Paul Calandra

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will come back to it again. The member talked about vouching. She talked about a senior whose bills are all in her husband's name. Had the member actually read the bill, on page 25, on subsection 143(3), she would have seen that this is actually addressed. The polling clerk would have an opportunity to address that. Apparently the member missed that section.

The member also talked about the education feature. The returning officers' postmortem of the 41st general election, on page 10, talks about one of the things the returning officers identified as being the biggest problem in the last election and what could help improve voter turnout.

...ROs identified that there is a need to give out more information to electors; for example, there are not enough outreach activities and communications about where the RO office is located and on the voting process. They suggest taking out ads explaining that advance polls will be busier. Even if it was the day after, this would help ease voter complaints about long wait times.They also recommended being more proactive in informing the public about specific voting issues, and more advertisement on the Special Ballot process.

What they talked about was actually telling Canadians how to vote and about advance polls to make it easier for Canadians. That is what the people who run elections think would help make elections better.

Why is it that the member opposite rejects what the returning officers across this country pointed out as the—

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot from the opposition members with respect to the debate. However, it seems to always come down to a couple of key factors for them. One is an increase in the maximum amount of money Canadians can contribute, should they wish to. Page 185 of the bill outlines that it increases by $25 a year starting January 1.

The opposition talk about vouching. On page 25 of the bill, subsection 143(3) identifies that it gives the polling clerk some leeway when there is no clear indication of address. I asked the member a question about that section the last time he spoke to this. We still have not heard an answer from the NDP on how that provision can be improved.

It further talks about giving political parties an opportunity to seek rulings from the Elections Commissioner. We have not heard any response on that. That could include what forms of ID are required.

We also hear a lot about the outreach and education function of the Chief Electoral Officer. However, when we look at page 10 of the report of the last election from the returning officers, the people who run the elections, they support the government's position of what Elections Canada should do in order to increase voter turnout.

Those are the areas that the NDP and the Liberals keep focusing on. We have been at this for a number of hours and days and not once have they come up with even one thing to change any of those sections.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has done nothing in the last five minutes to discuss the content of the motion. In fact, I doubt that he actually has anything in his speech with respect to the motion before us.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you might ensure and insist that the member get on to the actual substance of the motion, if he is prepared to do that.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry you had to suffer that speech by being in the chair.

The reality is that this particular piece of legislation has yet to have a minute in committee. We know that when Bill C-23 was first introduced, the New Democrats, before even reading the bill, had said they would not support it. That was painfully obvious when the critic for democratic reform admitted in front of the press that he had not read the bill and said the NDP was still not going to support it.

Moreover, we had some debate in the House and heard two areas of concern. One was with respect to vouching. I note that on page 25 of the bill, it states that subsection 143(3) would be modified but still provides some leeway for the polling officer with respect to people's addresses. I have yet to hear from the NDP what it would propose. We also know the Minister of State for Democratic Reform has clearly stated that the Chief Electoral Officer would still have the mandate to go out and speak to people.

In the absence of hearing anything from the NDP on what it would do differently in the bill, outside of those two areas, would the hon. member agree that we should start committee hearings on this and get further debate going?

[Ethics, February 14th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in front of me I have the expenses of Conservative members of Parliament and senators who have actually posted their expenses online. I looked through the Internet to try to find the expenses of the NDP caucus, but then I was reminded of the fact that New Democrats are refusing to tell Canadians what their expenses are; do as I say, not as I do. NDP members refuse to tell Canadians what their expenses are.

We expect all senators to work with the Auditor General because Canadians are demanding accountability of the Senate. That is what they are getting from this side of the House and we will make sure that they continue to get that.

[Ethics, February 14th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Auditor General is currently undertaking a review of Senate expenses. Of course, we expect all senators to comply with that review. It is not just us but Canadian taxpayers who are demanding that.

At the same time, we are hearing from Canadians that they would actually like to see the New Democrats do what this party has done, and that is post their expenses online so that Canadians can actually take a look at that. This party has, its members of Parliament and senators. The NDP is refusing to do that for Canadians, and now the Liberal senators are also refusing to do that.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, February 14th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, the CBC revealed the names of three NSA employees when its cameras panned across National Security Agency documents. In fact, the CBC has revealed leaked NSA documents that have inadvertently disclosed the names of at least six intelligence workers it never intended to give away.

These documents were stolen by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and sold to the CBC by Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald, the porno-spy, has said he would not publish the names of U.S. intelligence workers unless they were top-ranking public officials. Clearly that is not the case.

Not only is this information in CBC's ethically illicit pay-for-news scheme false, but it is jeopardizing the security of individuals whom, unlike the CBC, I will not be naming here today.

Why is furthering porno-spy Glenn Greenwald's agenda and lining his Brazilian bank account more important than the public broadcaster maintaining its journalistic integrity?

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's discourse

I noticed though that in the returning officers' post mortem of the 41st general election, they being the people who actually run the elections in each of the 308 ridings across this country, they identified one of the big problems and obstacles to voter turnout being that people did not know where to vote, when to vote, and what ID to bring.

On page 17 of the report they also identified the fact that some of the polling stations were too busy, which discouraged people from voting. They believe that ought to be Elections Canada's primary function in the next election in order to increase turnout. That is what the people who run the elections in 308 ridings across this country said was the biggest obstacle to voter turnout.

Additionally, I draw members' attention to page 25, subsection 143(3), which says, not with respect to vouching but the following:

If the address contained in the piece or pieces of identification provided...does not prove the elector’s residence but is consistent with information related to the elector that appears on the list of electors, the elector’s residence is deemed to have been proven.

That means that if the ID cannot be proven, the polling officer still has the right to give that person a ballot, not disenfranchising anyone, but making sure the person who votes is the actual person who should be voting. That is—

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, under the new proposed legislation there would be four opportunities for voting in advance polls. One extra day, I think, would help make sure that more Canadians have the opportunity to vote.

On Easter Sunday, I will be in church with my family, as will a lot of other people. I suppose there will be a lot of Canadians who are not in church on Easter Sunday. We are a very diverse country. That is why we are adding an extra day so that all Canadians have access to four additional days to vote, not including of course other opportunities for Canadians to vote by special ballot.

I think that is good news for Canadians and good news for democracy, and I hope the hon. member will take a look at that and support it.

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the member of Parliament from Manitoba, I tend to focus on my riding and my community, speaking to my constituents and hearing what they have to say.

The process, of course, will continue not only through debate here but also at the procedure and House affairs committee where it will be given another thorough vetting. The committee will hear witnesses and the bill will come back to the House for more debate.

I note that only six members of the Liberal Party have taken the opportunity to speak on the bill, and for the most part they have talked about why they lost an election over the last number of years as opposed to actually focusing on what is in the bill.