Debates of April 30th, 2015

Physical Obstruction

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am also a member of PROC and was part of the deliberations in the previous two cases. I have to say, and there is an opportunity for correction, that I was disappointed to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons suggest that somehow there was going to be games played with this in terms of the vote, notwithstanding that the vote is on something that we consider to be very important and we are trying to do everything we can to stop it from passing or being introduced. We are fighting back as hard as we can, but it only takes 50 minutes to conclude the balance of the discussion and have a vote. There is no way this is going to go longer, so I am disappointed the member would suggest that.

Mr. Speaker, I realize you have an opportunity to deliberate and decide whether or not you are going to send this matter to PROC. We would hope you would do it right away. I would hope that given the fact that there is nothing more important than voting and that we have to get here to do it, that anything that impedes any member from getting here is treated as a priority.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you would consider standing and immediately sending this matter to PROC. It is a crucial issue. It is complex. There are security issues beyond that affect a member's ability to move around in terms of guests and other such things. However, the notion that we do not have a system that works is not acceptable. I do not like the idea, and the chair of PROC is probably thinking “here we go again”, but the fact of the matter is, here we go again and we are going to stay on this until we get it resolved, because it is a priority.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will send it immediately to PROC. Let us deal with this. We cannot continue to have this problem coming up over and over again. It needs to be treated as the priority that it is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate my support for the recommendation that you just received, that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be asked to deal with this matter.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, when the motion to make the RCMP the lead agency to take care of security both inside and outside the House and on Parliament Hill was made, I raised an issue and made a suggestion in writing to the government that it should follow a model we have in British Columbia, where if it it is the RCMP that does this, they still have to go through the provincial authorities. Also, in the model in London, England, the city police do it, but they still have to go through parliamentary authorities. Even the government whip who was proposing the motion agreed with that.

Given what has happened today, it would be important that parliamentarians deal with this issue so that the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate could have the input of parliamentarians in dealing with a very important matter. I totally agree that the most significant thing we have to do here is cast a vote and if we are prohibited from coming here, for reasons that may be valid, we still need to figure out a solution, and parliamentarians should be involved in reaching that solution.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we take further interventions on this question of privilege, it occurs to me that the points raised by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and other hon. members have covered the impediment to access to the House in a very detailed and concerted way. I am mindful that these types of exchanges on questions of privilege can sometimes give rise to an expanded commentary pulling in other issues. I am sure that is not intended, but it can sometimes occur.

I see there are two other hon. members rising on this question of privilege. If they have anything additional to say to help our consideration of this particular question, that would be helpful. However, if it is something that has already been essentially presented here in the House by other hon. members, we do have other business in front of the House this afternoon that we will need to get to. Therefore, I would encourage hon. members if they have additional comments, by all means we will hear those, but if it is something that has been covered already, perhaps they could look to the expediency of the work of the House here this afternoon so we can get on with the work ahead.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of impeding the vote, obstruction, is a slam dunk in terms of the issue of privilege. There is no doubt there. There is also the question of debate, which is equally important in the life of a parliamentarian. We saw today the government imposing closure for a 94th and now 95th time, shutting down debate. These are two issues that are linked to a certain extent.

The reality is we have what is a very clear breach of privilege. There is no doubt. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley cited House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 108, certain members claiming to be physically obstructed. There is a clear case of breach of privilege.

What we have from the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is an offer to bring forward the appropriate motion to the House. You have said, Mr. Speaker, that there are other issues that are related to that, but we would submit that you can rule immediately on this, that this is very clearly a case of breach of privilege. It very clearly should lead to a motion in the House and then referral to PROC. You have the ability to make that ruling now. The member can then move that motion and there may be a little further discussion, but it would allow, after the appropriate motion, referral to PROC.

This is a growing problem. As a couple of other members have touched on, it had been aggravated by the government unilaterally pushing aside the Speaker's authority and House of Commons privilege a few weeks ago with the motion it dumped on the House. I think all of us were willing to see what the results were. We are seeing increasingly that breaching of privilege of members on both sides of the House.

This is a growing problem. It is not a problem that is going away, not a problem that is being dealt with. It is a growing problem. That is why I would like to suggest that you make an immediate ruling, Mr. Speaker, and have the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley move the motion immediately.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

On the question that the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster raises and others have mentioned as well, at least one other hon. member who has participated in this question of privilege has indicated the wish to address the House at a later time. I do not expect we are going to be getting to an immediate decision this afternoon, but of course we will be taking these matters under advisement.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me bring something new to this debate. I will not raise the same issue. In my case, this is the second time my right of access to the House was violated. This did not happen today, but on Wednesday.

Some temporary barriers were set up where we enter the House when we take the bus from the Valour Building. These barriers are rusty and the piping is broken, so we no longer go up and down the way we are supposed to. On Wednesday, when we were not going to the House, but to our caucus meeting, we had the same problem and the bus was full. The RCMP refused to let us enter after the bus did the whole tour and came back to try to enter. We had to go back through the official barriers, which made everyone late, and we were pressed for time.

The time before that, it happened to the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster on an additional point.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, you spoke after I finished speaking and I would just like to come back to your point.

You said that there is a member who wants to be heard on this issue. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has said that this is a breach of privilege. He agrees with us on this.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, you could allow the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley to move the appropriate motion and members who want to contribute at that time, including the one member that you were speaking of, and I am not sure who it is, would have the ability to intervene in the House of Commons and speak to the motion.

That in no way reduces what we think is the imperative, obviously agreed to by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, that now is the time to move that motion on breach of privilege. That would allow us to have those discussions and subsequent to that, if the House is in agreement, move it to the procedure and House affairs committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader indicated that the government would return having assessed facts.

We have had a previous occasion where an identical question of privilege has been raised. When the facts were provided, the member withdrew those facts. For that reason, it makes sense for the House to have an opportunity to hear those facts before deliberating on this.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank all hon. members for their interventions on this question. Of course, it is important to the House to ensure these matters are taken up in due course.

We acknowledge the fact that the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader noted, as is the customary practice with questions of privilege, they would have the opportunity to come back and address the House at a later time. Of course, we will take this matter under advisement and get back to the House in due course.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Bill C-50—Time Allocation Motion

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There are 21 minutes remaining in the question period on the motion before the House.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are now looking at the 95th occasion of time allocation, and this time on Bill C-50, which would amend the Canada Elections Act particularly to deal with Canadians who are overseas.

I appeal to the minister that this is a bill that we have not had any opportunity to debate before this House. We have not had an opportunity for members of Parliament such as me who represent a smaller party to participate. The Green Party has two members in this place and it takes a great deal of time in debate for the debate slots to come around to an opportunity to allow members such as me to debate the bill.

I acknowledge the bill was tabled some time ago, but nothing has happened for some months and now we are being told we must have time allocation to limit debate. I find this egregious. I regret that it is a particular minister who must defend this. It is obviously the government House leader and decisions made in the PMO that have decided to break all historical precedent with the number of times we have had time allocation. However, it does particularly prejudice members of Parliament in my situation, and I would urge the minister to step back from this time allocation and allow us to have full debate on this important piece of legislation.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague opposite for her interest in this important bill and her desire to take part in the debate, which can certainly happen at committee where we hear testimony from witnesses.

This bill was propagated in part by the Frank ruling that took place in May 2014, which has a significant impact on who is eligible to vote, when and in what situations with regard to overseas voting. Due to that, it is incumbent upon the House to take forward legislation prior to the next election so these rules can be clear and there is no ambiguity. Certainly, there are some good measures in the bill.

If the member checks the blues, I believe she will see that she said that there had not been any debate, which is not the fact. I was looking at what my colleague from Toronto—Danforth said. He said, “The new mechanism that would allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to allow Elections Canada access to the non-citizen database that CIC has would be great”.

Therefore, we have already seen some agreement from the opposition that there are elements of the bill that are positive. I hope that debate can happen at committee in due course so we can ensure that this bill and its provisions comes into force prior to the next election.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the fact that a member of Parliament agrees with part of a bill, while at the same time taking care to outline a number of serious problems with the bill that need more exposure, including through debate, is hardly an argument for shutting down debate.

The second thing I would like to reference, and ask my colleague to comment on, is that all of this started in December when the minister tabled the bill and presented media and press release materials that gave the impression this was in response to the Frank judgment in the court system, which prohibited preventing any Canadian abroad from voting. The current rule in the Canada Elections Act says that if one has been away for more than five years, one cannot vote, but that rule was struck down on the basis of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The only action the government had to take on that was simply to eliminate the rule. Nothing had to change.

There are already a bunch of rules in the act for how those who have been away for less than five years to vote from abroad. There is no nexus whatsoever between this bill and respecting the Frank judgment. Rather, it is the exact opposite, because the Frank judgment opens up the field of voting for citizens abroad to far more people than had been the case before. The government, obviously, suddenly became worried and created much more onerous rules for voting from abroad for everybody, including for those who have always had the right—who have been away for less than five years.

I would kindly ask my colleague across the way not to buy into the minister's spin that the bill would implement the Frank judgment. It does not at all.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it actually addresses some of the questions that are raised by the Frank judgment, which is what we do as legislators. We look at the results of rulings, our different policy opinions and we come forward with legislative solutions to deal with such things.

In this case, there are some issues that are raised by the ruling. For example, how do we deal with electors living abroad in terms of which riding they would vote in? In Canada, one has to show proof of residency in a certain riding, if one is a resident of Canada and living in Canada, in order to vote there. That is a connection with the local MP.

We have had so many chats in this place, especially through the Reform Act, with regard to how we strengthen democracy. That connection with one's local MP is a very important part of that. One of the things the bill addresses is how we would ensure that those living overseas, those people who are caught under the Frank ruling, would have a proven link to their riding. Therefore, there are measures in the bill which deal with that.

We also have measures in the bill which deal with things such as could a ballot be sent to the wrong address? If somebody is getting registered in perpetuity, can we change that so we ensure ballots are not sent in the wrong direction? The bill deals with those sorts of practical things.

It is really a question of what the Frank ruling means. To us it means that, while this decision has been made, we certainly have to address the realities that it has presented to us, and there are several very good measures in the bill that would do that.

I also think the committee will hear some good witness testimony. My colleague will have an opportunity to continue this line of debate in that forum.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have just arrived in the House, I hope I do not sound too repetitive after my colleague from Toronto—Danforth.

From Bill C-23 to this bill, Bill C-50, there has been an overall theme. The overarching theme here concentrates on issues and problems that are overblown. We have used this expression before with the prior legislation, and now with this legislation as well, which is that in many cases the Conservatives are cruising for a solution to a problem that does not exist.

The Conservatives do not want people to be shopping ridings when they are living internationally, choosing any riding they wish. To a certain degree, I understand that concept. However, by doing this, it is making it very hard on individuals to go back to the prior addresses. In many cases, some of them are students and unable to do that. Not only that, but the vouching process or the attestations have to be done in that prior riding, which may be impossible. That could be many years prior.

These problems created by the Conservatives are fundamentally keeping people from their charter right to vote. It is their right. That is why my colleague was correct in saying that this did not address the judgment from the court and therefore has to be remedied.

In addition, there are the time constraints on this, time constraints within the legislation itself and time constraints regarding the enactment of the legislation. This is a strange 30-minute debate, because we are talking about time allocation as well. I will not get into that too much.

I am getting into the bona fides of the bill, because I will not have that opportunity too much longer. Therefore, we should look at that. I know the debate will continue soon.

Is there not a great concern about the timeliness of this, about the full debate, as to allow people, even if they live internationally, that fundamental right to vote, as given to them under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there were so many things in that intervention. I fundamentally disagree with my colleague opposite that it is unreasonable for someone who has been living abroad for five years to provide proof of residency in a certain riding. Again, going back to that fundamental concept of a connection to the MP and the riding, when people cast their ballots, they cast them for a candidate. This is something my colleagues rose in debate and supported with the Reform Act, which the Ottawa media has talked about and celebrated quite a bit.

If we are to debate and enshrine that principle, then it would make sense that a potentially large group of people, who have lived abroad for numerous years, would also fall under that same umbrella.

As outlined in this bill, requiring those folks to show proof of residency, which could be done through an attestation, is entirely reasonable. The bill would do that.

When we have had other democratic reform measures come before the House, we have looked at ways to ensure that we can show proof of residence, show proof of identity, have all of those good things enshrined, while also ensuring the voter is made aware of how to do that. That, of course, is the role of Elections Canada, that education on how to vote.

Should these provisions come into force, I would assume that Elections Canada officials would work to ensure there would be appropriate education materials in terms of timing and how attestations could be made, how proof of residence could be shown.

It is a bit of a false argument to say that somehow this is a disenfranchisement, because there is a very clear procedure with broad forms of identification, as well as a clear process for attestations, I really do not think this is a disenfranchisement at all.

However, we do want to ensure that these provisions, should they come into force do so quickly. I would urge my colleague to push this bill to committee for review.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I continue to have is the false impression being left by the government in general, with the current minister having to carry the can, apparently. I will not go further than to say that she is responding to questions and others are not.

The first thing is that a distinct impression was intended to be left. That is a very awkward way of putting it, but back in December, for two weeks we were all under the impression that the government had decided not to appeal the Frank case. The whole presentation of Bill C-50 was that we needed this to implement the Frank decision as if we were complying. It was a constitutional judgment, the government realized it did not stand any hope of winning an appeal, so it would no longer fight against enfranchising all these Canadians who had, before now, been disenfranchised, and it would not appeal. That turned out to be totally false. Once we started probing, the government case continued.

There is no actual interest on the part of the government in enfranchising Canadians, and that should inform how we understand what it is trying to do with this bill. When it is forced by the courts to abide by the Frank judgment, this is how it is going to do it, and it is going to do it in a way that makes it exceedingly difficult when compared to what the process used to be for citizens abroad.

It has to be put on the record that the government is appealing the Frank decision. That is part and parcel of why it is seeking to make it more difficult for Canadians to vote through this new bill, and why the government does not want a lot of debate or awareness about the bill at all.

The second thing is that our colleague has made a very good effort to present it in a way that suggests that some streamlining is going on here. The presentation is that a bunch of rules are being cleaned up and the Frank judgment has kind of spurred that analysis of how to make the process of citizens voting from abroad more efficient, secure, fair and everything else. The fact is that of the three or four major changes, the single biggest change in the bill is that those who are abroad cannot begin the process of voting until after the writ drops. Only at that point are they allowed to register. Then there is a whole series of steps involving the mail across the globe, which creates the huge risk that they will never get the vote at all. Therefore, the streamlining subtext of this is absolutely inaccurate.

It is really important to know that both of the points I have made about the Frank judgment, and what is going on with the judgment with respect to my last point, speak to why the government delayed so long in bringing it back for debate: because of the attention it would continue to generate. It now wants almost no attention, which is tied to the fact that the bill is set down for debate tomorrow, Friday, the day when the least attention is paid to bills in the House.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to set the context for my response to this question, I want to make it clear for people watching this debate that when my colleague says Canadians cannot vote, I want to really ensure they understand what the context of the Frank ruling is.

In May, 2014, this decision through the Ontario Superior Court struck down the law preventing citizens from voting if they had been out of the country for more than five consecutive years and had no intention of returning. That is the group of folks we are dealing with in this ruling. I want to make that perfectly clear for those who are listening.

In terms of the appeal of that decision, yes, our government has said that we will continue with the appeal, but we have also been very clear about that all along in this debate. Therefore, I disagree with my colleague's assertion that somehow this fact has been hidden.

Part of the role of government is to take positions on certain policies, which we have in the appeal of this decision, and deal with the reality that court decisions provide. Because of this decision, there are certain ambiguities that need to be tightened up in our legislation, which is why this bill was presented. There is no reason why both of these things cannot happen at the same time.

With regard to the member's particular point about the time to register, I would note that right now in Canada, we have a process for special balloting. I have friends and colleagues who live outside the country for a greater period of time. They are the snowbird type folks who we all know. When they go abroad and an election is called, they can register for a special ballot, which comes to them. There is already a procedure to deal with folks who are living abroad. Therefore, it is reasonable, since there are Canadian residents who perhaps have not been gone for that long a period and who already prescribe to a process like this, that it could certainly work for folks who fall under the category outlined in the Frank ruling.

When we talk about streamlining, this is not reinventing the wheel. This is about saying that we have a precedent on how to deal with this special balloting, so why would we not make that consistent for those who fall under this ruling?

The form and substance of the bill is to provide clarity and consistency in how we deal with voters who are abroad during a federal election.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is also a question of practicality in this particular case. Uniformity across this country, yes, I get that, but for example, the international list worked really well. Many people, once they go abroad, are able to use their past addresses, if they so chose, and get on that international list, which made it functional for them to be involved in elections. The reason, of course, is what she just mentioned. It takes long enough in this country to request a special ballot, receive a special ballot, vote, and send back the special ballot. For a snowbird who is in Greece, it is a little much.

The practicality of it is something that is not being addressed. I think all of the concerns brought up by the Chief Electoral Officer will certainly be addressed over the next little while. The other concern is about the respect of the courts. If that were the case, we would not have been discussing all of these court challenges for the past little while. The term “court tested” has now become a national term that everyone knows about. Is it Supreme Court tested? We do not know. As well, the government does not seem to know beforehand, and then we get into the courts and go through this again.

Then, of course, as my colleague pointed out, we expect legislation and compliance, which is not particularly the case. It is in line with the system that exists in this country, but is not practical for people outside of the country.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

First, Mr. Speaker, in my speech last time on this bill, I noted that I went to the Canada Post website, which stated that it takes four to seven business days for international ballots to reach their destinations. If we look at the ways people can register to vote, especially in a special ballot situation—and this would be a similar procedure—we see they can register by mail, online, at embassies, by fax. There are numerous ways in which people can register and get this information back and forth. Because there are folks who take advantage of the system that is in place already, it is reasonable to suggest that we could apply it to a group of people who are potentially in the exact same situation.

I think this is reasonable. Again, if we can ensure we have the right processes in place to advertise that process and to teach voters how to vote, we are probably in a good situation to ensure that takes place.

I will say this in closing. My colleague brings up “court tested”, and certainly the courts have a very important role in our government system, but the legislature also has the ability and responsibility to put forward legislation, and I do not believe in the assertion, which I think is a very dangerous thing to say, that everything we do and say has to first be put forward by a court, because our responsibility as legislators is to put forward policy and legislate upon that.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of 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.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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