Craig Scott

[Fair Elections Act, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would actually like to decline to answer a question on the fairness of democratic process from that member, considering the role the Liberal Party is currently playing in completely undermining all fair process in the Board of Internal Economy and the procedure and House affairs committee.

[Fair Elections Act, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we are at report stage on Bill C-23, and it has been a long odyssey to this point; one of considerable resistance to the bill on the part of the official opposition; many sectors of Canadian society, including organizations who have engaged in the fight, academics and so on; and also, we suspect, considerable pushback from some Conservatives who themselves felt the pressure from the opposition and civil society.

It is worth recapping how we came to be where we are at.

In March 2012, the NDP tabled a motion, which then received unanimous support from everybody in the House, to call on the government to table within six months—that is, by September 2012—a bill that would address the issue of prevention of prosecution of fraudulent election calls and also add to the powers of Elections Canada, including the power of the Chief Electoral Officer to require receipts and documentation for national parties' election expenses, which, believe it or not, currently the Chief Electoral Officer does not have access to.

Well, six months later, by September 2012, a bill with that sort of focus to clearly deal with this kind of fraud and the need to enhance the powers of Elections Canada to investigate had never appeared.

By October, it was clear the government was not dealing with the priority it had promised to deal with in voting for the motion in March 2012, and so I tabled a private member's bill with a proposed, and I would say very minimal, system of voter contact registry to deal with fraudulent election calls, as well as a couple of provisions that also went to beefing up the penalties for that kind of fraud.

I told the minister at the time, which is prior to the current minister, that this was effectively to just prod the government and also help it to begin thinking about this issue, because it was clearly having trouble meeting its deadline. I said that I was available to consult as needed and also that I expected that the government, with its resources, it would be able to come up with an even more effective system.

Well, by April 2013, we still had not seen a bill, despite any number of times I stood in this House and asked when we might.

Suddenly the former minister announced to all, in a highly organized press conference on a Tuesday in April, that he would be tabling the missing bill two days later, on a Thursday. The next day we heard rumours, which were confirmed on that Thursday, that this announced bill would not be tabled after all. We will never know exactly what revolt occurred in the Conservative caucus to lead to that result, but we do know that there was a revolt, and the then-minister was replaced with the current minister shortly thereafter.

We had to wait almost a full year after that event, to March of this year, for the bill to finally be tabled, two years after the March 2012 motion when the government had agreed that it would be tabling a bill within six months and 18 months after that deadline passed.

All that time was spent coming up with a bill that we have dubbed “the unfair elections act”, which explains why the first motion at this report stage is to delete the title of the bill, which the government has called “the fair elections act”. We can think of no more Orwellian a title. The government has come close to titles that were equally unrepresentative of the actual contents of bills in the past, but this one, frankly, takes the cake.

The fact of the matter is that the bill was tabled and within 18 hours, as the critic for democratic reform, I had to be on my feet, having read, analyzed, and formed first views on a 242-page bill to reply to the minister at the start of second reading.

Within very short order, the House leader was on his feet and gave notice of time allocation; time allocation came very quickly thereafter, and very little debate on second reading was permitted.

We then went into the committee stage, where there was an effort on the part of the official opposition, the NDP, to convince the procedure and House affairs committee to allow for hearings across the country in order to hear what Canadians thought. My colleague from Hamilton Centre put on a strong filibuster in order to convey to the government how serious we were about this, but ultimately, after 10 hours, he had to concede that the arguments had not penetrated the brick wall.

We went on in committee to have 71 witnesses, only one of whom was completely in support of the bill. It was one out of 71. Most of the others were critical of large swaths of the bill, and where they were focusing only on one or two things, they were extremely critical of what it would do. They included the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, the previous chief electoral officer and commissioner, the former auditor general, and indeed Preston Manning, and the list goes on.

Then we found ourselves in a clause-by-clause process that ended up having an artificial end date. We had 10 hours of clause by clause, and by the time the guillotine came down at five o'clock last Thursday, we had gotten through only one-fifth of the 242 pages in the bill, one-half of the bill in terms of the clauses, and only half of the opposition amendments. In terms of the amendments that had actually been debated and, after clause-by-clause study, voted on, not a single official opposition amendment was voted in favour of by the government. This was a total farce of a process.

We looked, in a constructive spirit, at the government amendments, voted for those that made sense, tried to amend as it made sense, came up with some proposals that we thought were absolutely impeccable from the government's perspective, and the Conservative members still decided not to vote with us.

For example, when it was clear that the government was not going to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to authorize the use of voter information cards as a second piece of identification, when it was clear that we had lost that fight, we tabled an amendment simply saying that the Chief Electoral Officer had to ensure that the voter information cards were prominently marked with a message to say that this card cannot be used for purposes of identification on voting day, something that was designed to prevent chaos that might occur in 2015 because of the hundreds of thousands who were able to use VICs in 2011. It was the simplest of amendments and the most constructive of amendments.

The government had an entire night to reflect on it, because the amendment was moved at two minutes before closing hour the day before. The government members took overnight, came back, and said they were sorry, they could not vote for that. This was the atmosphere that we worked in.

It has to be said that the efforts of the official opposition and civil society resistance produced some major accomplishments in terms of the government standing down. The fundraising exception that was criticized across the country was removed. The central poll supervisor provision that would allow the first place party in the last election to appoint central poll supervisors was also removed.

Vouching for addresses was restored in the bill because of the pressure that we put on. Retention of documents—some documents, in any case—under the voter contact registry went from one year to three years. Public education by Elections Canada was now permitted for students in schools, even though for everybody else it remains prohibited, and we at least got on record, although the government refused to put this in text in the amendments, that the Chief Electoral Officer will be permitted to communicate freely on any subject that he wishes.

These are major accomplishments, and everyone in Canadian society who pushed back with this effort to resist this attack on our democracy, as Sheila Fraser called it, deserves credit for that.

Nonetheless, the remaining issues in the bill are huge. The bill is much worse than the current Canada Elections Act. For that reason, we will be voting against the bill and seeking, as much as possible, to move at report stage the few remaining amendments that are available to us as the official opposition.

[Fair Elections Act, May 7th, 2014]

moved:

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-23, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 49 with the following:

“years after the end of the election period, and provide to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission,”

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-23, in Clause 77, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 49 the following:

“348.161 For the purposes of determining the period of time during which each script is to be kept in accordance with section 348.16, the three-year period starts from the last time that the same or substantially similar script is used by the same caller.”

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-23, in Clause 77, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 49 the following:

“348.161 For greater certainty, the requirement referred to in section 348.16 to keep the scripts and recordings described in that section for three years does not preclude the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission from establishing a system of voluntary commitments for calling service providers in which they pledge to keep scripts and recordings for periods longer than three years.”

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 51 the following:

“351.11 No third party that failed to register shall incur election advertising expenses of a total amount of $500 or more.”

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 80.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 82.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 83.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 84.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 85.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 86.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 87.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 88.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 89.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 90.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 91.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 92.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 93.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 94.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 94.1.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 95.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 96.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 97.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-23, in Clause 97, be amended

(a) by replacing line 30 on page 195 with the following:

“(a.1) section 351.1 (registered and non-registered foreign third party ex-”

(b) by replacing line 4 on page 196 with the following:

“(a.1) section 351.1 (registered and non-registered foreign third party ex-”

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 98.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 99.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 100.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 101.

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 102.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 103.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 104.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 105.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 106.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 107.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 108.

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 109.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 110.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 111.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 112.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 114.

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 115.

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 116.

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 117.

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 120.

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 121.

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Motion No. 116

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 135.

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 139.

Motion No. 125

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 140.

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 141.

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 142.

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 143.

Motion No. 129

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 144.

Motion No. 130

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 145.

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 146.

Motion No. 132

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 133

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-23, in Clause 152, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 242 the following:

“(1.2) The report shall also include any concerns regarding the powers granted to the Commissioner by the Canada Elections Act.”

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

Motion No. 141

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 155.

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 156.

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 157.

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 158.

Motion No. 145

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Schedule 1.

[Fair Elections Act, May 7th, 2014]

moved:

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 64.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 67.1.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 69.

[Fair Elections Act, May 7th, 2014]

moved:

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-23, in Clause 56, be amended by deleting line 9 on page 32.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

[Fair Elections Act, May 7th, 2014]

moved:

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

[Fair Elections Act, May 7th, 2014]

moved:

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

[Fair Elections Act, May 7th, 2014]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-23, in Clause 5, be amended

(a) by replacing line 6 on page 6 with the following:

“Chief Electoral Officer within 20 days after the”

(b) by replacing line 20 on page 6 with the following:

“subsection (5) within 65 days after the day on”

(c) by replacing line 22 on page 6 with the following:

“65-day period coincides or overlaps with the”

(d) by replacing line 25 on page 6 with the following:

“65 days after polling day for that election.”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-23, in Clause 5, be amended

(a) by replacing line 11 on page 7 with the following:

“Chief Electoral Officer within 20 days after the”

(b) by replacing line 16 on page 7 with the following:

“(4) Within 65 days after the day on which the”

(c) by replacing line 21 on page 7 with the following:

“expiry of that period. However, if the 65-day”

(d) by replacing line 24 on page 7 with the following:

“notice shall be published no later than 65 days”

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-23, in Clause 5.1, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 8 with the following:

“under this Act, including information relating to the commission of an offence against a law of Canada or a province by an individual if, in the Chief Electoral Officer’s opinion, there is evidence of such an offence.”

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-23, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 9 the following:

“(2) The Advisory Committee of Political Parties, established pursuant to subsection 21.1(1), shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with its opinion on the impact of this section within two years after the first general election held after the coming into force of this section.”

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-23, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 9 with the following:

“levels or to any targeted groups.”

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

[Fair Elections Act, May 7th, 2014]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-23, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 5 with the following:

“(2) The mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer is renewable once only; however, a person who has served as Chief”

[Government Response to Petitions, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I rise to further add to the point of order raised yesterday by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.