Debates of Feb. 10th, 2014

Fair Elections Act

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. Might I begin, first, by commenting on the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, whom I work with very closely on PROC. It had a previous review of these actual laws, not a lot of which seems to have found its way into the Conservatives' bill, I might add.

I want to raise the notion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons saying that the official opposition is being hypocritical. I find it most disturbing that this is an hon. member, in terms of the way he conducts himself at committee, who seems to care about his reputation. He cares about what people think of him, yet he is prepared to stand in the House and actually mislead the House and Canadians when he makes the specious argument that we were trying to cut debate.

It is quite the contrary. My friend from the Liberal caucus was on his feet recently making the same point, and it is true. If we exercise the right, under the rules, to send a bill, on first reading, directly to committee, it is an opportunity for members to work together on the bill at committee before we get to second reading debate and vote. That is for the simple reason that by the time we get to a second reading vote, for the most part the caucuses are determining where they are going on these issues. They have to make a fundamental decision about whether they will vote for or against. It is that stark.

During my time at Queen's Park, we brought in a rule that allowed a reference from first reading for the very reason that it is a good way to go when the whole House wants to work together in a sincere effort to work on a bill. By referring it right after first reading, we send it to the place where we actually sit down, roll up our sleeves, and get some work done.

We were trying to send it with that frame of mind, before we got to where we are now, which is with everybody in their respective corners.

I will comment on that process versus what has happened in the past in this House and in this country. However, I want to be absolutely crystal clear that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is misleading this House and Canadians when he says that we tried to end debate.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I just caution the hon. member. As has been the convention in this place, the use of the term “misleading”, especially if it is imputing motivation on the part of another hon. member, can get very close to references of being unparliamentary language.

I have not heard anything unparliamentary yet, but I would caution him. He is very, very close, and perhaps he might want to think about that in the course of his comments.

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I was expecting the cautionary note. Quite frankly, I was getting as close as I could to the line in terms of language I could use to refute the language of hypocrisy that, unfortunately, is allowed in this place. That is a word that should not be allowed in this place, but the hon. member used it, and I wanted to refute it without crossing the line. I appreciate that you told me I did not cross it, Mr. Speaker, although, of course, I would have apologized immediately if you had called on me to do that. I wanted to clear the air on that.

If the Conservatives continue that argument, we will continue to give the government a civics lesson on how this place actually works. The hon. member should be concerned about his reputation, because there are enough Canadians who know the truth to know that this is just games. This bill, this issue, our election laws, deserve better than just games.

What we are talking about here is a 244-page bill. In the past, the government of the day, when it wanted to make changes to the elections laws, first consulted with the Chief Electoral Officer, which this government did not do. One “Hi, how are you? Nice to meet you” meeting does not constitute consultation on bringing in a 244-page bill that completely revamps the way we hold elections in this country. That is not consultation.

In the past, the government would not only consult with the Chief Electoral Officer—this is pretty shocking in a Conservative House of Commons—but would actually talk to the other parties. Why did they talk to the other parties?

We have the Olympics going on right now. One of the first things they do before hitting the ice or the snow is decide what the rules are going to be. Then they make sure that everyone affected by those rules gets an opportunity to have a say. In the absence of that, one does not have an electoral system that is supported by all the participants in the system. This is not rocket science.

I have to say something, just in passing, about the minister who introduced the bill. I know the minister well. I have worked with him for years and years. He is very smart. He is a good guy. I like the minister. However, let us be honest. He is probably the most partisan attack dog the Conservatives have ever had over there. That is saying a lot, given the role the foreign affairs minister played before. That is quite an accomplishment. They took the most super-hyperpartisan person in their entire caucus and gave him what is supposedly the most statesperson-like role in the House, which is to bring these kinds of rule changes into our elections act. Right off the bat, that was the person who was asked to carry the bill in the name of the government. The government did not even talk to the Chief Electoral Officer. Give me a break. There is no partisanship in this at all? Let us find out.

The government members have been saying that the reason they support shutting down debate in this place, and a number of them have said it, even today, is that they are going to send it to committee, because that is where House of Commons work gets done. That does not justify it totally, in our view. However, if that is the position of the government members, then something certainly needs to happen at committee that would give people some confidence that they really meant it when they were standing here.

The official opposition brought forward a very reasonable motion, with no games, no politics. The cards are all on the table. In fact, our motion on how the committee should deal with this actually states the day we would begin clause-by-clause. It would be May 1 of this year. It is not our intention to delay or obstruct in any way the ability to pass this law and have these new rules in effect for the next election. That is not our objective. What we are asking for is to use the months of March and April to travel the country to give people an opportunity to have their say.

My friend, the member for Western Arctic, stood and said on the vouching issue that it would impact his members. The minister stood and said that this is not true. I live in Hamilton. How do I know? It makes a whole lot of sense that we would go there and give people an opportunity. It is a huge country. It is almost a continent in and of itself. We have such different environments for voting procedures because of where people live, the weather, and distances. We have all the urban issues they have in any G7 country that holds elections.

For all of those reasons, what I would like to hear from the government is that it is prepared to give us countrywide public hearings. Allow people to come and make their cases and to send submissions to the committee.

We would spend two months to give Canadians and experts an opportunity to have their say. We would start here in Ottawa with experts and the minister giving us a briefing on all the details. Then we would go out across the country to find out what the issues were. We would then come back and have another few days in Ottawa to bring back some of those people to put to them what we had heard and found.

We commit that no later than May 1, if this motion passes at committee, we would begin clause-by-clause, knowing that the government majority is going to carry the day. That is fine. It has a majority, and it will win the vote. It will win every vote on every amendment. However, we need this time. If the government is truly honest about wanting to give Canadians their say on this 244-page document that changes the fundamental foundation of our democracy, our election laws, then at the very least, Canadians should be given an opportunity to have a say. This law belongs to them, not to the Conservative government.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, of course, all Canadians who want to testify will be welcome to make submissions to the committee, and those submissions will be considered by the members of that committee.

I want to address one important section of the fair elections act, clause 7, which would amend section 18 of the Canada Elections Act, to do the following:

The Chief Electoral Officer may provide the public...with information on...:

(d) how an elector may establish their identity and residence in order to vote, including the pieces of identification that they may use to that end;

Members of the opposition have said that it is not necessary to require that of the CEO of Elections Canada. Most people, according to the opposition, already know what they need. We found out today that the member for Western Arctic, who is an experienced member of Parliament, does not even know what is required for identification. He suggested that photo identification is required. In fact, that is absolutely not the case.

Does the NDP member not agree that it is necessary to legislate that Elections Canada inform all electors, including the member for Western Arctic, about which 39 pieces of ID are acceptable when people vote?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the minister was in the House and listened to my remarks and made some comments. I thank him for that.

I want to pick up on his comment about the fact that people can make submissions. He threw it out there. What does the hon. minister mean when he says “submissions”? Does that mean people can only send in written submissions? Is it going to be a paper exercise? I did not hear the member stand in his place and say that he would commit his government to public hearings so that Canadians, the people who own this law, could have their say on this law. That is what was missing in his answer. That is what we want to hear.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in hearing my colleague from the NDP speak about some of the points raised by the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

Section 11 of the Competition Act gives the director of competition the power to compel witnesses, or the power to get authority from a judge to compel witnesses, in the course of an investigation. It is not after a charge is laid but in the course of an investigation. That is the power Elections Canada has been looking for that the government has refused to put in, and it has refused to answer a direct question.

Who should have sharper teeth, a freer hand, and whatever the other buzzword is: someone investigating price-fixing or someone investigating election fraud? That is my question for the hon. member.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the issue that the member is raising. Everyone is raising good points. They are all good issues. That is the point.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Even me.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I heard the minister just say “Even me.” Even the minister had a good question.

The point is that there are different answers and different interpretations, and that is why what matters right now in the dying moments of this debate is to get a commitment from the government that this is not just going to get buried in a committee, stuffed away in some kind of secret or in camera meeting for three or four days, to then pop out again and come back to the House, where closure is moved again and the bill rammed through.

That cannot happen. However, I am not yet hearing anyone from the government committing to giving Canadians their say on their election law.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have several questions for the member, one in particular.

The Conservatives have a track record of breaking election rules. I will just remind the member of a few.

I have a whole book of election frauds by the Conservatives, for example, the member for Peterborough; the member for Saint Boniface; the member for Selkirk—Interlake; and there was Peter Penashue, remember him; and there were robocalls, and there was Mount Royal, and in-and-out scandals, and the list goes on.

I would like the hon. member for Hamilton Centre to tell the House if the Conservatives are changing the rules of the election law to make it easier for them to get away with this?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of our colleagues actually said that given the fact the government has a whole list of serial cheaters, it would make all the sense in the world to make sure that we give people an opportunity to have their say.

The government has had its run-ins with Elections Canada. We know how it feels about public agents and public servants speaking words it does not like. We remember what happened to the nuclear watchdog: gone. The government practically vilified the PBO, Kevin Page, because it did not like what he had to say and so it went after him.

We believe that part of the motivation here is that the government does not like Chief Electoral Officer Mayrand. Why does the government not like him? It is because he is doing his job. I think Canadians will be very interested to hear what Mr. Mayrand has to say about this bill when we finally get it in front of committee.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to take part in this debate. I will not presume to be as eloquent or as passionate as the previous two speakers, but I will do my best to speak on Bill C-23, known as the fair elections act. It is a bill I strongly support.

At the start, I want to commend the minister who has introduced and is shepherding the bill through the House of Commons. I think he has done an outstanding job in presenting the details and facts of the bill, which respond, frankly, to many of the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer and others in addressing the deficiencies of our electoral system in Canada.

However, we should all note on both sides of the House that we have one of the best electoral systems in the world here in Canada. We should be very proud of it, but we should never shy away from making improvements to it. I want to recognize the minister's work in this area as someone who gave one of the most impressive presentations to our caucus that I have seen in years, and I speak here as a member who has been here for over 13 years.

I want to return to the substance of the bill. As I mentioned, there are many issues that do need to be addressed. Frankly, this very comprehensive bill would do and implement 38 of the Chief Electoral Officer's past recommendations. I would like to go through them in detail.

I would caution members on both sides to stick to the substance of the bill. I know there are a lot of charges at Elections Canada, and I emphasize that they are “charges”. We should leave them to be investigated, but as legislators we should stick to the text of the bill itself.

First of all, the bill would protect voters from rogue calls and impersonation with a mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating elections officials, and increased penalties for deceiving people out of their votes. All of these issues, such as impersonating elections officials and voter suppression, are addressed and taken very seriously in this proposed legislation.

I speak as someone who has been a candidate in five elections. My local election officials with Elections Canada have done an outstanding job, with some 90% and more being volunteers. They do an excellent job and need all the help they can get, and this proposed legislation would do that.

This bill deals with the so-called robocalls issue, involving the impersonation of others using these types of technologies. However, it should be noted that these types of technologies can be used legitimately if, obviously, the person calling identifies themself and the purpose of the call. Many members of Parliament on both sides use them to do electronic town halls, as I have done. It is a very good method, but I obviously identify who I am, why I am calling, and engage citizens in that way. The bill would deal with impersonation, the first item I want to emphasize.

Second, the bill would give law enforcement sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. It would allow the commissioner to seek tougher penalties for existing offences and empower the commissioner with more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting. A freer hand means that the commissioner would have full independence with control of his or her staff in investigations and a fixed term of seven years so he or she cannot be fired without cause.

The bill would crack down on voter fraud by prohibiting the use of vouching and voter information cards as replacement for acceptable ID, something one would presume the opposition would strongly support.

Studies commissioned by Elections Canada demonstrate mass irregularities in the use of vouching and high rates of inaccuracy on voter information cards. It is important to note, as the minister just pointed out in response to a question by the member opposite, that voters would still have 39 forms of authorized ID to choose from to prove their identity and residence. In order to ensure that election results are legitimate, especially in ridings where the vote is very close, I think it is entirely reasonable for us to require voters to present ID to show they are in fact eligible voters, as the parliamentary secretary to the House leader pointed out earlier.

Next, the bill would make rules easy to follow for all. Since the last election, the commissioner has had to sign 15 different compliance agreements with those who have breached elections law, some due to honest mistakes. Members of all parties have noted that the rules can be unclear. Complicated rules bring unintentional breaches and intimidate everyday people from taking part in democracy. That is why the fair elections act would make the rules for elections clearer, more predictable, and easier to follow.

Parties would have the right to advance rulings and interpretations from Elections Canada within 45 days of a request, a service similar to one provided by the Canada Revenue Agency. Elections Canada would also be required to keep a registry of interpretations and provide for consultations with notice to parties before changing them.

This is important and here I will point to someone who has been my official agent for a number of elections and the financial agent for the electoral district association in-between elections. He is a very reputable chartered accountant with Deloitte and Touche in Edmonton. He says that one of the things that is challenging as an official agent is that there are some grey areas. When he is not exactly certain what the rules are, he contacts Elections Canada and asks what exactly the rule is, and they always err on the side of caution. However, this is something that this legislation would help improve, by ensuring that all electoral district associations in all ridings across the country have one set of very clear and consistent interpretations.

We all have to recognize as members of Parliament that we may have an office manager, a campaign manager, and some people who may receive compensation. They do not in my campaign's case, as our official agents are typically volunteers. I am very fortunate to have someone who is very qualified, but these people are typically volunteers and need very simple, clear, and consistent rules so they know exactly what they are doing and can be sure they are following all the rules and regulations.

This legislation would also allow small donations and keep big money out. One of the changes we made as a government that I am most proud of was to ensure that corporations and unions and organizations would not control political parties. Individual donations are set to a maximum amount. That is one of the biggest changes that our government has made. Obviously, the previous government made some changes along those lines with Bill C-24, but our government made some further changes to ensure that citizens themselves would be the ones who controlled elections. As we all know, special-interest money can sometimes drown out the voices of everyday citizens. That is why this act would ban the use of loans to evade donation rules. It would also allow parties to better fund democratic outreach, with small and reasonable increases in spending limits while imposing tougher audits and penalties to enforce those limits. It would let small donors contribute more to democracy through the front door in a very transparent way, and block illegal big money from sneaking in the back door. The modest adjustments in the donation limit, up to $1,500 from the current $1,200, and election spending limits of 5% would let parties raise their own funds to reach out to Canadians. A total ban on union and corporate money would remain in place, as I mentioned earlier.

It would also respect democratic results. Members of Parliament and the Chief Electoral Officer sometimes disagree on an MP's election expense. This has happened in the past and will happen in the future for people from all parties. When that happens, the Canada Elections Act provides that the MP can no longer sit or vote in the House of Commons until the expense return is changed to the CEO's satisfaction. However, the removal of a democratically elected MP reverses the decision of tens of thousands of voters. The fair elections act would allow an MP to present the disputed case in the courts and to have judges quickly rule on it before the CEO seeks the MP's suspension. Again, this is a very fair, reasonable change that the minister is seeking to make.

Next, it would uphold free speech. The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the ban on premature transmission of election results infringes on freedom of expression. I can say as a westerner that it is interesting to be in Alberta waiting for the election results when various people are testing that, especially via social media today. The fair elections act would repeal this ban and uphold free speech.

It would provide better customer service for voters by focusing Elections Canada advertising on the basics of voting: where, when, and what ID to bring. Also, the fair elections act would explicitly require Elections Canada to inform disabled voters of the extra help available to them to vote. The act would also establish an extra day of advance polling. The proposed change would give Canadians access to four advance polling days: the 10th, 9th, 8th and 7th days before an election. This is one thing that I have supported very strongly and asked to be included in this legislation, because, depending on when the election is held, in our constituency I have an area where there are a lot of people who are working in and out of the country and in and out of the constituency. I have a very high seasonal population, especially in the Nisku area. So it is important to allow Canadians as much time as possible and as much access to voting as possible. We in Edmonton—Leduc have one of the highest advance polling numbers across the country. This follows along the lines of encouraging more people to vote.

I hear some of the comments and criticisms that the bill may be used in a partisan way. Absolutely not. In fact, I encourage Canadians and parliamentarians to read the bill and see what it is. Expanding the number of hours and days of voting is explicitly designed to increase the percentage of people who vote. Ensuring that we get as much information as possible out to people so that they know when and where they ought to vote is designed explicitly to allow more voters to have more opportunity to vote.

Another thing we would be doing along these lines is reducing congestion at the polls. The fair elections act proposes a number of practical changes that should make the voting process more efficient. It would streamline the process for appointing election officers and providing for additional resources for Elections Canada. It would allow for additional election officers to be appointed to ease the congestion of polling stations, which has been a problem in the past.

My time is up. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from across for his thoughtful presentation on the bill.

My concern is to get people out to vote. That should be the primary concern for us all.

With the changes proposed by the bill, the Chief Electoral Officer would not be allowed to promote voting in this country. We would move away from a voucher system, which worked for 100,000 people in the last election. There would be changes made to the voter identification system of 2007. We would have a situation of declining voters in our system.

Why does the hon. member think that reducing the number of people voting would be a good thing for Canadians?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. It allows me the opportunity to clarify that the legislation would in fact do the opposite.

If we look at the access to four advance polling days, the tenth, ninth, eighth, and seventh days before an election, we add more days to voting, obviously we want to encourage more opportunities for Canadians to vote. That is the first thing.

Second, he mentioned the Chief Electoral Officer. The Chief Electoral Officer would provide the public with information on how to be a candidate; how an elector may have his or her name added to a list of electors; how an elector may have corrections made to information respecting his or her name on the list; how an elector may vote under section 127, and the times, dates and locations for voting; how an elector may establish his or her identity and residence in order to vote—as the minister mentioned, there are over 30 pieces of identification that voters could present to ensure they are an eligible voter—and measures for assisting electors with disabilities to access a polling station or an advance polling station in order to mark a ballot.

Every single one of these measures is designed to increase the opportunity for Canadians to cast their ballot. The bill is designed, on balance, to provide more opportunities for Canadians to vote.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the powers that are given to Elections Canada to investigate election fraud.

One of the powers that Elections Canada has been seeking, which is absent, is the power to get judicial authority to compel the co-operation of witnesses, under oath, during the course of an investigation. This is a power that the director of competitions has in section 11 of the Competition Act.

My question for the member is, why is it that someone investigating price fixing has greater investigative powers than the current government is prepared to give to Elections Canada in investigating electoral fraud?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect this will be active point of debate at the committee stage. I, frankly, have reservations about granting the power, but I look forward to a full debate on it at committee.

We have to keep in mind that the bill would have tougher criminal penalties for election offences. There would be a whole series of penalties and increased offences under this legislation, which I think the member would support.

With respect to the specific question he is raising, I would have concerns about granting those powers. Also, in reference to a previous speaker, the committee is master of its domain; it can choose to study the bill for however long it wants.

However, I assume that would be one of the most actively debated clauses in that committee.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was great to hear my colleague's speech. He is one of the most esteemed chairs of standing committees in this House.

I wonder if he might tell the House, if he had a witness who made multiple recommendations and over 30 of them were adopted in a piece of legislation, would he would call that a good step forward in consultation?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chair of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. I had the pleasure of voting for him last week. I cast my ballot strongly in favour of him. He was unanimously selected, which shows that he is respected by all members on that committee.

I would agree wholeheartedly. We do reports from the finance committee all the time. We are looking forward to seeing how many of the recommendations from our prebudget report make it into the budget tomorrow. If 38 recommendations from our committee were to make it, we as committee members would be overjoyed.

I do not know the present Chief Electoral Officer as well as I knew the last one, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, who is a friend of mine, and who gave the minister an A minus for his work in this area. I would hope that the Chief Electoral Officer would say, “Mission accomplished. He has done an excellent job in terms of presenting recommendations, and this government and the minister have done an excellent job in terms of adopting his recommendations”.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives claim that Bill C-23 will enable citizens to take democracy into their own hands.

However, several measures in the bill will do the exact opposite, since they put citizens—or at least certain groups of citizens—on the margins of democracy.

Under the existing act, voters who have a hard time providing proof of address on voting day, such as aboriginal people living on reserve, students who live far from home, seniors who live in residences and the homeless, can use their voter card as proof of identification. That will change with this bill.

Right now, if someone who has the right to vote does not have valid identification, he can ask a friend or relative to confirm his identity under oath. The government wants to change that. Thousands of voters used this vouching system to vote in the last election. This method of identification is strictly enforced and helps ensure that everyone who has the right to vote is able to do so.

Bill C-23 seeks to put an end to that. The Conservatives' bill would put an end to the vouching system and, as a result, voter cards would not longer be accepted as a form of identification. With these amendments, the Conservatives are going to complicate the voting process for many Canadians who might find it difficult to obtain the pieces of identification they need to vote.

The Conservatives are saying that these measures are designed to reduce the risk of fraud. My question is this: can my colleagues opposite prove that there is a real problem of electoral fraud with the vouching system? Do they have any evidence? The answer is simple. They cannot prove it because there is no real electoral fraud problem with the current system.

In addition, there is no indication that the system is broken. Fraud may occasionally take place, but it is not a major problem right now. As my colleague from Vancouver East said in this debate, fraud exists, but we already have a system in place to combat it and the system works well.

That makes me wonder about the real reason behind the government's decision to make these changes to the rules. The answer is troubling. With these measures, the Conservatives are trying to reduce the participation of certain categories of voters.

According to the Chief Electoral Officer, if the government puts an end to the vouching system, over 100,000 voters might not be able to vote in the next federal election. One hundred thousand people. That is an entire riding. My riding has about 105,000 voters. With this new system, the equivalent of an entire riding would not have the right to vote. The majority of those people are aboriginal people who live on reserves. This is a real affront to democracy.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a threat to democracy. I am making my appeal directly to you.

The Prime Minister is often said to be an incrementalist. The viewers who are watching this at home may ask what incrementalism is. It means to make small changes. There is a big goal or vision at the end of the road and small changes are made toward that big goal. We have to ask what those small changes are and what the big goal is that the Prime Minister is going after. What are we inching toward? What is it that the Prime Minister wants to achieve, what goal? The answer is troubling because it looks like the Prime Minister is trying to reduce democratic privilege in this country.

Mr. Speaker, my appeal is directly to you because we are debating this under time allocation. I have said before when the motion for time allocation has come up that it was used three times in the first 70 years of Canadian history. From the beginning of this Confederation until 1956, it was used three times. It was used for a specific purpose, that being matters of urgency.

The first time it was used was during the First World War. They needed these things done quickly because it was a wartime regime, and sometimes people need to do things quickly during a war.

In 1956, when Speaker Beaudoin invoked closure during the pipeline debate, there was an urgent reason. It is questionable whether it was truly urgent, but there was a deadline for an agreement between TransCanada Pipelines and the Canadian government. There was also the need to consider the steel supply and the construction season. It was a question of urgency.

As I pointed out earlier in this debate, there is no urgency to changing our electoral system. There is no reason that closure should have been invoked.

My appeal is to you, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to listen to me. This has to stop. This use of closure has to stop during debates. You, Mr. Speaker, are the one who upholds the traditions in the House. It is up to you to uphold the traditions of this fine place, this House of Commons, which means the House of the common people. Your role is not just one of timekeeper; it is to uphold the traditions of this House.

This being the House of the common people, our role here as MPs is to debate legislation and to get to the bottom of legislation and its purpose. Whether our role is to debate whether it is perfected or whether we can craft a better bill, invoking time allocation impedes our privilege as members to properly debate this bill.

This is a large bill. It is a big bill. There are a lot of pages in it. Anyone can read it, but we have many pieces of legislation to review. Government members often accuse us of not even reading a bill; I am sure that there are a lot of members in the government party who have not read the bill either.

I ask the question: what is the rush? Why can we not have a proper debate about this bill? What are we inching toward?

It troubles me greatly that we have limited the debate in here, that we have limited the consultation with Canadians outside the House, and that we are passing a bill that would reform our electoral system. This bill would reform the way that elections are done and the way that the public franchise is done.

We have to look at this bill properly. We have to go over the clauses that are not good and improve them. We have to get rid of the horrible clauses and make the good clauses even better and even more powerful.

We are often asked what the Prime Minister is going toward. I can see, from my time in the House, that the Prime Minister is inching toward a system of trickle-down economics whereby we end up with a plutocracy in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The Prime Minister now wants to give us trickle-down elections in which only the well off can vote. The ones who are more disenfranchised, because of poverty and their living situations, will not be able to participate in elections.

As a result of trickle-down economics and trickle-down elections, we will receive a trickle-down democracy. It will be a democracy for fewer people to achieve fewer aims and offer fewer services, and as a country, we will suffer.

Mr. Speaker, I am making a direct appeal to you. You are the guardian of the traditions of this House and, in effect, of our democracy. I implore you to please stop allowing the use of closure during debates on bills that are not of urgency. We are not in a war.

On this side, at least, we do not feel that we are at war with anyone. Perhaps someone on the government side feels that they are at war with poor people, aboriginal people, or democracy. Perhaps they are afraid that they will have difficulty getting re-elected in the next election. Certainly with the policies that they are bringing in, their favour with the Canadian people is going down every day, so I understand why they are fearful.

However, as representatives in the House of Commons, we have a duty to uphold our Canadian democracy. I implore you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask for your assistance. Stop allowing the Conservatives to use the tactics that have been used during the drafting of this legislation, putting in poison pills and invoking the use of closure in debates.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to a speech that had nothing to do with the content of the bill, but that is okay. It is the member's prerogative.

I have three very specific questions for my colleague.

First, does he think the voter ID cards should be an allowable form of identification by themselves, considering that Canada Post drops off bundles of voter ID cards in apartment buildings, for example, as came to light in our elections?

Second, how many people does he think one person should be able to vouch for? There was massive evidence, speaking personally, of busloads being vouched for continually, until we stopped that practice.

Third, he talks about 100,000 people not being able to get to vote, most of those on first nations. Does he understand that a first nations status card is in fact one of the 39 forms of ID?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, status cards are more and more difficult to get. The steps people have to go through to get one are increasingly difficult, so there are people on reserves who might not necessarily have a status card or not have a current status card.

In terms of the busloads the member talks about, I can imagine a seniors centre bringing a busload of people to vote and I can imagine the person who runs the seniors centre actually knowing everyone in that centre. To me it would be acceptable if a nurse looking after all these people came and vouched for them.

As for the third question, we really have to go through the bill and debate it properly. Could the member refer to the specific section or give me the specific proof and table it in the House that lots of identification is dropped off at apartment buildings?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been over a year now since the Conservative government pulled the first draft of this bill off the table, I suspect because there were clauses in it that frightened Conservatives themselves.

I am speaking specifically to wishes expressed by Elections Canada to have teeth in the bill, teeth to be able to compel testimony and demand the production of documents whenever there have been violations of the bill, particularly in the case of violations similar to those in over 200 ridings in Canada where people were deceived by someone purporting to be from Elections Canada, someone who had use of the Conservative membership lists.

I am wondering if the hon. member could speculate on why there are no teeth in the bill that would given Elections Canada the opportunity to find the culprits, convict them, and punish them.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the investigators were responsible for uncovering how the CIMS database was used to carry out election fraud in the form of robocalls. I can understand why the Conservative Party might be reluctant to give the bill any teeth; that would give the investigators the tools they need to catch fraudsters. There is nothing in this whole big bill that gives the Chief Electoral Officer the right tools to catch fraudsters.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to represent the great riding of Vancouver Kingsway where, after constituents witnessed their elected member cross the floor to sit on the other side within two weeks of being elected in 2006, there was an explosion of anger in my riding and a real commitment to the democratic process.

The people in my riding are commenting on the bill before us. The first thing they say to me is that it is highly ironic that in debating a bill that purports to deal with our democratic structure, we are doing so within the confines of closure. They find that quite ironic.

The people in my riding think the most pressing problems about elections are the systematic violations of our election laws. We are quite proud of our democracy in Canada. We have one of the best and cleanest systems in the world, and Canadians want us to keep it that way.

Are there sufficient provisions in the bill to send a clear message to candidates across this land that candidates cannot overspend on limits, that they cannot mislead voters, that they cannot violate the Elections Act or they will face the full force of the elections law to make sure that Canadians know that their elections are clean—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have run out of time.

The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges may provide a short response, please.