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.

Elections Modernization Act

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

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

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her concern about the safety and security of the Canadian electoral system. It is quite clear that permanent residents and landed immigrants do not get to vote. Canadian citizens get to vote. Voter ID cards are exactly that: demonstrating a person is a Canadian citizen. That is what we want to make sure takes place in this country, and that is what Bill C-76 would ensure.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have only one concern from all the debate and information I have received about Bill C-76. We saw multiple examples where asylum seekers coming in received letters saying that they should register to vote. I am concerned to understand what mechanisms would be in place with Elections Canada to verify people's information. My understanding is they are not Canadian citizens and should not be able to vote. If we go with a voter ID card only, then how would we make sure we do not have illegal voting?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was a deflecting question.

I believe the larger question comes back to the fact that the government, in its mandate letter to the Minister of National Revenue, gave her pretty clear direction on the CRA audit of questionable Canadian charities that were Canadianizing American charitable dollars to be used by third parties. The donors of these original American dollars basically bragged that they were sending them to Canada to be used to defeat the sitting Conservative government.

That is the larger issue we are addressing here today. The fact is that Elections Canada should have been enabled by this deficient legislation, Bill C-76, to allow, and to ask, the Canada Revenue Agency to make clear exactly where the money trail leads, from American dollars through American charitable agencies to Canadian charitable agencies, and then disbursed to third parties. Third parties, as Ms. Krause reminded us, can throw mud in an election campaign while the party, the Liberal Party in this case, can claim to take the high road.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments today on Bill C-76, a bill we think will strengthen the ability of Canadians to vote that was taken away by the party opposite.

One of the amendments that was accepted at committee was to add additional punishments for third parties that are found guilty of offences related to the use of foreign funds. It is interesting that the Conservatives are saying that we are not doing enough, but they voted against that in committee. This was an amendment put forward by the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. It is also one supported by Senator Frum in her legislation. However, the Conservatives felt that they had to vote against it.

Did Conservatives vote against it because it was put forward by a Liberal, or did they vote against it because it strengthened the legislation?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will pick up where I left off before the Liberals imposed a legislative guillotine to cut off debate.

My greatest concern about Bill C-76 is the Liberal claim that it would combat and control third party spending. It would not properly address a problem that could have been easily solved if, and this is a big if, the current Liberal government had actually wanted to solve it.

At first glance, it appears that the legislation might contain foreign financial interference by setting some spending limits and requiring third parties to have a dedicated Canadian bank account. However, Bill C-76 would double the total maximum third party spending amount allowed during the writ period, and it would still allow unlimited contributions from individual donors and others, unlimited spending by third parties and unlimited foreign donations outside the pre-writ and writ periods.

Some of our Liberal colleagues claim that foreign financial interference has been adequately blocked, but the reality is that a huge loophole, exploited in recent elections with increasingly larger amounts of foreign funding of third parties, still exists. Foreign charities, such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund in New York or the American Tides Foundation in San Francisco, can give millions of foreign dollars to Canadian charities such as the Tides Canada organization, Leadnow, the Dogwood Initiative or the Sisu Institute, and those millions can be disbursed as Canadian dollars to third-party groups to support parties and candidates of their choice and to oppose parties and candidates of their choice. Elections Canada can do nothing without new legislation.

Bill C-76 would do nothing to stop these, effectively laundered, American dollars from being used, as they were in 2015, to work to defeat a Conservative government, or next year, to attempt to re-elect the current Liberal government. In fact, the Canada Revenue Agency, before the 2015 federal election, had been working to audit 42 registered Canadian charities for political activity. There is research, accumulated by the skilled investigative journalist and researcher Vivian Krause, that indicates that 41 of the 42 audited charities were not fully compliant with the law and that the CRA would have recommended that at least five of these so-called charities be disqualified and shut down completely. However, in 2016, the CRA shut down those audits without reporting, coincidentally after the revenue minister was issued a mandate letter that directed her to “Allow charities to do their work...free from political harassment".

Ms. Krause testified last week, before the ethics committee, that she spent six months in 2016 writing a report, which she submitted to Elections Canada. Elections Canada sent investigators to Vancouver to meet with Ms. Krause, and she testified that after extensive discussion, it became clear to her that Elections Canada cannot do anything if the Canada Revenue Agency allows charities to Canadianize foreign funds.

The Income Tax Act is very clear that charities are to operate for purposes that are charitable as defined by law. While charities have been able to get away with it by pointing to language that permits a limited amount of political activity, the original intent was that the political activity was intended to further a charitable purpose. If that political activity does not support a charitable purpose, the allowable political activity should be, as Ms. Krause pointed out very clearly before committee, absolutely zero.

In wrapping up, while there are, admittedly, some modest improvements made to Bill C-76, it remains a deeply deficient attempt to restore fairness to the Canadian election process. It is a testament to the current Liberal government's deliberate decision, as with Bill C-50 before it, to leave loopholes the Liberals believe will enhance their efforts to save their political skin in 2019.

The House resumed from October 24 consideration of Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-76—Time Allocation Motion

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said to my colleague numerous times at committee and outside this House, I do believe that Bill C-76 takes an important first step when it comes to privacy, by requiring political parties to publicly post a privacy policy statement on their websites.

When we talk about concrete action and facts, shortly after Bill C-76 was introduced, the New Democratic Party actually changed their public privacy policy statement. Thus, it actually did have an effect, because prior to that there was a very weak policy statement on the New Democrat website. This will enable Canadians to look at what those privacy policies are.

In regard to enforceability, it is important to note that if a political party does not post a privacy policy, it could in fact be deregistered by Elections Canada, which is quite a significant stick.

I have also said to my hon. colleague numerous times that I think this particular issue requires more study. I am not opposed to a privacy regime for political parties. However, I think that we need to determine what exactly that would looks like in a way that political parties could conduct the important work they do in engaging with Canadians while also protecting their privacy.

When it comes to foreign interference, this bill does many important things and takes many important steps to safeguard Canadian information, to understand where influence and interference are coming from and to provide greater transparency for Canadians.

We can be very proud of this legislation and the important steps it takes ahead of 2019.

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

Mr. Speaker, talking about respect for the independent officers of Parliament and respect for the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner, both of them testified at committee that there are no privacy rules governing political parties in this bill, that there is one deep flaw in this bill, that political parties need to be subject to some sort of privacy rules.

My friend from Toronto would know well that all Bill C-76 says is that the parties have to put some kind of policy on their websites somewhere. The policy does not have to be enforceable. The policy does not actually have to protect Canadians' data and the integrity of our elections. They just seem to have one.

I have a very specific question for the minister. I know she prides herself on answering questions directly. Can she point to a single bit of evidence of a witness before committee saying that Bill C-76, as drawn up with regard to privacy, is sufficient? I can point to the Chief Electoral Officer, whom the minister just said she respects, and I can point to the Privacy Commissioner, whom she said she respects, and I can point to the privacy and ethics committee, which has studied this question already and has recommended, as my friend would know, that privacy should apply to political parties, including Liberals on that committee, and the Liberal sitting right beside her.

Therefore, my question is this. If Bill C-76 is our once-in-a-generation legislation to make sure that our elections are free and fair and that in order to do that there must be enforceable rules applied to all political parties that would allow the Privacy Commissioner to review and chastise those parties that break those rules—which is so fundamental to Canadians being able to cast a vote in a free and fair election and that experts from England and the United States said that if they had to do it over again, they would have had stronger privacy rules—why is the minister, with this bill, telling Canadians that when we go to vote in 2019, foreign influence, hacking our systems, and going after data from the Liberals, Conservatives and the NDP will be allowed under this bill she is forcing through Parliament, contrary to their promises in previous Parliaments?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues on this side of the House have addressed the fact that this piece of legislation has come to the House extraordinarily and unacceptably late. This should have been presented a year ago. The fact that it was so clumsily assembled is reflected in the fact that the Liberal government put forward almost six dozen amendments of its own to try to correct this clumsily written piece of legislation. Now, after only two and a half speeches by members on the opposition side of the House on this deeply flawed bill, the government has imposed the legislative guillotine of time allocation, enabled by its parliamentary majority, to cut off debate.

I know that my hon. colleagues on the government side of the House love to invoke Peter Van Loan's name. However, when this same legislation was passed by the previous government, our Harper government, a very similar piece of legislation from which, regrettably, many elements have been stripped in Bill C-76, there were many more hours and days of debate than are being allowed here today. Only three opposition speakers have risen on this side of the House and, all of a sudden, time allocation has been imposed.

How can the current government possibly look Canadians in the face with any sort of respect and say that it is working to properly defend the Canadian electoral process?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague Winnipeg Centre for the important information contained in his excellent question. He did a very good job of summarizing some of the most important elements of in this bill.

With regard to implementation, it is extraordinarily important that we pass this bill quickly. This bill has been before the House for almost six months now. The committee has conducted an extensive study of it and has brought forward important comments and amendments. We have accepted amendments to this bill by both of the main opposition parties, which is important. Of course, these are amendments that would improve the bill and not return it to its former state with the Canada Elections Act.

As my colleague noted, the former CEO of Elections Canada brought forward over 100 recommendations for how we could improve the Canada Elections Act. Bill C-76 would implement 85% of those recommendations. I think we can all agree that the CEO of Elections Canada has the best interest of Canadians and Canadian democracy at heart, and this bill would do exactly that.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know this legislation is important for our democracy. When it comes to important elements like vouching, and when it comes to ensuring that the most vulnerable among us can cast a ballot, this legislation would make that happen.

Experts across the country have called for the passage of the bill. Let us all work together and get this done. I sincerely hope that my colleagues on the other side of this place will recognize the important underlying democratic values and principles that are encompassed in Bill C-76 and will work with us to pass the bill in a timely way, because it is important for Canadians and it is important for Canadian democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians can tolerate quite a bit from our politics sometimes, whether they have a left or centre or right perspective. One of the things I have noticed that they cannot tolerate is straight-up hypocrisy.

I am looking at the member for Winnipeg North, who has now joined us here.

The member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, who was here moments ago, moved a motion a couple of years ago in this place. That motion said we should never use the guillotine of time allocation to shut down debate in Parliament on any bills that deal with our democracy, because they are so fundamental.

One would have to ask the Liberals: How did we get here? There must have been some massive impediment that made them have to go back on their word and force time allocation on Parliament.

The bill to fix the unfair elections act, which New Democrats support, was introduced almost two years ago. They must have been working hard in those two years in the hope of getting this legislation through in time for the next election.

We have now found out that they did not work on the bill. They sat on the bill month after month. We pleaded with them to show us the bill so we could debate it and pass it through the House.

The Liberals introduced Bill C-76 so late that the Chief Electoral Officer has told them they blew the deadline. A bunch of things in the bill will not even happen for the 2019 election.

Canadians are very frustrated with the Liberals, especially with respect to issues around voting and democracy. They broke their sacred promise to make 2015 the last election under first past the post. We really thought they would have learned a lesson that the urgency of now is incredibly important. It was not important to them.

Now the Liberals are introducing the exact same motion, word for word, that Stephen Harper used to ram his bill through Parliament. They want to use it to force their legislation through Parliament and are looking around for someone to blame. They cannot find anyone.

My question for the minister is simple. We had an opportunity to fix privacy rules in Canada to ensure that our democracy and our voting are free and fair. Why did the Liberals choose to ignore all the evidence that the committee heard, which screwed up elections in England and the U.S.? Why did they choose to expose Canadian elections to hacking and tampering by foreign influences because parties will not have to follow any privacy rules whatsoever under this legislation?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

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

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