Debates of Feb. 7th, 2014

The House resumed from February 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Fair Elections Act

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise to speak to this bill today. The cause of fair elections is one that is close to my heart, ever since Guelph became ground zero for a concerted and malicious campaign, in the last election, to wilfully mislead non-Conservative voters to the wrong polling locations on election day, May 2, 2011.

The subsequent investigation has demonstrated where we lack the ability to effectively pursue electoral fraudsters, yet it is as if the Conservative government and its minister have learned nothing from what happened in Guelph. Instead, it seems as if they are more interested in punishing Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer for some imagined anti-Conservative transgression. How else could they explain that our top election official was left out in the cold and not consulted when it came to expansive legislation that would make significant changes to how we conduct our elections?

Frankly, over the past couple of days of debate and questions, the minister has seemed quite proud of the fact that he sat through a meeting with Mr. Mayrand, only to ignore his most pertinent recommendations and to go on to draft the same toothless bill they planned to draft before they met with him.

I know that the minister claims there was consultation. However, it is quite clear from the immediate comments from Elections Canada's spokesperson, John Enright, in the immediate wake of the minister's statement, that “the Chief Electoral Officer has not been consulted” and “there's been no consultation on the bill”.

Had there been true consultation, the bill might have provided the resources and tools requested by Mr. Mayrand in October, when he said:

Without that power to compel it adds time and complexity to investigations and sometimes they get into a dead end for lack of co-operation from witnesses.

Similarly, this echoes the statement of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, Yves Côte, who asked for further investigative powers and the ability to compel the provision of information. He explained, in his first annual report:

It regularly happens, in the course of our investigations, that we approach individuals who we know will have information relevant to a file we are working on, only to be told that they do not wish to talk to us—they refuse to say anything.

We have all seen this to be the case in Guelph, where two and a half years later, we still do not have any more of an idea of who Pierre Poutine is and just how coordinated a plot it was to misdirect voters, forcing them to the wrong polling stations.

On election day 2011, a fraud was perpetrated across Canada, in over 200 ridings, and yet to this day, only one charge has been laid, in large part because Elections Canada lacks the teeth or the tools it needs to seize documents before they are destroyed or to compel testimony so as to advance the case and find the perpetrators.

The minister has stated that his reforms would enable the Commissioner of Canada Elections to seek stiffer penalties for a wider range of offences. However, what would that really accomplish, when there has been no augmentation to the commissioner's investigative powers? What good are stiffer penalties if one cannot find and convict the perpetrators?

Rhetorical flourishes such as “sharper teeth”, “longer reach”, and a “freer hand” may paint a delightful picture for government messaging, but they are hollow words in the face of an enforcement regime that has no ability to find those who perpetrate frauds or to effectively enforce the Canada Elections Act. It is like raising the fine for speeding but taking away the radar guns.

Equally concerning is the bizarre move of the Commissioner of Canada Elections from Elections Canada to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Not only does moving the commissioner's desk not increase his investigative powers, it effectively silos him off from Elections Canada and the data it possesses.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise you and ask your permission to split my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I cannot square away how the members of the current government believe that a freer hand comes from changing the position of the commissioner to a government appointment and making him accountable not to Parliament but to the Attorney General of the day.

One can only hope that this is not a result of the frequent examinations of the Conservative Party by Elections Canada and its commissioner, be it on the in-and-out scandal; the sad tale of the former Conservative minister, the member for Labrador; the ongoing tale of the Prime Minister's former parliamentary secretary; or even the Conservative Party's connection, as stated by Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley, to the fraudulent election-day calls from the Conservative Party's CIMS database. From comments made by the minister and other members, it would almost seem as if they do not believe that the Chief Electoral Officer is impartial, something he is statutorily bound to be.

It was this paranoia that led the minister to proclaim that, “[t]he referee should not be wearing the team jersey”, as if it is some invisible bias that caused Elections Canada to enforce the provisions of the Elections Act when Conservatives did wrong. In effect, what the Conservatives are doing is punishing the guy who caught them, or at least his office.

Mr. Mayrand put it best yesterday, when he stated that these changes are taking the referee off the ice, sidelining him, so he cannot see what infractions may be going on. However, this is no surprise, coming from a party whose leader has called a former chief electoral officer “a dangerous man”, and whose members have accused the impartial body of carrying out a “vendetta” against them.

Perhaps we should have seen this coming when the Conservative government started cutting the organization's budget. When did it do that? It was in the midst of its robocalls investigation.

With the impending addition of 30 new ridings, already austere resources have been further constrained by these cuts. Perhaps that was all part of the plan, seeing as this piece of legislation also purports to muzzle Elections Canada's ability to promote voter turnout among youth, seniors, and other marginalized groups, which, on their face, represent the groups that tend not to vote Conservative when they vote.

It boggles the mind that Conservatives do not see increasing voter turnout as a priority but instead feel that mobilizing their own partisans is paramount, and they want to legislate this. It astonishes further that this advertising-happy government would restrict the ability of an impartial organization to communicate accurate, truthful, non-partisan information while it continues to roll out the Brink's trucks for its advertising campaigns on its non-existent job grant program. It is unfathomable that this bill would inhibit the organization we trust with the administration of our free and fair elections from communicating vital information that might encourage Canadians to fulfill their civic duty.

For all their hockey analogies, what the Conservatives would do is change the rules of the game without consulting any of the players, officials, or spectators, and they appear to be changing it to suit their own purposes. There are elements of this bill that are common-sense, balanced reforms, but to include them with so many cynical attacks on Elections Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, and the investigative process is not legislating in good faith. Somewhat predictably, though sadly so, this was reinforced when the government moved closure on the bill the day after it was read for the very first time. It seems as if the current government is as disinterested in consulting the people's representatives as it was in consulting the Chief Electoral Officer.

I certainly hope the Conservatives will accept amendments to this bill, should it reach committee, and that it might be open to more and better consultation with Canadians than they have had so far. Perhaps this was the only version of the bill that could satisfy the fears of the Conservative caucus. However, if the Conservatives and their minister are truly interested in reform, they will consider truly consulting with electoral experts, including the Chief Electoral Officer, and we can reshape the bill in the best interests of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone in the House of Commons failed to see the irony of that member standing in his place to talk about infractions for robocalls. He will go down in history forever as the first person in Canada to be convicted of making an illegal robocall. In the last election, he put out an illegal robocall that gave a false name and a false phone number to thousands of his constituents in the riding of Guelph. He had to be found guilty by the CRTC. He may yet be investigated by Elections Canada. We do not know. However, we do know that he was the first ever, and that is the historical distinction he brings to this debate.

The second thing I want to address is that the member has come out today in opposition to making law enforcement independent, which would give it a freer hand. Why is it that the Liberal Party, through this member, has stated its opposition to allowing the commissioner to control his own staff and his own investigations and to have a fixed term so that he cannot be fired without cause?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no doubt the member opposite would love to discuss the error that caused my riding association to pay a fine to the CRTC. It was about a third of the fine his own member, the member for Wild Rose, had to pay for the same infraction. It was much less than the fines the Conservative Party had to pay for similar infractions under the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications legislation. Those errors, repeated by many in the House, were a result of accidental omissions. They did not put a name, address, and phone number on their calls.

However, that pales in comparison to the fraudulent day calls on May 2 made by that party to people in my riding telling them to go to the wrong place to vote. It was not just in my riding; it was in 200 ridings across this country. This matter was brought before the Supreme Court, and what did Mr. Justice Mosley say? He said that while he could not definitively make the connection, because there was not absolute evidence, he knew that it was Conservatives who did it, because they had access to their information system.

He dares stand in the House and accuse others of violations when that was the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on Canadians in election history.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear the member for Guelph on the situation in 2006, when the Conservative Party was involved in the in-and-out scheme. Do members remember the in-and-out? The Conservative Party sent money to our ridings. It wrote cheques, and the cheques were returned to the Conservative Party, the national party, where it used $1.5 million more of its funds that it could use during the election. It took Elections Canada to court, because it felt that Elections Canada was not fair to it. It fought with Elections Canada.

The Conservative Party has been fighting with Elections Canada since 2006 because of everything Elections Canada has done to try to have fair and honest elections. The Conservative Party is always putting sticks in its wheels.

This is really a bill to crucify Elections Canada. That is what the Conservative government is doing. It is putting a lock on the discussion we are having today, because it does not want the public to hear.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member's comments entirely. The Conservative Party is like those soccer players or hockey players who are indeed guilty of infractions who feign falling to the ice. They pretend that they have somehow been victimized and that it was someone else's fault.

I regret that the Conservative Party has avoided, not just missed but intentionally avoided, the opportunity to give this legislation the teeth and tools Elections Canada requires to find, convict, and punish perpetrators of fraud during elections. The omission is quite intentional.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to share my thoughts in regard to the fair elections act and the need for us to address what I believe is a fading confidence that Canadians have in Elections Canada's ability to properly investigate and ultimately come up with tangible consequences when there are violations of the election laws.

I listened to the minister's question to my colleague from Guelph and was blown away that he would have the tenacity to try to give the impression that the member for Guelph in some way tried to do something inappropriate in terms of an election law violation, to disenfranchise.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Let us take a look at the reality of the need for election laws and how important it is that we beef up the resources to Elections Canada. We can talk about the robocalls. The core issue of the robocalls is the unethical behaviour, which has been alleged by the Conservative Party in different ways.

One example is the mysterious calls being made, telling people that although it was voting day, they should be voting elsewhere. Who originated those calls? There is a huge question mark around that.

Then we have the calls that were being made late in the evening, past 11 o'clock and sometimes at 2 o'clock in the morning. Where were the targets of those phone calls? Liberals would not have been contacting Liberal supporters at 2 o'clock in the morning. That was an attempt to get Liberal supporters upset with the Liberal Party, maybe with the suggestion that they would not support the Liberal Party.

Those were the types of unethical phone calls being made. Where was that data bank that was being used to make those calls? The very serious allegations pointed to a political party, and it was not the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party that the finger was pointing at.

There was the in-and-out scandal. What kind of joke was that, in terms of a fine? The maximum fine that could be levied was $50,000, and that is what the Conservative Party ultimately had to pay. It got off awfully lightly on that particular issue.

It was the Conservative Party that was caught this time and fined for inappropriately breaking election laws. There are candidates who overspend, some more than others. There have been consequences. In one situation, a member of the Conservative Party resigned and then ran again in a by-election. We know what happened in that by-election. It did not turn out well for the Conservative Party.

The Liberals and the New Democrats do not have to take any lesson at all from the Conservative government in terms of ethical campaigns. We need to watch what the Conservative Party is doing during elections.

That is why it is so disappointing, in terms of the manner in which we have seen this legislation brought in, which we are debating today. When it comes to election laws, given how important they are, and given that we should never take our democracy for granted, one would think that there would be some responsibility for the government of the day, which happens to be Conservative, to do the right thing when it comes to changing them.

It should be done on a consensus basis. The government of the day should be working with Elections Canada. It should be far more apolitical in terms of working with opposition parties, not only the Liberals and the New Democrats but also the Green Party and any other registered political party.

It should be based on consensus and consultation. There are many different stakeholders out there who have opinions on electoral reform and ways in which we could have improved democracy in Canada.

Why is it that we have a majority Conservative/Reform Party that feels it is the only party that knows how to change the election laws, when in fact it is likely the single greatest violator of the elections laws? It is the party that is responsible for bringing in this legislation, and then to add insult to injury, it brings in time allocation to prevent members of the House from being able to express themselves. That is the reason I only get 10 minutes as opposed to what would normally be given, 20 minutes, for members to speak. There is no lack of interest. Members, especially in the opposition parties, want to be able to express their concerns with regard to what the government is doing to our elections, and they are being denied that through time allocation.

We have a democratic bill that is supposed to be debated, but after three members have stood in their place to speak to the bill, the government has moved time allocation. The Conservatives are very good at time allocation. No other government in the history of our nation has introduced time allocation as much as the current government has done. Shame on the government.

If we look at the legislation itself, we see there are some positive aspects. We do see some increases in fines. That is a positive thing. There are some changes that are encouraging, but there are also some areas that are discouraging. If I look at this in a very simple manner, I would suggest that we want to see an Elections Canada that has the power to ensure that there is a consequence when there is a violation of an election law.

If I were to add something to that, I would suggest that it should be done in a timely fashion. It is not appropriate that we had a violation of an election law three years ago and it is still not resolved today. This is especially true in a number of areas, areas such as over-expenditure. If a campaign spends more than it was entitled to spend, that issue should be resolved in a timely fashion. If there has been inappropriate behaviour by a particular campaign or a party, there needs to be a consequence in a timely fashion. I would suggest that this does not happen today.

I was sitting at a PROC committee meeting yesterday and I had an opportunity to question Mr. Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer. One of the questions I put to him was if he believes he has the laws that are necessary to ensure that there is a timely processing of consequences for election infractions. The answer in essence is no; it is not there. The Chief Electoral Officer does not have the type of authority that is necessary to ensure that the integrity of our election laws is being maintained. This is where I believe the greatest flaw of the legislation is. It does not address that issue.

I asked the Chief Electoral Officer to what degree he was consulted. Imagine, this is the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada, which is respected throughout the world by hundreds of different organizations and governments. It is a truly independent body. He said he was not consulted appropriately in dealing with this legislation.

I say shame on the Conservative government for not doing its homework, shame on the government for not being able to bring forward this legislation in a timely fashion, and shame on the government for not allowing members of Parliament and Canadians, through their members of Parliament, to be able to contribute to the reform of our elections laws.

I see my time has expired. I am grateful for the opportunity to share a few thoughts.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the hon. member this. He pointed out a few items in the bill that raised some concerns with him. I wonder if he might comment on why he does not believe that taking the elections commissioner outside of the realm of the Chief Electoral Officer is a positive step. It would allow Elections Canada to focus specifically on running proper elections, on making sure elections are done with the highest of standards, so that people can get to the polls and access the vote quicker and in an easier fashion. Why does he not believe that is the most paramount function of Elections Canada? Why does he not see it as a positive step to review the investigative function and make it a separate and distinct unit, giving it the authority it needs to do these investigations properly?

I wonder if he might also comment on the provisions of the act pertaining to a cap on the amount that leadership candidates are allowed to raise and borrow on their own, so that we do not have the unfortunate instance, which we currently have within the Liberal Party, where hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal contributions sit unpaid and the candidates themselves are saying they have no intention of ever repaying those.

I wonder if he might also comment on the CRTC becoming the guardian of voter identification when it comes to telecommunications with voters.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, how wonderful it would have been if the government had sat down with opposition members to talk about some of these ideas it is now imposing. At the end of the day, when the Conservatives talk about this commissioner and they see that as a positive thing, they are wrong. It is not a positive thing. Canadians need to be aware that what the Conservative government is doing is saying, “Trust us. We will determine whether or not we want to prosecute an election violation. We are going to have more control over the independent commissioner. We're taking it away from Elections Canada”.

Quite frankly, I have more trust in the Chief Electoral Officer ensuring that our system is fair than I do in the Prime Minister's Office and those guys running around in short pants. I say the government has made a mistake on this issue, and if it saw the error in its ways it would make the changes necessary and allow for an amendment that would put it back with the Chief Electoral Officer. That is the right thing to do.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

You are actually lying to Parliament.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt is rising on a point of order.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if you check the blues you will find out that the government member called my good friend a liar. If I heard right, the expression he said is, “You are lying”. I would ask the member if he would get up and apologize to my colleague from Winnipeg North. That is the only right thing to do.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was simply pointing out the fact that the member was not adequately or correctly talking about the act as it is written. He was misrepresenting the facts of the act, and I think that is inappropriate.

If the word “lying” is an inappropriate use of terms, then I will withdraw that term, but I will still stand with the fact that the member was completely misrepresenting the act and perhaps should do a better job and maybe might want to read the act.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I can assure the hon. parliamentary secretary that the word “lying” is unparliamentary, so I appreciate the fact that he has withdrawn it.

The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I find the tone of today's debate regrettable. After all, we are talking about democracy in Canada, how it should be implemented now and in the future and how it can be reformed. I am very disappointed to hear such partisan debate.

I am especially interested in public awareness about the right to vote, and in raising awareness among young people in particular, since that segment of the population is the least likely to vote. It worries me to see that that education will be scrapped. After all, a government is elected for the future, not just the present.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the necessity and paramount importance of educating our youth about democratic rights.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has just 30 seconds.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I sat on an election reform committee in the province of Manitoba and dealt with Elections Manitoba. We talked about how we could empower people to vote. We came up with ideas, such as allowing individuals to vote in malls, providing proper and adequate resources for advertising dollars, and so forth. We could have done many things with regard to the issue of empowerment and encouraging more people to vote.

I want to go back to the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister because I am disappointed in them. I would suggest that he read the bill. If he wants to respect our—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am afraid the hon. member has run out of time.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Lanark--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to return the attention of the House to some of the valuable aspects of this proposed piece of legislation, which would go a long way toward improving the quality of elections in this country.

Listening to some of the histrionics in what has been said earlier, one would think that Canada is a third world country in which elections are wildly abused. My hon. colleague for Guelph suggested that in 200 separate ridings there were investigations relating to people being misdirected to the wrong polling stations. If this were the tip of some giant iceberg, he would be right; we would be unfit to be considered a part of the family of developed and democratic nations. However, on its face, that is a ridiculous assertion.

One of the ridings the member was referring to was my riding, in which an allegation was made by at least one person phoning the Chief Electoral Officer, which is what actually accounts for the 200 different ridings. I do not know if the member is suggesting that my riding, where I defeated the Liberal candidate by more than a three-to-one margin and the NDP candidate by more than a two-to-one margin, was one in which our party was attempting to misdirect voters because we were afraid we would otherwise lose the seat. If that is what he wants to assert, then he should come out and assert that, as opposed to using this sort of ridiculous innuendo and suggestion, when a clear counterfactual is the case.

Let me deal with three real benefits to the new legislation.

The first is a mandate to Elections Canada as to how it would direct its advertising revenue during and prior to writ periods. This is to be found in proposed section 18 of the legislation. I will read this legislation and then comment on it. Proposed section 18 would now read:

(1) The Chief Electoral Officer may provide the public, both inside and outside Canada, with information on the following topics only:

(a) how to become a candidate;

(b) how an elector may have their name added to a list of electors and may have corrections made to information respecting the electors on the list;

(c) how an elector may vote under section 127 and the times, dates and locations of voting;

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

(e) the measures for assisting electors with a disability to access a polling station or advance polling station to mark a ballot.

Proposed subsection (2) of that section says:

The Chief Electoral Officer shall ensure that any information provided [above] is accessible to electors with disabilities.

The Chief Electoral Officer has spent a great deal of money on advertising, but very little on these practical issues. This is despite the fact that many Canadians turn up at the polls, in some cases, as in a rural area, having driven a great distance, and discovering they do not have the necessary identification and are therefore unable to vote. Or, they find themselves in a situation in which they cannot vote at an advance polling station because they were not on the voter's list. This is a real problem.

I asked the Chief Electoral Officer in a meeting of the procedure and House affairs committee how big a problem there is with the voter's list. He hummed and hawed and did not want to answer the question. The answer is that there is a 20% rate of errors; one Canadian in five is not on the list or is on the list in the wrong way. That is a problem.

This legislation is designed to help people correct these problems for themselves. They can get on the list. They can find out how to vote. They can find out the methods available to them with whatever disability they may have, be it a mobility impairment, a visual disability, etcetera.

The CEO has to put in an effort to find out how to get those pieces of information to those communities, which is a challenge. I might add that this challenge has attracted no interest from the CEO until now, but now he will have to do that. That is a good thing.

Secondly, I want to talk a bit about voter identification and the issue of fraud. We have put in a lot of effort in this Parliament, and the previous one, into designing legislation in order to reduce electoral fraud. One of the key reasons this electoral fraud can exist is because Elections Canada has had to loosen the criteria for allowing people to vote and to identify themselves, given that Elections Canada has done such an unsatisfactory job in determining who is actually permitted to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have just been passed a note. I am supposed to remind you that I am splitting my time with the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale and not, despite his helpful suggestion, the member for Malpeque. He no doubt will have fascinating things to say when his time comes.

The situation with voter identification is a mess in Canada. We recently had a case adjudicated between the current member of Parliament for Etobicoke Centre and the former member. They were disputing whether people had voted validly in the election. In the end, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in favour of the present Conservative member and against the former Liberal member in that case. What was striking was that the issues revolved entirely around problems associated with voter identification, with the fact that people were not on the list properly. It all could have been resolved with better rules. Bill C-23 attempts to provide some of those rules.

One of the things that the bill would do is to specify that the voter identification card sent to a voter by the Chief Electoral Officer may not be used as a piece of identification for the purpose of voting. That is stated in proposed subsection 143(2.1):

The Chief Electoral Officer may authorize types of identification for the purposes of [voting]. For greater certainty, any document—other than a notice of confirmation of registration...may be authorized.

Why is this important? Let me give an example. My name is Scott Jeffrey Reid. In the 2004 election, I received three voter ID cards at my address. One was addressed to Scott Reid, one to Jeffrey Reid, and one to Scott Jeffrey Reid. Of course, all three voters are me. I can legally vote at the returning office at almost any point during the writ period. I can vote at the advance poll. I can vote on election day, in my case at a school near my house. I could have gone to all three of those places and voted, and there would be no record. They would take the voter ID card, but there would be no record that I had voted in multiple places.

I raised this matter with the former chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, when he appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee. I said that this was not a very effective kind of identification. He responded that given the fact that I could go to these multiple places and engage in fraudulent voting anyway, what did it matter? I think that is not a very satisfactory response. Attempting to bring the issue of identification under control is very important. The elimination of vouching is a very important aspect of that.

I want to bring attention to, arguably, one of the most important aspects of the bill, which is the rule that from now on when the Chief Electoral Officer makes a ruling as to how the law is to be interpreted—and in some areas the law is ambiguous and will be found to be ambiguous in the future—he must apply the same rules to everyone. When we listen to the other side talking about the in-and-out scandal, they mean that a practice that was legal at the time was found afterwards by the Chief Electoral Officer, retrospectively, to be illegal in the preceding election. However, it was not found to be illegal in the election preceding that one, in which the other parties, not the Conservatives, had engaged in the practice. If we engage in that kind of retrospective ruling, we create a very unfair, unlevel playing field. That can no longer happen. No longer can retrospective rulings be imposed, and no longer can a ruling be imposed that does not apply universally.

A compliance agreement under the law is where a party violates the law. The New Democrats did this when they allowed sponsored advertising at their national convention, thereby allowing union contributions. It must be made public. They cannot keep it secret. When it is kept secret there cannot be precedents developed. There is no guarantee that the law will be enforced equally. That is a huge step forward. It is astonishing that Elections Canada did not undertake this on its own without encouragement from outside. However, having failed to do so, it will not be required to do so, and that is a very good thing.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of anything more fundamental that we can do as parliamentarians than when we begin to change electoral laws. It is fundamental to our democracy.

One of the reasons I sought to be elected was that our democracy is fragile, and its legitimacy is also fragile. There is a lot of cynicism about the democratic process, and we need to address that. One of the ways we can address that is through electoral reform, ensuring that more Canadians can participate and that they want to participate.

I am personally concerned about those who have difficulties registering as voters. I have two first nations in my riding, and levels of poverty, and those individuals may have difficulties registering in their current state.

I wonder whether the government has addressed this problem and what its strategy is to ensure that all Canadians, particularly my constituents, can vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I may say, I did not agree with the first part of the question. I do not believe that the legitimacy of democracy in Canada is fragile, or indeed that our democracy itself is fragile. We are, with the exception of the United Kingdom, the United States, and Switzerland, the longest functioning democracy in the world, so I would disagree with the hon. member's question. If by that he meant it could be perfected and that there is much work we could do, then I think he is right.

I think what he really meant is contained in his reference to electoral reform. There are strong arguments to be made that certain kinds of reforms, such as the method by which we are elected, might improve things. My own preference would be for the alternative ballot, which is what is used in Australia.

However, I think that point is well taken. With regard to voter registration, the member is mixing his terms. In the United States, there is voter registration. An individual has to actually register as a voter in order to vote. They have to go through the process of registration. There was a restriction on registration for African-Americans, for decades, but particularly when it came to a head in the 1960s. It was a severe civil rights problem.

Let me be clear. He is talking about enumeration problems. The way to solve enumeration, in my opinion, especially when there are rapidly mobile populations or multiple people coming of age, is to have more on the ground enumeration that is administered by Elections Canada.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to what the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington had to say. He said at the beginning of his remarks that there are valuable assets in this legislation. No one is denying that.

The problem is that in the broad approach to the legislation, the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer, as we would say in farm terms, is having his or her legs cut out from under them. Their ability to do their job on overall elections concerns is being taken away from them. The good things in the bill are being nullified by the damage that is being done to the Chief Electoral Officer.

If the Commissioner of Elections Canada is no longer appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer, who is appointed and accountable to Parliament, and instead would be a government appointee through the Director of Public Prosecutions, then that kills the whole ability for the Chief Electoral Officer to do the job of finding the many things that have been found in elections since 2006.

That is the problem. The assets are nullified by the broad approach that the government is taking in destroying the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to do his job. Would the member not agree?