Debates of May 1st, 2015

Citizen Voting Act

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do believe the military does possess a different place in Canadian society.

For many of our military members, it is easy to look at them when they may be in some location where the members are living together, but in many cases, our military are stationed overseas in combat locations. They are not in the same place and do not have the same opportunities to do some of these things.

I have had family members overseas in the military. For some of them, it is very difficult. It would be difficult to do these things if they are in a combat theatre. It is a whole lot different when the families are with them, but in a combat theatre, the families are not there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on that a little. I just want to make sure that the government is at least open to seeing scenarios that could be a problem. For example, one of the most frequent sources of Canadians going abroad for up to two years, sometimes three years, is graduate students. They often go abroad, to London, Paris, or wherever, after having been at a university. Their last place of residence is only defined as where they were at university, versus picking up on the fact that the last place of residence could be either there or where their parents reside. The problem is a lot of their compatriots will have gone. They will not have anybody who is able to vouch for their previous address.

The question is whether we can make sure that in those kinds of circumstances, and it might only affect a couple of dozen or a couple of hundred people, these special cases that can easily be imagined, are taken care of in the committee. I am just hoping that my colleague who is a member of the procedure and House affairs committee will be able to assure me that this kind of situation will be looked at closely.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is the reason we have committee meetings.

Members opposite will have a list of people they wish to present at the committee, as will the government side. I am sure that we will hear all about those issues that he and others have raised.

This bill needs to get to the procedure and House affairs committee as soon as possible so that the committee can deal with it and get it back to the House.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to stand to speak to this very important issue today. What I will do is focus on some important measures and how Canada is, in many ways, similar to other countries.

The relationship works both ways. Canada's electoral process serves as a model for other countries to emulate. Our electoral system is deemed to be one of the best in the world. One of the reasons we have this enviable reputation is that we strive to improve how our elections are administered. We review our electoral procedures and laws. We study the recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer to Parliament and the various studies and reviews of election procedures conducted by parliamentary committees. We listen to our constituents, and of course, we all live through elections.

We learn from these experiences, and we build on them to improve the processes in place, particularly the procedural safeguards against irregularities or impropriety that could call into question the validity of electoral results. If there is room for improvement or we find that existing procedures are deficient, we need to respond with new procedural safeguards. This is the responsible thing to do, and that is precisely what we would do here with the citizen voting act.

Election procedures must include the checks and balances that ensure that elections are conducted fairly and with transparency and accountability to instill confidence in the electoral process. At the same time, any new procedures must be developed with a view to ensuring that voting remains accessible. This legislation would achieve both of these aims. It strikes the right balance between procedural safeguards and the accessibility of the voting process.

When we review how other mature democracies, particularly those in the Westminster tradition, structure their voting rules, it further supports this conclusion. Reviewing procedures from other jurisdictions also enables us to assess how well our own electoral processes measure up internationally.

How does the citizen voting act compare with the way non-resident voting is administered in other jurisdictions?

To start, I will talk a little about the United Kingdom. Non-residents must have previously registered to vote in the 15 years before leaving the U.K. To register to vote, the voter must provide the U.K. with the equivalent of a social insurance number, called a national insurance number, which is matched or cross-referenced against various trusted sources of data. If the voter cannot or does not provide the national insurance number, proof of identity may be requested. Failing these options, the voter must provide an attestation from an eligible registered elector living abroad who is not a spouse, civil partner, or immediate relative. All voters, including non-resident voters, must confirm their election registration details each year.

International voters cannot choose the electoral district for which they cast a ballot. The ballot is cast for the electoral district where the voter actually last cast a ballot.

It is very important to see how similar that is to what we are proposing with respect to the attachment voters would need to have to their place prior to leaving.

Another country we could look at that is very similar is Australia. Its rules for non-resident voters have identification and residence requirements. Non-resident Australians may vote only if they have not lived abroad for more than six years. They must register to vote by providing their driver's licence and passport number. If they cannot provide either of these pieces of identification, a registered voter may attest to their identity.

A non-resident voter may not choose the electoral district in which to cast a ballot. People may only vote in the last electoral district in which they last voted. There is no separate register of international electors, like the measure proposed in the citizen voting act. There is only one register of electors.

New Zealand takes a slightly different approach. It has the most specific jurisdiction requirements. New Zealand voters residing outside the country may vote in national elections provided they have lived in New Zealand for more than one year at some point in their lives, have not been absent from the country longer than three years, and have visited the country in the past 12 months.

New Zealand non-resident voters may not choose the electoral district for which they cast a ballot; they may only vote in the electoral district in which they have resided for one month or more. Finally, non-resident voters do not automatically receive ballots. Like the measure proposed in the citizenship voting act, they must apply for a ballot at each election.

Notably, Ireland does not permit voting by non-residents unless they are officials of the Irish government who are posted abroad, or their spouses.

If we look closer to home, there are further examples of different approaches to non-resident voting. For example, Ontario's rules for non-resident voters incorporate elements from many of the international jurisdictions I have reviewed. Ontario non-resident voters may vote in an election for the provincial legislature if they lived in Ontario for at least 12 consecutive months before leaving the province, have not been absent from Ontario longer than two years, and intend to return to Ontario. Members of the Canadian Forces, federal and provincial government employees, students, and the families of these voters are exempted from these particular time limits.

The rules in Quebec similarly impose requirements on non-resident electors. Non-resident Quebec voters are entitled to vote in elections for the Quebec National Assembly provided that they have resided outside Quebec for no more than two years and that they resided in Quebec for a period of at least 12 consecutive months before their departure. Voters must apply for a mail-in ballot by providing two documents that establish proof of identity, date of birth, and residence in Quebec.

I would like to say a few words about France, which has come up in debate in this House. It is important for members to be aware that France has a different approach than Canada or the other Westminster systems I have mentioned. French citizens residing abroad are entitled to vote either in an extra-territorial overseas constituency, sometimes referred to as a consular constituency, or in a domestic constituency. To vote in an extraterritorial or consular constituency, non-resident voters must register in a separate registry of French citizens living outside France. To do so, they must provide proof of identity, citizenship, and address abroad.

As hon. members are aware, Canada does not have extraterritorial constituencies, although I think many of us could think of some wonderful places we might like to live that would provide that extraterritorial constituency. Our system is based on democratic representation based on territoriality, meaning geographic constituencies in Canada, with each domestic constituency returning a member to represent that community.

In France, non-resident voters may also apply to register on a list of electors in a domestic constituency in France. This requires proof of identity and citizenship by means of a French national identity card, a French passport, or a driver's licence accompanied by proof of citizenship. Registration on this list must be renewed every five years, and no later than three months before the expiry of the registration. Failure to do so results in the voter being taken off the register and potentially the register for consular constituencies.

There are two main lessons we can take from the survey of international practices on non-resident voting.

First, all jurisdictions, importantly, impose procedural safeguards to ensure that the integrity of the process is not compromised, and many go further, with limits on the time a citizen can reside abroad.

Second, and as important, the approaches vary widely, reflecting that each democracy must decide for itself how to structure its rules to instill confidence in its own elections.

There are variations in the nature of the procedural safeguards across jurisdictions, variations in how proof of citizenship and identification are established, and variations in residency requirements to maintain the right to vote.

What Bill C-50 is proposing for Canada is not out of line with the approaches of other jurisdictions. Indeed, what is proposed measures up remarkably well with what other jurisdictions have done to construct procedural safeguards for non-resident voters.

We are also seeking to ensure that safeguards do not act as barriers to voting.

In conclusion, the procedural reforms in the citizen voting act are aimed at improving the integrity and fairness of the special ballot process. By strengthening the procedures required to receive a special ballot, we would strengthen our confidence in the integrity of the ballots. By establishing common application and identification procedures for non-residents and non-resident voters, we would reinforce the fair application of rules for citizens, regardless of where they vote.

These provisions of the citizen voting act would accomplish both of these goals. I certainly encourage all members in this House to support it.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill would actually make it very difficult for persons living abroad to actually register and vote. Currently people living abroad who have registered to vote stay on a list. All they need to do is change their address, if their address changes.

This would require them to wait until a writ is dropped before they could even apply to vote. That would do two things. First, it would discourage people from putting themselves on the list. Second, it would make Elections Canada's job that much more difficult if it only had 35 days to receive all the applications, check to see whether they were accurate, check all the data that would be submitted with those applications, and mail a ballot back, which according to this law, would have to be received in Ottawa before six days prior. Therefore, there would really only be 29 days to do all of this work.

Would the government be assigning more resources to Elections Canada to accomplish all this extra work during an election period?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks I outlined the many different countries and approaches, and there are some approaches that are very similar to what we are proposing in this act. I certainly have every confidence that Elections Canada would be able to process these people who are living outside the country and who are so committed to our democratic process and really do take the time. Of course, we always hope that as many Canadians also take the time, when elections come, to exercise that incredible responsibility and opportunity we enjoy in Canada in our democratic system.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are several problems outlined, and they have been directly addressed, in some cases, but in other cases not so much. One of the problems arising from this, which I asked about earlier, was the coming into force, which the Chief Electoral Officer has told us is going to be very problematic, given the changes in Bill C-23 and now changes here.

Does the member agree that this would be overly problematic for Elections Canada, which does not have the resources for that?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although this is early in the process, we anticipate that it will move its way through committee. It is already, very importantly, signalling the structure and the mechanisms that would need to be in place. Obviously, the committee will be reviewing it in detail.

I have every confidence in Elections Canada and its ability to do what is required in terms of the appropriate structure and mechanisms. Certainly there are some pretty good signals about what those are going to be so it can start to do some planning now.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her remarks on this very important debate that is taking place today. I recognize that part of the process will be that the bill will be referred to committee for further study. However, for the purposes of today's debate, I am wondering if she would advise the House why our government has introduced the bill.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a really important bill. Elections Canada estimates there are approximately 40,000 non-citizens on the national register of electors, and the accuracy of the register is very important for the fairness and integrity of elections. Certainly, we must ensure that people who are registered to vote are Canadian citizens. The bill would help to create and maintain more direct communication between the non-resident voters and the specific electoral districts in which their votes are counted.

This is a very well structured and important bill for supporting those 40,000 folks who are currently living outside Canada in terms of their ability to exercise their democratic rights.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out something that is remarkable: this is the 95th time we have had a gag order imposed on us.

My colleague spoke earlier about some other major countries' practices. There are many interesting practices used elsewhere in the world that we could adopt here. Under the current conditions, however, we cannot even discuss them here, let alone in committee, where the Conservatives have the same attitude as they do here. There is no way to discuss them.

This bill only complicates matters for Canadian citizens living abroad. Just look at the situation in Nepal, where the government cannot even seem to locate Canadians in order to evacuate them. We can only imagine its indifference to their desire to vote.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it a little ironic. On the one hand, we have the opposition saying there is not going to be enough time for Elections Canada to implement the changes and we need to move this rapidly so it is ready for the election in 2015. Then, on the other hand, we have the opposition saying not to move so fast, as we need to debate this.

Time allocation has given us a very important opportunity to ensure that the bill will move through the process that is required so that Elections Canada will have time to implement the changes and move forward in the 2015 election with some good, solid processes and structures in place that would not only ensure the integrity of our system but allow great opportunities for Canada and for Canadians to exercise their democratic rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is not exactly correct. Basically, what happened was this was dead on arrival. The Chief Electoral Officer said that this would not come in time, before this debate even began. I suspect the Conservatives should have known that. If they did not know that then they did not have that essential discussion with Elections Canada to get advice from it as to when this comes into force and whether it is to be effective. That is the unfortunate part.

My question though goes back to that permanent list again. It seems to me that the narrative they are putting forward is always the case where they have a solution in search of a problem that does not exist, like eliminating the international voters list. What was so wrong with it?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to go back to my original comments where we looked at international jurisdictions and the processes that were in place in international jurisdictions. What we have here is a system that has been put in place that is going to ensure the integrity of our system and the opportunity for those Canadians who are living abroad.

Again, this is not by any means a piece of legislation that is unusual or outside what many other countries similar to Canada have done.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as is the case when we are dealing with time allocation, usually that means that because the number of speakers is limited, York South—Weston is not represented in the debate on any particular bill.

By the way, I will be sharing my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Usually York South—Weston does not get to be represented when there is time allocation because it limits the number of speakers in total to something like 5% of the members of Parliament and that is essentially what is happening here, although today, I happened to be here during the one day that the government has allowed for debate on the bill. On the 95th occasion, I think is a record for any Westminster parliamentary democracy in the world in terms of the number of times that debate has been curtailed or stopped in a sitting of Parliament.

The notion that we are dealing with this under time allocation means that a total of six and a quarter hours will have been spent on debating the bill over the course of its life in the Houses of Parliament and the bill has some serious flaws. We have mentioned already that the bill has eliminated the ability for there to be a permanent list of electors and that list is how people who live outside of Canada could remain on the voters list without having to go through hoops each time.

When asked why the bill was coming forward, the member opposite said it is because there are 40,000 non-Canadians on the list of electors, so estimates Elections Canada. That is not why the bill is coming forward. It is coming forward because the courts have told the Conservatives that it is illegal under section 11(d) of the Canada Elections Act to deny Canadian citizens the right to vote, which is what the law did. It denied the right to vote to Canadian citizens who happened to live abroad for more than five years.

We put forward Bill C-575, a good bill that would have repealed section 11(d) of the law in such a way that we would have done away with the requirement to be outside of Canada for less than five years. The Conservatives did not like that and brought forward their own bill and I think it is telling that the member opposite suggested that is not the reason for bringing the bill forward. The Conservatives are continuing with their appeal of the Frank decision to appeal the court decision that says that it is the right of any Canadian citizen to vote in an election. I agree with that right. I think it is the right of any Canadian citizen to vote regardless of how long they have lived outside the country.

However, the Conservatives, as is the case every time the courts tell them the laws they created were wrong, have created a system that makes it worse, that makes it more difficult and is going to apparently live up to the spirit of the decision, but not the letter of the decision because it will become incredibly difficult.

I asked the member opposite whether, given that Elections Canada will now have the responsibility in every election to process all persons outside Canada every time, it will be given extra resources to do that because it will not be able to spread that out over the period between elections as it now does. It has to do it only when there is an election. As a result, I do not believe Elections Canada is going to have the resources to do it, but the member opposite would not confirm or deny. All she said was they think Elections Canada has lots of resources. That is not a proper answer.

We believe that this change in legislation is going to make it more difficult for all persons living outside Canada, not just those people who are out there for more than five years, but all persons living outside Canada. The effect of that will be to further reduce the number of people who actually vote in an election. It seems to be the Conservatives' mantra to keep people from voting because if people vote maybe they will not get elected. That is apparently what drives a lot of what the Conservatives have done.

I am going to give the example of my brother who is a dual citizen. He was born in Canada to American parents, so the U.S. has determined he is an American citizen as well. When he was living in Canada some 15 or so years ago, he was a lawyer working for a big multinational firm that decided to move his job to the U.S. After much internal wrestling, he decided he had to go with that job and he has lived in the U.S. ever since. For the first five years, he was able to vote, but he has not been able to vote for the last 10 or so years. He would have been on a list of electors for some time.

Now, he would have to prove where he last lived 15 years ago. If I know my brother, he may have kept his rent receipts but I do not know. I certainly would not have. He has to prove it, and if he cannot prove it, if he has no documentation that shows his previous address, he has to find someone who lives where he last lived to swear that he or she knows him and that he did live there. That was 15 years ago and he lived in a small apartment building in downtown Toronto. I doubt very much that he knows anybody in that riding who can vouch for the fact that he lived there. The Conservative answer to the court decision is to make that become the necessary step by which someone would need to become registered to be a voter.

I come back to the problem that it has to all be done within the writ period. He cannot get the form until after the writs. He gets the form, finds somebody who remembers him when he lived in an apartment building in downtown Toronto 15 years ago and gets that person to swear out an affidavit because it has to be an oath. I am not 100% certain whether the person has to swear out an oath in front of a justice of the peace in Canada or if it can be somewhere else, but it is the Canada Evidence Act that the Conservatives are using. Those two hoops alone would eat up the first 15 days after the writ drops.

He has 14 days left, so he fills in the form and sends it off to Elections Canada by mail, or maybe by courier if it will accept things by courier. Assuming that there are 14 days left, because he only has 29 days to act on this, then Elections Canada has to put his application into its queue. There is no obligation on Elections Canada to process it in a timely manner, it just has to process it. The only requirement is that once Elections Canada has sent him the ballot he has to return it, such that Elections Canada receives it six days before the actual election day.

It is not likely going to happen that my brother would be able to meet all of these requirements in that 29-calendar-day time period, given the vagaries of Canada Post. There is no indication in this bill that Elections Canada would have to find some fast way to get the ballot to him either. If he needs to get a ballot within a short period of time, the most appropriate way would be to courier it to him but I doubt very much that the current government thinks highly enough of the voters living outside Canada to use couriers to get them the ballot.

It is a problem that is being created by the government to suppress votes again. That is what we have seen time and again from the Conservatives whenever they have talked about election reform and voting reform. It is to ensure that people do not have the ability to vote, that for people who are on the margins of society or, in this case, on the margins of Canada, who live outside of Canada, it would become extremely difficult for them to vote. I would be willing to bet that very few people who live outside Canada would be able to cast their ballot in a meaningful time frame and would therefore be disenfranchised by these rules.

That comes back to the court decision, which says Canadians, regardless of where they live, have a right to vote in a federal election. If the Conservatives put forward a law that would deny them that right through timing or other extraneous means, it would be in violation of the charter again, of the Constitution of this country. That is why Mr. or Mrs. Frank went to the courts in the first place.

I welcome any questions.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is definitely the only party in the House that is prepared to defend the right of every Canadian to vote in a general election.

Can my hon. colleague speak briefly to the previous bill, Bill C-23, which dramatically limited Canadians' right to vote?

Would he also comment on the NDP's position and proposal regarding Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the matter of the court case that gave rise to this bill, we think, although the minister did not say that, that court case said, or the end result was that every Canadian, regardless of where he or she lives, has a constitutional right to vote and it cannot be taken away by means of an artificial time limit. The government, with the other hoops that it is putting in this bill, would appear to be taking away that right to vote, not just for the people who have lived outside of Canada for more than five years, but for all persons who live outside of Canada, because it will now become effectively impossible for them to properly cast their ballots in a reasonable timeframe.

With Bill C-23, the government also made it more difficult for persons who are on the margins of society, those who do not have documentation, who do not have access to myriad personal information because sometimes they are homeless or not living in a place that is permanent and as a result, it will become almost impossible for them to cast ballots.

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

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a trend happening from Bill C-23 until now where consultations have not taken place, to the point where members in committee find themselves struggling to fix some of the mistakes that were made initially, which have been pointed out by many in the House earlier. The lack of consultation is certainly alarming. We were expecting this to address the Frank decision directly; instead, we got what was a different piece of legislation in addition to the challenge to the ruling that was made.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

It is true, Mr. Speaker, that committee deliberations to try to fix bills are challenging at best and impossible at worst. When a flawed bill goes before a committee in the current Parliament, it is almost impossible for opposition parties to have any say in trying to correct it. The exception is when there is something so egregious it is absolutely clear on its face that it will be a problem, and even then sometimes the Conservatives do not listen. That has been my experience until now.

We have gone through the same thing with Bill C-51, which is another extremely flawed piece of legislation and ought to be withdrawn entirely. The Conservatives have not accepted a single one of any of the amendments put forward at committee.

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

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

A number of groups live abroad and we do not talk about that enough. One group in particular is very important to me: the students who enrol in long study programs abroad to bring back their expertise to Canada.

I am rather astounded by the content of the bill. It seeks to further control a process instead of encouraging people to get out and vote. It is already hard enough to inform our citizens outside Canada.

I would like my colleague to say a few words about the fact that instead of working to inform people on the many ways to vote outside the country, the government is trying to control those who might try to vote.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is clearly part of an overall plan. Suppressing votes is key to extremism in Parliament, and that is what the government is doing. It is suppressing votes at every stage of the way. We learned through various court cases that there was an active attempt to suppress votes in the last election and I expect this is just part of the same pattern.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. He eloquently presented our position on Bill C-50 and the reasons why we are opposed to An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

This bill basically deals with the right to vote of Canadians living abroad. This bill is very important because it directly affects one out of three Canadians. Unfortunately, I see that we are debating this bill under a time allocation motion. In fact, it is the 95th time allocation motion that the Conservative government has imposed on the House since 2011. Despite the fact that we have raised a number of concerns with this bill, the government does not want to have this serious debate in the House, which I find disappointing.

I am also disappointed by this government's approach in terms of the bills it has introduced in the House concerning Canadians' right to vote. A few years ago, it introduced Bill C-23, and I was able to voice my concerns about it in the House. It restricted the right to vote of many Canadians, especially marginalized Canadians. In fact, the bill actually prevented them from voting. Bill C-23 primarily prevents young people from voting, as it does aboriginal people and vulnerable citizens, such as the homeless. Basically, the voter card will no longer be accepted as a form of identification when people go to their polling station to vote in an election. With this bill, 120,000 Canadians who had to have someone vouch for them during the last federal election may not be able to vote in the next election. Bill C-23 is extremely problematic.

However, today, we are debating Bill C-50, which could prevent another cohort of Canadians from voting. I am talking about the 1.4 million Canadians who live abroad. We know that there are many reasons why Canadians choose to live abroad. Some of them are going to school, while others are working and are very mobile. I am the NDP deputy science and technology critic. I therefore talk with many scientists who find very interesting jobs or contracts that require them to live abroad for several years. I am also thinking of some of my constituents who often travel to the United States, including retirees who choose to spend their final years there. They are still very attached to Canada and they feel as though they are 100% Canadian. They would like to have the right to vote in Canada's general elections.

I would like to give a little bit of background to explain why this bill was introduced in the House and why it is so necessary. The bill is before the House because of an Ontario Superior Court decision. That court ruled that paragraph 11(d) of the Canada Elections Act, which prevents Canadian citizens who have been living abroad for more than five years from voting, is unconstitutional. We therefore have a problem. The court forced this government to take action. The decision was rendered in the case of Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada. It is a case that will be quoted often in this debate.

At first glance, the bill seems to harmonize the legislation with the court's decision. However, we need to be careful. We on this side of the House did our homework, and we found that that is not the case.

In fact, the bill does not bring the act in line with the Ontario Superior Court ruling. Bill C-50 does not repeal subsection 11(a) of the Canada Elections Act, and the government has still not withdrawn its appeal of the Frank ruling.

The government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It talks about this ruling and claims to want to find a solution to the problem, but it has introduced a bill that is not consistent with the Ontario Superior Court ruling. In fact, it has introduced a bill that will cause even more problems for Canadians living abroad.

Bill C-50 will make it more difficult for all citizens living abroad to vote, whether they have been abroad for more than five years or for less. Furthermore, the bill provides for new prohibitions on the types of identification that the Chief Electoral Officer will accept from any citizen living in Canada or abroad, which could seriously compromise the votes of many Canadians come election day.

Before going into detail about the problems with this bill, I would like to talk briefly about Bill C-575, which was introduced by my colleague from Halifax. The bill is clear and unequivocal. It is the NDP's response to the decision in Frank et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada.

This bill, which was introduced in good faith, gives all Canadians living abroad the right to vote. I would like to know why my Conservative colleagues did not simply accept and adopt the bill introduced by my colleague from Halifax, which is in line with the court's ruling.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives' bill ties Elections Canada's hands and makes voter identification requirements so complicated that Canadian citizens living abroad will have a much harder time voting. They are doing this for no reason at all.

I listened to my Conservative colleagues' speeches, but I did not hear one single citation or study showing that the measures in this bill are necessary and valid. Back when the Conservative government was advocating for Bill C-23, it was also unable to quote one expert who thought the measures in the bill were a good idea.

Since I have only a minute left, I would like to go into more detail about the provision that removes the Chief Electoral Officer's discretionary power to determine what forms of identification are acceptable under certain circumstances. For example, under clause 143, the Chief Electoral Officer will no longer be able to accept a foreign driver's licence as a main form of identification or even a secondary form of identification to corroborate a main one. We have to wonder how many Canadians living abroad keep a driver's licence that is no longer valid.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, April 30, 2015, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill 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 Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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