OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 084 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, May 12, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES May 12, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 084 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 084 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 084 (Version officielle) 147 084 12 05 2014 2014/05/12 11:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 11 a.m. Prayers

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business (1105) [ English ] Promotion of Local Foods Act The House resumed from March 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-539,

An Act to promote local foods , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-539. Second reading Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to talk about what I think is an important concept and idea. At the end of the day, Canadians would respond very positively to the concept of a pro-Canadian food strategy. I think it has a lot of appeal and is something we should be moving more towards. There is a role for the Government of Canada to play, even at some of the very basic levels.

I always find it interesting how much money the Government of Canada will spend on advertising. We spend literally tens of millions of tax dollars on useless advertising. A good example, which I have used before, is the economic action plan that the government tends to promote at a phenomenal cost in tax dollars. I would suggest it is an absolute waste. We could use some of those tax dollars in a more productive fashion, and this is a good example of where I believe the government could be spending smarter in terms of those advertising dollars.

Specifically, when we talk about developing a pro-Canadian food strategy, part of that no doubt has to incorporate advertising with respect to some basic information that would be wonderful to know. For example, how many Canadians know what types of vegetables are actually grown here in Canada? When is the season for strawberries? To what degree do we participate in promotion and educating our population about our agricultural communities, our farmers, and the incredible work they do in terms of providing food for our tables?

Once all is said and done, I believe the government will be found lacking and wanting in terms of being able to educate people and provide a higher sense of public awareness. The Conservatives have really done very little on that front, and we have relied on initiatives from the private sector or other levels of government. For example, one of the huge success stories in my own province is the Peak of the Market, which is an organization that has done exceptionally well in the province of Manitoba. It has provided educational advertising and a much higher sense of public awareness because of its actions.

Peak of the Market contributes immensely to non-profit organizations and educates the population as a whole in terms of the types of vegetables that they receive. Most importantly, not only does it promote good, quality product for the table, but it always provides a wonderful opportunity for farmers in Manitoba to participate in a program, and working as a collective we are able to see that much more in terms of market share. This is critically important, because it helps preserve the family farm and at the same time provides a world-class product.

I am a little biased, but I would suggest we produce some of the best agricultural products in the world. I think of a product like Manitoba-grown potatoes. We have had recognition throughout North America as one of the better producers of potato. French fries are a big thing in our province, not to mention Old Dutch potato chips, which are manufactured in Winnipeg North. I think there would be a very healthy competition between the P.E.I. spud and the Manitoba spud.

At the end of the day, whether it is Peak of the Market or our farmers' direct sales, they have done a phenomenal job in ensuring that we are able to produce a quality product. The Government of Canada could be playing a role in this area. I used the potato as just one example of where the Government of Canada could do more with respect to advertising. As opposed to advertising the economic action plan, why does the government not invest some of those dollars in promoting locally grown products, no matter what region the products come from?

I remember driving down a highway a number of years back and seeing signs inviting people to pick their own strawberries. Ice cream buckets could be filled with strawberries. At certain times of the year, some grocery stores advertise discounted prices for blueberries and so forth. We need to understand and appreciate the importance of healthy food. People's diets can be influenced by the products they purchase in different seasons of the year and how they can store certain products during the winter months. So much more could be done to educate people.

Canadians want to contribute in a more wholesome way toward what they are eating. They are trying to get a better understanding of the food industry. I myself have tried to get a better understanding of local industries beyond vegetables and fruits. The chicken and pork industries are two important industries. A good percentage of the chickens processed in Manitoba stay in my province. The agriculture critic for the Liberal Party came to my province and we had a wonderful opportunity to tour hatcheries and egg producers and visited a processor. Thousands of chickens are processed on a daily basis.

Even though the bulk of them are used for local consumption, some of them are exported. The pork industry in Manitoba processes millions of pigs on an annual basis. The agriculture critic and I toured places like the Maple Leaf plant. We also had the opportunity to visit some pork farms. This is an incredible industry that provides a high-quality product. This industry could continue to grow if we did more in terms of diversification, education, and consumer awareness. Our high-quality product could continue to grow, and that growth would ultimately add more jobs and value to our economy.

I would argue that the final product would be that much better as well. I also want to comment on our dairy industry. This industry has done exceptionally well through supply management, something we are committed to maintaining. This industry provides quality milk, cheese, eggs, and so forth, the essential foods that Canadians need. If we want to be fair, we need to recognize the importance of the role farmers play in our food industry. We should have a strategy in place that would not only recognize their important role but would also encourage and enhance the great potential for growth in that industry.

(1110) [ Translation ] Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the bill to promote local foods, which was introduced by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry . Before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague for introducing this bill. This bill introduces a pan-Canadian local foods strategy and a policy to encourage federal institutions to purchase those foods. It shows leadership by addressing an issue that is very important to the people in my riding.

To illustrate how important local foods are to my region, I would like to read from an email sent to me by Nicolas Villeneuve, a municipal councillor in Saint-Joseph-du-Lac. He is also an apple producer and president of the Deux-Montagnes UPA. When I contacted him to talk about my colleague's proposed strategy, this is what he told me: The bill you sent me is of critical importance to producers in our region. Government support for local foods is essential to ensure ongoing economic progress in the regions and to safeguard the progress our agricultural undertakings have achieved.

Buying local foods will ensure Canadian food sovereignty, which is critical for both current and future generations. This also represents a long-term effort to protect the environment, if only by reducing our food miles. By buying locally, we can optimize people's access to the highest quality foods because quality control on imported products is not subject to reciprocity requirements with respect to production standards. These are the basic elements that I want to bring to your attention in connection with this bill. I would like to thank Mr. Villeneuve for providing such an excellent

summary of why buying local foods is good for our regional economies, not to mention our agricultural sector, food sovereignty and the environment. Mr. Villeneuve supports this bill, just like many other organizations. I would like to list just a few such organizations that people in my region think are very important: the Association des marchés publics du Québec, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Union des producteurs agricoles, Solidarité rurale du Québec and Equiterre. The list goes on and on. These organizations represent the people in our communities who are out there, close to the land.

They realize that this type of bill is necessary if we want to ensure that the buy local movement really takes root. I would like to talk about the research conducted by Equiterre in 2011, which is laid out in a document titled “Eating at home”. I would invite those interested in this topic to visit the organization's website, where the research is available in its entirety. This study highlights the fact that Canadians want to eat local. In fact, three out of four Canadians want to. It is also important to define what “eating local” means.

The survey reveals that in situations of choice, Canadian consumers prefer to buy a domestic product, even from a faraway province, rather than an American product that was grown nearer by. Not just a question of kilometres, buying local is

an act that is motivated by political rather than environmental concerns. When respondents were questioned on ideas associated with local foods, 94%...of them emphasized that they encouraged the local economy. I find that very interesting. When I see those statistics, I am proud that Canadians want to support our own producers so that our communities will be stronger and more successful. Unfortunately, there is a disconnect between what we want to do and what we actually do. That is why this study also looked at the barriers to buying local foods. One of the most common barriers is the fact that local products are not always clearly identified. The study demonstrates that:

(1115) The results of the survey suggest the need for a basket of strategies for easier identification of local products, beyond just a logo or a brand. Strategies could be adapted to the consumer, depending on the environment (rural/urban, province of residence) and the place of purchase. For example, a neighbourhood greengrocer that has the complete confidence of its consumers could rely exclusively on identification at the display or a procurement policy,

whereas bigger chains may need to use a label. Employees could also be provided with better training to help them guide clients towards local products. This is important. We really need to identify best practices in this area and look at the studies that civil society organizations are doing in order to develop a pan-Canadian strategy. The study indicates that, in addition to product identification problems, the incentives with the greatest impact on consumers are availability, accessibility, price and information. These incentives must be discussed and included in any plans for a pan-Canadian strategy.

The conclusion of the report indicates that we cannot merely rely on the isolated efforts of individuals who are already convinced of the benefits of buying local. We need to do more. Consumers are willing to eat more locally grown fruits and vegetables, but all of the necessary conditions for this to happen have yet to be fully realized. I would like to once again reiterate that this study is available on the Equiterre website, and I encourage anyone who is interested to read it. It is very interesting.

However, I would really like to assure my colleagues opposite, who may not trust Equiterre, that buying local is not just a fad. It is a major policy decision that has a widely recognized positive economic impact, particularly for a region like mine. The study was even picked up by the Quebec magazine Les affaires , which once again pointed out how important it is to the Quebec economy to promote buying local. This shows how important it is for governments, like the Government of Quebec, to get involved. The Government of Quebec is very supportive of buying local.

The federal government must also take some leadership with the provinces, while respecting their jurisdictions, of course. The business community, the agricultural industry and environmentalists all agree that a partnership between the federal and provincial governments will allow much more to be accomplished. For example, the Centre local de développement de Mirabel in my riding published a really interesting

article about buying local in its economic newsletter, MIRADEV. It answered two important questions in this regard. First, why is it important to encourage our local farm producers? Second, what are the advantages of buying local products? The answer to the first question is very important and speaks to those who are community-minded. Throughout the entire Mirabel region we are lucky to have farmers who sell their products directly from their farms at a kiosk, a shop or a greenhouse. It is also possible to pick your own fruits and vegetables or have baskets of produce delivered to your home.

If every consumer added $30 worth of Quebec-grown food to their grocery cart every year, sales would increase by $1 billion over five years and roughly 100,000 jobs would be created throughout Quebec. That is quite significant. The benefits are clear. In addition to creating jobs and helping our local economy, we are getting fresh food that is often harvested very nearby. We are also reducing greenhouse gas emissions, again because there is less movement of goods. We are also directly supporting our farmers and promoting healthy eating.

That is important because when we buy locally, farmers use as little pesticide as possible in order to protect the environment. I will close by saying that this is very important for my region, where the economy survives truly because of the local farm community. That is why I stand by my colleague who is proposing this pan-Canadian strategy. I invite all members of the House to support this bill. (1120) [ English ] Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to speak in strong support of Bill C-539,

an act to promote local foods . I will begin by paying tribute to the energetic and thoughtful work undertaken by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry . I will first set the stage with some local context. My riding, Victoria , sits at the tip of an island that is home to nearly 3,000 farms and has a strong tourism sector. Almost one in five service sector jobs on Vancouver Island is connected directly or indirectly to food. However, over the last half century, the balance between locally grown and imported food has tilted dramatically. Once we grew 90% of our food locally; now, we import 90%.

Partly for that reason, Victoria is at the leading edge of a trend that we are seeing in communities across the country, and indeed across the world, a growing interest in buying foods that are produced locally. The majority of Canadians who choose to buy local do it to support farmers as well as their community economy, but they do it for other reasons too. Canadians know that by reducing the distance that our food travels means fresher produce in our kitchens, cleaner air in our communities, and fewer climate-changing emissions across Canada.

Late last year, I had the pleasure of attending the opening of Victoria public market. The market is the fruit of years of work by community activists like my friend Philippe Lucas, who wanted a downtown space to connect local farms with urban residents. It has been enormously successful. My riding is also home to an innovative community organization called LifeCycles, headed up by the indefatigable and imaginative Jeanette Sheehy. LifeCycles partners with municipal governments and public institutions to give residents the tools and skills they need to grow, prepare, and preserve local foods.

In backyards across our city, hundreds of volunteers harvest up to 40,000 pounds of fruit each year, for example. That food is distributed through a network of some 40 agencies, such as food banks and community centres. They also have relationships with businesses supporting their work through social enterprise initiatives, such as selling apples to a local cidery, for example. LifeCycles also works with eight elementary schools to integrate schoolyard vegetable gardens into their curriculum.

Through these programs, more than 750 elementary school students each year learn how to grow their own nutritious food, right in their backyard. LifeCycles is a perfect example of the diverse range of benefits we can see in our economy and our communities when we support local agriculture. Elsewhere in British Columbia, I would like to acknowledge the work of initiatives like Farm to Cafeteria, a not-for-profit agency, with a ten-year track record of creating and supporting local food projects in public and private institutions.

A provincial program called “buy B.C.” works with industry to highlight local food products. This past weekend, I visited Moss Street Market, one of the remarkable urban neighbourhood markets in Victoria. Like the amazing James Bay market, it is thriving. These neighbourhood markets not only provide an important outlet for local farmers, they serve to create something perhaps even more important: community. They create community. They bring neighbours and families together in an outdoor space to mingle and enjoy each other's company.

In Victoria, across British Columbia, and across Canada, the trend line is clear: the numbers of farmers markets have doubled over the past two decades. Even though we still buy the majority of our food from grocery chains, collaborative efforts by provinces and industries are promoting local foods that people want. In response, other levels of government have taken action. Municipalities have introduced local procurement programs, and just last year, Ontario and Quebec introduced policies and legislation on local food, yet the federal government has no policy to encourage this positive trend.

That is why Bill C-539 is so essential. I am proud to support the bill, as a member of the only party in this House to demonstrate its commitment to supporting Canadian farmers by promoting local foods.

(1125) I would like to acknowledge the work of my colleagues, the member for London—Fanshawe and the member for Burnaby—New Westminster , who tabled bills in the last Parliament to give preference to Canadian products in government procurement and provincial transfers. Canadians are making their preference for local foods known in the marketplace. Businesses are adapting. Community organizations, like those I mentioned in Victoria, are spreading the social and economic benefits of local agriculture around our communities. Governments at the municipal and provincial levels are waking up and noticing.

The federal government must, too, and show some leadership. This bill would provide a road map for doing so. What would the bill do exactly? First, very thoughtfully, it would enable federal and provincial ministers of agriculture to develop a pan-Canadian strategy to define “local food”, something that is not that easy to get our heads around. In some cases it is easy, such as on Vancouver Island, where we have set

definitions by geography. In other cases it is not so easy, such as in Ottawa and Gatineau. How do we define “local” when products cross provincial borders? How far should the distance be from the marketplace? Those are the sorts of things that need to be addressed as job one, and the bill would do just that. Secondly, the bill would provide for the development of a local foods procurement policy for government institutions. It would task the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to develop such a policy and to implement it no later than one year after this legislation would come into force.

I also want to emphasize that the bill has shown great sensitivity to the division of powers in the Canadian federation. It would ask the federal government to first consult the provinces and stakeholders, such as producers, before it introduced this pan-Canadian local food strategy, and to develop a policy to encourage government institutions to purchase this food. In other words, the primary goal is to promote locally grown food and support Canadian producers, but always looking out for the division of powers in the Canadian federation so that we can work together, not at cross purposes.

Great care has been taken to confirm that such a local food procurement strategy would be consistent with both our internal trade and international trade obligations. That is very important. Farmers in Canada are often facing a crisis. In my part of the world, the price of land is absolutely enormous, and it is very difficult to encourage young people to go into farming as a result.

Not only that, there is a government at the provincial level that has introduced Bill 24, which appears to be trying to take away the preservation of the agricultural land reserve that was introduced by a former NDP administration to preserve the space and land on which agriculture can take place. That is something which is so vital. I would like to salute the efforts of my colleague, MLA Lana Popham, in trying to address this apparently wrong-headed initiative.

Creating a market for this product, even when agricultural land is so expensive, and when we have issues such as climate change that address what can be grown and where it can be grown, is very difficult. We need to provide as much support to our local farmers as we can. That is what this bill would be all about. The bill reflects the NDP commitment to sustainable development. When we buy local foods, we reduce transportation distances and greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to the climate crisis we are facing in Canada today. By way of conclusion, this bill is sensitive to federal and provincial concerns.

It would take into account consultations with the producers, the provinces, and the territories. It would develop a local procurement strategy that would be consistent with our trade agreements. Most of all, it would help sustain something that is so vital, which is local agriculture creating community in our country and giving consumers and farmers what we need as we face the future together. (1130) [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-539,

An Act to promote local foods . I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work of my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry , the former deputy environment critic. She is well versed in the principles of sustainable development and reducing greenhouse gases. Her bill reflects that. First, I must explain that Bill C-539,

An Act to promote local foods , is split into two sections. The first requires the federal government to work with the provinces on developing a pan-Canadian strategy. Essentially, we want the federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to sit down with his provincial and territorial counterparts, with farmers and distributors and with representatives of civil society in order to develop a common definition of what constitutes local food, which is not yet defined in Canada.

The pan-Canadian strategy will also create a forum for sharing best practices, promoting buy local and co-ordinating the efforts of producers and distributors. II have talked to farmers in the Lower Laurentians over the past three years and realized that they are not necessarily aware of what they can do, what works and the tools that could be made available to them. Today, farmers are facing considerable challenges including the increase in production costs, international competition, fluctuating prices and natural catastrophes that are increasingly affecting their returns.

By buying local, we are supporting our own producers and the next generation of farmers. As my colleagues have already mentioned, the agricultural and agri-food sector is very important to the Canadian economy and generates thousands of jobs. Buying local means cultivating our own economy. That is why we have to sit down together and develop a concerted strategy. There is no federal policy to promote the purchase of local food. However, a number of provinces have already developed such policies. For example, Quebec developed the Proximité program to encourage buying local.

The provinces have taken the lead in promoting local foods. A number of other provinces have worked with the industry to design programs that highlight local products, such as Foodland Ontario, the Buy Local BC program and, of course, Aliments du Québec. Bill C-539 also calls on the federal government to set an example by developing a local foods procurement policy for federal institutions. There are 28,000 federal institutions across Canada, namely agencies, departments, prisons and hospitals. That is quite a few. The federal government can develop a local procurement strategy at these institutions.

What does buy local mean? It means buying products nearby that were cultivated and grown by local people. During my term as an MP, I have met many farmers and participated in local events that promote local products, such as the Festival de la galette et des saveurs du terroir in Vieux-Saint-Eustache and the Fête Champêtre de la Société d'agriculture Mirabel—Deux-Montagnes to name just a couple. I support the work being done by the Groupe conseil agricole Outaouais-Laurentide. This group focuses primarily on co-operative activities and on pooling development tools to benefit the community.

I have spoken with these farmers and learned that they often work behind the scenes. However, they are passionate and make considerable contributions to our community. What does buying local mean for consumers? Some Canadians will be surprised to learn that local food does not necessarily cost more than food from another province or food that is imported from elsewhere.

(1135) Seasonal food generally costs the same price or even less. A number of studies have proven this. In some cases, the food can cost more as a result of production or distribution costs, but even if the price of local food varies, 42% of consumers are prepared to pay a small supplement for local products if it benefits their region's economy. Do my colleagues know that if every consumer added $30 of products from Quebec to their grocery cart every year, we would see an increase in sales of over $1 billion over five years and the creation of about 100,000 jobs in all regions of Quebec? That is a big deal.

It shows how important buying local is to Quebec's economy. I want to share some quotes from some people who support Bill C-539 . This is from the Union des producteurs agricoles: We believe that if this bill passes, it will create some attractive opportunities for agri-food products from Quebec and Canada by focusing on their quality and the economic, social and environmental benefits they represent. I would also like to share a quote from Equiterre: This bill will help Canadian farmers, create jobs and reduce the pollution associated with transportation. We think this bill is commendable.

I know that my colleague form Beauharnois—Salaberry did her homework in drafting this bill. She consulted farmers and other stakeholders. I am proud to support her bill. In my role as MP for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, over the past three years, I have had the pleasure of working with farmers from the region on a number of federal files. For example, I intervened on behalf of Quebec's wine producers regarding the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's intention to develop an ice wine standard.

For those who may not be familiar with my riding, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Rivière du chêne winery in Saint-Eustache is the second-largest winery in Quebec, the largest being the Orpailleur winery in the Eastern Townships. The winery has received many awards at prestigious international competitions, proving that our local products are high-quality products. I would also like to point out that a group of MPs from the Montreal area submitted a brief before the Montreal metropolitan area adopted its metropolitan land use and development plan.

They wanted to stress the importance of maintaining a greenbelt around the Island of Montreal. I would also like to mention that the NDP has been working on the issue of buying local for some time now. Last year, the hon. member for Welland introduced a buy local bill, Bill C-449,

An Act respecting a National Local Food Day . In the last Parliament, the members for Burnaby—New Westminster and London—Fanshawe introduced bills to give priority to Canadian products in the public sector procurement process and transfer payments to the provinces. It is obvious that this bill is consistent with the NDP's vision of promoting the local economy and sustainable development. While I was doing research for my speech, I was interested to learn that the number of farmers markets in Canada has doubled since 1990.

Between 2004 and 2007, the number of producers who sell directly to consumers increased by 2%. In 2009, there were 2,314 buy local initiatives in Canada. Clearly, consumers want to buy local products. Municipalities and provinces have taken action to promote the idea of buying local. I believe that the federal government must take a leadership role and sit down with the provinces, stakeholders and experts to help our farmers and develop a buy local strategy. I invite all of my colleagues in the House to support this bill.

(1140) Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to support Bill C-539,

An Act to promote local foods , which was introduced by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry . This bill is very important to me. In my time today, I would like to inject some local flavour into the debate and talk about producers in our regions, who will be the main beneficiaries of this bill. I live in Laval, the suburb north of Montreal. When you talk about Laval, people picture a pretty typical suburb. However, one-third of the land in Laval is agricultural. It includes the very best Saint Lawrence River valley farmland in Quebec. That might come as a surprise to people who do not know my riding.

Over 80% of the land in Alfred-Pellan is agricultural. That is a lot of farmland. People in Laval are extremely proud of our local producers. I am speaking on their behalf today. I have spoken to a number of producers in Alfred-Pellan about Bill C-539 . People in Laval are very enthusiastic about the bill introduced by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry . If we take a close look at this bill, we see that its main purpose is to promote local foods and support Canadian producers. Its primary goal is to support local producers all across the country.

That is because producers are grappling with major challenges such as rising production costs, pressure due to global competition, which is being felt more and more keenly in our ridings, fluctuating prices and natural disasters, which are having an increasingly significant impact on agricultural yields. By buying locally, we are supporting our own producers and the next generation of producers. That is the key element of this bill. Anyone familiar with the challenges facing farmers knows how important it is to find the next generation.

Since I was raised in Laval, where I was surrounded by producers, I have a lot of friends who farm and acquaintances who are the next agricultural generation. I have observed that our young people cannot make a go of it in the existing agricultural system. I would like to give the House a few examples. I am thinking, for example, of my friend Pierre-Luc, of Cultures Chouinard, who does not live in Laval but is from Rivière-du-Loup. He grows squash and potatoes. It was very difficult for him to take over the farm. It is a very large farm that covers a huge area in the St. Lawrence Valley.

He did not have the means to take over the family farm and so his family had to give him a large part of the farm. My neighbours in Auteuil, the Ouimet family, have been growing cabbage for three generations on the Rang des Perron. They have discouraged their three children from farming and have suggested that they study and do something else because agriculture is too difficult for today's youth. They wanted their children to have a better future. I am also thinking of a friend of my brother's who owns Fromagerie du Vieux Saint-François and who has been raising goats for many years.

His family has worked hard to raise goats in order to make good local goat cheese. He has always loved this work. The only problem is that there is no future in it because he cannot make a living from the trade that he loves so much. Unfortunately, he is thinking of selling Fromagerie du Vieux Saint-François, which is a jewel in eastern Laval. These are very sad cases. The Conservative government has shown very little initiative when it comes to helping the next and the current generation of farmers.

A pan-Canadian strategy that would have the federal government sit down with the provinces, discuss different solutions and establish a platform for best practices by region is a very smart choice.

(1145) This situation must not be taken lightly. Farmers from across Canada could tell us what is happening today. Land is being bought by multinationals and local farmers are struggling to survive. They have to keep restructuring and it takes a lot of money and resources to do that. Unfortunately, they are often saddled with debt. Supporting them with Bill C-539 would be a step in the right direction.

It would send the message that the federal government is concerned about our farmers and buying locally and that it is going to invest in this and sit down with the provinces to see what could be done and to establish a pan-Canadian strategy. It would show that we are taking this problem seriously and addressing it as quickly as possible. Back home in eastern Laval, we are extremely proud to buy locally. We have a number of magnificent farms that are still locally owned and operated and passed down from generation to generation.

There are a number of community initiatives organized every year to support these various farmers and provide the locals with easy access to this local food. There are the neighbourhood farmer's markets in eastern Laval, Saint-Vincent-de-Paul and Saint-François. This way, a number of local producers can have a stand at these outlets. These pocket markets alternate between two neighbourhoods that, let's face it, are not as well served when it comes to food security. For example, we have the Aux vieux chênes farm, which is the only sugar shack in eastern Laval. There is also the Vaillancourt farm.

Agathe makes delicious jams and has a number of local products to offer. These farms are often represented at the neighbourhood farmer's market in eastern Laval. This wonderful and popular initiative to support our local farmers is starting its third consecutive year this year. This would be a good practice to share with various other players. I am sure there are others across the country. It would be interesting for people to share their experiences. The Jeunes au Travail farm has undertaken a wonderful initiative.

This organization helps troubled youth between the ages of 16 and 25 reintegrate into the labour market through activities such as Ecocert-certified organic farming. The young people grow organic fruits and vegetables on the farm and also cook meals with local products and the products they grow. The organization also provides training and job skills, as well as psychological and social support to these young people who really need it. The organization is training a new generation of people who are aware of local foods, food safety and high-quality products, which is amazing.

When the stand is open, I often drop by to commend these young people who are doing an incredible job. I tip my hat to them, because without them, we would have to wonder about the future. This is a wonderful example of what Quebec's next generation can do. I must also point out that the big supermarket chains are getting increasingly involved in buying local, doing business with farmers and featuring them in their stores, especially in the summer. This is of course easier to do at this time of year. There are great examples from Laval to Mont-Laurier.

We are seeing an interest from the public, community organizations, farmers who are trying to make a go of it, and even big chains at the local level. In conclusion I want to say that I support the bill introduced by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry . I hope that my colleagues, regardless of where they sit in the House, will support this bill that is extremely important to all the people I mentioned.

(1150) Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise in the House today to defend my bill and to try to convince other members to vote in favour of it. Farmers deserve nothing less. We tend to forget that farmers do the work needed to meet a vital need, the need to eat. They allow human beings to feed themselves. We often consider farmers from a purely economic standpoint, but they also play a role when it comes to health and basic needs.

It is therefore very important that we support all of our farmers, as my colleague from Alfred-Pellan said, as well as any members of the next generation who want to get involved in agriculture, in order to improve the image of our farmers, who work hard day and night to deal with whatever Mother Nature throws at them. Here in Canada, that is a rather uncertain undertaking. We have seen proof of this recently. Spring is dragging on and farmers are having to deal with unpredictable weather. What I am asking the government is very simple. It involves being innovative and showing leadership.

It is quite feasible since there are already a number of pan-Canadian strategies out there. All of the stakeholders that I consulted over the past two years, whether it be farmers, people working on agri-food policies, consumers or distributors, want the federal government to sit down with them and with the provincial and territorial ministers of agriculture and agri-food in order to discuss a common definition of buying local. That is no easy task since every region of every province has a different definition and a consensus must be reached.

We must also continue to raise the public's awareness of the importance of buying local and its benefits. As it has been mentioned, foods that are grown locally are fresher and taste better than those coming from other places; moreover, buying local reduces the need for transportation, thereby reducing our ecological footprint. Farming is a sustainable and profitable occupation. In terms of profits, we need to keep in mind that farmers create more than one in eight jobs in Canada. Each year, they account for 8% of Canada's GDP, contributing more than $100 billion to the Canadian economy.

Farming is a vital part of our economy, and we need to support our farmers. To those who are concerned about international free trade agreements, I would simply say that every agreement Canada has signed includes procurement thresholds that allow Canada to buy locally. Many European Union countries and the United States do it. Why not Canada? Why not lead by example and ensure that we are supporting our own farmers? There are 28,000 federal institutions across Canada. During the summer months, our farmers grow their vegetables and other crops, and it is much easier for us to support them. Why not do it?

It is easy enough. Our land is full of riches. We need to put this policy into practice. There is plenty of support for it. I would like to thank all of those who participated in the consultations, including my colleagues and the people in my riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry. In particular, I would like to thank Sylvain Gascon from the Huntingdon farmers market, who welcomed me with open arms. He gave me plenty of advice and guidance and put me in contact with many people. Denys Van Winden helped me discover the rich land of Jardins-de-Napierville.

He also talked to me about the difficulties that farmers are facing and the optimal level of funding from the federal government for research, young farmers and farming practices. I cannot mention everyone who helped, but a number of economic stakeholders supported me as well, including the local development centres in Haut-Saint-Laurent and Beauharnois-Salaberry, the Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent conference of regional elected officials, and the Beauharnois–Valleyfield chamber of commerce and industry, which was the first chamber of commerce that decided to support this project.

I would also like to say a special thanks to my team members who, for the past two years, have supported me and done everything they could to promote this bill.

(1155) I am so grateful to Isabelle Bourassa, Glen, Julie and Jean-Marc. I would also like to thank everyone, NDP and otherwise, who supported the bill. It is heartwarming. I hope that the federal government will finally step up and sit down with the provinces, municipalities, producers and distributors so that this sector of our economy, which feeds the planet, can succeed and so that our producers can be proud of the work they do. We need leadership and political will, and we also need common sense because this sector is struggling.

Since 2006, 8,000 farm families have had to leave their farms because of the federal government's lack of support and vision. That has had an impact on all regions of Canada. It is important for everyone here and around the world to be able to eat healthy, local food. I hope that all members will vote in favour of my bill. [ English ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) In my opinion the nays have it. And five or more members having risen: Division on motion deferred. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 14, 2014, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders (1200) [ English ] Fair Elections Act Bill C-23. Report stage The House resumed from May 7 consideration of Bill C-23,

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Winnipeg North had completed his remarks but had not yet begun his questions and comments, so we will do those five minutes of questions and comments now. The hon. member for Malpeque. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, great remarks they were by the member for Winnipeg North outlining fairly strong criticism of Bill C-23 , misnamed the fair elections act. It is the foundation, really, of how we elect people in our country. It is a bill that really should be opposed. I have two questions for the member. Would he explain the importance of having a free vote on Bill C-23 ? That has been talked about by quite a number of players, and I wonder if he could expand on that. Could he also expand on the government's decision not to compel witnesses? That will certainly impact the ability of Elections Canada to do its job.

If he could answer those two questions, it would be helpful. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I like the way the member said that it is misnamed. It is not the fair elections act. Bill C-23 is far from that.

One has only to look at the process by which the bill has come before us, whether it was the conception of the idea; no consultation with the many different stakeholders; the manner in which it was introduced in the House, where there was again no consultation; time allocation at second reading; or committee stage, where there were numerous amendments made that were never addressed in full because of time allocation or restrictions that saw many of the amendments voted on but never commented on. Here we are today, where again, time allocation has been brought forward.

We change one of the pillars of our democracy when we change laws. The government did not work with opposition parties or with Elections Canada, a true independent organization. Rather, it has forced the bill through. We are calling for the Prime Minister , at the very least, to allow a free vote in the House on this issue, believing that parliamentarians will put democracy ahead of their own party's interests on this issue. It is an appeal to have a free vote. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr.

Speaker, it certainly is a significant moment in the House of Commons when the Conservative majority has accepted and proposed its own amendments in the face of massive opposition from quarters that usually support it, like serial editorials in The Globe and Mail and Conservative senators. Even the former auditor general, Sheila Fraser, weighed in on bill at first reading, saying the bill was “attack on...democracy”. In the member's view, with the amendments the Conservatives have now put forward, does he agree with me that while it is a less awful bill, it is still not a good bill? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr.

Speaker, absolutely. That was well put. It is important we recognize that there was an incredible amount of opposition to the legislation and the manner in which the government brought it forward and attempted to pass it through the system. The way in which the government has treated our elections law is incredible. As has been pointed out, I would suggest that even with the changes that have made, the legislation still has fundamental flaws. The most significant one is that it has not brought forward the ability to allow Elections Canada or the Commissioner of Canada Elections to compel witnesses.

That is a serious flaw. Without that change, how can we possibly support the legislation? The reason the public wanted to see the election law changed in the first place was to deal with issues that came from the last federal election. Without the ability to compel witnesses, even if we pass the bill as it is today, the election law will be weaker than what it was prior to its introduction. Elections Canada and the commissioner have recognized that point. Therefore, I would plead with the Prime Minister to have a free vote and then I ask all Conservative members to balance it and vote against the legislation.

(1205) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in report stage to speak, initially, to my two amendments. I had hoped to have substantive amendments at report stage, but members will recall that the committee was allowed to violate its own rules by rejecting my right to speak to my amendments as they were all gavelled through, all being rejected. I want to express thanks to the minister for being willing to listen to the extraordinary course of denunciation for Bill C-23 at first reading.

Unfortunately, even with the number of government amendments that were accepted at committee, the bill falls far short of being what is required to go by the name of a “fair elections act”. Briefly speaking to the amendments I put forward at committee, which were defeated, it is a shame that we missed the opportunity to open a discussion on getting rid of first past the post and moving to proportional representation.

I think most Canadians would be shocked to find that the leaders' debates are not controlled by anybody, and that the opportunity to create a fair system, as presented at committee by Democracy Watch, was not supported by any party other than the Green Party. On the requirements for people to bring so many different kinds of ID, we still do not have the kind of system that is as reliable as the election system before the Conservatives' first round of amendments back in 2006. I wish we had ensured non-partisan poll workers.

There were numerous amendments from the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Greens on many of these points, for fairer financing and to take steps to increase voter turnout. I also put forward an amendment in the committee to shift the day of advanced polling from a Sunday. I will try again with the amendments I have before you, Mr. Speaker. All the amendments from any opposition party were defeated at committee, with one exception, which was one when the Conservative leader on the committee pointed out that the Conservatives had been prepared to do that themselves had they had the chance.

My two amendments would do one thing, which would be fantastic, and that would be to remove the name of the political party from the ballot next to the name of the candidate. This would do a lot to reduce the excessive control of political parties over the electoral process. We used to have elections with just the name of the candidate, right up until about 1970. I want to devote the rest of my time this morning to why we had the demand for a fair elections act, and how this bill falls far short.

The initial attempt, and this was mentioned by other members in this place, the initial cry for reform of our electoral process, was in response to efforts at electoral fraud. The amendments I put forward at committee, among those of Liberals and the New Democrats as well, called for giving Elections Canada the investigative tools it needed, such as subpoena powers, the ability to look into efforts, or deliberate efforts or actually successful efforts, at voter fraud and electoral interference that changed the course of elections. These amendments were defeated.

People have been very quick to assume that the so-called robocalls affair is now settled and nothing untoward took place there. Because the bill remains inadequate to the task of investigating electoral fraud, we can continue to have events like the 2011 robocall scandal without the tools of Elections Canada to respond.

In the time I have remaining, I want to ensure that it is understood we have not once, not twice, but three times seen quite scandalous interference in our electoral process, that if we had heard of these stories from some third world country, with some kind of tinpot dictatorship that ran fake elections, we would just shake our heads and say, “I guess that is how it happens in other countries”. The first example was the 2005-06 election, when we had the deliberate interference in the election by our state police, the RCMP.

We never got to the bottom of why Commissioner Zaccardelli broke all RCMP protocol and issued a press release during that election. According to a finding of fact by the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP, Paul Kennedy, the interference of the RCMP both violated its normal procedures and changed the course of the 2006 election. We had no investigation because there were no subpoena powers to call Mr. Zaccardelli to explain himself. Second, we had an event that took place in Saanich—Gulf Islands in the 2008 election.

I was not personally involved, but it was very clear, and there were multiple complaints to Elections Canada and the RCMP, that a robocall effort targeting NDP voters changed the course of that election and allowed a Conservative to be re-elected when all evidence suggested that he would not have been.

(1210) The Liberal candidate was neck in neck with the Conservatives. There was no NDP candidate on the ballot as he had withdrawn. An election eve round of phone calls went out spoofed as though they were from the NDP. The spoofing term is one I have learned. It is the technical term for using the home fax number, as it turned out, of an NDP volunteer to make it appear the calls originated from the NDP, urging people to get out and vote for a candidate who was no longer capable of election because he had withdrawn from the race. That changed the course of the election.

Elections Canada was asked to investigate, but basically threw its hands up and said that it could not find anything, that there was nothing to see, so we should move on. If members detect in my presentation that I am critical of the failure of Elections Canada and the RCMP to get to the bottom of that, everyone can bet I am critical. They utterly failed to defend the integrity of the election process in Saanich—Gulf Islands in 2008, and they did it again in 2011 with the robocall scandal. Thank goodness, The Council of Canadians took the matter to court. Other than Federal Court judge Mr.

Justice Mosley, we would not have somebody as a finder of fact going over all the evidence and giving us clear foundational information of what occurred. Right now, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, Mr. Yves Côté, in his report of last month, once again told us that there was nothing to see, so we should move on. Let me review what Mr. Justice Mosley found, because it is important to put it on the record to understand why this bill is so inadequate and why it should have the powers of investigation to ensure that crimes like this are properly investigated. Mr.

Justice Mosley found as fact that “...there was a deliberate attempt at voter suppression during the 2011 election”. That was at paragraph 177. At paragraph 224, he wrote: I am satisfied that it has been established that misleading calls about the locations of polling stations were made to electors in ridings across the country, including the subject ridings, and that the purpose of those calls was to suppress the votes of electors who had indicated their voting preference in response to earlier voter identification calls.

At paragraph 246, he stated, “I find that the threshold to establish that fraud occurred has been met...”. At paragraph 253, he said: ...I don’t doubt that the confidence rightfully held by Canadians has been shaken by the disclosures of widespread fraudulent activities that have resulted from the Commissioner’s investigations and the complaints to Elections Canada. As well, he stated at paragraph 256: ...[the...] calls appear to have been targeted towards voters who had previously expressed a preference for an opposition party (or anyone other than the government party)...

On the matter of a smoking gun and who is responsible, essentially in this case we have a smoking gun. We know that thousands of calls were made, including in my own riding and across the country. I wrote Elections Canada with my concerns about these widespread attempts at voter suppression immediately following the May 2011 election. Who was responsible? I have made no accusations as to who I believe is responsible, but Mr.

Justice Mosley found as fact the following, at paragraph 245: I am satisfied...that the most likely source of the information used to make the misleading calls was the CIMS database maintained and controlled by the Conservative Party of Canada, accessed for that purpose by a person or persons currently unknown to this Court....the evidence points to elaborate efforts to conceal the identity of those accessing the database and arranging for the calls to be made... What kind of democracy is this?

We have the evidence of a Federal Court judge, thousands of complaints from Canadians across the country, a Commissioner of Canada Elections who says that there is nothing to look at here and everyone should move on, and we have a bill before us that would do absolutely nothing to prevent the illegitimate use of robocalls in future elections. I concede to the minister and support the part of the bill that sets up a robocalls registry within the CRTC, but it is not sufficient to deal with the illegitimate use of robocalls and to protect Canadians, Canadian democracy and the integrity of our electoral process.

This bill falls far short. This is a dark day for democracy.

(1215) Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, would the member care to comment on the happenings in the committee that was reviewing the bill? The member proposed that we have a study on proportional representation, but the Liberals voted against it in committee in a recorded vote. We, of course, supported the motion that we should include a study of proportional representation in the bill. Would she comment on the Liberal rejection of this notion? Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, yes, I was disappointed.

It was a very modest proposal that we open discussion toward proportional representation, which was not supported by the Liberals. I have to say that I was also very disappointed—although the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth did put forward an explanation that was somewhat persuasive as to why his party would not support my amendment—that no one supported my amendment to have some rules to ensure fairness in the leaders debate. I was not without my disappointments throughout the committee process. I think we need to continue to work to get rid of the perverse first past the post voting system.

I commend the NDP for its strong position on that, but I think we need to persuade more Liberal and Conservative members. Within both of those parties, I know there are many members who find the current system quite perverse and would like to see real reform. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the leader of the Green Party. I think she hit the nail on the head with her last comment, “This is a dark day for democracy”, in terms of the possible passage of Bill C-23 .

The member outlined a number of examples in her remarks, and I would add to that with two areas that the Conservative government has undermined. Canada at one time was seen as a model to strive for in terms of how we held elections, Elections Canada, and so on. The same thing with Statistics Canada; we used to be seen as one of the best in the world, but under the current government, we are seen as one of the worst. I have two questions for the member.

One, given how seriously Bill C-23 undermines our ability to police elections and investigate foul play, does it make it possible for a government to either buy or steal an election? Two, should we be calling for United Nations observers in Canada for the next election? Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, I am going to assume the last part of the question from hon. member for Malpeque was somewhat ironic and so I will address the first part, which is: should we be concerned?

I believe based on everything I have studied, and I have really dug into what happened in Saanich—Gulf Islands in 2008, that it was a pilot project in seeing whether the use of robocalls could change the course of an election. Elections Canada and the RCMP failed to get to the bottom of it. Some of the complainants told me that the RCMP told them that it could not figure out who was responsible because the phone number originated from the United States. Had that been a child pornographer or a human trafficking ring, I would like to think that we would have investigated who originated those phone calls.

The idea that because they originated from the U.S. we could not find out, or that it was really small potatoes whether it was Gary Lunn or Briony Penn who won that election, is not the case. It is very large indeed in Canadian democracy when a fraudulent robocall marketing attempt can change the course of an election. I believe that the failure to investigate Saanich—Gulf Islands in 2008 led directly to a more widespread use of robocalls in voter suppression in 2011. I shudder to think what the failure to properly investigate what happened in 2011 will mean for future Canadian elections.

(1220) Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today in support of the fair elections act, a bill that would keep democracy in the hands of everyday Canadians by putting special interests on the sidelines and rule breakers out of business. It would be easier to vote and harder to break election laws. It would close loopholes to big money in the political process. It would make the rules easier to follow for honest participants in democracy and more difficult to break for those who would undermine the system.

Let us review the measures that are contained in the fair elections act. However, before we do, I am gratified by the great support this bill has received from the beginning from across the country. Polling data indicated that even before our government announced its willingness to amend some of its measures, Canadian people overwhelmingly supported the contents of this legislation. Let me start with the

section that has garnered the most public support, and that is the government's decision to protect our system against voter fraud by ensuring that every single voter who casts a ballot uses ID to do so. Previously, it was possible for people to walk in to vote at their local polling station and, without presenting a single piece of ID, identify themselves through a process called “vouching” and cast their ballot. Under the fair elections act, that would not longer be possible.

All voters, regardless of whether they have someone vouching for them, would be required to produce identification demonstrating who they are. If that identification does not have an address on it, as increasingly ID lacks, the voters would be able to co-sign an oath with another elector as to where they live. That being said, after the election is done, Elections Canada would be required to compile a list of all oath-takers to check for duplicates in order to find out if somebody voted more than once through this process.

There would be a mandatory external audit that would be required by law to ensure that Elections Canada follows all of these steps as they are laid out in the legislation. The unreliable and often inaccurate voter information card would no longer be acceptable as a form of ID. In the last election, the cards had errors in about one in six cases. That meant that millions of Canadians either got the wrong card, no card, more than one card, or a card with false information contained on it. Allowing people to use false cards of this kind for identification presents obvious risks of abuse.

The information card would be returned to its original purpose, which is to provide people with information on where to cast their ballot rather than as a means to identify the person and his or her residence. Elections Canada would have an opportunity with this bill to focus its attention on its core mandate; that is to say, running free and fair elections. The bill would remove from the scope of the agency's mandate those things that are not really core functions of an election agency. For example, investigations of alleged breaches of the act would no longer be within the scope of Elections Canada's mandate.

The investigator would become independent, and would serve in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That might bring back memories because prior to 2005 the investigator and the prosecutor were not only in the same office, they were the same person. That process worked reasonably well, but the missing ingredient all along has been independence. The fair elections act would ensure that the investigator is completely independent; that is, independent from the elected government, independent from political parties, and independent from Elections Canada.

(1225) In other words, all the actors who could potentially be investigated for allegations of wrongdoing under the act would be explicitly removed from any involvement in the office of the investigator. Not only would the investigator have the power to choose his or her own staff, direct his or her own investigations, and serve for a fixed term without being fired without cause, he or she would also be guaranteed that the office would not be occupied by former employees of parties or Elections Canada. This independence would help ensure a high standard of integrity in the enforcement of the legislation.

Another step toward greater consistency with Elections Canada is the requirement for the agency to issue legal

interpretations and advanced rulings. Under the existing situation the agency is not required to provide written

interpretations of law or to give parties clear answers to questions about what is allowed and what is not. The fair elections act would require the agency to issue advanced rulings to political parties seeking to understand how the rules apply. As one can imagine, the Canada Elections Act is an extremely complex statute. At times, political parties are not sure exactly what the rules mean or how they will be interpreted, more importantly, by the agency. The fair elections act would require the agency to write down advanced rulings within a confined time period.

Those rulings would act as a precedent for all parties. This would allow for a new standard of consistency across party lines for the application of rules. In other words, if one party asks if a practice is allowed and Elections Canada says yes, then that decision will set a precedent and all parties will be able to follow that precedent and comply with the law in the same way as the original party. This is a major improvement over the status quo.

For the CEO to seek the removal of a member of Parliament over a financial dispute about an election filing, he or she would first have to allow that member of Parliament to exhaust all legal challenges. This is another improvement. In other words, judges must be empowered to rule on these financial disputes between elected MPs and the agency before the head of the agency overturns an election result. This would protect the sanctity of the vote, remembering that it is not agency heads who pick members of Parliament but voters. The fair elections act would ensure that voters remain in charge of that process.

Elections Canada would also be required to focus all of its advertising on the basics of voting: where, when, and what ID to bring. It would also be required to advertise specifically to people with disabilities about the special tools available to help them cast their ballots. For example, it would be important for a paraplegic to know that there is a wheelchair ramp located at the voting location. It would be important for someone who is visually impaired to know that Braille services are available. Many of these Canadians are not aware of these services.

This law would require the agency to inform them, so that not only would they have the services that they need, but they would know about them before they cast their ballot. Finally, the fair elections act would add an additional day for voting. Many Canadians are too busy to cast their ballot on election day itself, so the fair elections act would give them an extra day in the lead-up to that voting day in order to cast their ballot and participate in democracy. The bill in essence would make it easier to vote and harder to break the law. The rules would be clear, consistent, and easy to follow.

Once and for all, Canadians would be required to bring identification to prove who they are before they cast their ballot. These steps move in the right direction and the Canadian people overwhelmingly support them.

(1230) Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the minister for bringing back vouching for address. The pressure that Canadians mounted over the total gutting of vouching under Bill C-23 eventually caused someone in the government, for reasons to be seen, to return vouching for address. I would also like to indicate that for all of the times that the minister tried to convince people that voter information cards can be a source of fraud, he has never once been able to show one example, and all his general examples never worked.

The fact is that people need a second piece of ID and if they have received a voter information card that is not their own, in order to vote they have to forge a second piece to do so. How many Canadians would even think about it, let alone do that? Why did the government not agree to the amendments from the official opposition to require that calling service providers send audio recordings and scripts to the CRTC and that calling service providers have to keep phone numbers? At the moment, they do not even have to keep them, let alone send them.

Finally, why did he not agree to require the CRTC to keep all data received for at least seven years? Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, on the first point, the NDP members have suggested that we should allow people to vote with no ID whatsoever when they arrive at the voting location. They put forward amendments to that effect, and we have eliminated that. We have ended the process of identity vouching and replaced it with a mandatory ID requirement. If people do not have an address on their ID, they can co-sign an oath as to their residency, but they cannot have their identity vouched for.

They will require proof of who they are in writing by choosing from 39 different forms of ID that will help them do that. As for the issue of recordings of automated calls and scripts, calling companies and those who use automated calls will be required to retain those recordings and those scripts for three years, and those companies will be asked to turn that information over if there is an investigation into those calls. Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, there was quite a bit of evidence about how the CEO and Elections Canada can promote voting and encourage people to vote. One of the programs singled out would be the civics programs, which I think is an ideal program. I think every member here agrees it is a great little program, but the amendments went to a narrowly focused solution as to how Elections Canada can communicate with the public. Where is the new flexibility for Elections Canada to be able to engage with the public in a way that encourages voting? Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, it is not the job of Elections Canada to run campaigns.

The job of Elections Canada is to inform people where, when, and how to vote. That is what the fair elections act will require all of the agency's advertising to focus on. We supported an amendment to permit programs in high schools because basically that is consistent with the where, when, and how to vote objective of the agency.

Students in pre-adulthood are not really aware of how voting happens; these programs, which basically allow mock elections at schools, would give them that basic information so that when they graduate, they know what elections are about, how they work, and what one does to cast a ballot. However, there is no question that the fair elections act would narrow the focus of the agency so that its advertising focuses on the basics of voting and on no other area.

(1235) Business of the House Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I move: Motion That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 later today, no quorum call, dilatory motion or request for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair; and that any member rising to speak during debate may indicate to the Chair that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another member. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to move the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Members have heard the terms of the motion. Does the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook have the unanimous consent for the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

Fair Elections Act Bill C-23. Report stage

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-23,

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1. Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today to speak in favour of the fair elections act, Bill C-23 . We have heard an awful lot of debate, many hours of debate, on this very important bill. We have heard from an almost unprecedented number of witnesses at committee.

Over 70 witnesses have appeared before the committee examining this piece of legislation. We have also heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Without question, Canadians have voiced their pleasure with Bill C-23 , the fair elections act, because it deals with a number of very important changes to how we conduct elections in our country.

I should also point out, particularly to my colleagues on opposition benches, that although they have raised their voices in protest against the bill, many eminent Canadians who are incredibly knowledgeable about elections have stated that they believe the bill is certainly be a positive step. I point out to my colleagues opposite that former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley, after seeing the bill and examining it for the first time, said he rated it as an A-.

Once that happened, of course, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform said that perhaps through examination at committee we could bring forward some improvements to the bill and turn an A- into an A+. That is exactly what we have done. We have listened, and listened carefully, to witnesses. We listened to testimony at committee and we have brought forward 45 amendments to the bill that would strengthen and improve the bill itself.

I think that proves quite convincingly to all that we have listened to much of the testimony throughout this proceeding and we have acted to bring improvements to those elements of the bill that needed to be improved. However, it seems that all of the elements of the bill have been overshadowed by one single area, the area of vouching. I want to spend the remainder of the limited time I have before me today talking about the changes we have made to the bill that would, in effect, eliminate vouching.

As the Minister of State for Democratic Reform stated just a few moments ago, up until this bill, it had been possible for any Canadian without a shred of identification to come forward to cast a ballot in a general election. Quite frankly, we just think that is not what Canadians expect in conducting fair and open elections. We believe, at a bare minimum, that individuals should be able to, and must be required to, prove their identity. Let me state that the overwhelming majority of Canadians agree with our position on this very fundamental aspect of elections.

In fact, not only have we heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast, but there has also been a recent poll that showed with empirical evidence that over 85% of Canadians felt it appropriate that individuals planning to cast a ballot produce identification as to who they are, and over 70% of Canadians agreed with our position that vouching should be eliminated. For those who are not aware of the term, vouching allows someone to go to a polling station without one shred of identification and ask someone who has proper identification to vouch for them—in other words, to state, “I know this person.

This person is a Canadian citizen. I know where they live. They are 18 years of age or older. I know the person's name. Let them have a ballot”.

(1240) Canadians just did not feel that was proper. Canadians felt, quite properly, that all those who wanted to cast a ballot and exercise their franchise should, at a minimum, be required to show who they were and show proper identification. The fair elections act would require that. Vouching would be eliminated. If someone does not have the proper piece of identification showing their address, as the minister stated earlier, they will now be allowed to sign an oath that is co-signed by someone who does have proof of identity and address, and then they will be able to exercise their franchise and cast a vote.

When we had debate on this very important question throughout the committee hearings and throughout the debate in the House, if we listened to the opposition, it seemed as though this would be the end of democracy. If people could not vouch for someone without identification, all hell would break loose. Excuse my language, but I am using a colloquial expression. That is the farthest thing from Canadians' minds. As I said, over 77% of Canadians felt that vouching should be eliminated.

I would also point out that in that same poll, which I believe was conducted by Ipsos Reid, the pollsters asked those people responding not only where they lived, their age, and other demographic information, but who they would support in a general election. What did they find? They found that 66% of people who said that they would support the NDP also believed that vouching should be eliminated.

We have the unbelievable situation of the NDP, which is in favour of vouching, finding that the majority of Canadians do not agree with its position, and, more interestingly, the majority of people who vote for the NDP do not agree with the NDP's position. It just goes to show once again that the changes we have made in the fair elections act are what Canadians wanted to see. There is one final point that I should make on vouching and the contradictory nature of the position taken by the members opposite on both the NDP and Liberal benches.

When they conduct their own elections in leadership campaigns, do they allow vouching? Do the Liberals and the NDP, when they turn to their members to elect a new leader, which both parties have done in the very recent past, allow vouching? No, they do not. They require their own members, before they are able to cast a ballot on who they would like to see as the leader of their party, to show proper identification as to who they are and where they reside.

On the one hand, we have this bizarre situation of the members opposite wanting to allow Canadians the ability to vote without identification in a general election, yet when electing their own leaders, they cannot do that. They say no; when we are electing a leader, we want to protect against voter fraud, so we demand that everyone produce identification showing who they are and where they live. However, in a general election, they take the opposite view. Frankly, it is not only contradictory; it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Canadians have spoken, and we have listened.

We have made changes to make elections in this country fairer, more transparent, and more open. It is a good day when Parliament passes Bill C-23 . (1245) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. He participated in the committee discussions about this process, which was botched from start to finish. There was no prior consultation, and the Conservatives refused to do consultations across the country during the process. They also limited debate in the House. The Conservatives botched this reform.

Never has an electoral reform bill been so screwed up. In his speech, my colleague said that many experts were in favour of the reforms, but I did not hear him name a single one except for Mr. Kingsley, who ended up changing his mind when he appeared before the committee. Can my colleague name a single elections expert, other than the Conservatives, who supports his bill? [ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr.

Speaker, first I would make comment on one of the earlier points in the intervention by my colleague opposite, where he said this process was bungled, and that we did not listen to Canadians because we did not engage in a cross-country tour. I would point out to the member opposite that over 70 witnesses appeared at committee, and not one witnesses who was recommended to appear was turned down. Let me reiterate that. Of all the witnesses proposed by members of the opposition benches, not one of them was rejected by our government, and we had a majority on that committee.

We allowed every single witness who was suggested by members opposite to come to committee. We did not hold back. We allowed every single person they brought. Some of the witnesses they brought forward were incredibly partisan in their views. I would point out that the members opposite on the NDP benches suggested that the organization Leadnow.ca would be a credible witness. For those who are not aware of the organization Leadnow, this is a very far left activist group, which is frankly supported by the NDP. During the recent robocall inquisition, they put a position online and gathered 40,000 signatures.

However, none of them had any credible information about robocalls. They were just saying that they would like someone to investigate. That is the type of witnesses that the NDP brought forward. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the member makes reference to the number of witnesses who came before the committee. I had the opportunity to sit through a number of those witnesses, including the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, and other independent organizations who have been fantastic representatives of Canada's democracy.

I want to focus on Elections Canada and the commissioner. Both of them recommended that Elections Canada or the commissioner have the ability to compel a witness. Other provincial jurisdictions of the same nature, independent election authorities, already have that ability. The issue is, why does the government not recognize and allow for Elections Canada or the Commissioner of Canada Elections to have the ability to compel a witness? What does the government have to hide that would prevent it from allowing them to do the things they should be able to do? Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr.

Speaker, I would point out that certainly during the course of an investigation, officials now investigating any perceived or alleged elections wrongdoing have the same ability as police officers do when conducting their own investigations. There is nothing untoward or unusual, whatsoever. However, I want to point out to members opposite, on both the Liberal and the NDP benches, a couple of other points that relate to an earlier question from my NDP colleague, who asked for the names of some other officials who supported the bill. I would point out that the former auditor general Sheila Fraser came to committee.

She said that she had a concern with moving the commissioner of elections from Elections Canada over to the DPP offices, only because she felt there would not be adequate communication between Elections Canada and the commissioner of elections. We listened, and we made changes in the form of an amendment, to allow full communication between Elections Canada and the commissioner of elections. Sheila Fraser would applaud those changes, and I think she is considered by all Canadians to be eminent in her position. (1250) [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I consider myself lucky to be able to speak to Bill C-23 , especially because time allocation has been imposed at every step of the way. This bill has elicited a lot of debate. Thus, we have not been able to talk about Bill C-23 freely or as much as it warrants. First, I would like to say something about the Conservative amendments adopted at committee stage. I believe that they would not have been adopted without the work of the NDP, especially my colleagues from Louis-Saint-Laurent and Toronto—Danforth .

As soon as the NDP received this bill, we realized that there were major problems and we decided to take action. Unlike the government, we consulted Canadians, we travelled across the country to hear their opinions and we listened carefully to the experts. As a result of our efforts, the Conservative government agreed to back down on some aspects of this bill. Unfortunately, it still contains many flaws. The NDP, in good faith, suggested almost 100 amendments to improve this very controversial bill. Unfortunately, the Conservatives put their ideology ahead of the country's interests.

The only amendments accepted were those to correct some wording or vocabulary errors. No substantive NDP amendment was adopted by the Conservative Party, which naturally had a majority on the committee. The worst thing about all this is that the Conservative government, by means of its majority in committee, ended debate even before half of the amendments proposed by the NDP were debated. This is indicative of the government's scorn for the democratic process, even though the bill is actually about democratic reform. I would like to put things in context.

During an opposition day in March 2012, following the robocalls scandal, the NDP moved a motion to strengthen the election process. The motion called on the government to introduce a bill within six months of the motion being adopted. We waited much longer than six months. I would like to point out that the motion was adopted unanimously. Among other things, it sought to strengthen Elections Canada's authority over investigations and presented measures to prevent more fraudulent calls from happening in the future.

One would have reasonably expected the government to want to put things right, but it did not take those measures into account and even made things worse in its bill. We asked that the Chief Electoral Officer be given more power to conduct investigations and to compel witnesses to appear, for example. Right now, when the Chief Electoral Officer tries to investigate a scandal, such as the robocalls, he does not even have the authority to compel potential witnesses to appear. How can he investigate when the people involved merely have to say that they do not wish to appear? That approach is not working very well.

It seems to me that anybody can understand that the Chief Electoral Officer should be able to compel witnesses to appear. The Chief Electoral Officer should have been given more investigative powers to ensure that, in the future, he never finds that his hands are tied and he is unable to make sufficient progress and get the proof he needs, which unfortunately is the case right now. Not only is the government refusing to give the Chief Electoral Officer the power to investigate, but it is also going to prevent him from educating the public and encouraging people to vote.

The only person who can do this sort of work in a non-partisan way is the Chief Electoral Officer.

(1255) This work includes encouraging people to vote and finding innovative ways to get young people to vote. The government is now preventing the only person who could have done this in a non-partisan way from doing the job. These amendments give him back a little bit of power. He will be able to participate in youth engagement programs in elementary and secondary schools. However, unfortunately, he does not have the right to encourage young people between the ages of 18 and 25 to vote. He is therefore only allowed to encourage people who are not yet old enough to vote to exercise the right to vote.

I am very pleased that young people in elementary and secondary schools are being encouraged to learn about the election process and eventually play their role as citizens, but it does not make sense that the only people the Chief Electoral Officer is allowed to approach are those who are not yet able to vote. He does not have the right to talk to students in colleges, universities or aboriginal groups. It does not make sense. Let us talk about another problem they refused to address. We wanted to keep vouching from the start. They wanted to get rid of it, but in the end they went back on their decision.

However, the voter card does not provide proof of address. People like students, seniors and first nations members will have a hard time establishing proof of address. What is more, the NDP proposed an amendment to include a notice on the voter card that the voter could no longer use that card to vote with or as identification. This amendment seems logical to me, but the Conservatives did not even accept it. This speaks to their illogical thinking. I know we are not allowed to use props, but I conducted a little experiment. The hon. member for Manicouagan can attest to this because he counted along with me.

I emptied my wallet to see what I had on me. If I had to prove my identification today, in my purse I have 21 pieces of ID with my name on them. However, I have only three cards that prove where I live. In fact, I have to exclude my list of drugs from the pharmacy because it is not an acceptable proof of address. The only things left are my hospital card and my driver's licence. They are the only two ID cards I have in my wallet with my address on them. Needless to say, not everyone has a driver's licence.

As far as the hospital card is concerned, what happens when people have not been to the hospital in 10 years? If they moved, the address on their card might be the one they had 5 or 10 years ago, when they last went to the hospital. If I did not have a driver's licence and had recently changed my address, I would not be able to prove who I am. However, I am not a member of one of the most vulnerable groups. Imagine more vulnerable groups such as seniors, aboriginal people and students, who already have a hard time proving their identity. What will they do?

I encourage everyone to do a test at home by emptying out their wallet. They will see that their address is not shown on many of their cards. A lot of cards will have their name, but not many will have their address. I do not walk around with my hydro and phone bills in my purse. Not to mention, I cannot even get these bills mailed to me for free. I get them online, like everyone else. Online bills are not considered original documents under the law. They are just copies printed out from a computer. The bill still has some flaws that have not been fixed.

Since more than 70 people testified in committee and only one of them supported Bill C-23 , I think the Conservative government could have shown a lot more openness. Whether we like it or not, the minister is new to his job. It is understandable that he might not draft a perfect bill. I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

(1300) Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. She did a very good job of explaining how hard it will be for people to prove their identity under the new rules. However, my question has more to do with the process of drafting, studying and passing the bill. Does she think it is okay for a government—any government—to use its majority not only to change elections legislation, but also to limit speaking time during debates and committee meetings?

Does she think it is okay for the Conservative government to use its majority to change elections legislation without consulting anyone and without seeking any degree of consensus whatsoever with the other parties that participate in the electoral process and that will have to work with this bill once it is amended? Ms. Christine Moore : Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is okay at all. When it comes to reforming our democratic institutions, it is not okay for a government to act this way.

For example, the Government of Quebec held an open discussion among the various political parties about reforming the financing rules. They achieved a degree of consensus. Even though there were disagreements about the exact amount, it was about financing, and the discussion was open. What we are dealing with here is a major reform of our elections legislation, and over and over, the Conservative government limits time for debate.

This attitude demonstrates the Conservative government's complete disregard for our democracy, and I think it is a real shame that this is the message it is sending to the next generation. Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her answer. I have another question about proof of identity, which she spoke about during her speech. The Conservatives often compare means of identification during an election to those used during other processes, such as a leadership race and so on. They seem to forget that, during an election, the right to vote is a constitutional right.

Could she talk about the constitutional right to vote that Canadians are entitled to? Why is it important to protect that right by allowing those who cannot identify themselves to have access to a mechanism that allows them to exercise their constitutional right to vote even if they cannot always provide ID? Ms. Christine Moore : Mr. Speaker, in order to legitimize a democratic institution, those who contributed to its creation must be able to participate in it. The Constitution protects the right to vote.

The government cannot refuse to allow numerous people to vote under the pretext that they are unable to prove their identity. The government cannot introduce legislation that prevents people from proving their identity when they are able to do so. I have some concrete examples. Take, for instance, a person in my home town who shows up and does not have any identification. The Elections Canada employee has known that individual for 60 years and has no doubt about who it is because they are from the same town. The Elections Canada employee would be forced to prevent that individual from voting.

While there is no question about who the person is, and the employee knows that the individual is not trying to vote fraudulently, the employee would still have to prevent that individual from voting. That makes no sense. To protect the legitimacy of a government, we need to protect the integrity of the right to vote. Those two elements go hand in hand. (1305) [ English ] Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let me just say, first, how pleased I am to speak to the fair elections act today.

I have been looking forward to it, because I wanted to tell members about a meeting I held in my riding with Port Credit seniors, who were very concerned about the fair elections act. They had been reading a lot about it, specifically in The Globe and Mail , and they wanted to know from their member of Parliament what this was all about and how it would actually affect them.

The reason I am delighted to speak about it today is that I wanted to tell members what the concerns of those seniors were, and specifically how the amendments introduced on April 24 address the concerns of those seniors in the riding of Mississauga South. Most Canadians, I believe, think those amendments are fair and reasonable and common sense. Let me begin by saying that the fair elections act was very important for this government to bring forward. Elections must be free and fair, but there were some issues with the Elections Act as it was, and some loopholes needed to be closed.

We are fulfilling a promise made in the throne speech with regard to dealing with some of these issues. First, let me say that I was able to assuage some of the concerns of those seniors. Let me tell you what they were. There were three or four main concerns. One of my constituents mentioned hearing that there was not enough consultation on the bill. That person had the impression that the bill was somehow introduced and then never discussed again.

I was able to say that we had 15 meetings of the parliamentary procedures and House affairs committee, that there were 31 hours of debate on the bill at committee, and that 72 witnesses appeared. That says a great deal about the commitment we have to making sure that we talk this through. Those witnesses, as members know, were high profile and very well informed and were able to give the committee some very good and sage advice. The 45 amendments that came out of that consultation, 14 of them substantial, I think go a long way to alleviating some of the concerns people have.

One of the concerns that was not specifically brought up at the meeting I am talking about but that was of concern to me was with regard to disagreements about MPs' election expense returns and the rulings the CEO makes. That concerns me as a member of Parliament, because I have heard and read about and seen here in this 41st Parliament situations when the MP and the CEO, the Chief Electoral Officer, sometimes have disagreed about an MP's election expense return.

When that happens, the Canada Elections Act provides that the MP can no longer sit or vote in the House of Commons until that election return is amended to satisfy the CEO. I do not believe that the election of a democratically elected member of Parliament can be reversed. It is the decision of tens of thousands of voters, and no one should have the power to reverse that democratic election without first convincing a judge. The fair elections act would allow the MP to present that disputed case in a court and to have judges rule on it before the CEO sought the MP's suspension.

(1310) This brings in the idea of the registry. It is very important that these rulings be presented in writing. That would allow members of Parliament or candidates in the future to reference those rulings. They would be precedent setting. We could look them up. The rulings would provide further clarification. These are the kinds of things that would make our process less opaque. It would become easier for us to follow the myriad rules we must follow with regard to election expenses.

With regard to the CEO and the commissioner, some of my constituents had become concerned that from what they had read, the commissioner would be reporting to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I assured my constituents that this would not in any way impede the independence of the commissioner. In fact, it would give the commissioner the ability to investigate, but completely independently, without giving any specifics of a case to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We would extend the time from 45 to 60 days for the CEO to publish that ruling once those investigations were complete.

To me, that is an important piece that was missing from the Canada Elections Act. The biggest concern of the seniors in my riding was with respect to vouching and identification. We had a long conversation about how this would work and what, if anything, had changed. Part of the impression they were left with was that somehow we had changed the number of acceptable pieces of ID. That is not the case. It was 39 pieces before and it remains 39 pieces of acceptable identification.

When I told them that for the two pieces of identification, their neighbour or friend or son or daughter would be able to vouch for their address or place of residence, that went a long way to addressing their concerns. All of them have identification that proves that they are who they are, but they were concerned that if, let us say, someone had just moved in with his or her son or daughter, and the election was happening right away, he or she would not have any bills going to that address.

It is a legitimate concern, which is why I was relieved when our government decided to amend the bill to allow an attestation, which I think it is officially called, of someone's address. I also mentioned to the constituents in my riding that in Ontario, there is a provincial identification card. I know this, because I am the mother of two teenagers, and sometimes, other than a student card, which in many cases does not have a home address on it, students do not have identification if they do not yet have a driver's licence.

Many of the seniors I spoke to did not realize that one can get a provincial ID card like this one. I know that we are not allowed props, but I have one. It is important for some people to get. I would imagine that other provinces have something similar. The provincial ID card is something folks can apply for and receive. It acts in the same way as a driver's licence. It has a photo, and it would be considered proof of identification as well as proof of address. I wanted to put that out there.

I also want to say that highlighting the deficiencies and addressing them with the amendments has not only improved the Elections Act but has made it fairer and freer. Therefore, I am pleased to support this bill.

(1315) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Before I go to questions and comments, I want to remind all hon. members of this. The last two speakers have held pieces of identification in their hands. If they are doing that in order to refer to information, that is not problematic. If they use them as visual aids, that crosses the line and becomes a problem. Questions and comments, the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam. Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I listened to my colleague's comments and I have to add that the people in my riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam and Port Moody were very opposed to the proposed changes. In fact, they were offended by some of the changes. I would add that not only are people very concerned but experts right across the country, including the Chief Electoral Officer, are extremely alarmed at the content of this bill. Even the media is overwhelmingly opposed. The Globe and Mail did a five-part op-ed explaining just how bad this bill was.

Many people have told me outright that they are extremely concerned and that what the government is doing, essentially, is taking a page right out of the U.S. Republicans' playbook in terms of marginalizing voters in our country. Why is the government making it harder for seniors, students and aboriginal Canadians on reserve by not allowing the VIC as proof of address? Mrs. Stella Ambler : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the member referred to the VIC, because it is commonly misunderstood. It does not stand for “voter identification card”; it stands for “voter information card”.

It is a way for Elections Canada to inform voters about where they vote, what time they vote and what pieces of identification they can bring to be allowed to vote. However, it is not a piece of identification. The voters lists kept by Elections Canada are not always perfect. In fact, there are many mistakes on them, and the cards are produced from those lists. Therefore, it is absolutely imperative that those cards are not accepted as valid pieces of identification. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member met with her constituents to try to get a better understanding of why so many Canadians were upset with the way government was changing our election laws. It is somewhat interesting that we need to emphasize this point. The legislation, from its creation to where it is today, is in front of the House for one reason, and that is a majority Conservative Party happens to be government. There were no consultations outside of the Conservative Party.

When the bill went to committee, even when there were independent agencies such as Elections Canada that said the Commissioner of Canada Elections should stay within Elections Canada and even when the Commissioner of Canada Elections appeared in committee and said that his office should stay within Elections Canada, the Conservative majority, time and time again, ignored many recommendations that would have improved the legislation. The legislation, as it is today, is a one-party piece of legislation from its origin.

Given the fact that there are multiple political parties in Canada, does the member not believe in passing an election law that should have at least some form of support that goes beyond the Conservative Party, that would include other political parties or Elections Canada, some sort of consensus?

(1320) Mrs. Stella Ambler : Mr. Speaker, I think the consensus is clear in terms of what Canadians want to see, and that is fair elections. From the Ipsos poll that was released last week, 87% of Canadians thought a person should have a piece of identification to vote. To me, this means Canadians wanted legislation on this, and we have provided that as a government. Absolutely, there will be disagreement. That is where the consultation came in, and I talked about that at the beginning of my speech. Changes and amendments were made based on the feedback that came from those consultations. [ Translation ] Mr.

José Nunez-Melo (Laval, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Mother's Day, was a very happy day in my riding. I had the opportunity to visit a seniors' residence, which hosted a number of wonderful activities. Everyone was happy and was having a good time. The weather was nice as well. People were happy and content. I could not help but think that this was a break for those who had told me they were worried about the election reform introduced by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform . Just a few minutes ago, my hon. colleague from Mississauga South mentioned seniors.

Yesterday, older mothers were celebrating, but they also told me that they were wondering where the government was going with this election reform. They are very worried because they have been voting with their voter information cards for quite some time and there has never been a problem. Furthermore, most seniors' residences have a polling station in the lobby. Everyone knows each other and knows who lives there. These people do not need all kinds of other ID cards. These people are very worried, and they shared their concerns with me.

Furthermore, they are discouraged by this government's attitude, especially in committee, where it imposed time allocation to limit debate. They listened to the testimony from the witnesses who were called at third reading. The amendments proposed by the Conservatives—we will see later today—do not reflect the amendments our caucus proposed. This leaves much to be desired, since our caucus's slogan is “Working together”. Unfortunately, members on the other side of the House do not share this perspective.

They are stubborn and, since they have a majority on all the committees and even here in the House of Commons, this arrogant attitude leaves much to be desired. My constituents tell me this on a regular basis when they respond to my mail-outs or call me directly. Voters took advantage of my presence in my riding two weeks ago to come and see me. They told me that changes need to be made in the House of Commons. Because of the way these people shared their concerns, I do not believe that they intend to wait until October 2015 to see such changes.

They are concerned because this electoral reform is going to cause major upheaval. The arrogant and negative attitude of our colleagues opposite bothers people. They think it shows a blatant lack of respect for Canadians.

(1325) The Conservatives have demonstrated that lack of respect on more than one occasion, when they have attacked the Chief Electoral Officer, the former auditor general and many politically savvy people with strong opinions. These individuals have told the Conservatives directly not to take this reform any further because it is unconstitutional and undemocratic. However, the Conservatives are not listening. I would also like to talk about the terrible provisions set out in this bill. I am very concerned about the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer is having some of his authority taken away.

Historically, the Chief Electoral Officer has had the mandate to coordinate any action required to elect a government in Canada. If that person has to deal with a lot of statutory or regulatory obstacles, democracy will be dealt a severe blow. Many people are concerned about this. In previous years, Canada had a very good international reputation. Our country was an almost perfect example of democracy. Human rights were recognized here. Everyone was free. People could work and live comfortably. In my opinion, this will definitely be the last Conservative government.

As we have seen in the past, the Conservatives do not seem to want to let go. The government is being stubborn and wants to cling to power. Since they have a majority, the Conservatives are making all sorts of changes so that they might have the chance to stay in power longer. A prime example is the Conservatives' current reform of the Elections Act. Their plans will give them every advantage. They are increasing the amount that an individual can donate from $1,200 to $1,500. Additionally, candidates can inject $5,000 of their own money into their own election campaign.

This will obviously benefit the wealthy in our society. They will be able to run for office and will have a better chance of winning, no matter the riding. There is something else bothering many people in Laval and across Canada. I frequently receive letters from people in Ontario, especially members of the Latin American community who know me. They tell me about their concerns, which I forward to their MP. They are concerned that the Commissioner of Canada Elections will lose some of his rights. That is unacceptable. We are opposed to these election reforms.

(1330) Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laval for his speech. I would like to ask him a very specific question about the process that took place while this bill was studied. We know that a bill to amend an electoral law usually entails extensive consultation from the very beginning. The opposition parties and electoral agencies should have an opportunity to explain what is required in our Canada Elections Act. In fact, this bill concerns everyone and strikes at the very heart of our democracy. I would like the member to comment on that.

Does he believe that the Conservatives' efforts with respect to changes to the Canada Elections Act were sufficient given the magnitude of the bill? Mr. José Nunez-Melo : Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent . What happened in committee is troubling. I am not sure if you watch the news on television very often, Mr. Speaker, but nearly all the political commentators have said they are shocked by the attitude of the committee's Conservative majority. The Conservatives did not listen to anyone. They practically muzzled everyone.

They said we could bring forward some witnesses, who would each have their turn to speak, but the Conservatives did not listen to them and adjourned the meeting. We put a lot of work into this. We must thank our honourable colleague from Hamilton Centre for standing up to them. That is what happened. The Conservatives showed a rather arrogant attitude by imposing this reform and making it appear as though they were giving people the opportunity to express themselves. That was not true. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to continue on with the member's reference to committees. The Liberal Party critic had the opportunity to introduce dozens of amendments, some of which were fairly substantial in their very nature, such as allowing Elections Canada and the commissioner to compel witnesses. The New Democratic Party also brought forward amendments. As a result of time allocation, many of those amendments were never even discussed. At 5 p.m. on May 1, using its majority, the government passed or did not pass all of the amendments without any due process. That speaks volumes.

The same thing applied for second reading and the same thing applies at report stage and will apply at third reading. The government continually uses time allocation. Bill C-23 is a one-party piece of legislation. It is a Conservative Party bill and that is it. I am wondering what the member has to say with regard to the way in which the Conservative government has been pushing this legislation through with a lack of respect for the opposition, which in essence, demonstrates a lack of respect for all Canadians. (1335) [ Translation ] Mr. José Nunez-Melo : Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his comment and question. He is absolutely right. He reiterated what we have been seeing in most of the committees with a Conservative majority. What is more, the Conservatives are pushing through their bills and anything else they want. The member is right about our caucus, and our representation on such a committee. If memory serves me correctly, a hundred or so amendments were proposed. I think that fewer than half were read, consulted, verified or anything. The Conservatives made it clear from the outset that they did not want to listen.

They keep moving time allocation motions and limiting the speaking time of our representatives but never make any mention of that. My colleague from Winnipeg North is absolutely right. That is their strategy. That is what they want to do. [ English ] Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to speak to Bill C-23 . There has been a lot of misinformation on the subject, and I am happy to have the opportunity to clarify at least some of it, and clarify why our Conservative government is putting forward the fair elections act.

A system can never be perfect, but we can always work toward improving it one step at a time. This is the very reason why the government put forward the fair elections act . This bill is designed to protect the fairness of federal elections and to ensure that all citizens are in charge of our democracy. Democracy becomes susceptible to threat when the rules are not given the proper respect. Therefore, it is our duty as citizens, and as members of the House, to protect its integrity as that in itself protects our freedom to live in a democracy.

The fair elections act would strengthen democracy by making it harder for people to break the law. The act would implement 38 of the Chief Electoral Officer's past recommendations. The first of many changes would be the process in which the commissioner of Canada Elections is appointed. It would establish that the commissioner is to be appointed by the director of public prosecutions for a seven-year term and could not be dismissed without cause. The commissioner would have full independence, with control of his or her staff and investigations.

The act would permit the commissioner to publicly disclose information about the investigations when it is in the public interest, which would improve transparency. The act would add a

section that deals with voter contact calling services. Among other things, this

section would require that calling service providers and other interested parties file registration notices with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, provide identifying information to the commission, and keep copies of scripts and recordings used to make calls. It would become a requirement for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to establish and maintain a registry, to be known as the voter contact registry, in which the documents it receives in relation to voter contact calling services are to be filed.

The fair elections act would give law enforcement more tools to protect the integrity of our elections by allowing the commissioner to seek tougher penalties for existing offences. It is our full intention to not allow a fast and loose approach with the rules of democracy. For more serious offences, the bill would raise the maximum fine from $2,000 to $20,000 on

summary convictions, and from $5,000 to $50,000 on indictment. For registered parties, it would raise the maximum fine from $25,000 to $50,000 on

summary convictions for strict liability political financing offences, and from $25,000 to $100,000 on

summary convictions for political financing offences that are committed intentionally. For third parties that are groups or corporations that failed to register as third parties, the bill would raise the maximum fine to $50,000 for strict liability offences, and to $100,000 for offences that are committed intentionally. By establishing tougher penalties, our Conservative government would deter the occurrences of offences, intentional or unintentional.

(1340) To encourage voter turnout, the bill would make it easier for voters to participate in the democratic process. The fair elections act would provide an extra day of advance polling. The additional day of voting would take place on the eighth day before polling day, creating a block of four consecutive advance polling days. This amendment would surely make it easier for Canadians across the country to vote.

It would also improve transparency by allowing the establishment of an advisory committee of political parties to provide advice to the chief electoral officers on matters relating to elections and political financing. It would amend the act to provide for the appointment of field liaison officers based on merit, to provide support for the returning officers, and to provide a link between returning officers and the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. The fair elections act aims to respect democratic election results.

There are occasions, and my colleague spoke to this before, when the Chief Electoral Officer disagreed with the elected MPs' election expense returns. When this occurs, the MP can no longer sit or vote in the House of Commons until the expense return is changed to the CEO's satisfaction. This prevents the democratically elected member of Parliament from representing his or her constituency. The fair ele