This bill was last introduced in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2019.
Karina Gould Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
In his last recommendation report, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada made several recommendations to modernize services to voters at polling stations. It was noted that polling stations were slowed down by the fact that every voter had to go to the polling station associated with the voter's polling division.
The changes made by Bill C-76 will eventually give the Chief Electoral Officer the flexibility to group several polling divisions at a single polling station. When voters arrive, they will be able to vote at the first table available, rather than having to line up in front of the table for their polling division.
Actually, Bill C-76 was designed in a way that would allow maximum flexibility.... Well, it's not “maximum” flexibility in that it's not unrestricted flexibility. Nevertheless, it would give a lot of flexibility to the Chief Electoral Officer in managing polling stations on polling day and at advance polls.
I would point you to page 17 of the bill and to proposed section 38, which states:
A returning officer shall keep a record of the powers and duties that he or she has assigned to each election officer, and of the time at which or during which each election officer is to exercise a power or perform a duty assigned to him or her.
Proposed section 39 states:
An election officer shall exercise or perform, in accordance with the Chief Electoral Officer’s instructions, any power or duty assigned to him or her by a returning officer.
The Canada Elections Act used to designate many functions at the polling stations—for example, the poll clerk, the deputy returning officer, the revising agent, etc. All of these titles have been removed, changed to the generic “election officer”. The Chief Electoral Officer will now be able to manage personnel better at the polling station on polling day by assigning different functions to various election officers.
This motion and a few other motions would just remove some of that flexibility, but of course Elections Canada presented this model of modernized polling stations in its recommendations report and intends to continue administering elections in an—
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Good morning, and welcome to the 124th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I would like to welcome Peter Fragiskatos.
I would also like to thank Luc Thériault for being with us again.
Once again, we are pleased to be joined by Manon Paquet and Jean-François Morin from the Privy Council Office as we pick up where we left off with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments. We will resume with consideration of clause 61 and CPC-22.
Stephanie did a good job of presenting the new amendments in order, and Philippe stayed up late last night to put them in order. When we get to a new amendment, I'll be referring to the number as the reference number, which is on the top left. If you keep them in the order you got them in, they'll come up in that order, and I'll tell you when we get to those particular amendments.
Mr. Nater, go ahead.
No, of course. Bill C-76 would lift the prohibition on identifying the voter information card as one of the potential pieces of identification that can be used, but if these amendments are passed, someone presenting himself or herself with a voter information card at a poll will always have to show at least a second piece of identification to prove his or her identity.
Absolutely, Mr. Chair. I will start with a bit of history, if you don't mind.
Prior to the year 2000, when the former Canada Elections Act was in force, it was very clear from the provisions included in that former Canada Elections Act that in order to vote, you needed to be a Canadian citizen and 18 years of age or older.
There were two other provisions related to these two requirements for qualification as an elector. One clarification was saying that provided you would be 18 years of age or older on polling day, you could actually vote before polling day—in advance polls, for example. With regard to citizenship, it was also very clear that if you were to become a Canadian citizen before the end of the revision of the list of electors, then your name could be included for future voting at advance polling.
When the new Canada Elections Act came into force in 2000, this question became a bit unclear by reason of the wording of section 3 of the Canada Elections Act in French. The English version of section 3 can be interpreted to say that you need to be 18 years of age or older on polling day, but you need to be a Canadian citizen at all times.
On the other hand, the French version of the Canada Elections Act says that you need to be a Canadian citizen and 18 years old on polling day, which could lead to the interpretation that if someone were to become a Canadian citizen before polling day.... For example, if someone knows that his or her citizenship ceremony is scheduled for 10 days before polling day, that person could vote before swearing the oath of citizenship.
When the new Canada Elections Act came into force in 2000, our consultations with Elections Canada informed us that Elections Canada always took a more traditional approach to interpreting section 3. Elections Canada never allowed someone who would become a Canadian citizen in the future to vote. It always required that persons be citizens before voting.
When Bill C-76 was introduced, other amendments toward the end of the bill brought this little imprecision to light again. Therefore, the proposed amendment would fix that. It would make it clear that you need to be a Canadian citizen when you exercise your right to vote.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Through you to our witnesses, one of the scenarios that Ms. May just described is about a group inviting candidates. Let's say in the midst of an election, you have a woman's group or an indigenous group that says they'd like you to come and speak at this thing. That's something that happens in every election that I've ever seen. Would that trip the collusion aspect of what's envisioned in Bill C-76?
I have no problem with it if an anti-poverty group wants to invite candidates to speak or debate or whatever. If a women's group does that, it's more than normal. It's actually quite healthy. I think if I understood Ms. May's intervention correctly, she is trying in this amendment to clarify that this should be both legal and encouraged. However, perhaps I have something wrong in my understanding of it.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, absolutely, and all the consequential amendments.
Essentially, this is a question I put to the minister when she was here. We've had people testify on this issue. If the intention is that we are all democrats of various natures, we like people voting. We've seen a steady decline in voter turnout, with the odd uptick.
One of the things we've learned from past surveys by Elections Canada and the different provincial sections is that we don't have a five-day workweek anymore. We don't have a regular-hour workweek anymore. People work all sorts of hours, and this is essentially around Sunday voting. According to most international experts, the ability to allow this would result in a 6% to 7% gain in the turnout at elections.
The countries that do this, just to give people some reassurance that it functions in functioning democracies, are Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, and a whole bunch of others.
I don't know if Samara, which we have all referenced and used quite a bit, have testified on Bill C-76. Did they?
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I would agree with you. That would look like partisan activity if they said, “We like what this party has said.” We're talking about publishing the results so someone can read them and say, “Oh, this party has this position.” In other words, it's pure education. It's not saying, “We like what this party said because we surveyed them.” It's saying, “Here is a survey we circulated to the parties in this election and individual candidates on a riding-by-riding basis.” One must remember there are independent candidates seeking to become members of Parliament. In our Westminster parliamentary system, they have just as much a right to get the public's attention as those who are in the larger parties.
The reality is that my amendment would actually make the legislation more robust in protecting free speech, without increasing the risk that third party actors will use their position to engage in partisan activities through the back door. They'd have to be very clear that it's general advocacy on an issue that does not promote or oppose. That means it's straight-up public information. It's education.
I don't want to take too long, but I have to say I have experienced this at the Sierra Club of Canada. Starting in 2006 and without any changes to the law, CRA information bulletins began to restrict very significantly the ability of NGOs to speak during election campaigns, even about the most basic fact-checking around issues on which they have expertise. We invite NGOs to testify at committees because they have expertise. That expertise is very valuable to a voter.
Political parties have rights to speak, but voters can quite appropriately apply a discount factor to the truth of what they hear from political parties during election campaigns. However, if they know there's a group they trust, whether it's CARE Canada or Oxfam speaking to poverty issues or a major organization that advocates for the rights of women like Equal Voice, their ability to publish a survey should not fall under the election advertising provisions of Bill C-76.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before we launch into the last amendment, I want to put on the record that the process by which I find myself here is still offensive and difficult for me. This committee's motion requires that I be in the committee to present amendments at clause-by-clause consideration. This is a substantial interference with my ability to do my work, because we quite often have committee hearings and clause-by-clause consideration at the same time, with two different committees meeting on clause-by-clause at the same time. It's a motion I don't welcome, but I do welcome the opportunity to be among colleagues and present these amendments, which I will do as quickly as I can, given how many the committee has to deal with on Bill C-76.
My first amendment falls under the subsection, just to remind people, where election advertising has a carve-out that says election advertising does not mean one of these things. Election advertising, for instance, in the bill as it now is drafted doesn't include transmission of an editorial or an opinion in a newspaper.
The concern I'm trying to address in this amendment comes from non-governmental organizations that are not actually in any way, shape or form advocating or in any way being partisan, but want to publish results, for instance, of surveys—in other words, it's for information purposes, but they're not third parties.
To enter into a campaign as a third party suggests you're favouring someone. That could be very difficult, for instance, for a charity that must not take a position in an election, but which, by its mandate, has an educational function. To ensure that the educational function is not precluded, I have the amendment that adds, for greater certainty, that election advertising does not include “general advocacy on an issue that does not actively promote or oppose a registered party or the election of a candidate”.
Then the rest is consistent with that to ensure we also are not considering it as identifying or commenting on the position taken on an issue by a registered party or nomination contestant and so on.
I hope that's clear. We already have heard the minister's answer, so I'm relatively sure about what's going to happen to my amendment, but I think it's really important that the voices of non-government organizations that are not advocates and are not partisan be allowed to be heard, because those voices are an extremely important source of information for voters. Registering as a third party is not only onerous but may mislead people as to the intention of civil society organizations that are completely non-partisan.
Thank you.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Just so that I can understand the scenario you were talking about—and forgive me, committee members, but I exist in a visual world—traditionally, particularly in urban centres, you would come into a school or a church gym, where there would be many polling stations from different districts, all contained within one. We would call that a polling place. Is it the case that Bill C-76 changes that to call it not a polling place anymore, but would consider that one entire polling station?
You're right that Bill C-76 makes many changes to the way that polling stations will be managed. Currently in the act, we have a polling station, which is basically a ballot box, and election officers who take the votes for one polling division. When many polling stations are regrouped in the same place, we call that a “polling place”.
What Bill C-76 changes is that polling places will become polling stations, and inside polling stations there will be many tables where election officers will be able to receive the votes. This follows a recommendation by the Chief Electoral Officer to modernize the administration of the vote at the polling stations. I'm getting to—
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This may be unfair to our witnesses, who have just seen this amendment, as we have. Do you have any ability to confirm or add to the explanation given on the effect of CPC minus one, or whatever we're calling this—the ballot reconciliation reports?
Are you familiar with this section of the Canada Elections Act and what changing Bill C-76 in this way would do? I ask this as you're getting the amendments right now.
As I said in my preamble, this might be unfair to ask, but if you are familiar with this....
I thank my colleague for the explanation. My inclination is to vote against something if I don't have the ability to base my vote on some evidence that I have seen at the committee so far, and I don't recall this issue being raised. That's unless our officials can tell us in the next little bit why this might be an improvement to our election laws.
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
My apologies, and my apologies to you, Ms. May.
Before we begin our extensive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-76, I want to give the courtesy of a heads-up to my colleagues about some additional Conservative amendments.
There are approximately 21 amendments that were drafted by legislative counsel between June and September, but for one reason or another, and maybe several, they did not not make it into the package that was circulated on October 2.
Mr. Chair, we intend to move each of these amendments from the floor at the appropriate point in our proceedings, but to ensure colleagues have the advantage of advance review, I'm happy to circulate copies of the amendments now.
These amendments are in both official languages and are in the manner and form produced by the law clerk's office.
Before members get worried that we may be unleashing a number of new issues, I should point out that most of the amendments in this supplementary package actually complement the existing amendments that have been previously circulated. In fact, I believe there are fewer than a handful of amendments that are not connected or related to amendments that have already been circulated.
To assist you, Mr. Chair and our clerks, with identifying where these amendments will be moved, considering line positions and so forth, I can advise that the first amendment for clause 2 will be moved before amendment PV-1 and the other amendment for clause 2 will be moved after amendment PV-1.
There is an amendment for clause 37 to be moved after amendment Liberal-2.
There is an amendment for clause 45.
There is an amendment for clause 70, to be moved after amendment Liberal-5.
There is an amendment for clause 102.
There is an amendment for clause 122, to be moved after amendment CPC-49.
There is an amendment for a new clause, clause 155.1.
There is an amendment for clause 191, to be moved before amendment CPC-69.
The first amendment for clause 223 will be moved after amendment CPC-88. The other amendment for clause 223 will be moved after amendment CPC-92.
There is an amendment for clause 225, to be moved after amendment CPC-101.1.
The first amendment for clause 234 will be moved after the amendment CPC-113. The other amendment for clause 234 will be moved after amendment CPC-114.
There is an amendment for clause 235.
There are two amendments for a new clause, 252.1.
There is an amendment for clause 326.
There is an amendment for clause 357, to be moved after amendment Liberal-60.
There is an amendment for a new clause, 365.1
Finally, there is an amendment for clause 377.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Good afternoon, and welcome back to the 123rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
This afternoon we'll begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments.
I would like to again note the presence of the officials from the Privy Council Office: Manon Paquet, Senior Policy Advisor, and Jean-François Morin, Senior Policy Advisor. They will attend our meetings to provide assistance to the committee should members have questions about the bill. Thank you both for being here.
Before we begin, I would like provide members with some general information about how we will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
The committee will consider each of the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. Once I have called a clause, it is subject to debate and vote.
If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing the amendment, who will explain it in around a minute or so. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.
I would like to remind members to ensure that clause-by-clause consideration proceeds in an efficient, orderly fashion.
I may limit debate to five minutes per party per clause. As I said earlier, I'll be flexible as long as people don't spend a lot of time on minor clauses where things are obvious, etc. If I do enforce the five minutes, it's per clause, not per amendment. There is the odd clause that has 10 or 20 amendments, but there are still only five minutes, so keep—
Yes?