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.

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

Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I welcome your questions.

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

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

[Coty Zachariah, National Chairperson, Canadian Federation of Students]

[Witness speaks in Mohawk]

I was just speaking Mohawk and said, “Hello, everyone.” My name is Coty Zachariah, or “He Speaks in the Wind”. I come from the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte First Nation, located near Kingston. I'm also the national chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students and represent around 650,000 students across the country at the post-secondary level.

In October 2014, we joined the Council of Canadians in a charter challenge to the voter suppression elements of the so-called Fair Elections Act. Our primary concerns about the act were with regard to prohibiting the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, to authorize the use of the voter information cards as valid ID for voting, and limiting the CEO's authority to carry out voter education and outreach.

Students face additional barriers to voting, notably that students move frequently, often up to twice a year. As a result, common identification cards do not indicate the address that students live at on election day, or their names are not on the voters list in the poll or riding that they live in while they attend school. Moreover, by limiting the CEO's authority to carry out voter education and outreach, students, who are often new voters, are likely to be more confused about the process.

Despite these barriers in the last election, the CFS undertook a massive, non-partisan elections campaign that worked to mobilize students to come out in record numbers to vote. In 2015, 70,000 student voters took part in the democratic process at on-campus polling stations. It led to an expansion of that initial pilot project within Elections Canada. For 18- to 24-year-olds, turnout was 57.1%, compared to 38.8% in 2011. This increase of 18.3 percentage points is the largest increase of voting engagement in any demographic in the country. However, this increase was in spite of the Fair Elections Act and students still faced issues.

To quote the Chief Electoral Officer's post-2015 election retrospective report:

As in the previous two elections, problems with voter identification at the polls were more often related to proof of address. The labour force survey after the 42nd general election asked non-voters why they did not vote. In terms of reasons related to the electoral process, the inability to prove identity or address was the main reason cited ... and was more often cited among those aged 18 to 24.... Based on estimations from the survey, that amounts to approximately 172,700 electors. Among them, some 49,600 (28.7%) said they went to the polling station, but did not vote because they were not able to prove their identity and address. Approximately 39% of that group were aged 18 to 34.

We at CSF find that unacceptable. Students, however, are encouraged to see that Bill C-76 would make substantial reform to the Canada Elections Act, including the amendments formerly set in Bill C-33, and we look forward to seeing it passed.

We are discouraged, however, that these reforms are coming so late. It seems likely that even if Bill C-76 proceeds expeditiously, it would not make it through the Senate and be proclaimed into force until 2019, making it unlikely that Elections Canada could fully implement the bill's reforms before the next general election in October of next year. It seems likely that it is our court case with the Council of Canadians that might result in the necessary reforms around voter suppression being implemented prior to this election, a regretful outcome of a delayed process around Bill C-33 that we would like noted.

We believe student and youth participation in the democratic process is something to be celebrated and not discouraged. We hope that Bill C-76 will promote this principle.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

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

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

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

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

Professor Turnbull, we just spoke about accessibility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[J. Randall Emery]

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

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