Debates of May 8th, 2014

Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, this “has nothing to do with democracy”, the Canada Elections Act. Did I hear the minister correctly?

I would like the minister to listen to what the Prime Minister said, “...using time allocation for electoral law, doing it quickly and without consent of the other political parties, is...dangerous...”. He then went on to analogize any government that would do that to third world dictatorships.

Something has changed on that side of the House. The Conservatives got in by virtue of an unfair election system that produces 40% of the vote and leaves them with 54% of the seats. They think that gives them the right to ram through massive butchery of the Canada Elections Act. It is incredibly disingenuous of the minister to now cite the Chief Electoral Officer, who said this needs to get through by the end of this session, because the Chief Electoral Officer at the time, a year ago, had no idea you would be butchering this act.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. Again, I would remind the member that he is to direct his comments to the Chair, not to the other side of the chamber.

The hon. minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is the Chief Electoral Officer himself said that the changes to the act needed to be passed by spring of 2014. Of course, it is not the job of the Chief Electoral Officer to write the law. That is the job of democratically elected officials. That is what we have done. We have put forward good legislation. It has been thoroughly studied and improved through amendments.

Let me just share the facts. Since it has been introduced there were 15 committee meetings to study the bill, amounting to roughly 31 hours of study. We had 72 witnesses offer their points of view. In addition to all of that, we have probably had about a hundred questions on the floor of the House of Commons. I have answered every single one of them through facts. The aftermath of those exchanges is that Canadians, through all the public opinion research that has been published, overwhelmingly support the fair elections act. We have won this debate and now we are moving forward with a law that Canadians want.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been almost a hundred times, probably close to a thousand if we include committees and other procedural motions that have been put forward by the government, that there has been closure in the House of Commons.

In terms of sports critic, we have a huge event that is potentially coming up on Monday. Monday is game 6 of the Canadiens-Boston series. It is a unifying event that is possibly going to happen, where all Canadians are going to be watching. They are the only Canadian hockey team left in the playoffs. Why is the government choosing Monday to sit down and vote for two hours when we can all rally around the Montreal Canadiens?

Does the government has something to hide? Are the Conservatives hiding? What do they have to hide? They could put this off for another week.

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

Mr. Speaker, did he actually just ask that question? I am sorry, but my friend across the way would rather be watching a sporting event than doing his job here in the House of Commons.

It is a very important sporting event and I will make the commitment to him that I will find him an effective Twitter feed that will keep him regularly updated on the score of the game. I would also be happy to keep him updated on the score of the votes on the floor of the House of Commons. There is a lot of suspense about how it might turn out, but I think in the end the result will be in the Canadians' favour.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what a letdown. What blatant disregard for democracy. When I came to Canada, I came because I was looking for a country where I believed democracy to be strong. These debates are one of the strengths of the parliamentary system. They are its strength and its wealth.

The minister says that this bill will pass because the people elected the government to pass it. I would like him to tell me how our fellow citizens were consulted on such radical changes to the Elections Act. I would like him to give me a clear answer about how he sought people's opinion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fair elections act will keep democracy in the hands of everyday Canadians. One of the ways it would do that is through the common sense change to require people to show their ID when they vote. Overwhelmingly, Canadians believe this is a fair and reasonable request. The opposition believes that individuals should be able to turn up without any identification whatsoever and cast their ballot by having someone else vouch for their identity.

Our bill, the fair elections act, as amended, would end identity vouching altogether and require every single Canadian to show their ID prior to voting. It is a disagreement we have with the opposition. We have had this debate, and the Canadian people have pronounced the verdict. Eighty-seven per cent of them believe that an ID requirement is fair and reasonable and that is exactly what the bill will require.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we see closure in the House of Commons.

We are at report stage. We are reporting back many amendments that have been made to the bill. Many of these amendments need some disclosure within the House of Commons. We need to talk about the amendments that have been made.

Why is the government taking this tack? The bill was first presented as being a complete bill and has now gone through many amendments, yet is still imperfect, and we are being refused the opportunity to discuss those amendments.

Why is the government doing this?

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

Mr. Speaker, the fair elections act provides a fair and reasonable update to the Canada Elections Act. For example, it would require that every single Canadian who presents himself or herself to vote to present ID. Overwhelmingly, Canadians accept that this is a fair and reasonable requirement.

The opposition disagrees. Those members believe that people should be able to show up with no ID whatsoever and cast their votes just by having someone vouch for who they are. That is not fair, that is not reasonable, and that is why we have rejected that proposal by the NDP and the Liberals.

Canadians had a chance to hear this debate. There has been much witness testimony on it, and 87% of Canadians agree with us on that point.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question in regard to this.

Obviously, I was one of the members in an almost unanimous vote to make sure that the Chief Electoral Officer had the powers at his disposal to deal with any questions or issues with respect to illegal robocalls or someone impersonating an elections official. I think that is something all of us felt very strongly about and voted in favour of.

The minister has mentioned that there are time and administrative pressures that are going to be upon the Chief Electoral Officer if these powers are not bestowed upon him. It is a part of the bill that I think we all agree absolutely needs to go forward.

Could he explain the reason the bill needs to go forward in all due haste to give the Chief Electoral Officer those powers and the ability to tackle the administrative challenges for the next election?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the fair elections act does a lot to improve compliance with election law.

For example, it would make the Commissioner of Canada Elections independent, so he would be able to direct his own investigations, hire his own staff, and make his own decisions. He would also have a fixed term, which means that he cannot be fired without cause over his seven-year period in office. That is the kind of independence we need to ensure good, solid enforcement of the act. It is a very big improvement over the status quo, whereby the commissioner is under the control of the CEO of Elections Canada. The CEO can fire him at any time and hires him in the first place. He has the legal authority to pick his staff, set his budget, and direct the investigations, direct the inquiries.

We are changing that. No longer would the CEO have any involvement in that area, which properly belongs to the enforcement side. That independence is new, strong, and absolute. We think that will improve compliance under the act, and we look forward to a new era of this improved enforcement and compliance with the law.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Toronto brought up a good point in committee. He said that about 87% of people agree with the identification process. One question that was not asked was whether they considered vouching to be a part of that identification. The question was therefore really incomplete when the minister came to the conclusion he did.

The minister talked about independence. Without the powers, it is not an exercise in independence. It will prove over time to be an exercise in isolation from an effective job without the powers being given to him. Again, to use the analogy, it is the referee wearing the referee jersey but not having a whistle, or one that is effective.

I want to quote from an Australian newspaper. Dennis Shanahan, a popular columnist in Australia, had this to say:

Canada’s Conservative government, embroiled in a furor after disenfranchising 120,000 voters by changing identification standards, has demonstrated the way not to go about important electoral reform. Australia’s changes should be driven by parliament’s multi-party Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

What a novel idea. We are setting a bad example.

When the changes were made about the modicum of vouching the minister brought back in, who inspired him to make those small changes?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for not only his question but for his very thoughtful contribution to the debate throughout the process.

What we have proposed with the amended fair elections act is the following. We have eliminated identity vouching. That is the process whereby people show up with no ID whatsoever and cannot demonstrate who they are, so someone else vouches for their identity. That would no longer be permitted under the Canada Elections Act.

Every single person would be required to provide ID. If that ID did not have an address on it, for example, if a person lived in an area where there was only a P.O. box on the driver's licence, someone else could co-sign an oath with the person as to the person's place of residence. A person would still have to prove his or her identity, but residence could be proven through a co-signed oath.

There would be a $50,000 fine for lying on that oath, and potential jail time could accompany that fine. For the first time, Elections Canada would be required by law to compile a list of all the oath-takers in order to check for duplicates to find out if people voted or signed oaths more than once, which would be an offence under the act.

Finally, there would also be a legal requirement for an auditor to examine Elections Canada's management of this oath-taking process to make sure that all of these rules were followed. In other words, people would have to show their ID, and if an oath had to be signed to prove residence, we would follow up to make sure that the person did not vote more than once. That is a massive improvement over the status quo.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is utterly absurd.

An MP asked for a day off so he could watch hockey, even though he can watch it later, and a minister is limiting the speaking time that we are entitled to in our democracy.

They are certainly breaking records when it comes to time allocation. We are here to say what we think about bills and to ensure progress in our society. We have the right to express our opinions on these issues.

Can the minister tell us what is happening to democracy? Like a broken record, he keeps giving us the same answers. He does not answer our questions truthfully or candidly.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is complaining that I am repeating my answers. I do not change them because the truth does not change. I keep repeating the truth.

The debate is on the issue of identification. Under the fair elections act, we will require people to show some ID in order to vote.

The NDP believes that people should be able to vote without showing any ID. None whatsoever. They think that people could simply vote by getting someone to vouch for them.

That does not make sense, and Canadians agree with us on that. Vouching will no longer be an option. People will have to show ID in order to vote, and Canadians overwhelmingly agree that this makes sense.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have no questions for the minister because I do not believe him. I think his answers are illogical and short on the truth. I do not have a question, but I have two comments.

First, I think it is a shame that the government is once again limiting the number of speakers from each party to 10% or 15%—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of unparliamentary language here today, such as accusing other members of being untruthful. That is the same as accusing the hon. member of lying.

No one gets into public service and stands in his or her spot here to try to distort anything. If the members have questions, they should supplant them and not try to smear a minister or any member of this House.

I would ask you to rule on this, Mr. Speaker, because I have heard a number of things—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Without any hesitation, the use of the terms “untruthful” or “lacking in truth”, that type of terminology has been accepted in this House. For as long as I have been here, it is acceptable parliamentary language.

I would have to rule against the objection.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a shame that only 10% or 15% of members will have the opportunity to speak to such an important bill, including a whole host of amendments that have been made. What is more, a hundred or more other amendments will have to be considered. We will have just one day to do all that. This behaviour is totally unacceptable.

As for my second comment, those of us on this side of the House who are against the bill have a duty to remind Canadians of what the government has imposed with its majority between now and the next election. Indeed, what this government is doing is undermining our democratic process.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the member did not read the bill, so he does not know what he is talking about. He did not talk about any of the bill's content. If I were him, I think I too would avoid mentioning the content, because he is voting against common sense measures.

I have no doubt that his constituents agree that Canadians need to show ID to vote. Canadians agree that an independent investigator is needed, and the bill will make that happen. Canadians completely agree that we need to eliminate the process his party used to circumvent the donation limits by claiming that hundreds of millions of dollars in donations were major loans.

Canadians agree with this bill. Every poll shows it. We won the debate on this issue, and that is why the member neglected to mention the content of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have many questions I would like to ask the minister because this bill is so problematic and contains so many elements that will undermine our democracy.

A little earlier on, the minister mentioned the number of hours we had to examine this bill in committee. The reality is that all of the witnesses who came to talk about Bill C-23 pointed out the various problems with it and spoke about how it would be a real problem for our Canada Elections Act. In their opinion, there are many provisions that will not have the intended effect.

I think it is terrible that the minister is quoting the Chief Electoral Officer to justify the fact that he is now limiting the debate, because the Chief Electoral Officer himself came to committee to talk about just how many problems this bill will cause if it is passed.

As a result, I would like the minister to explain how he plans to continue introducing this type of bill when Bill C-23 does not even make any improvements to the Canada Elections Act. None of the requests made by the Commissioner of Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer regarding this bill were granted, and I do not understand why.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is complaining that we did not give unelected people the power to draft the bill, but we live in a democracy. Elected officials make the laws. That is why we have put forward a bill that Canadians support. The fundamental principles of the bill are overwhelmingly supported by Canadians.

Those principles are as follows: voters must show identification in order to vote; investigators should be independent; and Elections Canada advertising should focus solely on where, how and when to vote.

Those are common sense principles and Canadians agree. In a democracy, elected officials make the laws. I am proud to live here, in this democracy, and to help pass a bill that will make it even better.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. Iit is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.