Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2018

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Again, if you have a creative amendment that ensures charter rights, I would be interested in hearing it. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Mr. Bittle.

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

Thank you so much.

Minister, welcome back. It's great to see you before the committee.

The Harper government's so-called Fair Elections Act made it harder for Canadians to vote and easier for people to evade our election laws. The Globe and Mail said, “This bill deserves to die.” The Chief Electoral Officer at the time said, “I certainly can't endorse a bill that disenfranchises electors.”

Why is it so important for the government that these provisions be repealed?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

It's for all of the reasons you just mentioned. It's also because, as we have discussed, it is a fundamental right of Canadians to be able to vote. Any measures that would limit their ability to vote, I think, should definitely, as I believe the government believes as well, be repealed and overturned.

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

Mr. Richards in his questioning alluded to the fact that you like evidence-based decision-making. He seemed to suggest that he enjoyed that as well, but it seems the previous government did not enjoy.... Especially having heard what the former chief electoral officer said about that bill, I can't imagine that if I went through Hansard, I would see Mr. Richards' objections to the Fair Elections Act, but I will leave that to some research later on.

Could you advise the committee as to what your department did regarding working with Elections Canada on this bill and recommendations?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Certainly. As has long been the practice in Canadian elections legislation drafting, we worked with Elections Canada in the drafting of this legislation to ensure that it reflected the principles and that it was an effective bill in terms of having Elections Canada participate in that.

From 2006 until 2015, the previous government had eschewed any working relationship with Elections Canada. We do not feel that was necessary or right, and we therefore made a point of consulting Elections Canada. Furthermore, this bill is based on 85% of the CEO's recommendations from the previous election. I would note that many of the recommendations made between 2006 and 2011 were not included previously. There were a considerable number of recommendations we felt it would be important to move forward with to ensure we had a modern 21st century elections act.

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

What does Bill C-76 do to help under-represented groups participate in our democracy?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

First of all, the return of the use of the voter information card is very important in being able to establish residency for people who don't have the necessary identification. The second thing is with regard to vouching. As Mr. Cullen mentioned with regard to first nations individuals, vouching can be a very important practice to ensure that people who don't have ID can vote. Also with regard to people who live in shelters, for example, and who don't have an ordinary place of residence, this can really assist in ensuring they can cast that ballot. I think it's incredibly important for us as elected representatives and also in a democracy to hear from the most marginalized Canadians.

Additionally, with regard to Canadian Armed Forces members, you may not think of our military women and men as under-represented groups in elections, but actually only about 40-odd per cent of them voted in 2015. We worked with the Canadian Armed Forces in drafting this section of the legislation, part 11, that would make it easier for them to cast their ballot.

Finally, I would look to the youth voter registry in the sense of encouraging more young people to vote. We know that one of the biggest barriers to young people voting is the fact that they are not automatically registered when they turn 18. For them, having the opportunity to register and to, in fact, receive a voter information card lets them know they are part of the process as well and that they can participate.

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

What are the obstacles that exist for members of the Canadian Armed Forces, if they are voting at rates substantially lower than those for the rest of Canada?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

For one, if you are a Canadian Armed Forces member who is deployed abroad, you don't actually carry identification that would identify your address. Ensuring that we are still working with integrity measures, this would enable Canadian Armed Forces members to vote and protect their security as well.

Additionally, Canadian Armed Forces members can now choose where they cast their ballot, whereas previously they weren't able to do that. This is important so they can cast their ballot in their place of ordinary residence.

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

Spouses as well?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Yes.

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

Many people want to run for office but can't because they have obligations at home, whether child care or care for a parent or spouse. What does this legislation do to make it easier for Canadians to run for elected office?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Whereas previously individuals who had child care or other care needs for individuals in their family could claim up to 60% of their care within their spending limit, we have removed that from the spending limit so that it can be an additional expense. Also individuals can use their personal funds, and they can be reimbursed up to 90%, because we want to make sure that having children or a family member who needs additional care is not a barrier to running for office.

It's not the be-all and end-all, but it is something that I think is important and that will be of assistance.

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

The previous government introduced fixed election dates but didn't seem to abide by that. What changes are in Bill C-76 to help respond to how fixed election dates have changed campaigns?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Fixed election dates have by nature fundamentally changed how we run elections in Canada. Previously, you didn't know when an election was going to happen, so you therefore needed to be nimble and agile and able to spend, if that was your choosing. With a fixed election date, we saw in 2015 that really campaigning started about six months ahead of time. That's completely different from the tradition and culture of elections that we've had in Canada.

This legislation in particular establishes the pre-writ or the pre-election period beginning on June 30, after our Parliament rises, to constrain both political parties and third parties ahead of the general election, still maintaining the focus on the general election while also trying to maintain a fair and level playing field.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I'll pick up where we left off.

I think it boils down to this. I'm here today to try to determine whether there is some way we can work together. There are obviously elements of this legislation that we just disagree on. That's fine. But there are probably some other areas where we can work together to try to see if we can strengthen the bill and come up with something where everybody can feel comfortable that there are some improvements to the elections law and that you've really tried to work with all other parties. What that requires, though, is some give-and-take and back and forth.

I'd like to try again. You wanted to speak about the substance of the bill. I'd like to ask you about some amendments, or areas that could be looked at in terms of amendments, and get your opinion and thought on those items. For example, I asked earlier about the donation limit for third parties and the idea of potentially making that the same as it is for political parties. What would be your thoughts on something like that?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

We have to think about third parties more broadly than political parties, because third parties are not just established for the purposes of an election. Third parties include unions. Third parties include other organizations that don't necessarily have donations and who use their funds in different ways.

Whereas I appreciate the direction you're going in, I'm not sure it applies entirely to third parties.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Okay, so it sounds like there's maybe not entirely an openness to that one.

Let's try another one in terms of third parties and foreign funding. For example, let's look at foreign funding in terms of prohibiting organizations registered as third parties from being able to participate if they have received foreign funding, or if they have received funding from a Canadian organization that received foreign funding. What are your thoughts on something like that?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

I think it would face serious charter challenges limiting them because they at one point received foreign funding for something that could be unrelated to an election.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Sure, but I guess the issue there is whether that is indirect foreign funding, where collusion happens and things like that. At any rate, we'll move on and try another one.

What about ministerial travel and government advertising? I've asked you about this before. It doesn't seem like you are open to the idea of harmonizing those restrictions with the same ones that are put on political parties in the pre-writ. What about requiring ministerial travel and government advertising to be included during the pre-writ as part of a party's spending limit?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

You will note that there are no restrictions on a party's spending on travel. The only thing would be on advertising. It's strictly on advertising but not on activity during the pre-writ period. I think that's an important distinction to make.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Sure, but you wouldn't be open to trying to harmonize that with the requirement on government, or...?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Well, the government still has business to conduct, as do members of Parliament, so I don't think that would be—