Thank you very much.
Members of the committee, in my submissions I plan to address four edits that I believe will improve Bill C-25.
Before I address those edits, I would like to state that Bill C-25 will significantly improve the protections that Canadians have with respect to the electoral process and will increase the protection from hostile state actors and others outside of Canada desiring to influence Canadian elections. Thank you for those proposals.
I would also like to remind the committee of my previous recommendations that the nomination process not be governed by the Canada Elections Act. I continue to recommend that nomination processes be left entirely to the parties. That is something that I continue to recommend because it is my view that, in its current form, the Canada Elections Act continues to violate section 3 of the charter in the manner highlighted by Justice Epstein of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
In 1999, in Galati v. Ontario Liberal Party, Justice Epstein said, “It is apparent from the authorities that, contrary to the plaintiff’s claim, the intervention of the government in the nomination process of political parties would constitute a breach of constitutional rights.” I think he was right then, and I have seen no cases that would challenge that conclusion.
Now, I'll move on to the four edits.
First, I recommend the removal of certain unnecessary red tape. Second, I recommend the preservation of the neutrality of the administration of the Canada Elections Act. Third, I recommend the prevention of certain fraud and abuse. Fourth, I recommend the protection of freedom of expression.
My first point is on the question of privacy. It is my view that we do not need amendments related to privacy. In my view, the cure is worse than the disease. The publication of voter names and addresses has never been a problem in the past—at least, I'm not aware of any problems. No harm has come from that. In any event, there are thousands of people across Canada who have these voter lists, and nothing has come from it. I recommend that you don't go there, but likely you will.
If you do, my recommendation is to at least delete your proposed paragraphs 385(2)(k) and 387(d), because they are duplicative. There is no need to have a role for the Chief Electoral Officer if you already have it statutorily set forth. The statute sets forth in section 446.6 the rules that will apply, but then says that a political party must have a policy and that the Chief Electoral Officer has a role in approving that policy.
My view is that there should be no role for the CEO. There should be no policy. Just follow the act if you're going to have rules related to privacy. There's a Court of Appeal for Ontario decision from 2007, Longley et al. v. Canada, but I won't read that because of the limitations of time.
Another very important change is with respect to neutrality. Right now, the act allows the commissioner to proceed to investigate and require testimony under oath without judicial review. This is problematic, because it gives the commissioner the opportunity to move forward without an independent third party saying, “Yes, there's enough evidence here to interfere with the right of the subject”—which typically is in place with respect to criminal law—“to remain silent.” It doesn't make sense to allow the commissioner to have that kind of power.
My view is that the rules in section 510.01 that require judicial review should apply to any of the investigatory powers exercised by the commissioner.
I have three great recommendations for the issue of the abuse of the ballot, but I know I'm probably over time.
First, require 200 signatures instead of 100. Second, take out the limitation in proposed 477.2(b.1) to the same electoral district. Third, my recommendation is that, on your ballot, you have the parties listed first, in alphabetical order. Of course, this changes with each ballot. You have the parties listed first and all individuals listed second. Therefore, you enable individuals to make a wise choice if they choose to.
I'll stop there.