Corneliu Chisu

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in the third reading debate of Bill C-23, the fair elections act.

This important legislation would ensure that much-needed reforms are brought to a number of areas of electoral law in the Canada Elections Act.

The government committed, in the 2013 Speech from the Throne, to introduce comprehensive changes to Canada's election law. With the fair elections act, we have fulfilled that promise. The bill's measures are common sense, reasonable, and Canadians agree with them.

I want to remind the House that our government has been clear from the start that it would listen carefully to the debates and witnesses, and consider reasonable amendments that would improve the bill. On April 25, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform announced that the government would support amendments on a wide range of subjects dealt with by the fair elections act—14 areas, in fact.

My remarks today will focus on some of these amendments and will demonstrate why the fair elections act would be made even better with these changes. In particular, I would like to highlight the importance of upholding the integrity of elections and of protecting Canadians' right to vote. These are objectives of the bill that all hon. members should join me in supporting wholeheartedly.

One excellent example of how Bill C-23 would put those important objectives into practice is the new voter contact registry. This initiative would prevent fraudsters from taking advantage of communications technology to deceive Canadians out of their votes.

Another very important example of how the fair elections act would uphold the integrity of the vote and protect Canadians' rights to vote is the bill's provisions on voter identification, as modified by the amendments that were passed by the procedure and House affairs committee.

I will return to these topics a little later.

Before I turn to some specific amendments, I would like to reiterate that the proposals in the fair elections acts are reasonable, common sense, and Canadians support them. I would like to remind the House that recent polls show that Canadians agree with the measures in the fair elections act. In particular, 87% believe that requiring voters to prove their identity is reasonable, and 70% believe it is acceptable to eliminate vouching.

Most of the amendments that I am about to describe respond to various commentaries and suggestions that have been made during numerous hours of witness testimony in the procedure and House affairs committee, as well as many further hours of witness testimony in the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee.

Such an airing of opinions and constructive debate is a sign of a healthy democracy. I am proud to say that this legislation would strengthen our democratic practices.

The first two of the government-supported amendments to Bill C-23 that I will describe today concern voter identification practices. Canadians should have complete confidence that their federal electoral system would operate with the integrity that they expect and deserve, and the requirement to show identification is a key part of ensuring that is the case. While the fair elections act would require people to show identification proving who they are before they vote, the government supported an amendment to assist those whose address is not on their identification to register and vote.

Specifically, the amendment would allow electors whose identification does not have an address, to vote by providing two pieces of identification that prove their identity and by signing a written oath as to their residence, provided that an additional safeguard is met. The additional safeguard that would be required in such circumstances is that another elector from the same polling division, who proves his or her own identity and residence by providing sufficient documentary proof, must also take a written oath as to the residence of the elector whose identification does not have an address specified on it.

To ensure the integrity of the vote, new procedures to detect potential non-compliance will be done after polling day. In particular, Elections Canada will be required to check the list of those who signed the oaths as to residence, to make sure that no one voted more than once or attested for another elector without being eligible to do so. Moreover, a mandatory extended audit of compliance will be done after every election in order to ensure that the rules are followed.

Unlike the current rules for vouching, every voter will now need to show identification, without exception. The message to voters from these measures is “Get identification. From now on, you will need it to vote”. Canadians can choose from 39 allowable forms of identification. Government-issued photo ID is not required.

The next government-supported amendment to Bill C-23 that I will mention today also relates to voter identification requirements.

The amendment will clarify that all of those who apply for a special ballot and vote at the office of the returning officer must prove their identity and residence in the same way as they would at the polling station.

A reasonable concern was expressed that the fair elections act would, in practice, create two processes, one for local electors and another for electors who are away from their electoral district. This amendment will have the benefit of ensuring consistency in the identification procedures that are practised for voting at all polling stations, and at the office of the returning officer.

I believe the amendments to Bill C-23's voter identification measures that I have mentioned will further strengthen the needed reforms that this bill brings to the current voter identification process.

The next amendment to the bill that was introduced by the government that I wish to touch on today concerns the public information and education mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer.

This amendment clarifies that the Chief Electoral Officer may communicate with the public, but where he advertises to inform electors about the exercise of their democratic rights, he can only do so on how to be a candidate; when, where, and how to vote; and what tools are available to assist disabled electors.

That policy recognizes that there are two things that drive people to vote, motivation and information. Motivation comes from parties and candidates giving people a reason to vote. Information should come from Elections Canada on where, when, and how to vote.

In other words, political parties and candidates appropriately provide the “why” and Elections Canada appropriately provides the “how”.

The government also supported amendments to ensure that the Chief Electoral Officer knows that he has always had the freedom to speak or report on any matter. There was some confusion on this when the bill was introduced. These amendments will clarify that issue. Furthermore, amendments stipulate that the Chief Electoral Officer may support civic education programs that explain voting for primary and secondary school students.

The next of the government amendments that I will mention today deals with the central poll supervisors. The bill originally sought to implement a recommendation of the procedure and House affairs commitment that central poll supervisors be appointed in the same manner as the deputy returning officers. Nevertheless, the government has, as promised, listened, and has decided to not proceed with this particular reform.

Another of the government's amendments was to include a provision requiring that the chief electoral officer consult the Commissioner of Canada Elections before issuing an advance ruling or interpretation note. The amendments also provided more time for the Chief Electoral Officer before he has to issue an advance ruling or interpretation note, while reducing the consultation period with the registered parties.

Some reasonably pointed out that the timeframe set out for the Chief Electoral Officer to fulfill those duties might be insufficient to enable them to be completed appropriately. The government listened, and supported amendments to deal with this issue.

Moreover, amendments to the advanced ruling will give them precedence. This will ensure a higher degree of consistency and predictability with respect to those instruments.

It is undeniable that the amendments I have just outlined for the House demonstrate conclusively that, as promised, this government was following the debate on the fair elections act with openness to ideas that would strengthen this common sense bill. The fair elections air was a terrific piece of legislation when introduced, and it has now been improved. We are moving forward with this valuable legislation.

I hope hon. members will join me in supporting the important reforms of the fair elections act.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on the protecting Canadians from online crime act. This is an important piece of legislation for many people in my constituency. I am glad that the government is following through on its commitment in the Speech from the Throne to bring this legislation forward in a timely manner.

The bill we are discussing today is a central part of the government's contribution to addressing the issue of cyberbullying, which unfortunately, with the widespread use of the Internet and social media, is becoming more prevalent in today's modern age. This bill is another key element of the government's continued agenda to stand up for victims and punish criminals who wish to prey on innocent, law-abiding citizens. As we are all aware, Canadians have fully embraced the Internet and other mobile communications technologies, such as smart phones and social media, for communicating with family and friends, seeking information, making new social connections, and creating blogs and websites.

As all members can attest to, the Internet is a large part of being an MP. We use the Internet to stay connected with our constituents, to post relevant speeches and announcements, and even to stay in contact with our families back home.

However, while most people use the Internet in a constructive manner, there have been an increasing number of tragedies where people are using the Internet or other electronic media to engage in malicious and mischievous conduct that leads to serious consequences for the victim.

With this legislation, our government was required to examine the nature of cyberbullying as it manifests itself in today's digital age. Although the issue of bullying itself is an age-old problem, technology has irrevocably changed the nature and scope of bullying. For example, bullying conducted over the Internet is faster, easier, and nastier than ever before. It also has the potential to remain in cyberspace permanently and to be done anonymously. Furthermore, perpetrators may be more likely to engage in bullying behaviour online because they cannot see or hear the effects of their actions, and because it is possible to be anonymous online. This leads me to the severity and potentially tragic nature of cyberbullying.

When we think about the bullying of the past, where some kid might have stolen our lunch money or pushed us into a puddle, we rarely associate further ramifications to these spiteful yet seemingly minor actions. However, over the past few years cyberbullying is alleged to have played a part in the decision of some young people to take their own lives. The recent stories which we are all familiar with are truly heartbreaking. I am sure I speak for all Canadians when I express our deepest condolences for the families of the victims of these tragic events. However, these incidents also prompt us, as lawmakers, to ask what the federal government can do to prevent similar tragedies.

This was the motivation behind the federal-provincial-territorial working group on cybercrime. In July, the Department of Justice, on behalf of all federal-provincial-territorial partners, publicly released its report on cyberbullying and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. The working group studied and considered whether or not cyberbullying was adequately addressed by the Criminal Code and whether or not there were any gaps that needed to be filled. This working group made nine unanimous recommendations with respect to the criminal law response to cyberbullying.

The first recommendation in the report calls for a multipronged and multi-sectoral approach to the issue of cyberbullying and calls for all levels of government to continue to build on their initiatives to address cyberbullying in a comprehensive manner. This recommendation recognizes that cyberbullying cannot be adequately addressed by one initiative by one level of government. In fact, most experts agree that bullying and cyberbullying are most effectively addressed through a multipronged approach. Criminal law reform only represents one small portion of a much larger situation.

Getting back to the bill that is before us today, I am pleased to note that all of the proposals contained in the bill were recommended by the federal-provincial-territorial working group and are supported by provincial and territorial attorneys general.

The bill has two main goals: to create a new Criminal Code offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images and to modernize the investigative powers of the Criminal Code to enable the police to effectively and efficiently investigate cyberbullying and other crimes committed via the Internet or that involve electronic evidence.

I would like to focus the remainder of my remarks on the proposed new offence. The proposed offence would fill a gap related to a form of serious cyberbullying behaviour with respect to the sharing or distribution of nude or sexual images which are later used without the consent of the person depicted. It is important to emphasize that the goal of this offence is not to criminalize the making of these images or even the consensual sharing of these images, as between intimate partners or friends. Rather, this offence would focus on the behaviour that is more often becoming associated with these images, the distribution of them without the consent of the person depicted.

Specifically, this new offence would prohibit all forms of distribution of these types of images without the consent of the person depicted. Quite often the perpetrator of this behaviour is the ex-partner or ex-spouse of the person depicted in the images who is seeking revenge or looking to humiliate or harass them.

To secure a conviction for this offence, a prosecutor would be required to prove that the accused knowingly distributed the images and that the accused distributed the images either knowing the person depicted did not consent to this distribution or being reckless as to whether or not the person consented.

A key element of the proposed offence is the nature of the image itself. The bill proposes a three-part definition of intimate image to guide the court in determining whether or not a particular image is one that could be subject to the proposed offence. An intimate image is one in which the person depicted was nude or exposing his or her sexual organs, or anal region, or engaged in explicit sexual activity. The Criminal Code uses a similar definition in the voyeurism section 162 and child pornography section 163 offences. However, the content of the image on its own would not be enough to qualify the image as an intimate image. The court would also need to be satisfied that the image was one that was taken in circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy and that the person depicted in that image still retains a reasonable expectation of privacy in the image.

These two elements are key to ensuring that the proposed offence is not cast too broadly and does not capture images in which there could be no reasonable privacy interest. For example, if a person took sexual images of themselves in the privacy of their own home for their own personal use, the image would likely be found to be an intimate image. However, if that same person then posted those images on a public website it is less likely that the court would find that the individual retains a reasonable expectation of privacy, despite the fact that the initial recording of the image was privately done.

The proposed offence would be supported by several complementary amendments in the Criminal Code to provide protection to victims of this particularly contemptible form of cyberbullying. These complementary amendments would permit the court to order the removal of intimate images from the Internet and other digital networks as well as make an order for restitution to cover some of the expenses incurred in having the images removed.

Further, the court would be empowered to order the forfeiture of tools or property used in the commission of the offence, such as a smart phone or computer, as well as a prohibition order to restrict the use of a computer or the Internet by a convicted offender. This prohibition order would be especially useful in cases of repeat offenders.

The legislation also proposes to permit the court to issue a peace bond against a person who has intimate images in their possession where there are reasonable grounds to fear that a new offence would be committed by that person.

The proposed new offence and complementary amendments fill an existing gap in the criminal law and aim to provide broad protection to victims of this behaviour.

I understand that this legislation will not address all of the concerns that stem from cyberbullying, however, I believe this a great leap in the right direction and I strongly urge all members to support this piece of legislation.

[Justice, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are concerned that certain high-risk individuals found not criminally responsible may be granted unescorted trips into the community. They are concerned that this represents a threat to public safety.

This is precisely why our government introduced the not criminally responsible reform act. This important legislation would create a new high-risk designation that would put public safety first.

Can the Minister of Justice please inform the House about the status of this legislation, and how it would benefit Canadian communities?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, April 4th, 2014]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-585, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (period of residence).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table my private members' bill, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (period of residence). This enactment would amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to adjust the national eligibility standard for social assistance to provide that no minimum period of residence may be required with respect to social assistance for Canadian citizens or permanent residents as well as for victims of human trafficking who receive temporary resident permits and certain other protected persons.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[The Economy, April 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today we have more proof that our plan to create jobs is working. StatsCan has announced that job growth beat expectations in March, increasing by over 42,000 jobs. Indeed, under the strong leadership of the Prime Minister, Canada has created over one million net new jobs since the depths of the recession.

However, the global economy remains fragile. We know that good economic management requires tough decisions and sound judgment. Unfortunately, the Liberal leader consistently displays a total lack of judgment. While collecting his taxpayer-funded salary, he also padded his personal wealth by ripping off charities with excessive speaking fees. With judgment like that, it is no wonder he thinks that budgets magically balance themselves and that he has no plan for the economy.

Despite the Liberal leader, our government remains focused on balancing the budget, keeping taxes low, and creating jobs for all Canadians.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the presentation of my colleague opposite, especially as the Pickering nuclear power plant is in my riding.

My hon. colleague is asking for unlimited nuclear liability, but the NDP does not have a plan for how this would work. We have put forward legislation that would balance the responsibility of nuclear operators to cover any damages by taking into account the impact on ratepayers. What would the NDP's proposal cost the ratepayers of Ontario who rely on clean nuclear power for their electricity?

Nuclear power is one of the green electricities. Does the NDP support the nuclear industry and the men and women who are workers?

In my riding there are 3,000 people working in the nuclear industry. It is very safe and has been producing safe electricity for more than 40 years without any problems.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the issue we are discussing here, Bill C-22, I think the hon. member should go back to discuss the issues regarding liability and the content of the bill.

[Pickering Airport, February 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to quote the Mayor of Pickering, Dave Ryan, who stated:

We thank the Government of Canada for bringing 40 years of indecision to an end; and providing clear direction on the Pickering airport.

Moving forward, the City of Pickering and its residents ask that the Government of Canada employ an open and transparent process with opportunities to share, analyze and comment on relevant documents and decision-making on the use of the federal airport lands.

The City of Pickering and Durham Region have constructed their infrastructure to support the development of the Seaton lands, which will see housing for 60,000 people and some 30,000 jobs materialize over the next 10 years. With this in place, infrastructure for Seaton is sized to accommodate the future Pickering airport.

There is a desire in the city of Pickering to move ahead with this project.

[Ukraine, February 26th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for her question. It is a valid question.

The situation in Ukraine is confused, and we need to be cautious with our actions. We cannot just freeze all the assets. We need to leave these issues to the development of the democratic process in Ukraine. I can say that Canada is acting very cautiously in concert with the European Union.

I was at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on January 30 where I delivered a speech. Canada is an observer there and was the first country to contemplate sanctions against the oligarchs. That is one step in which Canada has shown leadership.

However, we need to be cautious. We need to see how the development of the democratic process is going in Ukraine at this point. We cannot take measures that are out of context and that may precipitate a situation that is not necessarily desirable.

[Ukraine, February 26th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his very useful comments.

Canada is the sixth-largest donor of technical assistance to Ukraine and has invested over $410 million in bilateral official development assistance. These are very important things, and we are continuing to offer assistance to Ukraine.

The issue at the moment, in my opinion, is the financial situation in Ukraine. The country needs immediate financial assistance. Obviously, the first group of countries that can offer this assistance is the European Union.

I just heard that the Russians froze the buying of bonds from Ukraine. Now the currency, the hryvnia, is going down.

The problem that Ukraine faces now is that of getting immediate financial assistance. I think Canada can contribute and work with its partners and allies to resolve the situation.