moved:
That Standing Order 78 be amended by adding the following:
“(4) No motion, pursuant to any paragraph of this Standing Order, may be used to allocate a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of any bill that seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act or the Parliament of Canada Act.”;
and that Standing Order 57 be amended by adding the following:
“, provided that the resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, being considered do not pertain to any bill that seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act or the Parliament of Canada Act.”.
Mr. Speaker, in light of what just took place, I have never seen a larger, more concentrated effort to keep me silent since I last spoke to my own lawyer.
I appreciate the efforts from all members to encourage us to debate and to have a robust discussion on what we consider to be the changing of some of the Standing Orders that we have here today. Essentially, that is what we are doing here today.
In light of the debate that has taken place over Bill C-23, we have proceeded with second reading, we have voted, and it is now with the committee on procedure and House affairs. The substance of that debate, of course, was about the ability of Elections Canada to do its job. It was also about the ability of the average Canadian citizen surpassing the three elements of being over the age of 18, being a Canadian citizen, and residing in a certain riding in which they are entitled to vote.
I say “entitled”, because that goes to the very core of many of our values, such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are talking about section 3, which is the ability to vote.
What brings us here today in this motion is talking about changing the Standing Orders, because there are two elements of the Standing Orders that must be addressed. We feel, in light of the debate we have had about Bill C-23, basically changing the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act, that there are two elements of the Standing Orders being used quite often that should not be.
I will discuss those two elements right now. This is from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, 2009, edited by O'Brien and Bosc. The two elements are time allocation and closure. One is used more often than the other, which of course would be time allocation. I will get to that in just a moment.
Let us talk about closure and how it is addressed in this publication. It says:
Closure is a procedural device used to bring debate on a question to a conclusion by “a majority decision of the House, even though all Members wishing to speak have not done so”. The closure rule provides the government with a procedure to prevent the further adjournment of debate on any matter and to require that the question be put at the end of the sitting in which a motion of closure is adopted. Apart from technical changes as to the hour at which debate is to conclude, the rule has remained virtually unchanged since its adoption in 1913.
I assume one of the reasons it has not been changed that much is that we do not use it as much as it was used before. It is time allocation that is used a lot more often. The text goes on:
Closure may be applied to any debatable matter, including bills and motions. The rule was conceived for use in a Committee of the Whole as much as in the House, but it cannot be applied to the business of its standing, special, legislative or joint committees.
That is closure. Let me get to what is more frequently used, which is time allocation. It seems to be used on every piece of legislation that we see fit to bring into the House these days. Certainly, from the standpoint of government legislation, time allocation is used quite frequently. In O'Brien and Bosc, it says:
The time allocation rule allows for specific lengths of time to be set aside for the consideration of one or more stages of a public bill. The term “time allocation” suggests primarily the idea of time management, but the government may use a motion to allocate time as a guillotine.
I like how O'Brien and Bosc use the word “guillotine”. In other words, it is just cut off at a certain point after so many speakers.
Usually, it is a form of limiting debate within the House. The original concept was to use it for timely matters and certain legislation that had to be passed very quickly. However, it is used so often now that it more for political expediency, dare I say it. It seems to be more toward that than anything else.
The text continues:
In fact, although the rule permits the government to negotiate with opposition parties on the adoption of a timetable for the consideration of a bill at one or more stages (including the consideration of Senate amendments), it also allows the government to impose strict limits on the time for debate. This is why time allocation is often confused with closure.
This is what I mentioned before. It continues:
While it has become the most frequently used mechanism for curtailing debate, time allocation remains a means of bringing the parties together to negotiate an acceptable distribution of the time of the House.
Notice here that this book refers to participation of all parties within this House. We do not see a lot of that these days. We see time allocation. We see some smaller discussions. I wish time allocation were used in a more responsible manner, but I do believe that unfortunately it has become an issue mostly of time allocation for political expediency.
The Standing Orders of the House of Commons and the Conflict of Interest Code do address this. Today we propose amending Standing Order 78 and Standing Order 57. We are considering, “Closure. Notice required. Time limit on speeches. All questions put...”. Following Standing Order 57, we are proposing that the wording be:
, provided that the resolution of resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, being considered do not pertain to any bill that seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act or the Parliament of Canada Act.
We are also calling for the same under Standing Order 78. We are calling for a new subsection (4) saying:
(4) No motion, pursuant to any paragraph of this Standing Order, may be used to allocate a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of any bill that seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act or the Parliament of Canada Act.
This is time allocation “that seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act or the Parliament of Canada Act”.
Let me go back to Bill C-23 for just a moment. We are making major amendments to the Elections Act for people voting in this country, which of course is enshrined within our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We want to talk about the fact that people have the inalienable right to vote and participate in our democracy. These are fundamental concepts.
In practice, since the conception of this House back in the 1800s, we have always looked and striven toward a consensus among all members of differing parties, of differing opinions, whether they be Conservative, Progressive Conservative, Liberal, NDP, CCF, Green Party, and so on. We have always looked for consensus in dealing with something as fundamental as this. Therefore, before the bill was tabled, there were always public consultations, yes, but also House consultations with the different constituents here or the different parties.
It has always been by convention, meaning that it has been a tradition to do that. Nothing has been codified to make sure the governing party of the day, whenever it has introduced legislation of this magnitude, would always seek out consultation with other parties. However, that did not happen this time.
That is why, on this particular day, the Liberal Party is proposing that, if we make amendments to something this consequential, some of this needs to be codified. 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, which is to say that if we are making changes to the way Canadians express their opinions by the fundamental right of democracy, then it should be codified. 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 want to focus more on Bill C-23 because the pattern has been such that this has to be codified. It is unfortunate that we have to do this, really, if we think about it. There have been traditions in the past where the government, putting forward a motion regarding something as important as this, would get the leader of the official opposition to second the motion.
It seems as though more and more of these traditions of consensus within the House are going by the wayside. They are certainly disappearing. If we let more of this happen, the congenial way that this House deals with issues of such magnitude, those conventions and those traditions, will slowly disappear. There we find a degradation of debate in this House.
There are many things happening in this House that require focus to make sure that the sanctity of the debate is respected. I do not like the fact that when a bill is introduced in this House, someone stands up and says right away that our party or our group will disagree with it. I do not think that is respectful, because a full and robust debate was not allowed to happen, but we are observing this more and more.
I want to touch on Bill C-23, which is of course the bill that we are dealing with in the procedure and House affairs committee right now. Making changes to legislation such as the Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act, which is what is happening in Bill C-23, requires measures such as this. Unfortunately, time allocation was used after only the third speaker, and I was number three.
That was an unfortunate passage. There was not even an indication that debate was going to be prolonged or that it was going on far too long and that salient points were being repeated, which members have the right to do. The points were not being repeated to the point where the government was exacerbated and therefore had to use time allocation.
We had only three speakers. That was it. That was all. We had the mover, who was the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, and the critic from the official opposition, and me. Then, all of a sudden, down came the guillotine. The guillotine came down and debate was cut off, literally.
As we look at the background of Bill C-23, we see that there would be fundamental changes in the way Canadians exercise their vote. There are couple of these issues, and one is in regard to vouching. Vouching has been a tradition not only of this democracy but of other democracies as well. It is enshrined within the Elections Act. It is enshrined in how Elections Canada deals with people who do not have the appropriate identification on hand.
Here is the problem. People are eligible for that identification, but they do not have it on their person. They could be transient. They could have moved.
They can prove that they are above 18. They can prove that they are Canadian citizens. I can do that with my health card. I can produce it right now, or perhaps not. Nonetheless, it is here somewhere. My health card can prove that I am a Canadian citizen. I can produce ID that proves I am above the age of 18.
Here is the crux of the matter: proving residency has become problematic for a wide swath of our population. Half a million people use the system of vouching in order to vote. They may have had ID, but just did not have it on them, as in the case right now. I mean that literally.
As of right now, according to this legislation, I cannot vote. My driver's licence shows a post office box on as the address. I cannot use my voter information card anymore. That is what a lot of seniors use, incidentally, if I could pick out one sector of the population. I cannot use that anymore. My utility bills come electronically, so now I have to call my local power supplier and tell them to send me a paper bill. I think I have to pay $4 for that.
There we see a fundamental change in the elections act. We have shortened debate because we want to ram this through very quickly, and that is unfortunate. That is why today I am hoping that all members, especially the Conservative backbenchers, will say this is the way to go. They should use their conscience here. If they are going to fundamentally change the system by eliminating vouching and disenfranchising up to half a million voters, I would suspect that many people here on the Conservative backbench would say we need debate.
Let us remember that time allocation took place after only three speakers. Therefore, the Conservative backbenchers were told they could not talk. They may have been brimming over with joy as they anticipated talking about how wonderful the government is, which many of them do on occasion. Such is their right. However, because of time allocation, they did not have the right to speak. That is unfortunate. I would hope that they would see that this particular motion today would satisfy them.
A member from southern Ontario had a bill about changing the way we function in the House. He tabled a private member's bill for democratic reform. He then faced a barrage of questions from all members of Parliament. What did he do? He took it back, changed it, and brought it back to the House.
There is a reason he did that. It was because there were fundamental changes that went beyond the scope and the principles of the bill that was tabled. If we vote yes at second reading, we have to accept the principles of the bill. One cannot go beyond the scope of the bill if one is looking for amendments within committee. That is called responsible law-making. That is called responsible debate. Unfortunately, we are in a position now where we have gone past second reading vote.
Let me get back to Bill C-23 once more. I talked about vouching and the fact that the office of the election commissioner, the investigative arm of Elections Canada, has now been moved from Elections Canada into the public prosecutions office.
The Conservatives keep talking about the independence of the elections commissioner and how fundamental it is. There is nothing wrong with achieving independence for an elections commissioner in order to do due diligence and do the job. However, here is the problem. They said they want to put the referee's jersey back on the elections commissioner by putting him in the prosecution office. That way he would get to be the referee that he was meant to be. They may have put the referee's jersey on the commissioner, but they took away his whistle. He does not have a whistle to blow in case of serious infractions.
That is a key investigative tool. Many elections commissioners in certain provinces across the country have this tool. Many other departments federally, such as the Competition Bureau, have this power, and they move it frequently. They told us in committee that they use it quite often. It is obvious, without saying, that it is an essential tool. The tool can compel testimony.
In the case of the robocalls, thousands of names were just introduced to the House to talk about robocalls and how bad it was. There are not enough answers regarding this situation. That is unfortunate. Having the right tools to investigate is the way to go, but unfortunately the government did not see fit to do that. Now what we have was not an exercise in independence for the commissioner but an exercise in isolation to isolate the investigative arm of Elections Canada.
Finally, I hope through the course of the day and in the vote that will follow in a fortnight, we will say that debate on fundamental changes to the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act should not be limited.
