Debates of May 22nd, 2018

Elections Modernization Act

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on a very thoughtful speech and agree with him 100% that regardless of what my colleagues in the Conservative Party say, every Canadian knows why former prime minister Harper called an excessively long election campaign. He was pressing his advantage as the party that had the most money to spend. He was using the bully pulpit of the bank account to try to gain an advantage in our democracy by spending more money than the other parties had. That was the only reason we had a historically long election campaign. I congratulate the government on closing that gap. We have minimum election campaign periods, so it only stands to reason that we should have maximum ones as well.

My question is about the financing of elections. It is my view that democracy is a fundamental matter of public importance and that our democracy should be publicly financed, not privately financed. I know that when Jean Chrétien brought in what I thought was incredibly wise electoral reform in this country, giving Canada the best system in the world, we had a per-vote subsidy. The Conservatives removed that per-vote subsidy, and that damaged the public financing of our system.

Does the member agree that there is a case to be made to restore the per-vote subsidy on the supposition that the rebate is to pay for the election just had, but the per-vote subsidy is to allow parties to be funded for the elections to follow? Does he agree that it is a wise move, and could he explain why it is not part of this electoral reform bill?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this idea of returning to the per-vote subsidy has come up. I chaired the electoral reform committee and know it was brought up by the member's party. Some provinces, like Quebec, have a per-vote subsidy, and we have had a per-vote subsidy before. There are other ways of having public money support our democratic system, one of which is through the tax credit, as has been mentioned.

One thing I learned from the electoral reform committee was that every country has its own political culture. It has its own idea of what people want to see in a democratic system, and I do not believe that Canadians want a return to the per-vote subsidy. The per-vote subsidy does not reflect how people feel about the parties, because it is based on decisions they made one, two, three, or four years ago. That is an important point to make.

The other thing is that it is also important for political parties to focus on collecting small donations. I know all the political parties are engaged in this. In some cases, it happened when the per-vote subsidy was withdrawn. It is a question of what Canadians want, and I do not think that is what they are looking for right now.

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for his particularly thoughtful speech with regard to running fair elections and encouraging the democratic process. The way forward is with a reasonable financial accounting system that allows for people to contribute to election campaigns while, at the same time, not allowing money to overrule the power of the electorate through many of the things that were mentioned earlier.

A very good point the member made was that getting young people to vote is particularly important. If young people do not vote in the first election after they turn 18, they are more likely never to vote in an election again. That is tremendously important. I wonder if the member would speak to his experience of getting young people to vote and the real power of getting them to vote at the earliest opportunity in order to engage them in the electoral process.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member really touched on the central point, which is that we want people to get into the habit of voting. That habit starts at the first opportunity, which is at 18 years of age. The more people anticipate having that right to vote and the day they will be able to put the X in the circle or the box, the more excited they will be about that day coming.

The other important reason for wanting people to vote, vote regularly, and get into the habit of voting is that it then becomes a value they pass on to the next generation, to their children. Yes, if we can get people talking about voting ahead of time, and if parents give the example of voting to their children, then their children are more likely to vote. As someone else said, it is often young people who create positive change for all of us, so it is important that they go to the ballot box.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to talk about such an important issue. In the last election campaign, in my community and in communities right across the country, many concerns were raised about how we can ensure the integrity and inclusivity of the elections modernization act.

Things that came up were that parties must protect personal information. We need to reduce barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from voting and participating. We need to reverse changes made by the previous government, including reintroducing the voter card, reintroducing vouching, and safeguarding the independence of the commissioner of Canada Elections, who ensures compliance with the act. We need to ensure greater flexibility for the Chief Electoral Officer. We can expand the franchise to Canadians living abroad. We need to target the malicious use of technology like political bots, which have been seen to interfere with the integrity of our elections.

I rise today to focus more on the important opportunity we have to address spending by political parties and other entities before the writ period. With the implementation of fixed date elections, political parties and third parties may use the time before an election period to spend money without limit.

The Prime Minister gave the Minister of Democratic Institutions a mandate to review the limits on the amounts political parties and third parties can spend during elections, and to propose measures to ensure that spending between elections is subject to reasonable limits as well.

Since the introduction of fixed election dates in 2007, the Canada Elections Act has stipulated that an election should be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth year following the previous general election. In the interests of fairness and transparency, and in keeping with the fact of fixed election dates, this bill defines a pre-election period for federal elections as beginning on June 30 of the fixed election year. This anticipates that the House will have risen, so that there will be no interference with a parliamentary session.

Defining the pre-election period from the end of June provides a window of two to two and a half months before the mid-October election, in which partisan spending would be regulated. New pre-election spending rules will affect registered political parties and third parties. However, it is the latter group that I would like to raise in the House today.

During the 2015 election, a spending limit of about $211,000 was imposed on third parties. Only 19 of over 100 third party contributors spent over $100,000. Thirteen of those were unions. The median spending by third parties was about $8,500. New spending limits for both pre-election and election periods will therefore not directly affect most third parties, but are essential to prevent those with deep pockets from potentially exerting undue influence.

Under this bill, for the first time, all partisan activities by third parties that support or oppose a political actor, like rallies, phone campaigns, and door-to-door canvassing, will be included in the spending limits. For this reason, the limits for third parties will be increased to approximately $500,000 for the election period in 2019, with no more than $4,000 permitted to be spent on a single electoral district. For the pre-election period, the bill sets a spending limit for third party partisan advertising, partisan activities, and election surveys. The limit for the upcoming election in 2019 will be $1 million, with no more than $10,000 spent on a single electoral district. Since the pre-election period could be twice the length of the election period, the limits need to be higher.

I would like to make it clear that in the bill we are distinguishing between partisan and issue advertising. Partisan advertising and activities are those that directly support or oppose a political party or candidate in an election. Issue advertising and activities, on the other hand, encompass a broad range of issues on which third party organizations advocate as part of their regular business. This, of course, is very welcome. Provided they do not mention a party or a candidate, these would not be regulated in the pre-election period.

Third parties that spend $500 or more on partisan advertising or activities during the pre-election period would need to register with Elections Canada. This is already the case during the election period. Third parties that have spent more than $10,000 or received contributions of over $10,000 for partisan purposes will be required to report, upon registration and again on September 15, the contributions received and expenses incurred in the pre-election period.

It is exciting to think about the transparency of all of this, and the help in the investigation of potential allegations of the use of foreign funds. However, the $10,000 threshold will limit the administrative burden to larger third parties that are receiving and spending a significant amount of money to influence an election. Third parties are currently prohibited from using foreign funds on election advertising. This prohibition would be expanded to forbid foreign funding during the pre-writ period for partisan advertising, other partisan activities, and elections surveys.

During both the pre-writ and election periods, tag lines on advertisements would need to identify the third-party sponsor, as is required for a political party. This requirement will now be applied to both the pre-writ and election periods. Previously, it was the case only during the election period.

To facilitate the tracking of financial involvement in these periods, a third party would be required to open a dedicated bank account. This must happen as soon as it receives contributions or incurs an expense with respect to partisan activities. Currently, third parties report on contributions for election advertising received within six months of the writ. As recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer, this time restriction would be removed. Third parties would now report on all contributions received at any time and used for election advertising and partisan activities.

These measures are required because the fixed election dates have changed the way in which partisan activities are conducted in Canada. Parties and third parties know that an election will occur mid-October 2019. Without the new measures included in the bill, those with the most money could dominate the conversation in the pre-election period and could avoid the transparency measures that exist during the election period. This bill would rectify the situation, maintain a level playing field, and ensure transparency in political financing in Canada.

I look forward to the support of hon. members in putting forth this important legislation. It is certainly what Canadians have told us and what Canadians expect us to deliver on.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I look at this legislation as giving strength to Canada's democracy. I believe a majority of Canadians want to see this. It includes more accessibility for the disabled. It looks at the potential impacts of spending on advertising, putting in some restrictions. It even deals with some third-party issues. All in all, the legislation will give more strength to our democratic system.

Could my colleague reflect on what her constituents would say about this very important legislation?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to anyone representing the west coast of Canada and British Columbia that electoral reform and democratic institutions writ large are very important. We have a community of advocates. I held three town hall meetings. Each of them had 100 to 150 people in attendance. One had 300 people at it. Therefore, I have done my homework.

I do not want Canadians to forget the tension during the last election over the sanctity of our democratic institutions and the sense that the previous government had started to close down the access, inclusion, participation, and voting of Canadians. Also, Canadians expect us to protect the fairness of the political system and to ensure that, whether one is a practitioner, a volunteer, a thought leader, or someone at home trying to get the best information, nothing impedes that. Therefore, I am happy to bring forward ideas from the community to the House today.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could comment a bit on this. We heard from the acting Chief Electoral Officer, over the course of some time now, that the government needed to bring forward any changes to election legislation by a deadline in order to implement them properly for the next election. He gave us a very specific deadline of April 30. That obviously has passed now. As a result, he has been clear that there is the need for some compromise with respect to what can be implemented, that some elements of the legislation will not be implemented in time for the next election.

First, could the member comment on why the government has waited so long to bring forward such changes, is now trying to rush it through, and has even gone as far as to give notice of time allocation after only one hour of debate? Second, does she see this as a problem, the fact that some of these things will not be implemented, given the delays of the government?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are taking the time to do it right. We are doing a comprehensive job. It surprises me tremendously that the member opposite is now deciding to listen to the Chief Electoral Officer. If the Conservatives had listened in the first place, we would not be in this situation. However, my understanding is that in PROC today, the Chief Electoral Officer is prepared to work diligently and feels we can achieve this over the summer.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my line of questioning will resonate with my hon. colleague from coastal British Columbia, just given the part of Canada in which we live.

The legislation missed an opportunity to stop the broadcasting of election results in eastern Canada. In the 2015 election, broadcasters were already calling the election when there was still half an hour of polling left in British Columbia. While it did benefit the member's party in 2015, we know in future elections it could very well be another party that forms government. If they are already announcing those results from Quebec and Ontario and calling the election, that might have undue influence on people who have yet to cast their ballots.

I hope this line of questioning resonates with the member. Would she not agree that perhaps we could look at this? I know we cannot stop social media from reporting on it, but we can stop Canada's major broadcasters from filling the airwaves about election results and calling the election, while the good people of British Columbia are still casting their ballots.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, social media is the media so that is the world in which we live. This question has been considered. It is a big country and we really are treating everybody as fairly as we can. Every one of us in this room has experienced calls that were not the way it really turned out. Therefore, let us put our faith in Canadians and let us put our faith in improving the system as we have it before us now. Let us hope the next election sees an even bigger voter turnout than the record turnout in 2015.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand to speak to this legislation.

The Liberal government is really good at saying one thing and doing another, and Bill C-76 is another classic example of exactly this point.

First, the fact is that this is an omnibus bill. It is a 350-page bill. The Liberals can say what they want about the previous government's use of omnibus legislation, but they have plain out campaigned against the use of it. The 2015 Liberal Party platform said:

...Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

Here we are today, debating a 350-page piece of legislation. It is certainly omnibus legislation, and not the Liberals first use of it either. There is a term I could use to describe that, but it is unparliamentary language so I will not use it.

However, members do not have to take it from me. Senate Liberal Joseph Day stated recently, “This government has evidently abandoned its election promise to end the practice of omnibus bills”, and indeed it has. Bill C-76 is a shining example of that.

That is not the only broken promise or the use of Liberal doublespeak I will be talking about today. In fact, that is just the tip of the legislative iceberg on the level of egregiousness the Liberals have used in this bill.

What is worse is that the Liberals sat on the predecessor of Bill C-76, which was Bill C-33, for almost two years without debating it even once. November 24, 2016, was when Bill C-33 was tabled. It is now past the eleventh hour. The deadline of April 30 was set by the acting Chief Electoral Officer. He stated for some time, as did his predecessor, that action needed to be taken by a certain time in order to change electoral legislation.

I think it was a few weeks ago when the acting Chief Elector Officer was before the procedure and House affairs committee once again. He testified that April 30, 2018, was the absolute drop-dead date that he would need to have legislation, with royal assent, in order to have it implemented prior to the 2019 federal election. Maybe the Liberals slightly misunderstood that and thought it had to be tabled by April 30, because that is when they tabled the legislation. However, the Chief Electoral Officer was quite clear that the bill would need to have had passed and received royal assent by that date. Therefore, here we are late into May and just starting to debate it.

The Liberals have slapped a bunch more changes on Bill C-33 and have rushed it out the door. We have even heard reports of the Liberal's minister did not knowing what was in the bill. This was indicated in a Huffington Post article, entitled “Bill C-76: Democratic Institutions Minister's Office Didn't Know Elections Bill Closes Loophole”. Even their own minister and his office were not familiar themselves with what was in the bill. That is how quickly the Liberals rushed this thing out. Then they expected members of Parliament to digest the 350-plus pages so quickly that after one hour of debate, they gave notice of time allocation.

The minister has invited members of Parliament to submit amendments to the bill, but as it turns out, the bill already would accomplish things that the minister did not even realize. The minister's communications director told the Huffington Post in that same article “neither she nor [the minister] was aware that the bill actually addresses the long-standing loophole.”

He went on to say:

She wasn't certain why all the government's communications material relating to Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act, makes no mention of it or why officials had also glossed over the change.

As a legislator, that certainly does not instill too much confidence in me and my colleagues when neither the minister nor his staff know what this legislation does, or what is even contained in it. I am not sure whether that is incompetence or a result of political masters having no idea of what bureaucrats are doing, or what it is, but any way, it is completely unacceptable.

What we have in Bill C-76 is the Liberals claiming to fix a problem, but actually making it worse in the process. What they are proposing with regard to third party spending, for example, would increase the potential opportunities for foreign money and foreign interference in our democratic process. There have been numerous claims about millions of dollars in foreign funding being funnelled into third party advocacy groups here in Canada during the last election. It is something we have raised time and again as an issue and a problem. If we look at the Ontario provincial election currently in progress, we can see the practice of third party advocacy and advertising in action now. Global News reporter, David Akin tweeted on May 4:

Coincidental? As shadowy @ActWow seeds social networks fear-mongering about Ford cutting healthcare, latest release from @ontario_liberal party is … fear-monering about Ford cutting public services.

Akin was wondering whether the messaging being tied together in that regard was just coincidental.

Canadians would certainly not have an issue if these third parties were solely funded and supported by Canadian money, because third party groups certainly have a right to have its say in our elections. However, I think people would expect that these would be funded and supported by Canadians, and not a result foreign money coming in to push viewpoints upon Canadians and to interfere in our elections. However, we are certainly seeing more of that. We are seeing foreign entities funnelling money into Canada through these third party groups to try to affect the outcomes of our elections. I think all Canadians expect that only Canadians should be allowed to determine the outcome of our elections.

Foreign interference in Canadian policy is happening already, and it is time that the Liberals realized it. There are groups like the U.S.-based Tides Foundation that have poured considerable amounts of money and manpower into shutting down our oil industry. Its goal is to land-lock Alberta and our oil, and it does not care how many Canadians it puts out of jobs. It does not care how many opportunities are lost to Canadians as a result. It is not concerned about that.

The loudest groups, like those against the Trans Mountain expansion project, are usually foreign funded. They are acting in ways that do not serve the best interests of Canada. However, only Canadians should be able to determine Canadian policy.

Currently, Canadians are allowed to contribute $1,575 annually to political parties or to candidates, and corporations or unions are completely banned from making those types of contributions. Under the government's proposed legislation, foreign entities could contribute an unlimited amount to third parties to engage in campaign activities just weeks before an election.

Third parties wish to behave like political parties and engage in campaigning. That is certainly fine. We live in a democracy. They are able to do that. However, they should be required to follow the same rules that political parties do. They should be held to the same kinds of standards that political parties are. If a political party needs to account for and pay for campaign expenses like polling and organizing rallies, so should third parties.

If not, John Ivison of the National Post rightfully pointed out that it could lead to U.S.-style political action committees emerging, funded in part by foreign money, to influence federal elections. It is not just me and my colleagues in the Conservative Party who are speaking to this; it is coming from a media source as well, and others out there. It is certainly a pretty accurate concern. It is a concern that many Canadians would have if they were aware of this.

Does the Liberal government want to see big money, foreign-backed political action committees here in Canada? I ask because that is what we are getting, and it is due to its inaction on this very serious threat to our democracy. The vote and voice of each Canadian is diminished when foreign parties try to sway the outcome of our elections. Foreign interference in our elections is a concern I have heard from many Canadians, and I am sure that all members have heard those same kinds of concerns.

I will turn now to another common concern I hear, namely, voter identification. It is really unfortunate that the Liberal government is going to weaken the laws on the requirements for proving one's identity when one votes. The Liberals want to move backward and allow the use of voter information cards as acceptable pieces of ID for voting.

There is a high rate of error in the elections register. Elections Canada shows that in the National Register of Electors, there can be error rates as high as 16% in the records at any given time. It is a very significant, high rate. In the last election, the rate of erroneous cards sent out was also quite high. There were nearly one million of them erroneously sent out in the 2015 election. This policy could really have far-reaching implications, and certainly leaves our Canadian democratic process open to the potential for fraud.

In their response to Parliament and written Question No. 333, Elections Canada and the Privy Council Office said that “there were 986,613 updates to elector information during the revision period which resulted in another Voter Information Card (VIC) being mailed to the elector.” That was during the last election.

As well, there were 509,397 individuals who received voter information cards, representing about two per cent of the voter information cards, who proactively advised Elections Canada of incorrect information on the cards. Those are the numbers of those who notified them.

How many more did not, in fact, notify Elections Canada of errors? It was about 16%, as I mentioned earlier, according to the testimony of the previous Chief Electoral Officer, Mark Mayrand, of Elections Canada. He confirmed the statistic I just gave: 16% of entries in the National Register of Electors are erroneous at any given time. He also indicated that after the revisions period during an election, the error rate is still approximately 12%. That is a pretty significant error rate, one that could potentially affect three million or four million electors, because the National Register of Electors contains about 26 million electors.

This legislation would allow the use of the voter information cards, which have an average error rate of 16%, as an acceptable form of ID to vote. Again, 16% is roughly four million electors. That means that with voter information cards, nearly four million electors could be sent erroneous information. For the life of me, I do not understand how the Liberal government could see that as acceptable. Right now, there is a long list of potential pieces of ID that can be used and are acceptable to Elections Canada for voting.

There are 39 potential forms of ID available for electors to use. They range from drivers' licences, to bank statements, to letters confirming residency, and even e-statements and e-invoices are acceptable if they are shown on a mobile device. There are 39 different forms, and it is hard to imagine a scenario in which someone would not have one of the 39 forms, and yet they would have a correct voter information card. That is very hard to imagine.

It is really not too much to ask that Canadians show some form of ID before casting a ballot? That is not unreasonable, and it is not just me who thinks that. Canadians overwhelming accept that showing ID before voting is a positive thing. When polled, 87% of Canadians indicate it is reasonable to require someone to prove their identity before they vote. The Liberal government needs to explain to those Canadians why it does not think that ID should be required to vote. Why does it not want to protect our electors from potential voter fraud?

We want to encourage as many Canadians as possible to vote, but we have to do everything we can to ensure that we prevent all potential avenues of voter fraud as well. People are expected to show ID before they rent a car, check into a hotel, buy alcohol or tobacco, or consume marijuana, and before they board an airplane. I could go on and on with that list. Why not for voting as well? That is a question the government has failed to answer, but leave it to the government to introduce a bill that is 350 pages long and lacks some specifics.

There have been all kinds of attempts by the government to make changes to its benefit. The Liberals have been caught in scandal after scandal, with ethics violations and cash for access to the Prime Minister, and when they tried to make electoral changes to their benefit. If they had wanted to do something to strengthen democracy rather than attempt to benefit themselves, they would not have sat on their hands with this piece of legislation for two years. They waited until we were past the eleventh hour to bring forward this legislation, and nothing was done to properly consult with opposition parties in the process either.

Conservative Party members have raised the issue of foreign interference in our elections multiple times. The Liberals could have maintained that voters need to have proven identity to vote. They could have ensured there were proper privacy safeguards for our children, but none of those things were done. We are left with a massive disaster of omnibus legislation that the Liberals are trying to rush through after waiting and delaying and making other attempts to try to benefit themselves. Here we are with legislation that is 350 pages long. After one hour of debate, they moved notice of time allocation. It is absolutely astounding that the government breaks every promise it has made during the election. It continually says one thing and does another, and this legislation is another example of that.

We will continue to push the Liberals on that, and I know that Canadians will hold them accountable as well. I look forward to taking questions on the bill.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-76 is not an omnibus bill. “Omni” means pertaining to all things. That would be if a bill was about beef and veterans or about health and defence. This is about one thing only, and that is the Canada Elections Act.

Members may recall that during the debate on the previous government's Fair Elections Act, the former Conservative member for Mississauga—Streetsville claimed that he had witnessed voter information cards being stolen from garbage cans and given to others to use to vote for fraudulent purposes. Of course, he later had to retract that, because it was a false statement. That was very interesting.

Even earlier today, the hon. member's colleague talked about people being able to pull voter ID cards out of mailboxes. People cannot use those unless they have ID that has their address on it. There is no fear here. This led to the acting Chief Electoral Officer, just this morning, telling PROC that there was zero evidence of fraud during the 2011 election and that he considers the integrity of the voter ID card to be extremely high.

I wonder if the member could tell the House why he is so focused on gerrymandering, not political boundaries, but gerrymandering the very act of voting itself in this country.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part response to that. First, when I talked about the use of the voter information card, I was very clear. There are 39 pieces of ID. There is no evidence at all that in the last election there was any problem for anyone in being able to vote as a result of the voter information card not being one of those permissible forms of ID. In fact, voter turnout went way up during the last election. People will say it was because they were looking to vote out the previous government, but the fact is that people were able to vote, and far more people than had been able to vote in the previous election. There is absolutely no evidence in any way that this was somehow preventing people from voting.

While we are on the topic of the debate on the last piece of legislation moved by the previous government, the Fair Elections Act, I have a list of quotes here from members on that side who indicated at that time that they felt that it was improper for a government to use time allocation, or closure, or any of those kinds of things, on that piece of legislation. Is that member going to abide by that in this regard as well?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while I agree with my hon. colleague that identification of a voter at a polling place is important in an election, I would disagree with him on the restricted forms he would use. He would restrict himself to a piece of paper, whereas the process of vouching for someone, where one voter actually signs an affidavit and identifies another person and vouches for that person's identity I think is an equally valid form of identification that his previous government withdrew from the possibilities. That disenfranchised certain people who did not have access to traditional forms of identification.

My question is about the prohibition against broadcasting election results before the polls close. Since 1938, this country has allowed that to happen, and it is based on the premise that voters in one part of the country should not be able to cast a ballot already knowing the result of the election. It is like holding an election yesterday and going to the polls today. I am just wondering if the member has any comments on that. Does he agree with me that those of us in the west, British Columbia in particular, have a right to cast our ballots before we know the result of the election?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there were two parts there. I will address the first part to begin.

The member brought up the idea of the voter information card, vouching, and voter ID. I would just remind him again that there are 39 acceptable forms of ID available. Under our previous legislation, people could attest for someone's residence, but it still was necessary for people to prove who they were.

We saw in the last election that the turnout went way up. There was obviously no indication that people were prevented from voting as a result of the voter information card or any of the other changes that were made. It seemed to me that things worked pretty darn well. I do not see a need to open our system to potential problems that could exist as a result.

In regard to the member's other question, that is exactly the reason. There are all sorts of questions like this one that need to be contemplated and considered by all members of the House.

I am sure many members in the House of Commons have not had the ability to go through this whole 350-page bill yet, and we need to have these types of debates. That is why it is so important that we have the proper time to do that here in the House and in committee as well. The way the Liberal government is behaving and acting, it does not appear as though that is the case, and that is a real problem. I think my colleague would share my concerns about that. The government needs to allow proper time for debate.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty interesting that the hon. member mentioned the way we are behaving. I represent Mississauga—Streetsville, and the previous Conservative member for my riding had imagined a scenario in which he had witnessed voter fraud, and then he further clarified and stated that he had not witnessed it.

My question is quite simple. Does the hon. member agree that there is an onus on the government to enact legislation that allows Canadians to exercise their fundamental right to vote?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly what the member is trying to get at, because I did not see that there were any issues in the last election with anyone being able to exercise that right. In fact, as I have said many times in this debate in this House today, there was certainly no indication that it was in fact a problem in the previous election.

While we are on the topic of things that were said during debate on the Fair Elections Act in the previous Parliament, I will note that the Liberal member for the riding of Bonavista–Gander–Grand Falls–Windsor made the following comment:

If we are actually debating on second reading, third reading, or reports stage any changes to the Elections Act or the Parliament of Canada Act, time allocation and closure need not apply. It basically codifies a convention in this House, a tradition we should respect.... I hope every member of this House will agree with us that closure and, specifically, time allocation would be set aside because of something of this importance.

I certainly hope the current government will live up to those words, which many of its members said in the past, and not break one more election promise, as we have seen with a multitude of election promises the Liberals have already broken.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was struck by what the hon. member said, that only Canadians should be able to determine Canadian elections. We started to talk about foreign money coming in to affect the hearts and minds of individuals. We saw what happened with northern gateway. We saw what happened with energy east. We have seen all these different actors that are actually putting wedges between Canadian provinces and between Canadians. A lot of those types of things have taken place. I remember in the last election when they had Vote Compass. I still have constituents in therapy because they found out that they were Liberals after having gone through that little exercise.

Could the member speak to the significance of making sure that foreign money stays out of Canada so that we are able to take our products to market and do not have to worry about other companies and countries trying to shut them down so that they can have the advantages while we are disadvantaged?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question gives me an opportunity to explore something I did not have a chance to explore in as much detail as I would have liked in my speech.

Certainly the changes being made here, on one hand, would make it more restrictive for political parties, in the period leading up to an election, to spend the money freely donated by Canadians. On the other hand, they would allow more foreign money that comes in through third-party advocacy groups to be spent during that period of time than previously. In fact, it would be more than double what could be spent prior to this bill coming forward. That money could flow freely, in an unlimited fashion, from foreign actors.

The bill would limit political parties in being able to freely spend what they want while also, during that time, allowing government advertising and ministerial travel to continue, which everyone can see would potentially give an advantage to the governing Liberal Party, because its fundraising numbers have been so dismal. At the same time, it would allow foreign funds to flow in freely through third-party groups. As the member mentioned, we have seen in the past that foreign influences have come in to try to end opportunities for our oil and gas sector in my province of Alberta. That has many people very concerned that foreigners would have the ability to influence our policies and our elections in such a way as to harm jobs and opportunities in this country.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Halifax.

It is my honour to speak in favour of Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act. There are many important facets of the bill, but today I will focus on how this legislation would address barriers that prevent some Canadians from participating in the democratic process.

There are four groups of people that regularly encounter difficulties at the ballot box: persons with disabilities, those who have difficulty producing identification, electors living abroad for more than five years, and women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Let me begin with electors who have disabilities, both physical and cognitive. Elections Canada has made efforts to help electors with mobility issues by introducing provisions to provide what has been referred to as level access. An example is providing ramps for wheelchairs at polling stations.

The bill would expand upon the options for persons with disabilities who, for reasons of their disabilities, would be better served by casting their votes in locations other than their originally assigned polling stations. Currently, to acquire a transfer certificate, an elector needs to apply in person to the returning officer or the deputy returning officer. Under the provisions of this bill, the Chief Electoral Officer would be given greater discretion as to how to provide that certificate, with an eye to making it easier for persons with disabilities to vote.

Another provision of this bill would expand the ability of electors with disabilities to be visited by an election officer to vote at home. This option would be available where the polling station was not accessible to the elector.

Another kind of barrier is encountered when electors come to the polls and find that they do not have the appropriate ID to provide their name and address. Following the 2015 election, Statistics Canada found that an estimated 172,000 electors who did not vote stated a lack of ID as the reason.

The bill before us would restore the authorization of the voter information card as identification at the polls and the practice of vouching by another eligible elector for the identity and residence of someone without the necessary ID.

Research has shown that when authorized, voter information cards have been beneficial to groups that have traditionally voted in lower percentages than the national average. These groups include students and indigenous electors. The research also demonstrates that seniors in residences and long-term care facilities use voter information cards as ID 73% of the time. These cards are readily identifiable, easy to use, and with appropriate safeguards, a secure way to establish a right to vote. Indeed, during a federal election, these cards are perhaps the most accurate piece of government-issued identification.

The Chief Electoral Officer has long recommended allowing these cards to be used. The bill before us would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to add the voter information card as an approved form of ID, at his or her discretion. To ensure the continued integrity of the process, an elector would still be required to show an additional piece of identification confirming identity, alongside the voter information card, as was the case prior to the adoption of the so-called Fair Elections Act.

The bill before us would also restore the practice of vouching as a method to make voting more accessible. Under the provisions of this bill, an eligible voter would be able to establish both the identity and the residence of an otherwise eligible voter who did not have ID. In other words, they could vouch for the voter.

Restoring vouching would make it easier for people without the required ID, such as individuals who are homeless, to vote. However, we would ensure that there were safeguards so that the vouching system was not abused. The person vouching would have to have proper ID and reside in the same polling division as the elector being vouched for. One elector would not be able to vouch for more than one other elector, and an elector who had been vouched for could not then vouch for another elector. This would prevent the practice of serial vouching, in which people might in effect vouch for each other.

This brings me to the third group currently denied access to Canadian elections: Canadians who have lived abroad for more than five consecutive years. Under the bill before us, electors who have lived more than five consecutive years outside of Canada would be entitled to vote. The electors would also no longer need to have a stated intention to return to Canada.

The current system provides non-resident voters with a wide choice among the electoral districts where their ballots could be counted. The bill before us would stipulate that non-resident electors would be required to vote in the electoral district corresponding to their last place of ordinary residence in Canada.

Finally, let me turn to the Canadian Armed Forces electors, whose voting rights are defined in division 2 of part 11 of the Canada Elections Act. These provisions were initially implemented to help armed forces personnel participate in the election process. Over the years, other parts of the act have been amended to reflect changing realities, but division 2 of part 11 has not. This facet is important to me because in Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley is a Canadian Forces base, 17 Wing Winnipeg, and other important military institutions that play a crucial role in the community.

It is our responsibility as members to protect the rights of our brave women and men who protect us on a daily basis. Elections Canada has been working with the Canadian Armed Forces to determine the best way to facilitate voting by Canadian Armed Forces electors. The bill before us would provide Canadian Armed Forces electors with options for voting similar to those enjoyed by other Canadians. The statement of “ordinary residence” would be eliminated and Canadian Forces electors would be able to update their information like any other elector. This would enable them to cast their votes in the electoral district to which they have the strongest connection.

Since we now have fixed election dates, the Minister of National Defence would be able to designate election liaison officers to help facilitate the military polls before the writ is dropped. It is hoped that the percentage of Canadian Forces electors who cast a vote will increase in the next election as a result of these measures.

Each of the provisions I discussed will not only make it easier for Canadians to participate in elections but will also strengthen our democratic institutions and our democracy as a whole. I hope hon. members from all parties will support this bill and I look forward to a thoughtful and fruitful debate on this important matter.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of debate today on the voter ID card or information card that Elections Canada has provided. It is important to note that this card was utilized back in the 2011 election, and it was the Harper government that said it did not want it used. At the time, there was a great deal of concern that it would have a negative impact on voter turnout. Earlier today, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs heard representatives of Elections Canada talk about 150,000 Canadians who had difficulty voting and an estimated 50,000 who walked away.

I have more of a comment than a question for my colleague. I look at the voter ID card as yet another piece of identification that can assist Canadians in voting and I would highlight that what is good about this particular piece of ID is that it is something that Elections Canada provides to voters, which voters often keep as a reminder to vote and where. Their addresses are on the cards. If it worked in 2011, why would it not work in 2019? The former prime minister should never have gotten rid of it.

I am interested in the member's thoughts on that.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. As I referred to in my speech, 172,000 people in the 2011 election, according to Statistics Canada, cited lack of identification as the reason they did not vote. We are not suggesting the voter identification card is the only piece of identification that voters present. However, there are people, particularly a number of first nations people, who do not have any form of ID and need to rely on the voter identification card and vouching. These people, without these changes, would be denied the right to vote. We have evidence from the last election that thousands of Canadians had that right taken away from them.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could assure me of one thing. On this piece of legislation, the government, after one hour of debate, gave notice of time allocation. I can point to a whole list of quotes from members on that side, when they were in opposition, indicating how concerned they would be about time allocation or closure being used on a piece of legislation of this nature. They even included it in their election platform.

I wonder if the member would confirm that he would stick to that campaign commitment made by his party, and if the government were to move time allocation, whether he would vote against that measure.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that despite time allocation, this vote will be having all of the scrutiny at committee and by Parliament that it deserves. I will take no lessons from the party that invoked time allocation on this motion twice.

I would also like to clarify one of my answers. I said that 172,000 people did not vote in the 2011 election. I will correct that statement: it was in the 2015 election under the previous government's act that these people could not vote owing to lack of ID.