Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 1st, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I call the meeting to order.

We did suggest that we would start this morning with Mr. Scott's motion that he put on notice a number of days ago. We did have votes in the House, so the chair will certainly offer the use of committee time through question period, if we want, but I understand there have been some discussions that we'll go until question period.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We really didn't know up front what the government game plan was in terms of what does one o'clock represent. Our sense was that the government was probably going to have us talking through until 5 p.m., and we can do that. If that's the case—and we hope it is because we need the time to talk—then we would prefer that we take the break for QP, given its sacrosanct status, and then come back.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Chair, if I may, we're fine with that. I told David that whatever the opposition wants...because he's right. We need a little bit more time. At five o'clock we would just go into voting rather than debating.

The only thing we didn't discuss is the time to break for QP. Do you want to go to 1:30 or 1:45? You guys may have QP practice for half an hour. Do you want to go until 1:30 and then come back at 3:15?

When do you want to break for QP, David?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

How about 1:45 to 3:15? That covers QP with time to get there for statements and it gives us 15 minutes to get from the House back here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Fantastic, let's do that.

Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I would just add, if nobody here is making a statement, maybe we could go until 2:00, and then break from 2:00 until 3:15.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Two is fine. Then after question period, we come right back.

We'll now go to Mr. Scott's notice of motion of April 2.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

That's great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This motion, which I gave notice of, I'd now like to table and move:

That the Committee present a report to the House of Commons recommending that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be withdrawn.

The idea behind this is that the official opposition would like us to start fresh, albeit benefiting from the process that's occurred to date, which has had all kinds of learning elements in it. This is where we probably should have started with the bill in the House, given the nature of the Canada Elections Act, where much more extensive preparation, engagement with knowledgeable stakeholders from commissioners of Canada elections to chief electoral officers, and so on, should have occurred, not to mention a much more collegial, extensive process with the other parties in Parliament.

The government has backed down on a number of very important areas that have been resisted by the official opposition, by civil society, and I do suspect by Conservative MPs. With the amendments the government's been forced to agree to, this bill will be better than Bill C-23, that is, the unfair elections act, as tabled by the minister, but it will be still much worse than leaving the current Canada Elections Act in place.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Make no mistake, Mr. Chair, democratic resistance did prevail in major ways over the last two months. Frankly, and I'm not speaking to my colleagues across the way who are sitting as colleague MPs—they are not in cabinet, they are not the minister—would the government have announced that it was doing the about-face in several areas that it announced on Friday without the tenacious, all-hands-on-deck opposition coming from the NDP and from the leader of the official opposition? Would it have done so without an amazing outpouring of civil society protest? Would it have done so without scholars and editorial boards speaking out with reasoned arguments that endorsed the NDP's arguments in the House, and in our cross-country hearings that this committee would not endorse, that we had to do on our own, and without over 70 witnesses coming almost to a person to take this bill apart bit by bit?

Frankly, and here I do want to thank my colleagues, many of whom remain nameless even to me, and without Conservative MPs' responding to the effort started by the official opposition that created so much pressure, plus the persuasive efforts with MPs across the way.... Some of it went on throughout the testimony, and I'm not saying that this was not listened to by my colleagues, some of it was, but many other backbenchers weighed in. I know this. Without all this, there's no way the government would have backed down on a single item, I am convinced, given their “our way or the highway” approach.

We have had 10 hours of amendment discussion, clause-by-clause consideration, and I'd like to report, in case nobody noticed, that not a single opposition amendment, of many dozens, has been accepted to this point.

[An hon. member]

Shame.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

The “our way or the highway” has continued. For that reason alone, there is absolutely no chance of this bill being fixed anywhere near what would be needed for anybody, speaking for the official opposition, to support it. We'll get to the end of the process with many serious flaws. Voter information cards are still banned. The commissioner's power to seek a judicial order to compel testimony will not be permitted. The commissioner will have been moved to the Director of Public Prosecutions, a completely unnecessary move that also undermines the commissioner's capacity to investigate and the role he plays in the compliance structure of Elections Canada. The Chief Electoral Officer will have no access to campaign receipts from national parties. All public education and information programs will remain banned except for schools. Treasury Board will have a say on the temporary specialists, researchers, etc., that the Chief Electoral Officer can hire.

We tried. We moved to go into committee after first reading for everybody to be able to look at this bill fresh from the start. That was declined. So we have no choice but to withdraw and start afresh. With that, I move this motion to withdraw.

[An hon. member]

Kill the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Lukiwski's next.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you very much.

I thank my esteemed colleague for his intervention. However, I do take issue with a number of things he said. Primarily, he mentioned that in his opinion at least, there's no way the government would have changed any portion of the original bill had it not been for the public pressure.

I take issue with that, because from the outset, even though our government...and the minister responsible for this bill said he thought it was a very good bill, he also said that if there were useful suggestions that came out of committee, he would certainly listen and entertain amendments based on that testimony, and that's exactly what has happened. We have introduced approximately 45 amendments based on the testimony we've heard. I think that's a good thing. I think that certainly illustrates that the government is listening.

With respect, however, to the overarching motion and the request to withdraw this bill, clearly that's an implication, or at least a direct inference, that the bill is not worthy in its current state or as amended in that process we're going through now. I take great issue with that, because I would argue that Canadians think this is a pretty good bill. I'll buttress that statement with a few facts, or at least a few pieces of information, for the benefit of all those who are perhaps watching.

The two most contentious issues that we have heard from witnesses and from members of the opposition with respect to this bill have been identification requirements and vouching. Yesterday I mentioned to members of this committee that in the most recent Ipsos Reid poll, it showed that 87%...or at least I stated that the Ipsos Reid poll demonstrated that 87% of Canadians felt it appropriate that before being allowed to vote, Canadians show identification.

In a subsequent intervention, Mr. Scott, on behalf of the opposition, said I was mis-characterizing that poll, because the exact wording said that 87% of Canadians felt it appropriate that Canadians prove their identity and their residence. The direct implication there was that you don't need ID to prove who you are and where you live. I can only suppose that this means he felt that vouching would be a form of proof. What he failed to inform the committee, however, was that in that very poll, at a later point in the poll, it showed that 70% Canadians disagreed with the concept of vouching.

So if you want to connect the dots, if you have 87% of Canadians feeling that you need to prove your identification and residence, and 70% didn't want that to happen via vouching, what's left? What's left is what we've been advocating from day one: you have to prove your identity through proper ID presented at the time of voting. That's exactly what Canadians feel.

I would also point out that also included in the poll is a breakdown by political support. It found that 66% of people who consider themselves to be supporters of the NDP felt that vouching should be eliminated. So not only in the court of public opinion does the general public disagree with the NDP position on vouching; their own members disagree. Their supporters disagree with the NDP position on vouching.

That's why I continue to say that in the court of public opinion, we are on the right side, and in this argument the NDP has lost badly in the court of public opinion. Canadians expect voters to present ID. They don't like the concept of vouching.

The best analogy I've heard comes from one of my colleagues, so I have to attribute this to him, the Honourable Ed Holder. He put out a piece to his constituents on the concept of vouching. The analogy he gave was this. Let's say two guys walk into a bar. One clearly looks middle-aged and the other one looks much younger. The bartender comes up and says to the younger-looking gentleman, “I'm going to have to see your identification.” The older gentleman says, “That's not necessary, bartender. I'm going to vouch for him.”

Would that be acceptable to anyone? Of course not. It's not acceptable to the laws of the Province of Ontario or any other laws in any other province that have usually the age of 18 required. That's because Canadians expect people to show proper identification in order to do just about anything these days.

Both on the question of identification requirements and on the question of vouching, we believe we've addressed the views of Canadians very appropriately in this bill, and on many other issues where we heard dissenting views from either Canadians or those who chose to join us as intervenors in this committee, we have listened and responded. I think the amended version of Bill C-23 will be a bill that does what it is intended to do: improve the Canada Elections Act.

Again, I notice with great interest my colleagues opposite have not mentioned many other attributes of the bill that were lauded, approved, and applauded by people who came before this committee. Coming in with a robocalls registry, for an example, to stop fraudulent robocalls, was very well received. They talk about the movement of the Commissioner of Canada Elections from Elections Canada to the DPP. Yes, the opposition disagreed with that, and yes, there was some disagreement, but quite frankly it does make the Commissioner of Canada Elections far more independent. Even Sheila Fraser said she would not have a problem with that as long as there was adequate and full communication between Elections Canada and the commissioner. One of these amendments ensures that this will happen.

Without taking too much extra time—and I thank my colleague Mr. Scott for being brief and succinct in his comments, and I'll try to do the same—I think the final, amended package, which we are dealing with today, is a good piece of legislation supported by the vast majority of Canadians. We're very proud as a government to be able to present that to Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

Two guys walk into a bar, and the older one says, “You know, this younger guy here may not have ID, but I can vouch for him”, and the bartender says, “I'm sorry, pal, but this isn't the Constitution we're talking about, and we're not voting”.

Voting is an inalienable right, as enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's what this is about. This is why the institution of vouching exists, not only in this country but in many modern democracies that do not want to disenfranchise someone.

I'll give you an example. Professor Louis Massicotte sent this along. In a recent The Australian newspaper column, Dennis Shanahan, who writes for the Murdoch papers, said the following:

Canada’s Conservative government, embroiled in a furor after disenfranchising 120,000 voters by changing identification standards, has demonstrated the way not to go about important electoral reform.

Australia’s changes should be driven by parliament’s multi-party Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

What a refreshing idea.

As my leader, Justin Trudeau, said on the subject of withdrawing—and he has a valid point—the process by which this was done was so egregious towards democracy that we need to step back and think, if we ever do this again, about how it should be done. Obviously, without the numbers, we can't withdraw this bill, but I will say this. Every time they bring up polls, and every time they bring up testimony, during which they say people spoke wonderfully, glowingly about this bill, I think that's somewhat overemphasizing the positive aspects of it, which as has been displayed, we voted in favour of in certain circumstances. But when they bring up polls, and they bring that up, it's almost as though they did it on a gamble, really, because now they're saying that if they had gone through the process of setting up a multi-party system or a multi-party committee or consultations that started with the very people who run our elections every four years, they would have lots of evidence to say the government is doing the right thing.

I would love to find out what was brought to the Conservative caucus way back when that made the former Minister of Democratic Reform turn back and start all over again. I would love to know what was in that, compared to what is in this.

We do talk about how it was a climb-down and that sort of thing. I'll even give them credit by saying that they listened on some varied aspects of vouching, and to a small degree, they've restored vouching. It's at a level that is not good enough, but it's a positive step. It's not just with us here inside this bubble we call Ottawa, but it's out there in the communities and people are talking about it.

We also have to give credit to the Senate study, the pre-study, and to some of the senators—both Conservative and independent. When you look at what they said, they made some very valid points.

I'll give you another example. Preston Manning was here and he gave very good evidence about what should be done about taking the shackles off the CEO. As we've discovered, it wasn't quite followed the way Preston Manning would have liked. They did make a positive step, but still the CEO is far more legislated and put into a box than is really necessary.

I'll end with this. In many respects, so many clauses and so much angst that you see coming from this side of the house—which I think is legitimate—goes to an expression that's been brought up time and time again. A lot of the measures in this bill were solutions to problems that never existed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Simms.

We'll call the question on the motion.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

A recorded vote....

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll have a recorded vote on it.

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

Let's get back to our amendments. I'm at NDP-34.1, the one that was suggested by Mr. Scott as we were ending our evening last night. It's new clause 49.1 dealing with changes to voter identification.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

This was introduced late last evening. It would add a provision 149.1 to Canada's Election Act saying:

The Chief Electoral Officer shall ensure that the notice of confirmation of registration that is sent under section 95 or 102 is marked with a prominent message informing the elector that this notice of confirmation of registration may not be used as a piece of identification for the purposes of voting.

As bizarre as it may seem, the official opposition lost all of its amendments that attempted to bring back the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to authorize voter information cards to be used as a second piece of ID alongside another piece of ID to show an address prominently.

What we're left with now is a situation where almost one million people were authorized to use them in 2011. A good chunk, some estimate over 400,000, actually did use them, and without vigorous efforts on the part of Elections Canada not just to do what the government wants, which is to tell people what they need to vote with, they should be told what they cannot vote with.

There will be chaos in some polls and in some areas for people showing up with their VICs assuming, like in 2011, they could use it. This is an effort to basically help avoid chaos by instructing the Chief Electoral Officer to prominently say, on the voter information card, that this card cannot be used.

I think it might have been Mr. Simms who asked Mr. Richards here last night whether the advertising of information feature on the government's amendment would permit the Chief Electoral Officer to message Canadians what they could not use. We had an answer that was, I think, maybe the best Mr. Richards could come up with on the spot. He wanted to stick to the text and the text simply says that you're allowed to advertise what you can use not what you cannot use.

I just hope that there is no doubt that surely the Chief Electoral Officer can advertise generally, and not just on this card, that this card cannot be used by virtue of the decision to ban the Chief Electoral Officer from authorizing this in the future.

That's my motion to add 149.1.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Simms and then Mr. Reid....

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Chair, let me start by saying that I think this will be a necessary thing to do. Several of us spoke about the importance of the VIC, the voter information card, and how people use that. Yesterday I compared it to an airplane boarding pass. It's their ticket to democracy. To some people that may seem absurd, but quite frankly, to a lot of people, and I mean a lot of seniors right now, this is their ticket. They feature it prominently in their homes in the writ period to make sure it is there for when they go to vote, and they do it so proudly.

But see, this is the good part about clause-by-clause. You can have a discussion, and in the midst of that discussion you can change the way you're thinking, or bend to other people's logic. Yesterday I said I thought this should be in legislation, but then I thought, well, you know, maybe this is overly prescriptive for Elections Canada. I would just like to see them do that as a good practice, so maybe it shouldn't be in legislation.

But given what I just heard from Mr. Scott, I think he's right. This is very important to do. It may seem overly prescriptive, but I think it's a necessary move that we can make. We did talk about the shackles being put on the CEO. If we can at least take a portion of those shackles off by putting something in legislation that will inform voters that they can't use that card anymore, that will save them a lot of time and effort. It may even save their vote.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly agree with the idea that there is merit in making it clear that the voter information card is not a piece of identification for the purposes of voting, but I don't think it's necessary to say it in the legislation. The reason I say this is that we did a little search last night, and we were able to find a copy of a voter information card. It actually says that on the voter information card already.

In fact, I have an illustration of one right now for the federal Canadian election of Monday, January 23, 2006. This is not the most recent one, but the point is that it's existed in the past without the need for a legislative requirement.

The card says: “If your name and address appear on this card, you are registered to vote. Keep this card. It will give you quicker access to your polling station.” Then below that—all in caps, I might add—it says, “This is not an identification document.”

In my opinion, there is no necessity for legislation. It already exists. I would just encourage the Chief Electoral Officer to return to the practice he had used in 2006. He may have used it in other elections subsequently; I don't know. The card I have at my disposal is the one from 2006.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.