House of Commons Hansard #297 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was amendments.
Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
In my opinion, the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the recorded division on Bill C-49, transportation modernization act, consideration of a motion respecting Senate amendments, be deferred until Tuesday, May 22, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.
Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders
Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders
The House resumed from May 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, this time, I will use every minute and second available to me, since Bill C-76 is a very important bill for anyone who believes in democracy.
When it comes right down to it, MPs of all stripes are just advocates who decided to take their political commitment to the limit and help develop our society to the best of their ability and in keeping with their values.
Every member of the House knows how lucky he or she is to live and participate in a democracy. However, our democratic system, like many others, is far from perfect. We would hope that each and everyone of us would be able to help perfect it and that any bill that would make major changes to our entire electoral system, in whole or in part, would have not only the broadest possible consensus, but complete unanimity.
A bill that affects the very foundation of our democracy should not be a partisan bill. Still, we do have to admit that things have changed a bit ever since the Conservatives introduced Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act, in the previous Parliament. In our search for a better democratic system, the aim should always be to strive for a consensus. However, we seem to be seeing more and more partisan games, which I believe have no place in a bill like this.
I obviously feel privileged to rise to speak on a bill as fundamental as Bill C-76. However, I unfortunately feel like I am acting in an old movie because the government seems to be assuming it does not need a consensus. The government is using our old parliamentary system to its advantage since that system allows the political party that holds a majority in the House to bulldoze, and I do not think that is too strong a term, its agenda through, rather than striving to reach a consensus.
Even as we debate this topic, something very important is happening in Quebec City. Just months—weeks, actually—before the Quebec provincial election, four parties held a joint press conference to say that, regardless of the outcome of the next election, they all agree that the existing electoral system should no longer be used in our society.
Québec solidaire, Coalition Avenir Québec, the Parti Québécois, and the Green Party of Quebec joined forces to say that the coming provincial election should be the last to use this voting system. That is why I feel like I am in an old movie, unfortunately. Many parties have sung that tune, especially the Liberal Party during the last campaign. The party said loud and clear that this would be the last election with that voting system, which worked fine back in the day.
When this Parliament was created, it was a two-party system. In a society with two parties, one of them will, by definition, get at least 50% plus one of the votes. What could be more democratic than that? Since then, things have changed a lot in Canada and Quebec, as they have in all the other provinces and territories.
A plurality of political opinions and approaches emerged, which all demand representation in the House of Commons. We think that, no matter which party is in government, even if it was the NDP, it is completely inappropriate for a government that wins 39% of the popular vote to get 100% of the power in the House. This is what happened with this government, and it was the same with the previous government. There is a massive dichotomy that needs to be addressed.
The government has backtracked on this specific issue, which was a very important issue for the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party during the last election. It is clear that the Liberals have backtracked on their election promise, probably because now that they are in power, they want to continue to enjoy full control over this country's democratic institutions.
Now Bill C-76 is being rammed through at the very last minute. I would say it is being done at the eleventh hour, when the acting Chief Electoral Officer does not even know whether he will be able to implement all the different measures this bill contains in time for the next election, because the Liberals dragged their feet so long. First they dawdled with the study on what our new voting system should be. Then they ignored an overwhelming consensus in favour of a mixed proportional system, while trying to convince Canadians that there was no consensus or that the consensus was for something else. That is a funny way to put it, but it shows how desperate they were to dodge the issue.
Not content to have delayed this process, the Liberals also delayed the next process, which was aimed at correcting some of the stalled measures that were stuck behind those they had rejected. However, here we are at the eleventh hour, and they cannot even guarantee that all of the measures we have been discussing this morning and over the past few days will be implemented by the next election.
It is therefore fairly safe to say this has been a total failure, even though, as I will elaborate, Bill C-76 does contain a few measures that are worth studying and implementing.
We are talking about a 230-page bill that will have to be rushed through because, as I was saying, the Liberals have been behind on all counts from the very beginning.
Worse still, this very rushed bill will likely pass thanks to the majority this government holds. This means that the broad consensus that has been the tradition in this House could once again be ignored in favour of the bulldozing effect of a government majority.
After two press releases in quick succession proposing two different names, this week we learned of the appointment of a potential new chief electoral officer. The person responsible for implementing the measures in Bill C-76 has not yet been officially appointed. It is safe to say that problems are piling up.
Let us explore some of the things in this bill that deserve a closer look, such as the issue of financing. As people generally expect more transparency in the lead-up to an election, this bill proposes a number of measures in that regard. However, while promising greater transparency, the bill also raises spending limits at the same time. This means that election campaigns will become much more about money than ideas.
I think that there is a very broad consensus in Canada and Quebec regarding the U.S. election system, because no one wants to see money take precedence over ideas. For years now, money seems to have become increasingly more important. Canadians are well aware that there is a cost to living in a democracy. No one expects elections to be free. I will get back to public financing a bit later, since this aspect is largely missing from the bill. This was an opportunity to restore the balance that was lost under the previous Conservative government led by Mr. Harper, which completely eliminated the per-vote subsidy. I am not saying that this made for a proportional government, but at least the public financing was representative of the public vote and gave additional meaning to casting a vote.
What is more, increasing election spending limits is also problematic and feeds into the trend of making money more important than ideas. In an election campaign, I would like to see people debate ideas equitably rather than see parties inundate people with ads because the rules are not the same for everyone. Conversely, one could argue that the rules are equal for everyone since everyone has the same spending limit, but when that spending limit is at a height that not every party can achieve, then clearly there is an imbalance.
I would also like to address another problem that is widely panned and does not seem to have been resolved by Bill C-76: personal information protection. That is an issue that everyone in Canada and Quebec is concerned about now and not just when it comes to elections, but also in daily life. Every move that is made on the web leaves a footprint and we cannot begin to imagine how much personal information we leave there.
Perhaps members have already had the experience of downloading an app on their cellphone or other device and reading the terms of service. I do not know whether this has ever happened to you, Madam Speaker, but I have tried a few times to read the terms of service, but I have rarely succeed in getting all the way to the end. The times I did manage to finish, I must admit that it was a challenge. However, just because I read the terms, does not mean that I understood them, but people always end up agreeing to the terms because they need the app in their daily lives. Once we accept the terms, we no longer know exactly how much personal information will be shared or how that information will be managed. Bill C-76 does nothing to address that issue.
I would like to quote what a few witnesses had to say about this. Teresa Scassa, the Canada research chair in information law and policy at the University of Ottawa described the solution proposed in Bill C-76 as “an almost contemptuous and entirely cosmetic quick fix designed to deflect attention from the very serious privacy issues raised by the use of personal information by political parties.”
Lori Turnbull, director of Dalhousie University's School of Public Administration and co-author of a document about the modernization of public funding published by the Public Policy Forum said, “It’s a step in the right direction, but it looks as if they were pressed for time and some big problems have been left on the table.”
I have used this image many times: when you take a step forward, you are not actually moving forward, you are just moving your centre of gravity. In order to move forward, you have to take at least two steps. Bill C-76 is only one step.
Funnily enough, Canada does have a privacy act. It is quite a progressive act, and it is often studied by many other countries seeking to perfect their own privacy acts and learn how a united front is needed to protect personal data in our new computer-oriented society.
However, political parties are exempt from Canada's privacy act. For example, a private company that wants to solicit customers by email has to seek their consent to store their email addresses for future correspondence. Political parties are not required to ask for consent. They can even sell the personal data they gather, which to me is an utterly absurd situation that Bill C-76, as drafted, does not address.
Where are the rules for increasing the number of women to a significant level? That is another issue that Bill C-76 does not resolve. In terms of women's representation in the House, we are light years away from parity, except in the NDP. Why? At the very beginning of an election campaign, the very instant the writ drops, the NDP have rules in place that require candidate nominations to be gender balanced from the get-go. If there is no parity at the starting line, how can we hope to miraculously reach parity by the finish line? We ought to thank the NDP for its efforts and make sure more women get into the House.
By voting down the bill introduced by my colleague from Burnaby South, the government missed a great opportunity to make additional strides in that regard. Bill C-76 again misses the opportunity to introduce specific measures to achieve gender parity, or at least something close to parity between 40% and 60%, by the next election. We should not have to wait decades for this. If current trends in the number of women in the House of Commons remain at the same level, it will likely take 40 or 50 years to achieve parity, and even that is not guaranteed. This is an absolutely crucial issue that has been completely overlooked in this legislation.
The bill does contain some important positive aspects, which is why, at the end of the day, I will be voting to support it at second reading, even though I may sound like I completely oppose it. I think it is important to send it to committee so that we may get some answers to relevant questions and see how we can make the most of a bill that has been reduced to the basics and does not really reform our electoral system. That is the role of all opposition members, in other words, not to simply oppose legislation but also improve it.
We do welcome the time limit for an election campaign. Having election campaigns in this era of faster travel and digital media means they can be shorter than back in the day when candidates had to travel across Canada by train, which of course took longer.
Offering a 90% refund for child care expenses is a good measure. We support that.
In closing, democracy does not belong to just the Liberals or any one party in the House. It belongs to all parties in the House of Commons.
I hope the next changes made to our electoral system are based on a consensus.
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism
Mr. Speaker, I really hoped that I would not have to utilize this, but an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act.
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 the said stage.
Bill C-76—Notice of time allocationElections Modernization ActGovernment Orders
Waterloo Ontario
Liberal
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism
Mr. Speaker, again, I really hoped that I would not have to utilize this, but an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments.
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 the said stage.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Trois-Rivières's whole speech. In his introduction and conclusion, he talked about how the House would have to give unanimous consent to change the voting system. A few years ago, the Conservatives introduced the Fair Elections Act, which made changes that undermined Canadian democracy. The Conservatives will never support our attempts to reverse those changes.
Can my colleague reconcile the need to get everyone's support before doing something with the fact that the Conservatives will never support changes that would strengthen democracy in Canada?
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Allow me to clarify. Perhaps my colleague missed a comma somewhere or perhaps I was unclear, but I never talked about unanimous consent. I talked about a consensual approach.
Obviously unanimous consent is the dream, and I continue to dream about it. When we make changes to legislation as fundamental as legislation on our electoral system, I hope that we can take the time to arrive at an agreement among parties. Perhaps we can hope for the best from the Conservatives, who seem to want to present themselves in a new light since Mr. Harper left the scene. Maybe they will even abandon some of their old positions and see the merits of a new approach.
If unanimous consent were indeed possible, I would be delighted. However, what I was really talking about is a consensual approach that ensures that the party in power does not bulldoze the others in the interest of its own demands and its quest for a political image in order to ram through an idea without the consent of at least some of the other parties.
I would remind hon. members that at the very beginning of the process, when the possibility of changing the voting system was first discussed, it was thanks to a consensual NPD proposal accepted by the Liberals that it was agreed that a committee would be struck. It was a committee in which every MP from every party could be involved and where every member had the right to speak and vote. If an NDP proposal led to this outcome, I do not see how another NPD proposal could not reach consensus as well. Honestly, I believe that we are the masters of common sense.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the importance of making some significant changes to the elections laws. It is great that the NDP appears to be very supportive of the nature of the changes that are being brought forward.
The question I have is in relation to how that legislation gets through the House. As I am sure my friend is aware, the Conservatives do not want, and will do whatever they can to prevent, the legislation moving forward. On the other hand, the NDP seems to want to allow the Conservatives to prevent the legislation from becoming law.
How do the NDP members reconcile that? Do they want to see this legislation become law? As such, are they prepared to work with the government, even if the Conservatives choose to prevent this bill from passing, either here or in committee?
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I said earlier that I would vote for this bill at second reading so the work could be done in committee. I think we have already seen clear indications of willingness to make it work. However, as I also said, there is room for improvement. If it turns out there is no willingness to improve the bill, I will make my position clear at third reading.
I also want to add that, when we are debating an issue as important as our voting system, being proud representatives of Canadian and Quebec voters is one thing, but making sure we know what those voters want is another. They are the primary stakeholders.
I hope that, in the course of its work, the committee will be able to travel across the country to hear what people like about this bill, what they do not like about it, and what they would like to see changed. That way, when the time comes to vote on the bill, the context will be one not of political debate in the House, but of debate among the people who speak on behalf of every riding and every region of the country represented in the House.
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, I had the chance to participate in a portion of the cross-country tour of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. In the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, I held a town hall that was very well received. In talking with my constituents, I realized that the Prime Minister's promises of electoral reform had raised a lot of hope.
People in our society are quite cynical about politics and our role as politicians. Electoral reform provided hope that we could move toward real democracy, a real parliamentary assembly that would reflect the choices of citizens.
The bill is being hastily presented to us because there is a deadline and everything that was done before is being set aside. Does my colleague not believe that this will only fuel the public's cynicism about how we work?
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and commend her for the excellent work she does in the House and especially in her riding.
At the same time, I would like to mention that I also held a town hall meeting in my riding when were were considering a complete overhaul of our voting system. Of all the town hall meetings I have held in my riding, this one about changing the electoral system had the highest rate of participation.
Clearly, cynicism in politics does not mean a lack of interest in politics. People simply believe that it will not do any good to talk to their elected representatives. People want to be involved in the electoral system. They want to implement a new voting system where their voices will unequivocally be heard. Everyone in Canada is saying that. Over 80% of the witnesses in committee and over 80% of people who attended town halls in the regions and ridings said exactly the same thing, that we need to change this archaic system. However, the Liberal government is backtracking. What causes cynicism among voters is that despite their being consulted, they still feel their voices are not being heard.
Now that it is backtracking, the government is coming up with all of these half measures, some of which are worth studying, but which fail to get to the root of what voters across Canada truly expect. It is time for the voting system to change.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Speaker, one of the concerning parts we should look at in the House is the fact that so few women are participating. I really appreciate the bill the member from Burnaby brought forward, which looks at how the parties can start to address this. If we do not have women included, if we do not have women engaged as nominees, it is going to be really hard to see our numbers rise here.
I wonder if the member could talk a bit about how this legislation fails to address this most important issue in this country.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, if I can suggest a parallel, in my previous career, I taught at an institution that was an all-boys school from the time it was founded until around the 1990s. There were also all-girls schools in Trois-Rivières. Every time we had a debate on coeducation, we all hoped that might be achieved on a matter of fundamental principle, not because the pool of “recruitable” students had shrunk. We did not want our schools to become mixed just to maintain our status.
The same is true for the House of Commons. We need to take concrete action to achieve parity. I think we missed a great opportunity to do so by refusing to vote for my colleague from Burnaby South's bill imposing financial penalties, because pain leads to progress.
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Don Valley East.
I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act. I have had the privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs since I first came to this place. One of the most interesting studies we have conducted so far was the one pertaining to the recommendations of the chief electoral officer.
In the previous Parliament, I was the parliamentary assistant to the critic for democratic reform, namely, the current member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs during its study of Bill C-23, Fair Elections Act. Under the circumstances, it was an odd name, given that the Conservatives worked harder than any other party to destroy the integrity of our elections.
Under Stephen Harper's leadership, the Conservatives won three consecutive election campaigns, specifically in 2006, 2008, and 2011. The Conservatives were found guilty of electoral fraud in the 2006, 2008, and 2011 elections. Clearly, the Conservative Party of Canada has never won an election without cheating, so when the Conservatives introduced a bill on electoral integrity, they knew exactly where the gaps were.
After letting their parliamentary secretary to the prime minister be led out in handcuffs for bypassing election laws, after pleading guilty to the illegal in and out scandal, and after sacrificing a young 22-year-old scapegoat for election crimes committed by the Conservative Party to try to steal several ridings, as part of the robocall scandal, one of the first targets of the Conservative Party was the elections commissioner. They made sure that he would never have the tools he needed to conduct a real investigation.
Bill C-76 changes all that. The elections commissioner will return to the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, who is an officer of Parliament, instead of reporting to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, where there is no officer of Parliament. Once enacted, the act will give the commissioner the power to require testimony or a written return, a power that was eliminated by the Conservatives. Why did Stephen Harper's Conservatives not want the elections commissioner to have that kind of authority, especially since he was responsible for the integrity of our elections?
Integrity is clearly not what the Conservatives were looking for, and given their reaction to this bill, their position has obviously not changed. In the debate on this bill, we keep hearing that the Conservatives have concerns about the creation of a pre-election list of young people, which could be given to political parties. They know that this list is meant for the Chief Electoral Officer and that these names will not be provided to political parties before the individuals turn 18. However, the Conservatives do not want a tool that would help inform young future voters and help them prepare to become citizens and informed voters in our democracy.
The Conservatives are afraid that young people will not vote Conservative. Instead of modernizing their old-school values, or reassessing their attitude towards women, immigrants, minorities, indigenous peoples, the environment, and science, the Conservatives would rather do everything they can to make sure that the younger generation does not have the tools it needs to participate in the democratic process. They refuse to evolve to where society is now.
During the 2011 election campaign, advance polling stations were set up on university campuses. In Guelph, the Conservatives opposed a polling station at the student centre and a young campaign volunteer, who was also a ministerial assistant on Parliament Hill was accused of attempting to steal the ballot box. Those accusations were never proven, but the incident shows how afraid the Conservatives are that young people will get involved.
The Conservatives think that giving young people the opportunity to get involved in elections, as Bill-76 proposes, is an existential threat. For the first time, millennials will outnumber baby boomers.
The Conservatives are not adapting to the new reality. They prefer to shout out “it is not a right” here in the House when we are talking about women making their own decisions about their bodies. That is shameful. Millennials, those of my generation, have had enough of this paternalistic attitude. We find that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and his Conservatives have the same attitude.
Again in the 2011 federal election and again in the riding of Guelph, robocalls were made. These calls were bilingual and claimed to be on behalf of Elections Canada. The calls told thousands of voters that the location of their polling station had changed. The goal was to keep people from voting. The federal elections commissioner and his investigators did not have the authority to compel witnesses to testify, so the commissioner had to make agreements with those involved in this subterfuge. As a result, a young man who is unilingual and has no particular technical skills was put in jail for electoral fraud. He was the scapegoat that I mentioned earlier.
Because the investigators lacked authority, the legal process resulted in a completely ridiculous outcome. First of all, they overlooked the campaign's political adviser, who had all the necessary political and technical access and who had created software called “Move My Vote” to determine what to dispute in the 2013 electoral redistribution. This is not to mention the fact that the assistant campaign organizer worked at the store where the burner phone was sold, or the fact that the Conservative Party lawyer was present when the witness statements were taken, rather than the lawyer of the accused or the witness. That is the kind of situation the Fair Elections Act was designed to ensure by undermining the integrity of the investigation process.
However, that was not the only problem the Conservatives wanted to create or even exacerbate. One of Elections Canada's main tasks is to educate voters across Canada on the electoral system and their role in it, and those information campaigns should be entirely impartial to ensure fair elections. The Conservatives, however, had no interest in conducting public information campaigns in schools or newspapers. Voter participation is not in the Conservatives' partisan interest. They did everything they could to undermine it. In the end, voter participation was high, but that was because Canadians were fed up with the lack of integrity.
Because of that, the Conservatives used their integrity bill to change the law and take away Elections Canada's educational role. Going forward, its only role would be to say where, when, and how to vote. That is it. Things were even worse than we thought. On top of taking power away from the Chief Electoral Officer, the Conservatives wanted to muzzle him, just like they muzzled scientists to keep facts from interfering with their agenda.
In addition to dealing with the elections commissioner's workplace and power structure, Bill C-76 will resolve this ridiculous situation created by a government that had no interest at all in protecting democracy. To the Conservatives, electoral integrity meant staying in power.
Going forward, the Chief Electoral Officer will have the right to speak and to perform his rightful educational role. That is why the Conservatives are so afraid of this bill passing and will do everything they can to block it. Much like women's rights, the integrity of our elections is not something the Conservatives care about. Shame on them.
Speaking of shame, let me remind the House that the Conservatives use the Fair Elections Act to take away voters' right to use their voter information card as a piece of ID. That had an immediate and significant impact. An estimated 170,000 people lost the right to vote in 2015 because of that anti-democratic change.
The vast majority of approved pieces of ID are used to confirm a voter's home address and to confirm whether this person has the right to vote and is voting in the correct riding. The voter information card does both of those things. When voters receive their card, it means that they are obviously on the voter's list. This also means that the address is correct, or else they would not have received their card. However, this card is never enough on its own, and it must be used with another piece of ID. Anyone can vote with a health card, for example. Without this card, someone who does not pay the household bills and who does not have a credit card or driver's license has nothing else to confirm his or her address. Once again, this was the objective of Stephen Harper's Conservatives.
If people were not going to vote Conservative, why let them vote at all? That would not help the integrity of a Conservative victory. No one wants that, so the Conservatives prevented Canadian voters from using the best piece of ID available to a large number of them. Integrity, my foot. These people do not have much integrity at all.
I am particularly proud of Bill C-76, since it will allow mail from the Chief Electoral Officer to be used as a valid piece of ID to vote. This makes sense.
The process we embarked on was long and complex. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs worked hard to study each recommendation made by the former chief electoral officer. Of the 130 specific changes in Bill C-76, 109 stem directly from the recommendations in the Chief Electoral Officer's report on the 42nd general election. Furthermore, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs studied most of the recommendations. The others were mostly technical changes requested by the Chief Electoral Officer.
I am proud to support this bill and to support a government whose vision extends beyond the next election to secure the long-term success of our country and our democracy.
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Mr. Speaker, the member had a lot of information, because he talks fast. The government just gave notice of time allocation after only a little more than an hour of debate, so I can understand why he tried to get so much into his speech. He knew his government was going to cut off his ability to debate the bill, so I can appreciate that.
Why is the government, after only an hour of debate, giving notice of time allocation? Why are the Liberals so afraid to debate the bill? It has clearly been slapped together quickly and haphazardly so probably does need some improvements. All parties deserve the right to have a look at a 350-page omnibus bill and have the opportunity to debate it properly. Why, after only an hour, are the Liberals giving notice of time allocation to try to shut down debate and not give us those opportunities?
The member called the voter information card the best identification document. According to Elections Canada, there is an error rate on the National Register of Electors of about 16% at any given time. Almost one million of these cards were mailed out incorrectly in the last election. Why does he believe that is the best form of ID available? When there are 39 other forms of ID, it is hard to imagine he would think that somehow this error rate of one million somehow makes it the best form of ID.
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, the member was there for a lot of the discussion we had at committee on the Chief Electoral Officer's report that led to the greatest portion of the bill.
The voter information cards are the only piece of federally issued identification that has people's names and addresses on it, and it is free to everybody. People have to pay taxes to get it. There is no other federal piece of identification that does this. It is important to have a single piece of ID that everyone has access to, and it is the one and only thing that does that.
Regarding consultation, if we want to look at the bill more closely, the best place to do it is at committee. The member for Banff—Airdrie and I can look at it in much greater detail, with somewhat less noise. We can deal with the issues one line at a time and get through it properly.
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is an expert in the digital world. I want to ask him about the various implementations or changes that have been made to ensure there is no foreign interference. One of them is bots. Would he comment on this?
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, any time we have an electronic system that can be compromised, it is very important the election system itself is kept to a paper system and that outside interference is blocked in every possible way.
Given the nature of the Internet, and net neutrality is a whole discussion we will have in a couple of weeks, it is very hard to block or manage different traffic from different parts of the world. Every effort we can take to achieve that is extraordinarily important for the protection of our democracy.
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the aisle for his presentation.
One of the things that concerns me about this bill is how little time is left until the next election. Elections Canada says that the new rules should have been enacted by the end of April. However, this rather hefty, 230-page bill was not even tabled until April 30.
I have seen the government display this tendency in other matters, such as the bill on indigenous languages. The call for tenders to develop and draft that bill went out only a few days ago.
I wonder if my colleague shares my concerns.
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am not too worried on that score. Most of the recommendations have already been included in the bill, which is public. It should be passed more or less as is. We already have access to the information we need to implement it on time. I think we really can make the necessary changes before the next election.