OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 085 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES May 13, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 085 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 085 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 085 (Version officielle) 147 085 13 05 2014 2014/05/13 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 14 petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the bilateral visit to Mumbai, Bangalore, Trivandrum, and Kochi, India from August 31 to September 8, 2012. Mr.

Speaker, also pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the 59th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference held in Johannesburg, South Africa, from August 28 to September 6, 2013.

Navigable Waters Protection Act Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) Bill C-595. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-595 ,

an act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Somass River). He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that would extend environmental protection to the Somass River. This legislation would restore the river to the

schedule of waterways protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The government's recent overhaul of this act allows for the construction of dams and bridges on most Canadian waters without having to notify the government and without needing approval from the Minister of Transport . This means that waterways like the Somass River are now unprotected against development, leaving residing fish and their dependent ecosystems vulnerable to habitat destruction. I encourage all members of the House to support this legislation. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Navigable Waters Protection Act Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) Bill C-596. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-596 ,

an act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Fish Lake and other waterways). He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to introduce legislation that would extend environmental protection to Fish Lake, Little Fish Lake, Big Onion Lake, Wasp Lake, Taseko River, and Beece Creek. This legislation would restore these bodies of water to the

schedule of waterways protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. These bodies of water would have been severely impacted by the proposed Prosperity Mine as documented by not one but two federal review panels conducted by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The proposed mine would have turned pristine Fish Lake into a tailings pond. By gutting environmental regulations, including the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the government has broken trust in its ability to balance natural resource development with building healthy, sustainable communities.

This legislation is a small step in the right direction of restoring a more responsible and balanced approach. I encourage all members of the House to support the bill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Lincoln Alexander Day Act Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) Bill S-213. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill S-213 ,

an act respecting Lincoln Alexander Day. He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to introduce Bill S-213 ,

an act respecting Lincoln Alexander Day, also passed by the Senate as Bill S-213. The bill would establish a day to pay tribute to a truly great Canadian. As a friend and the member of Parliament for a good part of what was Linc's constituency when he was a member of the House of Commons, it is a great privilege for me to introduce this legislation. (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Petitions Public Transit Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present two petitions today on behalf of Canadians in and around my riding of Beaches—East York. The first one notes that Canada is the only OECD country that does not have a national public transit strategy. It calls upon the Government of Canada to enact such a strategy, which would provide permanent investment to support public transit. That investment would be predictable and sustainable for the purpose of increasing access to public transit.

Consumer Protection Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition takes note of the fact that Canadians face record levels of household debt: $1.65 for every $1 they take home. It calls on the Government of Canada to take significant, concrete steps to make life more affordable for cash-strapped Canadians.

Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition that represents thousands of people from British Columbia. The petition highlights that 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver. Families For Justice is calling for changes to our laws. It is asking for mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death.

(1010) Falun Gong Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my petition today deals with issues of corneas, hearts, kidneys, lungs, and livers. It is from Falun Gong practitioners. They are asking Parliament to condemn the Chinese Communist Party's crime of systematically murdering Falun Gong practitioners for their organs.

[ Translation ] VIA Rail Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I would like to present a series of petitions signed by a few hundred people from my riding and ridings in northern New Brunswick. We are delighted that the minister has announced $10 million to ensure the survival of the railway in our region. Unfortunately, she forgot to invest in VIA Rail passenger service as well. I would remind the House that the train does not go through the Gaspé any more, but it goes through northern New Brunswick three times a week. We absolutely must invest in VIA Rail. People are expecting an answer from the minister, and I hope that she will listen.

[ English ] Genetically Modified Alfalfa Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of the city of London about GM alfalfa.

Human Rights in Venezuela Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by several residents of the province of Quebec with respect to the situation in Venezuela. They are calling on the Canadian government to take action through the Organization of American States, including economic sanctions, regarding the situation in Venezuela.

Blood and Organ Donation Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of individuals from around Windsor Essex County and also London, Ontario. It requests the Government of Canada return the right of any healthy Canadian to give the gift of blood, bone marrow, and organs to those in need. No matter the race, religion, or sexual preference of a person, the right to give blood or donate organs is universal to any healthy man or woman.

Canada Post Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to table a new set of petitions calling on the government to reverse revenue--for example, by cuts to Canada Post. The hundreds of signatories believe that we should be instead looking for ways to generate additional revenue--for example, by establishing postal banking. The petitioners want the government to make it very clear that we should not be cutting essential services that Canadians rely on.

Blood and Organ Donation Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. The first is from petitioners across the country who say that discrimination against people in same-sex relationships is unconstitutional and goes against Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They are calling on the Government of Canada to return the right of any healthy Canadian to give blood, bone marrow, or organs to those in need. No matter the race, religion, or sexual preference of a person, the right to give blood or donate is universal to any healthy man or woman.

Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from Canadians who want the government to take measures to stop the global practice of shark finning and to ensure the responsible conservation and management of sharks. They call on the government to immediately ban importation of shark fins into Canada.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Private Members' Business The Speaker : The Chair would like to take a moment to provide some information to the House regarding the management of private members' business. [ Translation ] As members know, after the order of precedence is replenished, the Chair reviews the new items so as to alert the House to bills which at first glance appear to impinge on the financial prerogative of the crown.

This allows members the opportunity to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views about the need for those bills to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. [ English ] Accordingly, following the April 9, 2014, replenishment of the order of precedence with 15 new items, I wish to inform the House that there is a bill that gives the Chair some concern as to the spending provisions it contemplates. It is Bill C-584 ,

an act respecting the corporate social responsibility inherent in the activities of Canadian extractive corporations in developing countries, standing in the name of the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île . [ Translation ] I would encourage hon. members who would like to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation to accompany this bill, or any of the other bills now on the order of precedence, to do so at an early opportunity. (1015) [ English ] I thank hon. members for their attention.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Fair Elections Act Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) moved that Bill C-23,

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts , be read the third time and passed. Bill C-23. Third reading He said: Mr. Speaker, here we are arising to debate at third reading the fair elections act. This has been an excellent process in considering the democracy that we have been fortunate to inherit from our ancestors in this country, to build upon its foundations and to make it even better.

Today, we have before the House the fair elections act, a bill widely supported by the Canadian people, based on the principle of fairness and universal suffrage. It would make it easier for law-abiding Canadians to vote and harder to break the law. It would make it easier for law-abiding Canadians to contribute more financially to democracy while making it harder for special interest groups to break election finance laws. It would make it more difficult to vote illegally or fraudulently while giving new opportunities for Canadian voters to cast their ballots conveniently throughout an election campaign.

The bill has been subject to a great deal of debate, a variety of opinions, and some modest amendments, which built upon the foundations of the original document; so let us review now the final product that the House will consider with its vote on the bill tonight. To start with, Canadians would be required to bring ID when they cast their ballots. In the last election, it was possible for people to arrive at their voting location without a single piece of ID and cast their ballot by having someone else vouch for their identity. Identity vouching would be no more.

Every single Canadian voter would be required to bring ID showing who they are before they vote. Beyond that, there would be a safety valve in the system to help those people whose address may not appear on their identification. For example, in communities throughout rural Alberta, Canadians often have driver's licences that do not contain a home address, but rather a post office box. That creates complications at the voting booth.

In such circumstances, or ones like it, the voter would be allowed to co-sign an oath with another voter from the same polling division who does have ID and proof of residence in hand, to confirm the residency of the voter. There would be a list of oath takers, and Elections Canada would be required by law to check that list for duplicates. Duplicates would of course be evidence of multiple voting. If that occurred, it would automatically be sent over to the commissioner, whose job it is to investigate breaches of the Canada Elections Act.

Signing of a false oath or using oaths to vote more than once would subject a voter to a $50,000 fine or up to five years in prison. There would also be a mandatory external audit to examine whether or not Elections Canada followed all of these procedures. That is particularly important, considering the abysmal record of the agency in managing the vouching process during the last election. The agency had roughly 50,000 irregularities linked to vouching last time, and 165,000 irregularities throughout the organization in other areas of its management on election day.

This mandatory external audit would hold the agency accountable for this kind of mismanagement and these sorts of irregularities. That is an enormous step forward. Those protections were not in place in the last election, nor was a mandatory ID required. The presence of ID would ensure that we know who people are before they vote, so that if they, for example, misused, abused, or misled in the taking of an oath, we would be able to track them down afterwards, having actually seen their identification.

(1020) Under the status quo, people who used vouching to commit voter fraud might never have been tracked down because they never provided ID and their identify is therefore not even registered in the system. These new safeguards would prevent against abuse, and they would embed a very simple principle into our system: if people want to vote, they must present ID. I realize that this position is contentious within the House. The NDP and the Liberals believe that people should be allowed to vote with no ID whatsoever, that they should be able to walk in and have someone vouch for their identity.

I disagree, and so do Canadians. Before I even announced that there would be some amendments to this bill, 87% of Canadians believed that identification should be required in order to vote. We agree with that 87%. In addition to requiring ID, we would eliminate a form of identification that has proven unreliable and susceptible to abuse. In the last couple of elections, the agency has allowed voters to use their voter information card as a form of ID. This card is error-ridden. It has millions of mistakes. Some voters even get more than one of them, allowing for multiple voting to occur.

In the last election, there were errors with 12%, or roughly 1 in 6, of these voter information cards. Even today, the Chief Electoral Officer says there is a roughly 6% error rate within the voter information cards. That percentage might not sound like a lot, until we consider that there are 25 million voters in Canada, so off the top of my head, 6% equals almost 2 million errors in those cards. That presents an unacceptably high level of risk. As a result the fair elections act would end the use of the voter information card as a form of ID.

Furthermore, the fair elections act would close financial loopholes that have allowed some powerful interests to get around the donation limits. Some years ago, the House of Commons passed into place, with a great deal of consensus, restrictions on the amount that people could give and the sources from which those funds could come. Corporate and union money was no longer allowed. Individual donors were restricted to $1,000 a year. With inflation, that is about $1,200 now. The problem is that some have found loopholes.

Liberal leadership candidates, for example, took enormous loans from powerful interests and just never repaid them. In essence, those loans are identical in their effect to illegal donations. For some reason, Elections Canada did not pursue an investigation into this breach of the law, and these Liberals were allowed to get away with that practice. New Democrats, on the other hand, were particularly creative. They invited people to leave enormous donations in excess of the donation limit in their testaments or in their wills.

The NDP received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations bequeathed to them because the limits did not apply to dead people. Although dead people cannot vote, they can contribute under the status quo. The fair elections act would put a nail in that coffin and end the practice of dead donors. From now on, wills and testaments would be subject to the same donation limits as those applied to living Canadians. All this is designed to end the abuse and the loopholes that have permitted big money to creep back into our electoral system. We understand that big money can drown out the voices of everyday Canadians.

That is why our laws would attempt to restrict the flow of that money. It is so that parties can never take enough money from one donor to require them to be indebted to that donor with their public policy decision making.

(1025) These rules, whether to prevent voter fraud or to keep out unacceptably large donations, would be useless without enforcement. That is why the fair elections act would strengthen enforcement by making the chief investigator of election law independent. We would be giving him sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. Sharper teeth means that he would have tougher penalties for existing offences. A longer reach means that he would have many new offences to crack down on big money, voter fraud, and other forms of abuse. A freer hand means that he would be completely independent.

Right now, the commissioner is subject to the control of the CEO. The CEO picks his staff, directs his investigations, hires him, and can fire him at any time without cause, according to the law. This is not independence. The fair elections act would give the commissioner control of his own staff and his own investigation, and guarantee that he cannot be fired without cause. That is the kind of independence the Canadian people expect from a chief investigator. I expect that independence would vastly improve the quality and consistency of enforcement that Canadians enjoy in their electoral system.

One of the best ways to ensure that people do not break the rules is to make those rules known and consistently applied. For example, if the agency were to allow a practice for many years and then change its mind suddenly, as it has been known to do, then it is hard for political actors to know which set of rules they are supposed to follow. As a result, the fair elections act would require the CEO to issue legal

interpretations and advance rulings on requests from political parties. For example, if a party is unclear as to how the agency would enforce a certain rule, it could send a request for an advance ruling to ask the CEO if its plan to do a , b , c , and d would be allowed. The CEO would be required to respond within a confined time period, and the party would then be able to use that advance ruling to carry out its actions in compliance. The ruling would be binding on Elections Canada. In other words, the agency would not be allowed to tell a party that something is allowed and then change its mind after the fact.

Furthermore, it would set a precedent so that all parties could follow the same practice as one party had been allowed to do. In other words, there would be one set of rules for everybody. This is a massive improvement and it represents the use of an ounce of prevention instead of a pound of punishment. The democracy we enjoy should never be taken for granted. All of us have been given this sacred opportunity to choose who shall govern our country. Unfortunately, many Canadians choose not to exercise that right.

One of the biggest obstacles to voter participation, according to Elections Canada, is a lack of basic information about how to participate. Now most Canadians understand that they can vote on election day. That knowledge is widely understood. However, half of young people are not aware that one can vote before election day. A poll by Elections Canada showed that three-quarters of aboriginal youth were not aware that they could vote before election day, through an advance ballot, a mail-in ballot, or by going to the Elections Canada local office on any day throughout the campaign.

That knowledge would be useful in helping people get out and vote who are too busy, out of town, working, or having family or health obstacles. That is why the fair elections act would focus Elections Canada's advertising on where, when, and how to vote. In fact, with the passage of the fair elections act, the agency would only be allowed to advertise on the basics of voting. That is a change from the system right now, and it would ensure that the information the people of Canada receive from their election agency is relevant to their role.

(1030) Finally, for the vote to matter, it has to be honoured. Under the status quo, Elections Canada is able to attempt to remove a member of Parliament, through suspension, from the House of Commons if there is a financial dispute over election spending. I think all of us agree that if someone flagrantly and deliberately breaks election law in order to be elected, that person should be suspended, but we have to make sure that the allegation is in fact true before reversing the decision of thousands of voters by the edict of one agency head.

Therefore, the fair elections act will allow any member of Parliament whose financial claims are disputed by the agency to exhaust all levels of legal appeal in the courts before the CEO can come to Parliament and ask for that MP's suspension. This is altogether fitting and proper. It is not right for an agency head to attempt to overturn the results of a democratic election and to cancel out the votes of tens of thousands of voters unless and until a judge has agreed with the allegation the CEO has presented.

The fair elections act will imbed that required judicial proceeding in place, rather than the current system, which is undemocratic and unfair to voters. We in this party and in this government believe that voting should be as easy as possible. That is why we are adding an additional day of voting during which Canadians can show up and cast their ballots in advance, in case they are not able to do so on election day. This is a

summary of the changes we are putting forward before the Canadian people. They have been widely debated and thoroughly considered in the committees of both the House and the Senate, and now we move forward to decision day. Having had all of this debate and having considered some modest but fair changes, it is time for people to decide. This bill will allow Elections Canada to focus on its core mandate of running elections fairly and efficiently while removing from its mandate aspects that really do not belong with the agency at all. It is a major step forward for democracy.

It will protect the independence of our elections, and it will allow the Canadian people to have full confidence in the apparatus constructed to carry out the vote on election day. I invite members of all parties, having carefully considered it, to vote in favour of the fair elections act tonight and to celebrate it as a step forward in the evolution of Canadian democracy, building upon our long-standing traditions and democratic heritage to move our country forward into the future of its democracy. Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for outlining some of the benefits.

I am also glad to say that, finally, the minister has contrasted what is back in the bill with something that was eliminated. He said that vouching for identity is no longer available, which means that he now accepts that he has restored vouching for address, and that certainly was the biggest concern of all the witnesses. I would count that not as a modest amendment but as a major amendment. The minister started out by saying that all the amendments were modest. I thank the minister for that.

Did the minister listen to, and if he did, why did he not act on, the testimony from the commissioners for Canada Elections about the effects of transferring the commissioner to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? The concern was that a compliance model permeates the Canada Elections Act and that separating the commissioner from the CEO, the Chief Electoral Officer, is going to actually create serious effectiveness problems for the commissioner when it comes to assisting in compliance, versus prosecutorial enforcement. Did the minister listen? Did the minister not see the reason in that criticism?

Why did he not leave, therefore, the commissioner with the Chief Electoral Officer?

(1035) Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, the member addressed two issues. One is the issue of voting without ID. Under the status quo, people can vote without any ID whatsoever by having someone vouch for who they are. That is over. That is done. It is not coming back. It is a major improvement to require every single voter to present ID when he or she casts a ballot. I respect that he takes a different point of view, and though we are on opposite sides of that, I do not question his well-intentioned approach. On the issue of the independence of the commissioner, there are two different functions.

One is administration and the other is enforcement. The job of Elections Canada is to administer elections. If members read the Neufeld report, they will see that the administration had serious problems in the last election. There were 165,000 serious irregularities that represented breaches of practice, and that cannot continue. That is why we are focusing Elections Canada on its core job, which is to properly administer elections. As for enforcement, there are two parts to enforcement. One is prosecution and the other is investigation.

In the past, those two functions have been housed not only in the same office but in the same person. Prior to 2005, one person was both prosecutor and investigator. What we are proposing now is that they not be in the same person but in the same office. The prosecutor will be responsible, when charges are recommended, for taking those charges before the courts, but the investigator will be completely independent of Elections Canada and will be able to exercise a free hand in seeking out wrongdoing.

All that we have seen over the last several years suggests that this independence is needed and that it will be a major improvement when it is achieved. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, because the minister is the minister, he was afforded the opportunity to name the bill. He named it the fair elections act. That is anything but the truth. This is a Conservative election act. Every action taken by the government on this bill clearly demonstrates that it is a Conservative piece of legislation.

There was time allocation, limitations, the lack of consultation, and the lack of respect toward the Chief Electoral Officer. The minister himself verbally assaulted the Chief Electoral Officer for expressing concerns that Canadians have with regard to this legislation. My question for the minister deals specifically with the commissioner. It is only the Conservative Party that wanted to take the commissioner outside of Elections Canada. Not only did the CEO want to stay within Election Canada, so did the commissioner himself.

Can the minister provide any indication that there was any academic who made a presentation who suggested that the commissioner, among other things, had to be taken out of Elections Canada? Was there anyone outside of the Conservative Party or the PMO's office? Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was Ian Lee, who is a respected professor in Ottawa. The Lortie Commission, which did a very thorough study on election law, suggested that there should be an independent commissioner, and that is what we have done.

Through the fair elections act, the commissioner would be independent from the elected government, political parties, and Elections Canada. Keep in mind that there are about three dozen offences in the act that would relate to the conduct of Elections Canada officials. How could he possibly investigate potential offences by officials within the organization for which he works? It is impossible. A basic precept of good governance is that enforcement is independent and separate and that people do not investigate themselves.

The investigator should make his own decisions and have a free hand, and that is the decision we have made in the fair elections act.

(1040) Hon. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister for an excellent bill. I had his portfolio a few years ago, and I think it is a terrific bill. It is a bill Canadians will respect. When I have heard about this bill in my constituency, people think it is common sense that people identify themselves. I wonder if the minister could again reassure us that people who can vote will have that opportunity, and those who cannot vote will not vote.

Perhaps he could share with us some of the other identification methods that are available under this new bill. Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, the member was a great minister in the democratic reform portfolio. He also presided over crown corporations. He has a very distinguished record, and I thank him for the question and the kind words. On the issue of voter identification, here is the fundamental difference between what the fair elections act proposes today and what existed in the last election.

In the last election, people could go in with no ID whatsoever and cast a ballot by having someone vouch for who they were. That form of identity vouching is gone. Every single person who votes will have to present a piece of identification showing who they are before they vote. If that ID does not have an address on it, they can co-sign an oath with another elector as to their address. However, there is a big difference.

From now on, the list of oath takers will be put before the eyes of Elections Canada right after the election to find out if there are duplicates so that we can catch people who voted more than once. There will be a $50,000 fine for taking a false oath. Potentially, jail time could come along with that. There would be an external auditor to make sure that Elections Canada actually follows these legal requirements. Because we will have required people to show ID proving who are before taking that oath, unlike under the status quo, if they have lied or cheated, we will be able to track them down.

Under the previous model of vouching, where people could go in without any ID whatsoever and have someone vouch for who they were, if the system showed that they had voted more than once or had cheated in some way, we might not ever be able to track them down, because their identity had not been established. In other words, they could simply lie about who they were. There was no picture of them. There was no record of their existence. They literally vanished into thin air as though they never existed, but their vote was counted. That vote would have cancelled out the legitimate vote of an honest voter.

That is another way of disenfranchising someone. We are eliminating that practice and that possibility by requiring every single person to show their ID, by checking the list of oath takers for duplicates to catch people who vote more than once, and by having an external auditor oversee all of it so that we can ensure that Elections Canada actually follows its own rules. Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to orient my remarks in the following way: first, to briefly situate why there was so much concern when the bill was initially tabled in early February and in the months leading up to major concessions by the minister, not the minor or modest amendments that he just referred to; second, to outline what those amendments were that constitute a major victory for civil society and the opposition in making a bad bill less bad; and, finally, to go through 10 points about what still remains in the bill that makes it a bad bill unworthy of the support of this House.

On the first point, it has to be said that from the beginning, our worry was that the dozens of new provisions and changes in the bill created a tapestry that, in the result, whether or not by intention, would favour one party in the next election and lock into place a series of principles that were not themselves fair, despite the name of the act, the “fair elections act”.

There was no better sign for those well aware of what the government is capable of and of the bill itself than the fact that on April 10 two very highly respected Progressive Conservatives joined in signing a statement about their concerns and about why the bill should actually be killed. Those persons were David Crombie and Allan Gregg. They said: This legislation is a blatant attempt by the Harper government to stack the deck in favour of the Conservatives in the next federal election.

These are two extremely knowledgeable members of Canadian society, one of them a former mayor of Toronto and a former Progressive Conservative minister and the other a deeply connected pollster and marketing person. Both these men knew what the current government was capable of. They read the bill, they understood it, and they used very strong language. “Stack the deck” is something that clearly suggests an effort to create an unfair elections act, the opposite of the title of the bill, the “fair elections act”.

With pressure from all sides—from civil society, from a vigorous opposition effort, from academics speaking out, and, I have no doubt, from a certain number of Conservative backbenchers who, either as a matter of principle or as a matter of feeling the pressure, weighed in—a number of major concessions were announced by the minister and indeed delivered upon in amendments at the procedure and House affairs committee. I will list them. By listing them, I hope I convey how major they are and how the government was forced off of some elements that were at the very heart of the effort to “stack the deck”.

First, there was a fundraising exemption. Parties would be allowed to exempt from their campaign expenses all the costs of contacting previous donors from the last five years in order to raise more money from them. All the costs associated with that would not have to go into campaign costs. All kinds of reasons were given as to why this was a huge, unlimited exemption to the campaign caps at election time. That was removed.

Second, the government added to the original bill, Bill C-23 , the fact that central poll supervisors would henceforth be de facto appointed by the first-place party's candidate or the first-place party going into the next election.

(1045) The central poll supervisor is in many ways the most important person at any given poll. The fact that this would unbalance the existing system—which unfortunately is already politicized, in that the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk are each appointed by the first-place and second-place parties respectively—was something that produced major concern. There was no logic as to why this should be the case. That was removed in one of the so-called modest amendments of the minister, but it is an amendment that I nonetheless would prefer to characterize as a major concession.

We have just had an exchange where the minister acknowledges that vouching for identity in and of itself is no longer part of Bill C-23 and remains so, but vouching for an address, which is the absolute key problem that had occurred when the vouching provisions of the Canada Elections Act were removed, has been restored. That was not a modest amendment.

That was a major victory for civil society and for the many witnesses who took the time and trouble to explain to Conservative members at the procedure and House affairs committee, to the media, and ultimately to the minister why the elimination of the current vouching provisions in the Canada Elections Act were deeply unfair and disenfranchising. Fourth, there was a bordering on ludicrous limit on how long calling service providers and others had to keep data with respect to voter contact in the new voter contact registry.

When Bill C-23 was initially introduced, it was to be only one year, which is barely enough time for information to come out in some context that there is a problem needing investigation. The minister caved with respect to the keeping of scripts and audio records. That was increased from one year to three years. Many other problems remain with this voter contact registry system. I would call this a modest amendment, but nonetheless a significant one.

Fifth, the government heard early on that Bill C-23 's elimination of the public education and information programming role of Elections Canada, especially targeted toward disadvantaged groups and those more likely to experience difficulties in voting, was an abomination. I knew early on that this was one area that a lot of Conservative Party backbenchers had great trouble with. I could have predicted from the beginning what would happen, which was that the public education role for Elections Canada was restored, albeit only for primary and secondary school students.

All of the other outreach activities that Elections Canada had engaged in over the years or could engage in in the future have remained prohibited by the current version of Bill C-23 . Nonetheless, at least allowing a student vote and analogous programs to continue to be supported, funded, co-organized, and partnered by Elections Canada constitutes a major victory on the part of civil society, which very much put this issue near the top of its concerns.

Sixth is the fact that Bill C-23 contained no provisions that are necessary in a bill, for technical reasons, to allow communications between the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Chief Electoral Officer after the commissioner would be moved from Elections Canada to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That was rectified by putting in communications authorizations. They are minimal and do not go as far as we wanted, but they are nonetheless important. Seventh, it was very clear that the new

section 18 of the Canada Elections Act was written in such a way that the Chief Electoral Officer would henceforth be prohibited from communicating with the public other than to provide information to the public on a very narrow set of functional questions, such as where one can vote, how one can vote, and what identification one can use to vote. The reason was that

section 18 was worded to say that the Chief Electoral Officer shall “only” communicate about the following. Therefore, there was great concern that, whether intentionally or not, it had been written in a way that meant the Chief Electoral Officer could communicate on nothing other than that in the future.

(1050) Early on, the minister said that was not the intention, and when he announced his other concessions, he said that the Chief Electoral Officer could communicate freely in his own capacity. When the time came for the amendments at the procedure and House affairs committee, it was never expressed that the Chief Electoral Officer could communicate freely henceforth, but the way in which

section 18 was rewritten satisfies me that the result would be that he could now communicate freely. I only wish the government had agreed to an NDP amendment to make that clear for the sake of certainty. However, I will go on record here, as I did at the committee, to say that it is clear from the record that the Chief Electoral Officer would now be able to say whatever he wants in whatever context, in Canada or outside of Canada.

Finally, of the concessions made by the minister, there was a very puzzling provision in Bill C-23 that basically said the Commissioner for Canada Elections could not begin an investigation until he or she had reasonable grounds to suspect an offence had been committed. Anybody involved in the criminal law or investigative sphere knows that is a standard not for beginning an investigation but for receiving things like orders for wiretaps or other kinds of investigative measures.

However, in common law and in every other investigative context, all investigative officers need is a reasonable suspicion to start an investigation. That was changed in committee, and I am willing to concede that it was simply a mistake on the part of the drafters, although a puzzling one that I cannot understand being made by anybody who understands how criminal law investigation works. The point is that a number of major concessions arose as a result of fierce opposition, an engaged civil society, and either persuaded or somewhat fearful backbenchers, who obviously weighed in with the government.

I would like to now move to why, despite all those concessions, there still remain so many problems with this bill that it does not deserve our support, quite apart from all of the process concerns about how it was generated and how even the amendments process was non-consensual, in that not a single opposition amendment of any substance was accepted. Despite the concessions that I mentioned earlier, there are so many problems that it deserves not to see the light of day. I will briefly now indicate 10 points.

First, the current Bill C-23 on which we are about to vote today would continue to eliminate the power of the Chief Electoral Officer to implement public education and information programs designed to enhance knowledge of our electoral democracy and to encourage voting. It would only bring back one context, and that is for primary and secondary school students. All other public outreach would remain prohibited.

Second, Bill C-23 would prohibit the Chief Electoral Officer from authorizing the use of voter information cards, or VICs, as a piece of voter identification to be used not on their own but alongside a second piece of identification. It would do this despite the fact that such cards are a method of enfranchisement that were introduced because of concerns about limited forms of identity showing address and despite the fact that smoother administration of voting on election day resulted from their use in various contexts in 2011.

It would be prohibited despite there being no evidence whatsoever for believing these cards are, or are likely to be, a source of fraud. This remains the case, no matter how many times the minister gives an example of a hoax that was attempted by the television show Infoman that never actually reached fruition.

(1055) Third, Bill C-23 would require that the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner for Canada Elections must now get the permission of government officials in order to remunerate experts and investigators whom they find necessary to hire on a temporary basis. Previously, they could have direct access to the consolidated revenue fund. Now the CEO would have to go through the Treasury Board and the commissioner would have to go through the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Fourth, it refuses to legislate powers that are necessary for full compliance with, and enforcement of, the Canada Elections Act, in light of the experience with fraud and breach of other electoral law rules in the elections of 2006, 2008 and 2011, notably, the power of the CEO to require registered parties to provide receipts accounting for their election campaign expenses and the power of the commissioner to seek a judicial order to compel testimony during an investigation into electoral crime.

Fifth, it unnecessarily transfers the commissioner to a government ministry, the ministry of the Attorney General, and away from the current location within the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, who is, I will remind the House, an officer of Parliament.

This thereby creates corresponding negative consequences for the effectiveness of commissioner investigations and for the complementary roles that the Chief Elector Officer and his or her staff and the commissioner and his or her staff play in securing compliance with the Elections Act, well ahead of and well beyond the relatively limited number of contexts in which their focus is enforcement. Sixth, the commissioner is fettered in ways that other investigative agencies are not.

In particular, he or she is required to inform suspects if they are under investigation, and he or she is prohibited from explaining to Parliament and Canadians why an investigation has not led to charges of prosecution. Seventh, it leaves serious loopholes in the voter contact registry system that is to be administered by the CRTC, which is a welcome addition to the Canada Elections Act, but which does not go far enough.

The loopholes include: the fact that the voter contact scripts for live calls and audio recordings of robocalls do not have to be conveyed to the CRTC; the fact that no person or group is under any obligation to retain phone numbers of persons called, let alone to convey those numbers to the CRTC; and the fact that no affirmative obligations are placed on the CRTC to proactively inform the commissioner if and when a CRTC employee suspects wrongdoing. I speak obviously not of wrongdoing on the part of the CRTC, but on the part of the actors who have to report to the CRTC.

Eighth, the Canada Elections Act, through Bill C-23 , retains a politicized system of appointing deputy returning officers, poll clerks and registration officers as elections officials or officers for election day. As such, the Canada Elections Act does not grant Elections Canada the full authority to appoint all elections officers on the basis of merit, with corresponding detrimental effects for Elections Canada's capacity to minimize election day irregularities through more timely recruitment and training for elections officers.

It is one of the major outcomes of the Neufeld report saying that the ability of Elections Canada to appoint all elections officers would be the single most important way to enhance the capacity of elections workers to minimize irregularities that the government from the beginning tried to leverage as evidence of fraud, which it was not. Ninth, is the problematic provisions relating to voter identification that create the danger of harassment and intimidation of voters, because identity documents can now be inspected by party scrutineers.

They also dissuade people from actually vouching for an address because of the fear that the requirement that the person must have known personally the person being vouched for is very unclear as to how long and how well the voucher must have known the elector. Finally, it increases the role of money in politics through unjustified increases in donation limits and also by creating an unworkable banking loan system that would actually, in ways that are too complex to explain, benefit well-resourced candidates and parties.

(1100) Therefore, I would like to move a reasoned amendment. I move: Amendment That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: this House decline to give third reading to Bill C-23,

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts , because, amongst other things, it: (

a) was rushed through Parliament without adequately taking into account the concerns raised by over 70 expert witnesses and hundreds of civil society actors that speak to a wide array of provisions that remain problematic in this bill; (

b) prohibits the Chief Electoral Officer from authorizing the use of 'Voter Information Cards' as a piece of voter identification to be used alongside a second piece of identification, despite such cards being a method of enfranchisement and promoting smoother administration of the election-day vote and despite there being no basis for believing these cards are, or are likely to be, a source of voter fraud; (

c) refuses to legislate the powers necessary for full compliance with, and enforcement of, the Canada Elections Act in light of experience with fraud and breach of other electoral law in the 2006, 2008 and 2011 general elections, notably, the power of the Chief Electoral Officer to require registered parties to provide receipts accounting for their election campaign expenses and the power of the Commissioner for Canada Elections to seek a judicial order to compel testimony during an investigation into electoral crimes such as fraud;

(

d) eliminates the power of the Chief Electoral Officer to implement public education and information programs designed to enhance knowledge of our electoral democracy and encourage voting, other than for primary and secondary school students; and (

e) increases the influence of money in politics through unjustified increases in how much individuals may donate annually and how much candidates may now contribute to their own campaigns, thereby creating an undue advantage for well-resourced candidates and parties.

(1105) The Deputy Speaker : The amendment is in order and will be accepted. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga . Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, a number of months ago, I had the privilege of serving with my colleague on the procedure and House affairs committee. I know my colleague does his homework and is very well-informed on this bill, so I was rather surprised to hear him, at many times throughout his speech, use words like “mistakes”, “concessions”, and “changes”, as if this was something unusual that would happen at committee level.

One of the things that he referred to was the retention of the student vote program. I can say, with confidence, that many of us approached the minister and said that in our ridings, this system was working well. That is the reason for having studies at committee: to allow input into that committee to conduct a more in-depth study than we can do in the House with all 308 members. I am rather surprised, then, to hear my colleague refer to these changes as somehow “big concessions”.

The very point of having our committees is to study in-depth the legislation that is proposed and to then make recommendations to the House after the in depth study. Why is my colleague implying that the committee's work is somehow to simply rubber-stamp a bill that was passed here at second reading? This is the job of our committees. Why is he implying otherwise? Mr. Craig Scott : Mr. Speaker, I am actually implying no such thing. I just wish this was the norm. This is an extremely unusual outcome for a government sponsored bill in this Parliament of the last two years.

Amendments of this nature, coming for government legislation, are almost unheard of— Mr. Harold Albrecht : No. Mr. Craig Scott : Yes, Mr. Speaker. As such, these were major concessions. The minister had no intention of making these kinds of concessions at the beginning. It was not just good faith efforts in a committee; it was the overall pressure on our civil society, which realized what was going on in the bill. (1110) [ Translation ] Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, this electoral law is unprecedented.

Traditionally in Canada, electoral laws were more or less consensual in that all of the political parties supported them, with the consent of the vast majority of civil society actors. For the first time in this country's history, an electoral law will be enacted in defiance of the majority of stakeholders. My question for my distinguished colleague, who has clearly understood and defended the democratic perspective, is as follows. What fate awaits such a bill, which will immediately come under attack by first nations representatives?

This electoral reform, this unfair elections act, will make it harder for aboriginal people to exercise their right to vote. It will also come under attack by students at schools and universities, who will no longer be encouraged to vote or motivated by this kind of electoral participation, which is the very essence of democracy. They, too, will have the power to mount a legal challenge. All other stakeholders who find their powers diluted, especially their legal powers, such as the bars of Quebec, Canada and Ontario, will intervene.

Can my distinguished colleague tell me what fate awaits such a bill, which will probably soon be passed thanks to the government's majority, a bill that offers so many grounds for legal challenge? What legal fate awaits this bad bill? [ English ] Mr. Craig Scott : Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question actually builds into it an extremely strong set of arguments about why the legacy of Bill C-23 will be a lack of public trust and confidence in our electoral system. We have given extremely good reasons why a whole range of sectors of society have not been dealt with fairly by the bill.

We have not simply raised this for opposition sake, but the result is that the bill will be passed against major opposition, not just in the House but in society. As such, the former auditor general for Canada, Sheila Fraser, was correct when she said that the ultimate impact of this was going to be diminishing public trust in both our parliamentary institutions and our electoral system.

At some level it will be very important that we revisit key elements of the bill in a future Parliament and start again, more consensually, to produce a final version of the Canada Elections Act in which all parties and all key actors in civil society feel an ownership. (1115) [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleague talked about the banking loan system. He said it was very complicated, but I would like more information about it. Can he provide a brief explanation? [ English ] Mr. Craig Scott : Mr.

Speaker, in what began two years ago as a good faith effort on the part of the former minister for democratic reform, a system of political loans was inserted into the Canada Elections Act, whereby essentially banks are now the central actor in providing candidates with loans in order to start up campaigns, before they may have raised money. The problem is with a whole series of limitations on how those loans can be guaranteed. The banks appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee almost two years ago with respect to a previous incarnation of this legislation.

They said there would not be the right kind of incentives for a bank to chase down all the guarantors in order to give out these loans. The Chief Electoral Officer said it would be unworkable because those who could guarantee and give loans within their individual donation limits would be impossible to track because of a whole series of fluctuations over the course of a year. It was unworkable according to the Chief Electoral Officer and unworkable according to the banks.

The result is that those who need loans, especially non-incumbents because they have not yet raised money, are going to be at a disadvantage versus those who have had a chance to raise a lot of money, mostly incumbents, or can receive direct transfers or loans form a well-resourced national party and therefore have no need whatsoever to turn to the banks to help start up their campaign. I think it is in the result. I do not think this is intentional on the part of the government, although it heard the concerns before.

In the result, this bank loan system would give advantage to parties and candidates who are well resourced because access to it would only be needed by those who do not have resources. It would also be the case with this system that, when individuals try to access it, they may find the banks' doors are closed. Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on the point my hon. colleague is making about parties being well resourced. Parties that are well resourced are indicative of parties that have the support of the Canadian public.

The resources are provided by people who take out memberships in the party, believe in party philosophies, and are willing to donate money. It would only stand to reason that parties that are not well resourced are not well supported. I am not sure I understand the member's logic that parties that are not supported by a membership and by membership donations, and do not have broad Canadian support, should somehow be given financial resources through some other means. The member's argument about resourcing being indicative of incumbents' positions is not actually the case.

I was not an incumbent in the last election but I was resourced. Resources do not equate to election success because the incumbent in the last election in the Yukon spent $20,000 more than he had in the election before and lost by 1,500 votes. That resourcing did not equate to election success, and that is not broadly the case across this country. Maybe the member would wish to comment on some of those remarks. Mr. Craig Scott : Mr. Speaker, if fundraising and resourcing do not affect elections, then we should talk about lowering campaign expense limits entirely.

We should make sure every candidate has a much lower limit because it does not have impact, as the hon. member has indicated. At the same time, unfortunately, in the norm, that is not the case. Especially with the spending limits per constituency election that we currently have, spending can make a major difference, especially major gaps in what candidates can spend. Beyond that, the fact that a party has a lot of money is a sign of which sectors of society may be supporting that party and may be in a position to donate to that party. It has nothing to do with the level of support from society as a whole.

Equating the fact that a party has been able to raise a lot more money from a stronger donor base with wealthier donors, on average, says nothing about its political support. (1120) [ Translation ] Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today to a very problematic bill that may put Canada in a very difficult situation down the road. I will begin by trying to put the bill into context, the way I see it. After the last election, Elections Canada launched investigations into some of the practices that came to light during the election.

I am talking about the mechanism one political party had created in order to get around the spending limits for national campaigns. The party would lend money to riding associations or local campaigns, which would then transfer the money to the central party to spend on advertising. This was the famous “in and out” scandal. Naturally, this led to a lawsuit, and the party was found guilty of breaking the law and had to pay a fine. This left a stain on this party, which is now in power. The other incident began shortly before the last election.

In a new approach to running an election campaign, the party would suppress the vote and reduce voter turnout in an effort to get its own candidates elected. The thinking was that it might have the better team or a better machine to get out the vote, so if it succeeded in discouraging others from voting, this would increase the chances of its candidates getting elected. I am referring to the robocalls. By the way, this is a misnomer because in the riding that I have the pleasure of representing, people did not receive a robocall. They received a call from a person who gave them false information.

That happened a number of times. I asked everyone who notified me of this to sign an affidavit. Everything I received I passed on to Elections Canada and the RCMP. For example, a woman of a certain age had lived in a building for about 60 years. When there is a municipal, provincial or federal election, the polling station is always in the building. On election day, the woman received a call informing her that her polling station had been moved. She laughed at them, called them idiots and told them that she had already voted in her building and that what they were trying to do was wrong.

That was one of the women who signed an affidavit in front of a lawyer. This complaint was sent to Elections Canada, and there were others. This whole affair left a very bad taste in Canadians' mouths and put a black mark on the political party in power. It may have generated interest in amending the law. Canadians and parliamentarians called for amendments. In his reports, the Chief Electoral Officer called for changes to the law and the government promised to make some. The previous minister had told the House that the bill would be introduced in a few days.

We learned that he consulted his caucus and instead of introducing the bill the next day, as he was supposed to, he went back to the drawing board. With the last cabinet shuffle, the appointment of the new Minister of State for Democratic Reform caused quite a stir among Canadians.

(1125) As we know, the minister who introduced the bill is another sort of person, someone who is a little more acerbic and a little more partisan. This resulted in the bill to amend the Elections Act, which was introduced a while ago. Canadians and MPs began to react. I would like to remind members of the reactions to the bill from right across the country. The Cape Breton Post said: [ English ] Conservatives’ Fair Election Act anything but fair [ Translation ] That was in February. An Edmonton, Alberta, newspaper called Le Franco published an

article titled “Election Tension Intensifies”. The

article said: The 242-page fair elections bill was rushed through, even though it will have a significant impact on the democratic process. The bill, introduced on February 4, fundamentally changes the rules. A headline in The Gazette read: [ English ] Bill could end vote drive campaigns Elections Canada ads failed, minister says

[ Translation ] A National Post headline read: [ English ] Electoral officer slams reform bill at meeting, vows not to resign Draws applause [ Translation ] That

article was written by Glen McGregor. The Gazette said: [ English ] Anti-vouching provisions unconstitutional: critics Fair Elections Act measure could affect the young, seniors and aboriginals

[ Translation ] In another

article in The Gazette , Andrew Coyne wrote: [ English ] What election problems do Tories want to solve? [ Translation ] The Winnipeg Free Press said: [ English ] Election bill helps Tories exclusively

[ Translation ] The Chronicle Herald said: [ English ] Former watchdog slams electoral reform bill

[ Translation ] Another headline in The Chronicle Herald read: [ English ] Some good, some bad ELECTION CHANGES [ Translation ] There are a few nuances here and there. Another headline in the same newspaper read: [ English ] New Fair Election Act: not exactly as advertised

[ Translation ] The National Post said: [ English ] Electoral reform based on mistrust New bill removes chief electoral officer's power [ Translation ] An

article in Le Devoir was titled “The Poisoned Ballot Box”. A headline in La Presse read: “Ottawa wants to remove the CEO's power to investigate”. Those are the reactions we saw across the country. Well-known and well-respected individuals even made some surprising comments. The first was Preston Manning, who was quoted in The Globe and Mail on March 1, if I am not mistaken: [ English ] Conservatives are increasingly not viewed as the party that most champions democratic values.... [ Translation ] It was Mr. Manning who said that. This created a situation in which we were forced to ask ourselves some questions.

Some changes made to the law were completely unacceptable. I was there when the Chief Electoral Officer spoke to the committee on March 6. I listened to his statement and shared it with my constituents. He tore apart the bill as it had been introduced. Members will recall a situation we had never seen before. One of the country's top newspapers, The Globe and Mail , published scathing criticisms of the bill in five editorials—one a day. The following Monday, another editorial was published, entitled: [ English ] Kill this bill [ Translation ] Many people across the country shared the same opinion.

They were not satisfied with the bill the government had introduced. There was a public outcry. Many organizations started petitions, as did the opposition parties in the House. As a result, the government realized that there might be a problem. The minister often quoted the Neufeld report in his answers in the House. He used the report to support an argument contrary to what the report was actually saying. It became clear that he was hurting his own party. Earlier, I listened to what the member for Toronto—Danforth said. I agree with him.

(1130) Some members likely exerted pressure within the government caucus. Others shared their opinions anonymously. This led the minister to change his position and make some amendments. I believe that 45 amendments were proposed in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. All of these amendments were accepted by the government majority. However, approximately 150 amendments were proposed by members of the committee belonging to the opposition parties. I believe that only one of those amendments was accepted and it was a small amendment regarding a technical error in the bill.

All of the other amendments proposed by the opposition parties were rejected. Members of NDP, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party, as well as independent members, consulted their own constituents. Canadians reacted very strongly, so these members tried to amend the bill so that the unacceptable provisions would not be included in the Canada Elections Act. Of course, amendments were made. I agree with what has been said. The bill has been improved somewhat, but not enough. That is where things stand today. Yesterday evening, we voted for two hours.

That whole time, the government majority systematically rejected all the other amendments, even though many of those amendments made a lot of sense. They would have strengthened the Canada Elections Act and Canadian democracy. They would have protected Canadians' rights. Those amendments were not accepted. Other troubling incidents have occurred throughout the process. Sheila Fraser, the former auditor general of Canada, made a rather strong statement. She said: [ English ] “...it really is an attack on our democracy....” [ Translation ] The government's reaction was vicious. The Conservatives accused Ms.

Fraser of being a spokesperson for Elections Canada and of being paid to say what she did. However, she earned the respect of all Canadians during her 10 years as auditor general of Canada. She did a remarkable job that affected all of us, as a government. I really must commend the work she did as Canada's auditor general. She has a great reputation, yet the government, or some of its spokespersons, were quick to try to destroy her reputation. It really is unbelievable. There is clearly a problem when something like that happens.

The government may well have realized that resistance was mounting when they saw how the Senate would react, in advance of the study of the bill. They heard fairly strong comments from their own senators, who said that certain amendments would be appropriate. That is how we got to where we are now. I would also like to point out that it was at that point that the government was quick to introduce a time allocation motion: the guillotine. At that time, we were just beginning to perhaps see, or hope to see, some openness to make this bill acceptable to Canadians and to parliamentarians.

However, the government said no, that it was done and that we had to vote. There would be one day of debate at the report stage, which was yesterday, one day for third reading, which is today, and it will be over tonight. I certainly intend to support the motion of the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth , seconded by his colleague from Sudbury , not to go ahead with this bill and pass it because I think that passing it would be a step backward, not forward, as the minister claims.

There is a list of proposed amendments, which are correct, but also a list of shortcomings in the bill that still does not recognize voter cards as a piece of identification. It is only recognized as proof of address. Voters can use it if they have someone there with them, but that is not always the case.

(1135) Elections Canada's role is seriously limited. It is unacceptable to separate the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner by sending the commissioner to a government agency where he will lose the independence of being an officer of Parliament. Increasing the limit for contributions to political parties, just like the $25,000 contribution, I believe, that candidates can make to their own campaigns, is good for the wealthiest people in our country. That is not a direction the government should be heading in. On the contrary, I do not think anything should be changed, unless the limits are reduced.

Yes, that is challenging for political parties, but it forces them to open up to the public and encourage people to get involved in and contribute to their movement. That strengthens democracy and makes people feel like they are living in a country where their voices make a difference. I wish the limits had not been increased, but that is what will happen. [ English ] There is another thing that is really bothersome. Elections Canada has, over the years, developed a fabulous international reputation.

I have had occasion to travel in a number of countries, Africa in particular, where there are electoral commissions. [ Translation ] These temporary or permanent electoral commissions are rather clumsy, poorly organized and highly controlled by governments. [ English ] These bodies are problematic, and the people rely quite a bit, when they have elections, on external bodies, and I have heard about Elections Canada's fabulous reputation in terms of going there to help. [ Translation ] Under the former chief electoral officers, Mr. Kingsley and Mr.

Hamel, Elections Canada was able to build a solid reputation over the decades. However, if the bill before us today is passed by the House and the Senate and receives royal assent, it is a step backward. This will weaken Elections Canada and its ability to ensure that the electoral process is sound and transparent. This agency is supposed to be independent and report to the House, not the government. The agency has the ability to enforce legislation and, when that legislation is violated, to conduct investigations and impose penalties.

The agency is asking for investigative powers, which it will not have, to maintain its reputation. If this bill is passed, I think the government is going in the opposite direction and taking a step backward. This will weaken Elections Canada and its national and international reputation. It blows me away to see a government do this. This was one of my responsibilities when I was a minister. We made a minor change to the criteria for redistributions. To make this change, I consulted with the officers of Parliament and with the opposition parties. That is how we went about amending the Elections Act.

We did not go about it in a cavalier fashion as we are seeing today. The minister misinterpreted a report and made claims that were the opposite of what the report said. He made some amendments only because he was forced to do so, but he rejected all the other amendments presented by the opposition. I hope that some of their members will heed the call to vote against this bill and that it will not become law.

(1140) Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my colleague for his speech. He spoke about a number of egregious aspects of this bill. We must remind Canadians that this is the first time in Canadian history that a party in power is forcing through a democratic reform bill that opposition parties and civil society do not want. The government's actions with respect to this electoral deform are quite simply disgraceful. This bill is disgraceful because it will suppress the vote of people who are not partisan, such as seniors, students and aboriginal people.

The government is trying to prevent them from voting by refusing to allow them to use the voter card, which is ridiculous. Nothing is being done to promote democracy or to encourage Canadians to get out and vote. At the same time, the government is encouraging shameful and undemocratic practices such as robocalls, which served to irritate voters and discourage them from voting. This bill will not do anything to support the Chief Electoral Officer in his investigations. On the contrary, it will give him fewer powers.

I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about that, since the party will be able to continue to cheat, as it did before, without being bothered by the Chief Electoral Officer, since he will not have the powers to investigate fraud. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : Mr. Speaker, the lure of power is very strong. When you have power, you want to hold on to it. However, in a democracy, there are limits to what you can do to hold on to power. Over the past few elections, we have seen the systematic introduction of mechanisms and strategies to reduce voter turnout.

This trend started in the United States with the Republicans. I guess it was imported to Canada to see if it could work here, along with the politics of division. Unfortunately, it seems to be working because the Conservatives used certain methods to discourage people from voting and cause confusion. It is absolutely imperative that an independent agency, namely Elections Canada, which reports to the Parliament of Canada, maintain all its powers and be able to seek more. In fact, it asked for the power to compel witness testimony, which it is not being given.

If Elections Canada is not getting the power it needs and is losing its independence, then we are heading in the wrong direction. Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. By the way, I have been voting for decades and I have never received two voter cards in the mail. The bill would prohibit the Chief Electoral Officer from implementing public information programs. That bothers me because when we inform the public about bills and government measures, then the public is in a position to criticize the way the public good is managed.

What does my colleague think of the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer can no longer inform the public? I think this is dangerous because people will no longer get all the information they need to vote. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : Mr. Speaker, if I understand the meaning of the bill correctly, the only information that Elections Canada will be able to give the public is information about when elections will take place, where people can go to vote, and what they need to be able to vote. Elections Canada is losing its freedom to encourage Canadians to vote, which is what it has always done.

It encouraged young people of all ages, not just students, to vote. That kind of activity had a positive impact. Now Elections Canada will no longer be able to do it. If I understand correctly, it will now have to restrict such activities to students in elementary and secondary schools. It will not be allowed to encourage young people, seniors, aboriginal people and others, including homeless people, to vote. This is a step backward. An organization like Elections Canada had the power to encourage Canadians to exercise their fundamental right to vote, but now it will no longer be able to do that. Why?

We have asked this question but have never received an answer. Elections Canada should definitely be able to keep playing this role. (1145) [ English ] Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, one of the amendments NDP members of the committee studying this bill put forward at committee was to insert a provision in the fair elections act to allow for the study of proportional representation systems that would ensure that every vote of every Canadian counted in an election. Unfortunately, the Liberal member of that committee voted down that proposed amendment.

I was wondering if our friend could explain why the Liberals voted against an amendment to study proportional representation. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : Mr. Speaker, I will have to talk to that member to see why he did. I do not know. I will find out. However, for the information of my colleague, he should know that the position of our party is indeed that when we form a government, proportional representation is one of the things we will look at very seriously. I, for one, have always supported an element of proportionality in our electoral system, not full proportionality but an element of proportionality.

I have said that publicly before. I have had great discussions with Mr. Broadbent on this, and I would love to have the same discussion with that member, should he so desire. [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. I have a very simple question. In Quebec right now, in proceedings like the Charbonneau commission, people are fighting for more transparency around political party funding. However, the Conservatives have changed the rules in their own favour using the reform we are now debating.

I would like my colleague to comment on the influence of money in politics. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : Mr. Speaker, I have always been in favour of limiting the influence of money in politics, be it corporate money or big union money. Mr. Chrétien's government introduced a public funding formula for elections that was based in part on the formula introduced in Quebec by Mr. Lévesque. I supported that formula, and I still do, but the government is using its majority to eliminate it. First the Conservatives lowered the limits, and now they are using the bill before us to raise them. Why?

Are they doing it because the opposition parties, the Liberals and the NDP, are starting to catch up to them? Our fundraising efforts are going really well right now. We actually have more donors than the Conservatives. Is that why they decided to raise the limits? We will see. Still, to answer my colleague's question, I think we definitely have to limit the influence of money on the electoral process. (1150) [ English ] Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington .

It is a privilege for me to rise in the House to speak to the importance of the fair elections act, also known as Bill C-23 . Today I will be focusing on the important measures taken by our government to protect democracy and to ensure the integrity of the voting process as well as on our commitment to combatting big money and minimizing the possibility of fraudulent voting. We are very fortunate as Canadians to be able to exercise our right to vote through our democratic system. Sadly, in many countries, the voices of their citizens are frequently stifled by dictatorships and/or communism.

We often hear news of fixed or rigged election results in these countries, which result in civil unrest, division, and violence. This is why our government fully commits itself to protecting the core Canadian values of democracy, fairness, accountability, and transparency through the fair elections act. [ Translation ] Our Conservative government is focusing on the Canadian value of democracy and it will continue to do so. I believe that the bill will strengthen the integrity of the voting process.

We continue to build on our record and, under the leadership of our government, we have taken action and introduced the best measures to protect and improve the electoral system. Complicated rules result in unintentional breaches and discourage ordinary people from taking

part in democracy. That is why the fair elections act will make election rules more clear, predictable and easy to follow. In order to follow the rules, parties must know what they are. The fair elections act will ensure that they know what they are by requiring the Chief Electoral Officer to take appropriate action. To ensure that the laws reflect the reality of the overall election process, an advisory committee of political parties would be created through legislation. It would be composed of the Chief Electoral Officer and two representatives of each registered political party.

The role of the committee would be to ensure that the views of the parties represented are considered in administering the election laws. Its mandate would be to provide useful advice and comments on any administrative or legislative issue related to the law or the administration of elections by Elections Canada. The bill establishes that the committee's advice and recommendations are not binding on the Chief Electoral Officer. It should be noted that Elections Canada would have the power of final

interpretation, but that the committee would safeguard the independent administration of elections. The committee would examine the Chief Electoral Officer's

interpretations and suggest improvements when necessary. However, we should understand that there is no perfect election system. Even though Canada has a particularly solid democracy, there are always things that can be improved. We believe that the measures I have just mentioned will help fine-tune the system. [ English ] Our government continues to take action when it comes to improving our voting system. In light of accountability and transparency, the fair elections act would help combat big money to encourage small donations and to eliminate taxpayer-funded handouts.

This would also keep special interest groups, such as unions or individuals with deep pockets, from drowning out the voices of everyday citizens. We believe that political parties should interact and engage with the public to advocate their cause, to be meaningful to Canadians, and to seek their financial support. This means that political parties and candidates need to be engaged, committed, and most importantly, relevant to Canadians so that they will make contributions from their own hard-earned money.

Political parties need to do their own fundraising and utilize resources at their disposal to encourage individuals to come out to vote. That seems like a win-win to me. As MPs who hold public office, we have a responsibility to keep ourselves and those around us accountable.

(1155) All of us here must lead by example come election time. The spending limit, although increased by our government from $1,200 to $1,500, would help political candidates do just that. Along with ensuring accountability, this spending limit would allow Canadians to make meaningful contributions to the parties they support. Although I appreciate and listened to the views and concerns of the members opposite on the matter of vouching, it is my opinion that they do not understand that the majority of Canadians agree with our position that a person must show identification to vote.

I can assure this House that we are committed to strengthening our voting process and procedures. We will take the necessary action to reduce high levels of irregularities, which have been noted in studies, resulting from a process known as vouching. It is indeed reasonable to ask people to produce identification prior to their casting a vote. When Canadians pick up a parcel at a post office, they are asked to produce a valid piece of ID. When Canadians embark on a plane, they are asked to produce a valid piece of ID. When Canadians set up new bank accounts at banks, they are asked to produce a valid piece of ID.

My point is that if one requires a piece of ID for many day-to-day dealings and activities, it is entirely reasonable that one would produce a piece of ID to prove one's identity to vote. What the opposition clearly does not understand is that Canadians agree that this is, indeed, entirely reasonable. Our government has made the process simple, accessible, and clear for Canadians. There are currently 39 forms of authorized ID to choose from to prove identity and residence. I will not go through the list, for the sake of time, but I can assure members that it is extensive.

That there are 39 forms of approved identification facilitates the ability of Canadians to show who they are. What the members of the NDP and Liberal Party need to do is lay aside their ideological opposition to the fair elections act and a matter such as this and instead recognize that the measures are fair and reasonable and are considered to be so by Canadians. [ Translation ] To conclude, I would like to express my unwavering support for this bill. It is a remarkable initiative, especially when we consider that no one other than the Conservative government could achieve such an objective.

Moreover, we worked with opposition members and, as a result, we made amendments to an already solid bill. We then introduced the improved version. This bill will simplify our voting system and will protect Canadians from abuse of campaign donations—big money—and fraudulent phone calls. Our government is committed to protecting core Canadian values by applying this law. Unfortunately, the NDP and Liberals have always voted against these important initiatives. As an MP, I often think about the importance of democracy in Canada.

I sincerely believe that this bill is firmly based on the idea of an accountable, transparent and impartial democratic system for this country. I invite opposition members to join with us in supporting the bill, which is designed to defend our democratic system and improve the voting system. [ English ] Canadians want accountability, transparency, and fairness. This is what we are delivering through the fair elections act. [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, last week, I was at an event in my riding: the opening of a place called Dopamine.

Many of the people who go there are homeless. There are many reasons for homelessness, including addiction. This community organization offers a service to help homeless people obtain ID cards. I asked people in the organization whether that is an easy or difficult task, and they said that in order to get an ID card, you need ID. It takes months. There are a lot of hoops to jump through, and it is very difficult. That means that we are taking the right to vote away from a growing segment of society, the homeless. They are already disadvantaged. Now, democracy could not care less about them.

Many of them will not have the right to vote because they will not be able to get ID cards. In addition to all of that, those who look after the homeless in places like Dopamine will not be able to vouch for them because they do not have the same address. Earlier, the minister said that it has to be someone who lives in the same polling division. A person who is helping the homeless does not necessarily live in the same area, so the homeless are literally left out on street once again. (1200) [ English ] Mr. Pierre Lemieux : Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the question from the member.

As I mentioned in my speech, it is entirely reasonable to ask Canadians to prove their identity before they vote, and Canadians actually support this initiative. As for those who are homeless, many homeless people receive support from various levels of government, federal, provincial, or municipal. If they receive a cheque with their name on it, that government-issued cheque would count as ID. There is an amendment in place with respect to vouching for address to allow that process to occur. In other words, the obligation now is simply that one produces a piece of valid ID with one's name on it.

I think it is entirely possible for Canadians to have access to this type of ID. If they need to vouch for their address, the fair elections act would accommodate that. Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have had a discussion about identification. A couple of weeks ago now, I went back to my riding in the Yukon and got a fishing licence. That fishing licence required an address on it. One of the 39 pieces of identification that is acceptable to vote in the next general election is a fishing licence.

One other thing in terms of the 39 pieces of identification is that they are reasonable, fair, and supported by 89% of the Canadians who were asked whether or not ID should be required. In contrast, the comment has come up around elections in other countries. In Kenya, for example, in certain electoral districts, one must produce a piece of identification and also give a thumbprint. One's fingerprints would be scanned to ensure the security and integrity of that electoral system.

Clearly, we are not going that far, but of all the 39 pieces of identification, right down to a provincially issued fishing licence, I think all Canadians agree that those are reasonable pieces of identification to provide when one goes to the polls to cast one's ballot to influence the outcome of a federal election. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would agree with that and maybe add some additional comments from his experiences. Mr. Pierre Lemieux : Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague on the 39 different pieces of ID.

A lot of Canadians do not realize it, but this list of 39 pieces of ID is published on the Elections Canada website. It includes such things as a bus pass; a library card; any bill that is received, such as a cellphone, telephone, cable, hydro, heating, or oil bill. It includes a hospital card or a hospital bracelet if one had been hospitalized. It also includes a letter from a seniors residence that simply attests to one being a resident in that home. The list is extensive with 39 pieces of ID.

I think Canadians, in general, are shocked that the NDP members feel that anybody should be able to show up at a poll with absolutely no identification whatsoever and cast a ballot in a Canadian election. That is clearly unacceptable. Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I, too, am rising today to address Bill C-23 , the fair elections act, and some of the very significant and beneficial reforms that it is making to the Canada Elections Act and to the conduct of elections in this country.

I will run through a couple of things, and if I have time within my ten minutes, I will go through some of the amendments that were made in committee, amendments that I think show a genuine commitment on the part of the government and on the part of the responsible minister to take into account a wide range of inputs and to alter the bill in order to make it better reflect those inputs. Let me start with what I think are the four key themes of this legislation.

As someone who sat through all of the many hours of committee hearings on the bill and who has been involved in one form or another in every stage of the process of its adoption and amendment, it seems to me that these four themes come out very clearly. First, there is an attempt to limit the influence of big money. This is a continuation of a theme that began when Jean Chrétien was Prime Minister and donations were limited to $5,000 per person. Before that there were no limits on how much an individual could donate.

Anybody who has an interest in these things can look at the records of Elections Canada to see the enormous donations, to the tune of quarter of a million dollars, from major institutions. That was changed. It was tightened by this government in its first term, reducing the amount of donations to $1,000 and eliminating all forms of corporate and union donations. The bump upwards in this piece of legislation, in the fair elections act, to $1500 is merely a reflection of inflation over that period of time. I should add that we have done a few things, entirely non-controversial but I think very beneficial.

This bill eliminates the possibility of the one kind of giant donation that still exists out there, the donation in the form of a bequest. A few years ago, the New Democrats received a donation in a bequest, in a will, of over $300,000 from a single individual. Clearly, this kind of very large donation, which could, in theory, allow for donations in bequests in wills of up to millions, would destabilize a political system in which every other input of cash has been reduced. I think that is a very significant step that this bill has taken.

Second, we have greater certainty in the administration of elections and of the rules. Elections Canada is now required to prepare rulings in advance. It cannot make retroactive rulings. The rules are this now, but we also say that in the past they have changed from what we said they were in the past or what a reasonable person might have thought they were in the past. It is bound by their own rulings.

It is no longer in a position to sign compliance agreements with a party, as it did with the New Democratic Party following its convention and following the large corporate donations that were given in the form of sponsored advertising at that convention for a very large consideration. The compliance agreement is a secret. The CEO knows what it says. The New Democrats know what it says, and none of them want to reveal it to the general public. That cannot happen any more. That is vital for the rule of law. Third, there is greater integrity and protection against voter fraud.

Much has been spoken on that subject; I will only say that I think the measures taken here are reasonable, balanced and, especially once the amendments occurred, do everything they can to ensure that there is fairness and that the restrictions that are placed on the ability of people to vote without identification are applied with as a light a touch as is realistically possible. I applaud the minister for having made those amendments. Fourth, there is greater knowledge by Canadians of what their rights are under the law. Canadians have the right to vote, not only on election day, but also in advanced polls.

They have the right to vote at the returning office throughout the election period, or most of it. They can vote by mail. If they are visually disabled, they have the right to go in and vote with a secret ballot through the use of an ingenious template that lets them know that their candidate is the candidate whose name is listed third. They have to count down one, two, three, and tick off that ballot. It remains their secret ballot.

That is a very clever solution for a minority of the population, but I know, and members can check the Hansard of the committee hearings, that the representative from the Canadian National Institute of the Blind did not know that right existed. My point is, Elections Canada has done a very poor job, a really poor job, of informing people of all the different ways in which they can exercise their franchise.

(1205) An examination of Elections Canada's own reports on the subject indicate that youth in Canada, the group with the lowest voter participation, indicated that one of the primary reasons they do not vote is because they do not know where to vote. They do not know and are not given that voter information card because they moved recently. The absence of the voter information card, which is Elections Canada's way of attempting to assist youths to find out where to vote, was cited as one of the key reasons they did not vote.

If information such as how to get youths onto the voters list, how they can vote in advance, and all the rights that we have were publicized properly by Elections Canada, I make the modest suggestion that we would see youth voting rates go up substantially and the voting by disabled people and others go up substantially. The CEO is now mandated to engage in a series of these kinds of acts of publicity which in the past, as I said, he had not done to nearly the adequate level.

The bill has been the subject of a great deal of debate including a motion that was put forward by the New Democrats under the name of the member for Toronto—Danforth about a month ago in which they expressed particular concern with regard to the ability of certain groups in society to vote if there were requirements that they prove their identity and their place of address. They cited in particular three groups. I want to talk about how the amendments to the bill have dealt with these three groups.

The three groups they mentioned were seniors living in residence, long-term care in other words; aboriginal people, and I think by this they meant aboriginal people living on reserve, although that may not be exactly how the motion was worded; and finally, students living in residence on campus. They felt these groups were potentially deprived of their franchise, if we read the rhetoric of the NDP, which was a little overwrought at the time.

Even in its original form, I think the bill was pretty good at dealing with people in these categories, but the amendments to the bill did a significant amount to ensure that these individuals would be able to cast their vote. I would add to these people another group that was not mentioned in the NDP motion and that is the homeless. All of these groups have one thing in common and that is that they have moved their residence recently or else are residing in a place where having the normal forms of identification such as a driver's licence or bills they would pay are not readily available.

Therefore, they find themselves unable to prove their place of residence. In some of these cases it is obvious that the person is in residence where they say are. The best example of this is a senior living in long-term care. These are often closed facilities. People cannot come into them because of the fear of spreading pathogens. The notion that someone could show up claiming to be John Smith who lives down the hall is preposterous, yet under the existing legislation there is a problem that no one is available who can vouch for them. The administrators were unable to do so.

There is a provision for attestations to be given, but for reasons of their own, these residences have on occasion been reluctant to issue such attestations. The impression I had from listening to testimony is that homeless shelters are in general better at this. There appears to be a problem where full use of the attestation provisions in the current law is not exercised as much as it should be on some aboriginal reserves. That would vary from one reserve to the other, but the point is that in dealing with the issue of identity, the bill, through its amendments, specifically through amendments that were made to

section 143 of the bill, would allow the use of attestations as a proof of residence on a more widespread basis. Some people have called it a kind of vouching for residents. I am not sure that is exactly the right way of putting it, but what happens now is that voters can vote with two pieces of ID that prove their identity and a written oath as to their residence, providing that another elector from the same polling division, who has proved his or her identity and residence by providing documentary proof, takes a written oath as to the elector's place of residence.

People still have to prove they are who they say they are, but they do not have to prove their place of residence the way that would have otherwise been required. That has now been adjusted and taken care of through this amendment to the bill. That is very significant and it deals with the fundamental issue, which is not that people would be unable to prove who they are, but rather they could not prove where they live. There were a number of very empathetic examples and in my last five seconds I want to give one example.

A witness at committee offered the example of a woman who has had to flee her home and is now living with a relative because of an abusive relationship with her spouse. She would be unable to prove her new place of residence. That person, it was suggested, would have been unable to vote. That was a legitimate concern, and it would now be dealt with through this amendment to the law.

(1210) We have done as much as can reasonably be done to ensure that every Canadian will be able to vote, while still ensuring proper security against improper voting by those who are either not eligible to vote, or who are voting in the wrong constituency. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Victoria . I would like to take this opportunity to say that it is an honour and a pleasure for me to share my time with a member who is so active, eloquent and involved.

Unfortunately, I often have to say that my democracy is suffering. The electoral “deform” bill that we are discussing today, which was concocted by the Conservatives, is another step in the Conservative government's slow destruction of our democratic institutions. Allow me to provide a bit of context so that people can understand what is happening.

Ever since the Conservatives won a majority of the seats in Parliament—and I would like to emphasize that is a majority of seats—which they achieved in our parliamentary system without having the support of the majority of Canadians, they have been attacking the institution of Parliament itself by imposing a record number of gag orders. It is fairly ironic that we are discussing a fair elections act under another gag order. That is what is happening with a bill that is so important that, according to British tradition, it must be developed and passed by an all-party consensus.

Even knowing that, the Conservative government has the nerve to limit debate. It is unbelievable. In the past, we have also seen the government prorogue Parliament in an abusive manner. We know that the Conservatives refuse to work with the opposition parties, even though—it is important to remember— they represent the majority of the population. We know that the government has attacked our officers of Parliament and that it recently attacked the Supreme Court itself. The Conservatives will stop at nothing. The government has also muzzled public servants, scientists and civil society organizations.

The Conservatives have fought tooth and nail against anyone who dares to have an opinion different from their own. Incidentally, Elections Canada is among the institutions that have been attacked by the Conservatives. We saw it again this morning with all the accusations and innuendo the minister responsible for the election “deform” bill hurled against Elections Canada. The bill, as proposed, was another of these attacks. What it all boils down to is an attack against Canadians and their right to vote.

In my opinion, this attack is a logical extension of the robocalls, which sought to prevent people from voting, given that the Conservative database was the source of those calls. Fortunately, these same Conservatives pulled back on some particularly problematic aspects of the bill because of pressure that we, the NDP, put on them and because of the exceptional work by my colleagues from Toronto—Danforth , Louis-Saint-Laurent and Hamilton Centre .

It is extremely important to mention that it is also thanks to and very likely because of all the Canadians who stood up and to everyone who spoke up, wrote in and signed petitions to oppose the Conservative scheme. As an aside, there were a lot of constituents from the Laurier—Sainte-Marie riding who spoke up and took action. I would like to thank them today and salute their commitment and determination. I would also like to say that, as always, it is a great privilege for me to be their voice in this House. Together, we managed to make the Conservatives backtrack on some important issues.

(1215) In particular, they backed down on vouching to enable voting and on polling supervisors. With their bill, the Conservatives were trying to politicize the polling supervisor appointment process even more. It makes me wonder who would benefit from that. Obviously, the entire bill was designed to benefit the Conservatives. For example, in the case of fundraising campaigns, more and more contributions were going to be allowed to fly under the radar, if I can put it that way, and not be taken into account. That would have increased the power of money even further in the context of elections.

There was a victory there, too. Together, Canadians and their spokespersons in the opposition, the NDP, managed to make the government backtrack on that. We made a few gains with respect to educating the public to encourage people to vote, which is an extremely important issue in Canada, as it is in many countries around the world. We managed to make these gains, which is a good thing, but there are still a lot of major problems, unfortunately. I could talk about many issues remaining in the bill, but what concerns me in particular is the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer.

As I said, we made small gains in public education, but they are small. There is a big difference between what is in the bill before us today and what the Chief Electoral Officer used to be able to do. Now, he will basically be able to promote voting to students in elementary and secondary schools. I do not have anything against that. That is very good, but why not promote voting to college and university students, who are of voting age and will vote in the next election? That makes absolutely no sense. Why would the Chief Electoral Officer not be able to encourage young people who are able to vote to do so?

That is quite something. In addition, the Chief Electoral Officer will not be allowed to partner with other groups to raise awareness and promote voting. He will not be allowed to partner with groups such as Apathy is Boring, an extraordinary group that I know well because I had the opportunity to meet with the founders of the movement. This group does an outstanding job with young people between 18 and 25 years of age. However, game over, they can no longer work together.

(1220) That is rather ironic, because it means that, under the new provisions, Elections Canada will have to cancel Canada's Democracy Week, which it used to organize. Once again, that speaks for itself. In effect, Canada's Democracy Week will be cancelled because the Conservatives do not like it. That is quite something. The Chief Electoral Officer will also need the approval of the Treasury Board to hire technical experts. I just love that. Picture a party in power that committed a bit of electoral fraud—of course, I am not referring to anyone in particular.

The Chief Electoral Officer needs technical advice to investigate the situation, and a Treasury Board minister, a member of the party in power, can deny the request. That is totally absurd. The government is limiting the Chief Electoral Officer's existing powers and, at the same time, is refusing to grant him the new powers he needs to do his work, such as the ability to request financial documents from political parties or to compel witnesses to appear. We were able to fight back and prevent some of the damage, but there is still work to do. I cannot vote in favour of this bill.

(1225) [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight some of the presentations of the commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer on Bill C-23 . The Chief Electoral Officer said that the commissioner should remain within Elections Canada. We all know that the CEO for Elections Canadian is in fact a man of great stature, truly independent, and so forth.

Then we had the commissioner come before the committee and indicate that he was quite comfortable in the current situation, being at Elections Canada, and felt that he was truly independent and was favourable to staying there. Why does the member think the government took it upon itself and went against the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Chief Electoral Officer and pulled that office outside of the Elections Canada? [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène Laverdière : Mr. Speaker, it is very troubling. Everyone is saying that they are completely comfortable with the situation.

The electoral “deform” minister is saying that if the Commissioner is not part of Elections Canada, he will be less partisan, as though Elections Canada were partisan. It is the same old pattern: Elections Canada investigated the Conservatives and put the blame on them. Elections Canada did its work with regard to the party in power, and the party in power took that as partisanship—as a bias against the party—and responded with accusations about the integrity of Elections Canada. It makes no sense, especially since the Commissioner is being placed under the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

He will have less protection from government interference or interference from the party in power. That is another very odd measure. Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech and all of the work she does in the House and in her riding. We have often said that there are some key elements missing from the infamous Bill C-23 . No one supports the bill. Even in my riding, Joliette, people have often spoken out against this method of reforming the Canada Elections Act. The Commissioner of Canada Elections requested the power to compel witnesses to appear.

However, that is not in the bill and the Commissioner, who will now work for the Director of Public Prosecutions, was not granted that power. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that. Ms. Hélène Laverdière : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent question. We repeatedly asked for the commissioner to have the power to compel witnesses. This is not a complex or revolutionary idea. Many provinces in Canada do it. Many countries do it. It would be one more way to ensure the integrity of elections in Canada.

However, I do not think that the integrity of elections in Canada is one of the Conservative government's priorities. [ English ] Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for her spirited and passionate presentation on the unfair elections act. I believe we are debating the amendment moved by the member for Toronto—Danforth in which he proposes that we decline to give third reading to this legislation. I entirely agree with my colleague. By way of introduction, I would like to comment on the process and comment on the implications of this legislation for my riding of Victoria.

I am deeply proud of my fellow citizens in Victoria. I had a sign on the window of my office on the main street of Victoria asking people to come in and sign a petition registering their concern with this legislation. I can say without fear of contradiction that the number of people who came in was extraordinary, and they came from all political walks of life. Members of all political parties came in and expressed their disdain for this proposed suppression law that the bill clearly has become.

Progressive Conservatives such as David Crombie and Allan Gregg expressed their concern earlier with the bill, indicating that it was a blatant attempt to suppress votes. That was loud and clear in one of the meetings that was held in my riding. Business people, wealthy people, poor people, and people from all political parties expressed their deep concern over the bill. I was very proud of the people of Victoria for speaking up against this atrocious legislation. As I said, people from all political parties and from all walks of life expressed their concern.

It was the elephant in the room when in question period the Minister of State for Democratic Reform could not bring himself to utter the words “Sheila Fraser”, who said that the bill was an attack on our democracy. That refusal to even acknowledge someone Canadians hold in such great esteem was an indication of what the Conservatives thought of her commentary. They then trivialized her, saying that she was being paid or something. Those statements were made to take away from the serious concerns that this great Canadian had expressed.

Our leading newspaper, The Globe and Mail , published five editorials in a row, ending with one that said “Kill the bill”. Newspapers across this country and speakers on the radio said the same thing in different ways in speaking to their parts of the country. It became clear to Canadians that it was not just the official opposition that was doing everything it could to stop the bill. I am so proud of my colleague from Hamilton Centre , who filibustered in committee. I am proud of the enormous work that was done by the member for Toronto—Danforth and the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent .

This upheaval in Canada was astounding. Civil society, academics, people on the street, and people in all walks of life were rising up and saying this travesty must stop. I was pleased that the government accepted some of the proposed amendments that were made by the official opposition. We made 100 of them. Of course, the Conservatives let their ideology undermine this once again, and they shut us down in committee with only half of our amendments debated, something that should cause Canadians deep concern.

However, perhaps that is not surprising, given the track record of the Conservatives in breaking elections law, overspending, the in-and-out scheme, attempts to suppress opposition votes, and so forth. For the Prime Minister to say that the Chief Electoral Officer was “wearing a jersey” was shocking to a lot of Canadians. This is an officer of Parliament who is only appointed after consultation with other parties in the House and who enjoys virtually the same kind of independence that judges do. The statement was shocking because the Chief Electoral Officer was only doing his job, and people understood that.

He was trying to prosecute Conservatives for their rule-breaking. That was his job, but perhaps he did it too well, and that is why that attack was levelled against this officer of Parliament, a development that lot of us found very concerning. The minister said this morning that the bill is widely supported by Canadians. He has not been to my riding of Victoria to take that position. If he had seen the people on the streets demonstrating against the bill, if he had come to a meeting I organized that had hundreds of people in attendance from all walks of life, he would not have said that.

(1230) The changes that were made, some of which I would like to comment on, are very good in some cases. I agree entirely with the minister's suggestion that the bill now incorporate advance rulings and legal

interpretations that other parties could use as precedents. I salute that as an effective amendment and something that we should support. However, I still do not understand the government's perspective on voter participation as it is reflected in this bill. We have a crisis in our democracy of young people not voting. It is a shocking statistic to see that two-thirds of people under the age of 30 do not bother to show up and vote, yet the effectiveness of this bill in trying to promote voting would be limited to high schools and elementary schools. What about the university sector?

What about the outreach that the Chief Electoral Officer was trying to achieve? That seems to have been shut down in the face of what is our biggest problem, which is not voter fraud but voter participation. That is something that needs to be addressed, since the agency can only advertise the basics of the election. I am distressed that it continues to be a problem in this legislation. The Chief Electoral Officer can suggest that MPs be suspended for disputes over election spending irregularities, but apparently now that can only happen when the entire appeal process has been exhausted.

Therefore, even in cases of glaring, obvious errors and overspending problems, we presumably would have to wait until it got to the Supreme Court of Canada, which in some cases might mean the person would be elected for his or her entire term, given the way our appeal structure works. In at least some circumstances, that seems to be inappropriate indeed. In his presentation, my colleague from Toronto—Danforth characterized this as a bad bill that is less bad now. I would say it is a terrible bill that is simply now a bad bill in light of the amendments.

As two prominent Progressive Conservatives, David Crombie and Allan Gregg, have said, this is a blatant effort to stack the deck for the Conservatives. I think Canadians understand that. For example, the fundraising limits have been raised in this legislation. The fundraising limits now suggest that individual contributions would go from a $1,200 maximum to a $1,500 maximum. Clearly that would favour the party that receives the biggest contributions. That would be the