large. Governments refer to it as a generational change. There are 350 pages, and 250 of them are text and changing law. The timing is, of course, difficult, as Elections Canada had an end of April deadline. The bill was introduced in May. It was moved through the House under time allocation, passed last night, and referred to us this morning. Is that right, Chair?

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

We have this notice of motion from Mr. Richards, and we have the second Thursday, the seventh, for the second hour for what we suggested this morning, the indigenous language report and Bill C-76. Have I got all of the pieces right?

Second reading

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

Mr. Speaker, the problem that the government has in making the case for limiting debate via time allocation now is the massive amount of time that went by when Bill C-33 did not come to second reading. There was lots of time to get Bill C-33 through, no matter how many speakers one party or another were to put up.

Bill C-76, bringing in Bill C-33 and additional measures, requires more study.

I completely agree and am not going to take a single point away from the fact that most of what is in this legislation was already recommended by Elections Canada. I have not doubt that most of what is in it will improve the health of our democracy. However, it is fundamental legislation. It takes a while to get back to the Elections Act. We should have full time to debate it at second reading.

I will admit in a nonpartisan way that the use of time allocation in the 41st Parliament was much more egregious, because the legislation it applied to made it harder for people to vote. However, for the Liberals to try to reverse that legislation with time allocation because they say they are not as bad as the other guys because their legislation is better does not do away with the fundamental issue of respect for Parliament, respect for this place, and allowing Parliament to have full debate at second reading, full discussion in committees, and adequate time to go through debate at clause by clause, and adequate time at report stage and third reading.

The delay on the government side in bringing the legislation forward does not make a good excuse.

[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.

The House resumed from May 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Bill C-76—Time Allocation Motion

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I heard the heckling when “partisan games” was mentioned. It is quite telling.

The unfair elections act was enacted by the Harper Conservatives back in 2014, and it was called the low point of the legislative agenda in that year. It was said to be a partisan attack on Canada's elections rules. It ignored fact and mocked expertise.

I think it is time to get Bill C-76 out of this place—as it is a highly partisan issue, as we heard from the heckling—and get it to committee. The heckling goes on, so we need to get the bill to the experts and hear from the Chief Electoral Officer about what should happen with the rule changes that we need so that we can ensure that the electoral rules actually reflect Canadian values. I think that is what is most important to ensure that we get more people out to vote and enable young people, indigenous people, and people who have disabilities to go out and exercise their democratic right in their democracy, which is here in our country of Canada.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Net Neutrality

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents in Guelph in support of Motion No. 168, proposed by the hon. member for Oakville. I would like to thank him for bringing the important subject of net neutrality forward to the House floor for debate today. It is good to see that we have general support around the House. As chair of the innovation and technology caucus, I know that this issue affects not only our public discourse in many ways but also the seen and unseen things that the Internet provides to all Canadians. We must recognize the importance this policy will have on ourselves and on future generations of Canadians.

Net neutrality has been called the critical issue of our times, much like the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression that came before it. Net neutrality ensures that Internet service providers enable access to all content and all applications regardless of their source, without favouring or blocking particular products or websites. This simple and seemingly uncontroversial statement is at the centre of modern public discourse and the digital economy.

Net neutrality is a key driver of the Internet, currently the largest information-sharing system in human history. The power of this platform to shape economies and public discourse cannot be ignored. Without this standard for open and neutral Internet, we commit a double offence, first at the expense of entrepreneurs, and second at the expense of Canadian citizens. Entrepreneurs are constantly on the lookout to try to spread the word about their business. If access to the Internet is limited or controlled, small business owners who want to use the Internet to grow their business will lose one of their greatest tools for doing so. Canadians who want access to the services provided by our entrepreneurs or information provided by our colleges and universities will be denied that chance if larger firms outbid small businesses for marketing opportunities.

Net neutrality, in many ways, represents the best of capitalism and the best of our economy. Freedom of the individual, open access to markets, healthy competition, and diversity of goods and services are all values upheld by net neutrality. Protecting emerging markets for e-commerce is one crucial reason to support net neutrality. The second is preserving our democracy and the integrity of our public discourse, which depends on accurate information being available to everyone.

Information is the currency of democracy. We live in an age when new platforms for exchanging information are being developed. These new platforms can have a tremendous sway over our political system. Maintaining free and open communications is critical as we explore new ways to provide open government. Therefore, as legislators and representatives of Canadians, it is incumbent upon us to protect the avenues through which information flows. Net neutrality is a necessary tool to prevent any form of private enterprise from exerting undue control over the free flow of information. It also safeguards against attempts to bias the information available, as selected by private interests. Net neutrality provides access to public and private broadcasters alike and does not favour one political or business bias over another.

We have seen the harm done by concerted and sophisticated efforts to spread misinformation. While our government moves to make government more open and improve the democratic process through Bill C-76, we cannot simultaneously work against our own interests by limiting the flow of information on the Internet. In just over 20 years, the Internet has become the new forum for discussion on any subject. It needs to remain an open platform for public discourse, subject to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and anti-hate legislation.

It is curious that we find ourselves here defending what should be an uncontroversial idea. However, recent efforts around the world to question and erode net neutrality are cause for great concern, particularly as discourse becomes polarized. Therefore, it is good that we have the opportunity to discuss this on behalf of Canadians.

Thankfully, in Canada we have a strong network of regulations and legislation to protect net neutrality. These come in the form of the Telecommunications Act and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC.

Section 27 of the Telecommunications Act prevents Internet service providers from providing undue benefit or discrimination for their services. As well, section 36 prevents Internet service providers from controlling or influencing the meaning of communications carried by them for the public. These sections need to be maintained to prevent throttling websites or blocking or in other ways controlling Internet traffic.

This legislation is backed up with a recent decision reached just last year by the CRTC, which outlined several guides and requirements. It found that charging different prices for different types of content, such as music, news, videos, or other types of content is prohibited. Consumer protection was also strengthened by mandating full disclosure of Internet traffic management practices. This ruling strengthens Canada's commitment to net neutrality by declaring that Internet service providers should treat data traffic equally. It reaffirms Canada's commitment to economic growth and entrepreneurship, and promotes the freedom of speech and diversity of views that Canadians cherish.

The Internet, as it exists now, is a shadow of its future self. It has already come to be an invaluable tool for growing commerce and spreading knowledge and culture. By its nature, the Internet is democratic. With it, musicians can gain renown and fame. Entrepreneurs can offer their goods and services at home and abroad, and Canadian culture and tourism benefit as the eyes of the world can see what Canadians have to offer.

Should Canada and other nations change their stance and participate in the emerging trend to privatize access to the Internet, we will all lose. Record labels could use their buying power to ensure that select artists are the ones available to consumers. Entrepreneurs could have difficulty competing with large firms that can afford to market themselves. Costs to promote Canadian culture outside Canada, and perhaps even within Canada, could greatly increase.

In a modern digital age, the free exchange of ideas and the free access to markets are what is at stake. Canada must take the initiative and show leadership on the international stage. Free and open access to the Internet is the cornerstone upon which democracy and the future digital economy will be relying.

Once again, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Oakville for the great work on bringing this motion forward and for having us discuss it tonight in the House. I encourage all members of the House to support this important motion.

Elections Modernization Act

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-76, a bill that would, among other things, make changes to the way political parties, election candidates, and third parties could spend money both before and during elections.

Spending limits on candidates and parties for elections is not new. These have been around for decades. Contribution limits are a little more recent. Many Canadians remember the days when political fundraising was wide open. There was a time when political parties could hold a dinner in Toronto and banks, law firms, and lobbyists could buy tables at $10,000 a pop, paying for them with company money, and perhaps even deducting the cost as a business expense, which it was, rather than as a political contribution.

Eventually, successive governments changed the rules to diffuse political financial support away from Bay Street and toward individual Canadians, more typically motivated by personal conviction, as it should be, rather than by self-interest.

It was the Chrétien government that brought in the first contribution limits. With the Federal Accountability Act of 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper reduced the limit to $1,500 per person and banned contributions from corporations, unions, and charities. Later, he also got rid of the per-vote subsidy, recognizing that paying political parties for each vote rigs the system in favour of perpetuating the winner.

Another thing Prime Minister Harper did was tell his cabinet that he would not tolerate fundraising by his ministers from stakeholder groups that had dealings with their own departments. In other words, he would not tolerate cash for access fundraising.

The reason I bring up this brief history of political party fundraising is that the most important aspect of Bill C-76 is the way it would deal with election and pre-election spending.

The environment this bill is tabled in cannot be separated from the spending and fundraising environment the present governing party finds itself in. Make no mistake, the Liberals have struggled to raise money in the post-corporate-donation and post-per-vote-subsidy era, while at the same time, they have greatly benefited from spending by third parties. Some third parties are virtually Liberal proxies, and others are foreign entities with an agenda hostile to Canada's best interests.

When elected, the first thing these Liberals did was start holding these secret cash for access fundraisers, and we are not talking about a one-off. We are talking about a fundraising system wherein a significant part of Liberal fundraising relied on these kinds of events.

When the media and opposition parties criticized this practice over a period of months, the government House leader said, at least some 200 times in this House, that Canada's fundraising laws are among the strictest anywhere in the world. I agree with her. We have already mentioned this. I agree with her that the fundraising rules are strict. The problem is that the Liberals have tried to get around the rules, to get around the spirit, and in some cases the actual letter, of the existing elections law and fundraising practices.

Here are today debating Bill C-76, knowing that Canada, as she has said, already has very strict fundraising rules that make it very difficult to raise money any way other than through small donations from individual Canadians motivated by support for a party's ideas or its candidates.

What can a party in government do when it cannot raise enough money on the strength of its ideas and when it is carrying around the weight of its own dubious track record? When it is struggling to raise money, it can do two things: limit expenditures by political parties; or make it easier for third-party proxies, who are not subject to the same rules as a political party, and have these third parties do its job for it.

This bill would enable both of these things to happen. On the expenditures side, this bill would create a pre-writ expense restriction, which would help the Liberals, who are struggling to raise money. At the same time, this bill would allow registered third parties a similar cap during the pre-writ period, but then it would nearly double the amount these third parties could spend during the writ period itself, while doing nothing, absolutely zero, to address the broader issue of how foreign funding of registered third parties distorts our democracy.

This is the most important part of the bill. At an absolute minimum, the changes to the spending rules contained in Bill C-76 are a cynical attempt to compensate for the Liberals' inability to raise money on their own. At worst, this bill represents a wilful refusal to deal with attempts by foreigners to influence Canadian elections. The bill contains token lip service to the problem by creating a pre-writ election period in the summer before a scheduled fall election and by banning foreign contributions by third parties during that time. This bill would create an expense limit during that time, which, by the way, for third parties, would be nearly the same limit a political party would have. The government will, no doubt, claim that it has now addressed the problem by doing so, but nothing could be further from the truth. This bill would nearly double the amount third parties could spend during the writ itself, and again, would do absolutely nothing to address the much more serious problem of the way foreign organizations are undermining Canadian democracy.

How serious is the issue of foreign-funded third parties in our elections? How do we know that foreign interests are exerting influence in Canada's elections? The answer is simple. We know this because registered third parties that receive millions of dollars in foreign money openly bragged about their success in influencing the outcome of the last election. In the case of the Tides Foundation, which is the foreign paymaster of at least eight domestic third parties that campaigned in the last election, it openly states that its agenda is to shut down Canada's resource industry. Likewise, it claims credit for the substantial success that anti-energy agenda is currently enjoying under the current government.

Take the example of Leadnow. That is an organization funded by the anti-Canadian Tides Foundation. It boasts about the role it played in defeating the previous government. Its own published report following the 2015 election claimed, “We selected target ridings with field teams run by paid Leadnow organizers”. This post-election “Defeating Harper” report went on to detail how it systematically targeted ridings based on detailed, extensive, and expensive professional polling research and focused its attention on those critical ridings. It further took credit for the defeat of Conservative candidates in 26 out of 29 targeted seats and for having a 96% success rate for its endorsed candidates.

There is no mystery. It received foreign money and is bragging about how effective it was in using it to pay organizers to help defeat the previous government. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is not speculation. Foreign-funded third parties are out there bragging about how effective they are at influencing election outcomes.

If the Liberal government agrees that such interference is a problem, or if it is in any way uncomfortable with the prospect of foreign money compromising the integrity of Canadian elections, it should have used the opportunity before it to actually engage in meaningful reform of how third parties engage with the public during and between elections. The government could have, for example, made registered third parties subject to audit between elections. It could have banned foreign contributions altogether by making it an offence for a third party that participates in an election campaign to receive money between elections instead of simply during the summer pre-writ period.

The government could prevent third parties from colluding to defeat the intent of the law. It could reduce, instead of increase, the limit on third parties during the writ period.

However, the Liberals have chosen not to do any of these things, because these Liberals have proven over and over again how much they prefer a rigged game when it comes to elections. They are the same Liberals who wasted enormous energy on their absurd electoral reform program, which they actually used to suck in various activist groups like Leadnow, Fair Vote Canada, some union groups, and The Council of Canadians. They used that issue to gain support from these third parties and then did absolutely nothing to follow through on their promise. These are the same Liberals who relied on secret cash for access fundraising until they were caught, the same Liberals who tried to eliminate opposition tools through standing order changes, and the same Liberals who tried to give themselves a $7-billion slush fund through their so-called estimates reform. They are the same Liberals who are now trying to compensate for their failure to raise money through this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is in favour of many of the provisions of the bill, but it is a big bill and we have not had time to review it, as I mentioned. Even the minister who tabled it was not clear on things. Some of the information given out when it was tabled was contradictory, so I think we need to spend the time to look at this bill carefully.

This is the heart of our democracy, and if the Liberals want us to pass the bill to get it enacted in time for the next election, they should have acted a lot earlier. They could have acted 18 months ago. They tabled another bill very similar to Bill C-76 but never really moved forward on it. Therefore, when they say that we are in a panic now, that they want all hands on deck and want the NPD to support the bill unquestioningly, we would ask them what the rationale is when they had 18 months to do this.

We want to get this right. Hopefully we can get some of these parts enacted in time for the next election, but it does not mean that we should blindly support everything in the bill, because we have not had time to look at it. We need to treat this subject very seriously.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. Since elections are at the heart of our democracy, this is clearly an important bill for debate in this House.

The bill is a belated response to the Liberals' election promise to reverse some of the egregiously anti-democratic aspects of the Conservative government's so-called Fair Elections Act of 2014. I say “belated” because the acting Chief Electoral Officer gave the government a deadline of the end of April for any election reform legislation if changes were to be made in time to be implemented before the October 2019 election. That deadline was for passing legislation, not for introducing it, so we have clearly missed the boat there.

Speaking of delays, it has taken the government two years to name an official Chief Electoral Officer. Since it is such an important position, one would think the government would make that a high priority.

This bill is another in a series of very large bills that the current government has tabled. At 230 pages, it is very much an omnibus bill. It absorbs Bill C-33, which was tabled 18 months ago and never acted on. Even the minister who tabled it seems to be unclear as to what is in it. It is ironic that the Liberals complained about the Fair Elections Act from the previous Conservative government and its propensity for omnibus legislation, when here they are doing the same thing.

Now I would like to touch on some of the provisions included in Bill C-76.

It limits the writ period of an election to 50 days, thus eliminating the chance for another marathon election campaign of more than 70 days, such as that which we were subjected to in 2015. That is great news. I would like to thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for suggesting this to the government in the form of his private member's bill.

Canada is far behind other countries in gender equity, and it is past the time when we should be taking concrete steps to improve this situation. The bill allows candidates to report child care expenses, but it falls short of promises to allow more candidates from equity-seeking groups to take part in our elections. The member for Burnaby South put forward his private member’s bill, Bill C-237, which 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.

I have been to many schools to talk about government and the electoral process, as I am sure many members here have, and I have always been impressed by the keen interest of many young people in civics. The questions I get at school talks are often much more informed than those that I get at open town halls. Therefore, I am happy to see that two parts of this bill encourage young people to get informed and to get involved in the electoral process. First, Bill C-76 would allow the registration of future electors between the ages of 14 and 17. This simple act has been shown in other jurisdictions to increase the proportion of young people who vote after they turn 18. That would be a good thing, since young people do not generally vote at the same rate as older adults. Second, the bill removes 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 on our electoral process.

Bill C-76 also brings 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 to solve a non-existent problem of voter fraud—of which there are vanishingly few, if any, examples—by creating a much more serious problem that inhibited Canadians, particularly disadvantaged citizens, from voting at all. We should be encouraging all Canadians to vote, and this will be a step in the right direction at last.

Also included in the bill are provisions to allow more expatriate Canadians to vote, effectively doubling that number. I think this is a very welcome addition.

While the bill institutes some rules around third party activity during elections, it does allow spending of up to $1 million in the pre-writ period for third parties, which is hardly a restriction, considering that parties are allowed only $1.5 million. As well, there is no limit on how much individuals can donate to third parties involved in election campaigns. If we want to get big money out of our election campaigns, this is not the way to do it.

I want to talk a bit now about the big thing missing from this bill, the elephant in the room, or maybe it is the elephant that is not in the room. Of course I am talking about real electoral reform. The Liberals, the NDP, and the Green Party all campaigned on a promise that 2015 would be the last federal election run under the first-past-the-post system. Over 60% of Canadian voters supported this idea. For many Canadians, it was the most important promise made in that election campaign. Canadians were tired of elections that gave parties with less than 40% of the vote 100% of the power under majority governments. The Harper government was an example and the present Liberal government is another, so creating a new system was very popular.

Unfortunately, once the Liberals were in power, they forgot about that promise. They created a committee that travelled the country and worked very hard to hear from as many Canadians as possible. The committee heard from electoral experts from around the world on best practices from other countries. The committee tabled a report calling on the government to create a proportional representation system after consulting Canadians with a referendum. The Minister of Democratic Institutions asked all MPs to go back to their ridings and hold town halls to hear what their constituents had to say on the subject. We in the NDP caucus took that request seriously and did just that. We not only held town halls but also handed out questionnaires at the meetings to tally the preferences of the attendees. I sent similar questionnaires to every household in my riding.

We found that over 80% of respondents from across the country preferred a proportional representation system. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister did not like that answer. He did not like the committee's recommendations and announced that he was going to break his promise on electoral reform. The Minister of Democratic Institutions even insulted the committee by saying it did not do the hard work expected of it. The Liberals say they want to increase the participation of Canadians in the electoral process and that Bill C-76 is their answer to this, but the incredible cynicism of 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 was talking on the phone with a constituent a while ago on a separate issue, and at the end of the conversation, she said how nice it was that the MP was calling her directly. She told of how she and her husband engaged their children in the election campaign of 2015. They listened as a family to the debates, they read the campaign platforms, and in the end the parents asked their children who they should vote for. She did not say who they decided to vote for, but she did say that electoral reform was the issue that the children felt was the most important to them. They wanted every vote to count and were devastated when the Prime Minister went back on his solemn election promise. She even worries that their children might never vote when they are old enough. That was exactly the opposite effect that she and her husband were hoping for when they got them involved in the discussion.

I will close by saying that I support many of the reforms contained in Bill C-76, but it falls short in so many other ways: in its size, in the short amount of time we have had to debate it, and above all in the complete lack of real reform. Let us get rid of big money in elections and get back on track to getting rid of first past the post so that every vote will count.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss Bill C-76, not something that has gone on in the past.

The issues with the bill are very clear. The Liberals would blatantly allow an increase in foreign meddling in our election, which would serve none of us in the House and would not serve Canadians. The bill would allow a lot of issues that are blatantly wrong. What is even worse is that on such an important issue, the government is shutting down debate. It is wrong and we will continue to fight that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments, also known as “the bill to change the rules to favour the Liberals because they cannot fundraise competitively, and other consequential amendments”. However, that is just the working title.

I appreciate that the minister for electoral reform has come back to the House. The job done previous to her by the treasury board president has been a mess. Now the treasury board president has shown once again that he is not up to the job, whether it is watching Bill C-58 , the Access to Information Act, or his complicity in ignoring reports that Phoenix was not ready, or his attempt to pass off his $7 billion estimate slush fund as transparency.

The acting Chief Electoral Officer had made it 100% clear to the government and Parliament a year ago that he would need legislative changes completed by April 28 in order to have time to be ready for the fall 2019 election, not starting debate and not introducing the legislation by April 28, but completely finished by April 28, through the House and Senate. However, here we are. Instead of having legislation debated and passed through the Senate by now, the Liberals are now just starting.

Let us go back a bit. Following the 2015 election, Elections Canada provided a list of recommendations for changes. The procedures committee was looking at these recommendations for a report to bring back to the House. Then out of nowhere the government dropped in our lap Bill C-33 , an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. Before the report from the committee was completed, the Liberals introduced a bill with incomplete information.

The Liberals rushed in a flawed bill, ignoring the procedures committee, and promptly did absolutely nothing for an entire year. If we add in the inability to appoint a permanent chief elections officer, the cynical Bill C-50 to distract from their cash for access scandals, and the desire to create a debates commission, we have typical Liberal ineptness. Well done, mission accomplished.

How did we get here? We went through the sham consultations a year and a half ago on the electoral reform. It was the same consultation meant to change the voting process from first pass the post to a system that would of course favour the Liberals. This is from their website, and it is still up, “We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.”

Henry James, considered by many as one of the greatest novelists in the English language, has said, “To read between the lines was easier than to follow the text.” If we read between the lines of “We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system”, we get if and only if the Liberals get the system they want, one that would guarantee Liberal re-election, then 2015 will be the last under the first-past-the-post system. Further reading between the lines we also see, “If we don't get the system that favours only the Liberals, then we'll abandon the plan”.

It is funny that when we go to the Liberal mandate tracker it shows electoral reform as not being pursued. It is not a broken promise, or thrown into trash or not being pursued. If we go down a bit further on the mandate tracker and look under “Balance the budget”, which is also in their mandate letter to balance the budget by 2019, it says “Underway - with challenges”. There are tens of billions of added debt. Maybe the budget will be balanced by 2045, but we do not know as the finance minister will not answer.

The Liberals are adding $43 billion in debt from when it was supposed to be balanced in 2019 in the mandate to the end of where the budget shows in 2022-23, with $75 billion of added debt over the period from being elected to 2022-23. This is what they call “Underway - with challenges”.

At the operations committee, we asked representatives of the Privy Council Office about this. Privy Council runs this mandate tracker website. We asked them why they would put out this information. It was very clearly a lie and misinformation. They said that the finance department told them to. I feel badly for the Privy Council having to sit at committee and defend such disingenuous information.

Let us go back to Bill C-76 and look at some of the measures in the bill to change the rules that favour the Liberals, because they cannot competitively fundraise, and other consequential amendments. It allows the Chief Electoral Officer to authorize the voter information card as a piece of ID. This is not a voter ID card, as some people are trying to pass it off as; it is a voter information card. People can head to the polls with that piece, which was mailed to them, and vote.

Here are some fun facts from the last election. Non-Canadian citizens were sent the card in the mail, even though they were not eligible to vote. Cards went out with the wrong names. People were directed to the wrong polling station, sometimes 100 kilometres away. There was a 1.5% error rate on the 26.5 billion cards that were sent out, which means 400,000 people got cards with wrong names, wrong addresses, and so on.

In the 2011 election, before that one, three-quarters of a million Canadians moved during the 36-day writ period.

Elections Canada says that the voters list that it draws the cards from is just a snapshot in time. We are going to base the entire integrity of our election on a snapshot in time? Elections Canada says that it cannot even check the voters list to ensure that those on the list receiving the cards are actually Canadians.

To summarize, hundreds of thousands of incorrect cards are going out and three-quarters of a million people are moving during a standard election period. Over a million people potentially could have the wrong card or have someone else's card. Elections Canada is stating that there is no way to check if the cards are going out to Canadian citizens. The integrity of democracy is based on what Elections Canada calls a “snapshot in time”.

This bill would allow Canadians living abroad to vote regardless of how long they have lived outside the country and whether they intend to return. Right now it is five years. It is being challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not even ruled on this yet and the Liberal government will bring in changes to allow anyone, regardless of how long they have been out of country, to vote.

Three million Canadians are living abroad, wonderful people, spreading the word of hockey in Canada around the world. However, should we allow those who have no intention of ever returning to Canada to help decide our policies in our country? The Ontario Court of Appeals, which ruled on the five year law, stated that it was democratically justified because it preserved the social contract between voters and lawmakers.

I know the Liberal government loves social licence, social licence for pipelines and for everything else, but I wish it would respect the social contract as has been decided by the Ontario courts.

There is no requirement that any of these expats have to vote in the last riding they lived in or even have visited one of the ridings. My brother, Bob, who left the country about 18 years ago, lives in New Jersey. He has never once stepped foot in my riding of Edmonton West. Should he be allowed to vote in my riding, even though he has never stepped foot in it and left Canada about 18 years ago? I have to wonder how many ridings across Canada in the last election were settled or won by less than 1,000 votes.

Concerted efforts by unfriendly foreign regimes could easily swing ridings by those with no skin in the game. Again, should people with perhaps no roots here and no family here and who perhaps pay no taxes and have not stepped foot in Canada for 10, 15, 20, or 30 years be deciding our foreign policy or what communities are getting funds for infrastructure? Should those who have zero intent of returning be deciding who sits in these chairs in the House?

I mentioned my brother. I love him dearly and still feel bad about knocking his teeth out playing hockey years ago, but I do not think he should be eligible to vote in Canada. He left many years ago.

I want to talk about the ID issue. We heard a lot of misinformation and saw hand-wringing throughout this debate about voter suppression under the Fair Elections Act. Let us look at the truth and the facts. Under the Fair Elections Act, we had an 11.5% increase in voter turnout in the 2015 election. It surged.

Here are some of the IDs that people could use: certificate of citizenship, citizenship card, Indian status card, band membership card, Métis card, old age security card, hospital card, CNIB card, credit card, debit card, and employee card. There is over 60 valid pieces of ID that can be used. People can even get a note from a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter to use as ID.

The bill would allow a maximum of third-party spending to soar through the roof, to allow Tides Foundation in the U.S.A., and Russian influence in Tides, to influence our election here. It is wrong. We have seen the issue of Facebook data misuse and Russian hacking. The bill would allow money from these groups to influence our vote.

We have seen the government try to change the rules when it falters. The Liberals changed the fundraising rules and they tried to change our rules in this place when they found the opposition to be too effective. They tried to change how Canadians voted to rig the next election. Now the government is botching this bill.

Bill C-76 is an omnibus of a mess and should be dismissed.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation could be very simply amended to prohibit foreign funding and to regulate this kind of money coming in. However, the government is not interested in doing that.

We learned today that, in fact, the Prime Minister has ordered Elections Canada to move forward with Bill C-76 as written, so the government is not interested in amendments. It is not interested in fixing the problems with this bill. It is prepared to ram it through with its usual contempt of this House. Under the guise of pretending to do something about foreign interference and influence, the government is giving it the green light, probably because it recognized that it benefited the Liberal Party during the last election and is hoping it can get away with it one more time.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. There is no shortage of criticism that can be made of this deeply flawed piece of legislation, but given the limited time that I have, I am going to confine my remarks to the issue of foreign funding, foreign influence, and foreign interference in our elections.

The sanctity and integrity of our elections and the integrity of our democracy depend on Canadians and Canadians alone determining the outcome of elections, without the interference of foreigners. This is something Canadians have taken for granted. Indeed, historically, our elections have not had outside forces and outside influence interfering and attempting to influence Canadian voters. That has changed, and there was a drastic change in the lead-up to the 2015 election.

During the 2015 election, various foreign entities, largely U.S.-based, radical, anti-oil sands organizations, had the express purpose of wanting to see Canadian energy kept in the ground, just like Gerald Butts, the Prime Minister's principal secretary, who also wants to see our energy kept in the ground. Those organizations funnelled a lot of money to registered third parties, which in turn used those foreign monies to promote the Liberal Party of Canada and to work to defeat the Conservative government of the day. We are talking about millions of dollars that were funnelled from the U.S. to registered third parties.

For example, the Tides Foundation funnelled $1.5 million. Of that $1.5 million, about $700,000 was transferred to a Canadian shell entity based out of British Columbia, which in turn sent the money to Leadnow, which of course worked very closely with the Liberal Party during the last election. Another $700,000 or so of the Tides money was transferred directly to eight registered third parties.

The Tides Foundation was hardly the only example. There were many U.S. sources of funding that went to a number of third party groups that were active during the 2015 election.

In light of that kind of influence and interference, many Canadians might scratch their heads and ask, “How is it possible that millions of U.S. dollars were rolled into registered third parties, and these third parties were able to use that money for all manner of political purposes during the 2015 election and get away with it?” The answer is largely because of loopholes that exist in the Canada Elections Act.

Perhaps the biggest loophole in the Canada Elections Act provides that there is no regulation whatsoever of foreign monies funnelled to registered third parties six months and a day prior to the issuance of a writ. Those monies can be transferred to a third party, and then the third party is free to use them for political purposes to directly influence Canadian voters.

For example, if a foreign entity transferred a million dollars to a registered Canadian third party six months and a day before the writ, those monies would be treated as having mingled into the funds of that third party. That third party would be free to use those dollars, and they would be treated as though they were Canadian dollars, notwithstanding the fact they clearly came from a foreign source.

Now, what does Bill C-76 do to close this massive loophole? The answer is, absolutely nothing. It does absolutely nothing to close this loophole. It leaves it wide open. It gives free rein to foreign interests and foreigners to come in and influence the next election.

However, to the degree anything has changed, the government has made the situation worse, because under the existing Canada Elections Act, the period regulated is six months prior to the issue of a writ. Under this legislation, the pre-pre-election period that will be completely unregulated goes up to June 30. In other words, it will be closer to an election that foreign interests can donate to third parties.

As well, the government has doubled the amount third parties can spend during the election and provided that they may spend a million dollars in the pre-election period. We are talking about foreign money, and the government is free to simply transfer it over. It is really quite astonishing.

While we can blame the foreign interests and the third parties that have taken advantage of loopholes in the Canada Elections Act, there is another culprit. It is called the Liberal Party of Canada, which actively collaborated with third parties that were taking these foreign monies. I believe the Liberal Party had all the information available to it, knew this was taking place, and turned a blind eye to it. Now, under the guise of pretending to do something about foreign influence and interference in elections, the Liberals are saying that it is A-okay: just as long as the money is donated before June 30, third parties are free to take as much foreign money as possible.

While it is bad enough we had large amounts of U.S. money during the last election, who is to say that in the 2019 election it will not be Saudi, Chinese, or Russian money? Canadians should be alarmed and outraged. Quite frankly, Canadians deserve better from the government. Canadians deserve elections that are free from foreign influence and interference. Instead of doing that, Bill C-76 maintains a loophole that legitimizes and sanitizes this. For the sake of the integrity of our elections and of our democracy, Bill C-76 needs to be defeated out of hand.

[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.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères if I may.

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

The unfair elections act was a bill enacted by the Harper Conservatives. It was introduced on February 4, 2014 by the minister of democratic propaganda. The Globe and Mail named this the worst legislation in 2014 and said it was a low point of Stephen Harper's government: “It was a partisan attack on Canada's election rules that ignored fact [and] mocked expertise”, as well as common sense.

The Conservatives want to take away our right to vote. They want to restrict who can vote only to subsets of Canadian society. A right to vote is not like an ID for driving a car or obtaining firearms, which is a privilege. It is a fundamental human right that is protected, or should be protected, around the world, and a fundamental Canadian value.

In Winnipeg–Centre, we have 1,400 homeless people. Under the old rules, they mattered not. However, they do matter, because they are also Canadian citizens. They are often the poor and disadvantaged, and they should have an equal right to vote, like any other Canadian. I had the opportunity of meeting many homeless during the last federal election in 2015. In fact, I campaigned in many of the homeless shelters. While I could not pay for ID cards for many of my fellow citizens, I did nonetheless encourage them to go out and vote. I was surprised and encouraged to learn that some had taken the opportunity of raising funds themselves to be able to afford and buy an ID card from the Province of Manitoba, which costs $20. For homeless people, this is a substantial investment in democracy and their own well-being.

I remember being with my kids, enjoying a Sunday afternoon, when I was stopped in the street by a gentleman who asked me what we were doing for policies. He reminded me that he had voted in the last federal election and wanted to know what we were doing. People across Canada were disheartened by the Harper Conservatives' attack on democracy. It gave rise to institutions like Idle No More and Indigenous Rock the Vote, which happened across Canada. Organizations and groups of citizens came together to promote the idea of voting in order to take back their rights from people who did not want them to exercise that right.

As a government, we are committed to continuing this legacy. Canada's democracy is made up of each and every citizen, and what they have to say about the country they seek to create. The measures in Bill C-76 are bold and important steps along this path of empowering Canadians and strengthening our electoral process, which have benefited from the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer after the 42nd general election.

Voting must accommodate people. It must accommodate people in their lives, sometimes very busy lives. Bill C-76 would help Canadians vote when and how it works for them. The measures contained within the bill would reduce wait times at polling stations. I remember that in Winnipeg–Centre there were times the lineups stretched outside the polling station because there were so many people who had not voted before. They were concerned about the attacks made by the Harper Conservatives, not only on voting but also the environment, the criminal justice system, and many fundamental Canadian values, ignoring who we are as Canadians.

Bill C-76 would also increase advanced polling to 12 hours a day so that Canadians can easily vote ahead of election day. It is going to make voting more convenient by letting people use their voter information card, as was previously the norm. In the 2011 election, Elections Canada conducted a pilot project on using the voter information card as a voter ID. Elections Canada, the independent organization that runs our elections, recommended that Canadians be able to use their voter information card. The findings were hugely important. Among students, the cards were used by 62% of voters. In seniors residences, the number was 73%. On first nations reserves, they were used by 36% of voters. It is clear that this measure is important for helping Canadians participate in our democracy.

Based on a Statistics Canada study in 2016, 172,000 Canadians in our country could not vote because they did not have the requisite ID they needed. I am proud that our government is going to attempt to address this, to ensure that no one's vote is stolen by an unfair elections act. The changes we are introducing will also reintroduce vouching, so that a voter can allow another Canadian to vote as well.

As has been the case with many initiatives undertaken by our government, this does not represent a radical departure from the norm, but rather the return to a standard Canadian practice and ideal. Undoing the unfair parts of the previous government's unfair elections act means that more Canadians will be able to participate in our democracy.

Participating by voting is more difficult for some people than others, and that is not fair. The men and women in uniform, who risk their lives to protect the rights of all Canadians, deserve to have their right to vote protected. I remember how difficult it was sometimes to vote in our federal elections when I served with the Canadian Armed Forces. Bill C-76 introduces changes that would give Canadian Armed Forces members greater flexibility in how they cast their ballots, while also making sure that it is a secure process, whether they are voting at home or abroad.

Additionally, Bill C-76 would extend the right to vote to approximately one million Canadians who live abroad, ensuring that they, too, have their say in our democracy, for they are also Canadians.

We are also removing barriers to Canadians with disabilities by increasing assistance at polling places and by allowing voting at home. Bill C-76 would provide incentives for parties and candidates to make their activities accessible to and inclusive of people with disabilities. I am very confident that all of my colleagues in the House would welcome new resources for positive and common-sense steps such as having flyers with Braille and ramps at campaign offices. These are small changes that would have a huge impact for our fellow Canadians.

I am proud that while our government is taking steps to empower voters today, we are also looking to the next generation. There can be no question that the young people of Canada are engaged. They are shaping our future, and they should not let the Conservatives take away their right to vote.

The creation of a register of future electors in Bill C-76 would allow Canadians between the ages of 14 and 17 to register with Elections Canada, which would allow them to be added to the voter list automatically when they turn 18. This would have a huge impact on our youth. Provisions in Bill C-76 would make it possible to contact approximately 1.5 million young people as part of civic education initiatives in high school. We need to give power back to fact and reason, and the Chief Electoral Officer knows more about the electoral system than any of us lowly MPs.

Currently, we are 23rd among OECD countries in voter turnout, and encouraging habitual voting among the next generation of young Canadians and indigenous Canadians is a noble and meaningful step forward.

Just as Bill C-76 looks to our youth as the future of our democracy, it also addresses changing realities and what our world will look like tomorrow. Cyber-threats pose a real and serious danger to the integrity of the democratic process everywhere, and Canada must be prepared to meet these challenges with strength and determination to keep our elections secure and transparent.

The bill would also take action to deal with the so-called political bots, software designed to shape people's political opinions online. By banning such malicious practices during elections, we would ensure that Canadians have the confidence that our process is open and based on the truth.

While making sure that elections are fair, our government is also committed to protecting the privacy of all Canadians. Political parties would now be required to have a policy to protect any personal information they collect. This means that parties would have to explain what information they collect and how they will use it. It would also provide a contact person for voters to contact if they have concerns about their privacy.

Democracy is made up of people. It is the voice of our neighbours, colleagues, and friends. On election day, I hope that more Canadians will go out to vote, as they did in Winnipeg Centre, to turf out politicians who have old ways of thinking and who have ignored them for too long, and to cast a ballot for actual change and people who will stand up and defend their rights day in and day out.

Democracy is the heart of our communities and the heart of our country. I know that Bill C-76 would strengthen Canada's democracy, not just for today but for years to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Halifax has to be careful about the testimony he heard this morning. I may have misheard him, although I do not think I did, but the CEO did not place the summer time limit on implementation. He was asked very specifically about things like vouching and some of the changes in here and if his department was getting to work on them. His answer was yes, because Elections Canada saw the introduction of some of Bill C-76 18 months ago and strangely thought that the government was going to introduce the bill any time, as we did too.

Therefore, I wish my friend had shared his newfound sense of urgency with the rest of government, because for 18 months the NDP was knocking on the door asking, “Where's the bill?” Yet for 18 months we heard nothing from the Liberal cabinet or the Prime Minister's Office, which is strange because they were pushing an open door on this one, saying, “Let us get this stuff done.” Then at the last minute, actually after the last minute, after the deadline from Elections Canada, the Liberals come in with an omnibus bill and say it is panic time.

However, there are a lot of things in the bill that we do not understand. There are things in the bill that the minister who introduced it did not understand. When asked about specific components of the bill, he said that, no, they were was not in there but could be introduced with an amendment. Then, three days later, he had to correct himself and say that these things actually were in the law but had not known that they were. Therefore, if there is confusion on the part of the minister who introduced the bill, my friend can understand why we want to look through it carefully, because these are laws that will govern us for maybe a generation. It is unfortunate that the panic on the Liberals' part is now putting a panic on Parliament.

Our job is to get this right. Our job is to make sure that we can introduce it in time, but we are not going to get things wrong, because this matters. This matters to us deeply as New Democrats.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP very admirably voted against the changes made in the previous government's Fair Elections Act. We would reverse those changes, and the NDP supports this. In fact, when discussing the reversal of the Fair Elections Act changes in The Hill Times, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley said that “These are all important things”.

During the committee's study of the Chief Electoral Officer's report following the last federal election, the NDP voted in support of many of his recommendations. Bill C-76 would implement about 85% of the recommendations of the CEO, which make up about 80% of Bill C-76.

Today in the procedure and House affairs committee, the chief electoral officer said that his department was ready to implement this proposed act if we could pass it before the summer recess. Is the member and his party, consistent with their past actions, ready to commit to helping us get this done so that Elections Canada can start implementing these important changes this summer?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for stepping in at the very last minute with a very articulate and thoughtful 10-minute speech, as there was some confusion in the House as to who was next. He is a rookie no more, if he is able to come forward like he did on such a complicated bill as the one we have before us, Bill C-76. It is 350 pages long. It deals with a whole suite of issues with regard to our elections here in Canada.

The process by which the Liberal government got us here has been as much of a challenge and raised more questions than provided answers to Canadians, in terms of who is actually running things over there. When I say “things”, I mean important things like how we have our elections here in Canada.

Let me start by saying that the Liberals promised at the time of the last campaign two and a half years ago to undo some of the changes forced through Parliament by the previous Conservative government in what it called the Fair Elections Act. Many Canadians came to know it as the unfair elections act, simply because in many aspects it sought to do what is often called in political circles “voter suppression”. It did so by changing the standards by which Canadians are able to vote, changing the ID requirements that seemed, both on the surface and in substance, to target certain groups of Canadians—those of lower income, first nations, and young people—in terms of voting ID requirements, in banning the Chief Electoral Officer from doing things like educating Canadians about how it is important to vote, and with a number of other issues that came out as we went to the polls in 2015.

For example, the previous government realized that it had a bit more money than the other parties. One little loophole in our elections act was to have an incredibly long election period. By doing that they essentially doubled the amount of money that parties could spend in that election.

I never really heard a good rationale as to why we needed a 78-day election, as if Canadians could not sit and listen to the views of various candidates in their local ridings, listen to the national leaders, hear a couple of debates, and then make up their minds. Even in a riding like mine, which is 330,000 square kilometres, we have never found it all that much of a struggle in 35 to 40 days to be able to get out and meet people.

The government did that. The previous Conservative government did that because they could spend more money. They had more money so they spent more money. It did not work out in the end, but it was an attempt that is now being fixed by Bill C-76.

How we got here is a serious concern. The promises made then by the newly minted Liberal government were to undo much of what had been done with regard to vouching, education, and all of these other issues by the previous government, and it introduced a bill to that end. The government said, “Here is our bill. It's going to get rid of the stuff that Stephen Harper did” . Then it sat on it for 28 months.

We were writing to the government. We were calling the government and the democratic institutions minister out, both the previous one and the current one, asking where the bill was. Tick tock. We had heard from Elections Canada, which runs our elections, that it needed any legislation and major changes to be passed as of April this year, not introduced but passed through the House of Commons, through the Senate, and to receive royal recommendation, so that it could implement the changes. Any delay would risk the changes coming to fruition in time for the next election.

It made sense. Elections Canada needs that time to train its workers, to educate Canadians, especially if there is anything big coming. Well, Bill C-76 is big. It is 350 pages long. The Liberals themselves call it a “generational change”. If it is a generational change with regard to our elections, one would think there would be some urgency to introduce it in time so that the Chief Electoral Officer and all the people who work during our elections would have time to implement it. However, the due date for the homework came and went.

The day after the Liberals introduced this omnibus bill, this generational change, they still had not hired a Chief Electoral Officer, by the way, a role that hung vacant for 18 months. Apparently they finished interviews last October. This morning I met the nominee for the first time and we asked him about the process. Yes, he had interviewed back in October and he got a call in February. It was a nice little chat. The first time he heard about an actual nominee was the first time we as parliamentarians had heard about a new Chief Electoral Officer from the pages of the Toronto Star.

The Liberal government wanted to leak its nominee, so it did, and then two weeks later, that nominee was gone. Then there was a new letter from the Prime Minister announcing a new nominee, and we asked, quite rightly, what happened to the other guy? Did he do something wrong? Was he no longer qualified? He seemed qualified. There was no explanation from the Prime Minister or the minister.

Many people describe our democracy and elections like an ecosystem: all the rules are in place and there is a person bringing the rules forward and enforcing them. We kind of want it to be like a great hockey game. At the end of a great hockey game, we do not really picture the referees, do we? They did not really factor into it too much. They called penalties fairly for both sides and administered the game. That is what we want the Chief Electoral Officer to be like. We want him to have a clear and fair set of rules for everyone to play by, calling out the bad actors when they do something wrong, but we do not really want them front and centre. We do not want the rules to be the question; we want the competitors, those seeking the vote and the hope of Canadians, to be the story. That gets very difficult if major rule changes are introduced at the last minute. If we are hiring the referee at the last minute, we make the whole job of running an election in Canada, which is difficult already, even harder.

With a Liberal government that had blatantly betrayed a promise that was repeated 1,800 times to Canadians that 2015 would be the last election under first past the post, a government that has already lost the favour and trust of many Canadians when it comes to democratic voting issues, one would have thought there would be a whole bunch of urgency and importance placed on something like this to try to regain some of that trust, the basic trust in the competence of the government to bring in rules, the basic trust in the government's willingness to work with the other parties. We have had a long tradition in Canada, regardless of which government is in power, that whenever we make major changes to the rules that govern our democracy, there would be not just an attempt but also a standard to achieve consensus among the major political actors, so that Canadians could understand that there was no bias in the rules and that the rules were not put in place to favour one party over another. The way to do that is to consult meaningfully, to seek and achieve the agreement of each of the parties.

Unfortunately, that tradition, which is not required in law but is something we should consider, was broken by the previous Conservative government. It wanted to bring in changes that the other parties and Canadians broadly did not like or agree with, and rather than negotiate and work with us in the full light of day, the then Harper government forced the debate through Parliament. It shut down debate time and time again, and the Liberals screamed as loud as anybody else about how unfair that was. We have a raft of quotes from Liberals in this House from that time.

The Liberals in fact introduced an opposition day motion condemning the Conservative government for doing it, and voted for that, saying, “How dare they shut down debate in Canada's Parliament around our election laws.” What did we see last week? The Liberals introduced a motion to shut down debate about changes to our election laws, as if they had not read their own speeches, as if they had not participated in the election that got them here, in which they said they would be different and would not do the terrible, nasty tricks that Stephen Harper did, and we believed them. We believed them because it had been so blatant and they had a mandate to be better, to be different from the previous government.

I should say before my time runs out that there are, of course, a number of things in this bill that New Democrats like: the reinstitution of vouching; creating the future electors list; helping folks with disabilities; helping veterans vote freely and fairly; making education part of the mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer, and not just how, where, and when to vote, but why to vote, especially encouraging young people. The Liberals make it so hard sometimes. They make it so hard to agree with them sometimes. Sometimes they do the right thing, but they do it so late, so poorly, and they do not talk to anybody. There is this strange sense of entitlement of their, one that I think they have to clean out their system. I do not know if it is possible for them to do that, because it has been baked in there, for some of them, for generations.

They have to understand that for the health of our democracy, for the health of that ecosystem, to grow and be nourished, we need to listen to all sides. We need to have respect for all sides, whether we agree with them or not. We need to come up with election laws that Canadians can trust to be non-partisan and to be fair for all actors involved, so that when Canadians cast their votes, they know that the rules are fair, the referee is fair, and that they can freely and fairly decide who will speak on their behalf.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today on the debate on Bill C-76. I know we have had a lot of conversations in this House of Commons about the Liberals and their plans for debating this bill or the ideas behind the bill.

As this House knows, Bill C-33 was languishing at first reading for 18 months. We then finally had the government bring in Bill C-76 on April 30. That was precisely during the month when the acting Chief Electoral Officer had informed the government and all members of Parliament that he wanted to see the changes on behalf of Elections Canada put in place in April 2018 so that Elections Canada would have the opportunity to implement the changes in time for the 2019 election. Here we are. It is now well past the halfway mark in May, and we are debating the bill at second reading.

I am by no means making an argument that the House should not have its look at this legislation. My main criticism is that the government has been sitting on this file for so long and has really left it to the eleventh hour to bring in major reform of our electoral system. The Liberals have made arguments that this issue has been looked at by the procedure and House affairs committee and that these concepts have been debated. I acknowledge that this is the case, but debating issues and policies at the procedure and House affairs committee is very different from actually looking at a piece of legislation, especially one that is as large as this particular bill. To dump this bill into the House of Commons on April 30, to have its first-day debate on May 10, then May 11, and then today, and then to suddenly expect the House of Commons to do its due diligence, when the government was aware all along of the constraints it was facing, really does a grave injustice to the people of Canada and to the members of this House who are here representing the people of Canada.

The other thing that we in the NDP are fairly critical of is the fact that there were some missed opportunities in this piece of legislation. For example, we all know that this Prime Minister, both in the 2015 election campaign and in this House, repeated the promise that 2015 would be the last election held under first past the post. That is a missed opportunity.

We had a special committee on electoral reform. I had the honour of sitting on that committee when it was going through the Atlantic provinces, and I remember hearing from Atlantic Canadians, both experts in the field and normal, everyday Canadians, who took time out of their day to appear before our committee in Halifax, in St. John's, in Fredericton, and in Charlottetown, to give us their views on what electoral reform should be. I thought the report by that special committee, which was formed by this House upon the recommendation of my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, was quite comprehensive and reflected a majority of the views of Canadians.

The way we reached a consensus was that all the parties on the opposition benches tried to work out our differences. I know that my Conservative colleagues have had a few problems with some of our ideas on electoral reform, but we in the NDP, the Green Party, and the Bloc Québécois decided that to arrive at a compromise so that we could have a committee report backed by the majority of the members on that committee, we would agree to hold a referendum to give Canadians the ability to decide whether they wanted to go past first past the post into a new system that would perhaps be something closer to proportional representation. It is just a fact of life here in Parliament that the governing party usually gets in with 39% of the vote. The ironic thing is that 60% to 61% of Canadians actually vote for members of the opposition parties, yet our voices continually lose out when it comes to votes in this place.

On the subject of missed opportunities, my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway mentioned this. There was an opportunity to go back and extend the media blackout so that the citizens of British Columbia who had yet to cast their votes would not be unduly influenced by a broadcaster announcing the results before the polls closed. We talk about fairness in this place. Where is the fairness for British Columbia when people are lining up at 6:30 or are just about to leave the house to go vote, and CBC comes online and says that the election has already been won and that we are going to get a Liberal majority? That is not fair to the people of British Columbia.

I acknowledge that we cannot do anything about social media. We cannot do anything about people on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram announcing the results, but we can at least make an effort so that our major broadcasters are not dumping this on the news and providing those kinds of updates. That was a missed opportunity.

I also think that in some ways, we could have provided an opportunity for a per-vote subsidy. In the NDP, we have always talked about this. The argument made is that we should not have public financing of our political system. Guess what, folks. When people make donations, especially generous donations, they are eligible for tax credits, which they can then apply, so we are actually giving people a reward from our public funds. Political parties are eligible for reimbursement of a certain percentage of their eligible election expenses. Our tax dollars are already being used, but they reward people with the means to make donations.

Before I continue, I want to notify the House that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

Continuing in that vein, a lot of my constituents struggle to pay the bills. Usually these families are living day to day and paycheque to paycheque, and they do not have the means to invest $100 in a political party. They certainly do not have the means to invest $1,500.

Through this system, political parties have to chase the money to stay competitive. I would like to see a system in which votes are put more on an equal plane and political parties are, in fact, rewarded for going after and getting the vote out rather than for going out and seeking the highest donor to fund their election expenses.

There are some good things. I will use the last bit of my speech to talk about the limit that would be placed on election length in this particular bill. I very much appreciate that the government has adopted my idea, because I introduced Bill C-279 in 2016, which sought to place a cap on the length of elections of a maximum of 46 days. I got this idea from the 2015 election, when we all had to go through the marathon 78-day campaign. I had a lot of constituents asking me why we needed an election that was 78 days and saying that they could easily make their decision in 36 days or 40 days. Obviously, the intent was to lengthen the election to such a point that money became an incredibly huge factor.

When we look at our neighbours to the south, the influence of money in politics is an insidious thing and can be a slippery slope. I am very glad the government has taken my private member's bill and sucked it up into Bill C-76 to make it part of this legislation. I am very glad to see that.

I am also glad to see that we will be registering future electors from age 14 to 17 and that we will allow child care expenses to be reimbursed. I would like to see more single parents have the opportunity to run as candidates. If we are truly going to be a representative House, we have to start reaching out to members of our society who do not often get that opportunity. We had an opportunity with the member for Burnaby South's bill, which would have rewarded political parties for trying to establish equity.

I see that my time is almost up. I will conclude by just acknowledging that the NDP will be giving its support in principle to this bill at second reading. We, of course, know that there will be a lot of hard work ahead in committee.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is a very simple “yes”. A number of measures within this very weighty bill are focused on the Canada Elections Act to help make election financing more transparent, to increase the access of eligible Canadians to the ballot box, and to in general allow Elections Canada to educate Canadian people on where, when, and how to vote. This is a tremendous step forward, one that we might not have had to take if it were not for the Fair Elections Act of the previous government. I see in Bill C-76 that we are not only making up the lost ground but covering some excellent new ground as well.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Democratic Reform

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleague on this bill. I am glad he brought up the unfair elections act, because Bill C-76 does so much to reverse the changes that were put in place that limited democracy and limited people's rights to vote, and we are looking forward to working with our colleagues in the NDP to make sure that we can encourage more people to vote in Canada, get young people voting, encourage women to run for politics, and ensure that we are protecting the integrity of our electoral system.

Elections Modernization Act

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on this important bill, Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act.

This legislation is about ensuring that we break the barriers Canadians have been facing in their efforts to participate in our democracy. It is a significant piece of legislation. It will make our electoral process more secure and transparent by regulating advertising during pre-election and election periods, prohibiting foreign entities from spending any money to influence Canadian elections, and requiring political parties to provide an easy-to-read privacy policy.

Although there are many parts to this bill, today, I want to talk about how this legislation will make it easier to vote and ensure that all Canadians are able to participate in our democratic process.

Although there are many parts to this bill, today I want to talk about how this proposed legislation would make it easier for eligible Canadians to vote and how the bill would ensure that all Canadians are able to participate in our democratic process.

Whether a Canadian is living abroad, has a disability, is in the Armed Forces, lives in a care facility, is at university, has no fixed address, or is working an inflexible schedule to provide for their family, no one should face barriers to vote. Voting is a right, and as the federal government, it is our responsibility to make voting accessible to all Canadians. I firmly believe that the strength of our democracy depends on the participation of as many Canadians as possible, and that is why first and foremost this proposed legislation would undo many of the restrictive voting laws put in place by the previous government.

The previous government also put in place legislation to amend the Canada Elections Act, but its legislation was not drafted with Canadians and their needs in mind. It made it harder for Canadians to vote. Among other things, the so-called Fair Elections Act eliminated the use of vouching and the use of voter identification cards as a form of ID. This was a form of voter suppression. It was the gerrymandering of not a polling district's boundaries but rather the gerrymandering of the very act of voting itself.

A 2016 Statistics Canada survey found that approximately 170,000 Canadians did not participate in the last election because of the Conservatives' decision to make voting less accessible. The Harper government was determined to wring political gain from every measure and was determined to bring a fierce partisanship to something that ought to not have been partisan.

Official opposition members will tell us that it is not that hard for Canadians to obtain proper ID. They will make false comparisons between voting and boarding an airplane or buying a six-pack of beer. In fact, how curious to hear from the member for Banff—Airdrie raise this old canard this afternoon mere hours after he and I both heard the acting Chief Electoral Officer say at the procedure and House affairs committee that voter ID cards need to be used in conjunction with another piece of ID in proving the elector's identity. The names must match on the identification and the VIC. The level of integrity in that process is very high. We used it in 2011 and there were no concerns of fraudulent use.

Therefore, let us retire this old fiction, shall we?

According to Elections Canada, 68.3% of eligible voters cast their ballot in 2015, which is up 7%, or over 2.5 million, from 2011. This was not because the Conservatives' Fair Elections Act removed barriers to voting but rather because Canadians stood up against the barriers created by the Conservatives. We have listened to Canadians, and we have been delivering and will continue to deliver real change for the middle class and for all Canadians.

For Nova Scotians, getting a piece of government-issued ID is not always affordable. The cost of a driver's licence is nearly $90. The cost of a passport is over $100. Reinstating both vouching and the voter ID card will help not just Nova Scotians at the polls but all Canadians who cannot afford these pieces of identification to vote.

Bill C-76 would repeal many elements of the previous government's legislation and ensure that all Canadians have the ability to participate in a democratic process. We believe that voter participation actually strengthens our democratic system—unlike the Conservatives, who continue to produce barriers and continue to breed cynicism around our democratic processes.

My constituents in Halifax have shared with me their concerns about how difficult it can be to vote. Long lines at the polls, unexpected life events, work or personal responsibilities, confusion around where to vote, and lacking proper ID are all reasons to stay home on election day. Canadians in my riding work hard, and I suspect my colleagues in all corners of this House would say the same about their constituents. No one should be prevented from voting because they are working hard to provide for their family, caring for a loved one, are away from home for work or school, or have other responsibilities on election day.

We can make voting more convenient.

The elections modernization bill will make voting more convenient for all Canadians. We will streamline the intake procedures during regular and advance polls to reduce wait times, and increase the hours of advance polls to 12-hour days.

Currently, there are barriers in place that have made it more difficult for some Canadians to take part in the democratic process. This includes persons with disabilities, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and Canadians living abroad. We want to make it easier for all Canadians to engage with our democracy.

This legislation would increase support and assistance for Canadians with disabilities by expanding accommodation measures to include all Canadians with disabilities, not just those with physical disabilities, and this includes expanding the option of at-home voting.

Let us talk about Canadian Armed Forces members, who make tremendous sacrifices protecting and defending our democracy. Our government will make it easier for soldiers, sailors, and air personnel to participate in our democracy. We will do this by allowing them the flexibility to vote at regular polls where they reside in Canada, to vote abroad, to vote in advance polls, or to vote in special military polls, as they currently do. This is a big issue for voters in my riding, Halifax, many of whom serve in the Royal Canadian Navy. I hope that my colleagues who represent ridings with Canadian Armed Forces personnel will be in support of the bill.

I imagine there is not a single member of the House who does not represent some constituents living abroad. Whether they are there for work, for school, or to support their families, Canadians living abroad should still have the option to continue to participate in our democracy and have their say on issues that are important to them. Currently, non-resident Canadians may vote only within five years of leaving Canada and must demonstrate an intention to return to Canada.

Through Bill C-76, our government will restore voting rights to more than one million Canadians living abroad.

In the past, Elections Canada has engaged in a range of educational activities with Canadians as part of its core mandate of administering elections. Unbelievably, in 2014, the Harper Conservatives limited the Chief Electoral Officer's education mandate, removing the CEO's ability to offer education programs to new Canadians and historically disenfranchised groups.

Our government believes the Chief Electoral Officer should be able to communicate with all Canadians about how to access their democratic rights. Our government believes the participation of as many Canadians as possible is essential to having a strong democracy.

That is why Bill C-76 would restore the Chief Electoral Officer's mandate to undertake broad public education campaigns about elections. This is not about partisanship. This is about ensuring that all Canadians know where, when, and how to vote. We want Canadians to be ready for election day.

Through the bill, we would empower Canadians to vote and, more broadly, to participate in our democracy. I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to strengthening Canada's democratic institutions. We want to restore Canadians' trust in our democracy and, if passed, Bill C-76 will do just that.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Halifax.

It is my honour to speak in favour of Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act. There are many important facets of the bill, but today I will focus on how this legislation would address barriers that prevent some Canadians from participating in the democratic process.

There are four groups of people that regularly encounter difficulties at the ballot box: persons with disabilities, those who have difficulty producing identification, electors living abroad for more than five years, and women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Let me begin with electors who have disabilities, both physical and cognitive. Elections Canada has made efforts to help electors with mobility issues by introducing provisions to provide what has been referred to as level access. An example is providing ramps for wheelchairs at polling stations.

The bill would expand upon the options for persons with disabilities who, for reasons of their disabilities, would be better served by casting their votes in locations other than their originally assigned polling stations. Currently, to acquire a transfer certificate, an elector needs to apply in person to the returning officer or the deputy returning officer. Under the provisions of this bill, the Chief Electoral Officer would be given greater discretion as to how to provide that certificate, with an eye to making it easier for persons with disabilities to vote.

Another provision of this bill would expand the ability of electors with disabilities to be visited by an election officer to vote at home. This option would be available where the polling station was not accessible to the elector.

Another kind of barrier is encountered when electors come to the polls and find that they do not have the appropriate ID to provide their name and address. Following the 2015 election, Statistics Canada found that an estimated 172,000 electors who did not vote stated a lack of ID as the reason.

The bill before us would restore the authorization of the voter information card as identification at the polls and the practice of vouching by another eligible elector for the identity and residence of someone without the necessary ID.

Research has shown that when authorized, voter information cards have been beneficial to groups that have traditionally voted in lower percentages than the national average. These groups include students and indigenous electors. The research also demonstrates that seniors in residences and long-term care facilities use voter information cards as ID 73% of the time. These cards are readily identifiable, easy to use, and with appropriate safeguards, a secure way to establish a right to vote. Indeed, during a federal election, these cards are perhaps the most accurate piece of government-issued identification.

The Chief Electoral Officer has long recommended allowing these cards to be used. The bill before us would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to add the voter information card as an approved form of ID, at his or her discretion. To ensure the continued integrity of the process, an elector would still be required to show an additional piece of identification confirming identity, alongside the voter information card, as was the case prior to the adoption of the so-called Fair Elections Act.

The bill before us would also restore the practice of vouching as a method to make voting more accessible. Under the provisions of this bill, an eligible voter would be able to establish both the identity and the residence of an otherwise eligible voter who did not have ID. In other words, they could vouch for the voter.

Restoring vouching would make it easier for people without the required ID, such as individuals who are homeless, to vote. However, we would ensure that there were safeguards so that the vouching system was not abused. The person vouching would have to have proper ID and reside in the same polling division as the elector being vouched for. One elector would not be able to vouch for more than one other elector, and an elector who had been vouched for could not then vouch for another elector. This would prevent the practice of serial vouching, in which people might in effect vouch for each other.

This brings me to the third group currently denied access to Canadian elections: Canadians who have lived abroad for more than five consecutive years. Under the bill before us, electors who have lived more than five consecutive years outside of Canada would be entitled to vote. The electors would also no longer need to have a stated intention to return to Canada.

The current system provides non-resident voters with a wide choice among the electoral districts where their ballots could be counted. The bill before us would stipulate that non-resident electors would be required to vote in the electoral district corresponding to their last place of ordinary residence in Canada.

Finally, let me turn to the Canadian Armed Forces electors, whose voting rights are defined in division 2 of part 11 of the Canada Elections Act. These provisions were initially implemented to help armed forces personnel participate in the election process. Over the years, other parts of the act have been amended to reflect changing realities, but division 2 of part 11 has not. This facet is important to me because in Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley is a Canadian Forces base, 17 Wing Winnipeg, and other important military institutions that play a crucial role in the community.

It is our responsibility as members to protect the rights of our brave women and men who protect us on a daily basis. Elections Canada has been working with the Canadian Armed Forces to determine the best way to facilitate voting by Canadian Armed Forces electors. The bill before us would provide Canadian Armed Forces electors with options for voting similar to those enjoyed by other Canadians. The statement of “ordinary residence” would be eliminated and Canadian Forces electors would be able to update their information like any other elector. This would enable them to cast their votes in the electoral district to which they have the strongest connection.

Since we now have fixed election dates, the Minister of National Defence would be able to designate election liaison officers to help facilitate the military polls before the writ is dropped. It is hoped that the percentage of Canadian Forces electors who cast a vote will increase in the next election as a result of these measures.

Each of the provisions I discussed will not only make it easier for Canadians to participate in elections but will also strengthen our democratic institutions and our democracy as a whole. I hope hon. members from all parties will support this bill and I look forward to a thoughtful and fruitful debate on this important matter.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-76 is not an omnibus bill. “Omni” means pertaining to all things. That would be if a bill was about beef and veterans or about health and defence. This is about one thing only, and that is the Canada Elections Act.

Members may recall that during the debate on the previous government's Fair Elections Act, the former Conservative member for Mississauga—Streetsville claimed that he had witnessed voter information cards being stolen from garbage cans and given to others to use to vote for fraudulent purposes. Of course, he later had to retract that, because it was a false statement. That was very interesting.

Even earlier today, the hon. member's colleague talked about people being able to pull voter ID cards out of mailboxes. People cannot use those unless they have ID that has their address on it. There is no fear here. This led to the acting Chief Electoral Officer, just this morning, telling PROC that there was zero evidence of fraud during the 2011 election and that he considers the integrity of the voter ID card to be extremely high.

I wonder if the member could tell the House why he is so focused on gerrymandering, not political boundaries, but gerrymandering the very act of voting itself in this country.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand to speak to this legislation.

The Liberal government is really good at saying one thing and doing another, and Bill C-76 is another classic example of exactly this point.

First, the fact is that this is an omnibus bill. It is a 350-page bill. The Liberals can say what they want about the previous government's use of omnibus legislation, but they have plain out campaigned against the use of it. The 2015 Liberal Party platform said:

...Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

Here we are today, debating a 350-page piece of legislation. It is certainly omnibus legislation, and not the Liberals first use of it either. There is a term I could use to describe that, but it is unparliamentary language so I will not use it.

However, members do not have to take it from me. Senate Liberal Joseph Day stated recently, “This government has evidently abandoned its election promise to end the practice of omnibus bills”, and indeed it has. Bill C-76 is a shining example of that.

That is not the only broken promise or the use of Liberal doublespeak I will be talking about today. In fact, that is just the tip of the legislative iceberg on the level of egregiousness the Liberals have used in this bill.

What is worse is that the Liberals sat on the predecessor of Bill C-76, which was Bill C-33, for almost two years without debating it even once. November 24, 2016, was when Bill C-33 was tabled. It is now past the eleventh hour. The deadline of April 30 was set by the acting Chief Electoral Officer. He stated for some time, as did his predecessor, that action needed to be taken by a certain time in order to change electoral legislation.

I think it was a few weeks ago when the acting Chief Elector Officer was before the procedure and House affairs committee once again. He testified that April 30, 2018, was the absolute drop-dead date that he would need to have legislation, with royal assent, in order to have it implemented prior to the 2019 federal election. Maybe the Liberals slightly misunderstood that and thought it had to be tabled by April 30, because that is when they tabled the legislation. However, the Chief Electoral Officer was quite clear that the bill would need to have had passed and received royal assent by that date. Therefore, here we are late into May and just starting to debate it.

The Liberals have slapped a bunch more changes on Bill C-33 and have rushed it out the door. We have even heard reports of the Liberal's minister did not knowing what was in the bill. This was indicated in a Huffington Post article, entitled “Bill C-76: Democratic Institutions Minister's Office Didn't Know Elections Bill Closes Loophole”. Even their own minister and his office were not familiar themselves with what was in the bill. That is how quickly the Liberals rushed this thing out. Then they expected members of Parliament to digest the 350-plus pages so quickly that after one hour of debate, they gave notice of time allocation.

The minister has invited members of Parliament to submit amendments to the bill, but as it turns out, the bill already would accomplish things that the minister did not even realize. The minister's communications director told the Huffington Post in that same article “neither she nor [the minister] was aware that the bill actually addresses the long-standing loophole.”

He went on to say:

She wasn't certain why all the government's communications material relating to Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act, makes no mention of it or why officials had also glossed over the change.

As a legislator, that certainly does not instill too much confidence in me and my colleagues when neither the minister nor his staff know what this legislation does, or what is even contained in it. I am not sure whether that is incompetence or a result of political masters having no idea of what bureaucrats are doing, or what it is, but any way, it is completely unacceptable.

What we have in Bill C-76 is the Liberals claiming to fix a problem, but actually making it worse in the process. What they are proposing with regard to third party spending, for example, would increase the potential opportunities for foreign money and foreign interference in our democratic process. There have been numerous claims about millions of dollars in foreign funding being funnelled into third party advocacy groups here in Canada during the last election. It is something we have raised time and again as an issue and a problem. If we look at the Ontario provincial election currently in progress, we can see the practice of third party advocacy and advertising in action now. Global News reporter, David Akin tweeted on May 4:

Coincidental? As shadowy @ActWow seeds social networks fear-mongering about Ford cutting healthcare, latest release from @ontario_liberal party is … fear-monering about Ford cutting public services.

Akin was wondering whether the messaging being tied together in that regard was just coincidental.

Canadians would certainly not have an issue if these third parties were solely funded and supported by Canadian money, because third party groups certainly have a right to have its say in our elections. However, I think people would expect that these would be funded and supported by Canadians, and not a result foreign money coming in to push viewpoints upon Canadians and to interfere in our elections. However, we are certainly seeing more of that. We are seeing foreign entities funnelling money into Canada through these third party groups to try to affect the outcomes of our elections. I think all Canadians expect that only Canadians should be allowed to determine the outcome of our elections.

Foreign interference in Canadian policy is happening already, and it is time that the Liberals realized it. There are groups like the U.S.-based Tides Foundation that have poured considerable amounts of money and manpower into shutting down our oil industry. Its goal is to land-lock Alberta and our oil, and it does not care how many Canadians it puts out of jobs. It does not care how many opportunities are lost to Canadians as a result. It is not concerned about that.

The loudest groups, like those against the Trans Mountain expansion project, are usually foreign funded. They are acting in ways that do not serve the best interests of Canada. However, only Canadians should be able to determine Canadian policy.

Currently, Canadians are allowed to contribute $1,575 annually to political parties or to candidates, and corporations or unions are completely banned from making those types of contributions. Under the government's proposed legislation, foreign entities could contribute an unlimited amount to third parties to engage in campaign activities just weeks before an election.

Third parties wish to behave like political parties and engage in campaigning. That is certainly fine. We live in a democracy. They are able to do that. However, they should be required to follow the same rules that political parties do. They should be held to the same kinds of standards that political parties are. If a political party needs to account for and pay for campaign expenses like polling and organizing rallies, so should third parties.

If not, John Ivison of the National Post rightfully pointed out that it could lead to U.S.-style political action committees emerging, funded in part by foreign money, to influence federal elections. It is not just me and my colleagues in the Conservative Party who are speaking to this; it is coming from a media source as well, and others out there. It is certainly a pretty accurate concern. It is a concern that many Canadians would have if they were aware of this.

Does the Liberal government want to see big money, foreign-backed political action committees here in Canada? I ask because that is what we are getting, and it is due to its inaction on this very serious threat to our democracy. The vote and voice of each Canadian is diminished when foreign parties try to sway the outcome of our elections. Foreign interference in our elections is a concern I have heard from many Canadians, and I am sure that all members have heard those same kinds of concerns.

I will turn now to another common concern I hear, namely, voter identification. It is really unfortunate that the Liberal government is going to weaken the laws on the requirements for proving one's identity when one votes. The Liberals want to move backward and allow the use of voter information cards as acceptable pieces of ID for voting.

There is a high rate of error in the elections register. Elections Canada shows that in the National Register of Electors, there can be error rates as high as 16% in the records at any given time. It is a very significant, high rate. In the last election, the rate of erroneous cards sent out was also quite high. There were nearly one million of them erroneously sent out in the 2015 election. This policy could really have far-reaching implications, and certainly leaves our Canadian democratic process open to the potential for fraud.

In their response to Parliament and written Question No. 333, Elections Canada and the Privy Council Office said that “there were 986,613 updates to elector information during the revision period which resulted in another Voter Information Card (VIC) being mailed to the elector.” That was during the last election.

As well, there were 509,397 individuals who received voter information cards, representing about two per cent of the voter information cards, who proactively advised Elections Canada of incorrect information on the cards. Those are the numbers of those who notified them.

How many more did not, in fact, notify Elections Canada of errors? It was about 16%, as I mentioned earlier, according to the testimony of the previous Chief Electoral Officer, Mark Mayrand, of Elections Canada. He confirmed the statistic I just gave: 16% of entries in the National Register of Electors are erroneous at any given time. He also indicated that after the revisions period during an election, the error rate is still approximately 12%. That is a pretty significant error rate, one that could potentially affect three million or four million electors, because the National Register of Electors contains about 26 million electors.

This legislation would allow the use of the voter information cards, which have an average error rate of 16%, as an acceptable form of ID to vote. Again, 16% is roughly four million electors. That means that with voter information cards, nearly four million electors could be sent erroneous information. For the life of me, I do not understand how the Liberal government could see that as acceptable. Right now, there is a long list of potential pieces of ID that can be used and are acceptable to Elections Canada for voting.

There are 39 potential forms of ID available for electors to use. They range from drivers' licences, to bank statements, to letters confirming residency, and even e-statements and e-invoices are acceptable if they are shown on a mobile device. There are 39 different forms, and it is hard to imagine a scenario in which someone would not have one of the 39 forms, and yet they would have a correct voter information card. That is very hard to imagine.

It is really not too much to ask that Canadians show some form of ID before casting a ballot? That is not unreasonable, and it is not just me who thinks that. Canadians overwhelming accept that showing ID before voting is a positive thing. When polled, 87% of Canadians indicate it is reasonable to require someone to prove their identity before they vote. The Liberal government needs to explain to those Canadians why it does not think that ID should be required to vote. Why does it not want to protect our electors from potential voter fraud?

We want to encourage as many Canadians as possible to vote, but we have to do everything we can to ensure that we prevent all potential avenues of voter fraud as well. People are expected to show ID before they rent a car, check into a hotel, buy alcohol or tobacco, or consume marijuana, and before they board an airplane. I could go on and on with that list. Why not for voting as well? That is a question the government has failed to answer, but leave it to the government to introduce a bill that is 350 pages long and lacks some specifics.

There have been all kinds of attempts by the government to make changes to its benefit. The Liberals have been caught in scandal after scandal, with ethics violations and cash for access to the Prime Minister, and when they tried to make electoral changes to their benefit. If they had wanted to do something to strengthen democracy rather than attempt to benefit themselves, they would not have sat on their hands with this piece of legislation for two years. They waited until we were past the eleventh hour to bring forward this legislation, and nothing was done to properly consult with opposition parties in the process either.

Conservative Party members have raised the issue of foreign interference in our elections multiple times. The Liberals could have maintained that voters need to have proven identity to vote. They could have ensured there were proper privacy safeguards for our children, but none of those things were done. We are left with a massive disaster of omnibus legislation that the Liberals are trying to rush through after waiting and delaying and making other attempts to try to benefit themselves. Here we are with legislation that is 350 pages long. After one hour of debate, they moved notice of time allocation. It is absolutely astounding that the government breaks every promise it has made during the election. It continually says one thing and does another, and this legislation is another example of that.

We will continue to push the Liberals on that, and I know that Canadians will hold them accountable as well. I look forward to taking questions on the bill.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I will be splitting my time with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, the very dynamic Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, who does a wonderful job advocating for her constituents.

We tend to take democracy for granted and in some way I suppose this is understandable when one is born into one of the best democracies in the world, Canada's. When one is born into a democracy or relative prosperity, it is not always easy to imagine there was a time when things were not as good, or there are places in the world that have not achieved this level of democracy or prosperity. In this regard, sometimes it is new Canadians, refugees especially, who remind us that there are places in the world where there is no democracy, where there are strong-arm dictators, where there are no rights, and where there is corruption. Sometimes we forget that when we debate in the House. We do not realize there are places where there are real democratic problems.

We live here, in Canada, the best democracy in the world. It is a highly evolved democracy, one based on respect for individual rights and freedoms. However, it is flexible enough to also recognize and respect the rights and interests of communities, in particular official language minority communities.

That said, we must respond to any attempt to weaken the underlying principles that support our great democracy. That is the objective in part of this bill, which would reverse certain measures previously implemented in an attempt to suppress Canadians' right to vote. Bill C-76 would also establish measures to strengthen the foundation of our democratic system by also fostering a higher participation rate in federal elections through education programs and the registration on the voter list of youth from the age of 14, even before they have the right to vote. We want to give them the opportunity to get on the voter list in advance.

Voting is a hard-earned right, something we must encourage in order to have a better and stronger democracy, a democracy where government decisions reflect the will of the largest number of people, and not of special interests. Voter suppression does not serve the democratic interest, obviously.

What would Bill C-76 do? It would do a number of things to improve our democracy. Let us start with the fact it would limit the length of elections.

As we know, 2015 will go down in history as the longest campaign ever. Ironically, the previous government brought in fixed-election dates purportedly to prevent governments from using election timing for partisan advantage, but then it broke the spirit of that legislation by calling an election in 2008, long before the fixed date and without real reason.

Bill C-76 tries to prevent governments from using their position and their insider information to manipulate the electoral process to their advantage, to create campaigns that last 60 or 90 days for partisan reasons.

I heard the hon. member say that the timing of the election by the former prime minister was done out of a great sense of fairness. That was not the case: there were strategies behind the timing of the dropping of that writ. Bill C-76 tries try to do away with this power that governments have to manipulate the length of an election for their own purposes.

Bill C-76 would also make important changes to spending limits. Our Canadian democracy, while resembling many advanced democracies, also has its own shadings, if I may say. Most Canadians believe that diversity, including diversity of opinion, is essential to a healthy democracy. This does not mean that some views will not win out in an electoral contest, but only that the electorate has a right to be exposed to a variety of ideas in order to have a broad choice of ideas that a majority of voters will judge most desirable, and thus merit implementation.

In Canada, we believe that measures to safeguard and promote diversity of opinion are essential to a well-functioning and healthy democracy.

Our neighbour to the south, the United States, has a different view of this, in a way. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken the view that money is speech, and that those with more money have a bigger say, as it were. I refer to a court case in the United States in 1976, Buckley v. Valeo, where the majority ruled that spending limits during elections are unconstitutional because they contravene the first amendment right to freedom of speech.

In that decision, a minority view was expressed. Justice Byron White dissented in part and qualified election spending as “a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken.”

Justice Byron's view is more in line with that of our own Supreme Court, which has taken the egalitarian or “level playing field” position when it comes to spending limits.

In 2004, for example, in the case of the Attorney General of Canada v. Stephen Joseph Harper, the court found that although spending limits, in that case third party spending limits, infringe on section 2(b) of the charter, the law was reasonable and justified under section 1. By a majority of six to three, the court ruled:

In the absence of spending limits, it is possible for the affluent or a number of persons pooling their resources and acting in concert to dominate the political discourse, depriving their opponents of a reasonable opportunity to speak and be heard, and undermining the voter’s ability to be adequately informed of all views.

We know, for example, that the fixed election date law that was brought in by the previous government had, in a sense, an unintended consequence. When we know when the election is going to be, spending can be ramped up. If candidates can afford it, they can ramp up spending well in advance of the date that the writ is to be dropped. We saw that happen in spades in the last Parliament. We saw the Conservative Party ramping up its partisan advertising long before the writ was dropped.

Bill C-76 is essentially trying to correct that unintended consequence of fixed election dates by making it illegal to engage in partisan advertising in the pre-election period, defined as beginning June 30 of the election year. To be more precise, it will be allowed but only to a maximum of $1.5 million.

This bill also encourages voting by allowing young people in Canada, those 14 and over, to register to vote when they turn 18. In other words, it encourages them to start thinking about voting long in advance.

I know we all visit classrooms, and we see that students are quite interested in what is going on in the political realm and the societal realm. This goes against the narrative we always hear about young people being disengaged from politics or being apathetic. When we go into classrooms, regardless of the party to which we belong, we all see that young people are indeed keenly interested. We owe it to the teachers in this country who take it upon themselves, either as part of a curriculum course or outside the constraints of the curriculum, to engage students about politics.

This bill will allow students to register, and will of course create discussion within classrooms. They will start thinking about who they might want to vote for, or which party they might want to vote for. As has been said many times in this House, once somebody votes, especially at a young age, they are more likely to continue voting throughout their lifetime. This particular measure in the bill will encourage first-time voting for young people. This is another very good aspect of the bill.

I will leave it at that for now. I look forward to any questions my colleagues might have.

[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—

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, we are talking about a bill that was introduced at the eleventh hour. We had to wait until Elections Canada imposed a deadline. The government decided not to go ahead with the electoral reform and now we have before us today a bill that was introduced in the House at the last minute and now must be debated.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about something that has continued to make the news recently, and that is the fact that Bill C-76 should include recourse against the collection of personal information by social networks, such as Facebook, and companies, such as Cambridge Analytica.

Does my colleague believe that Bill C-76 should contain those sorts of measures?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-76 came out just a few short weeks ago, if it has been that long actually, and the government has moved time allocation, forcing it through, individuals said publicly that in the last election they got the wrong cards. They could have taken it to the polls, used it in a fraudulent manner, and voted under names that were not theirs. Therefore, we know that these things take place. Elections Canada has said that 16% of these cards are in error. Nearly one million Canadians would have the ability to vote under a different name, or according to a different address or perhaps they are not even a citizen. In my riding, I heard of multiple situations where individuals, who may be permanent residents but not citizens, received voter cards.

It is not okay within Canada's democracy to encourage or allow these individuals to participate in our system. Citizenship matters. When we belong to a country, it means we uphold the rules of that land. It means that we are granted rights and privileges but also given responsibility. That responsibility is to get the proper identification, show up to the polls, and cast our ballots in a manner that is deserving of respect.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

The right to vote is central to our democracy. For Canada's democratic system to be upheld, every Canadian citizen over the age of 18 must be granted fair and equal access to the voting process. In fact, this is such a vital component of Canada's DNA that it is actually in our Constitution under “Democratic Rights”, where it reads, “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.”

Conservatives believe that the vote of each and every Canadian matters. For this reason, I would like to give honourable mention to one aspect of Bill C-76 that is worth recognizing and appears to be well intentioned. That is the measures it includes to accommodate persons living with a disability. It is right to facilitate these individuals' participation in Canada's democratic process and should be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, I have significant concerns about the remainder of this bill. Today, I will draw attention to two of those concerns in particular.

I am proud of our previous Conservative government and the incredible work we did with the Fair Elections Act in 2014. That legislation worked to uphold our democratic right to vote while also protecting this country against voter fraud. In contrast, the bill before the House today, Bill C-76, would do a great deal to move us in the opposite direction. While the Fair Elections Act strengthened Canada's democratic system, the bill we are talking about today would weaken it. Mainly, Bill C-76 would make it incredibly easy for an individual to use a false identification to vote.

As much as we need to ensure that all Canadian citizens have equal access to voting, we also need to ensure that they cast only one ballot, that they are citizens, and that they are over the age of 18. When individuals vote in the wrong riding or vote more than once or vote under a false identity, a crime is committed and our entire system is undermined. Unfortunately, instead of working to prevent such voter fraud, an objective that I am certain all of us in this Parliament, and indeed all Canadians, would stand behind, Bill C-76 would open up increased opportunities for voter fraud to be committed. Under the current system, voters are required to provide a piece of identification with their name and current mailing address on it be able to cast a ballot. This way, Elections Canada can verify that voters are who they say they are and can protect the integrity of our electoral system.

Bill C-76 would amend Canada's current voter identification rules. Specifically, it would eliminate the requirement to show an identification card, making it acceptable to simply produce a voter information card received in the mail. The problem is that the voter information card does not actually identify the individual who holds it; it is simply a card that got sent sent to an address. Any individual could take it out of a mailbox and bring it to the polling station. For voting purposes, then, the card is not suitable identification.

That the government wants to allow the cards to be used for identification is of course problematic. According to Elections Canada, the cards have an error rate of about 16%, which means that in the last election nearly one million Canadians received a card that was wrong in some fashion. Either it had a name illegitimately attached to an address or an address illegitimately attached to a name, or it was sent to someone who was not even a Canadian citizen or to someone who was not over the age of 18. All of these problems must be addressed within our voting system. However, the government has decided to make it easier for this fraudulent conduct to take place. This means that people under the age of 18 and those who are not even citizens might vote. An individual who receives a voter identification card in the mail with Susy Smith's name on it when she is Samantha Simons can just take the card and go to the polls and vote under a false identity. It is not difficult to see the problems within this.

The current Liberal government would have Canadians believe that it is difficult to obtain ID, but that is just not true. The Liberals make it seem like the current system is unnecessarily burdensome, but in reality the broad range of already accepted ID documents makes it possible for every single eligible Canadian to vote. If a person needs to show legal identification to get on a plane to fly somewhere or to buy a case of beer or a pack of cigarettes, it should be that much more important for them to show proper identification to cast a ballot and participate in Canada's democracy.

Under the Fair Elections Act, the previous Conservative government did its best to make the process as easy as possible, while protecting the integrity of Canada's electoral system.

Most people over the age of 18 may have a driver's licence, a provincial or territorial ID card, a passport, an Indian status card, a band card, a citizenship card, however, some people do not have these, and I will acknowledge that. People should not worry. Voters are able to bring in two separate pieces of ID as long as one has the voter's current mailing address. These IDs can range from a person's blood donor card, a hydro bill, a rental agreement, a credit card statement, a library card, a public transportation card, and the list goes on and on. However, maybe the voter still does not possess these. The good news is that there is a third option. Voters can bring in two pieces of identification and individuals who know them and are able to swear on their behalf that they are who they deem to be.

It is clear that we already have a system that allows every citizen who is of age and is a citizen of our country to vote. In fact, in 2015, under the new Fair Elections Act, we saw record turnout when it came to voter participation, one of the highest percentages in Canadian history. Knowing this, why would we then tamper with a system that has proven to be very effective in turning voters out to polls and encouraging their participation in democracy?

We all agree that it is irresponsible and imprudent to allow someone to board a plane or purchase alcohol or cigarettes without first presenting a valid piece of identification. After the 2015 election, the Prime Minister and the current government tried to change Canada's election laws to benefit the Liberal Party. It was the Canadian people who pushed back tremendously and stopped them. Now again we see the government trying to bend the arms of Canadians and push through legislation that is to the advantage of the Liberal Party and to the disadvantage of the Canadian public.

Our election process needs to be non-partisan. It needs to be separate from the whims of the governing party in order for a true democracy to remain in place. The integrity of the system should be protected at all costs. This means one person, one vote. Only those over the age of 18 and are valid citizens of our country should have the right and be granted the opportunity to cast a ballot. The bill that is being debated in the House calls into question whether this integrity will be protected.

The second issue I would draw attention to has to do with foreign interference. Beyond creating opportunity for voter fraud, the bill would allow for foreign interference in our elections. Today, more than any other time in recent history, it is important to be vigilant about protecting the independence and authenticity of our elections.

With allegations about foreign interference in Canada's 2015 election and the many problems we see taking place south of the border, it is absolutely vital to address concerns about foreign interference before going into the next election. We have yet to see the current government take any action on this.

The legislation would establish a new pre-pre-writ period; that is, the period before the period officially leading into the election. During this time, foreign contributions would be allowed. Bill C-76 would allow foreign money to be funnelled into Canada and then disseminated to numerous advocacy groups for the purpose of influencing the election outcome. Many allegations are still circulating from the last election.

The Tides Foundation, an organization based in San Francisco, is totally opposed to Canada's energy development. This organization funnelled $1.5 million to Canadian third parties in the last election year, and is currently under investigation by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The government should be doing all it can to protect Canada's elections from being hijacked by foreign investment groups. This means closing the loopholes. If the government were really concerned with the integrity of Canada's democratic system, it would go ahead and fix this problem. Instead the Prime Minister chooses to turn a blind eye. Meanwhile the election is only a year away.

Instead of making it more difficult for illegitimate votes to be cast and for our system to be illegitimately impacted, the government that is presently in power is actually facilitating these things and therefore compromising our electoral system.

It should be understood that Bill C-76 fails to protect every Canadian's right to cast a vote that is equal to all other votes and to do so in a system that is free from foreign interference. In short, the bill undermines Canada's democracy, and I will vote no.

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

Okay, thank you.

I want to ask about Bill C-76 and the demands it will be placing upon Elections Canada. The act contemplates a reduced maximum-length writ period, but it also anticipates a new pre-writ period. We have a situation in which some of what we would normally think of as being associated with a writ has been moved forward to June 30, 2019, which, by my math, is 13 months and eight days from now.

The question is whether that puts a new administrative burden on Elections Canada that kicks in at that point, as opposed to the other things for which you have an extra month or two. Is that the case, that you'll be facing some systems that will need to be in place by that time?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-76, the elections modernization act.

In my own family, one of the things I have always placed a lot of importance on is to take my children to the voting booth with me when voting, and to keep emphasizing the importance of people being involved in the electoral process and getting out to vote. This bill goes to that very point, so it speaks very strongly.

Among the bill's provisions are measures that affect the Commissioner of Canada Elections. The commissioner is a non-partisan official responsible for investigating potential electoral issues, such as voter fraud or financial irregularities. He or she is supported by an investigations directorate made up of investigators, lawyers, and communications and administrative personnel.

Our government made a commitment to Canadians in the last election to reverse the changes in the former Harper government's so-called Fair Elections Act that made it harder for Canadians to vote, or made it harder for our elections laws to be enforced. Bill C-76 delivers on that commitment.

When it is passed, this legislation would return the office of the commission to Elections Canada. This relationship would create several advantages for the commissioner. This change would help increase the independence of the commissioner from the government of the day. It would also help ensure that the commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer are better coordinated in enforcing our election laws. Not only does Bill C-76 deliver on this important election commitment, but it goes further in providing new tools and powers to the commissioner.

Currently, the staff of Elections Canada are ineligible for consideration for appointment as commissioner. Elections Canada offers an obvious recruiting ground for personnel who are very familiar with the issues that arise in our democracy. Bill C-76 would restore Elections Canada's status as a source of candidate recruitment.

At the same time, however, I would emphasize that it is also important that the Commissioner of Canada Elections be independent, not only from the government of the day, but also from the Chief Electoral Officer. The bill before us adds an explicit statement that the commissioner's investigations occur independently of the Chief Electoral Officer. The bill also explicitly authorizes the commissioner to independently publish an annual report.

Under the bill before us, rather than having to first obtain authorization from the director of public prosecutions, commissioners would be able to lay a charge of their own initiative. The police and almost all federal regulatory investigators have such a power. As with most federal offences, the investigator would be the one to lay the charge, and the director of public prosecutions would be the one to prosecute. Giving the commissioner the power to lay charges would reduce the likelihood that delays might detract from the effective enforcement of the Canada Elections Act. Such delays present risks that witnesses may not be available or that their memories may fade.

The bill before us also provides the commissioner with the power to compel witnesses to provide testimony. Most Canada Elections Act offences are effectively enforced without recourse to a power to compel testimony. However, there are exceptional cases, such as allegations of electoral fraud, where the commissioner may need to secure a court order to compel witness testimony because some electoral offences are extraordinary in nature and enforcement is time-sensitive. Safeguards such as protection against self-incrimination, a statutory recognition of the right to counsel, and a requirement for an examination to be conducted in private would help ensure compliance with the charter.

The Canada Elections Act, as it stands, provides almost exclusively criminal sanctions for contraventions of the act. This approach is costly, time-consuming, and procedurally onerous. As a result, violations of Canada's electoral law are often not being dealt with in an efficient and timely manner.

For example, the act stipulates that the official agent of an electoral district association must file information within 30 days following the election. Filing such a return just a few days after its due date is an offence under the act, despite the fact that neither the amount of harm caused, nor the degree of wrongdoing in such circumstances would be likely to make a criminal prosecution worthwhile. As a result, such minor contraventions of the act may not be acted upon, or there may be a delayed response to them.

Administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs, would give the commissioner the option to enforce the act through penalties that would more suitably match the infraction. The AMP could be increased if the offence is repeated or is of a continuing nature. The bill would also allow the commissioner to enter into compliance agreements with entities such as political parties or municipalities instead of with persons only, as is currently the case. It would also broaden the terms and conditions that may be negotiated, thus lending further flexibility and effectiveness to the commissioner's use of this important compliance tool. I would point out that a number of these changes have been called for by the current commissioner himself, as well as by the Chief Electoral Officer.

I have been dealing with the proposed changes to the authorities assigned to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, but let me turn briefly to some of the measures in the bill that would affect Elections Canada.

In his report on the 42nd general election, the Chief Electoral Officer proposed changes to political finances that would streamline reporting and harmonize rules among the various political entities. Further, this bill would deliver on the Minister of Democratic Institutions' mandate commitment to review the spending limits on political parties and third parties. Our government is proposing a new regime to bring transparency and fairness to spending, not just during the electoral period but also in the run-up to the election.

Bill C-76 would deliver on our government's commitment to protect, strengthen, and improve our democratic institutions. It would deliver on important election commitments made by our government. Bill C-76 would also go further in providing Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections with new powers and tools to better enforce our rules.

Modernizing our elections should be a priority for all members and I hope they support this legislation. I know it is an important issue for so many people in our communities and that it is so important that we maintain the integrity of the way our elections are held.

I am very pleased to have had this opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-76 and in favour of modernizing our Elections Act. This is an important step for all of us and I know that members will be in favour of it, because it is important to many of us that we maintain a system of integrity, create opportunity for people to vote, and bring down some of the barriers put in place and hindrances created by the previous government. We need to encourage people to get out to vote. Rather than trying to suppress voting, we need to make sure that people have these opportunities and use them. I have been very pleased to speak in favour of this bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely correct. We take everything that the Chief Electoral Officer says very seriously. As I indicated, some of the changes in the bill were actually based on things that were brought to our attention by the Chief Electoral Officer. However, it was important that we take a good, long, and close look at the legislation and try to make it as comprehensive as possible to make sure that more and more Canadians can take advantage of voting, and that they actually partake in the electoral process. Bill C-76 is obviously a reflection of that comprehensive approach.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I obviously took note of my hon. colleague's comments. However, it is important to bear in mind that before drawing up all the initiatives that were part of this bill, we did actually listen to the Chief Electoral Officer.

It was quite clear to us that some of the changes that had been made previously would impede the ability of various individuals to partake in the election process. As members will note, there is the issue of the voter information cards. The evidence is quite clear that the use of such cards allowed an increase in the participation of seniors, students, and first nations communities. In addition to that, as I cited in my remarks, it is quite obvious that the evidence is telling us that we rank 23rd among OECD countries.

We thought it was incumbent upon us to honour our undertaking in the platform to do something about this, and that is exactly what Bill C-76 would do.

[Stéphane Perrault]

Yes. As you note, this is a matter that's also before the courts as we speak, but it's also part of the Bill C-76.

[Stéphane Perrault]

We haven't begun executing that plan.

This summer, we'll be starting work on the guidebooks for poll workers and the training material. What we will need to do is to build those guidebooks based on the current legislation, but also contemplate adjustments to those guidebooks for C-76.

When I appeared on the main estimates, I said that we are migrating 27 systems to a new data centre and we need to do integrated testing on September 1. We will proceed with that plan and, once we've done the integrated testing—it's a tight schedule, but things are going quite well—once we've solidified, then we will look at what IT changes are required for Bill C-76.

I think we're looking at 18 systems that are affected by Bill C-76. We will look to minimize. In some cases, they are minor changes, while in others, they're more comprehensive. Once we've done the integrated testing, we will then look at the other IT changes that are absolutely required for implementation of C-76. If it's not absolutely required, it will be deferred.

Then we're going to do a second series of integrated testing on January 1. Hopefully, at that point in time, there will be no further impacts on the IT system, so that we can do our simulations in the field with the new systems, as we planned.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Toronto—Danforth.

I am honoured to rise in the House today to join other colleagues in the debate before us and in support of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts.

Since the very first ballots were cast in Canada more than 150 years ago, Canadians have pushed for change, demanding that elections in our country be fairer, more inclusive, and more accessible. At first, it was only men who could vote, until women fought for their right to have a voice. Indigenous communities bravely stood up to ensure that they were heard at the ballot box. Over 20 years ago, it was mandated that all voting places be accessible to all Canadians.

The evolution of voting rights in this country has always proceeded in lockstep with the forward march of civil rights. As a government, we are committed to continuing this legacy and to moving forward.

Canada's democracy is made up of all citizens and what they have to say about the country they seek to create. The measures in Bill C-76 would be bold and important steps along this path of empowering Canadians and strengthening our electoral process, which benefited from the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer after the 42nd general election.

Voting has to accommodate people's busy lives. Bill C-76 would help Canadians vote when and how it works for them. These measures would reduce wait times at polling places. Bill C-76 would also increase advance polling to 12 hours a day so that Canadians could easily vote ahead of election day if they so wished. It would also make voting more convenient by letting people use their voter information cards, as was previously the norm.

In 2011, Elections Canada conducted a pilot project on using the voter information card as voter ID and recommended that Canadians be able to use their voter information cards to vote. The findings were hugely important. Among students, the cards were used by 62% of voters. In seniors residences, the number was 73%, and on first nations reserves, they were used by 36% of voters. It is clear that this measure is important in helping Canadians participate in our democracy. Based on a Statistics Canada study, over 160,000 Canadians could not vote because they did not have the ID they needed. I am proud that our government would be addressing this.

These changes would also reintroduce vouching so that a voter could allow another Canadian to vote as well. As has been the case with many of the initiatives undertaken by our government, this would not represent a radical departure from the norm but rather a return to standard Canadian practices and ideals.

Undoing the unfair parts of the previous government's so-called Fair Elections Act would mean that more Canadians would be able to participate in our democracy.

Participating by voting is more difficult for some people than others, and that is simply not fair. The men and women in uniform who risk their lives to protect the rights of all Canadians deserve to have their right to vote protected. Bill C-76 would bring changes that would give Canadian Armed Forces members greater flexibility in how they cast their ballots, while also making sure that it is a secure process, whether they are voting abroad or at home. Additionally, Bill C-76 would extend the right to vote to approximately one million Canadians who live abroad, ensuring that they would have their say.

We would also remove barriers to Canadians with disabilities by increasing assistance at polling places and by allowing voting at home. Bill C-76 would provide incentives for parties and candidates to make their activities accessible to and inclusive of people with disabilities. I am confident that all my colleagues in this House will welcome new resources for positive and common-sense steps, such as having flyers in Braille and ramps at campaign offices. These are small changes that would have a huge impact on fellow Canadians.

I am proud that while our government is taking steps to empower voters today, we are also looking to the next generation. There can be no question that the young people of Canada are engaged, and they are shaping our future.

In my own riding of Willowdale, the members of the youth council are already grappling with our country's most pressing issues. They have gone to the G7 youth summit with the Minister of Foreign Affairs to ask questions about challenges facing the international community. Over the last months, they have also had debates on everything from how Canada can engage in meaningful reconciliation with our indigenous communities to what policies are needed to protect the environment.

The future of our country is in good hands. I know that youth from coast to coast to coast have just as much to say about politics as the young people of Willowdale.

By creating a register of future electors, Bill C-76 would allow Canadians between the ages of 14 and 17 to register with Elections Canada, which would allow them to be added to the voter list automatically when they turn 18. This would have a huge impact on our youth. Provisions in Bill C-76 would make it possible to contact approximately 1.5 million young people as part of civic education initiatives in high schools.

I remember the first time I voted, and how important it was to me. When I put an X on my ballot, I was excited to be weighing in on issues that mattered to me. I want to make sure that all of our youth have the same positive experience I had.

When our youth are empowered, they create change, and that leads to a brighter future. Studies have repeatedly shown that voting at a young age encourages lifelong voting and participation in the democratic process. Given that Canada ranks an uninspiring 23rd among OECD countries in voter turnout, encouraging habitual voting among the next generation of Canadians is a noble goal and a meaningful step forward.

Just as Bill C-76 looks to our youth as the future of our democracy, it also addresses changing realities and what our world will look like tomorrow. Cyber-threats pose a real and serious danger to the integrity of democratic processes everywhere. Canada must be prepared to meet these challenges with strength and determination to keep our elections secure and transparent. I am proud that Canada consistently ranks as one of the countries with the freest and most transparent elections, but this is no mere coincidence. It is because we have dedicated citizens and officials hard at work.

Democracy is at the heart of our communities and at the heart of our country. I know that Bill C-76 would strengthen Canada's democracy, not just for today but for many years to come.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Perrault, for being here today, for your testimony, and all the great work that you've done to date.

With respect to C-76, about 85% of what's contained in there are actually recommendations from the CEO, so I trust that you're pretty pleased with that—

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his speech. I would also like to ask him a question about Bill C-76.

He spoke about getting more youth and indigenous people to vote. Does he think that this bill will help more people with physical and mental disabilities to vote, yes or no?

Since my colleague, like everyone in the House, wants to strengthen our electoral system and our democracy, could he explain how this bill could encourage people with disabilities to vote?

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

On this proposed bill, Bill C-76, we're not sure....

Is it under time allocation yet, Scott? No? It's under the threat of time allocation.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-76, the amendments to the Canada Elections Act. One of the key foundations of Canadian democracy is the free and fair electoral process by which Canadians vote for their representation here in Ottawa. It is a citizen's right; it holds our government accountable to the people and makes our country stronger as a result. That is why it is so important that we study the many concerning problems of the bill, which the Liberal government has now decided to introduce so late in its mandate.

Canadians are doubtful of the bill and they have very good reason to be. The Liberals time and time again have broken the campaign promises they made to voters in 2015. Their pledge to address the issue of electoral reform is one of the biggest broken promises of all, and we need to remember how they talked about first past the post during the 2015 election.

What happened? In less than a year they shelved it, and here we are today. It is interesting how things have come around.

Why have the Liberals in government been so lacklustre on the commitments they promised to implement? With so little time left before the next election, why have the Liberals decided to just now introduce this 350-page omnibus bill on electoral reform, when they could have taken steps to bring it forward to debate earlier? Why are we, as official opposition, now being forced to cram our deliberations on Bill C-76 because the government has procrastinated so long on this matter? The Liberals started this process months ago. They should have brought in the bill way before May of 2018.

The acting Chief Electoral Officer warned the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs repeatedly that time was running out for Elections Canada to properly implement any changes to the electoral system in time for the election next year. The deadline for any major changes to be made was last month, April 2018. How can the Liberal government excuse its broken promises on the issue of electoral reform, and how can Canadians be expected to trust it on this file any longer?

The bill purports to improve our electoral system by making our elections more fair and transparent, but it actually damages our voting process in critical ways. When Canadians vote in elections, they expect that everyone will be held to the same high standard, so that everyone's vote is equal and that no person or group will be able to vote more than once or otherwise have more of a say than anyone else. We ensure this by requiring that when citizens vote, they provide a legitimate form of identification, so that we can guarantee fairness, transparency, and efficiency in all our electoral system.

In fact, as the website for Elections Canada notes and as we have said many times in the House today, Canadians can use nearly 50 different pieces of identification in order to prove their address and their identity. These accepted forms of ID are much more generous than the forms of ID required to purchase alcohol or, in the future, cannabis. They are much broader and more inclusive than the forms of ID that are required even to board a plane for a domestic flight.

Canadians need a driver's licence to drive a car, a motorcycle licence to drive a motorcycle, and a library card to take out a book from their public library. In order to vote, Canadians do not need to have any of these pieces of identification. A citizen could vote by showing their student ID card and their utility bill, for instance. The Liberals do not like to accept the fact that all sorts of pieces of identification may be used by Canadians in order to exercise their democratic right to vote, so they claim that voter participation is hurt, despite these generous identification requirements.

How is this true? Is this claim actually true? Well, as we all know, data from Elections Canada tells us that the 2015 federal election saw the biggest voter turnout since 1993. Around 3.6 million people voted in the advance polls alone, which was another record-breaking achievement.

What about young people? We talk about young people a lot in the House of Commons. The Liberals previously justified Bill C-76 on the premise that the current identification requirements turn away youth from voting. We note that on May 10, the hon. member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, across the aisle, emphasized this line of reasoning by stating, “What this legislation does is to get youth more involved in the electoral process. I think it is a good thing when our youth are involved in our democracy”.

We agree that greater youth participation is something we all want to see in elections, and during the last election, we saw just that, young people coming out to the polls. In fact, the official data from Elections Canada shows that in the 2015 election, the participation of voters aged 18 to 24 increased by 18.3%, to 57.1%. Back in 2011, only 38.8% voted. We saw a major increase from 38.8% in 2011 to over 57% four years later, which is almost a 20% gain. This is the largest increase for this group since Elections Canada began recording demographic data on turnout in 2004.

Those nearly 50 different types of acceptable ID did not lead to a decrease at all in voter turnout among young people. Quite contrary to the Liberal narrative, actually, the percentage of young people voting went up significantly. As I mentioned, it was by almost 20%.

What about those voting on reserve? What did the turnout look like there? Once again, the data from Elections Canada tells us a different story from the one we continue to hear from the Liberal government. When we compare the voter turnout in 2015 to that of 2011, we find that on-reserve voter turnout increased by 14%. Furthermore, Elections Canada reports that during the 2015 federal election, the gap between turnout on reserves and turnout among the general population was the lowest observed by Elections Canada since it began calculating turnout for aboriginal populations in 2004.

Evidently, then, we see that what the Liberals claim to be the case in terms of falling voter turnout across the country clashes with what we find is reality. Far from disrupting voter turnout, as the Liberal fearmongering said it would, the nearly 50 accepted pieces of voter identification during the last election correlated with increases in voter turnout across this country. Nonetheless, the Liberals are pushing forward with this bill, Bill C-76, and in the process of doing so are threatening the integrity, transparency, and fairness of our electoral system, which would hurt all Canadians.

Under this bill, people would be able to use their voter identification cards as valid pieces of identification when they went to vote. This change would be implemented despite the fact that the government admits that 986,613 voter information cards were issued with incorrect information and had to be revised during the last election, in 2015.

[Stéphane Perrault]

Of course we're thrilled to see the bill has now been introduced. I was concerned before I appeared before this committee on the main estimates that we did not have a bill then. We do have a bill now. We are refining an implementation plan for that bill. We will begin work on that over the summer.

We are at a point where, whether or not it's passed, we have to work on different scenarios, so we have to be ready to roll out an election based on the current legal framework, and we also have to start preparing for an alternative framework. Over the course of the summer we will work on new manuals and training modules. As I said when I was here before this committee, on September 1 we're doing integrated testing of our IT systems. Once those systems are solidified we can start looking at changes that relate to Bill C-76.

We will be working at implementation as the bill progresses through this House and through the other House, and if adjustments need to be made, then we'll be making them along the way.

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

Mr. Perrault, thank you very much, and thank you for your services over the past 18 months since you've been doing this. That's quite something.

I like what you said earlier: you can't be predictable if we work in isolation. In saying that, boy, we spent a lot of time going through recommendations as put forward by the CEO, and this is obviously a regular event, which is a fantastic exercise between Parliament and your office.

I know we've included 85% of the recent recommendations within that report in the impending legislation, Bill C-76. Very simply, off the top, how are we on these recommendations right now in your mind, now that you're embarking on this new permanent, full-time position? Where are we when it comes to the recommendations brought forward by this committee?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak in opposition to Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.

There is something very ironic about the rumours that the Liberal government is considering moving time allocation in order to limit debate on a bill that would govern how our elections would operate going forward. There has not been enough debate on this important piece of legislation, and I certainly hope the Liberals do not follow through with their threats of time allocation.

This important piece of legislation and the government's continued lack of respect for our democratic institutions will leave Canada in a much weakened position after just four years of Liberal government. Our Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has continuously tried to use every trick in the book to tip the electoral scales in his favour, but Canadians are seeing through this and raising reasonable and credible objections. Let us not forget his attempt to completely overhaul our electoral system to fit his personal preference, a system that overwhelmingly benefits one party over the other.

I am sure most of my colleagues in the House today will remember the 2015 election campaign, in which, in candidate debate after candidate debate, we were assured by the Liberal candidates that this would be the last first-past-the-post election in Canada. It was an ironclad guarantee that this would be the last election under first past the post. How long did that last? We all saw how quickly they folded their tents and went home on that one.

Canadians stood up to the Prime Minister and empowered our opposition efforts, and the Liberals backed down. Therefore, why now? Why is the Liberal Party tipping the scale in its favour, even though it has been in government for almost three years? I suspect it is because the Liberals are having a hard time fundraising and we are getting closer to the 2019 election.

The party of cash-for-access fundraisers was caught and is now taking aim at opposition parties in order to limit members' ability to spend money that Canadians have willingly donated to our efforts to hold the government to account. The Prime Minister, his front bench, and even his backbenchers have shown in just three years that they have a hard time following rules, so how can Canadians trust them with Canada's democratic institutions when their ethics bar is so low?

Under this legislation, up to one million votes cast could be susceptible to voter fraud if the information card is accepted as valid ID. Again, I reflect back to a few years ago when I sat on the procedure and House affairs committee and the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Marc Mayrand, appeared before committee. Time after time, he commented on the large number of inaccuracies on the voter information card. Because of that information, as well as later information that incorrect information was on 980,000 cards that were mailed to incorrect addresses, it was decided it was not appropriate to use that kind of information as identification.

Think of all the situations today that Canadians need to show ID for. They include purchasing alcohol, getting on a plane, being admitted to a hospital, registering for Internet use, renting an apartment, opening a bank account, checking into a hotel, renting a car, and so many more. However, the Liberal government does not believe that one needs to show valid ID to vote. Voting is one of the most cherished privileges of a democracy, and the Liberal government is willing to compromise it by accepting a voter information card as valid ID, a card that had a 980,000 error rate in the last election.

Let us consider the currently acceptable forms of ID under the Fair Elections Act. Among others, they include a health card, a passport, a birth certificate, a social insurance card, an Indian status card, a band membership card, a Métis card, a Canadian Forces identity card. These are just a few of the official cards and documentation, any two of which could prove one's identity and address. However, in the very rare case that Canadians cannot provide two of those pieces of ID, here is a list of other acceptable forms of ID: a label on a prescription container, a blood donor card, a credit card, a debit card, a student card, a library card, a CNIB card, a fishing or hunting licence, correspondence from a school, a lease agreement, a mortgage contract, and an e-statement or e-invoice with one's address on it. All one needs to do with e-statements or e-invoices is print them and bring them along to the polling station as one of the pieces of acceptable ID.

If the members opposite can provide us with examples of constituents who could not provide any of the listed pieces of ID, I am sure there are multiple ways to help those individuals obtain that information, just considering the ones I have just listed.

Members of the Liberal Party would like to say that the Fair Elections Act was meant to suppress voter turnout. The reality is that under those rules we saw record numbers of voters in the last election. On this side of the House, we are not afraid of high voter turnout. After the mess the current government has made of Canada's finances, we are quite certain that Canadians will turn out in record numbers to the polls in 2019, to stop the ever-increasing debt load that is left to our children and our grandchildren.

I have just dealt with one part of the legislation, concerning the voter information card. There are two other sections that are also very troubling, namely campaign financing and the national register for future voters.

There have been many allegations that millions of dollars in foreign funding were funnelled into third party advocacy groups during the 2015 election. According to reports, the Tides Foundation donated $1.5 million to Canadian third parties in the election year alone. Conservatives want to know the status of any ongoing investigations and what has been done to solve this issue of foreign interference in the 2015 election. If the Liberals were truly committed to preventing foreign interference in Canadian elections, they should have dealt with this issue many months ago.

However, they have introduced limits on spending during the pre-writ period. This would fall between June 30, when the election is called, and the actual voting day. During that time, political parties would have a limit on how much they can spend, while the Liberals have access to government transportation and the ability to make funding announcements and run government ads. This is a clear example of the Liberals tipping the scale in their favour. It is undemocratic and Canadians are seeing right through it.

Furthermore, this bill would create a national register of future voters. Canadians, again, are rightly concerned that this is just the Liberal Party of Canada invading the privacy of young Canadians and harvesting their data for political purposes. We have asked the minister several times in question period for a straightforward answer on this, but have only been met with non-answers and talking points.

In closing, let us not forget that the current Liberal government has already failed to meet the deadline set out by the Chief Electoral Officer when appearing at committee last month. He said:

When I appeared last February, I indicated that the window of opportunity to implement major changes in time for the next election was rapidly closing. That was not a new message. Both Monsieur Mayrand and I had previously indicated that legislative changes should be enacted by April 2018. This means that we are now at a point where the implementation of new legislation will likely involve some compromises.

The government's decision to use the voter information card as identification is a failure waiting to happen. It is an information card; it is not an identification card, although it is often described as such by members across the way. In fact, we just heard my colleague from Winnipeg repeatedly in his speech refer to this as a voter ID card. It is not a voter ID card. The Elections Canada website clearly states it is not a voter ID card; it is an information card. It is an information card because that is what it provides: information. It has been stated before that in the 2015 election, 986,613 of those voter information cards had inaccurate information. They were sent to the wrong address or were not complete, yet the Liberals are okay with nearly a million inaccurate voter information cards being used as identification.

This is an extremely flawed bill, driven by misguided ideology, being rushed through this House after the deadline set out by the Chief Electoral Officer has not been met. I hope my colleagues on the other side will join Conservatives in voting against this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this very important legislation.

I sat in opposition when the Harper government brought forward the Fair Elections Act. It tried to give an impression that was not the reality of the legislation. We can contrast that to what we have proposed today.

Members will find that the proposed legislation has been worked on fairly exhaustively. Committees have dealt with the subject matter. In fact, I would go back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs four years ago and up to today. Even a member from the Conservative Party talked about concurrence on a report, which was thoroughly debated by the procedure and House affairs committee, and many of the recommendations that had been raised by our Chief Electoral Office and Elections Canada. In essence, we have had not only a great deal debate inside this chamber over the last number of years on the issue of electoral reform and changes, but we have also witnessed a great deal of discussion at the committee level.

The committee heard from many stakeholders on the important issues Canadians felt needed to be acted on and incorporated in the legislation. I commend and applaud the efforts of our current minister. In that same note, I congratulate her on the birth of her first child.

However, the legislation is long overdue. I believe Canadians have an expectation that the legislation will be acted upon. Some changes will have a positive impact on future elections. I would like to think that all members of the House would get behind and support.

In listening to the debate so far, it would appear that the official opposition does not want the bill to pass, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to prevent its passage. I can appreciate the fact that opposition members are entitled to oppose the legislation, but the actions that have been proposed in the bill would make democracy better in Canada. In essence, they are opposing that.

On the other hand, my New Democratic friends seem to be of the opinion that the legislation, in most part, is good. It would appear as if the New Democrats will support Bill C-76, and I appreciate that. However, the most recent question was in regard to a specific aspect of the legislation and why it was incorporated. This is good legislation. It will go to committee and if the NDP or Green Party have amendments that would improve the bill, then the minister, the parliamentary secretary, and committee members, who are ultimately responsible to see it go through committee, would be open to those amendments. I look forward to Bill C-76 going to committee.

However, let there be no doubt. The Conservatives will attempt to manipulate even my New Democratic friends into believing we should hold off and continue to have endless debate, whether it is in the chamber or in committee. The true intent of the Conservative Party is to not allow the legislation to pass. The Conservatives can ask for committee meetings throughout the country and have endless debate inside the chamber. However, the purpose of doing that is to not see the legislation pass, and that would be tragic.

Therefore, my advice to my New Democrat friends is to get behind the reforms that are being talked about in a very real and tangible way and not be manipulated by the Conservative opposition. I would say that to the Green Party also. As well as those members, independent members and members of the Bloc need to recognize the bill for what it is: it is legislation that will enable individuals to turn out in better numbers and make it easier to vote.

I sat in committee when the Conservatives, member after member, talked about not needing the voter identity card, while we were hearing from Elections Canada about how important the voter identity card is. In a very real way, this is something that Canadians who are tuned in can understand and appreciate. Elections Canada, which is recognized around the world as a truly independent agency, should be appreciated and acknowledged for the important role it plays.

One of the ideas that Elections Canada had was for the voter ID cards to ensure that Canadians are informed that they are, in fact, registered. A vast majority of those Canadians who receive those voter ID cards during the period of the election believe they can use that card as a part of their identification in being able to vote. I do not blame them for believing that. It looks and appears to be a legitimate document, and it is a legitimate document. Elections Canada is providing it to them. It is going to the residential address. Why would the Conservatives not want to allow it to be part of the voter identification process?

This is one of the changes that is being proposed. Once individuals receive those cards, many will retain them. If they go to an election polling facility, they will find that many Canadians bring the cards, anticipating that they will be able to use them, and if this legislation passes, Canadians would in fact be able to use that card.

Vouching is another area that is made reference to. As Canadians we are a trustworthy bunch. There is nothing wrong with my saying that while my neighbour may not have a piece of ID, I know that, yes, that is my neighbour. I will vouch for that individual and that he or she lives there and is of voting age. Why would we not enable that to take place? After all, I am registered. When I say “me”, that would apply to anyone who lives in the community and has identification and is prepared to vouch for another person.

One of the things that came up time and again in the last election was the length of the election. This legislation attempts to deal with that and the issue of advertising. If it were up to the Conservatives, they would like to have unlimited advertising for unlimited days leading up to an election. We saw a good example of that. They say it is because they can raise money.

We have election laws that are in place to ensure that there is fairness in the manner in which election funds are raised, but we also need to protect the integrity of the system by preventing excessive amounts of advertising far in advance of an election, thus making sure this aspect of the field is also level and that no one political party would have an advantage over other political parties. From my perspective, this legislation would ensure that Canadians, who are a fairly tolerant group of people, can understand that an election period is when we can anticipate the election advertising.

Whether it is the vouching or the voter ID cards, there are many positive changes within this legislation that will improve the quality of Canada's democracy, most of which have come from Elections Canada itself. I would recommend that all members support the legislation.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will address that in two parts. There is no doubt that fixed election dates have been proven to demonstrate that when we pick a date that is more convenient to the masses, more people will come out to vote. I applaud that initiative. This bill retains that initiative. Fixed election dates will not go anywhere under Bill C-76.

For my hon. friend opposite, and this has come up in repeated instances in the chamber, the reason we had an unprecedented number of people voting in the 2015 election was not because of the legislative initiatives by the previous government; it was specifically in spite of those legislative initiatives. It was in spite of the actions of Mr. Harper that people came out to vote him and his party out of office.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Multiculturalism)]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Willowdale this morning.

I am proud to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-76, which would empower more Canadians to vote and would ensure that elections are protected from interference. This legislation would give more Canadians the opportunity to vote by reducing the number of barriers to casting a ballot and would limit interference by ensuring the integrity of our voting process.

I would like to take this occasion today to welcome back to the House the Minister of Democratic Institutions, who has just returned from maternity leave, and to offer my congratulations to the minister.

In terms of an overview, let us turn back the clock to 2014, the year Stephen Harper's Conservative government enacted the so-called Fair Elections Act. In a blatant attempt to secure re-election, the Harper government at the time sought to impede rather than enhance access to voting. That legislation made voting at the polls more difficult and, amazingly, even prohibited the Chief Electoral Officer of this country from educating Canadians about the importance of getting out to vote.

In addition to that, the Harper Conservative government made elections longer and more expensive, in a blatant attempt to crush opposing political parties by simply outspending them. The self-serving rules imposed by the previous government should not be tolerated by any member of the House regardless of their political stripe. This is the very reason we introduced Bill C-76.

Plainly, Mr. Harper's plan backfired. Rather than keeping voters away in 2015, they came out in droves to vote him and his party out of office. In doing so, they also sent a very clear message that affronts to our democracy should not and will not be tolerated.

I recall very specifically the campaign of 2015 when engaged citizens in my riding spoke to to me about what they called the “unfair elections act”. They demanded change. The folks in Parkdale—High Park said that loudly and clearly to me. I heard from those constituents and communicated their concerns here in Ottawa. Our government is responding today with Bill C-76, legislation that would enable Canadians to come out and vote and prevent the manipulation of our democracy.

There are two broad categories. The first category is about access. As a fundamental principle, our government believes in the notion of making it easier, not harder, for people to vote. Unlike the Conservatives, we do not regard a larger number of people participating in elections as a threat to democracy, but a manifestation of a healthy democracy. That means giving Canadians the tools to be able to participate in our voting system.

For all Canadians, regardless of their background or their station in life, a participatory democracy means giving every Canada an equal chance to obtain a ballot and to cast a vote. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism, I take seriously the issue of access and inclusion, and I am most proud of the fact that Bill C-76 will increase the ability of diverse Canadians across a wide array of demographics to participate in our democratic process. Allow me to explain.

First, let us speak about low-income Canadians. For those who may not have the wherewithal to obtain government issued photo identification, Bill C-76 would allow them to use the voter information card as a legitimate form of identification at the polls. This will ensure that fewer voters are turned away at the polls, allowing more Canadians to exercise their democratic right to cast a ballot in federal elections, reversing one aspect of the unfair elections act.

Second, for Canadians who may not even have the wherewithal to possess a voter information card, we will reintroduce the old, pre-Harper system of vouching, which allows a registered voter to vouch for the identity of another person. Mr. Harper's legislation eliminated vouching and was strongly criticized at the time by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. In 2015, a whopping 172,000 people, particularly youth and indigenous persons, cited their lack of identification as the reason they did not vote. On this side of the House, we do not fear youth and indigenous voices; we encourage them. With this change in Bill C-76, we will re-enfranchise such people.

Third, we are taking significant steps to increase the access and participation of young Canadians. With this bill we will create a national list of pre-electors, so that Elections Canada can pre-register Canadian youth aged 14 to 17 to vote. Elections Canada will administer the list and sign up young people to receive information about voting until they reach voting age. The evidence has demonstrated clearly that once a person votes, they are more likely to continue to vote in subsequent elections. Our goal is to help, not impede, young people so that they make voting a lifelong habit.

Fourth, for Canadians with disabilities, we are taking vital steps to increase their access to and opportunity to cast a ballot. We currently have accommodations for persons with physical disabilities to vote from home.

Disabilities can be both physical and intellectual. To include more Canadians in the pool of potential voters, we are expanding the provisions for voting at home for any elector with a disability, irrespective of the nature or extent of his or her disability. The same concept would apply to transfer certificates. Right now, only a voter with a physical disability can apply to vote at a different accessible polling station. Under this bill, we will extend the same accommodation to those with intellectual disabilities. This is meaningful inclusion in action.

Bill C-76 goes even further. It provides funding for important initiatives so that Canadians with disabilities can vote. This bill encourages candidates and political parties to take specific measures to accommodate voters with disabilities and reduce the barriers to their participation in the democratic process by offering financial reimbursement for their efforts.

Fifth, for trans and non-binary Canadians, we are taking important steps to boost voter access and participation. Under Bill C-76, requirements to indicate a voters sex on the list of electors or other documents is being deleted. Trans and non-binary Canadians will no longer be required to explain or confirm their gender identity at the polls before they are given a ballot. This type of measure will ensure that all LGBTQ2 Canadians are welcomed at voting stations and encouraged to cast a ballot.

Sixth, for Canadians abroad, Bill C-76 would restore the access to the democratic process that Stephen Harper severed. Under the unfair elections act, Mr. Harper took away the right to vote from one million Canadians who had been living abroad for more than 5 years, a decision which prompted a charter challenge all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The case was Frank v. Canada, which was heard on March 21 of this year.

Our government is not waiting for the court to render its decision about the charter protected voting rights of Canadians abroad. We are acting now with this legislation to restore such rights. We are saying to the one million Canadians around the globe, in the 21st century, in an era of mobile work and mobile workers, that their right to have a say in the election of their national government should not be fettered by the international demands of their employment.

Seventh, as I said at the outset, our government does not fear citizen participation in the democratic process; we encourage it. That is why, in an effort to improve access of all Canadians, we are removing what was one of the most egregious instances of abuse on the part of Stephen Harper's previous government. Under that government's unfair elections act, it prohibited the Chief Electoral Officer of our country from educating adult Canadians about voting and the importance of casting a ballot.

Not discouraged, the Harper government prohibited the Chief Electoral Officer from doing his job, from building civic literacy and educating Canadians about why it was important to participate in our electoral system. I am as incredulous today as I was in 2014 when I first learned about this aspect of Stephen Harper's legislation. To prohibit a non-partisan officer like the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada from informing Canadians about the merits of casting a ballot in our system of government is nothing short of anti-democratic. It was at the very core of why Canadians responded so resoundingly against Mr. Harper in the 2015 election, and why we are restoring such a basic aspect of the Chief Electoral Officer's duties with Bill C-76.

My final point on access relates to indigenous persons. It is connected to the broad measures we are taking under this legislation to facilitate more people being able to cast a ballot.

The structural changes in Bill C-76 would make voting faster and less time consuming, thereby increasing the number of Canadians likely to cast a vote. The changes include being more flexible with where one can vote at a given polling station; enhancing the use of special ballots; keeping advance polls open longer; and using mobile polls more frequently to reach those in low density, remote, and isolated communities.

The impact on access will be tangible. Many indigenous persons in our country live in more remote and isolated communities. By making this important change, we are empowering indigenous persons' voices to be heard and counted within our democratic process.

With respect to the second category, it talks about the integrity of our democratic process. The bill speaks for itself with respect to placing important limits on things like the length of an electoral campaign and the power to enforce against breaches of the act and electoral fraud.

The previous unfair elections act passed under the Harper government impeded instead of improved access to the ballot box. As a government, we believe that when more Canadians vote our democracy is strengthened, not threatened. That is why we have tabled Bill C-76, legislation that would increase access for all Canadians of diverse backgrounds to the ballot box. That is why I will be voting in support of the bill. I urge all parliamentarians to do the same.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concerns about the way Bill C-76 has been introduced, particularly at this moment in the parliamentary calendar. We also had Bill C-33 languish at first reading for 18 months. For a government that is all about electoral reform and attaches such importance to it, I would have thought that we would not be debating such an important bill on the back nine of the golf course. I certainly hope that the government honours its promise to allow this place to fully debate this bill.

One part of the bill that I do like is that it would adopt what my private member's bill, Bill C-279, sought to do, which is to put a hard limit on the length of elections. Many of us felt that was a reasonable amendment to put into the Canada Elections Act, because it would prevent future governments from going through another 78-day marathon campaign. I would appreciate hearing my colleague's thoughts on that particular aspect of the bill.

The House resumed from May 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Procedure and House Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations, and I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following: “That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, in keeping with wide support for the notion that debate ought not to be curtailed for bills aimed at amending the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act, a proposal brought forward by the Liberal Party on April 10, 2014, and supported by the current Prime Minister, and more recently presented to this House by the NDP House leader on May 4, 2018, no motion pursuant to Standing Orders 78 or 57 may be used to allocate a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments”.

An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-377, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle. I have a lot of respect for the member for the riding. We served together for a period of time on the operations and estimates committee. While we did not always see eye to eye, I believe we did a lot of great work on that committee, whether it was Canada Post or other acts, so I do appreciate her work.

That being said, this bill is not something I can support. Those watching at home on CPAC are probably asking themselves what this bill is about, and why Parliament is debating this instead of important issues of the day, such as the question we discussed earlier in question period of why there is a known ISIS fighter walking free on the streets of Toronto after happily broadcasting how he murdered innocents abroad while fighting for ISIS in Syria. Why is he busy doing press conferences in Toronto instead of being in jail?

What about the constitutional crisis created by the Liberals in their poor handling of the Trans Mountain pipeline issue? Why are we not discussing that? Why are we not debating the issue of the border crisis in the member's own riding, where we have a flood of illegal immigrants coming in from the United States? I notice that over 20% of her riding is made up of seniors. Why are we not debating palliative care or seniors issues instead of this? None of that is going to be debated. The bill is solely about changing the name of the riding. Seriously, it is just a name change.

If people are at home watching CPAC right now, they are probably a bit more engaged than regular Canadians and would know that last week we passed changes to the names of other members' ridings. The chief government whip had a bill passed, which has already gone through the House and is with the Senate, so that MPs can change the names of their ridings at will. They would not need a special private member's bill; they can just change the name.

My colleague from Calgary Signal Hill wants to change the name of his riding to Calgary West. He can go ahead and do it. I have joked in the past about changing the name of my riding from Edmonton West to Edmonton West Edmonton Mall, to honour West Edmonton Mall, the world's largest mall, which is in my riding. I mention that because, again, just last week we were able to change the names of over a dozen ridings, and it took the House just 60 seconds to do so. My point is that we do not need a private member's bill to change the name.

When MPs first get elected, at the beginning of the legislative period, they draw numbers for the order of introducing private members' bills. Those with low numbers get a chance to get their private members' bills heard and debated in the House. I drew a relatively low number and introduced Bill C-301, a bill that would reduce taxes for all seniors across the country. Unfortunately, the bill was shot down by the Liberals.

Because of time constraints, only about half of the members of Parliament will get their private members' bills introduced, debated, and heard in the House. Only about half of us get a bill through. The member for Châteauguay—Lacolle was lucky enough to have that, but, instead of introducing a bill that would actually help Canada and her constituents, she wastes valuable legislative time to debate a bill to change the name of her riding, which is not even needed, because we have procedural rules to change it.

I see that today the Liberals brought closure on a bill once again, this time to limit debate on Bill C-76, where we are debating the ways we are going to conduct our elections. The Liberal bill would allow foreign funds from Tides U.S.A. to flood into Canada to alter our electoral outcomes and attack our democratic process. The bill would allow people who have not set foot in Canada for over two or three decades to still be able to vote and help decide our electoral outcomes.

We have only one hour of debate on the serious issues that affect our democracy, and yet we have just spent four hours to discuss a name change that could have been done simply with an email to the government whip. Again, I have great respect for this member, but I believe it is a great waste of Parliament's time, and it just shows once again the mixed-up priorities of the Liberal government.

Elections Modernization Act

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time.

There are few things as fundamental to democracy as the integrity of its elections. Elections are the bedrock upon which many of the tenets of democracy rest, so when we discuss changes to our election laws, we are talking about changes to a cornerstone of our political system.

There are some good things in this bill. The measures to accommodate those with disabilities seem well intentioned and could do a lot of good. They would be a good way to facilitate participation in the democratic process. However, I am opposed to some other measures proposed in Bill C-76.

I would first like to discuss is the status quo and why much of it just does not deserve to be changed. I am not opposed to changing our election laws if it means real improvement. I agree with Ronald Reagan that sometimes “status quo” is Latin for “the mess we're in”.

I have in fact supported past changes to Canada's election laws. In 2014, our former Conservative government passed the Fair Elections Act. It made much-needed changes that helped ensure the integrity of Canadian elections, common sense changes that worked, such as showing pieces of ID in order to vote. This was a basic, logical requirement that worked.

We need to identify ourselves before boarding a plane, which I will do later today; before buying alcohol, and I am not going to do that before I get on the plane; and before buying tobacco, and soon marijuana, if the government follows through on its misguided plan. In fact, in many instances in everyday Canadian life we are required to identify ourselves, so the question is, why does the government not believe our elections deserve to be safeguarded in the same way?

We currently have many ways to prove our identity when we go to vote. This bill would implement amendments to our voter identification rules. It would open the door to a re-implementation of the voter information card as ID. The voter information card is simply not an identification card. It is not. It provides information to the voter; it is not a means of verifying the voter's identity.

As the member for Perth—Wellington noted yesterday, in the 2015 election 986,613 of these voter information cards had inaccurate information—I received an inaccurate one myself—were sent to the wrong address, or were not complete. I do not know why that number does not give the members opposite pause.

Maybe the members opposite do not realize how many legitimate ways there are to prove identity under the current system. We think they would remember, given that three years later they still try to blame their scandals and errors on our former government. Those seem fresh in their minds. However, I have done them the favour of compiling a list, which I am sure they will appreciate. It will refresh their memories of the ways people can prove their identity.

They can use a health card, which we all seem to have; a Canadian passport, which many have; a birth certificate, and we seem to have a lot of those; a certificate of Canadian citizenship; a citizenship card; a social insurance number card; an Indian status card; a band membership card; a Métis card; a card issued by an Inuit local authority; a Veterans Affairs health card; an old age security card; a hospital card—

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts. The bill addresses the challenges the Conservatives created through the Fair Elections Act. What were the actual challenges? They disenfranchised voters, and they denied the use of voter information cards. This measure led to about 400,000 Canadian citizens being denied their right to vote in the 2011 election. The former chief electoral officer stated at the time that the bill contained measures that “undermine the bill's stated purpose and will not serve Canadians well.”

Therefore, Bill C-76 proposes the following measures to make it a fairer process for Canadians to vote: the bill would make the electoral process more accessible and secure; it would modernize the administration of elections; and it would repeal the portions of the Fair Elections Act that made it harder for Canadians to vote.

I am proud to state that the Canadian electoral system is one of the strongest and most robust in the world. However, the Canada Elections Act is showing its age. Following the 2015 election, the chief electoral officer made over 130 recommendations to improve how our democracy functions. After careful study and consideration by parliamentary committees in both the House and the Senate, and with the input of experts from across Canada, our government has introduced the elections modernization act. This proposed legislation aims to bring Canada's electoral system into the 21st century.

Bill C-76 would make it easier for Canadians to vote, make elections easier to administer, and importantly, protect Canadians from third-party interference. The bill is comprehensive, but I cannot cover all the aspects in this speech. Therefore, I will focus on some key themes.

To make the system more accessible for candidates with either children or disabilities, the bill would allow candidates to pay expenses related to child care, the provision of care to another, or a candidate's own disability-related expenses out of personal funds. These expenses would be eligible for reimbursement at an increased level of 90% and would not be subject to the spending limits.

Second, Bill C-76 proposes measures to reduce barriers to participation by persons with disabilities. Why is this so important to Canadians? These measures are geared toward increasing support and assistance at the polls. As well, they would increase the accommodation of participants during political debates. Canada is a progressive country, and we would like the equal participation of all Canadians.

I had an interesting conversation with a cab driver from Croatia. His comment was, “People think that Canada has many sick people, but that is not the case. Canada allows every person with disabilities to participate actively in all aspects of life. Not so in Croatia, where people with disabilities stay at home.”

Our system may be good, but better is always possible. Therefore, through the bill, the following accommodations would be made.

First, assistance at the polls is currently only permitted for persons with physical disabilities. The amendment would make it available irrespective of the nature of the elector's disability, be it physical or intellectual.

Second, while at the polls, electors could be assisted by a person of their choosing. This is currently not possible when voting in the returning officer's office. With this amendment, people would be able to rely on the same person for assistance at the polling station.

Third, the act would make transfer certificates available for people with all disabilities, not just physical disabilities, irrespective of whether the polling station is accessible. The proposed amendments would also give Elections Canada a more explicit mandate to explore voting technology for the use of electors with disabilities.

The second area I would like to touch on is the Canadian Armed Forces. In his September 2016 report, the former chief electoral officer made an overall recommendation that the Canada Elections Act be reviewed to determine the best way to facilitate voting for those in the Canadian Armed Forces.

I am proud to say that Bill C-76 would provide Canadian Armed Forces electors with greater flexibility in casting their vote, while adopting measures to guarantee the integrity of their vote. To achieve this, Canadian Armed Forces electors would be able to choose the voting method that best suits their needs. They would be permitted to receive voter information cards and to vote at advance polls. Another provision would allow a Canadian Armed Forces elector to use an alternative address for his or her place of ordinary residence for reasons of personal or operational security. I am proud that our government is supporting members of the armed forces. They make big sacrifices for our country and we need to ensure that they also have the ability to practise their right to vote.

The third area I would like to talk about is voting service modernization. The proposed legislative amendments to the Canada Elections Act would provide the Chief Electoral Officer with more flexibility to adapt processes in order to conduct elections more efficiently while strengthening the integrity of the electoral process. Some of the measures would be providing the Chief Electoral Officer with the flexibility to organize tasks at the poll in a way that accounts for local factors; allowing electors to vote at any of the tables in a polling station, rather than wait at the specific table assigned to their polling division; and opening up advance polls from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.

There are many important aspects to the bill that would mitigate the risks of other things, such as foreign interference and third party influence. Currently, we are seeing the drama down south, but Canada was not immune to this in the 2011 election. In my own riding, there were investigations of robocalls and false information sending constituents to the wrong polls. The bill proposes measures that would help prevent foreign actors and wealthy interest groups from using third parties to circumvent the ban on foreign donations.

There are many points we should study, and the committee should be given the right to study the bill properly. The electoral commission has been given the power to compel testimony, lay charges, enter compliance agreements, etc. This was not available. In fact, the electoral commission was denied a lot of rights by the previous government.

There are many other progressive measures included in the bill, which my 10 minutes will not allow me to address.

Democracies are difficult, and it is our job to ensure that democracy survives and flourishes. The proposal would allow the Chief Electoral Officer more independence and the right to undertake broad public education campaigns, which was denied by the previous government as well.

I hope the members of the House will support the bill and send it to committee for further enhancements.

[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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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.

The House resumed from May 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Transportation Modernization Act

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for that information.

I would like to begin by saying that I am not a big fan of the Winnipeg Jets, unlike my colleague who spoke before me. I must admit, however, that after their win last night, knowing they are the only Canadian team still left in the running for the Stanley Cup, I was actually happy for them. It would be great to bring the Stanley Cup back to Canada, hockey being our national sport and all. That is the end of my comments on hockey. Let us get back to Bill C-49.

Mr. Speaker, you said I will not have my entire speaking time before question period. I want you to know right away that I have deliberately chosen not to use all of my time, if only for the sake of consistency when we are talking about the urgent need for action, while the Liberals insist on just talking.

This is about consistency, and I hope there is also some symbolic value here, since one cannot speak from both sides of one's mouth at the same time. One cannot suggest, as I did with my motion here this morning, to return Bill C-49 for royal assent as soon as possible by accepting the two minor amendments that remained out of the ones proposed by the Senate and, at the same time, launch into these endless, long-winded speeches on a bill that will have a real impact on the ground for those who are waiting for this to be resolved, one way or another.

I would like the Hansard to reflect the reasons why senators are insisting on these two amendments to which the Liberal government has unfortunately closed the door.

The message is that the House respectfully refuses the amendments, but I fail to see any respect in all this, except perhaps for the wording of the message. What did the senators send us as justification for insisting on these two small amendments?

I will read their reasoning, not only because I agree with it, but also because I believe that it is important to put it on the record. Why was the Senate so emphatic about its amendment? Let me quote the Senate:

That the reasons for the Senate’s insistence on its amendment 7(c) be:

“because all regions of Canada should be treated equally, with fairness and respect. ...because shippers in the Maritimes will continue to have access to other shipper remedies in the Act. As the proposer of the Senate amendment pointed out in committee, this is unfair for the maritime region, since there are roads and therefore other modes of transportation in areas like Prince Rupert and northern Quebec where an exemption is provided.”

The House no doubt knows that NDP members are not huge fans of the Senate, and especially an unelected Senate, but since this is the way things are for now, I must recognize a job well done.

It is not true that the only job of an opposition party or member is to oppose everything, all the time. I remind members that an opposition member's job is not to oppose everything, but to point out things that could be improved in a bill, to make it as close to perfect as possible. Every bill can be improved upon, and the government that sets the legislative agenda should be open to amendments that make sense. These amendments did not pop up out of nowhere. They are the result of discussions with experts in House committees and parliamentary committees.

I want to talk about another reason why the Senate asked and insisted that its amendment no. 8 be recognized, and I say “asked” because we now know that this request has been denied. I want to share the following quote from the Senate:

That the reasons for the Senate’s insistence on its amendment 8 be:

“because this amendment entitles a shipper to obtain a determination of the railway’s cost of transporting its goods to assist an arbitrator in final offer arbitration to determine whether to select the offer of the carrier or the shipper. By declaring that final offer arbitration is a commercially based process and not cost-based, the House of Commons has removed that entitlement from the shipper;”.

That explanation is as clear as can be, and it is indisputable. Anyone who has negotiated a contract or a collective agreement under arbitration knows that the parties are more likely to reach a fair agreement when there is a balance of power. If Bill C-49 makes that impossible, it is obvious which party stands to benefit the most. The purpose of the amendment was to restore a level playing field and ensure that the arbitrator making the final decision will have the tools to make an informed decision in the event that the process does come to fruition. Even that idea was rejected by the Liberal government.

In light of this morning's decision to reject the amendments, it is once again very clear that the Liberal government is always trying to cozy up to big business, which I imagine can be very generous when it is time to fill the campaign coffers. I suppose I could be wrong, but I will leave it up to everyone to observe the political game-playing. Later today, we will be debating Bill C-76, which is about new election rules. There again we will see how the Liberals want voters to make decisions based on money instead of the various parties' development philosophies. I will have more to say about Bill C-76 later. I will leave it at that for now.

I quoted the Senate's explanations so that they appear in the Hansard, but since I have a few minutes left, I would like to point out everything that this bill does not do. The matter of contracts is urgent, but so is the development of a passengers' bill of rights, which air travellers have been waiting for for years. In the previous Parliament, the NDP tabled a document—it was not even a bill—that sought to examine the possibility of putting regulations in place before the next election as the minister saw fit, but I would be willing to bet that the Liberals will wait until just a few months before the 2019 election is called to introduce the passengers' bill of rights.

It is clear that this government is not here to serve its constituents but to further its election strategy. Meanwhile, all this time, Canadians have been waiting for a real passengers' bill of rights that would ensure that they are compensated in situations like the one we saw here in Ottawa with Air Transat only a year ago. The passengers' bill of rights is also long overdue. When Bill C-49 finally receives royal assent, we will still not have a passengers' bill of rights. All we will have is the first step in a process to develop a bill of rights in the future.

Bill C-49 is absolutely unbelievable. If the Liberals wanted to take quick action on grain transportation, they could have done so. Let us remember that, at the beginning of the process, we proposed dividing Bill C-49 to quickly examine the aspects that addressed grain transportation, but this government refused to do that. We also proposed to extend the measures taken by the previous Conservative government so that farmers would not be left in limbo when the temporary measures ended and before Bill C-49 came into effect.

There are many causes for concern with this bill, and we cannot understand why the Liberal government is not more open to the amendments that are being proposed.

Elections Modernization Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and participate in the debate on Bill C-76, the amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

One of the privileges we have in Canada and as Canadians is to participate in free and fair elections. I do not think there is anyone in this House who would disagree with the importance of that privilege and honour that we have as Canadian citizens to participate in our democratic rights.

However, the government has shown its inability to properly introduce legislation to change our elections. In fact, the acting Chief Electoral Officer made it very clear to Parliament and at committee that in order for Elections Canada to make the changes necessary for the next election in 2019, legislation had to receive royal assent by April 2018. Here we are in May, only just kicking off debate on this matter.

On April 24, 2018, at committee, the acting Chief Electoral Officer, Stéphane Perrault, had this to say to the procedure and house affairs committee:

When I appeared last February I indicated that the window of opportunity to implement major changes in time for the next election was rapidly closing. That was not a new message. Both Monsieur Mayrand and I had previously indicated that legislative changes should be enacted by April 2018. This means that we are now at a point where the implementation of new legislation will likely involve some compromises.

Later in his comments he said:

However, it is also my responsibility to inform you that time is quickly running out. Canadians trust Elections Canada to deliver robust and reliable elections, and we do not want to find ourselves in the situation where the quality of the electoral process is impacted.

The government tabled Bill C-76 in April 2018, the same day legislation was supposed to be in place. The government botched the entire process for implementing changes to the Canada Elections Act. As a result of its mismanagement, the government had to introduce this omnibus bill in order to play catch-up and distract from past failures.

The Chief Electoral Officer provided recommendations for legislative reforms following the 42nd general election in 2015. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was reviewing the recommendations and preparing a report for this House. Then, on November 24, 2016, before the committee had completed its work, the former minister of democratic institutions introduced Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. She introduced an incomplete bill and demonstrated a blatant disregard for the committee's work.

Then, after rushing to create a bill and, in their haste, creating a flawed bill, the Liberals stalled. They have been sitting on the bill and have still not brought it forward for debate at second reading a year and a half later. If we add to that their failed attempt to change Canada’s electoral system to favour their party, the tremendous delay to appoint a permanent Chief Electoral Officer, and the incomprehensible action to perhaps create a debates commission, this government's democratic reform has been a colossal disappointment. The Liberals waited well beyond the April 2018 deadline to introduce Bill C-76.

What is more, Bill C-76 is an omnibus bill. It is 350 pages long and contains hundreds of different sections. At best, it contains seven vastly different elements. Many of these elements are flawed, and not only will they not improve our elections, but in some cases they will actually weaken them.

This brings me to one of the key points contained in the bill, which is the subject of identification. The government is clearly out of touch with what is reasonable in the 21st century.

Today, photo ID and identification with one's address is commonly and routinely used for interactions with governments at all levels, whether federal, provincial or municipal. Under the current law, nearly 50 different types of identification are permitted to allow a Canadian voter to prove his or her identity and address.

Canadians are used to using identification. In Canada, no one bats an eye when he or she is required to show ID to board a plane. No one bats an eye when he or she is required to show ID to prove his or her age to purchase alcohol or tobacco. Students are regularly required to show ID when they take VIA Rail to get the student discount. When we drive a car, we need a driver's licence. When we go fishing, we have a fishing licence. When we go to get a prescription for medication, we show identification. Even to borrow a library book, we need a library card, which, I might add, in most municipalities is free. What is more, when we get that library card, we can also use it as one of the acceptable forms of ID with Elections Canada.

I am proud to have a library card for both the Wellington county libraries and the libraries in Perth county, and I use them regularly. I encourage all Canadians to go to their local libraries and get a card.

Let us look at the list of some of the identification that is currently approved by Elections Canada. Of course, there is the driver's licence or a provincial or territorial ID card. In Ontario, that includes both a photo ID as well as an address on those cards. Also, there is the Canadian passport, a birth certificate, and a label on a prescription container.

It has been mentioned before that perhaps those living in a retirement home or a long-term care home may have a challenge finding identification. However, I would challenge anyone to show me a senior who may be living in a long-term care home who does not have perhaps a pill bottle or prescription that has his or her name and identification on it. Another case would be an identity bracelet issued by a hospital or long-term care facility. Also, one could use a credit card, debit card, or employee card.

The minister talked about students. Nearly every student in high school, college, trade school, or a university has a student card. Most students also have a bus pass or public transportation card. It is unfortunate that the Liberals got rid of the public transit tax credit but, nonetheless, most students do have a transit card, particularly if they do not have a driver's licence.

One could also use a licence or card issued for fishing, trapping, or hunting, one of the great pastimes in Canada. One could use a utility bill, whether that be for electricity, water, telecommunications, cable, or satellite. What is more, Elections Canada also accepts either e-statements or e-invoices for that type of ID. In a growing technological world, I know many of us receive our bills solely online, which is an acceptable form of ID.

One could use a personal cheque, a government statement of benefits, or an income tax assessment. All Canadians are required to file their taxes every year. April 30 was just upon us, and I am sure all Canadians remember that well, with the Liberal government in power.

One could use correspondence issued by a school, college, or university. Again, a student going to college or university in Canada would potentially have that letter. Barring that, it could be a letter of confirmation of residence from a place such as a student residence, for those attending university, or a seniors residence, a long-term care home, a shelter, or a soup kitchen, so that those who may not have a permanent fixed address would still have confirmation of their eligibility to vote.

There is also a third option, in which an oath can be taken to provide confirmation of one's address from someone within the same electoral district undertaking that confirmation.

Most Canadians would see these rules as reasonable and fair. The rules ensure that only those who are eligible electors vote, and that they vote in the correct riding. Canadians are rule-loving people. We respect the rules. When we are asked to prove that we are in fact legitimate voters within an electoral district in Canada, we are happy to do so.

This brings me to the government's decision to use the voter information card as identification. It is an information card, not an identification card, as is often said by members across the way. These are information cards because that is what they provide, information. It has been stated before that, in the 2015 election, 986,613 of these voter information cards had inaccurate information, were sent to the wrong address, or were not complete, yet the Liberals are okay with nearly a million voter information cards being used as identification.

Canadians know that things change. Addresses change, and the voters list is not always entirely up to date. Nonetheless, the Liberals are relying on that information to be used to confirm residence within a riding.

One of the challenges with using the voters list and the voter information cards is that much of this information comes from the Canada Revenue Agency. I will cite a couple of examples where the CRA has mistakenly declared people dead, yet this information is now being used to inform the voters list, and then the voter information card, which entitles people to vote.

I would draw the members' attention to an article from November 2017 in which a Scarborough woman was declared dead and her estate was sent her tax refund of nearly $2,800. Another example recently from CBC, in April 2018, talked about a Cape Breton man whose error on a tax return declared both him and his late wife dead, despite the fact that he never submitted a death certificate for himself. Again, this information is being used to inform the voter information cards, which the Liberals now want to use as a confirmation of an address.

The minister also said that the Liberals would be removing the voting restrictions for those living outside of Canada, removing the five-year limitation and the intent to return to Canada. There are two points on this matter. First, it might be reasonable for Canadians who want to see this country prosper and thrive to at least give an indication that at some point in the future they wish to return and live in this great country we call Canada.

Second, when we look at our Commonwealth cousins and the example of Commonwealth countries around the world, we see that they have similar provisions in place. In the United Kingdom, a national who leaves for more than 15 years is not eligible to vote in a national election. In Australia, the length of time is six years.

I want to talk briefly about foreign financing. The Liberal government tries to claim it is shutting the door on foreign financing, that it is blocking foreign influence in elections. What is actually happening is it is opening up a great big loophole that will allow foreign influence to funnel large amounts of money into U.S.-style super PACs to be distributed within Canada during an election campaign.

In a recent article, John Ivison writes:

In the last election, foreign money wielded by political advocacy groups targeted Conservative candidates—Leadnow claimed its 6,000 volunteers helped defeat 25 Tories.

Leadnow said no international money went towards the campaign. However, the New York-based Tides Foundation donated $795,300 to a B.C.-based non-profit called the Sisu Institute Society, which in turn donated to Leadnow.

Leadnow acknowledges Sisu contributed grants for its “other campaigns” but said the election campaign was funded entirely by Canadian sources. Yet, as Duff Conacher at Democracy Watch pointed out, this is nonsense. “Any grant frees up other money, if it’s all in one pot.”

There is nothing in the new bill to stop this from happening again.

Another example comes from our good friend Andrew Coyne, who wrote:

But let’s examine those much-hyped measures to “protect and defend” Canadian democracy. For example, we are told the bill will prohibit foreign entities “from spending any money to influence elections.” Wonderful, you say: how much were they allowed to spend until now? Er, $500.

But then, the real scandal, to borrow Michael Kinsley's phrase, is not what is illegal—direct foreign spending on Canadian elections—but what's legal: foreign money, by the millions, funneled through Canadian intermediaries, which pass it on to domestic advocacy groups to spend.

This is wrong, and Canadians understand that this is not the way that Canadian elections ought to be run. Creating loopholes that we could drive a Mack truck through, allowing foreign influence in Canadian elections, is wrong, and Canadians understand that. They understand that so much of what the Liberal government is doing in the bill is wrong. Canadians believe that voters should be required to prove their identity before they vote. Canadians believe that proper identification is necessary before they vote in an election. They believe that foreign influence in Canadian elections is wrong and that loopholes should not be allowed in the bill, as the Liberals have done.

Canadians also wonder about the lack of urgency of the Liberal government. We have known for a year and a half that we would need a Chief Electoral Officer, and yet the Liberals waited 18 months. They introduced Bill C-33 and let it languish on the Order Paper, and now, at a point in time when the Liberal government has been told directly by the Chief Electoral Officer that they do not have time to implement the changes, the Liberals are proposing to go ahead anyway with this information.

It is for this reason that I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, since the Bill fails to address the high error rate in the National Register of Electors, and the high rate of erroneous Voter Identification Cards, reported at 986,613 instances in the 2015 election, and does nothing to deal with foreign interference in Canadian elections because the Bill proposes to double the total maximum third party spending amount allowed during the writ period and to continue to allow unlimited contributions in the period prior to the pre-writ period.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Québec debout, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the President of the Treasury Board for his speech.

Obviously, we would have preferred the bill to have been tabled sooner. The President of the Treasury Board says he would like the bill to be passed quickly so that it is in place for the next election. We would have liked the bill to be more substantial, especially by including a proportional voting option. That option was abandoned in spite of a unanimous report from the committee that was supported by every party in the House. We would also have liked to see public financing included in this bill, which it is not. Enhanced public financing of political parties could help our elected officials avoid the appearance of acting in their own financial interests.

My question is about the youth vote. Students are often registered to vote in their parents' riding, but they live near their college or university. This makes it hard for them to vote.

What measures does Bill C-76 provide to make voting easier for students who do not live in the riding where they are registered?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved that Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin the debate at second reading of Bill C-76, the elections modernization act.

Our democracy is stronger when more Canadians, not fewer, are able to participate in our elections. Our government believes that democratic institutions and election rules must keep pace with changes in society and the expectations of our citizens. The elections modernization act is an important step forward for our democracy and for the ability of Canadians to participate in and trust our democratic institutions.

The changes we are proposing under the elections modernization act will make the electoral process more accessible to all Canadians, will help modernize the administration and enforcement of election rules, will make the electoral process more secure and transparent, and will protect the integrity of the Canadian electoral system, while better protecting the personal information and privacy of Canadian citizens.

We believe that our democracy is stronger when as many Canadians as possible participate in it.

In 2014, the previous government passed the Fair Elections Act. This was a regressive piece of legislation that former chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand said contained measures that would “undermine [its] stated purpose and won’t serve Canadians well.” One hundred and sixty academics signed a National Post editorial stating that the Fair Elections Act would “damage the institution at the heart of our country’s democracy: voting in federal elections.” The Globe and Mail ran five editorial board pieces, pleading with the Conservatives to reconsider that legislation.

The Harper Conservatives did not listen to reason. They did not pay attention to evidence, and Canadians paid the price. After the passage of the so-called Fair Elections Act, we saw the disenfranchisement of more than 170,000 Canadian voters who lacked sufficient identification. That is according to Statistics Canada. We saw it become more difficult for Canadians to get information about where, when, and how to vote. We saw it became easier for elections lawbreakers to actually evade punishment.

Unlike the Conservatives, we are listening to Canadians. We want Canadians to be able to participate in our democracy.

By repealing the unfair provisions of the Harper government's Fair Elections Act, we are making it easier for all Canadians to vote.

In April, I was pleased to introduce the elections modernization act on behalf of our government. Not only would it undo the controversial aspects of the Conservatives' so-called Fair Elections Act, but it would strengthen our democratic institutions by making voting more accessible to millions of Canadians who have previously faced unfair barriers.

I will illustrate some of the proposed changes by focusing on four groups of voters: Canadians with disabilities, women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces, Canadian citizens living abroad, and those who do not have the identification required under the Fair Elections Act.

To ensure Canadians with disabilities are better able to participate in our democracy, Bill C-76 confirms existing accessibility practices and further requires a combination of measures to be available to all persons with disabilities, regardless of the nature of that disability. Bill C-76 creates financial incentives for political parties and candidates to accommodate electors with disabilities. These could include providing election material in accessible formats or adding wheelchair ramps to campaign offices, as examples. It makes changes to election expense provisions so that candidates with disabilities or candidates who are caregivers for young, sick, or disabled loved ones would find it easier to run for office.

For these individuals, costs related to this caregiving could be paid from either personal or campaign expenses and would not count against spending limits. These expenses would be reimbursed at up to 90%.

Canadian Forces members make tremendous sacrifices defending our democracy. It only makes sense that we make sure they are able to participate in it as well. In the most recent election, 68% of Canadian electors voted. Among members of the Canadian Forces, the participation rate was only 46%. The bill would give Canadian Forces personnel the same flexibility as other Canadians in choosing how to cast their vote.

Canadians living abroad are no less dedicated to our country than those who reside within its borders, yet many are not able to vote. The bill restores voting rights to more than a million Canadians living abroad by removing the provisions that electors cannot have resided outside of Canada for more than five years and must have an intent to return.

Debates in the last Parliament highlighted a fourth group of Canadians who have challenges when it comes to participating in elections. These are citizens who do not have the required identification. The previous government stopped the use of voter information cards as an allowable piece of ID to establish residency. This happened despite Elections Canada's observation that some four million Canadians do not possess a driver's licence. Canadians impacted most by the Conservatives' regressive law change included university students, indigenous peoples, and in some cases seniors who live in long-term retirement facilities.

We will restore voting rights to these Canadians and we will also restore the practice of vouching for identity and residence. This will help bring eligible voters back into our electoral process. Those who vouch for others would continue to be required to make a solemn declaration and would not be able to vouch for more than one person.

Conservatives may try to say that this would make it easier for non-citizens to vote, but that is simply not the case. In his 2011 compliance report for Elections Canada, Harry Neufeld, an independent elections expert, recommended “widening use of the Voter Information Card as a valid piece of address identification for all voters.”

To ensure that only Canadian citizens are able to vote, the bill would authorize the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information about permanent residents and foreign nationals living in Canada. This would help ensure that only Canadian citizens are included in the register of electors and would help to create a more accurate and up-to-date list of voters. The bill would also grant the commissioner of Elections Canada the ability to impose a financial penalty on individuals who vote when they are not able to do so.

Today Canadians are busier than ever. They work irregular hours. They do shift work. They travel for business and pleasure, and they have parenting or caregiver responsibilities that start before dawn and end late in the evening. As a result, more and more Canadians vote at advance polls. We would increase the hours during which these polls are open to provide more flexibility and enable more Canadians to participate in the electoral process.

The bill would restore the Chief Electoral Officer's authority to conduct public education and information activities to help inform Canadians about the voting process. Through the bill, we would empower young Canadians to pre-register for elections so that when they turn 18, they are automatically registered to vote. As well, the bill would make it easier to hire Canadians aged 16 to 18 as election officers, giving them an opportunity to get engaged earlier in the electoral process.

While we are making it easier for Canadians to vote, we are also making it more difficult for elections lawbreakers to evade punishment. The bill sanctions the powers of the Commissioner of Canada Elections and offers a wider range of remedies for enforcement.

Through the bill, the commissioner would again report to the Chief Electoral Officer and would have new powers to impose administrative monetary penalties for minor violations of the law, have the authority to lay charges, and be able to apply for a court order to compel testimony during investigation of election offences.

Budget 2018 would also provide $7.1 million to support the work of the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections. This funding would help ensure that the Canadian electoral process continues to uphold the highest standards of democracy.

In 2017, the Prime Minister expressly gave the Minister of Democratic Institutions a broad mandate to enhance the openness and fairness of Canada's public institutions. Part of that mandate is to deal with foreign influence and emerging technologies.

Last year, the member for Burlington, my predecessor and soon-to-be successor in the role of Minister of Democratic Institutions, asked the Communications Security Establishment to conduct a study on cyber-threats to our democratic processes. This first-of-its-kind public report found that there was no evidence of nation states interfering in the 2015 Canadian election, but that there has been an upward trend in cyber-threat activity against democratic processes globally.

We take that report seriously. It found that over a 12-month period, 13% of elections globally had some level of foreign interference. We recognize the seriousness of this threat. We cannot afford to ignore these threats and we have a responsibility to defend the integrity of our electoral system.

We are moving forward to protect our democratic institutions from cyber-threats and foreign interference. In budget 2018, the Government of Canada provided approximately $750 million for the creation of a new Canadian centre for cybersecurity. Budget 2018 also sets aside more than $100 million over the next five years for the creation of a national cybercrime coordination unit. These organizations will bring together expertise from across government, coordinate investigations, and protect and defend our government and democratic institutions from cyber-threats.

Bill C-76 takes a step forward in addressing potential manipulation of social media by prohibiting the malicious use of computers where there is an intent to obstruct, interrupt, or interfere with the lawful use of computer data during an election period.

Current provisions of the Canada Elections Act that deal with publishing false statements are, according to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, unenforceable. The bill before us would narrow the focus to information about criminal records and biographical information. A new provision would prohibit distribution of material intended to mislead the public as to its source.

Most importantly, we are closing the loophole that has previously allowed foreign entities to spend money in Canadian elections.

As a result of news reports earlier this year, Canadians are rightly concerned about the way private corporations use their personal information for political ends. I want to reassure Canadians that in Canada these corporations are already regulated under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, but that does not mean our work is done. Through this bill, we are requiring for the first time that political parties be transparent about the steps they are taking to protect Canadians' personal information.

Bill C-76 requires political parties to have a publicly available privacy policy addressing a series of privacy issues in terms of how a party collects or gathers data, how it uses data, how it shares data. A party that does not meet these criteria will face deregistration by Elections Canada.

I also hope that colleagues on the procedure and House affairs committee, PROC, will revisit their study on privacy and political parties and provide recommendations on the issue. It was less than a year ago that PROC took a look at this issue and recommended no changes, but I think all members would recognize that the ground has shifted on this issue and that it bears revisiting by PROC. PROC represents all parties, so it makes a great deal of sense for it to be the vehicle to do a deeper dive into this.

Some of the measures in this legislation may be familiar to members of the House, as they were introduced previously in Bill C-33. This underscores the breadth and depth of input and advice that has gone into the bill before us.

This legislation has also benefited from the input of the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities. I would like to thank them for their work. I want to thank parliamentarians who contributed to this at PROC, and I also want to thank Elections Canada. Eighty-five per cent of the recommendations from Elections Canada after the last election were incorporated into the bill. The report's findings after the last election are very much at the heart of the bill. Again, I want to thank the members of PROC, who conducted a detailed analysis of the Chief Electoral Officer's report.

Our government is committed to strengthening Canada's democratic institutions. We are committed to maintaining the trust of Canadians in our democratic processes. Bill C-76 would advance that agenda, and I urge hon. members to move expeditiously on it so that it can be in place for the October 2019 general election.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will begin debate on Bill C-76, the elections modernization act. This debate will continue tomorrow, and the following week will be a constituency week.

However, if we receive a message from the Senate this afternoon about Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act, this bill will get priority.

Upon our return following the constituency week, we will resume debate on Bill C-76 on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, we will start debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

On Thursday, we will begin debate on Bill C-75, the justice modernization act.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Tuesday, May 22, for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Finance, and Thursday, May 24, for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Elections Modernization Act

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, a charter statement on Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments.

Democratic Reform

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the biggest challenge for our electoral democracy is not voter fraud, it is voter turnout. Bill C-76 will bring back voter ID cards and vouching, and we are also giving Elections Canada the mandate to promote turnout.

In the last Parliament, it was a Conservative MP who had to rise to apologize for falsifying stories about electoral fraud. I would urge the Conservatives to move on and recognize that what we should be doing is encouraging people—

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

Mr. Speaker, the integrity of our elections is something most Canadians take for granted, but as Wendell Phillips said in 1852, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Vigilance and a commitment to the integrity of our elections requires us to confront the Liberals' disastrous proposals in Bill C-76, proposals that will bring the integrity of our electoral process into question and weaken our democracy.

To have confidence in the results of an election, Canadians expect three simple things: that voters prove who they are; that voters prove where they live; and that our elections are free of foreign interference. Bill C-76 would weaken all three of these. It would eliminate ID requirements, ID requirements that are already among the most generous in the world. It would allow Canadians living abroad to choose which riding to vote in, whether or not they demonstrate any plausible connection to that riding. It would introduce no meaningful safeguards on foreign interference at a time when more and more foreign actors want to manipulate our politics.

The bill is a clear and present threat to the integrity of Canadian elections. We will fight it every step of the way.

[Matthew Shea, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Privy Council Office]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting the Privy Council Office, the PCO, to review our 2018-19 main estimates and departmental plan.

My name is Matthew Shea. I am the Assistant Deputy Minister of Corporate Services and the Chief Financial Officer of PCO.

I am accompanied today by Ms. Marian Campbell Jarvis, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Social Development Policy; Mr. Shawn Tupper, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Economic and Regional Development Policy; and Mr. Rodney Ghali, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Impact and Innovation Unit in the Privy Council Office.

As you know, the mandate of the PCO is to serve Canada and Canadians by providing professional, non-partisan advice and support to the Prime Minister and the ministers within his portfolio, and to support the effective operation of cabinet.

PCO supports the advancement of the Government of Canada's policy, legislative, and government administration agendas and coordinates responses to issues facing the government and the country.

The head of the PCO is the Clerk of the Privy Council. The clerk also acts as secretary to the cabinet and head of the public service.

PCO has three main goals: to provide non-partisan advice and support to the Prime Minister, portfolio ministers, cabinet, and cabinet committees on matters of national and international importance, including policy, legislative, and government administration issues faced by the government; to serve as a secretariat to the cabinet and all of its committees, with the exception of the Treasury Board committee, which is supported by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat; and to foster a high-performing and accountable public service.

Like the Department of Finance and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the PCO is a central agency, and it exercises a leadership role across government departments and agencies to provide advice to the Prime Minister and cabinet as well as to ensure the coherence and coordination of policy development and delivery.

I'd like to begin with a brief overview of the 2018-19 main estimates and the 2018-19 departmental plan. PCO is seeking $166.4 million overall for its core responsibility, which is to serve the Prime Minister and cabinet, and for its internal services.

PCO will coordinate the government's efforts to deliver policy and initiatives by using a whole-of-government approach. This will include strengthening diversity and inclusion, including support to the special adviser to the Prime Minister on LGBTQ2 issues and ensuring that perspectives of transgender, non-binary, and two-spirit Canadians inform the Government of Canada's collection, use, and display of sex and gender information.

It will also include reviewing relationships with Canada's indigenous peoples and aiding the working group of ministers' review of laws and policies, as well as the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, as part of Canada's continuing effort to advance reconciliation, as well as bilaterally and multilaterally collaborating with provinces and territories on key priority areas in order to maintain and advance intergovernmental relations.

It will include ensuring that Canada has an open and accountable government, in part through regular non-partisan updates on the status of ministerial mandate letter commitments posted on the mandate letter tracker website and by supporting the government's commitment to open, transparent, and merit-based selection processes for Senate and GIC appointments.

It will also include coordinating and supporting international trade negotiations, including NAFTA, as well as supporting the Prime Minister's international travel and participation in summit-level meetings; coordinating the development of legislation and policies with regard to national security and intelligence, and responding to global concerns and threats to exports, investments, and the safety and security of Canadians; public service renewal and modernization, including the innovative impact Canada initiative and a commitment to the advancement of healthy workplaces that promote diversity and inclusion, are free from harassment and bullying, and foster innovation; and, finally, improving, strengthening, and protecting Canada's democratic institutions by supporting initiatives relating to political party leaders' debates, the elections modernization act, and political fundraisers.

We will continue to support the Prime Minister in his role as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Youth, and coordinate the development of policy informed by engagement with youth and youth-serving organizations, in partnership with the Prime Minister’s Youth Council.

As part of ongoing modernization efforts, we will measure performance using the departmental results framework, an approach that will focus on results rather than activities. We will also employ such analytical tools as gender-based analysis to assess policy and program implications for women, men, and gender-diverse people.

We will continue to replace and upgrade current IT infrastructure and systems as part of our information management and information technology project.

This brief summary of PCO's 2018-19 departmental plan touches on a few of the means by which PCO will continue to support the clerk as head of the public service, the Prime Minister, and cabinet as part of a whole-of-government approach.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this context.

We would now be pleased to answer your questions.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians know that the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister have zero credibility when it comes to talking about electoral reform, since they broke a key election promise on electoral reform. Nevertheless, Bill C-76 contains some pretty bad ideas, such as doing away with photo identification in favour of just a voter card. During the last election, one million voter cards contained errors.

Why are they playing games with democracy?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-76 would actually protect the integrity of our electoral system. It would also help protect the personal and private information of Canadians, and it would encourage and help more Canadians to participate in the electoral system and to vote in elections. Beyond that, there are actually measures in Bill C-76 that would ensure that foreign money is not spent in Canadians' electoral system.

We would urge the Conservatives to support Bill C-76 and to help move forward with an even stronger electoral system for Canadians.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we all know the Liberal government's record on electoral reform, and it is not pretty. The Liberals have continuously tried to use every trick in the book to quash opposition debate and to tip the electoral scales in their favour. They tried to quell debate by introducing a motion that would allow unprecedented and undemocratic Liberal control over the ins and outs of parliamentary business. They broke their promise to Canadians on electoral reform when they could not push through an electoral system that experts said would have only benefited the Liberal Party. They have tried to force through changes in committee that would have had the Liberals skip work on Fridays and the Prime Minister show up to work only one day a week. They have used the ministers' offices and Prime Minister's Office for partisan cash for access fundraisers. Now, they are trying to force through changes in Bill C-76 that would make up to one million votes susceptible to fraud in the election. Do the Liberals not know that Canadians can see through their tricks, and simply do not trust them to make electoral changes that are in the benefit of Canadian democracy and not just of the Liberal Party?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, the main challenge for our electoral democracy is not voter fraud but voter participation. Eliminating the voter ID card does not improve the integrity of the system. It only takes away the ability of many qualified voters to vote.

In Bill C-76, we are not only restoring the use of voter identification cards and vouching, but we are also giving back the mandate for Elections Canada to promote participation. The Conservative Party's so-called Fair Elections Act was simply cover for a government determined to wring political gain from every measure.

We will take no lessons from the party opposite. We believe Canadians have a right to vote and we will continue to fight for that.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to strengthening Canada's democratic institutions and increasing Canadians' trust and participation in our democratic processes.

Bill C-76 is a great example of that. The bill would increase the transparency of our electoral process. It would make elections more accessible to all Canadians. It would make the electoral process more secure and ensure political parties protected Canadians' privacy.

We believe that a whole-of-government approach is required to protect Canada's democratic institutions. We look forward to working with all members in the House to build a more open and transparent system for Canada.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will resume third reading debate on Bill C-48 on the oil tanker moratorium. The debate shall continue tomorrow.

On Monday, we will start report stage and third reading of Bill C-65 on harassment. Tuesday will be an allotted day.

Next Wednesday, in accordance with the order adopted on April 26, the House will resolve itself into a committee of the whole following question period to welcome the athletes of the 2018 Pyeongchang Olympic and Paralympic Games. Afterward, the House will proceed with debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act.

Next Thursday, we will only begin the debate of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. As members have heard in this House numerous times, we are committed to seeing more people participate in democracy. I have always committed to ensuring that there is a reasonable amount of time to debate and also to ensure that the committee can do its work. Therefore, I look forward to hearing from all parties how much time is needed so that we can continue to ensure that legislation is advanced in a timely fashion.

Just quickly, Mr. Speaker, I want the opposition House leader and all colleagues to know that this is our parliamentary family, and we are always going to be here to work together. We know that in the days and weeks and years to come, there might be times that we need to lean on each other, and we will always be here to do that, and I know the opposition does the same. We sincerely appreciate those kind words today. Our thoughts and prayers are with the members.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, House Leader of the Official Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask the Thursday question, I do want to just express my gratitude to the government House leader and to all our Liberal and our other colleagues for the way they responded yesterday after the sudden passing of our colleague, Gord Brown. I thank them for their response.

In regard to the business coming up, I want to specifically ask, if I could, about Bill C-76. There are some rumours that the government may be deciding to try to fast-track the bill in some way or another, so I hope that the government House leader can please clarify that the government will indeed not do that. Given the potential impact of Bill C-76 on our democracy, it is very important that sufficient time be allotted. In fact, the House would welcome a commitment from the government that respects the intent of a Liberal motion introduced and previously proposed by the House leader's colleague, the Liberal member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. This Liberal motion, proposed on April 10, 2014, sought to limit the government's ability to shut down debate on a bill regarding elections and our democracy.

That was a Liberal motion. I would ask if the government House leader could give us the update on what the business of the week will be, keeping that in mind and respecting the need we all have to debate important bills around democracy with sufficient time.

Democratic Reform

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, we are strengthening Canada's democratic institutions with Bill C-76, and we are increasing Canadians' trust and participation in our electoral process. We are increasing the transparency of the electoral process. We are making elections more accessible to Canadians, including Canadians with disabilities. We are making the electoral process more secure and ensuring that political parties protect the privacy of Canadian citizens. Our government is strengthening the democratic institutions that the Conservatives actually attacked throughout their time in government.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am awfully glad the hon. member had a supplementary question, because there are so many things the Conservatives did to attack our electoral system that I needed more time. In fact, the parliamentary secretary to their prime minister went to jail for breaking election rules. The Conservatives attacked our democratic system; the Liberals are strengthening it. That is what Bill C-76 would do, making it easier for Canadians to vote, while strengthening our democratic system. More people voting is good for our democratic system.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-76, our government is making it easier for Canadians to vote, and tougher to break the rules. The defeated Harper Conservatives, on the other hand, made it tougher for Canadians to vote, and they broke the rules. We will not take lessons from the defeated Harper Conservatives—

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the New Democrats for what they said yesterday, that they actually agree with some of the provisions in Bill C-76. In fact, they agreed broadly with the principle that Bill C-76 could actually strengthen our democratic process.

Eighty-five per cent of the recommendations of Elections Canada are in fact proposals in Bill C-76,, so we have every confidence that Elections Canada can make this work before the next election.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-76 would strengthen Canada's electoral system and increase the participation of Canadians in our electoral process. Yesterday, I spoke to the acting Chief Electoral Officer about the legislation. The potential to increase the transparency of our electoral process, and to make elections more accessible and the electoral process more secure, is important. That is why it is important that we pass the bill through Parliament and the Senate, and make sure it is in place for the next election. I have every confidence that it will be.

Elections Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-401, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (voting age).

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour to introduce a new bill today. Bill C-401 will lower the voting age in Canada and create a system in which young people can vote once they turn 16.

The objective of this legislation is to increase voter turnout among young people in Canada. Across a number of western democracies, voter turnout is the weakest in the demographic where voting matters the most, the people on whose lives the decisions will have the most impact. Young people in Canada, ages 18 to 24, vote the least. Research has shown that if they start voting at a younger age they will continue voting longer. If someone has not started voting before the age of 25, that individual will not start voting at 30. The evidence is clear.

The goal of this amendment to the Canada Elections Act is to give young people the right to vote at the age of 16, knowing that in the context of still being in high school, still being at home, and being in their own community, they are more likely to vote.

I hope the House will look on this bill favourably. Some small adjustments will need to be made based on Bill C-76, which was tabled in the House yesterday.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Elections Modernization Act

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments.