Debates of May 7th, 2014

Motions in Amendment

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 73.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-23, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 49 with the following:

“years after the end of the election period, and provide to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission,”

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-23, in Clause 77, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 49 the following:

“348.161 For the purposes of determining the period of time during which each script is to be kept in accordance with section 348.16, the three-year period starts from the last time that the same or substantially similar script is used by the same caller.”

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-23, in Clause 77, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 49 the following:

“348.161 For greater certainty, the requirement referred to in section 348.16 to keep the scripts and recordings described in that section for three years does not preclude the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission from establishing a system of voluntary commitments for calling service providers in which they pledge to keep scripts and recordings for periods longer than three years.”

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 51 the following:

“351.11 No third party that failed to register shall incur election advertising expenses of a total amount of $500 or more.”

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 80.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 82.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 83.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 84.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 85.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 86.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 87.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 88.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 89.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 90.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 91.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 92.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 93.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 94.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 94.1.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 95.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 96.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 97.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-23, in Clause 97, be amended

(a) by replacing line 30 on page 195 with the following:

“(a.1) section 351.1 (registered and non-registered foreign third party ex-”

(b) by replacing line 4 on page 196 with the following:

“(a.1) section 351.1 (registered and non-registered foreign third party ex-”

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 98.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 99.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 100.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 101.

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 102.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 103.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 104.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 105.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 106.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 107.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 108.

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 109.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 110.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 111.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 112.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 114.

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 115.

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 116.

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 117.

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 120.

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 121.

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Motion No. 116

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 135.

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 139.

Motion No. 125

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 140.

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 141.

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 142.

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 143.

Motion No. 129

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 144.

Motion No. 130

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 145.

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 146.

Motion No. 132

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 133

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-23, in Clause 152, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 242 the following:

“(1.2) The report shall also include any concerns regarding the powers granted to the Commissioner by the Canada Elections Act.”

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

Motion No. 141

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 155.

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 156.

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 157.

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 158.

Motion No. 145

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Schedule 1.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are at report stage on Bill C-23, and it has been a long odyssey to this point; one of considerable resistance to the bill on the part of the official opposition; many sectors of Canadian society, including organizations who have engaged in the fight, academics and so on; and also, we suspect, considerable pushback from some Conservatives who themselves felt the pressure from the opposition and civil society.

It is worth recapping how we came to be where we are at.

In March 2012, the NDP tabled a motion, which then received unanimous support from everybody in the House, to call on the government to table within six months—that is, by September 2012—a bill that would address the issue of prevention of prosecution of fraudulent election calls and also add to the powers of Elections Canada, including the power of the Chief Electoral Officer to require receipts and documentation for national parties' election expenses, which, believe it or not, currently the Chief Electoral Officer does not have access to.

Well, six months later, by September 2012, a bill with that sort of focus to clearly deal with this kind of fraud and the need to enhance the powers of Elections Canada to investigate had never appeared.

By October, it was clear the government was not dealing with the priority it had promised to deal with in voting for the motion in March 2012, and so I tabled a private member's bill with a proposed, and I would say very minimal, system of voter contact registry to deal with fraudulent election calls, as well as a couple of provisions that also went to beefing up the penalties for that kind of fraud.

I told the minister at the time, which is prior to the current minister, that this was effectively to just prod the government and also help it to begin thinking about this issue, because it was clearly having trouble meeting its deadline. I said that I was available to consult as needed and also that I expected that the government, with its resources, it would be able to come up with an even more effective system.

Well, by April 2013, we still had not seen a bill, despite any number of times I stood in this House and asked when we might.

Suddenly the former minister announced to all, in a highly organized press conference on a Tuesday in April, that he would be tabling the missing bill two days later, on a Thursday. The next day we heard rumours, which were confirmed on that Thursday, that this announced bill would not be tabled after all. We will never know exactly what revolt occurred in the Conservative caucus to lead to that result, but we do know that there was a revolt, and the then-minister was replaced with the current minister shortly thereafter.

We had to wait almost a full year after that event, to March of this year, for the bill to finally be tabled, two years after the March 2012 motion when the government had agreed that it would be tabling a bill within six months and 18 months after that deadline passed.

All that time was spent coming up with a bill that we have dubbed “the unfair elections act”, which explains why the first motion at this report stage is to delete the title of the bill, which the government has called “the fair elections act”. We can think of no more Orwellian a title. The government has come close to titles that were equally unrepresentative of the actual contents of bills in the past, but this one, frankly, takes the cake.

The fact of the matter is that the bill was tabled and within 18 hours, as the critic for democratic reform, I had to be on my feet, having read, analyzed, and formed first views on a 242-page bill to reply to the minister at the start of second reading.

Within very short order, the House leader was on his feet and gave notice of time allocation; time allocation came very quickly thereafter, and very little debate on second reading was permitted.

We then went into the committee stage, where there was an effort on the part of the official opposition, the NDP, to convince the procedure and House affairs committee to allow for hearings across the country in order to hear what Canadians thought. My colleague from Hamilton Centre put on a strong filibuster in order to convey to the government how serious we were about this, but ultimately, after 10 hours, he had to concede that the arguments had not penetrated the brick wall.

We went on in committee to have 71 witnesses, only one of whom was completely in support of the bill. It was one out of 71. Most of the others were critical of large swaths of the bill, and where they were focusing only on one or two things, they were extremely critical of what it would do. They included the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, the previous chief electoral officer and commissioner, the former auditor general, and indeed Preston Manning, and the list goes on.

Then we found ourselves in a clause-by-clause process that ended up having an artificial end date. We had 10 hours of clause by clause, and by the time the guillotine came down at five o'clock last Thursday, we had gotten through only one-fifth of the 242 pages in the bill, one-half of the bill in terms of the clauses, and only half of the opposition amendments. In terms of the amendments that had actually been debated and, after clause-by-clause study, voted on, not a single official opposition amendment was voted in favour of by the government. This was a total farce of a process.

We looked, in a constructive spirit, at the government amendments, voted for those that made sense, tried to amend as it made sense, came up with some proposals that we thought were absolutely impeccable from the government's perspective, and the Conservative members still decided not to vote with us.

For example, when it was clear that the government was not going to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to authorize the use of voter information cards as a second piece of identification, when it was clear that we had lost that fight, we tabled an amendment simply saying that the Chief Electoral Officer had to ensure that the voter information cards were prominently marked with a message to say that this card cannot be used for purposes of identification on voting day, something that was designed to prevent chaos that might occur in 2015 because of the hundreds of thousands who were able to use VICs in 2011. It was the simplest of amendments and the most constructive of amendments.

The government had an entire night to reflect on it, because the amendment was moved at two minutes before closing hour the day before. The government members took overnight, came back, and said they were sorry, they could not vote for that. This was the atmosphere that we worked in.

It has to be said that the efforts of the official opposition and civil society resistance produced some major accomplishments in terms of the government standing down. The fundraising exception that was criticized across the country was removed. The central poll supervisor provision that would allow the first place party in the last election to appoint central poll supervisors was also removed.

Vouching for addresses was restored in the bill because of the pressure that we put on. Retention of documents—some documents, in any case—under the voter contact registry went from one year to three years. Public education by Elections Canada was now permitted for students in schools, even though for everybody else it remains prohibited, and we at least got on record, although the government refused to put this in text in the amendments, that the Chief Electoral Officer will be permitted to communicate freely on any subject that he wishes.

These are major accomplishments, and everyone in Canadian society who pushed back with this effort to resist this attack on our democracy, as Sheila Fraser called it, deserves credit for that.

Nonetheless, the remaining issues in the bill are huge. The bill is much worse than the current Canada Elections Act. For that reason, we will be voting against the bill and seeking, as much as possible, to move at report stage the few remaining amendments that are available to us as the official opposition.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know I will be afforded the opportunity to speak to the bill very shortly, but I wanted to get on the record as quickly as possible on the whole issue of process.

It is really important that we recognize that the bill is nothing more than a Conservative piece of legislation for which there is no evidence of any form of genuine consultation beyond members of the Conservative caucus, and from what I understand, not even all members of the Conservative caucus were involved. It is in essence being pushed out, from my best guess, from the Prime Minister's Office.

The Conservatives call it the fair elections act, but it is far from fair. Given the importance of the legislation and democracy here in Canada, would the hon. member not agree that when we change an election law it should be based on consensus and that professional advice should have been sought from organizations such as Elections Canada?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would actually like to decline to answer a question on the fairness of democratic process from that member, considering the role the Liberal Party is currently playing in completely undermining all fair process in the Board of Internal Economy and the procedure and House affairs committee.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as time ticks down, this may be my only chance to speak to the bill at report stage.

I want to thank the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth and the official opposition for standing so clearly with the rights of smaller parties and independents and our ability to speak at report stage and submit substantive amendments when those rights were not respected in the committee process, through no fault of our own.

My question for the member is this: as parliamentarians who love this place and love Westminster parliamentary democracy, what can we do as we watch it consistently reduced, stomped upon, abused, and held in contempt? At what point do we find our way to drive the point home that we are losing democracy in our country?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share and appreciate the passion of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on this point. Over the next year, it is incumbent on all of us not to allow the Canadian public to forget what the bill is all about and what the struggle to at least make it less terrible than it was when it started was all about.

Indeed, we cannot afford to have another government in power that acts the way this government does. Apart from reminding Canadians of what the vote will mean in 2015, Canadians also have to join with the NDP and the Green Party in making sure we change the electoral system to a system that embraces proportional representation so that this kind of government, elected with less than 40% of the vote but with more than 50% of the seats, can never again do what it is doing to this institution.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague who is working very hard on this file.

I had the opportunity to study the bill with him in committee. I would like him to provide a brief overview of everything that is still missing in this bill. For example, we did not have the time in committee to debate clauses and amendments concerning all the different things that will affect the Commissioner of Canada Elections, who investigates electoral fraud. There are a number of things missing with respect to the commissioner's powers.

Could he tell us about that and the different things that are still missing from this bill, which make it unacceptable at present for our Parliament?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whose work I deeply appreciate and with whom it is always a pleasure to work. I will answer in English in order to make this as specific as possible.

It is indeed the case that the Commissioner of Canada Elections is transferred over to the Attorney General's office under the Director of Public Prosecutions. We had no chance to debate that. We had no chance to debate the issue that the Commissioner of Canada Elections would now be dismissible, for cause, by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The fact that the voter information cards remain banned is something that we did not succeed on. The fact that the Chief Electoral Officer cannot have access to party receipts for campaigns and the situation with judicial orders to compel witnesses to co-operate in investigations were also not changed.

As well, public education broadly, beyond students and schools, remains banned, and audio recordings, audio scripts, and phone numbers not only do not have to be conveyed to the CRTC but do not even have to be kept.

These are just a few of the problems that remain in the bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I see the hon. government House leader is rising on a point.

Bill C-23--Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, after committee filibusters, points of order, today's spectacle of slow voting and, of course, 145 report stage amendments being presented, it is not surprising that I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House appreciates such notice.

I will let the hon. member for Winnipeg North know that we have approximately eight minutes remaining in the time for government orders this afternoon. Of course, he will have whatever he does not use of his remaining time when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

Report Stage

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is most interesting that the government House leader chooses this time to stand in his place, when we just get back for report stage a bill that would make fundamental changes to our election laws, to invoke closure, notice of time allocation, which is closure. It is shameful the way the government has used time allocation to get through its legislative agenda. It is time allocation that takes away the ability of members of Parliament to provide due diligence and provide opinions on important legislation.

It is not that it is offending individuals such as myself as much as it is Canadians as a whole. I have a responsibility to represent thousands of people in Winnipeg North, and collectively, we represent Canadians all across this land. We are charged with the responsibility to stand in our place and debate legislation. This government, more than any other government in the history of Canada, has used time allocation as a way to prevent members of Parliament from standing in their places to deal with important legislation.

Ironically, this afternoon we are talking about election laws. That is one of the fundamental pillars of our society. Democracy, freedom, rule of law, all of these are very important. In a couple of days we will be paying tribute to our veterans. Why do they go abroad, whether it is World War II, or World War I, or Korea or Afghanistan on peace missions and so forth, and why do we request our military personnel, both today and in the past, to do this? It is to defend our beliefs. Our fundamental freedoms and democracy are important to Canada, to all Canadians.

This is important legislation and the government continues to use its Conservative majority to abuse rights and thereby Canadians in the passage of this legislation. The legislation is fundamentally flawed and should not be passed. The government failed to recognize the need for change.

The government has ignored the advice of Elections Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, former CEOs. In committee we had presentations from individuals like Sheila Fraser. For the first time ever, we had letters that had been signed by 100-plus political scientists from coast to coast to coast in regard to the way in which the government was changing our election laws. It is wrong.

There is a need for the government, when it changes an election law, to build on a consensus, not the tyranny of a majority to force changes to election laws to fit its needs. That is what we see today a continuation of an abusive majority government that does not recognize the important role we have inside the House of Commons to ensure that the laws we pass are done in due course.

This law does nothing to give the strength, in which Elections Canada and the commissioner wanted, to address the issues that Canadians want addressed. I am referring specifically to the ability to compel witnesses. We have been arguing for this, but more important, Canadians, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner for Elections Canada want the ability to compel witnesses. It is not something completely unique in federal departments.

More important, from my perspective, there are some provincial entities in Canada of an equivalent nature. Elections Manitoba, for example, already has the ability to compel. Why is the ability to compel so critically important? Just take a look at 2011, whether it is the robocalling, the over-expenditures, thousands of inquiries were made from Canadians from all across this land about issues related to the last federal election.

We need to do what we can to restore public confidence in our election laws at a time when there is a great need to build public confidence based on the last election and the cheating and voter suppression that took place. The way in which to do that is to bring in a law that will have some teeth.

I was there when the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner made their presentations. Canada's election law is getting weaker as a result of the government's failure to address that need in itself.

We have challenged the government to allow for a free vote inside the House of Commons on this bill. We want a free vote on this because we believe that ultimately there might be some Conservatives who believe in democracy more so than the Conservative Party and the attitude in which the government has had toward our election laws. We wanted our committee to travel across Canada to different regions, and the government shut that down.

The government did not want to go through a genuine debate on amendments. That is why it put in a deadline of May 1, when we saw amendment after amendment being voted on without discussion or debate because the Conservative majority used its majority to prevent that debate from occurring. There was not one amendment that the government passed that was in opposition, unless we take into consideration that it had the same amendment and it was only because the opposition beat it in its submission of it, so it made it a higher priority. The government did not make the amendments that were necessary to make the bill in the best interest of Canada overall.

The government needs to recognize that we have to do more than just change laws based on time allocation and understand and appreciate that there is a process. The Conservative majority government has been abusing its authority in a number of ways. I would suggest that very few are as offensive as what we have before us today. We have a majority government that, without any consensus or genuine consultation, brought in legislation that would change the rules in the next federal election and has failed in building any sort of support.

Everyone who came before committee expressed concern and acknowledged the need for change. Because the government did a bit of tweaking here and there does not justify the disenfranchising that has taken place, the division and the taking out of Elections Canada the Office of the Commissioner, the inability to compel the witnesses, the silencing of Elections Canada—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We have allowed the hon. member for Winnipeg North to finish through his full 10 minutes. However, he will have five minutes for questions and comments when the House next returns to business, should he wish it.

The House resumed from May 6, 2014, consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion — Temporary Foreign Workers

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:32 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on motion which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #113

The House resumed from April 30 consideration of Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Public Safety and National Security

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-479 under private members' business.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #114

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 1 carried.

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

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.