House of Commons Hansard #44 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was election.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
The hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale has two minutes left to conclude his remarks.
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Mr. Speaker, in the two minutes that I have left, I will make two points.
Something unique and seriously consequential to our electoral system and democracy was articulated yesterday by my colleague, the member for Calgary Centre-North. She was the singular voice so far in informing the members of the House of our responsibility to be always reaching out to Canadian citizens to participate in our democracy. We should be allowing Elections Canada to focus on those things that will assist all Canadians to vote and we should be reaching out to our constituents to give the a good reason to vote. I thought she articulated that very well yesterday.
Finally, I want to reaffirm the fact that this bill implements 38 of the recommendations that the Chief Electoral Officer made in his report on the 40th general election, which he tabled in June 2010. I would encourage all hon. members to join me in supporting this bill and in working toward its swift passage in the House.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with this bill is that it is being put forward as a bill to deal with election fraud. It is true that it includes a number of recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer, but contained within the bill are some terrible provisions that would actually make it much more difficult for people to vote, and I want to ask the member about this aspect.
In my community, where there are homeless people and people who do not have ID, the vouching system has been very important, and it is very strictly applied.
In Bill C-23, the vouching system would be eliminated. I do not know if the member is aware, but in a riding like mine, that is going to disenfranchise thousands of people. I feel very suspicious about what this bill is actually about. It seems to be more about stopping people from voting and disempowering people than it is about encouraging people to vote.
I wonder if the member would respond by explaining why the vouching system was eliminated.
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we have to understand is that we have an obligation not only to make it easy for people to vote but make it secure for people to vote as well, in the sense that someone does not cast a vote that is not eligible and thereby cancels out somebody else's vote that is eligible.
In this case, vouching is one of the areas for which we have very serious empirical evidence. In vouching, errors happened 25% of the time, and even when there was extra effort put toward that situation, errors happened 21% of the time.
There are 39 different items that can be used for identification when people go to the polls and capitalize on their franchise to vote. The bill would also implement measures that would make it easier for people to vote, such as an extra day of advance polling, and would have Elections Canada focus on outreach to disabled people so that they know how they can vote and can go to places where it will be easy for them to do that.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.
I have seen a lot of legislation come and go in this House in almost 17 years. I have participated in vigorous debates in the House where we have opposed legislation, and some occasions where we have supported government legislation.
However, I have to say that this particular bill before us today, Bill C-23, the so-called fair elections act, is something I feel angry about.
First of all, it is being debated under a closure motion. We have now had over 50 different times in this House that the Conservative government has used closure, in effect to limit and gag debate. That, in and of itself, is very offensive.
However, what I find very problematic about the bill is that Canadians are being told that it is a fair elections act and that it would deal with, for example, the election fraud that was so widespread in the last election.
Let us remember that it is the Conservative government and the Conservative Party who have the worst track record on breaking election laws in this country, whether it was the in-and-out scheme, or the robocalls that were designed to suppress opposition votes.
The guise of the bill is to deal with elections fraud. However, when we examine the bill, we can see that there are so many other elements of the bill that are designed to undermine the role of Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer.
I have dealt with Elections Canada many times over the years, in six different elections. I have often heard criticisms about how the voting worked, particularly in my community, in the Downtown Eastside, where people are sometimes turned away from polls because they do not have ID. I have had an ongoing relationship with Elections Canada and have pointed out concerns about lack of training and issues in my local community. I have always found them to be responsive to those issues when I have raised them after an election.
In fact, Elections Canada has a worldwide reputation as a first-rate organization and is used as a model globally of what an independent electoral organization can be.
It is very dismaying and concerning to see that the bill would in effect undermine the power of the Chief Electoral Officer. It would create a new entity. It would remove general public education.
In fact, in questions in the House this week, even today, we heard the minister for democratic reform blaming Elections Canada for a lower voter turnout.
This is a complex issue. To have this simple fix by removing the role of education and talking to voters about voting, whether it is young people, first nations, students, new Canadians, from the role of Chief Electoral Officer, it is inexplicable in terms of the rationale. One can only come to the conclusion that the current government has basically brought forward a bill—it did not even consult the Chief Electoral Officer, by the way—that would undermine the role and mandate and the foundations of Elections Canada.
That is one element in the bill that I think is hugely problematic.
The other element is that the bill would remove a number of provisions whereby people who are not normally on the electors list and have difficulty voting, because they do not have the proper ID, would now find it very difficult, if not near possible, to vote. I am speaking in particular about what is called the “vouching system”.
This is something that various organizations in east Vancouver have used extensively. For example, we had lawyers on East Hastings Street who would help people determine whether they were on the voters list. They would help them figure out whether they had enough ID, and if they did not, they would help them in the process of what was called an “affidavit vote”.
All of that would be removed.
We used to have the vouching system, where somebody who knew somebody in the community who was homeless or on the street but eligible to vote, a Canadian citizen, living in Vancouver, who was 19 years of age, would make sure that information was provided to people.
There were many organizations that did an incredible service in vouching for people, by saying, for example, “Yes, we know that person. They come to the Carnegie Centre at Main and Hastings every day. We know who that person is, and they should be able to vote”. On that basis, a person was able to demonstrate their eligibility and would be able to vote. Sometimes there were problems, and the deputy returning officers would turn people away. There were issues and we did follow them up. However, the system of vouching has been an important democratic tool for people in my community to be able to vote.
In a previous Parliament, Bill C-31 severely restricted the vouching system. I fought tooth and nail against that. I thought it was a terrible proposition. Again, it was designed to hurt people, particularly those of low income.
Now we get to Bill C-23 and the vouching system is completely eliminated. I feel extremely worried about the impact that will have in the next federal election, in 2015, as there were about 100,000 people who used the vouching system in the last election.
We have just heard from one member that there was a 25% error rate and therefore it is a terrible system that has to be thrown out. However, if one reads the details, one would find that most of the errors occurred because there was a lack of adequate training for poll clerks and deputy returning officers in administering the vouching system. Therefore, it is a question of better training.
The bill would throw out the whole system. I feel we are now setting up an election process that has two-tiers. If one is a property owner, one is guaranteed to be on the voters list, to get a voter card in the mail. A property owner would probably have a driver's licence or some other identification, and there would not be an issue. However, in Vancouver, 50% of residents are not property owners. They are tenants, students, low-income families, seniors, and people who may move because the housing costs are so high people. People are always seeking more affordable housing. Those people end up not being on the voters list, not getting the information they require. Therefore, having provisions that would allow people to be eligible to vote on election day, even if they are not on the list, is extremely important.
I am very distressed about Bill C-23.
If we look at this historically, we have come far on a spectrum of disenfranchising people. I do not know about other members in this House, but I remember the days when people could walk down their street and see the voters list tacked up on the telephone poll. People could look at the list and see if they were on it. I remember the days when an enumerator would come door to door asking who lived in the household, who was eligible to vote. They would go through the criteria and people would get registered. All of that is gone. However, it was not the current government that did that; it was a Liberal government.
I want to make this point because I think it shows us how much our electoral system has been eroded in terms of its primary function, which is to enfranchise people who are eligible to vote, and to make sure they have the information, tools, and the system in place to make that process smooth and as accessible as possible. The key word is “accessible”.
We have come so far along that road. Here we are debating the bill on the opening day of the Olympics. Who the heck is even going to be watching this debate? The Conservatives brought in a closure motion yesterday, so we have a few hours of debate and the bill will be rushed off to committee. Before Canadians even know what is happening, the bill will be approved, yet it would impact every single voter in this country.
I am very glad that as many members of the NDP as possible are taking the opportunity to speak about the bill, to get the information to the public, and alert people that Bill C-23 is not a fair elections act. The bill is actually about voter suppression. It is about gagging the Chief Elector Officer. It is about undermining a democratic election system.
This is a thoroughly bad bill, and we will do everything we can to stop it.
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for standing on a Friday afternoon to defend democracy. When we look at Canada, we are like a referee around the world. We monitor elections.
It is with great shock that we saw what happened in the last election. It happened in my riding. People were told to go to the wrong polling booths. We had misinformation, and it was quite shocking.
Does the member perceive that what the Conservatives are doing is hypocritical? Is it a smokescreen to take the heat off what happened in the last election? Is this legislation going to do anything to stop what happened in the last election, in my riding and many ridings, across the country?
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, obviously the member has some of the same concerns I have, that the bill is not going to stop the kind of fraud we have seen in terms of robocalls. We hope that it does. The problem is that within the bill there are so many elements that are going to suppress voters. I would agree with the member. Elections Canada has a fantastic international reputation; it does monitor elections around the world. However, we are here undermining the very institution that other people try to model.
Yesterday in the debate some of the Conservatives members said they wanted to have a truly independent commissioner and investigator, as though we do not have that now, as though Elections Canada is not an independent organization. What causes us so much concern is that the bill is designed to give a government, with its conservative ideology, more control over the electoral process. That has to be bad. This is not about a temporary change; this is a permanent change that would to take place in this country in terms of the way Elections Canada operates and the way voting takes place. That is why it is such a serious debate.
Cathy McLeod ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification
Mr. Speaker, when I first went to the briefing on this piece of legislation, I was very impressed. I looked at the opportunities to move the issues around compliance to the Director of Public Prosecutions, which made perfect sense. I looked at the issues around robocalls and moving that under the CRTC. I heard the interview where the former chief electoral officer gave it an A minus. I want to congratulate my hon. colleague, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, for the very excellent work he has done on this piece of legislation.
I think my colleague who just spoke has not looked at the piece of legislation in terms of the whole picture of what it would do for fairness in our system. I would like her to talk about the issue of voter fraud and how important it is that we have 29 pieces of ID, I believe, that would be acceptable. Could the member speak about the important role that maybe she will have as a member of Parliament, as will I, who perhaps will run in the next election, in partnership with Elections Canada, to let people know where they can vote, how they can vote, and the pieces of identification they will need.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would point out that the former chief electoral officer who gave it an A minus has moved off that now that he has looked at the bill in detail. When he comes to committee, it might be a different story.
However, let us talk about election fraud. There is election fraud. There is fraud everywhere, whether it is in the banks, in the insurance companies, wherever it is. We have systems in place to deal with that. However, when we bring in a sledgehammer and knock out a whole group of people from voting, in effect, then we are not dealing with fraud; we are actually disenfranchising people.
That is the problem. It is something that underlies so much government legislation from the Conservatives. They perceive a problem and they take this sledgehammer approach that ends up causing harm to people's rights and accessibility, whether it is health care, voting, or whatever it might be. That is the problem. There is fraud, but the system is there already to deal with that, and there is nothing wrong with it.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, this will be quick. Right from the very beginning with this bill, we have been getting something that has become customary from the government over the years. When I walked by where the announcement was made, over a blue background was written "Fair Elections Act". Even the naming and propaganda is entirely wrong in the way the government has approached this.
This is the Government of Canada and it should be seen as such, rather than trying to propagandize the way it does. Would the member not agree?
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I do agree. The government has a responsibility to bring in legislation based on the public interest, but here we have a government that has an unfortunate pattern of bringing in legislation based on its own partisan political interests.
Nothing more clearly demonstrates this than this particular legislation. It is not about a fair elections act, it is about voter suppression and undermining Elections Canada.
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-23.
To begin, I would like to point out that as soon as the minister introduced his bill, all potential for non-partisan debate went out the window. I will explain why.
The minister is trying to justify the relevance and validity of his bill by casting doubt on the impartiality of a democratic institution that is accountable to Parliament and that, by its very existence and creation, must be impartial.
When the minister said that the Chief Electoral Officer should not wear a team jersey, that not only made Canadians question whether there are some flaws in the bill, but it also made them question the impartiality of the electoral system as a whole.
It is unacceptable that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform is treating Canadians and our democratic and electoral institutions so condescendingly.That is no way for a minister to act. Despite my respect for him, I want to make my point because a minister must show respect for our institutions, not attack them.
After hearing the minister's comments, the Chief Electoral Officer gave this response:
Listen, the only team jersey that I think I'm wearing—if we have to carry the analogy—I believe is the one with the stripes, white and black. What I know from this bill is that no longer will the referee be on the ice.
This bill should be making the electoral system more democratic and transparent. My speech will demonstrate that, instead, it will completely destroy all of our institutions. I acknowledge that the bill includes some interesting points that we do not object to. I will not talk about those aspects, however, because I believe my colleagues have already done a good job of highlighting them.
Canadians deserve better. The Conservative Party's problem is that it has lost Canadians' trust. The record of its nine years in power goes something like this: in and out scandal, fraudulent calls, Senate scandals. The people of Canada and Quebec no longer trust this government.
This bill once again shows that the Conservatives have absolutely no intention of improving our democratic system or making our institutions more transparent. As the official opposition, it is our duty to highlight the flaws in the Conservatives' bill.
The minister can rhyme off all the statistics he wants. His job was to consult the opposition parties and the Chief Electoral Officer. Statistics Canada does not give him licence to hide or shirk his responsibilities.
Let us not forget that there was a cabinet shuffle. We have been waiting for this bill for two years. It is finally here, but there was no consultation. The minister can try to have us believe that there was. That is true, but I do not think he engaged in the type of consultation that should have been done to make such radical and important changes to such a fundamental aspect of our Canadian democracy as our electoral system. I do not need to tell you how extremely important this is.
In 2015, I know that Canadians and Quebeckers are going to vote for change and kick out this government that is worn down by fraud and scandals. This bill shows that the government cannot even let people decide for themselves anymore. They want to control the Chief Electoral Officer and Canadians. It is atrocious. I am outraged as I stand before the government to tell Canadians that it is time for a change.
Unfortunately, the government is refusing once again to allow Canadians to decide for themselves. The Minister of State for Democratic Reform tells us that young people do not vote, which is true. He shared statistics showing that fewer and fewer young people have been voting in recent years.
Why, then, prevent a democratic institution known by all Canadians from encouraging people to exercise their right to vote?
None of the minister's statistics can justify this measure. This is nothing but nonsense and lies, because the fundamental role of Elections Canada is to encourage people to vote, to exercise their right to vote.
Why are the Conservatives taking away Elections Canada's investigative powers? They are not happy with how Elections Canada's decisions and investigations have affected them. It is as simple as that. They can say that my speech was lacking facts and statistics, but there are no facts or statistics to justify this bill and this reform of the electoral system.
Every time I rise in this House, my colleagues accuse me of being too partisan and not presenting any actual facts in my speech. That is the only thing they can find to fault me for, because there are no facts or statistics that justify taking away the Commissioner of Canada Elections' investigative powers.
No matter what they say, they cannot justify that the Commissioner of Canada Elections will no longer be part of an independent democratic institution, but will instead be under the Attorney General of Canada. The government appoints the Attorney General of Canada. That is fine, but why take an impartial investigative body that was transparent, democratic and accountable to Parliament and have it report to the Attorney General, who is appointed by the government? Is there a reason that is not ideological and completely partisan?
We have known for a long time that the government really likes to emulate the underhanded tactics of the Republican Party in the United States. Several Conservative members are enrolling in Karl Rove's summer school. Karl Rove is George W. Bush's American strategist, known for his master strokes in committing election fraud. Perhaps it is time to let go of the “Rovian” ideology that brought our Pierre Poutine into the world.
I will not talk about the team jersey, as did the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, who is trying to make us believe that there are plots everywhere. We must look at the Prime Minister's Office first, because that is where the plots come from.
Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley said that striking at the integrity of the electoral process by attempting to dissuade voters from casting ballots for their preferred candidates is a form of vote suppression. The Conservatives can go ahead and call me names and say that I have no evidence. That is what they are doing.
I would simply like to ask Canadians who are watching today to understand that the sole intent of this partisan piece of legislation is to favour the Conservatives. Regardless of the statistics the Conservatives might get from Statistics Canada, those numbers cannot in any way justify the destruction of a democratic and transparent institution.
Pierre Lemieux ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture
Mr. Speaker, I am listening to my colleague's speech, and it strikes me that it is not the bill that is partisan, but a speech like that is partisan. It would be more profitable to the House and to Canadians if the member actually made some well-reasoned suggestions on how to improve the act, rather than just launching ideological attacks.
Just as an example, the commissioner, whose responsibility it is to enforce the law, would now be under the public prosecutor. He would be completely independent and he would act accordingly to enforce the law. That is not a partisan move. That is actually a good move, and a move toward accountability. We would like the Chief Electoral Officer to focus on the administration of running elections and ensuring that Canadians have the information they need to vote and to vote properly; so they know where to vote, when to vote, and what identification to bring when they vote.
That is not ideological either. These are very practical, concrete suggestions that are contained within this bill, and I would like to hear her comment on that and the fact that this would improve elections here in Canada.
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, if the government really wanted our opinion and that of the Chief Electoral Officer, it would have consulted us before introducing the bill.
We made some proposals, we had some motions adopted and my hon. colleague from Toronto—Danforth introduced a bill before Parliament. Unfortunately, the Conservatives will not listen to anyone else. I am sorry, but that is no excuse.
The member asked me a question, so I would like him to listen to my answer. The Chief Electoral Officer himself has even said that he laments the loss of his freedom of expression.
Why is it that he will no longer be allowed to speak to the media or inform the public about an investigation into fraudulent activities? Why is the government no longer allowing the freedom of expression of an impartial, democratic institution?
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, in the first of the member's remarks, she accused the government of being infused with scandal and fraud, and I would definitely agree. There was the in-and-out scandal, and the Conservatives paid a fine in that one; and there is the electoral robocalls scandal. That is just to name two.
However, the really serious part of the act relates to basically cutting the legs out from under Elections Canada itself, by separating the commissioner and putting it under public prosecutions. Let us not fool ourselves; that is really under the Attorney General.
To give an example of what could happen, a few years down the road it might be a different Attorney General. It could be somebody named Pierre, or something like that. Can members imagine the commissioner calling? He might say, “Yes, hello, Pierre; we have one of your members who sits three rows back behind you there, who we believe may be caught in election fraud. Should we press charges?”
Come on. What would happen here, under this, is that they would put the fox in charge of the chicken coop, if I could put it that way. The people who are involved in the wrongdoing would have a say as to whether there are charges laid. That is not the way to protect our election system in this country. Could the member confirm that?
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member might table the section of the act specifically that states what he just said. I wonder if he would table that for us, so that we could have better—
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Order, please. That sounded a bit more like debate. I believe the bill is before the House, so there is no need to table it. Perhaps the section is contained in the bill. It is probably a good point for a future question and comment, or for another opportunity to debate, but not on a point of order.
The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, investigations by the Chief Electoral Officer will no longer necessarily be a priority. This is like taking away the RCMP's power to investigate Criminal Code offences.
Not only will the Chief Electoral Officer no longer be transparently and democratically accountable to Parliament, but he also will no longer be able to talk about potential investigations or fraudulent activities. He is being stripped of not only his integrity, but also his freedom of expression.
James Bezan ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to stand and address the House today on the fair elections act.
I want to inform the House that there are a lot of great things in the fair elections act. All of us have been talking about the need to crack down on rogue callers, impersonations, and people who have committed fraud, and we want to make sure those things are cleared up.
We also want to talk about modernizing, making some minor increases in donations, again focusing on those small donations and keeping out unions, businesses, and big corporations, so they do not take over the financing of political parties, local candidates, and their campaigns.
We want to make sure we continue to uphold free speech, provide better customer service, and increase voter opportunities to participate in the electoral process.
I do want to focus on my recent ordeal with Elections Canada, which I had to go through over the last 14 months. As I have said right from the beginning, my legitimate right to take my place here in the House of Commons as the elected member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake was never in question. The writ came in. It is secure. I was overwhelmingly supported by the constituents of Selkirk—Interlake.
We have to remember that the dispute was about my campaign election return and the financing of that campaign. It came down, specifically, to my member of Parliament highway signs. At the get-go, I just want to say I am a member of Parliament who represents a riding that is geographically larger than Nova Scotia. It is necessary, as members of Parliament, to try to reach out to our constituents in every way possible.
I used highway signs, large billboards that I own, paid for with my operating budget. These signs were built over a number of years, going back to 2005. We used different contractors and different materials. It creates a little confusion about the invoices: who did what, what sign is in what location, and which sign is made out of what? That became a bit confusing for everyone involved: Elections Canada, my campaign, and even my office, in trying to provide all the details and going over that timeframe.
Elections Canada knew about those signs. In 2008, we claimed those signs in our return on a formula that had been discussed with local Elections Canada officials and through the audit process. Not only did Elections Canada know about those signs in the 2008 general election, but it determined that they were not a campaign expense and moved them out of our return into a non-contribution expense to the campaign.
That, in itself, provided us with some idea of what Elections Canada was thinking about member of Parliament signs back in 2008.
In 2011, we used the same formula because we thought it was okay. It had been audited and approved in our official return of 2008. Then there started to be some questions, back and forth, with Elections Canada.
While we were able to provide Elections Canada with the information detail it needed, all of sudden the Chief Electoral Officer made the decision that it wanted all production costs in, even though the other formula we had before was approved in the past.
This speaks to why we need to have a rule system that everybody can follow and that cannot be changed on a whim. If it has been accepted in one election, then there needs to be proper notification if it is going to be changed in the future. We thought we were within the rules.
Based on hearing it was not applicable, we looked at the Elections Canada campaign handbook. In there is the guideline that says:
Some signs can be used for more than one election. If a campaign...in a second or subsequent election, the amount that the official agent shall record as a non-monetary contribution or transfer from an election expense is the current commercial value for similar signs. If the campaign refurbishes, restores or repaints used signs, the value that the official agent should record is the amount it would cost to purchase a sign similar to the restored sign.
That is right out of the handbook. The Chief Electoral Officer said no, even though we were able to prove what a commercial sign would cost using our own experience from recovering and refurbishing those signs and having those production costs right there. He refused it, even though that is what I filed in our corrected return on May 5.
That subsequently resulted in his writing to you, Mr. Speaker, saying that I should not be allowed to sit for a vote in the House of Commons.
It is an affront to democracy when the Chief Electoral Officer tries to take away the voice of the people of Selkirk—Interlake. He tried to quash the democratic will of the constituents of Selkirk—Interlake. That should never be allowed to happen unless something extremely fraudulent arises that tampers with the election result. When we are having a dispute over accounting practices, an interpretation of guidelines, and the act, that should be resolved in a formal discussion process between Elections Canada and our campaigns.
Let us remember that our campaigns are run by volunteers. The local Elections Canada staff are temporary staff. They are there just during the writ period. It becomes quite difficult to have a discussion with Elections Canada in Ottawa when it is overturning everything that is happening at the local level.
Just to make things clear, we were able to settle this dispute out of court. Even though I did exercise my right under the act to pursue this in a court of law, we were able to resolve it out of court.
Elections Canada accepted the commercial value of my signs, which we submitted on May 5, at $518 per sign, and I was under my expense limit. The difference between the return I filed on May 5 and the return we filed last month was only $458.
Let me repeat that. For $458, and when I was below my Elections Canada allowable expense limits for my campaign and for me personally, I would have been removed from this House of Commons because of a cynical question of privilege that was dealt with through the procedure and House affairs committee.
The bill is about making a change, through the fair elections act, to respect democracy and respect voters wishes and to try to resolve these administrative issues without having to be bullied or forced into embarrassing situations. This is about tarnishing one's reputation, especially when other members in this place and in the media start making accusations that have no basis whatsoever. We want to make sure that changes.
One of changes, which I think all of us should support, would be modernizing Elections Canada. Right now Elections Canada is the only government agency where all the powers are concentrated in the hands of one person. It is very monolithic.
Elections Canada is the administrator, the educator, the adviser, the adjudicator, and the enforcer. I do not know of any other government agency that has everything wrapped up in one monolithic structure without an appeal mechanism. In every organization we have, whether it is CRA, government departments, ombudsmen, who are independent, appeal boards, tax courts, and things like that, people have their rights protected, but not under Elections Canada.
I really feel, through my personal experience, that some of my rights were not respected, not just here in the House but in the course of due process and the rule of law.
The bill would split the elections commissioner from the Chief Electoral Officer and make two independent bodies. We have to remember that currently not only does the Commissioner of Canada Elections have to report to the CEO but his staff, for all actions, are under the control of the Chief Electoral Officer. It is important that we provide independence and a situation whereby they work not only independently but without bias and that they are able to make the correct decisions on enforcing these rules.
We would be providing more power to the commissioner to punish true fraud and rule-breaking. As the Minister of State (Democratic Reform) has said, the legislation gives sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand to the commissioner.
I want to close by saying that we should look at what I have gone through and why it is important that we need to change it. It can happen to any one of us over a dispute about something as small as $500. It should never happen that any one of us could be taken out of here and the will of our constituents not be respected.
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I found my hon. colleague's speech quite revealing. It seemed that he was using the opportunity to in some way defend himself against the letter written by the Chief Electoral Officer.
I am not sure why he believes that taking the commissioner of elections out of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer and putting him under the ministry of justice is suddenly going to change the situation he has described. The reality is that when elections occur, there are rules. The Chief Electoral Officer was ensuring that everyone followed those rules, and he had cause to be concerned that those rules had not been followed and was perfectly within his authority to send a letter to the Speaker.
What is really required are the teeth that my colleague is talking about. That is where the government has singularly failed to come up with the kind of legislation we need. What matters is not moving the commissioner out of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, but giving him more teeth.
What are those teeth he is talking about?
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that the Chief Electoral Officer was just following the rules. Yesterday, the Chief Electoral Officer appeared at the procedure and House affairs committee and was asked by the member for Winnipeg North on a number of occasions how many times he had had to send a letter to the Speaker requesting that the House not allow a member to sit or vote. He revealed that he has only done it a couple of times. He says it is a common practice and something that has been going on since this rule came into effect in 2001.
I can tell the House that his answer is revealing. It has only been done twice, with me and the member for Saint Boniface. That was revealing, as it only happened in one month out of that entire 14 years. That is disturbing in itself.
Usually, Elections Canada—
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I will stop the member there because I see other members rising.
The hon. member for York South—Weston.
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member opposite, but I heard him suggest to the House that the Chief Electoral Officer bullied him. As was the case in Toronto with the mayor when he was threatened with removal from office, the law is a clumsy and sometimes forceful animal, so if the law says the mandatory minimum for a particular breach is a letter to the Speaker saying a person cannot sit, then the Chief Electoral Officer was merely acting according to the law. That is not bullying.
I regret that the government seems to have taken the same position as a hockey team would when it does not agree with the decision of a referee and does not like the referee, but most hockey teams do not have the authority to remove the referee and fire him. However, that seems to be what the government is doing in response to this activity.
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer is not the referee but the scorekeeper. The referee is the commissioner. Let us make sure that we get the game straight: the scorekeeper should not be interceding in these affairs.
Yes, I do feel like I was bullied and intimidated. On page 113 of O'Brien and Bosc, Speaker Bosley is cited as saying:
The intimidation by government officials of Members and their staff in carrying out their parliamentary functions has been considered a prima facie breach of privilege.
Therefore, it is our right to be here and government officials should not intimidate us as members of Parliament in doing our jobs.