Debates of May 13th, 2014

Fair Elections Act

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the question from the member. As I mentioned in my speech, it is entirely reasonable to ask Canadians to prove their identity before they vote, and Canadians actually support this initiative.

As for those who are homeless, many homeless people receive support from various levels of government, federal, provincial, or municipal. If they receive a cheque with their name on it, that government-issued cheque would count as ID.

There is an amendment in place with respect to vouching for address to allow that process to occur. In other words, the obligation now is simply that one produces a piece of valid ID with one's name on it. I think it is entirely possible for Canadians to have access to this type of ID. If they need to vouch for their address, the fair elections act would accommodate that.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, we have had a discussion about identification.

A couple of weeks ago now, I went back to my riding in the Yukon and got a fishing licence. That fishing licence required an address on it. One of the 39 pieces of identification that is acceptable to vote in the next general election is a fishing licence.

One other thing in terms of the 39 pieces of identification is that they are reasonable, fair, and supported by 89% of the Canadians who were asked whether or not ID should be required.

In contrast, the comment has come up around elections in other countries. In Kenya, for example, in certain electoral districts, one must produce a piece of identification and also give a thumbprint. One's fingerprints would be scanned to ensure the security and integrity of that electoral system. Clearly, we are not going that far, but of all the 39 pieces of identification, right down to a provincially issued fishing licence, I think all Canadians agree that those are reasonable pieces of identification to provide when one goes to the polls to cast one's ballot to influence the outcome of a federal election.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would agree with that and maybe add some additional comments from his experiences.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague on the 39 different pieces of ID. A lot of Canadians do not realize it, but this list of 39 pieces of ID is published on the Elections Canada website. It includes such things as a bus pass; a library card; any bill that is received, such as a cell phone, telephone, cable, hydro, heating, or oil bill. It includes a hospital card or a hospital bracelet if one had been hospitalized. It also includes a letter from a seniors residence that simply attests to one being a resident in that home. The list is extensive with 39 pieces of ID. I think Canadians, in general, are shocked that the NDP members feel that anybody should be able to show up at a poll with absolutely no identification whatsoever and cast a ballot in a Canadian election. That is clearly unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am rising today to address Bill C-23, the fair elections act, and some of the very significant and beneficial reforms that it is making to the Canada Elections Act and to the conduct of elections in this country.

I will run through a couple of things, and if I have time within my ten minutes, I will go through some of the amendments that were made in committee, amendments that I think show a genuine commitment on the part of the government and on the part of the responsible minister to take into account a wide range of inputs and to alter the bill in order to make it better reflect those inputs.

Let me start with what I think are the four key themes of this legislation. As someone who sat through all of the many hours of committee hearings on the bill and who has been involved in one form or another in every stage of the process of its adoption and amendment, it seems to me that these four themes come out very clearly.

First, there is an attempt to limit the influence of big money. This is a continuation of a theme that began when Jean Chrétien was Prime Minister and donations were limited to $5,000 per person. Before that there were no limits on how much an individual could donate. Anybody who has an interest in these things can look at the records of Elections Canada to see the enormous donations, to the tune of quarter of a million dollars, from major institutions. That was changed. It was tightened by this government in its first term, reducing the amount of donations to $1,000 and eliminating all forms of corporate and union donations.

The bump upwards in this piece of legislation, in the fair elections act, to $1500 is merely a reflection of inflation over that period of time. I should add that we have done a few things, entirely non-controversial but I think very beneficial. This bill eliminates the possibility of the one kind of giant donation that still exists out there, the donation in the form of a bequest.

A few years ago, the New Democrats received a donation in a bequest, in a will, of over $300,000 from a single individual. Clearly, this kind of very large donation, which could, in theory, allow for donations in bequests in wills of up to millions, would destabilize a political system in which every other input of cash has been reduced. I think that is a very significant step that this bill has taken.

Second, we have greater certainty in the administration of elections and of the rules. Elections Canada is now required to prepare rulings in advance. It cannot make retroactive rulings. The rules are this now, but we also say that in the past they have changed from what we said they were in the past or what a reasonable person might have thought they were in the past. It is bound by their own rulings. It is no longer in a position to sign compliance agreements with a party, as it did with the New Democratic Party following its convention and following the large corporate donations that were given in the form of sponsored advertising at that convention for a very large consideration. The compliance agreement is a secret. The CEO knows what it says. The New Democrats know what it says, and none of them want to reveal it to the general public. That cannot happen any more. That is vital for the rule of law.

Third, there is greater integrity and protection against voter fraud. Much has been spoken on that subject; I will only say that I think the measures taken here are reasonable, balanced and, especially once the amendments occurred, do everything they can to ensure that there is fairness and that the restrictions that are placed on the ability of people to vote without identification are applied with as a light a touch as is realistically possible. I applaud the minister for having made those amendments.

Fourth, there is greater knowledge by Canadians of what their rights are under the law. Canadians have the right to vote, not only on election day, but also in advanced polls. They have the right to vote at the returning office throughout the election period, or most of it. They can vote by mail. If they are visually disabled, they have the right to go in and vote with a secret ballot through the use of an ingenious template that lets them know that their candidate is the candidate whose name is listed third. They have to count down one, two, three, and tick off that ballot. It remains their secret ballot. That is a very clever solution for a minority of the population, but I know, and members can check the Hansard of the committee hearings, that the representative from the Canadian National Institute of the Blind did not know that right existed.

My point is, Elections Canada has done a very poor job, a really poor job, of informing people of all the different ways in which they can exercise their franchise.

An examination of Elections Canada's own reports on the subject indicate that youth in Canada, the group with the lowest voter participation, indicated that one of the primary reasons they do not vote is because they do not know where to vote. They do not know and are not given that voter information card because they moved recently. The absence of the voter information card, which is Elections Canada's way of attempting to assist youths to find out where to vote, was cited as one of the key reasons they did not vote.

If information such as how to get youths onto the voters list, how they can vote in advance, and all the rights that we have were publicized properly by Elections Canada, I make the modest suggestion that we would see youth voting rates go up substantially and the voting by disabled people and others go up substantially. The CEO is now mandated to engage in a series of these kinds of acts of publicity which in the past, as I said, he had not done to nearly the adequate level.

The bill has been the subject of a great deal of debate including a motion that was put forward by the New Democrats under the name of the member for Toronto—Danforth about a month ago in which they expressed particular concern with regard to the ability of certain groups in society to vote if there were requirements that they prove their identity and their place of address. They cited in particular three groups. I want to talk about how the amendments to the bill have dealt with these three groups.

The three groups they mentioned were seniors living in residence, long-term care in other words; aboriginal people, and I think by this they meant aboriginal people living on reserve, although that may not be exactly how the motion was worded; and finally, students living in residence on campus. They felt these groups were potentially deprived of their franchise, if we read the rhetoric of the NDP, which was a little overwrought at the time.

Even in its original form, I think the bill was pretty good at dealing with people in these categories, but the amendments to the bill did a significant amount to ensure that these individuals would be able to cast their vote. I would add to these people another group that was not mentioned in the NDP motion and that is the homeless. All of these groups have one thing in common and that is that they have moved their residence recently or else are residing in a place where having the normal forms of identification such as a driver's licence or bills they would pay are not readily available. Therefore, they find themselves unable to prove their place of residence.

In some of these cases it is obvious that the person is in residence where they say are. The best example of this is a senior living in long-term care. These are often closed facilities. People cannot come into them because of the fear of spreading pathogens. The notion that someone could show up claiming to be John Smith who lives down the hall is preposterous, yet under the existing legislation there is a problem that no one is available who can vouch for them. The administrators were unable to do so. There is a provision for attestations to be given, but for reasons of their own, these residences have on occasion been reluctant to issue such attestations.

The impression I had from listening to testimony is that homeless shelters are in general better at this. There appears to be a problem where full use of the attestation provisions in the current law is not exercised as much as it should be on some aboriginal reserves. That would vary from one reserve to the other. But the point is that in dealing with the issue of identity, the bill, through its amendments, specifically through amendments that were made to section 143 of the bill, would allow the use of attestations as a proof of residence on a more widespread basis.

Some people have called it a kind of vouching for residents. I am not sure that is exactly the right way of putting it, but what happens now is that voters can vote with two pieces of ID that prove their identity and a written oath as to their residence, providing that another elector from the same polling division, who has proved his or her identity and residence by providing documentary proof, takes a written oath as to the elector's place of residence.

People still have to prove they are who they say they are, but they do not have to prove their place of residence the way that would have otherwise been required. That has now been adjusted and taken care of through this amendment to the bill. That is very significant and it deals with the fundamental issue, which is not that people would be unable to prove who they are, but rather they could not prove where they live. There were a number of very empathetic examples and in my last five seconds I want to give one example.

A witness at committee offered the example of a woman who has had to flee her home and is now living with a relative because of an abusive relationship with her spouse. She would be unable to prove her new place of residence. That person, it was suggested, would have been unable to vote. That was a legitimate concern, and it would now be dealt with through this amendment to the law.

We have done as much as can reasonably be done to ensure that every Canadian will be able to vote, while still ensuring proper security against improper voting by those who are either not eligible to vote, or who are voting in the wrong constituency.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Victoria. I would like to take this opportunity to say that it is an honour and a pleasure for me to share my time with a member who is so active, eloquent and involved.

Unfortunately, I often have to say that my democracy is suffering. The electoral “deform” bill that we are discussing today, which was concocted by the Conservatives, is another step in the Conservative government's slow destruction of our democratic institutions.

Allow me to provide a bit of context so that people can understand what is happening. Ever since the Conservatives won a majority of the seats in Parliament—and I would like to emphasize that is a majority of seats—which they achieved in our parliamentary system without having the support of the majority of Canadians, they have been attacking the institution of Parliament itself by imposing a record number of gag orders. It is fairly ironic that we are discussing a fair elections act under another gag order. That is what is happening with a bill that is so important that, according to British tradition, it must be developed and passed by an all-party consensus. Even knowing that, the Conservative government has the nerve to limit debate. It is unbelievable.

In the past, we have also seen the government prorogue Parliament in an abusive manner. We know that the Conservatives refuse to work with the opposition parties, even though—it is important to remember— they represent the majority of the population. We know that the government has attacked our officers of Parliament and that it recently attacked the Supreme Court itself. The Conservatives will stop at nothing. The government has also muzzled public servants, scientists and civil society organizations. The Conservatives have fought tooth and nail against anyone who dares to have an opinion different from their own.

Incidentally, Elections Canada is among the institutions that have been attacked by the Conservatives. We saw it again this morning with all the accusations and innuendo the minister responsible for the election “deform” bill hurled against Elections Canada.

The bill, as proposed, was another of these attacks. What it all boils down to is an attack against Canadians and their right to vote. In my opinion, this attack is a logical extension of the robocalls, which sought to prevent people from voting, given that the Conservative database was the source of those calls.

Fortunately, these same Conservatives pulled back on some particularly problematic aspects of the bill because of pressure that we, the NDP, put on them and because of the exceptional work by my colleagues from Toronto—Danforth, Louis-Saint-Laurent and Hamilton Centre. It is extremely important to mention that it is also thanks to and very likely because of all the Canadians who stood up and to everyone who spoke up, wrote in and signed petitions to oppose the Conservative scheme.

As an aside, there were a lot of constituents from the Laurier—Sainte-Marie riding who spoke up and took action. I would like to thank them today and salute their commitment and determination. I would also like to say that, as always, it is a great privilege for me to be their voice in this House.

Together, we managed to make the Conservatives backtrack on some important issues.

In particular, they backed down on vouching to enable voting and on polling supervisors. With their bill, the Conservatives were trying to politicize the polling supervisor appointment process even more. It makes me wonder who would benefit from that.

Obviously, the entire bill was designed to benefit the Conservatives. For example, in the case of fundraising campaigns, more and more contributions were going to be allowed to fly under the radar, if I can put it that way, and not be taken into account. That would have increased the power of money even further in the context of elections. There was a victory there, too. Together, Canadians and their spokespersons in the opposition, the NDP, managed to make the government backtrack on that.

We made a few gains with respect to educating the public to encourage people to vote, which is an extremely important issue in Canada, as it is in many countries around the world.

We managed to make these gains, which is a good thing, but there are still a lot of major problems, unfortunately. I could talk about many issues remaining in the bill, but what concerns me in particular is the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer. As I said, we made small gains in public education, but they are small. There is a big difference between what is in the bill before us today and what the Chief Electoral Officer used to be able to do. Now, he will basically be able to promote voting to students in elementary and secondary schools. I do not have anything against that. That is very good, but why not promote voting to college and university students, who are of voting age and will vote in the next election? That makes absolutely no sense. Why would the Chief Electoral Officer not be able to encourage young people who are able to vote to do so? That is quite something.

In addition, the Chief Electoral Officer will not be allowed to partner with other groups to raise awareness and promote voting. He will not be allowed to partner with groups such as Apathy is Boring, an extraordinary group that I know well because I had the opportunity to meet with the founders of the movement. This group does an outstanding job with young people between 18 and 25 years of age. However, game over, they can no longer work together.

That is rather ironic, because it means that, under the new provisions, Elections Canada will have to cancel Canada's Democracy Week, which it used to organize. Once again, that speaks for itself. In effect, Canada's Democracy Week will be cancelled because the Conservatives do not like it. That is quite something.

The Chief Electoral Officer will also need the approval of the Treasury Board to hire technical experts. I just love that. Picture a party in power that committed a bit of electoral fraud—of course, I am not referring to anyone in particular. The Chief Electoral Officer needs technical advice to investigate the situation, and a Treasury Board minister, a member of the party in power, can deny the request. That is totally absurd.

The government is limiting the Chief Electoral Officer's existing powers and, at the same time, is refusing to grant him the new powers he needs to do his work, such as the ability to request financial documents from political parties or to compel witnesses to appear.

We were able to fight back and prevent some of the damage, but there is still work to do. I cannot vote in favour of this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight some of the presentations of the commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer on Bill C-23. The Chief Electoral Officer said that the commissioner should remain within Elections Canada. We all know that the CEO for Elections Canadian is in fact a man of great stature, truly independent, and so forth. Then we had the commissioner come before the committee and indicate that he was quite comfortable in the current situation, being at Elections Canada, and felt that he was truly independent and was favourable to staying there.

Why does the member think the government took it upon itself and went against the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Chief Electoral Officer and pulled that office outside of the Elections Canada?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very troubling. Everyone is saying that they are completely comfortable with the situation. The electoral “deform” minister is saying that if the Commissioner is not part of Elections Canada, he will be less partisan, as though Elections Canada were partisan. It is the same old pattern: Elections Canada investigated the Conservatives and put the blame on them. Elections Canada did its work with regard to the party in power, and the party in power took that as partisanship—as a bias against the party—and responded with accusations about the integrity of Elections Canada.

It makes no sense, especially since the Commissioner is being placed under the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions. He will have less protection from government interference or interference from the party in power. That is another very odd measure.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech and all of the work she does in the House and in her riding.

We have often said that there are some key elements missing from the infamous Bill C-23. No one supports the bill. Even in my riding, Joliette, people have often spoken out against this method of reforming the Canada Elections Act.

The Commissioner of Canada Elections requested the power to compel witnesses to appear. However, that is not in the bill and the Commissioner, who will now work for the Director of Public Prosecutions, was not granted that power. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent question.

We repeatedly asked for the commissioner to have the power to compel witnesses. This is not a complex or revolutionary idea. Many provinces in Canada do it. Many countries do it. It would be one more way to ensure the integrity of elections in Canada. However, I do not think that the integrity of elections in Canada is one of the Conservative government's priorities.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for her spirited and passionate presentation on the unfair elections act. I believe we are debating the amendment moved by the member for Toronto—Danforth in which he proposes that we decline to give third reading to this legislation. I entirely agree with my colleague.

By way of introduction, I would like to comment on the process and comment on the implications of this legislation for my riding of Victoria.

I am deeply proud of my fellow citizens in Victoria. I had a sign on the window of my office on the main street of Victoria asking people to come in and sign a petition registering their concern with this legislation. I can say without fear of contradiction that the number of people who came in was extraordinary, and they came from all political walks of life. Members of all political parties came in and expressed their disdain for this proposed suppression law that the bill clearly has become.

Progressive Conservatives such as David Crombie and Allan Gregg expressed their concern earlier with the bill, indicating that it was a blatant attempt to suppress votes. That was loud and clear in one of the meetings that was held in my riding. Business people, wealthy people, poor people, and people from all political parties expressed their deep concern over the bill.

I was very proud of the people of Victoria for speaking up against this atrocious legislation. As I said, people from all political parties and from all walks of life expressed their concern.

It was the elephant in the room when in question period the Minister of State for Democratic Reform could not bring himself to utter the words “Sheila Fraser”, who said that the bill was an attack on our democracy. That refusal to even acknowledge someone Canadians hold in such great esteem was an indication of what the Conservatives thought of her commentary. They then trivialized her, saying that she was being paid or something. Those statements were made to take away from the serious concerns that this great Canadian had expressed.

Our leading newspaper, The Globe and Mail, published five editorials in a row, ending with one that said “Kill the bill”. Newspapers across this country and speakers on the radio said the same thing in different ways in speaking to their parts of the country. It became clear to Canadians that it was not just the official opposition that was doing everything it could to stop the bill.

I am so proud of my colleague from Hamilton Centre, who filibustered in committee. I am proud of the enormous work that was done by the member for Toronto—Danforth and the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. This upheaval in Canada was astounding. Civil society, academics, people on the street, and people in all walks of life were rising up and saying this travesty must stop.

I was pleased that the government accepted some of the proposed amendments that were made by the official opposition. We made 100 of them. Of course, the Conservatives let their ideology undermine this once again, and they shut us down in committee with only half of our amendments debated, something that should cause Canadians deep concern. However, perhaps that is not surprising, given the track record of the Conservatives in breaking elections law, overspending, the in-and-out scheme, attempts to suppress opposition votes, and so forth.

For the Prime Minister to say that the Chief Electoral Officer was “wearing a jersey” was shocking to a lot of Canadians. This is an officer of Parliament who is only appointed after consultation with other parties in the House and who enjoys virtually the same kind of independence that judges do. The statement was shocking because the Chief Electoral Officer was only doing his job, and people understood that. He was trying to prosecute Conservatives for their rule-breaking. That was his job, but perhaps he did it too well, and that is why that attack was levelled against this officer of Parliament, a development that lot of us found very concerning.

The minister said this morning that the bill is widely supported by Canadians. He has not been to my riding of Victoria to take that position. If he had seen the people on the streets demonstrating against the bill, if he had come to a meeting I organized that had hundreds of people in attendance from all walks of life, he would not have said that.

The changes that were made, some of which I would like to comment on, are very good in some cases. I agree entirely with the minister's suggestion that the bill now incorporate advance rulings and legal interpretations that other parties could use as precedents. I salute that as an effective amendment and something that we should support.

However, I still do not understand the government's perspective on voter participation as it is reflected in this bill. We have a crisis in our democracy of young people not voting. It is a shocking statistic to see that two-thirds of people under the age of 30 do not bother to show up and vote, yet the effectiveness of this bill in trying to promote voting would be limited to high schools and elementary schools. What about the university sector? What about the outreach that the Chief Electoral Officer was trying to achieve? That seems to have been shut down in the face of what is our biggest problem, which is not voter fraud but voter participation. That is something that needs to be addressed, since the agency can only advertise the basics of the election. I am distressed that it continues to be a problem in this legislation.

The Chief Electoral Officer can suggest that MPs be suspended for disputes over election spending irregularities, but apparently now that can only happen when the entire appeal process has been exhausted. Therefore, even in cases of glaring, obvious errors and overspending problems, we presumably would have to wait until it got to the Supreme Court of Canada, which in some cases might mean the person would be elected for his or her entire term, given the way our appeal structure works. In at least some circumstances, that seems to be inappropriate indeed.

In his presentation, my colleague from Toronto—Danforth characterized this as a bad bill that is less bad now. I would say it is a terrible bill that is simply now a bad bill in light of the amendments.

As two prominent Progressive Conservatives, David Crombie and Allan Gregg, have said, this is a blatant effort to stack the deck for the Conservatives. I think Canadians understand that.

For example, the fundraising limits have been raised in this legislation. The fundraising limits now suggest that individual contributions would go from a $1,200 maximum to a $1,500 maximum. Clearly that would favour the party that receives the biggest contributions. That would be the Conservative Party. As well, it would allow candidates to contribute up to $5,000 to their own campaign. I wonder who that would favour. That would be the Conservatives.

Every NDP amendment to remove these provisions was categorically refused by the government. Those concerns are still with us.

Many speakers have talked about the unnecessary separation between the Commissioner of Canada Elections, Elections Canada, and the Chief Electoral Officer. As the minister said, there is administration and there is enforcement, but since the commissioner agreed with that and wanted it, it is hard for us to understand why that change was necessary. According to the old adage, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”.

In addition, powers were also sought for the commissioner to compel witnesses, as in section 11 of the Competition Act and as is done in other provinces and other countries routinely. That was also sought by the commissioner; the government, of course, would have none of it and moved it outside of the Elections Canada apparatus. It now, at the last moment, has to change it to have information-sharing agreements to deal with the problem it created in the first place through an absolutely unnecessary and uncalled-for amendment.

In conclusion, I would support the amendment of the member for Toronto—Danforth that we decline to give third reading to this bill. I wish we were not in this state. I wish the government had not moved closure to limit debate on one of the most fundamental bills in our democracy, but here we are, and I sadly rise in utter opposition to this voter suppression legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the member's concluding comments. He was talking about how sad it is to see the bill go through a terrible process, given that it is an election law that we are talking about. The Conservative majority government is using its majority and not doing the consultation that is important to do and not working with the different stakeholders on the issue.

In fact, it bears repeating that numerous amendments were brought to the committee, and a good percentage of those amendments were never debated when the motion was called. A good number of those amendments were quickly tossed to the side because at the end of the day the Conservatives moved a motion to impose a deadline of May 1 at 5 p.m. It did not matter what stage the committee was at.

It speaks volumes that even at second reading, we had time allocation. At third reading, where we are today, there is time allocation. The government has taken it upon itself to ram through this Conservative election bill.

I wonder if the member might want to provide some additional comment on the management of one of those fundamental pillars of our society, which is democracy and the importance of election laws.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his very thoughtful commentary and question.

The process that has accompanied this organic law that is one of the fundamentals of our Canadian democracy is nothing short of appalling. Of course, hundreds of academics from Canada and around the world called attention to that situation.

The record speaks for itself. We had time allocation, as it is called, imposed very early in the process. The NDP provided 256 questions along with our cross-country hearings, which of course the Conservatives chose not to support and indeed attempted to squelch. In addition to all of that, the filibustering that was necessary and the fact that half of the amendments were not even allowed to be debated in the committee speak volumes to the disdain with which the government addressed our opposition amendments to improve this bill in good faith. If it was not the Conservatives' idea, it could not be a good one, so the only amendments accepted in committee were those that dealt with grammar and the like. It is shocking.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He discussed how the committee went about studying the bill. Specifically, he talked about how the amendments were presented. I would like him to share his opinion about how the committee dealt with witnesses.

Some 70 witnesses appeared to speak to this bill. Although they were virtually unanimous on several aspects of the bill, the Conservatives do not seem to have taken that into account with respect to several potential amendments.

For example, with respect to the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer to investigate electoral fraud, the witnesses seemed to nearly unanimously suggest changes to the bill. The bill before us at third reading does not reflect that at all.

Was the government's purpose just to invite people to appear, let them talk, and then carry on doing what it planned to do in the first place? I thought that the whole point of committee work was to invite experts and take their opinions into consideration. If that is not the point, then why bother asking witnesses to appear before committees?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the way in which this bill was addressed in committee was shocking.

We are always told in this place that we should wait and do the hard slogging, the clause-by-clause analysis, and hear from expert witnesses at committee, because that is where we can improve the bill. That is the way in which it is supposed to work.

However, in my short experience in this place, amendments proposed by the opposition are virtually never accepted, because if it is not the government's idea, it cannot be a good one. That is reflected in spades in what happened in the procedure and House affairs committee during the process of this debate. We invited experts with different perspectives from all across the country to make their presentations. They spoke as one on the need to change key elements on this bill, and all of their efforts were in vain. Nothing was accepted. Half of the amendments never even got debated.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-23, the fair elections act. I would like to take this opportunity to outline how this bill would be a great benefit to our democracy.

Our government understands that the integrity of Canada's voting system is paramount to our democracy. It is vital that we protect the integrity of the system, so that everyday Canadians remain in charge of our democracy. That is why the bill has been met with support by Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

My hon. colleagues have spoken at length about the many facets of this landmark legislation. The fair elections act would ensure that our elections are fair and democratic. As members of all parties, we are entrusted by Canadians to act in the interests of protecting the integrity of our electoral process. The fair elections act would provide all members an opportunity to uphold that obligation.

I would like to add that the government undertook extensive consultations in drafting this legislation. The bill brings to light concerns raised by Canadians, various groups and think tanks, Elections Canada, and parliamentarians themselves. The fair elections act addresses those concerns and would improve the system by introducing a new standard of consistency.

We promised to examine the bill with openness to ideas that would strengthen this common sense bill. That is why on April 25 the government announced it would support amendments to the fair elections act.

The committee has had a long and extensive study of Bill C-23. There have been 15 meetings, amounting to roughly 31 hours of study. In addition, 72 witnesses appeared at committee to offer insight into how we could further strengthen this bill.

I would like to begin by discussing the issue of vouching. First, I want to emphasize an important element of the fair elections act, which is the changes it would make to the identification process. As it stands, the current system has been unable to preserve the integrity of the electoral process. In fact, serious errors of a type the courts consider “irregularities” that can contribute to an election being overturned were found to occur in 42% of cases involving identity vouching.

Overall, the Neufeld report estimates that irregularities occurred for 1.3% of all cases of election day voting during the 2011 federal election. More than 12 million Canadian citizens cast ballots, and the audit indicates that the application of specific legal safeguards, in place to ensure each elector is actually eligible to vote, were seriously deficient in more than 165,000 cases due to systematic errors made by elections officials.

Averaged across 308 ridings, elections officers made more than 500 serious administrative errors per electoral district on election day. These levels are just too high. We must recognize that a fraudulent or illegitimate vote has the same mathematical effect as denying honest Canadians their constitutional right and privilege to cast a ballot.

The Neufeld report cites cases of fraudulence and irregularities that are far too high. We cannot let the electoral system continue on its current flawed trajectory. That is why the fair elections act would finally end the use of vouching as a means of identification.

Our government believes that it is important to let every eligible voter cast a ballot. By the same token, we believe that fraudulent voters should be ineligible to cast a ballot. The safeguards that current laws established to halt fraudulent voters were violated in 50,735 cases, 42% of the time, in the 2011 election according to Elections Canada's own compliance report. We cannot continue to abide by the current vouching procedures and expect different results in future elections.

It is evident that changing times have brought about changing threats to the integrity of the electoral process. That is why I am pleased with the direct manner in which the fair elections act would proactively keep up with changing conditions.

The fair elections act represents a giant leap forward in ensuring that the integrity of the electoral process is upheld.

The bill would require voters to choose from some 39 pieces of acceptable identification to prove their identity and residency. Photo ID would not be required. However, simply having someone vouch for a voter's identity, without so much as a utility bill to back it up, would no longer suffice.

While the fair elections act would require people to show ID proving who they are before they vote, we supported an amendment to help people whose address is not on their ID. If someone's identification does not have an address on it, they would need to sign a written oath of residence. Another voter with fully proven ID would be required to co-sign the oath, attesting to the voter's address. This would only be required for people whose identification does not have an address.

This is one of the reasons why Canadians overwhelmingly support the bill. In fact, 87% of Canadians believe it is reasonable to require someone to prove their identity and address before they can vote.

As a resident of Ontario, I recently had the opportunity to apply for a new OHIP card in my riding of Don Valley West. In applying for Ontario health insurance, one must provide proof of citizenship, proof of residency, and support of identity. That is three pieces of identification. With that level of scrutiny required for an OHIP card, it is only right to support a bill that requires a similar level of identification be provided for voters in our federal elections. What our government will not support is the opposition suggesting that people should not require any ID to vote.

This is another reason why Canadians are on board with the bill. According to an April 24, 2014, Ipsos poll, 70% of Canadians believe it is acceptable to eliminate vouching and require voters to personally prove their identity and address before voting. Our government believes that in a democratic country all eligible citizens have the right to participate in making the decisions that affect them. The fair elections act would ensure that an honest vote is not denied by fraudulent votes. The fact is that the fair elections act represents a giant leap forward in ensuring that the integrity of the electoral process is, in fact, upheld.

Another important element of the bill is that it would separate the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Chief Electoral Officer. Quite simply, the Commissioner of Canada Elections should not serve at the pleasure of another official. He should have control over his staff and his budget, and no one should have the power to dictate what he investigates. It just makes sense that the commissioner should not work for one of the entities he might investigate. This is in keeping with basic fiduciary accountability and standards that government departments and institutions use to ensure their functions are carried out properly and ethically.

Our government understands that separating administration from enforcement is vital to upholding the integrity of our electoral process. That is precisely why the fair elections act would house the commissioner with the director of public prosecutions. There, elections law enforcement would be held under the auspices of a strong commissioner. We have made him completely independent by giving him authority to investigate offences. The commissioner would also be afforded full independence with regard to being in charge of his own staff and his own investigations, as well as a fixed term of seven years, in which he could not be dismissed without cause. We gave him new offences to help him in his investigations, such as obstructing an investigation and providing false information.

Our government also supports an amendment that would give the commissioner the unrestricted ability to begin investigations by removing the bill's proposed evidence threshold before the commissioner may begin an investigation.

Working in different entities, our government understands that a line of communication between the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Chief Electoral Officer would be required to perform their duties effectively. As a result, our government supports an amendment that would allow the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections to exchange information and documents.

Meanwhile, the CEO currently has the power to adapt provisions of the Elections Act during emergencies. It is highly unusual to give an unelected agency head the power to rewrite any section of an act of Parliament. Our government believes that the purpose of this power should be limited to protecting the right to vote, which is in line with basic democratic principles.

In addition, members of all parties have complained that the rules are unclear and complicated. Complicated rules cause unintentional breaches and intimidate Canadians from taking part in democracy. That is why the fair elections act would make the rules for the Chief Electoral Officer clear, predictable, and easy to follow.

The fair elections act would continue to equip the CEO with key responsibilities, especially as they relate to educating voters. That is why our government supports an amendment with regard to the education mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer. The Chief Electoral Officer may communicate with the public. Where he advertises to inform electors about the exercise of their democratic rights, he can only do so on how to be a candidate; when, where, and how to vote; and what tools are available to assist disabled electors. Further, the CEO may support civic education programs for primary and secondary schools, something that I know in my riding is a very important element.

I am pleased with the direct manner in which the fair elections act and its amendments would establish ethical and fiduciary investigative independence that is in line with good governance.

Another essential element of this bill is that it would redirect Elections Canada back to its core mandate. As recent elections have shown, Canadians are participating less and less in the voting process. In my constituency of Don Valley West, 67% of eligible voters cast a ballot in the last federal election. Federal voter turnout, however, was even lower at 61%.

Since Elections Canada began promoting voter participation campaigns, turnout has actually plummeted from 75% in 1988 to a low of 61% in 2001, where it has stayed. The facts show that Elections Canada's campaigns are not working. As a result, the bill would amend section 18 of the Canada Elections Act to focus all of Elections Canada promotional campaigns on two purposes: informing people of the basics of voting—where, when, and what ID to bring—and informing disabled people of the extra tools available to them to help them vote and participate in their democracy.

Let me be clear. Elections Canada would continue to be the organization responsible for the administration of our elections. However, the job of generating interest would be left to aspiring candidates and parties. Government bureaucracy should continue to focus on administrative functions and leave the duties of generating interest to the parties and the candidates. That is why the fair elections act would allow parties to better fund democratic outreach with a small increase in spending limits, while imposing tougher audits and penalties to enforce those limits. Aspiring candidates and parties, not a government agency, have a duty to reach out to voters, to inspire them and give them something worth voting for. It is time for the agency to get back to the basics, while political parties get down to the work they are prescribed to do.

Finally, the fair elections act would introduce additional measures to crack down on lawbreakers and fraudsters. These would strengthen the penalties for election lawbreakers, including introducing prison time for serious offenders and tougher fines for rule breakers. For example, anyone caught bribing or obstructing an election official could receive upward of five years in prison, and anyone who makes a false statement could be fined up to $50,000. Investigators would also be afforded more extensive capacities to fulfill their mandates; a number of new rules would close loopholes, crack down on influence of big money, and help stop the election fraud that jeopardizes the system. This includes enhanced protection for voters against robocalls, cracking down on voter fraud by prohibiting vouching, and banning the use of loans used to evade donation rules.

In addition, the fair elections act would introduce guidelines for clear and transparent tracking and records retention of telemarketing, which would help prevent rogue calls and voter deception. It would also introduce measures to track mass calls to protect voters and prevent fraud by creating a mandatory public registry for voter contact services by telephone. The fair elections act would make it an offence to impersonate an election official and increase penalties for deceiving people out of their votes. That is why the fair elections act is a major improvement of the status quo.

It is clear that Bill C-23 is not only constructive, but very reasonable, and we are moving forward.

In closing, the bill would make it harder to break the law and easier to vote, not to mention it would close loopholes to big money. Election laws would be tough and predictable, but easy to follow. Life would be harder for election lawbreakers, and easier for honest citizens, who merely wish to take part in their democracy.

Our government continues to be a leader when it comes to enforcing greater accountability in politics. When we first took office, we passed the most comprehensive anti-corruption legislation in Canadian history, the Federal Accountability Act. This important legislation increased oversight, cracked down on lobbying and expanded transparency in government spending. Now, through the fair elections act, we are building on that strong record in helping to ensure that Canada's democracy remains strong and that its integrity remains upheld.

The fair elections act is an important step forward toward greater transparency and accountability in our elections. These meaningful changes would help strengthen Canada's electoral system and ensure that our democracy would remain in the hands of everyday Canadians.

That is why I vote in favour of the fair elections act. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the House will join me in doing the same.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

A little earlier he spoke of the power to investigate in the event of electoral fraud and I am rather surprised at how different our interpretations are of the effectiveness of the measures in this bill for properly investigating electoral fraud.

I think everyone in the House recognizes that there was major electoral fraud in 2011 and that we must provide essential tools to those who need them in order to shed light on these incidents. Not only was there fraud in 2011, but those responsible for the fraud still have not been identified.

In his 2012-13 annual report, the Commissioner of Canada Elections raised the need for the power to compel witness testimony. The Chief Electoral Officer is calling for more power, including the power to ask for supporting documentation for the expenses claimed during election campaigns. Bill C-23 does not respond to any of those requests.

Does my colleague think that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections do not know what they are talking about? Does he think that a political party is less partisan than these independent experts who are making these types of requests?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, I disagree with the premise on which the question was launched.

The commissioner and the CEO would be separated, according to the bill. Under good governance, fiduciary responsibility is now entrenched in so many parts of our society that it is important the premise be maintained and underpinned in everything we talk about today. We would do that from the perspective of separating the CEO in managing the process and the commissioner in managing investigations and so on.

The commissioner would have the same powers that he has today, and the same powers as the RCMP. We agree that the commissioner must be free to do his job without impediment. That is why the separation of the two would fall with the commissioner working under the Director of Public Prosecutions. That way, he would, very reasonably, be able to operate in an unfettered environment and according to the fiduciary standards that are, again, inherent in our society.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one aspect of the member's speech I want to draw attention to are the requirements to obtain an OHIP card. I wonder if we are not comparing apples to oranges here. When it comes to OHIP cards, we know that, unfortunately, people over the years have tried to defraud OHIP, but that is a very different case than trying to vote illegally.

In the case of defrauding OHIP, there is an actual financial benefit to the person who would defraud that system. However, when it comes to committing election fraud, and we are talking about one person voting who would not have the right to do so, first, it is not a financial benefit and second, it is not benefiting the person directly, but may benefit that person's candidate, party or whatever. Therefore, I do not think that is a fair comparison.

I would like the hon. member's comments on that.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. I did not want to use the comparison to necessarily say that one equals the other. Clearly, there are differences between OHIP and the right of a voter.

In fact, the privilege and the right to vote is more important than any other democratic standard we have available to Canadians today. I merely pointed that out to the degree that from an identification process, the Ontario health insurance program has rigid rules and processes in place where one simply cannot get a health card without three very well-defined pieces of identification, including photo identification.

I believe, very consciously, that our right to vote is the greatest privilege we as Canadians have today. To that end, we must take very seriously the identification processes, the issue of eliminating vouching to the degree that we have for identity as a mandate to ensure we uphold the very highest level of electoral standard that we possibly can.

Clearly, I outlined that in my presentation today.

[Bal Gosal, Conservative, Minister of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for an excellent interpretation of the fair elections act. It is greatly appreciated by Canadians, after travelling around and talking them about the identification about which the member talked.

When my colleague went back to his riding and consulted with the people who elected him, what were their views on the fair elections act?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was involved actively at the grassroots level talking to my constituents. Clearly, there have been opinions on both sides, but any time I talked to my constituents in Don Valley West about vouching, they mirrored or exceeded the 87% of Canadians who were polled in the Ipsos poll of April 24. They said that it was a reasonable expectation that identification should be proven by the voter.

I have talked to Canadians within my riding, across the city of Toronto and, in fact, across Canada as I have had opportunity. Also, I should add, in my riding I led a round table discussion on this very issue at the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to address issues of voting for the disabled, in this case, the sight impaired and the blind. Clearly, our position on this is well entrenched in the minds of the people to whom I have talked, and they are very supportive.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech of my distinguished colleague with whom it is always a joy to work.

The problem is that the bill was introduced without consensus of Parliament. That is a problem. This is the first time in the history of Canada that a political party is introducing a bill that tips the scales in favour of its re-election. Generally speaking, for electoral law to be credible in the public's eyes, it not only has to be independent, but it also has to have the appearance of being independent. In that sense, Bill C-23 has completely missed the mark.

Every stakeholder, every editorial writer, every representative from the Barreau du Québec and every stakeholder on the electoral front have said that this is a bad bill. Thankfully some amendments were proposed. Indeed, we went from an unacceptable and anti-democratic bill to just a bad bill. It is still bad because no one approves of it except for the Conservatives.

Is it okay for legislation as important as the Canada Elections Act to be introduced without consensus?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I talked about the extent to which the committee opened its doors and heard the views of Canadians, many eminent and very well-respected Canadians, who took the time and energy to come to Ottawa to present their testimony as witnesses at committee.

In my numbers, just to reflect briefly, the committee had a long and extensive study, with 15 meetings, accounting for roughly 31 hours of study. This was no trivial exercise. This was an extensive study in the House. There were 72 witnesses who appeared at committee. I should also mention that, with regard to my hon. colleague's comment, we allowed every witness the opposition brought forward to committee to testify. That is an incredible statement.

It ran hearings across the country and brought a series of witnesses for whom the government, the committee itself, opened its doors to and clearly heard from.

I believe the democratic process has been well entrenched in the bill and that hearing the opinions of Canadians has been more than adequately met.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are yet again showing their contempt for our democracy by restricting debate on a bill that addresses such an important issue as electoral reform.

Bill C-23 would make significant changes to the quality of our democratic institutions without in-depth public consultations and without the expert opinions of the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Director of Public Prosecutions, or even the Chief Electoral Officer.

This bill is quite simply a partisan stunt on the part of the government, which sees this bill as a way to hold on to power. This bill is an attack on the democratic rights of vulnerable groups.

Now, in order to vote, a voter is able to present their voter information card or show up with someone who can vouch for their identity. However, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform wants to eliminate that possibility because he claims that:

...one out of six electors may get a card with the wrong address. That allows some to vote in a different riding than they live in, or to potentially vote more than once.

Instead of fixing this problem, the government chose to eliminate this option altogether, which will have some serious consequences for some groups. During the last election, Elections Canada made a special effort to use voter information cards in various situations, in order to make it easier to vote for certain segments of society who have lower voter turnout, such as aboriginal people living on reserves, young people on campuses or seniors living in seniors' residences.

The provision allowing someone to vote with a voter information card along with a piece of ID, which will be abolished, was used successfully during the last election and it received an incredible amount of positive feedback.

The minister certainly loves to claim over and over that a person will be able to use 39 different pieces of ID to prove their identity. However, what he is forgetting is that only a few of these pieces of ID show a person's address. I repeat: only a few. For example, a health care card does not have an address, nor do passports and student cards. I could go on. As a result, a number of people will have to present two documents to have the right to vote, and those documents will have to be from the list.

As we all know, voter turnout in Canada is plummeting. Why is the government making it more difficult for seniors, students and aboriginal people living on reserves to vote by prohibiting the use of the voter information card as proof of address?

I am also concerned about another related factor. This bill prevents the development of electronic voting. From now on, Elections Canada will have to seek Parliament's approval to set up pilot projects of this kind. The purpose of Elections Canada is to improve our electoral system. Electronic voting would allow seniors and people with disabilities to vote, but again the government is turning a deaf ear and restricting Elections Canada's work.

The government is amending the law in its favour by changing the funding rules. This is a thinly veiled attempt by the Conservatives to serve their own interests by increasing the maximum annual donation from $1,200 to $1,500. The Conservatives are doing the exact opposite of what they say they are trying to do, which is reduce the influence of big money in elections.

The fact that candidates will be able to invest $5,000 in their own campaigns will give those with the ability to do so a significant advantage. What kind of democracy is that?

The NDP proposed close to 100 amendments to improve this bad bill. None of the substantial amendments proposed by the NDP were accepted by the Conservative Party, which of course had a majority in committee. One of these amendments sought to remove the provision on funding. Unfortunately, it was rejected, much like most of the NDP's amendments.

In a move that showed their contempt for Canadian democracy, the Conservatives shut down the work of the committee that was examining the electoral “deform” bill when half of the amendments proposed by the NDP had not even been debated yet.

Since this government came to power, it has done nothing but restrict Canadians' rights. It abuses its majority to impose bills that are not in the best interests of Canadians.

This is another sham of a debate. The Conservatives have once again imposed a time allocation motion, which prevents us from conducting an in-depth examination of this elections bill. The way the government is behaving and preventing us from fulfilling our parliamentary mandate is shameful. We are being silenced. The government must know that it needs a consensus to change the Elections Act. It should not be resorting to the tyranny of the majority to impose changes that serve its own needs.

Mr. Speaker, excuse me, but I would like to let you know that I am going to share my time with my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

The Conservative government wants to make the voting process more difficult for the most vulnerable Canadians, especially those who do not support their ideology. It is a form of discrimination that calls to mind some American practices under the Bush Republican presidency.

How can we encourage Canadians to participate in their country's democratic process when their institutions are broken?

Obviously, I oppose this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do so as well, in the name of democracy.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent speech. She did a remarkable job in clearly explaining the whole anti-democratic nature of this bill. Changes should not be made to democratic institutions without first consulting the opposition parties and the civilian population to ensure there is a consensus.

We know that in Quebec, the province I represent, a change was made recently to our democratic institutions to reduce party funding to $100 a person, instead of increasing it. You heard that right: $100 a person. Why did they do that? To limit the influence of corporations that might then ask the government for benefits that the corporations would feel were owed to them.

This amendment to the Quebec legislation was adopted unanimously. A consensus was obtained before the bill was introduced. Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not do their job. They did not try to obtain a consensus by drafting a good bill that would have supported democratic reform for the good of Canadians. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are not representing Canadians through this bill. They are only representing the Conservatives, which is appalling. When you are elected to government, you must represent all Canadians, not just the interests of the Conservatives.

I wanted to add that comment to my colleague's excellent speech. I do not know whether she wants to add anything about the need to obtain a consensus before reforming democratic institutions or about the need to reduce the limit of donations from Canadians instead of increasing the power of money.