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.

The House proceeded to the 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.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

There are 179 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-76. Motions Nos. 1 to 179 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 179 to the House.

Motions in amendment

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting the long title.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting the short title.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-76, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 25 with the following:

“political party, candidates for elected office or members of a legislature information”

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 61.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 76.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 84.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 93.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-76, in Clause 93, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 47 with the following:

“electors for the same polling division and who”

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

moved:

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-76, in Clause 93, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 47 with the following:

“electors for the same electoral district and who”

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-76, in Clause 93, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 47 with the following:

“iors or persons with a disability, where a polling station has been established, wishes to prove his or her”

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-76, in Clause 93, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 47 with the following:

“residence under subsection (3), the other”

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 94.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 100.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 105.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 107.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-76, in Clause 107, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 54 with the following:

“the same polling division and who”

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

moved:

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-76, in Clause 107, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 54 with the following:

“the same electoral district and who”

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-76, in Clause 107, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 55 with the following:

“or persons with a disability, where a polling station has been established, wishes to prove his or her”

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-76, in Clause 107, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 55 with the following:

“residence under subsection (1), the other”

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 108.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 115.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 116.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 117.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-76, in Clause 117, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 60 with the following:

“the same polling division and who”

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

moved:

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-76, in Clause 117, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 60 with the following:

“the same electoral district and who”

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-76, in Clause 117, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 23 on page 61.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-76, in Clause 117, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 61 with the following:

“iors or persons with a disability, where an advance polling station has been established, wishes to prove his or her”

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-76, in Clause 117, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 61 with the following:

“residence under subsection (2), the other”

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 155.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 157.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 160.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 162.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 164.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 165.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 166.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 167.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 168.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 169.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 170.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 172.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 173.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 182.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 184.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 186.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 187.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 188.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-76, in Clause 190, be amended by replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 99 with the following:

“(c) the person who vouches does not reside in a polling division assigned to the same polling station as the polling division in which the other person resides or, in the”

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

moved:

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-76, in Clause 190, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 99 with the following:

“same electoral district as the other person or, in the”

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-76, in Clause 190, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 100 with the following:

“(b) they knowingly make or publish a false statement in respect of a candidate in that election, a registered party that has endorsed a candidate in that election or the leader of such a registered party; or”.

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

moved:

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-76, in Clause 190, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 100 with the following:

“(b) they knowingly make or publish a false statement that is prohibited under paragraph 91(1)(a) or (b) in respect of a candidate in that election, a registered party that has endorsed a candidate in that election, the leader of such a registered party or the electoral district association of such a registered party; or”

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-76, in Clause 190, be amended

(a) by replacing line 10 on page 99 with the following:

“sections 143(3.01) and 161(2).”; and

(b) by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 99 with the following:

“cases referred to in subsections 143(3.01) and 161(2), in a polling division in the other person’s”.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 199.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 206.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 207.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 208.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-76, in Clause 208.1, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 110 the following:

“(2.1) For greater certainty, an online platform shall publish in the registry referred to in subsection (2) the partisan advertising messages and election advertising messages of a third party for which the platform has sold, directly or indirectly, advertising space for an aggregate amount of $500 or more for the pre-election period or election period, as the case may be.”

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 209.

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 211.

Motion No. 87

hat Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 212.

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 213.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 217.

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 218.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 219.

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 220.

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-76, in Clause 223, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 118 with the following:

“-lic regardless of whether there was to be an election, unless the author or editor is a member of the Senate or the House of Commons, the leader of a registered party or an eligible party, a candidate or a potential candidate;”.

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-76, in Clause 223, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 118 with the following:

“carry on business in Canada or whose primary purpose in Canada is to in-”.

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-76, in Clause 223, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 118 the following:

“(b.1) a corporation or entity

(i) incorporated, formed or otherwise organized within Canada, but no officer, director or other person who is responsible for it

(A) is a Canadian citizen,

(B) is a permanent resident as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or

(C) resides in Canada, and

(ii) whose primary purpose in Canada is to influence electors to vote or refrain from voting, or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate or registered party, at an election.”

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-76, in Clause 223, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 119 with the following:(C) resides in Canada, and

“349.03 No person or entity shall”.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-76, in Clause 223, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 119 the following:

(2) No person or entity shall, for the purpose of circumventing, or attempting to circumvent, the prohibition under section 349.02,

(a) conceal, or attempt to conceal, the identity of the source of a contribution from a foreign entity; or

(b) act in collusion with another person or entity for that purpose.”

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-76, in Clause 223, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 119 the following:

“(2) No person or entity shall, for the purpose of circumventing, or attempting to circumvent, the prohibition under section 349.02, enter into an agreement that includes as a term the making of a contribution or the provision for payment of goods or services, directly or indirectly, to a third party.”

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-76, in Clause 223, be amended

(a) by replacing line 13 on page 118 with the following:

“holders, as the case may be; or”; and

(b) by replacing lines 16 to 18 on page 118 with the following:

“al political views.”

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-76, in Clause 231, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 138 with the following:

“(a) in the case of a general election in respect of which the writs are issued after the June 30 that is immediately before the”

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-76, in Clause 231, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 138 with the following:

“veys, and the geographical areas from which the sample of respondents was drawn, to which the expenses relate, and”

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-76, in Clause 231, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 138 with the following:

“veys, and the geographical areas from which the sample of respondents was drawn, to which the expenses relate, and”

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-76, in Clause 231, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 139 the following:

“(v) a list of all expenses--other than those referred to in subparagraphs (i) to (iv)--incurred during the period beginning the day after polling day at the preceding general election and ending at the beginning of the pre-election period--or, if there was no pre-election period, the beginning of the election period--that would have been partisan activity expenses, partisan advertising expenses or election survey expenses had they been incurred during a pre-election period, the date and place of the partisan activities to which the expenses relate, the date and time of the transmission of the partisan advertising messages to which the expenses relate, and the date of the election surveys, and the geographical areas from which the sample of respondents was drawn, to which the expenses relate; and”

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-76, in Clause 231, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 139 the following:

“(v) a list of all contributions received since the preceding general election by the third party from foreign individuals or entities and the date and purpose of the contribution; and”

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-76, in Clause 238, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 150 with the following:

“subsection 349.91(1) or 349.92(1);

(a.2) publish, as soon as feasible but no later than the 6th day before polling day, returns filed under subsection 357.01(1) or 357.02(2);”

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 241.

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 242.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 245.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 246.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 250.

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 253.

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 256.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 262.

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 263.

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

moved:

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-76, in Clause 268, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 166 with the following:

“(3) Section 437 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(2.1) The Chief Electoral Officer may require the chief agent of a registered party to provide by a specified date documents evidencing any expense set out in the party’s election expenses return, including invoices, bank statements, deposit slips and cancelled cheques.”

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 116

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 270.

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 271.

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-76, in Clause 271, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 168 with the following:

“thorized by the association's financial agent”

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-76, in Clause 271, be amended

(a) by replacing line 30 on page 167 with the following:

“(3) Despite subsection (1), but subject to subsection (4), an electoral district associa-”; and

(b) by adding after line 3 on page 168 the following:

“(4) An electoral district association of a registered party for the electoral district for which that party’s leader is a member of the House of Commons or is, otherwise, a potential candidate may

(a) incur partisan advertising expenses for the transmission of partisan advertising messages referred to in paragraph (1)(a) to the extent that those messages are intended to be transmitted solely within the association’s electoral district; and

(b) transmit or cause to be transmitted partisan advertising messages referred to in paragraph (1)(b) to the extent that those messages are transmitted solely within the association’s electoral district.”

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 272.

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 292.

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 293.

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 303.

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 320.

Motion No. 125

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 322.

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 327.

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 328.

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 333.

Motion No. 129

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 334.

Motion No. 130

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 335.

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-76, in Clause 336, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 202 the following:

“(c) subsection 349.03(2) (concealing source of contribution).”

Motion No. 132

That Bill C-76, in Clause 336, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 202 the following:

“(c) subsection 349.03(2) (entering into prohibited agreement).”

Motion No. 133

That Bill C-76, in Clause 336, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 18 to 21 on page 202 with the following:

“495.21 (1) Every person or entity is guilty of an offence who

(a) being a third party, contravenes section 349.02 (use of foreign contribution); or

(b) contravenes paragraph 349.03(a) (circumventing prohibition)”

(b) by replacing lines 23 to 25 on page 202 with the following:

“(2) Every person or entity is guilty of an offence who

(a) being a third party, knowingly contravenes section 349.02 (use of foreign contribution); or

(b) knowingly contravenes any provision of section 349.03 referred to in subsection (1).”

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 340.

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 341.

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 344.1.

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 345.

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-76, in Clause 346, be amended

(a) by replacing line 32 on page 211 with the following:

“498(1) and 499(1) is, subject to subsection (1.1), liable on summary conviction to a”;

(b) by adding after line 34 on page 211 the following:

“(1.1) Every candidate or official agent who is guilty of an offence under any of paragraphs 497.4(1)(g) to (l) or (s) is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than $1,000.”;

(c) by replacing line 17 on page 212 with the following:

“497.5(2), 498(2) and 499(2) is, subject to subsection (5.01), liable”; and

(d) by adding after line 19 on page 212 the following:

“(5.01) Every candidate or official agent who is guilty of an offence under any of paragraphs 497.4(2)(i) to (n) is liable, whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or punishable on summary conviction, to a fine of not less than $1,000.”

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 350.

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 351.

Motion No. 141

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 352.

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 353.

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 354.

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 355.

Motion No. 145

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 356.

Motion No. 146

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 357.

Motion No. 147

That Bill C-76, in Clause 357, be amended by deleting lines 3 to 9 on page 220.

Motion No. 148

That Bill C-76, in Clause 357, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 220 with the following:

“-missioner may apply to a judge for an order requiring the chief agent of a registered par-”.

Motion No. 149

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 358.

Motion No. 150

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 359.

Motion No. 151

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 360.

Motion No. 152

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 361.

Motion No. 153

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 362.

Motion No. 154

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 363.

Motion No. 155

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 364.

Motion No. 156

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 365.

Motion No. 157

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 367.

Motion No. 158

That Bill C-76, in Clause 371, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 17 on page 239 with the following:

“form, or in formats that include electronic form, to the registered association of each registered party that endorsed a candidate in an electoral district, and to that registered party, a statement, prepared”.

Motion No. 159

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 372.

Motion No. 160

That Bill C-76, in Clause 372, be amended by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 240 with the following:

“(a) the other elector resides in the polling division;”.

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

moved:

Motion No. 161

That Bill C-76, in Clause 372, be amended by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 240 with the following:

“(a) the other elector resides in the same electoral district as the elector;”

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 162

That Bill C-76, in Clause 372, be amended by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 240 with the following:

“(e) except in a case referred to in subsection 143(3.01) or 161(2), the elector has not previously”.

Motion No. 163

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 373.

Motion No. 164

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 379.

Motion No. 165

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 380.

Motion No. 166

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 383.

Motion No. 167

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 384.

Motion No. 168

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 385.

Motion No. 169

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 386.

Motion No. 170

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 389.

Motion No. 171

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 390.

Motion No. 172

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 391.

Motion No. 173

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 393.

Motion No. 174

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 394.

Motion No. 175

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 395.

Motion No. 176

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 396.

Motion No. 177

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 397.

Motion No. 178

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 400.

Motion No. 179

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 401.

She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-76, which makes amendments to one of our most central pieces of legislation, the Elections Act.

As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to uphold democracy and ensure that the rules surrounding it are fair and impartial. All political parties in the House came together, moving hundreds of amendments to try to improve this bill. After months of hard work on Bill C-76 at committee, and hours of testimony, it is unfortunate that only a handful of amendments by opposition parties were passed at committee.

On such a substantial bill, which covers everything from election procedures and financing to foreign interference in elections, and that would create a registrar for future electors and impact the eligibility to vote of numerous Canadians, it was disappointing not to see a bill that really holds democracy to account in Canada. As a result, this bill is deeply concerning and fails to achieve many of its objectives.

Bill C-76 attempts to introduce a pre-writ period and to regulate third parties. Part of the implementation of the pre-writ period involved invoking spending limits that, with inflation adjustments, would be $500,000 for third parties and $2 million for registered political parties in 2019. This means that it would only take four third parties to outspend a single political party. This would be feasible since third parties do not maintain the contribution limits that political parties do. We have serious concerns about the public receiving inaccurate information about candidates and platforms when political parties are no longer a primary source.

A significant motive for implementing further regulation of third parties, however, is to prevent foreign interference in Canadian elections. This is a good thing. We want Canadians determining the outcomes of Canadian elections, and not foreign entities. However, the government party is not going far enough to eliminate the possibility of foreign interference.

Canadians deserve to know where the money for elections is coming from and it is up to the government to ensure that third party entities are being fully and completely transparent. If third parties are choosing to participate in election advertising, then they should be prepared to open their books and let Canadians see exactly where the money is coming from.

At committee we suggested that third parties have segregated bank accounts for all political activity, that disclosure of foreign sources of funding for any purpose by third parties be required, and that contribution limits be established for election-related contributions consistent with those for political parties. Unfortunately, the government voted down these amendments. The problem is that only with these amendments could Bill C-76 prevent potential and actual foreign influence.

For example, say a foreign donor might donate several thousand dollars to a third party, but designates it as administrative costs. The third party could then use that money for administrative costs but would have an equal amount freed up to use for election campaigning. Since it was categorized as administrative costs, those donations will not be required to be made public.

Additionally, the regulations for third parties are not as stringent as those for political parties, so these types of foreign donations can have a serious impact on election campaigning.

The government is saying that it is addressing the serious issue of foreign influence and interference in our elections through Bill C-76, but the laws it is putting in place simply do not go far enough. Our democracy is at stake here. Canadians and only Canadians should be impacting our elections.

The Conservatives believe that every vote cast by a Canadian citizen matters. However, the government should be working harder to keep foreign entities from undermining our democratic institutions. Canadians deserve to know that their elections will not be tampered with by foreign influences.

The Prime Minister has said that there was foreign influence in the previous election. Even if it was not that much, the government has the capacity and the capability to ensure there will not be any future influence. However, the government is failing to do that.

Because of these shortcomings of the Liberal government, we are providing it a second chance, a second opportunity. At this report stage, we are providing several amendments to Bill C-76 that would close these loopholes. I sincerely hope my colleagues across the aisle will strongly consider and accept these amendments. Canadian democracy is at stake. Despite months at committee, there are still significant issues that need to be resolved.

We have seen the magnitude around the world of what foreign influence can do. We saw this south of the border with the United States and Russian influence, as well as in Brexit in the United Kingdom. I do not think we want Canada's election in 2019, or any other future election for that matter, to be yet another victim.

The Liberal government has decided to tackle foreign interference in the bill and should be doing so to the fullest extent possible. It should be working harder to solve all of the loopholes and ambiguity in foreign interference.

If foreign interference and influence cannot be done directly, in the public eye, why are we allowing for it behind closed doors? Canadians deserve to know and understand who is financing their elections. The bill is going to have immense impact on our elections in the future and as parliamentarians we need to work together to ensure we get it right.

Allowing voter identification cards as a form of ID to vote is another way we are failing Canadians. Nearly a million voter identification cards sent out in 2015 had errors. Canadians cannot obtain health care, welfare and many other federal services without presenting government identification.

In fact, Dr. Ian Lee from Carleton University said:

It's been argued that the requirement for voter ID negatively affects low-income people much more, yet when you examine Ontario Works—that's the bureaucracy that administers social welfare—you will quickly realize it is vastly more onerous to obtain social welfare because of the identification. They want bank accounts. They want tax returns. They want driver's licences. They want tenancy agreements. It is vastly more onerous to obtain social assistance or welfare than it is to vote because of the identification requirements.

We need government identification for practically anything. Why should voting be different, especially when the integrity of our entire democratic system is at stake?

I am sorry to say that Bill C-76 is deeply flawed. This could be one of the last times in the House that we will have the opportunity to resolve its many issues to defend democracy in Canada. I ask my Liberal colleagues to work with us to ensure the bill better protects Canadians and our democratic system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one question in particular, although I have a number because there are a number of flaws in my colleague's speech.

The member said that the bill had spent months at committee, and she is right. It did. The bill was taken to committee in April and just got through PROC last week. However, the reason it took months in committee was because members on that side of the House filibustered meeting after meeting. We could not get them to even start clause-by-clause. No matter how many times we agreed to witnesses, no matter how many times we agreed to extra meetings, no matter how many times we agreed to pretty much everything they asked for, we could not get them to clause-by-clause.

Therefore, could the member please tell me why, after months and months of meetings, they still continued to filibuster until we finally could get it through committee? It only took probably a week to get it through clause-by-clause once they agreed to stop filibustering.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we were forced to have those delays because of the deep incompetencies within the bill. We had to ensure we were doing our due diligence for the Canadian public and democracy in Canada and to ensure the government was getting this bill and these electoral processes right for all of Canada and for all Canadians.

As people can tell by the list of amendments here today, we are still not pleased with the bill as it is presented. However, we can always say that we did our best to defend democracy in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting exchange between my Liberal and Conservative colleagues, in that there was an impasse created at committee. That impasse was broken when the Liberals made a deal with the Conservatives to allow more spending to go on in our elections. The parliamentary secretary, I guess, omitted that part.

The bill only took a week in committee because that was all the Liberals gave us. In the end, they allocated time on an election act, which the Liberals promised they would never do.

My question is specifically for my friend. Much of her speech focused on foreign interference. We heard consistently from witnesses, from the Chief Electoral Officer, the Privacy Commissioner and in fact from another House of Commons Committee, the privacy and ethics committee, that having political parties have some sort of privacy rules about how we would handle the data that parties collected on Canadians was vital to protecting free and fair elections in Canada.

The NDP and the Green member moved a number of amendments to this flawed bill, and it is flawed. There were hundreds of amendments, some of them coming from the government itself. We tried to improve it to say that political parties must have some rules governing us. If the data we collect on Canadians is hacked or breached, then it is exposed to those who are trying to interfere in our elections.

The Americans and the Europeans are all testifying to us, saying that this is happening now, that it has happened in the past and that it will happen in the future. However, Bill C-76, as it exists today, still has no protections for the privacy of Canadians and no protection of our free and fair democratic elections, exposing us to foreign interference, which the member raised so many times in her speech.

I wonder if the Conservatives have moved over on this issue and will accept the idea that political parties must fall under some rules and some guidance to stop the exposure to Canadians and the risk to our democracy.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually surprised that my colleague from the NDP and I agree that the bill is deeply flawed. Certainly, privacy concerns is another area where Bill C-76 has failed to deliver, in addition to foreign influence as well as foreign interference.

I will never apologize for attempting to work with my colleagues across the aisle. This is a parliament. My constituents have sent me here to serve their best interests and, at times, that will include working with my colleagues across the aisle.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Windsor West, Automotive Industry; and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Employment Insurance.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as we are at the final stages of Bill C-76. This is the Liberals' attempt to fix the attack on our democracy that came out of the last Parliament, when the Harper government moved what it called the Fair Elections Act, which was clearly the unfair elections act. It tried, in various ways, to disenfranchise a number of Canadians, particularly low-income Canadians, indigenous people, young people and people one would suspect Stephen Harper did not think supported him.

Rather than make policies that appealed to various groups, the Conservatives' approach was to write legislation in our Elections Act to make it harder for them to vote, which was quite cynical and nefarious. We have been waiting a long time for this bill from the government. It actually introduced one almost two years ago that would have undone the unfair elections act. Then it did nothing with it for 18 months. It did not move it, debate it, or talk about it. It waited until we had this bill, Bill C-76, which is much larger and takes on more issues.

For those watching, I just asked my Conservative colleague if she joined with us in agreeing with the Chief Electoral Officer, the Privacy Commissioner, the privacy and ethics committee of the House of Commons and every expert we had come before committee. They said that one of the great flaws in Bill C-76, as it is constituted right now, was it virtually said nothing about privacy. All the Liberals are requiring political parties to do is to have a privacy policy somewhere on their website.

The policy does not have to do anything. The policy is not enforceable. It does not mean anything with respect to protecting our democratic values. They just need to have a policy somewhere. We have warnings from around the democratic world, from our European allies and our American cousins, saying that we have to fix this because the attacks are coming. The disruptions, disinformation and misinformation, the fake news campaigns that we see on social media are genuine threats to disrupting free and fair elections in their countries and obviously in ours as well.

The bill is flawed, to say the least. There were hundreds of amendments at committee. We have 179 amendments here, from all parties including the government side. The Liberals took three years to get to this point and they got it wrong on many levels.

It is unfair to simply criticize legislation. We are always working to improve things, to make them better, because this should be non-partisan. We all agree that elections are vital to the health of our country and those elections must be free and fair. We must allow the parties to argue their points and let Canadians, in a free and fair way, make the decision as to who they wish to speak on their behalf. However, we know that on some of the most important aspects of our democracy, Bill C-76 made a half-hearted attempt or no attempt whatsoever.

We moved motions to include the idea of my friend Kennedy Stewart, the mayor-elect of Vancouver, to reimburse parties according to how fair they were toward women and other under-represented groups in Parliament. We know the facts and they are undeniable. This Parliament is 26% women. The last one was 25%. Under the current trend, it will take 80 years until we have a gender equal Parliament, unless we do something about it. We proposed to do something about it by amending the bill and the Liberals said they did not want to talk about it and voted against the idea.

The Prime Minister loves to talk about what a feminist he is, but he does not like to do much about it. Things like this, like pay equity, things that matter to women, the feminist across the way cannot be bothered to raise his hand in effort.

We also tried to include electoral reform changes. We all remember the famous and often repeated promise from the Prime Minister to make every vote count, to ensure that 2015 was the last election under first past the post. We wanted to help the Prime Minister keep that promise. What a radical idea. The Liberals did not want to talk about that either.

We also believed that we should talk about younger people voting. We have support from some Conservatives and some Liberals to just study the idea, to have Elections Canada look at what it would mean to our democracy if 17 year olds voted. What would the effects be? What would the impacts be, positive and negative? That would be for a future Parliament, not even this one. A future Parliament could look at lowering the voting age. The Liberals did not want to talk about that either.

We talked about Sunday voting and all the evidence from democracies around the world, including sub-national democracies in Canada, the provinces and municipalities. We know if we allow for Sunday voting, rather than a Tuesday, which is an odd day to have a vote, it can raise voter participation by 6% or 7%, particularly for marginalized voters. We have all the research on this. What do the Liberals want to do? They want to study it more, which I have begun to learn is Liberal code for “no”. When we ask them to do something, they say “We should study that”. We have come to learn over these past three years that “study” means “no”. It is just that they can say it with a smile rather than simply reject the idea.

The lion's share of the work and the evidence that we heard was around this issue of privacy. Let us understand what we have learned, and these have been hard lessons over these last number of years.

Our British cousins learned through the whole Brexit episode that Cambridge Analytica and a whole bunch of dark and dangerous companies were out there micro-targeting voters through social media, through harvesting data out of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and all those accounts that people use for social interaction but also for their political and news interactions with the world. There are companies that were able to break the code of Facebook, sneak around the walls of Instagram and find out more about people than people ever wanted them to know, and not just about those people, but also about their friends and connections. Then they would target them.

This is a dangerous problem because the ability to spread the lie becomes so much more powerful. We no longer use the scattergun approach to say that a candidate is terrible, or one's friend is a terrible person, or this policy is going to lead to that. They can hyper-target particular voters they are looking to sway. The British learned this the hard way. Ask the British Prime Minister how the whole Brexit thing is going for her. Ask the Irish and the Scots how they are feeling about it. We know that the vote was not done fairly, and there was some participation of Canadian companies.

The privacy and ethics committee in this place, made up of all parties in this place, said in its conclusion that political parties must fall under privacy rules to protect our free and fair vote. In rejecting our amendments, Liberals on the committee rejected the analysis and understanding of Liberals on another committee, and not just theirs. They also rejected the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada who said to us that if there is one area where the bill has failed, it is privacy.

The Privacy Commissioner told us that Bill C-76 contains nothing of substance when it comes to privacy. OpenMedia conducted a poll of Canadians and found that 72% of Canadians want political parties to have some sort of rules governing their management of data, their protection of the data they gather. Let us all admit; the other parties will not admit it, but we will, and one day they will join us here: Political parties are in the game of understanding voters. That has always been true. That has gone into overdrive in the last 10 to 20 years.

With the advent of the Internet and social media, the ability to gain information about voters, multiple points of data about each individual voter at the voter level and then target those voters with specific messages can be a positive thing. If someone is interested in the environment and pipelines and wants to know why the Liberals spent $4.5 billion on a 65-year-old pipeline, a political party might want to know that so it can talk to people about what a dumb idea that was, especially for a climate change fighting Prime Minister. That might be a good bit of data to know. However, we also know that parties are collecting this massive amount of data with no rules or oversight whatsoever.

Let us look at the Europeans. The justice commissioner of the European Union, which is on the verge of having elections, said that we can no longer treat this as business as usual. The threats coming from foreign governments, foreign agents and domestic folks that are looking to simply subvert our elections, to cast doubt on the democratic process is real.

The U.S. justice department, under Donald Trump of all people, has said that it is information warfare, that there is an interference in the U.S. mid-term elections going on right now that is connected back to Vladimir Putin.

All these examples are coming forward to us from our own experts, from international experts, and the Liberals said, “No, we do not care. We simply do not care.” They are going to allow the bill to go through without any significant and meaningful changes to protect our democracy. What is an election bill for if not that? I am simply at a loss for words when I talk to my Liberal colleagues and say that not one witness said that we should just leave the whole privacy thing alone, that everything is good, that the status quo is fine. Every single witness, including our own Chief Electoral Officer, said it is imperative to act, and the Liberals shrugged.

Here is the question and I will leave it at this. There are challenges and tensions that exist within each individual MP, their loyalty and observation of what their party wants and their loyalty to country. This is a clear case where, if we only are here to defend Canadian democracy and make sure our elections are free and fair, the choice would be clear, that we need to approve the changes that the NDP is proposing, suggested by our Chief Electoral Officer, our Privacy Commissioner and every expert we talk to.

The Liberals consistently chose party over country. That is unacceptable regardless of what Canadians feel like, regardless of what their voting intention is.

Bill C-76 has to do better. We can fix it at the very last moment if people are willing to work together.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is very well versed on this subject. He is very passionate about electoral reform.

The member kept talking about privacy and how important it is and yet on his party's website the privacy policy was so woefully inadequate that it was not until the introduction of Bill C-76 that the NDP updated it and made sure it was posted in a way that was more transparent.

Saying that the posting of privacy policy is not effective I would think is not really the case, because obviously the NDP members had to do something when they saw the state that theirs was in.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was not a question.

Part of what we are debating here is that simply posting a policy that is not enforceable, that has no teeth to it and no meaning to it is not an exercise that is going to protect our democracy.

My friend across the way is a very smart person. She heard the same testimony we heard. The testimony was conclusive. It was 100% clear. If she believes in the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer, if she believes in the Privacy Commissioner's opinion, if she believes in her Liberal colleagues who sat one committee over and studied the very same issue, then for goodness' sake, she should support something meaningful.

All parties need to move on this. My party was not there two or three years ago, because we did not want to have to reveal to Canadians how it was we collected data and what that data was. Those days are gone.

Here is what is going to happen. Our election is going to get hacked. Misinformation and disinformation will be spread on all of the parties and it will cause damage. It will cause damage not just to the parties but to the confidence Canadians have in our election, as the British are experiencing right now, as the Americans are experiencing right now, and then my friends will say, “Gosh, we should do something about this. Isn't it a shame that Canadians no longer trust our democratic process.” I will say, “Well, why did you not do it when you had the evidence in front of you?”

What is the counter argument? That is a great example and a question for the minister after she makes her speech. I would ask her to give me one piece of evidence that says we should not do this. The minister cannot, because there is no evidence. If the government is an evidence-based government, how about looking at the evidence? I know it is a novel idea. It might be a bit radical for my Liberal colleagues, but this is the time to do it, because it is 2018.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I am very relieved to hear about the NDP's trepidation in regard to Bill C-76. This would seem quite contrary to what we in the official opposition heard throughout the entire process, which we were attempting to ensure was done fairly, adequately and with due diligence for the Canadian public.

I have to ask the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley why, at every single stage of the process, he and his colleagues gave the government a pass, supported the government and this terrible piece of Liberal legislation, leaving us to hold true accountability in regard to this democratic process.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is quite a question and it also is not true.

We voted against Liberal proposals that we thought would not go the way we wanted to go. We pleaded with our Conservative colleagues to look at all the evidence in front of us with respect to privacy and maybe we should do something about it. The Conservatives sat on their hands.

The effort in this is the following. The goal for the government whenever introducing legislation that affects the rules of the game, the election that we conduct ourselves under, should not be a partisan affair. We should look at the evidence in front of us, think of the best interests of Canadians, not the interests of political parties, and ask ourselves how we can make this the best, most fair way to conduct elections in Canada.

We looked at the evidence. Nobody in the Conservative ranks nor the Liberals could point to one piece of evidence showing that Bill C-76 was sufficient on something like privacy. Nobody in here can point to the sufficient means by which we are going to have more women and under-represented groups in here because of Bill C-76, because there is no evidence pointing that way.

If we are going to do the work at committee, if we are going to be there for all those hours and invite all these really smart witnesses to come and testify, should we not listen to them? We tried. We wrote down the amendments in the best form that we could and people agreed with us, such as the Chief Electoral Officer, such as the Privacy Commissioner, such as our colleagues on the ethics and privacy committee.

For once I would love somebody to argue the other side and argue it with some testimony and some facts. That would be novel. I look forward to that moment.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister talked about transparency, which we all hope exists in the voting system, and about integrity in the voting system, which we absolutely need. She said she wanted to ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote can vote, but then, unfortunately, she referenced residents voting. That is necessary, yes, but residency is not a prerequisite for what she describes as the fundamental right to vote. In fact, citizenship is the fundamental requirement to be able to vote.

I am wondering if the minister could reconcile those two and explain how she is going to ensure transparency in making sure that the citizenship requirement in the eligibility to vote is maintained, because I have not heard that referred to yet at all and that is integral to ensuring both the integrity and responsibility of proper voting systems.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is the case that being a citizen is what entitles people the right to vote. In fact, in Bill C-76 there are provisions for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to share information with Elections Canada to ensure that only citizens are on the voters list.

Absolutely, this is important, with regard to integrity. I am thrilled that this is in Bill C-76. I thank the member for the question. She can rest assured that it is citizens who will be casting their ballot on election day.

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

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

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

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

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

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his hard work on the procedure and House affairs committee, specifically on this legislation and particularly for his advocacy with regard to vouching. He made some very cogent points when I was there testifying in front of the committee. I truly appreciate all of his hard work and his advocacy moving democracy forward here in Canada.

This bill has been before the House for many months. It has undergone a considerable amount of study. We have received many amendments and have entertained some of them from opposition parties, and have had an open and ongoing dialogue with regard to this bill.

I look forward to this bill's timely and speedy passage through this chamber, and hopefully through to the other place as well.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Guelph was the epicentre of robocalls in 2011. It was found that 247 ridings were targeted across Canada, out of 308 ridings.

How would this bill help to protect the citizens of Guelph from future events such as the robocalling that we saw in 2011?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinarily important question, because robocalls are the exact type of activity that undermines the confidence and the integrity that Canadians have in the electoral system.

It is unfortunate that my colleagues from the Conservatives laughed when they heard that, and do not appreciate the severity of undermining the information that is given to Canadians so that they can cast their ballot on election day.

As I mentioned, this bill empowers the commissioner of Canada elections to be able to investigate, to compel testimony once he has received permission from a judge to ensure that he can get the full story and understand what is going on if an election law is being broken.

Furthermore, this also empowers the CEO of Elections Canada to inform and educate Canadians, something the previous government took away. Can we believe that? This bill brings back the ability to inform Canadians about voting.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the bill that is before the House. As I mentioned in my previous comment, Guelph was the epicentre of some illegal activities during the last election. Similar to the minister, I am standing today as a candidate who ran in the election because of what I saw happening to democracy in Canada, specifically in my riding of Guelph.

When we looked at the previous government's role that it played in muzzling scientists, it also muzzled the former Chief Electoral Officer in Canada. In fact, clause 7 of the Fair Elections Act limited the topics that the CEO could speak of to just five topics: how to vote, how to register as a candidate, how to prove your identity, how to add your name to the voters list and questions of accessibility. He was not allowed to address any other questions under the previous government's legislation. That was clearly designed to prevent the CEO from carrying out his responsibility to Canadian voters, doing his job to promote democracy and to make sure that we have free and open elections in Canada.

As my colleagues are aware, as mentioned earlier, the 2011 election in Guelph was the centre of robocalls. When speaking to the previous candidate for the Liberal Party who was elected in that election, the calls came into citizens in Guelph telling them to go to the Quebec Street Mall to the voting station. Those were citizens who had been identified as likely Liberal voters being told to go a mall where there was no voting station. A lot of them were elderly people, people who had trouble getting to the station but did get to the Quebec Street Mall and then started calling the campaign office to ask why there was no voting station.

It was a very targeted and very cynical way to try and interrupt the voting process in Guelph. It happened not only in Guelph but in 247 ridings across Canada of the 308 that existed at the time, in all 10 provinces, at least one territory. Only one person was charged and convicted. It was a person who was volunteering on the campaign for the Conservative Party in Guelph. The other ridings got off scot-free.

After this blatant attempt to subvert democracy in my riding, collecting evidence proved difficult. For example, in the months after the 2011 election, the Guelph Conservative candidate Marty Burke's campaign manager, Ken Morgan, moved to Kuwait, changed his email, left no phone number, and refused to speak with Elections Canada.

Our bill grants the commissioner the power to seek judicial authorization to compel testimony. This would assist in ensuring timely and thorough investigations and, where warranted, prosecution of offences would be conducted under the new act.

Furthermore, the commissioner of Canada elections would be authorized to lay a charge under the act without the prior authorization from the Director of Public Prosecutions. The commissioner had this authority until the 2006 legislative amendments passed by the former Conservative government.

Misleading voters is a severe crime that undercuts our constitutional rights, encourages voter apathy and develops the cynicism that often voters have towards politicians.

Empowering the CEO to compel testimony in cases such as the robocalls in Guelph would allow for immediate action should there be violations of the act.

The problems do not end there. In the 2011 election, Elections Canada tested a pilot program allowing groups of voters to use their voter ID cards as proof of address. Approximately 400,000 Canadians living on reserves, in long-term care facilities or studying at post-secondary institutions used their VICs as a proof of address that year. Marc Mayrand, the former CEO, even recommended using the VICs for all voters starting in 2015.

Youth and indigenous Canadians are two groups that have low voter turnout. Voter cards offer these groups up-to-date information on the voter's address in cases where a driver's licence is out of date. Voter ID cards proved to be an effective way to get Canadians to the ballot box. However, instead of encouraging practices to increase voter turnout, the previous minister for democratic reform did not feel it useful to expand on the 2011 pilot, despite its success.

Instead, the previous government decided to make it harder for indigenous people, who often lack other forms of ID, to vote, as well as young people, who may annually change their addresses throughout their academic careers. Our bill would allow the voter ID card to be used and would hopefully increase turnout among young and indigenous Canadians. That ID card was discontinued for the previous election, in 2015, and we want to see it come back so that we can get more Canadians voting.

One of the most important reforms in Bill C-76 would be the return of the right to vote for an estimated one million Canadians living abroad. Canadians often choose to live abroad for various reasons, including work or living with family. Canadians are welcomed almost universally around the world, wherever we go, but for some reason, without consultation, the former Conservative government considered citizens living outside Canada for more than five years to be unworthy of a vote in Canadian elections.

According to an Ipsos poll, Canada is deemed the country with the most positive influence on world affairs. Canadians living abroad are in no small way responsible for the world's positive image of Canada. They see Canada by seeing the Canadians who live in other countries. We will return their right to vote so that as they continue to live abroad, they will maintain their voting rights and sell Canada as a wonderful place to live and raise families.

While Bill C-76 would restore the Elections Canada Act, it would be negligent to say that a restored bill would suffice. Elections have become favoured targets for foreign intelligence agencies and others who want to sow division and exaggerate partisan divisions. The majority of this kind of interference is conducted online, as it offers anonymity and is the most efficient way to spread false information. Using automated software programs or bots, malicious groups or individuals can develop hundreds if not thousands of online accounts. These accounts give the appearance of being real people, but they only exist to manipulate public opinion and exacerbate political tensions. Therefore, Bill C-76 proposes to add a prohibition regarding the malicious use of computers during an election period.

Ensuring that funds from outside Canada are not used to exert undue influence on our elections is essential to preserving the integrity of our democracy. That is why our government would tighten the rules for special interest groups outside Canada, specifically by making it illegal to knowingly sell space for the purpose of election advertising to a foreign person or entity. Bill C-76 would help prevent foreign actors and wealthy interest groups from using third parties to circumvent the ban on foreign donations and the strict regime in place for political financing, which has become easier to subvert since the introduction of fixed-date elections. This bill aims to accomplish this in a way that would preserve third party rights to freedom of expression and association.

Much has changed on the geopolitical stage, and Canada must be prepared to face these new challenges. Bill C-76 would provide Elections Canada and the CEO with the powers they need to conduct a robust and secure election.

This bill is one of the main reasons I chose to step forward to run, as I saw heavy-handed and partisan decision-making exploiting the future of our voter franchise. I saw directly how this kind of decision-making process can hurt communities like mine. Thankfully, we now have a government that would not only restore crucial parts of the act but would modernize it to reflect the challenges democracies are currently facing.

I thank the government and the committee. I substituted on the PROC committee to take part in the discussions to see what they were deliberating on, and now we are at third reading in the House. I encourage all my colleagues to support this very important legislation.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the member's speech today, on at least three occasions, maybe more, he used the term “voter ID card”. There is no such thing as a voter ID card. It is a voter information card. My colleague is fully aware of that. There is an attempt, I believe, to try to mislead people to think that this little card that comes in the mail with one's information on it is for identification purposes, and it is not.

Over one million of those cards in the last election were erroneously given out. Not only that, we know that in apartment buildings and some townhouses where people get their mail at one spot, we often see these cards in the recycle bin. There is a high probability of those being misused.

How can my colleague argue for the use of the voter information card as a voter identification card?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is around the same age as me and would know very well that before 2006, when we would go to vote, we would take the card with us and present it. The people working in the polling station would take the cards, check our names against a list and verify that we were who we said we were. That was the card that permitted people to vote in the elections.

That was taken away last time, and instead, people were having to take in two pieces of ID or bills. Elderly people were confused by the process. They grew up knowing that when they came to Elections Canada and presented their cards, they were accepted as Canadian citizens with the right to vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Guelph, who I have the pleasure of sitting with on the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I enjoyed the part of his speech where he noted the dangers to our democracy, particularly with respect to social media and the fake news that exists.

Earlier, my friend and colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley gave a very detailed speech on the efforts our party made to bring political parties under stricter privacy provisions, a measure that was backed up not only by the Chief Electoral Officer but by multiple witnesses at that committee. It was also supported by Liberals on the ethics committee.

Can the member explain to this House why his government failed to acknowledge that testimony and failed to act on those provisions within Bill C-76?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we have a lot of great conversations in the agriculture committee. I was sitting on PROC when these discussions were going on about PIPEDA.

What we are looking at is a broad piece of legislation that needs to be developed around privacy. It would connect to more than just Elections Canada. It would really look at the online management of data, personal data, in all departments of the government. That piece has to be dealt with in greater detail. It needs to go through committee for a very thorough study. We are not saying that we do not need PIPEDA, but we need it in a broader context, with more study than what this legislation is looking at.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague across the way about media reports that people who are not eligible to vote are being urged by Elections Canada to get registered to vote. What does Bill C-76 do to prevent this from happening?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the real issue is getting more people to vote and working within high schools to get people registered when they are eligible to vote. Having a tighter control of all Canadians who are eligible to vote maybe includes the examples the member is presenting, but it also includes our youth and people who have become Canadian citizens recently. We want all people who are eligible to vote to get out to vote and for Elections Canada to help in the promotion of that process.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I want to inform the member for Thornhill that he will have about five minutes before we have to break for a vote. When we return to this bill, the hon. member will have another five minutes to continue.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Thornhill.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, free and fair elections are the fundamental essence of a democracy. While we know that more than half the world's population today lives under autocratic, dictatorial or otherwise democratically deficient regimes, Canadians, until recently, could be fairly confident that elections here were the gold standard in terms of freeness and fairness.

Let me assure folks who may be watching this debate that Canadian elections are indeed free in the sense that voters can be fully confident that the choices they make on their election ballots, supervised by Elections Canada, remain secret. However, when it comes to fair elections, where, by definition, all parties have an equal right to contest elections without fear, favour or interference and an expectation of a level playing field, voters may not yet be fully aware that the concept has increasingly been compromised in recent years in a variety of unacceptable ways.

Bill C-76, as with Bill C-50 earlier this year, falls far short of addressing the increasing vulnerabilities and threats, domestic and foreign, to the fairness of the federal election coming in 2019. In fact, Bill C-76 follows the Liberal government's pattern in this Parliament of introducing amendments to Canadian institutions and laws, in place for years, that are promoted as improvements but are actually regressive. We saw it in amendments to the Access to Information Act, Bill C-58, a flawed piece of legislation that was specifically condemned as regressive by the former information commissioner. Despite a significant number of tweaks, Bill C-58 remains regressive.

We saw it earlier this year in amendments to the Canada Elections Act, through Bill C-50, that claimed to end, or at least make more transparent, the Liberal Party's notorious cash for access fundraising events. The Liberals have made much of the new protocols, claiming to observe the letter of the amended law. It was passed in June but does not actually come into effect until December. Bill C-50 actually bakes into law a lobbyist cash for access loophole for Liberal fundraising, the notorious Laurier Club lobbyist loophole.

Bill C-76 makes similar false claims of strengthening and protecting the democratic Canadian electoral process. This is a bill that should have been before the House in more substantial form a year ago. It is a bill the Liberals are now rushing, actually stumbling, a more appropriate characterization, into law, with less than a year until the 2019 election. If anyone doubts the clumsiness of the Liberals' development of the bill, the government was forced to propose, and with its majority pass, in committee almost six dozen amendments. That is the definition of incompetence in government.

The Conservative Party, attempting to stiffen the legislation, proposed over 200 amendments. Regrettably, only six gained Liberal support. Major deficiencies remain. They include the use of the voter information card as acceptable voter identification and the Liberal insistence that all non-resident Canadians be allowed to vote, no matter how long they have been away from Canada, no matter whether they have paid taxes in recent years, no matter whether they follow Canadian politics or know the names of political candidates, and no matter whether they ever intend to return to Canada. As many as 2.8 million Canadian citizens are living outside the country.

I know the time is short, and I must say that I have noticed in the last few minutes a familiar stale stink wafting across the floor from the other side of the House. It smells to me as though we are about to hear the dreaded majority government democratic guillotine, the notice of time allocation. By the time the guillotine drops tomorrow, I would expect that barely three members of the opposition will have had a chance to speak to this incredibly flawed bill, Bill C-76.

I know the clock on the wall forces us to move to procedure.

I look forward to concluding my remarks tomorrow.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member will have five minutes remaining tomorrow when debate continues.

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.

Elections Modernization Act

[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.

[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, 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.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been sitting with my hon. colleague at the ethics committee, where we have been studying the ability of third party operators to monkeywrench the electoral process.

We see that Europe is warning of a digital electoral arms race. We have seen the effects of Brexit and the Cambridge Analytica scandal, yet the government has refused to take the all-party consensus regarding the necessity of putting political parties under a credible privacy regime to limit the potential of political parties to use the new dark arts of the digital manipulation of voters.

What does my hon. colleague think about the credibility of the Liberal government's supposed electoral reform if it is ignoring all-party consensus on the need to have political parties accountable, as well, in protecting data and making sure that we are not manipulating voters through the kind of monkeywrenching that went on in the Cambridge Analytica scandal?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has indeed been a pleasure to work with my hon. colleague in these recent months on the ethics committee on the study of Cambridge Analytica and AggregateIQ here in Canada, which revealed the huge vulnerability of the Canadian democratic electoral process through new media.

The member is quite correct that the interim report of our committee in June, before the House rose, recommended to the government, among a number of recommendations, probably a dozen, that electoral activity in Canada, particularly activity by third parties in elections, be brought under the purview of the Privacy Commissioner, not for the Privacy Commissioner to regulate or interfere with political activity by political parties but to protect the privacy of Canadians from third-party interference and attempts to manipulate and contort the election results.

[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.

[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, 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.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of things that really concerns me in this House is the reality that we have time allocation again put on this. It is the second time this has happened, and we are actually talking about our elections and how they work. It is really important we have that meaningful debate. I appreciate the work that has been done in committee, but to put time allocation on this particular bill is absolutely shameful. I would just like to hear the member's response to that comment.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, the amendments made by committee and throughout this process would allow for persons with disabilities to have better access to be able to vote. We know our democracy is only improved when we allow access, as my colleague just mentioned, to Canadian citizens who are allowed to vote, who have the proper voter information and who could subsequently provide either their own identification cards or have someone with the proper documents vouch for them. The number of amendments made that would ensure persons with disabilities are able to vote is really impressive, because it would allow for more inclusivity. Could he speak to other measures within this piece of legislation that would allow for a more inclusive part for Canadians to play in our democracy?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to spend a moment reinforcing what my colleague is talking about, the great work of the committee and of the government on Bill C-76 as it pertains to making sure Canadian elections are inclusive and barrier-free. If we take a look at our government approach as a whole when it pertains to persons with disabilities, we are trying to make the federal workplace barrier-free through Bill C-81 and are trying to make sure our elections process is inclusive and fair. This is a process that should be inclusive to all Canadians and should prevent foreign interference in our Canadian elections system, and that is exactly what Bill C-76 would do.

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

Madam Speaker, I still do not understand why, when it comes to making sure that people who should not be allowed to vote are voting, Elections Canada is sending notices to asylum seekers who do not have Canadian citizenship and telling them to register to vote. Who is doing the verification that they are Canadian citizens?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would say this to my hon. colleague across the way. Let us be really clear. The voter information card shows proof of address, not proof of identity. Voters have to show proof of identity. They need to show that they are Canadian citizens. That is what it takes to vote in the Canadian election. Everything else is a frivolous and vexatious attack on the Canadian electoral system from the other side.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was interesting to listen to my colleague across. I was going to start my speech off by talking about foreign financing, but when we are talking about voter identification we recognize there are 39 pieces of identification that were approved under the Fair Elections Act. We have to talk about that, because we just got through a municipal election in Ontario a few days ago where we heard about voter cards being left in the lobbies of apartment buildings rather than being secured in people's mailboxes. Of course, that was a bit of a threat as well, because there were issues with the fact they had a PIN that could be used online. We recognize that most Canadians are not going to do things that are fraudulent. However, there are those who, at times when they are so passionate, may choose to do something that sometimes is illegal to basically better their cause or do something they think is really important.

It was great to hear my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton question what we are going to do about voter identification cards. Can voters could go in with voter ID cards they received in the mail and show their Costco card to prove they are Canadian? For many years I worked as a campaign manager and worked in an office talking to different people about what they needed. Also, I worked in a constituency office where I was working with Canadians who were applying for the Canada child benefit, Canadian citizenship and all these things. It is peculiar how our departments need some sort of identification to prove who people are and where they live to receive a variety of different benefits through the Ontario disability support program or Ontario Works. However, the biggest thing a Canadian citizen can do is vote, yet somehow we do not say that they need those documents. Therefore, after listening to my friend from Edmonton, I am really concerned that the Liberals think that proving Canadian citizenship is going to be that easy by saying people can come in with their driver's licence and voter card. This is a reminder. Permanent residents can drive too. I see them drive all the time. I think that is one thing we have to really look at.

However, I want to focus more on foreign financing. That is where I want to go with this, because we saw a number of third party campaigns in the 2015 election. I saw that not only with respect to the provincial election and the federal election, but also with the recent municipal election as well. On TV I cannot see that the campaign was authorized by the campaign manager for x, as a lot of the time it is authorized by a third party campaign.

For many people like myself, contributions to run a personal campaign come from individuals. There were I believe approximately 241 individuals who donated to the EDA during the window of the 2015 election. Those were all individuals. We did not have any third parties working around us. We were on the ground working. However, some of my colleagues who were in ridings such as London North Centre know that there were huge campaigns going on that were really focusing on anything but Harper. That is the concern I have, because this was not money going to the Liberal Party, the NDP or the Green Party, it was money that was being used for people to go out and campaign on. Therefore, I started looking at my returns for the 2015 election to see how much money I had fundraised compared to my colleagues. I am talking about a $40,000 to $50,000 difference in fundraising, yet they ran very strong campaigns as well. Where did they get their money from? Where did they get their advertising from? They did not necessarily have to go out there and do that. They did not actually have to pay for it from their campaigns, because we know how many third parties were out there doing that.

This is where it goes into the next step. Where is that money coming from, that is going to these campaigns, these third parties? I would like to continue that conversation by the member for Thornhill. We talk about things like the Tides Foundation, located in San Francisco and New York. The Tides Foundation funnelled money through Canadian groups and charitable organizations, which then put that money into Canadian elections. It is really that simple. It is so easy to look at the fact that money from the United States was filtered into Canadian campaigns through a third party. We have to recognize what some of those restrictions and regulations are.

What is great is that, within the Senate, Senator Frum was talking about some of these contributions. There was a lot of discussion about contributions coming from third parties and how people can donate to a party. We have to look at this hypothetically, because this entire conversation is really hypothetical: what if, what if? That is what we really need to do here. When we are talking about the Government of Canada, it should be black and white when it comes to the rights of people to vote and give to a party.

What happens if somebody donates $10,000 to a foundation, a not-for-profit, six months prior, and then that money goes into a campaign? It does not matter. Bill C-76 would increase the amount they can spend.

It is not as if I am saying that Conservatives are the only group beaten up on. I recognize that all of us have third parties that support us, and that is fine. However, “101 reasons to vote against Harper” and “Voters Against Harper” are two organizations and I can tell members the money that was funnelled through those parties was not supporting Conservative candidates but instead there was now a new war chest for the NDP, Green, Liberal or Bloc candidate. We have to recognize that we are now, and not just as individuals, fighting another source. We are not fighting among political parties. We have actives out there doing this. Therefore, foreign funding is a critical piece.

The organization that TIDES is involved with, the Dogwood Initiative, is an interesting case. The Dogwood Initiative is a Canadian not-for-profit public interest group based in Victoria, B.C., and I will read a little about it.

The organization works to increase the power of British Columbians over government decision-making. They were instrumental in the fight against Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline, introducing a tanker moratorium on B.C.'s north coast and the province's campaign finance reform. The organization currently works to stop Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain tanker and pipeline expansion in B.C., ban U.S. thermal coal exports through B.C. ports[5] and restore accountability and transparency to the province's democracy by calling for a Corruption Inquiry.

Researchers and pundits have come back and criticized it, because Dogwood has been funded from outside Canada, and so there is foreign investment coming in. The U.S.-based funders provided money through the TIDES Foundation to Dogwood.

Now, we have these groups working as a third party. Therefore, if I am allowed to spend $78,000 on my campaign, and my colleagues are allowed to spend $78,000 on their campaigns but they actually have a third party, we are now talking about spending $156,000 on their campaign if they invest properly in some of these things. It is not just about one group. We have to recognize that in the last federal election there were 115 organizations that were third party.

This is all hypothetical, but that is why we need to have this debate. If we get one group or one person who decides that they do not like what a party is doing, they could set up 100 different organizations and put $10,000 into each of them, and then that money could be filtered. Yes, there is a cap on how much money can be spent within a certain constituency, but at the same time, if that is done 100 times over, it is unfair, and this is where, when I look at this, that it is absolutely not the right thing to do. We have to be very cautious on foreign investment coming into Canada that is focused on the policies of Canadian politicians.

We hear about fake news all the time, and I do not want to talk about what is happening in the United States, but I do not think we should kid ourselves. There are people here in Canada who also have an agenda and are speaking to our government officials. This week, we have talked a lot about Vice-Admiral Norman and the lobbyists that were working for Irving and how the Davie shipyard lost something. There are all of these things, and so please, let us not kid ourselves, lobbyists and third party groups are very important in Canadian government. Now, when they are part of our elections as well, we have to have caution on that. Therefore, it is a really big concern.

I will go back to an editorial written by our former colleague, the Hon. Joe Oliver, who was a fantastic minister of finance and continued the great job that Jim Flaherty did. This is something I think most Canadians need to understand, and we have to bring this back to the dining table so that everybody can understand it.

Canadians can only donate $1,550 to political parties and candidates. Union and corporate donations have been banned completely, and yet in the Senate hearing, Commissioner Côté said that as long as foreign money is donated to a third party six months prior to the election writ being dropped, the amount that can be donated is endless.

These are things that we have to be aware of. I thank everybody for listening. Let us have this conversation and really talk about what is happening in Canadian elections.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the beginning of the member's speech and make some very clear distinctions around the voter information card.

To be clear to anybody who is listening or who inadvertently received a card from Elections Canada, the voter information card is not a piece of ID and it is an offence under the Canada Elections Act for a non-citizen to vote or for a non-citizen to register to vote when they know they are not able to do so.

I know that we are talking about this in the context of the cards being sent out, but we should be telling individuals that it is an offence and something that cannot be done under Canadian law. I would hope that in this conversation it becomes clear to all permanent residents and non-Canadian citizens that it is not something they can do.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I was doing my research for this speech, I was looking at information regarding the election going on in Surrey, B.C. There was concern with voter fraud, people who were non-Canadians voting in the municipal elections.

We recognize as Canadians that it is our right to vote. However, we also have to recognize that everybody in Canada is not always honourable. It may be 1%, or 0.5%, but it does matter. Canadians have the privilege to vote because we are Canadians.

Just on that list, what the member has said is incorrect. The voter card can be used as one piece of ID. It indicates the address of a person. Now a Canadian health card or an Ontario health card can be used as identification. That does not prove a person is a Canadian citizen. Another example would be a social insurance number. Only a few of us know that the number “9” means a person is not a citizen of Canada.

There is a lot of information. Therefore, unfortunately, I cannot agree with that.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to voice some of my comments and concerns regarding this very important discussion this morning.

There is a level hypocrisy from members of both the Liberal government as well as the Conservative Party when they say that all Canadians are equal. Where I come from within the Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River riding, even obtaining a photo ID is a challenge.

Both parties are making it difficult for indigenous voters and people who are struggling. They are making it difficult to go out and vote. How can they improve that for all Canadians?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, we recognize that there are challenges when we talk about poverty reduction strategy, when we talk about all of those things.

One of the greatest challenges for a person is actually getting identification, whether it is a health card or things like that. The Canadian government needs to work on that. Provincial and territorial governments need to ensure that people have those. All people should be able to have a health card. If they have the right to health in Canada, they should have that health card.

We do need to work with our first nations. I totally appreciate that comment. Let us work harder to do more.

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

Madam Speaker, every entity, every individual who is not a candidate, or an EDA, or a political party is a third party.

I would like the member opposite to tell me this. Is it her position that any individual who wants to engage in topics that matter to them should have to register and report to the government?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a really unique question. At the end of the day, the government can give to a not-for-profit organization or things like that.

We have to be very cautious when we talk about interest groups outside of the country funnelling their money into Canada so they can do things, like stopping our pipelines so they can build pipelines and extract oil in their own countries. We have to be aware of this.

If people are not giving to a political campaign or to an EDA, they are more than likely giving to a church or a not-for-profit organization. However, a lot of times we have to be cautious on what these organizations are doing when it comes to political duties.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism)]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to speak this morning in support of Bill C-76.

The goal of Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, is to modernize Canada's electoral system and to strengthen its integrity by making it more transparent, accessible and secure. It would do so, among other things, by establishing spending limits for third parties and political parties during a pre-writ period by increasing transparency regarding the participation of third parties in the electoral process and by expanding the powers of the commissioner of Canada elections.

The commissioner's new powers would include the imposition of administrative monetary penalties for contraventions to key parts of the act, including those governing political financing and third party activities.

In recent months, we have heard a great deal of news about the influence of foreigners, fake news and the impact of emerging technologies on elections around the world. The Government of Canada has already included in Bill C-76, right upon its introduction in the spring, a number of measures aimed at preventing foreign influence or the malicious use of technology. However, new details about undue influence attempts in the electoral systems in western democracies are brought to the public's attention almost weekly.

Amendments to the Canada Elections Act only represent one tool at our country's disposal in its fight to protect our democracy. Members of Parliament, political actors, academics and Canada's civil society at large also have important roles to play, for example, in the area of civic literacy.

I would like to focus my remarks today on the improvements brought to the elections modernization act during its study in committee, which the Government of Canada sees as a great tool aimed at increasing the transparency of political advertising practices.

In 2017, Statistics Canada estimated that almost every Canadian under the age of 45 was using the Internet every day, while approximately 80% of Canadians aged 45 to 65 were using the Internet every day.

As of April 1, Statistics Canada estimated Canada's population at just above 37 million. This means that roughly between 22 to 23 million Canadians between the ages of 18 to 65 access the Internet and online platforms virtually daily.

Given the impact of new technologies on the lives of Canadians, the time has come to require more transparency from online platforms during election periods.

Online platforms, whether they are smart phones, applications or websites, which sell advertising space on a commercial basis during the pre-writ and election periods, will now be legally compelled to maintain an online registry of all partisan and election advertising messages that they publish.

This new requirement will apply to those online platforms having a medium to high reach to persons present in Canada, no matter where the platform is actually located. Each online platform will be required to maintain this registry on the platform itself and to make it fully accessible to the public. The registry will include at least a copy of each partisan and election advertising message that has been published during the pre-writ and the election period respectively, as well as information about the person or entity that authorized the publication of the message.

Traditional media, such as radio, television and newspapers, offer political ads to Canadians in plain view. They allow all political actors to be held accountable for the information they share and for the promises they make. In comparison, online platforms allow advertisers to target a very precise segment of the population. Without a registry of political ads, it is impossible for Canadians to know how their neighbours, their families and their co-workers might be targeted.

The new online platform registry of political ads in Bill C-76 will help Canadians better understand who is trying to influence them and how. For example, even if an election advertising message was targeted to only 50 Canadian electors, a copy of the published advertisement would need to be published in that registry. Along with that copy would be found the name of the financial agent who authorized its publication, whether it was the official agent of a candidate, the chief agent of a registered party or one of his or her delegates, or the financial agent of a third party.

The Canada Elections Act will require online platforms to maintain public access to the new registry for a minimum period of two years after the polling day. This will ensure more transparency on political advertising targeting techniques, as Canadians, including academic researchers and journalists, will be able to take a close look at all messages conveyed by political entities and third parties in their attempts to influence Canadians.

In addition, online tax forms would be required to safeguard the information found in the registry for a total of five years after the polling date. This retention requirement would ensure the commissioner of Canada elections would have sufficient time to initiate investigations and, when necessary, seek access to the contents of the registry.

Of course, political entities and third parties would be legally required to co-operate with online platforms by providing them the information they need in order to publish them on their registry. Political entities, third parties and online platforms that fail to comply with the new Canada Elections Act requirements could potentially face criminal charges.

The Government of Canada recognizes that some online platforms have already announced voluntary transparency measures of the kind I am talking about today. This is a helpful development, but on subject matter as important as Canada's democracy, voluntary measures are not always sufficient anymore.

The new Canada Elections Act requirements would ensure that all qualifying online platforms would be subject to the same disclosure rules and the same minimum information would be made available in each online platform's registry of political ads. These new requirements, along with the bans on use of foreign funding and on selling of advertising space to foreigners, as well as new financial returns required of third parties during the election period, will go a long way toward affording Canadians a more secure and transparent electoral system.

I strongly encourage all members of the House, across party lines, to support Bill C-76.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is no more sacred obligation than to ensure our citizens have the opportunity to vote privately in a democratic election and to ensure their identities are who they say they are. However, the government is implying that the voter information cards mailed out to Canadians are identification cards. We know clearly they are not. In the last election, nearly a million of those cards were issued in error.

How can my colleague have confidence in this system that mails out the information cards, many of which are in error and many of which fall into the hands of unscrupulous people when they are thrown into recycle bins at apartment buildings and townhouses? It is an issue that is very important to many people in my riding. I am sure my colleague has heard from constituents in his riding about the concerns they have on using the voter information cards as a voter ID card.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my friend opposite that Canadians' right to vote is sacrosanct. It is a right that is available to every Canadian citizen aged 18 and over. When we vote, we reiterate our citizenship commitment to our country.

I want to clarify that the voter information card is not the only form of identification. It is in fact not an ID. It needs to be coupled with proper identification that verifies who the individual is. Under the Elections Act, it is illegal for anyone to vote who is not eligible to vote. I am confident that Bill C-76 would ensure that all citizens who wanted to vote would be able to vote. While fraud may be an issue in one or two instances, we cannot make public policy based on those very minor infractions that can be enforced through our Elections Act.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, the U.S. Treasury Department has found evidence that Russian oligarchs have been funding Tides U.S.A. Tides U.S.A. is known to then funnel money into Canada to interrupt not only our oil business here, but also to influence elections. Bill C-76 would allow a doubling of foreign money to be used.

Why would the Liberal Party allow this when we have seen pure evidence that Russian money is being funnelled through Tides U.S.A. into Tides Canada to influence our elections?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-76 essentially puts severe limitations on third-party advertising. There will be a very well-grounded regime to ensure there is transparency with regard to who those parties are.

Bill C-76 strengthens our democracy from foreign influence. While it imposes certain restrictions on third parties and the influence of foreigners, there are other important mechanisms that the government will undertake to ensure there is security in the Internet, to make sure that foreign influence is curtailed.

It is certainly a problem in parts of the world, and in Canada as well. Bill C-76 is a very important step in addressing this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise to speak in the House.

I would like to say hello to the people of Beauport—Limoilou who are watching us now on CPAC or watching a rebroadcast on Facebook or Twitter.

Without further delay, I would like to address the previous speaker's comments. I find it interesting that he said their objective was to prevent foreign influence from third parties.

The bill will pass, since the Liberals have a majority. However, one problem I have with the bill is that it will allow more than 1.5 million Canadians who have been living outside of Canada for more than five years to vote in general elections, even if they have been outside Canada for 10 or 15 years.

These people have a privilege that even Canadians who have never left the country do not even have. The Liberals will let them randomly choose which riding they want to vote in. This is a massive privilege.

If I were living in the United States for 10 years and saw that the vote was really close in a certain riding, thanks to the new amendments made to the bill, I could decide to vote for the Liberal Party in order to ensure that a Liberal member gets elected. That seems like a very dangerous measure to me. It will give a lot of power to people who have been living abroad for a very long time. That still does not make them foreigners, since they are Canadian citizens.

For those watching us, I want to note that we are talking about Bill C-76 to modernize the Canada Elections Act.

This is an extremely important issue because it is the Canada Elections Act that sets the guidelines for our elections in our democracy. These elections determine the party that will form the next government of Canada.

I am sure that the people of Beauport—Limoilou watching us right now can hardly believe the Liberal government when it says that it wants to improve democracy or Canada's electoral system or allow a lot of people to exercise their right to vote. The Liberals' record on different elements of democracy has been deplorable the past three years.

Two years ago when the House was debating the issue, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The Liberals introduced a parliamentary reform that included some rather surprising elements. They wanted to weaken the opposition, thereby weakening roughly 10 million Canadians who voted for the opposition parties, including the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party, and the Green Party.

They wanted to cut speaking times in the House, which is completely ridiculous. I have said it many times before and I will say it again. An MP currently has the right to speak for 20 minutes. Most of the time, each MP speaks for 10 minutes. Through the reform, the Liberals wanted to cut speaking times from 20 minutes to 10 minutes at all times. The 20-minute speaking slot would no longer exist.

I have a book at home that I love called The Confederation Debates. It features speeches by Papineau, Doyon, George-Étienne Cartier, John A. MacDonald, Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine, among many others that I could name. These great MPs would speak for four, five, six, seven or eight hours without stopping, long into the night.

With their parliamentary reforms, the Liberals wanted to reduce MPs' speaking time to 10 minutes. They wanted to take away our right to speak for 20 minutes. All this was intended to minimize the opposition's speaking time, to stifle debate on various issues.

What they did yesterday was even worse. It was a clear-cut example of their attitude towards parliamentary democracy. They imposed time allocation. In layman's terms, they placed a gag order on a debate on the modernization of the Canada Elections Act. No example could more blatantly demonstrate their ultimate intent, which is to ram the bill through as fast as possible. It is really a shame. They want to ram this down our throats.

There is also what they did in 2015 and 2016 with their practice of cash for access.

When big-time lobbyists want to meet with a minister or the Prime Minister to discuss an issue, they just have to register and pay $1,500, or $1,575 now, for the opportunity to influence them.

These are not get-togethers with ordinary constituents. These are get-togethers arranged for the express purpose of giving prominent lobbyists access to top government officials and enabling them to influence decisions.

Here is a great example. The Minister of Finance attended a get-together with Port of Halifax officials and people closely connected to the Port of Halifax. No other Liberal Party MP was there. That is a blatant conflict of interest and cash for access.

If Canadians have a hard time trusting the Liberals when they say they introduced this bill because they want to enfranchise people or improve democracy and civic engagement, it is also because of all of the promises the Liberals have broken since their election in 2015.

Elections and electoral platforms form the foundations of Canadian democracy. Each party's political platform contains election promises. Personally, I prefer to call them commitments. The Liberals made some big promises. They said they would run small $10-billion deficits for the first two years and then reduce the deficits. Year after year, however, as they are in their third year of a four-year mandate, they have been running deficits that are much worse: $30 billion, $20 billion and, this year, $19 billion, although their plan projected a $6-billion deficit.

They broke that promise, but worse still, they broke their promise to return to a balanced budget. As my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent has put it so well often enough, this is the first time we are seeing structural deficits outside wartime or a major recession. What is worse, this is the first time a government has had no plan to return to a balanced budget. It defies reason. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, an institution created by the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, said again recently that it is unbelievable to see a government not taking affairs of the state more seriously.

Meanwhile, with respect to infrastructure, the Liberals said they were introducing the largest infrastructure program in Canadian history—everything is always historic with them—worth $187 billion. What is the total amount spent to date? They have spent, at most, $7 billion on a few projects here and there, although this was supposed to be a pan-Canadian, structured and large-scale program.

The Liberals also broke their promise to reform the electoral system. They wanted a preferential balloting system because, according to analyses, surveys and their strategists, it would have benefited them. I did not support that promise, but it is probably why so many Canadians voted for the Liberals.

There is then a string of broken promises, but electoral reform was a fundamental promise and the Liberals reneged on it. It would have made changes to the Election Act and to how Canadians choose their government. That clearly shows once again that Canadians cannot trust the Liberals when they say they will reform the Election Act in order to strengthen democracy in Canada.

Let us now get back to the matter at hand, Bill C-76, which makes major fundamental changes that I find deplorable.

First, Bill C-76 would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to authorize the use of the voter information card as a piece of identification for voting. As one of my Conservative colleagues said recently, whether we like it or not, voter cards show up all over, even in recycling boxes. Sometimes voter cards are found sticking out of community mailboxes.

There are all kinds of ways that an individual can get hold of a voter card and go to the polling station with it. It is not that difficult. This Liberal bill enables that individual to vote, although there is no way of knowing if they are that person, unless they are asked to provide identification—and that is not even the biggest problem.

It does not happen often, thank goodness, but when I go to the CHUL in Quebec City—which is the hospital where I am registered—not only do I have to provide the doctor's requisition for blood work, but I also have to show a piece of ID and my hospital card.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have another five minutes for questions and comments when we resume debate after question period.

The House resumed 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, just to check, I would like to know whether I have five minutes left. I am not sure.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There are five minutes remaining for questions and comments. I checked and that is right.

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

I believe you, of course, Madam Speaker.

That is completely ridiculous in the current context. My colleague is talking about something that happened a number of years ago. However, in the current context, there are practically no bills. The government's legislative agenda is practically non-existent. What is it introducing right now?

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership has been signed. We are waiting for the USMCA to be examined here in the House so that it can be ratified. We voted only once this week. We are beginning to wonder what we are doing here. The Liberal government is not introducing any meaningful legislation. This week, we had the opportunity to debate an extremely important bill, and the government imposed a gag order on us. Looking at the government's legislative agenda, it seems that we should have been able to take as much time as we needed to discuss that bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I sat for a number of years in opposition when Stephen Harper brought in legislation to change the Elections Act. There was a widespread understanding across Canada that what the Harper government did was very undemocratic. A good example of that was the voter identification card. Elections Canada itself had expressed a great deal of concern about issues in that regard. It was in a fact a tool that many Canadians genuinely would liked to have used.

Our proposed legislation is very proactive in ensuring that we get wider participation in future federal elections. That is a good thing.

We saw a minister at committee open to amendments to the proposed legislation. We saw amendments recommended by Elections Canada accepted, and amendments from the Conservatives, NDP and the Liberals. We have seen significant progress on good legislation.

Why do the Conservatives continue to want to oppose this for the sake of opposing it? They have no intention whatsoever, if it were up to them—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We have to allow for an answer.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

Madam Speaker, our critic for democratic institutions and other Conservative colleagues on the committee presented and tabled 200 possible amendments to the bill. These amendments would not only have strengthened the bill but possibly also given the Conservatives the privilege and honour of voting for the bill.

Concerning the citizens' voting cards, one million cards sent to citizens in the last election contained erroneous information. Also, as an Ipsos Reid poll indicates, 87% of Canadians do not see why it is a problem for them to be required to have another identification card when they present themselves at the polling booths.

It is at the basis of democracy that we make sure that the right person is on the card when someone goes to the polls to vote to choose the next government.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House once again to speak to Bill C-76, the elections modernization act. Throughout my speech, I will share how this bill will affect many citizens in my riding.

As members know, the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook is a half circle of the city of Halifax and Dartmouth. The riding has seen the largest increase in the number of seniors in Nova Scotia in the last five years. We also have the largest number of military members and veterans, who make up 23% of the communities within our riding. We have a lot of youth and young families and many seniors. Therefore, my speech today will touch on how this bill will help these individuals.

There is no doubt that this new law will make the system much more transparent for voters. What is more, it will make voting more accessible for those who have difficulty getting out to their polling stations. It will also make the system much more secure.

When we talk about democracy, we should start at the base to see how this bill was prepared and presented here today. I want to thank the minister for her excellent work and leadership on this bill. However, let us look at how this bill came about, because that is true democracy.

The Chief Electoral Officer made 130 recommendations to improve our electoral system. Those were of course reflected on, researched and consulted on before he came forward with them. Out of those 130 recommendations, about 87% of were included in this bill. Therefore, this was not one party deciding the full framework of this bill, because a major part of it came from recommendations that were made.

Also, we should mention the committee's work. There was a lot of debate and many witnesses came forward to speak about how we could improve the system. There were many amendments that came forward. I want to make sure that the people in Canada are aware that 70 amendments that came forward were accepted. That is not one party controlling, but rather all parties coming together. We had 16 amendments from the Conservative side that were approved. We had two amendments from the New Democratic Party that were approved. Therefore, 70 amendments were approved altogether, which is a large number. We also had some feedback and information that came about through discussion and debate at the Senate level.

I want to touch on some of the key ones, such as accessibility. One of my former students is the Speaker in the House today in the Nova Scotia Legislature. Mr. Murphy, a former student, had an accident playing hockey when he was very young and is in a wheelchair. Of course he has to have accessibility not only to federal institutions but to voting as well. Therefore, we want to make sure that we are answering his needs, and the needs of other Canadians who may have other challenges or disabilities, which is extremely important. People are now able to vote at home or in residences where seniors may not be able to make their way to voting stations. We even have some reimbursements in the bill for physical changes that need to be made with respect to accessibility to accommodate others.

The second one I want to speak about is our Canadian Armed Forces. If we look back, the Chief Electoral Officer said that we had to improve and give much more flexibility to the Canadian Armed Forces in voting. That was a key recommendation. We would be moving forward on that, which is extremely important. Canadian Armed Forces voters could now choose the method they would like best to vote so that they could have access to that important democratic right. To guarantee the integrity of the vote, we would also increase the information exchange between Elections Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces.

Those are very important changes to respond to, as I said earlier, a big part of my riding, where 23% of constituents are in the military or are veterans.

We would be encouraging more voters to vote. There are certain things that would be reinstated in this bill that were not there before under the so-called unfair elections act the former Conservative government had. I say so-called, because looking closely, there were a lot of issues with that bill.

We would also reinstate the voter's information card as a piece of ID and reintroduce vouching, which was removed in the Conservative's bill. This is another key measure to ensure that all eligible electors are able to cast a vote. This legislation, as introduced by the minister, contains limits on how vouching could be used to ensure that it could not be used in a way that threatened its integrity. For example, an elector could only vouch for one person in the same polling station. An elector could not vouch for more than one person. Finally, a person who was vouched for could not vouch for someone else. That would put some limitations on vouching, but it would be reinstated so that we could ensure that more Canadians were able to vote. Through this bill, over a million Canadians would have access to voting who did not have it under the Conservatives' bill, the so-called Fair Elections Act.

There were also important changes to this bill. I think it must be noted that it would ban the use of foreign money, which would be severely limited through this bill. Again, many of these changes came through the committee's work and from recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer and others.

Social networks would have to create a registry of all digital advertising published. We would be able to better track who spent what doing what and then follow up on that. We would also put in place some protections in the new registries for the future electorate, young Canadians aged 14 to 17.

I want to finish by saying that this bill would continue the transparency our government has brought forward since 2015 through Bill C-50, which was the political financing bill, the modernization of the access to information act, and the accessible Canada act, Bill C-81, which is currently being debated.

I want to thank committee members, the Chief Electoral Officer and Canadians for their input. I know that this is a big improvement for Canadians. We are looking forward to making sure that Canadians have better access to voting for parties or individuals, whomever they desire.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to correct a misrepresentation by the member. He was trying to say that we are limiting the amount of foreign funds. However, the fact remains that organizations like the Tides foundation or George Soros can donate to Canadians organizations like Dogwood or Leadnow. In fact, this legislation says that each organization can donate up to $1.5 million in the pre-writ period, which really means it is millions and millions of dollars of influence, some of which is lefty Canadian influence and some of which is foreign-funded influence.

Would the member be open to changing this bill to either take the limit down to something that is minuscule, like $50,000 per organization, or recognize that, in fact, the government has not plugged the hole there?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question. We did the committee work. There was a lot of reflection on that.

We have severely limited the possibility of foreign funding, but what we have done that is really positive is that we will now be able to track who is spending and what they are doing and how they are advertising. We can follow up on that. We feel that the system will be right, but we will continue, of course, as we do with all bills, to look at ways to make it stronger.

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

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member made reference to the unfair elections act of the previous Parliament. Coming off the last election, there was widespread agreement that those provisions should be repealed.

We are now three years into the current government and have not seen a repeal of those provisions, even though I think there was a consensus for making that simple measure. Part of it is that the Liberals decided to address many other problems in the bill.

When we ask why it took so long, the Liberals say we have understand that there are very subtle synergies at work in the various issues, so it took a long time. However, it was wrong to tie in those simple repeals with those other measures, because now we have gone past the April 30 deadline.

Certainly we should address those other issues, like foreign interference, but there is less of a consensus on how to go ahead with that, and I do not think the Liberals have everything right.

Could the member tell us why that straight-up repeal was not accomplished at some time in the last three years. Why are we still waiting to get that repeal done? There are questions about whether that repeal is going to be effective for the next election.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have to tell the truth, and a lot of it is that the Conservatives are filibustering.

The Conservative filibustering started on May 29. We were only able to get to the clause-by-clause on October 15. Again, the Conservatives feel that the bill they presented was the best bill, so they are just going to filibuster, slowing down the process, because they realize that the wrongdoings in their so-called fair elections bill did not answer the needs of Canadians.

If the Conservatives had worked closely with the other parties, we would have had this legislation through a lot sooner.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a longer question, but we have run out of time, unfortunately.

My colleague from Sarnia—Lambton brought up the issue of foreign funding. We have seen that the U.S. Treasury Department has confirmed that Russian oligarchs' money and Russian government money has gone into Tides U.S., which in turn has sent the money to Tides Canada to interfere in our elections and in lobbying against our oil business.

Why has this bill not done more to prevent such issues as Russian money coming directly in to fund third parties attacking our democratic practices?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, again, it is an important question.

What we have put in place is a structure that will ensure we will be able to determine who is investing what money, where that money is going, how it is going to be spent, and it will have to be reported every two weeks to ensure that we are able to track it closely.

This bill will allow us to do that. It also strengthens our Elections Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleague was able to share with us, quite clearly, the areas of strength in the bill and the areas about which he was concerned. I really appreciate that. That is how parliamentarians work together to improve the system.

I too am an educator by trade. When I go into schools and have an opportunity to talk to young people about our political system, they tell me they want to learn more. They want those opportunities. It is our job to work with them, to try to support them, as they go through this important process.

The member spoke about electoral reform. I too am in favour of preferential voting. I believe that 51%, an absolute majority, would have been a very good system. However, Canadians did not clearly support one or the other throughout the various surveys that we did. Therefore, we must move forward.

I would like the hon. member to speak about the Canadian Armed Forces, seniors and people with disabilities in his riding and how the legislation would support those individuals.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member started his question by saying that not enough Canadians were in favour. They did not ask Canadians. They had some very bizarre, silly questionnaire that was sent out that absolutely proved nothing. If anything, it proved that Canadians wanted change.

The member spoke about talking to young people. I talked to a woman in my riding, and she and her husband and their kids got together in the last election and learned about the party platforms, and then let their kids decide whom to vote for in the election. She did not tell me whom they voted for, but she said her kids were so disappointed at the cynicism in politics that they had decided that electoral reform was the big promise that would mean more to them in the future. However, the government's going back on that promise has made her kids so cynical that they may not vote in the next election despite having wanted to increase the chances of that reform.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague shares a lot of the concerns I have about foreign meddling in elections. He talked about keeping big money and foreign funding from interfering with our elections. How does he believe this bill does not go far enough and what solutions might he have for that?

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

Madam Speaker, the NDP is very much in favour of getting rid of foreign meddling, whether through money or undue influence and hacking. That is what we want to stop. We do not want to see what happened in the United States or in Brexit.

I know that the Conservatives have put forward proposals about stopping foreign organizations from donating money to Canadian elections. We say that is fine, but let us talk about foreign corporations as well. When small Canadian organizations that are concerned about the environment get involved in our elections, they might get a bit of funding from the United States, but they are fighting foreign corporations like Kinder Morgan and Chinese oil companies.

It is a very David-and-Goliath situation. If we are going to get rid of foreign money, let us get rid of it all, not just pick who cannot donate.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in the House to participate in the report stage debate of Bill C-76, the elections modernization act. The bill represents a generational overhaul of the legal framework that governs our federal elections, one of the most important events in our Canadian democracy. I would like to pay particular attention in my intervention to one of the key challenges that Bill C-76 addresses, that is the use of foreign funding by third parties for activities that would aim to influence the outcome of Canadian elections. Madam Speaker, I am sure you have heard a number of questions related to this, so I am hoping I will be able to answer some of them in my comments.

The use of foreign interference in domestic democratic processes is a very complex one that requires government-wide response. The government is taking these threats very seriously, and the Minister of Democratic Institutions is working closely with her colleagues to protect our electoral processes from these nefarious acts.

Before I continue with my remarks on this important issue, I would first like to thank our colleagues who are members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I will refer to it as PROC or the committee from now on. They have conducted a thorough study of this important piece of legislation and have advanced the proposal that we are now considering. There was a total of 100 hours of study, and I really want to commend them for their work.

Even before the bill was introduced by the minister, the comprehensive study of the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, which the committee conducted over the last year, greatly contributed to the development of this strong piece of legislation. I want to reiterate that over 85% of the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations are included in the current piece of legislation. Further, the discussions held by the PROC committee on the bill, including hearing from expert witnesses last spring, have resulted in amendments that are making this important legislation even stronger, including with respect to combatting foreign interference in Canada's federal election.

I would like to take a few moments to remind members of the House of important measures that are included in the bill, as introduced by the Minister of Democratic Institutions. The government believes these measures would help ensure that only Canadians get to influence the outcome of our Canadian elections. First, Bill C-76 prohibits foreign entities from spending any money to influence elections. Previously, they were able to spend up to $500 without being regulated. Canadians who are watching might be thinking there is no problem with $500. While it is true that it might not seem like a lot of money, when compared to hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent by political parties and candidates during an election campaign, this gets to be problematic. That said, a zero tolerance approach tells foreign entities to stay away from of our election, in unequivocal terms. It is, therefore, an important loophole that C-76 is closing. The message is clear: Canadians elections belong to Canadians, and it is not the place of foreigners to have a say in who should have a place in this chamber.

Another important feature of Bill C-76 that also contributes to this objective is the creation of the pre-election period, with spending limits imposed on political parties and third parties. This measure is necessary to respond to the reality that fixed-date elections have changed how political actors behave in the lead-up to an election campaign.

During his testimony before PROC last spring, Mr. Michael Pal, a renowned professor of constitutional law, stated that the creation of the pre-election period “...is an extremely important and overdue amendment to the Elections Act.” The government believes that failing to impose limits in the lead-up to the issue of the writ would create a real risk for a level playing field, a feature of our democratic life. That is why we are committed to adapting the legislation to modern realities.

These changes related to the pre-election period also provide for additional transparency measures for third parties. Among these measures, we count the obligation that the election-related transactions be processed through a Canadian bank account, opened specifically for that purpose. Third parties, whether organizations or individuals who receive contributions for more than $10,000 or have relevant expenses in that amount, would be obligated to submit reports to the Chief Electoral Officer detailing expenses incurred and contributions received.

These interim reports will be due upon registration and on September 15. A final financial report will continue to be required after polling day. Making these reports public as soon as possible in the pre-election period will provide Canadians with more tools to know who is trying to influence their votes. It is our responsibility to ensure that Canadians have access to all the information possible so they can make an informed decision.

The amendments approved by PROC will strengthen this third-party transparency regime even more. Members of the standing committee adopted an amendment that would require reporting of the expenses of third parties, organizations, or individuals during the election period. More specifically, they would have to submit reports to the Chief Electoral Officer 21 days before polling day and seven days before polling day. This is an important improvement for ensuring greater transparency, particularly when we think that third parties do not face the same limits as political parties and candidates in receiving contributions from individuals or other entities. I commend the members of PROC for this measure, which nicely complements the set of amendments to the Canada Elections Act that were already introduced in the bill by the minister.

There is another key amendment that was adopted by PROC that relates to foreign influence. Indeed, PROC adopted a new prohibition on third parties using foreign funding for their partisan activities at any time. Let me be clear that the Canada Elections Act already prohibits the use of foreign funding for election advertising by third parties during the election period, irrespective of when the money is received. Bill C-76 has already expanded the scope of third party activities that are covered by this prohibition. Not only will it be prohibited to use foreign funding for advertising, but it will also be prohibited to do so for partisan activities or election surveys.

Further, the Elections Modernization Act also extends this prohibition to activities during the newly established pre-election period. The amendment to the bill that was passed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs extends this idea further by prohibiting the use of foreign funding by third parties for partisan advertising and activities at any time. This addition to Bill C-76 will reinforce the rules that frame the participation of third parties in our federal elections. What will this prohibition mean concretely? It would mean that it would be prohibited for anyone, an individual, a corporation or a non-government organization, to use foreign funding to conduct activities or transmit advertising supporting or opposing a specific political party.

I will say it once more that Canadian elections belong to Canadians. Bill C-76, which was improved by the work of our colleagues on the PROC committee, makes giant steps toward ensuring that our elections will be protected from foreign intervention.

Once again I would like to thank the members for their insightful study of Bill C-76. The elections modernization act will make our election processes more secure, transparent and accessible and will modernize the administration of elections in this country. It is an important piece of legislation to reinforce the protections against foreign interference in our democracy and for the future of Canadian democracy.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member for Whitby. At the beginning of her speech she talked about foreign funding and how foreign funders cannot contribute to Canadian elections. Here in Canada we know that. However, what happens when it is a third party? What happens when that money is received six months in advance and then used? Can she share with me how that would not contravene what we are talking about here today?

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

Madam Speaker, the amendments and the act itself have made it very clear that we strongly want Canadian elections to remain in the hands of Canadians. Therefore, no foreign investments are allowed at any particular time. However, as my colleague said, if investments are made in partisan activities, they need to be reported and registered with the Chief Electoral Officer and be transparent for Canadians to see. One of the things we want to ensure is that Canadians are aware of who is trying to influence their elections at any time. Therefore, steps have been included in this legislation to ensure that the parties report when they receive money and how that could unduly influence an election in the future.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that a number of the Conservative attempts to suppress votes through the identification system that they used to target indigenous people is being replaced.

However, the government's decision to ignore the all-party committee recommendation from the ethics committee regarding the need to put political parties under a credible form of privacy regime is very disturbing. The Privacy Commissioner has spoken about this. We studied the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Europe is talking about the new digital political arms race that can undermine elections by allowing political parties and third-party operators to maintain very large amounts of data that can be used to interfere and suppress votes. We saw this in the United States and in England.

Why did the government ignore the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner and the all-party recommendations, including from the Liberal members who sit with her, on the need to ensure a quality and credible privacy regime for this coming election?

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

Madam Speaker, one of the foundations of our democracy is ensuring that our electoral process is inclusive and that Canadians are given the opportunity to vote. This legislation introduces more equitable opportunities and more accessible opportunities for people to vote. In fact, it would make it more inclusive for individuals to vote in our electoral system.

When we talk about individuals who possibly do not have the proper identification to vote, the voter information cards would provide proof of address and that combined with ID would allow individuals to vote. We reinstated vouching. We have made provisions to have increased participation of women in our electoral process by having their expenses for child care paid, for example. There are provisions for individuals with a disability to work at home, redefining what disability means and using the term “accessibility”. There are a number different initiatives within the legislation.

Again, I thank the PROC committee for its work to make this proposed legislation allow more Canadians to be included in our electoral process and have democracy stay in the hands of Canadians.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a good day when we can stand in the House and talk about electoral reform. This piece of legislation is so important. The government says this is a critical piece of legislation that is significant and important to the government. It is so important that the Liberals have once again forced closure on debate.

Let me refresh the memories of those who are paying attention and those in the gallery. It is a packed gallery today on a Friday, which I am glad to see. I know there are many Canadians listening in to this riveting debate and this speech is going to be another one of those riveting speeches.

In 2015, the member for Papineau was campaigning on the Liberal plan for real change. He said that under their government, they would be the most open and transparent government in Canadian history. We have seen how that is. He also said that they would let the debate reign and then he targeted the former administration and how closure was used and how unacceptable that was and that Prime Minister Harper was silencing Canadians and those they elected to be their voice. Here we sit, and over 50 times closure has been enacted on legislation. Why? Because if the Liberals do not like what they are hearing, then they just pick up their toys and run off to another sandbox, which is sad.

I have said this before, but on a piece of legislation that is so important, I would remind my colleagues across the way and the Prime Minister that the House does not belong to him. It does not belong to those of us who are here. It belongs to the electors, those who elected the 338 members of Parliament to be their voices. When the Prime Minister and his team enact closure, he is essentially saying to Canadians and those who elected the opposition that their voices do not matter. That is shameful.

The government would like us to believe that the electoral changes that were implemented by Prime Minister Harper and his team in the last administration somehow targeted some of our most marginalized Canadians, that they were unfair, and that they were just another way for the Conservatives to attack Canadian democracy. The 2015 election had the highest voter turnout. The changes that our previous administration enacted increased the number of acceptable forms of identification, making it easier for those who might not have a driver's licence or a passport. The changes made it easier for people to vote and say that they are Canadian. We hope all Canadians and members in the House believe that we need to make sure that who is voting is who should be voting. Only Canadians have a say as to who we are electing to govern this beautiful country of ours.

It is important that those who are sitting in the House are here representing Canadians. They are not backed by, let us say, foreign funds. It is really interesting that we listen to talking points time and time again. The gentleman from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook stands and is very animated. I love listening to his speeches and love that he ties it back to his community. I have to take a moment to remind everyone that it was his family that received a lucrative surf clam quota from the former fisheries minister.

Open and transparent? What is transparent is that if people have Liberal connections, they get the quota. If people have Liberal connections, they get the appointment. For those who are connected to the Liberal Party in any way, and it might be a foreign entity, Liberal legislation is geared to helping them out, whether it be Bill C-68, Bill C-69, Bill C-55, or what we are now seeing, Bill C-76.

In 2015, a total of 114 third parties poured $6 million into influencing the election outcome, and many of those third parties were funded by U.S.-based Tides Foundation. That should strike fear in every Canadian.

If I seem a little more animated than I normally am, it is because there was an organization called Leadnow. In 2015, Tides Foundation donated $1.5 million U.S. to Canadian third parties, such as Leadnow. Leadnow actually, right after the election in 2016, won an international award. Canadians can go to their website, www.leadnow.ca. I cannot guarantee that the report will be on there after this debate, but it is on there now and the pictures are on there. It proudly boasts how it organized and funded, dollars going into Canada, the third-party groups. I know some of my colleagues across the way are quickly going to their iPads and iPhones to check this out right now.

There is a picture of Leadnow receiving an international award for defeating Stephen Harper. It proudly boasts that this is how it did it. It had hundreds and hundreds of paid volunteers. “Paid volunteers” is an oxymoron. It sounds like they are in the military, except if they were in the military under this Liberal government, they would be asked to do more but would not necessarily be paid for what they did. Their sleeping bags would be taken away, as well as their rucksacks. They would be given used aircraft.

These paid volunteers went all over the place to 29 target ridings, ones where they thought Conservatives would be the most vulnerable. They hammered the ridings with all of their media, all of the fliers. They went to universities and all of these groups, and they said that we have to get out the dirty Cons, and this is the way to do it. There was Fair Vote, www.fairvote.ca and www.votetogether.ca/. They always use the .ca to make it look like they are Canadian companies. It was all funded by U.S.-based companies.

My riding was one of those ridings they targeted. They succeeded in 25 of those 29 ridings, but they did not take my riding. I challenge them to come back.

For those who are listening, this is very real. It is not that we are trying to be divisive or to sow the seeds of fear. This is real. Canadians should pay attention to where that money is coming from, whether it is Greenpeace, WWF, or the Tides Foundation, all of whom are based on making the planet a better place.

Many of the people who are those organizations' senior offices take up senior positions in the government. What did Gerald Butts do previously? He was president and CEO of WWF, the World Wildlife Foundation. Where do they get the core funding? It is the Tides Foundation, which is calling the shots for the guys across the way, and probably setting all the policy objectives in some of our most senior cabinet ministers' offices, all tied to foreign-funded groups with an agenda.

What we see with this bill right here is payback. What we see with Bill C-68 is payback. What we see with Bill C-69 is payback. What we see with Bill C-55 is payback.

I have heard fishermen and fishing industry organizations say they cannot get a meeting with the minister unless they go through an NGO. That is shameful.

Going back to this bill for my last 10 seconds, the only people who matter, the people who matter the most, are those who elect us here. They should be Canadians. We stand here for Canadians. Canadians should have a say on who votes and who represents them. They should also have a say in the debate.

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

Madam Speaker, again, I want to thank the PROC committee and others for their strong study of this bill. I preface my comments by saying that I want to thank them, because they made a number of amendments to this piece of legislation and did a lot of work. One of the amendments made to this bill would make foreign funding for partisan activity illegal in Canada. With all the member has just said, with this amendment will they now be supporting this piece of legislation?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, as has been brought up time and again in this debate, these foreign groups are still funding their Canadian entities. Therefore, the Canadian entities can take out advertising, the Canadian entities can have programs, and they are still seen as Canadian entities. However, where does their core funding come from? It comes from the U.S. It is foreign funding. The Liberals can pivot all they want.

It is interesting. How soon they forget when they get in the House. Here is a quote from the member of Parliament for Gatineau, who, in the last administration, said,

The misuse of voter information cards is quite simply out of control. We have reports of neighbourhoods where individual single-family dwelling mailboxes, not apartments, were systematically de-mailed

How soon they forget.

They were going to let debate reign. Over 50 times, there has been closure on debate. They were going to be open and transparent. We have seen how that is. Now, all of a sudden, sanctimoniously, they can stand up and say that they are solving the world and this and that. We have them on record. I will remind all of our colleagues that as to what they say in the House, we can always go back to those records.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an interesting process we have been able to witness. From an opposition point of view, when we had Stephen Harper's legislation, there was a general consensus from every region of this country that what he was doing was very much undemocratic. I compare that to the legislation we have today. Generally speaking, there is fairly wide support in all regions of the country.

We had a Harper government that would not tolerate any amendment unless it was a Conservative amendment. Here we have Elections Canada advocating changes that were accepted as amendments. We even had some of the Conservative amendments recognized as good and accepted. We had New Democratic amendments that were accepted and passed.

Those are two different approaches of two governments: the Harper government, which, thank goodness, is gone; and the current government, a government that truly believes in democratic principles.

I wonder if my friend across the way would, at the very least, acknowledge that what I have said is accurate, because it is, and that if we were to let the Conservatives go indefinitely on this, they would never let this bill come to a vote.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the House, again, that in the previous administration, when the parliamentary secretary was at the same committee meeting, the MP for Gatineau, who at the time was also the national director of the Liberal Party, said:

I was going to comment on Mr. Hawn's observation about the bus with 40 people. Suffice it to say that we are concerned, as he seems to be, about what we call serial vouching, and we are profoundly troubled by the number of on-site registrations: 55,000 at advance polls, plus 795,000 at election day polls, for a total of 840,000, or an average of over 2,700 people per riding.

That is shameful. How soon they forget.

It is always interesting hearing from my hon. colleague across the way. I love listening to his speeches. He gets up every day. However, sometimes I wonder if it is not so much about the substance of the debate as about getting his word count up.

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

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that when I am afforded the opportunity and privilege to rise in the chamber, it is in good part because I am a very opinionated, passionate individual who understands and appreciates the many issues on which the former Conservative Harper government messed up. Sometimes members opposite need to be reminded that they brought in legislation in such a way that it needed to be fixed. In good part, this legislation would do that. It even goes further than that.

I made reference to Elections Canada and some of the recommendations it brought forward at committee. The committee spent numerous hours debating line by line and having dialogue with individuals and stakeholders from all different regions of the country. Some of those representations came from Elections Canada, both in a formal way through the committee process and informally through the other mechanisms it has.

In the committee stage we saw wide support for the need to look at ways in which we could improve the legislation, with an open mind and a general attitude from the Liberals that one did not need to be a government member to have an amendment passed.

I sat on the PROC committee for a number of years. The Elections Act was one of the bills we reviewed. The Harper Conservative government seemed to be of the opinion that only government amendments would be passed. In fact, when representatives of Elections Canada, an independent agency, made a presentation, virtually pleaded on many different issues, more often than not the Conservative government would close its ears to them.

Our government made a great deal of an effort in consultations prior to bringing the legislation to the House. After bringing it into the House, a number of individuals had the opportunity to address the legislation. It went to committee and the review was very extensive. Not only were there long discussions at the committee, but as I pointed out in my question, the government listened and made amendments as raised by some of those stakeholders, including Elections Canada. It also went further to include members of the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party, which were able to present their amendments. If we could move forward on some of those amendments, we did just that.

The bill has passed through committee and we are into report stage. The Conservatives have moved another 170-plus amendments. The real intention of the Conservative Party is to kill the legislation. It affirms exactly what I just said. It would not take much. It does not need to move 179 amendments to do that. It is easy for the Conservative Party to attempt to kill it. That is why at times the government needs to use the tools it has to ensure we can pass the legislation, which is important.

Even when I was in opposition, at times I would argue that the government needed to use the tools it had in order to pass legislation. At times, opposition is so obstructive that it will prevent good, solid legislation from passing, legislation like the one before us. That is why we do what we do to get legislation through.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, October 25, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 17, 19 to 28, 33 to 36, 41 to 44, 50 to 74, 80 to 83, 85 to 92, 106 to 114, 116, 117, 120 to 130, 134 to 137, 139 to 146, 149 to 157, 159 and 163 to 179.

A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the question to be put on Motions No. 29, 118 and 160.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 17, 19 to 28, 33 to 36, 41 to 44, 50 to 74, 80 to 83, 85 to 92, 106 to 114, 116, 117, 120 to 130, 134 to 137, 139 to 146, 149 to 157, 159 and 163 to 179.

The question is on Motion No. 18.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 18 stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 75.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 75 stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 77. A vote on this motion applies to Motions Nos. 93 to 99 and 131 to 133.

A negative vote on Motion No. 77 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 78.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 77 stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 84.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 84 stands deferred.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on Motion No. 115. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 115 stands deferred.

Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Monday, October 29, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, if you canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 26 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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-76.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #908

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 17, 19 to 28, 33 to 36, 41 to 44, 50 to 74, 80 to 83, 85 to 92, 106 to 114, 116, 117, 120 to 130, 134 to 137, 139 to 146, 149 to 157, 159 and 163 to 179 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 29.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 31, 32, 37, 39, 40, 45, 48 and 49. A negative vote on Motion No. 29 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 30 and 47.

(The House divided on Motion No. 29, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #909

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 29 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 31, 32, 37, 39, 40, 45, 48 and 49 defeated.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The question is on Motion No. 30. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 38, 46, 76 and 161.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 30, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #910

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 30 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 38, 46, 76 and 161 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 47. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the result of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting opposed.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote, and will be voting in favour.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting yes.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote, and will be voting no.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Independent, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote and will be voting no.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the CCF agrees to apply the vote, and will vote no.

[Maxime Bernier, Independent, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the People's Party is voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the result of the previous vote and votes no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 47, which was negatived to on the following division:)

Vote #911

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 47 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 118. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 100 to 105, 119, 138, 147, 148 and 158.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 118, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #912

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 118 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 100 to 105, 119, 138, 147, 148 and 158 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 160. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 79 and 162.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The hon. chief government whip on a point of order.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote and will be voting yes.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply and will vote no.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting yes.

[Maxime Bernier, Independent, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the People's Party will vote for the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will be voting no.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I am voting no.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Independent, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the CCF agrees to apply and will be voting no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 160, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #913

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 160 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 79 and 162 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 18.

(The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #914

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 18 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 75.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the result of the previous vote to the next vote, with Liberal members voting in favour.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply, with Conservative members voting no.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.

[Maxime Bernier, Independent, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the People's Party will vote no.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will be voting yes.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting yes.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Independent, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will vote yes.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, CCF agrees to apply and will vote yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 75, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #915

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 75 carried.

The question is on Motion No. 77. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 93 to 99 and 131 to 133. A negative vote on Motion No. 77 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 78.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 77, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #916

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 77 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 93 to 99 and 131 to 133 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 78. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 78, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #917

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 78 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 84.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to the current vote. Liberal members will be voting no.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote with the Conservative members voting yes.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.

[Maxime Bernier, Independent, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the People's Party agrees to apply the vote, and I will be voting in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party of Canada agrees to apply the vote and will be voting no.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply, with this member voting no.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Independent, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply my vote and am voting no.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, CCF agrees to apply and will vote no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 84, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #918

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 84 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 115. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #919

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 115 defeated.