Bill C-23 (Historical)

Fair Elections Act

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act (“the Act”) to require the Chief Electoral Officer to issue interpretation notes and guidelines on the application of that Act to registered parties, registered associations, nomination contestants, candidates and leadership contestants. It also requires the Chief Electoral Officer, on request, to issue a written opinion on the application of provisions of the Act to an activity or practice that a registered party, registered association, nomination contestant, candidate or leadership contestant proposes to engage in.
The enactment also modifies the Chief Electoral Officer’s power under section 17 of the Act so that the power may only be exercised to allow electors to exercise their right to vote or to allow votes to be counted. It also limits the Chief Electoral Officer’s power to transmit advertising messages to electors and requires the Chief Electoral Officer to ensure that any information so transmitted is accessible to electors with disabilities.
The enactment further amends the Act to permit the Chief Electoral Officer to seek approval from parliamentary committees to test an alternative voting process (but where such a pilot project is to test a form of electronic voting, the Chief Electoral Officer must first obtain the approval of the Senate and House of Commons). The enactment also eliminates the mandatory retirement of the Chief Electoral Officer at age 65 and replaces it with a 10-year non-renewable term. It provides for the establishment of an Advisory Committee of Political Parties to provide advice to the Chief Electoral Officer on matters relating to elections and political financing. The enactment also amends the Act to provide for the appointment of field liaison officers, based on merit, to provide support to returning officers and provide a link between returning officers and the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. It also enables the Chief Electoral Officer to temporarily suspend a returning officer during an election period and provides for the appointment of additional election officers at polling stations. Finally, it empowers registered parties and registered associations, in addition to candidates, to provide names of individuals for election officer positions and changes the deadline for providing those names from the 17th day before polling day to the 24th day before polling day.
The enactment also adds to the Act Part 16.1, which deals with voter contact calling services. Among other things, that Part requires that calling service providers and other interested parties file registration notices with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, provide identifying information to the Commission and keep copies of scripts and recordings used to make calls. That Part also requires that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission establish and maintain a registry, to be known as the Voter Contact Registry, in which the documents it receives in relation to voter contact calling services are to be kept.
The enactment also replaces Part 18 of the Act with a new, comprehensive set of rules on political financing that corrects a number of deficiencies in the Act. Notably, the enactment
(a) increases the annual contribution limits for contributions to registered parties, registered associations, candidates and nomination and leadership contestants to $1,500 per year and by $25 per year after the first year;
(b) increases the amount that candidates and leadership contestants may contribute to their own campaigns to $5,000 and $25,000, respectively;
(c) permits registered parties and registered associations to make transfers to candidates before their nomination is confirmed by the returning officer;
(d) requires a registered party’s auditor to complete a compliance audit in relation to its election expenses return indicating that the party has complied with the political financing rules;
(e) requires registered parties, registered associations and candidates to disclose details of expenses for voter contact calling services in their returns;
(f) reforms the rules governing unpaid claims, making it an offence for claims to remain unpaid after three years and strengthening the reporting of unpaid claims;
(g) reforms the reporting requirements of leadership contestants;
(h) permits higher spending limits for registered parties and candidates if an election period is longer than the 37-day minimum;
(i) includes new rules on political loans; and
(j) defines “capital asset” for the purposes of reporting the distribution cost of advertising or promotional material transmitted to the public using a capital asset, so that the expense is reported as the corresponding rental value for the period in which it was used, and for the purpose of the disposal of the campaign surplus.
With respect to voter identification, the enactment amends the Act to require the same voter identification for voting at the office of the returning officer in an elector’s own riding as it requires for voting at ordinary polls. It also prohibits the use of the voter information card as proof of identity, eliminates the ability of an elector to prove their identity through vouching, allows an elector to swear a written oath of their residence provided that their residence is attested to on oath by another elector, and requires an elector whose name was crossed off the electors’ list in error to take a written oath before receiving a ballot.
The enactment also amends the Act to provide an extra day of advance polling on the eighth day before polling day, creating a block of four consecutive advance polling days between the tenth and seventh days before polling day. It requires a separate ballot box for each day of advance polling and details procedures for the opening and closing of ballot boxes during an advance poll. Finally, it gives returning officers the authority to recover ballot boxes on the Chief Electoral Officer’s direction if the integrity of the vote is at risk.
The enactment also amends the Act to, among other things, establish a process to communicate polling station locations to electors, candidates and political parties, to provide that only an elector’s year of birth is to be displayed on the lists of electors used at the polls, instead of the full date of birth, to permit candidates’ representatives to move to any polling station in the electoral district after being sworn in at any polling station in the district and to establish a procedure for judicial recounts.
The enactment further amends the Act to change how the Commissioner of Canada Elections is appointed. It establishes that the Commissioner is to be appointed by the Director of Public Prosecutions for a seven-year term, subject to removal for cause, that the Commissioner is to be housed within the Director’s office but is to conduct investigations independently from the Director, and that the Commissioner is to be a deputy head for the purposes of hiring staff for his or her office and for managing human resources.
The enactment also amends the Act to add the offence of impersonating or causing another person to impersonate a candidate, a candidate’s representative, a representative of a registered party or registered association, the Chief Electoral Officer, a member of the Chief Electoral Officer’s staff, an election officer or a person authorized to act on the Chief Electoral Officer’s or an election officer’s behalf. It also adds the offences of providing false information in the course of an investigation and obstructing a person conducting an investigation. In addition, it creates offences in relation to registration on the lists of electors, registration on polling day, registration at an advance polling station and obligations to keep scripts and recordings used in the provision of voter contact calling services.
The enactment further amends the Act to provide for increases in the amount of penalties. For the more serious offences, it raises the maximum fine from $2,000 to $20,000 on summary conviction and from $5,000 to $50,000 on conviction on indictment. For most strict liability offences, it raises the maximum fine from $1,000 to $2,000. For registered parties, it raises the maximum fine from $25,000 to $50,000 on summary conviction for strict liability political financing offences and from $25,000 to $100,000 on summary conviction for political financing offences that are committed intentionally. For third parties that are groups or corporations that fail to register as third parties, it raises the maximum fine to $50,000 for strict liability offences and to $100,000 for offences that are committed intentionally and for offences applying primarily to broadcasters, it raises the maximum fine from $25,000 to $50,000.
The enactment amends the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to authorize the Chief Electoral Officer to provide administrative support to electoral boundary commissions. It amends the Telecommunications Act to create new offences relating to voter contact calling services and to allow the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to use the inspection and investigation regime in that Act to administer and enforce part of the voter contact calling services regime in the Canada Elections Act. It amends the Conflict of Interest Act to have that Act apply to the Chief Electoral Officer. It also amends the Director of Public Prosecutions Act to provide that the Director of Public Prosecutions reports on the activities of the Commissioner of Canada Elections.
Finally, the enactment includes transitional provisions that, among other things, provide for the transfer of staff and appropriations from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to support the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

Fair Elections Act

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of the greatest democracies. We follow procedures according to our rules and our laws. I do not think we need to delay the implementation of the fair elections act. We are evolving in time. We are doing the right things, and we have the procedures for that.

I do not think we ever break any rules of the Parliament of Canada. We can use the rules which are enshrined in the 1,294 pages in O'Brien and Bosc. I think we advance forward with these procedures. I do not think that we are in an undemocratic country or are using undemocratic procedures.

I do not like hon. members trying to show our procedures in Parliament as being like other countries, dictatorial countries. In this country, we have the best laws, and Parliament is improving them in the best manner.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague probably knows, often the people who take the Canadian Forces recruits' course are in limbo. They do not have a permanent assignment and so they do not have an address for a certain period of time.

Does my colleague believe it is fair that Canadian Forces recruits cannot vote because they are temporarily unable to provide an address, yet they will spend the rest of their lives defending the government decisions that are imposed on them?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned the armed forces. Both of us served in the armed forces, and we know that if someone wants to enter a base, that person needs to have identification at least. Another individual cannot vouch for them to enter an institution.

This common sense legislation asking voters for identification is commonly used everywhere in the country if an individual wants to access any kind of institution. I do not think this is a great issue. People need to show identification. Then comes the address. People going to a polling station will be able to show somebody proof, who will vouch for their address and verify it. The amendment that was proposed and then accepted by the committee responds to the hon. member's question.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, almost two years ago the NDP tabled a motion demanding more powers for the Chief Electoral Officer, and for the government to present a bill within six months. This motion was unanimously adopted by the House.

In the fall of 2012, in response to the Conservatives' non-action on the bill, my colleague, the member for Toronto—Danforth, presented Bill C-453, which proposed changes to the Canada Elections Act to prevent and punish electoral fraud carried out through fraudulent phone calls. Many of the provisions he suggested are now included in Bill C-23. There is no denying that those concessions by the Conservatives prove the effectiveness of a strong opposition by the NDP and by Canadians, who came together and stood up for our democracy.

Yes, as a result of this strong opposition, the Conservatives have backed down on some of the fundamental aspects of the unfair elections act. Unfortunately, they have also shut down the study of this bill with half of the NDP's common sense amendments still under debate. In good faith, the NDP proposed close to 100 ways to improve this widely denounced bill, but the Conservatives rejected all of them.

The Conservatives have a track record of breaking election laws. The Minister of State for Democratic Reform has been attacking Elections Canada for many years. Bill C-23 clearly attacks Elections Canada by cutting its powers, and this is unacceptable.

Removing powers from the Chief Electoral Officer instead of increasing his power is a huge mistake. Placing the Commissioner of Canada Elections under the Director of Public Prosecutions and rejecting NDP amendments that would have given investigators the tools they need to crack down on electoral fraud is another huge mistake.

With Bill C-23, the commissioner would no longer be part of Elections Canada. The reality is that there is a necessary working relationship between the commissioner and Elections Canada, which includes daily consultation. This change would cause a great loss of expertise and knowledge transfer. Sharing information is vital there, and I am glad that after the NDP pushed back, a government amendment at committee would now allow information-sharing between the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner.

The minister has been misleading Canadians into thinking it is a requirement of independence that the commissioner be separated from the Chief Electoral Officer. It is entirely appropriate that the commissioner be integrated within the structure of Elections Canada. In Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, and Quebec, the chief electoral officers assume all functions.

Thanks to the strong NDP opposition, the government also scaled back its attack on the Chief Electoral Officer's ability to engage in public education, though the government amendment only half removes this new muzzle. The Chief Electoral Officer is now limited to advertising only certain aspects of the electoral process, those being when, where, and how to vote. He is also limited to participating in voter engagement programs only at the elementary and secondary levels. Elections Canada is still prohibited from partnering with other groups, such as university-level programs to engage youth aged 18 to 25 to vote. Some reports suggest that a significant number of young people who pass on voting the first time they are offered a chance are likely not to vote, ever, in their lifetimes. Limiting the Chief Electoral Officer to engage in public education is certainly not a way to increase voter participation, especially among young new voters and demographics that tend to have a lower turnout, such as first nation communities.

The Chief Electoral Officer would also need to seek Treasury Board approval to hire technical experts for conducting research and delivering reports such as the Neufeld report and the IRPP report on fraudulent robocalls in the 2011 election. This is sheer government interference with the work of an officer of Parliament.

Thanks to the NDP and civil society opposition, the Conservatives have amended the bill to allow vouching for addresses. However, this bill still prohibits the voter information card to be used to prove addresses as one of the two pieces of ID.

Voter information cards benefit those people who face challenges in establishing their address when it is time to vote: youth on campus, seniors, and aboriginal people. Prohibiting the voter information card from being used as a piece of ID in an election would deter electors from voting, as indicated by the Chief Electoral Officer.

In fact, the Conservatives should have looked into the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations for prevention measures, such as providing more training and information to elections staff and volunteers and the need for better recruitment and advance recruitment of election workers. Instead, the Conservatives rejected an NDP amendment on this.

I would like to underscore the fact that some key elements are missing in Bill C-23. This bill would not give more power to the Chief Electoral Officer to request financial documents to ensure political entities comply with their obligations. This was in our 2012 motion. Instead, the bill would grant more power to the auditors hired by political parties.

The Elections Canada commissioner had asked for powers to compel witnesses. The commissioner, who would now be under the Director of Public Prosecutions, would not be granted such powers. Several provincial election laws grant chief electoral officers or commissioners the power to compel persons to appear before them and provide information or produce records. This laws are in place in Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, and Yukon.

Canadians should not trust the Conservatives to stop fraud. Canadians deserve better.

I would like to share some very interesting facts and quotes from witnesses who were questioned by my colleagues in committee.

To put this in context, only 70 people were able to speak against Bill C-23 in committee, and only 22 committee meetings were set aside for an issue as important as changing our elections act. It is sad that the Conservatives think that reforming our country's democracy is only worth 22 committee meetings. We were given just 40 hours or so to study such an important bill.

There are plenty of quotes from people who shared our opinion. They said that major changes needed to be made to the bill. There are good things in the bill, but as parliamentarians, we have to pick bills apart to make sure that they will improve people's lives and democracy in our country. There are already so many people who do not vote. We have to ask ourselves whether this bill will enable more people to exercise their right to vote. Unfortunately, I do not think that we will be able to answer that question.

Just outside my riding, there is an Indian reserve. I would like to quote Teresa Edwards, who was asked about aboriginal voting. When the subject of vouching came up, she was told how great it was that people could use any of 39 pieces of ID to vote. Here is what Teresa Edwards said about that:

...it shows the amount of privilege that's in this room that people have no comprehension of how difficult it could be for aboriginal people to obtain identification.

...This will only further put up barriers for aboriginal people and it can't help but make someone wonder, is that the intent? Is this really democracy or is the intent to actually limit aboriginal voting in the next election?

It is a shame, because we are wondering the same thing about this government. We get the impression that the government does not like some people and that it is trying to prevent them from voting. That is what Ms. Edwards was suggesting in her comments to the committee. To me, that is serious.

As I said in my speech, right now, most young people in our country do not vote.

Last weekend, I met some young people in my riding and most of them told me that they were not sure whether they were going to vote and that they do not trust the current government. They wondered whether things would be different with another government.

I tried to explain to them that the NDP is different. We are not here for politics, power, money or success. We were all elected on a wave. No one knew we were going to be elected. We are here to defend values. That is what I tried to explain to them. It is interesting to note that these are people who did not vote. As I was saying, there are many studies.

Apathy is Boring is a group I have met with often and they tell me that the danger is that people who do not vote when they first become eligible to do so will likely never vote. It is therefore crucial that the government realize how important it is to get young people and first nations to vote and why this type of bill is sad for our democracy.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was excellent.

I have a question. My colleague was a teacher before becoming an MP. This bill would prevent the Chief Electoral Officer from implementing public education programs.

Does she think that the government should reconsider its partnership approach with youth groups? She mentioned Apathy is Boring. Other groups would like to partner with Elections Canada to teach young people about voting. Perhaps she could comment on that?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question because that is where I was going with my speech.

It is vital for young people be able to vote. First, their vision for our country and their future is not at all that of the government that currently represents them. Second, we have to educate people. Many seniors vote today because they were taught to vote. It was important and it was a fundamental value of society. They voted the first time they had the opportunity and they continued to vote.

It is important to partner with groups that have that mission. Apathy is Boring is one such group. There are many others that believe that young people do not vote today mainly because they are not asked to vote. When the NDP youth caucus met with them, they said that if you want young people to vote, you have to ask them to vote. That is the first condition. Creating projects that interest them is the second condition. There has to be a platform for youth. However, I repeat that the first condition is to ask them to go and vote.

If we do nothing and do not partner with groups on the ground, who seek out young people and can talk to them and understand how to get them interested in democracy, unfortunately we will be headed towards a decline in voter participation. That is dangerous for our democracy and for our future. If we brag about being the best democracy in the world, it is because people vote. If there are no groups to encourage them, young people may no longer vote. It is important to maintain our partnerships with groups that focus on young people.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the point of democracy and focus in on the issue of process, putting the content of the legislation to the side for now.

In the context of what I indicated to a Conservative speaker, which is if we observed a country, another democracy outside of Canada, where we saw a governing party not working in any fashion whatsoever with any of the other stakeholders and proclaiming itself to be a democracy changing election laws, I suspect we would be outraged. We would be outraged at how a country would go about changing election laws and not having any real consultation with other political entities, whether they are parties, or independent election authorities and so forth.

Would she provide her perspective on how she believes other countries look at the process of how Canada, using a majority Conservative government, is pushing through legislation?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Liberal colleague for his question.

I think it is disgraceful that the government is using its majority to change laws as fundamental as those associated with our democratic system. What is even more regrettable is the fact that it is not surprising.

Since I became an MP in the House, I have seen the government use its majority again and again to push through bills that Canadians do not want. If every opposition party disapproves of a bill, at some point, the government should begin to wonder. It is not a question of ideology; it is about changing our laws for the better.

However, this government uses so many time allocation motions that it has set a record. It is not even taking the time to listen to the amendments we put forward.

During the clause-by-clause study of this bill, half of the clauses could not be debated because the Conservatives decided that they did not want to take the time.

That is frustrating, and I think that the international community could easily say that we are not truly democratic.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-23, the fair elections act.

The bill would fulfill a commitment made by our government during the last Speech from the Throne and in it our government committed to bringing forward a comprehensive election reform proposal that would protect the votes of Canadians at the polls.

The fair elections act would ensure that constituents in Etobicoke Centre, along with all Canadians, would be in charge of democracy by putting special interests on the sidelines and the rule-breakers out of business.

It would also make it harder for people to break the law. It would close loopholes in big money. It would impose tough new penalties on political imposters and those rogue calls and it would empower the Commissioner of Canada Elections with sharper teeth, a longer reach and a freer hand.

The fair elections act would make our laws clear and easy to follow. It would make life harder for election law-breakers and easier for the honest people to take part in democracy.

I believe Canadians agree that our current system can be improved. For example, 87% of Canadians believe it is reasonable to require someone to prove his or her identity and address before voting. Based on my conversations with constituents in Etobicoke Centre, I would also submit that a majority of my constituents would agree with this view. This is why I am proud that our government is committed to enhancing our electoral laws and protecting the integrity of each and every ballot.

What I would not support is the NDP's suggestion that people should not require any ID to vote. The fair elections act would prohibit the use of vouching and voter information cards as replacements for acceptable ID.

Studies commissioned by Elections Canada demonstrate mass irregularities in the use of vouching and high rates of inaccuracy on voter information cards. Under the act, voters would continue to have 39 different forms of authorized identification to choose from to prove their identity and to prove their residence.

Our government has also recently announced that under the fair elections act, electors with no identification that proves their residence would be allowed to vote with two pieces of identification that prove their identity and a written oath as to their residence provided that another elector from the same polling division, who proves his or her identity and residence by providing documentary proof, would also take a written oath as to the elector's residence. These changes are abundantly fair and reasonable.

Stopping possible election fraud is just one of the many positive changes that the fair elections act proposes to make. The act would protect voters from rogue calls and from political imposters by punishing those who would attempt to deceive Canadians. For example, Bill C-23 would create a mandatory public registry for mass calling and impose prison time for impersonating election officials. It would also increase penalties for deceiving people out of their votes.

The fair elections act would give the Commissioner of Canada Elections sharper teeth, a longer reach and a freer hand to ensure we would have strong elections law enforcement.

The bill would allow for small donations coming in and keep big money out of our elections by ensuring donation limits could not be circumvented. Big money from special interests can drown out the voices of everyday citizens, like people in Etobicoke Centre, who have supported me, and those constituents who come to my office often looking to discuss current legislation or seeking assistance on a variety of issues. Theirs are the voices that should be reflected in the House.

Lastly, the bill would provide better customer service for voters by adding another advanced poll day and ensuring Canadians would know where to vote, when to vote and what ID to bring with them.

The fair elections act would also explicitly require Elections Canada to inform disabled voters of the extra help available to help them vote.

I believe the majority of my constituents would agree with me in that the fair elections act would make life harder for election law-breakers and easier for honest people to take part in our democratic process.

I do want to address something about our youth. I reach out to schools and to various groups in my constituency and beyond when I am asked to speak for a variety of reasons. I tell people, including at citizenship ceremonies, that citizenship comes with duties and responsibilities. One of those duties is to vote. I have said that before and I have said that often. I tell that to school groups, to youth, and to people frequently when I speak in front of public groups. It is very important that people understand that, to make sure that our democracy works as it has.

Make no mistake, Canada is a heaven on earth. There are people clamouring to come to our country because of what we have, because of the strength of our democracy, and how hard we work to ensure that each and every person is enfranchised with their vote.

I am very proud of the bill. I am very proud to stand for it. I am very proud to speak for it.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a very simple question. In 2011, the Chief Electoral Officer allowed voter information cards to be used as proof of address. However, to supplement that, individuals also had to have a piece of ID with their name on it.

Now that voter cards cannot be used any more, people will have to have two pieces of identification: one with their address and another with their name. Of the 39 acceptable pieces of ID on the list, only a tiny percentage include an address. It is extremely difficult for the most vulnerable segments of our society, such as students, seniors and aboriginal peoples, to obtain that type of ID.

What will he say to the Canadians who are listening and who may be denied the right to vote? I know that there are a lot of people listening, including some from his riding. What will he say to those people who will not be able to vote in 2015?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member partially answered the question herself. There are 39 different forms of ID that can be used. The vast majority of people in our country agree that valid forms of ID should be applied. It is reasonable. There are all sorts of other things that we do in life to prove our identity and where we live.

The accommodation made in the bill to allow an oath to be signed and proof provided through the two pieces of ID is very reasonable. It came out of hours and hours of testimony before committee. The minister was very broad-minded in looking at the bill and making changes that accommodated these issues that were brought up in testimony before committee.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise again in the House to speak about the bill on electoral reform. Unfortunately, the bill quickly got on the wrong track. Furthermore, there has been no real consultation on this bill.

The bill affects the quality of democratic life and the rules that ensure fair representation of constituents in Parliament. The bill was written on the back of an envelope and in line with purely partisan interests. No time has really been taken to speak to Canadians or Quebeckers about it, to hear from experts or to hold public consultations on the bill.

In fact, they have pulled a rabbit out of a hat. Even the person who is the most knowledgeable about elections in Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, has not been consulted. This is a uniquely Conservative bill, made by Conservatives for Conservatives.

A number of colleagues mentioned today that if this kind of process were going on in a foreign country, we would be asking ourselves a number of serious questions about the validity of an electoral reform package that appears tailor-made to suit the party in power and favour it. There has been no consultation with the opposition parties nor with Canadians. Right from the start, the whole process has been flawed. What was the result? Work that has been entirely botched.

It is sad to see, perhaps for the first times in Canadian history, a bill that is close to what we call voter suppression in the United States. In the U.S. they take steps to try to prevent people from exercising their right as citizens to choose the people who will be passing legislation over the next four years, if there is a majority government.

It is an attack on democratic rights and on clearly targeted and vulnerable groups, such as seniors, students and first nations peoples.

The NDP, the official opposition, has stood up. It is a rare thing in this Parliament, but we have managed to bring enough pressure to bear on the government for it to back down from some of the most deplorable aspects of the bill. As the leader of my party said, what was at the beginning a very bad bill is today only a bad bill.

The bill is not a good bill, but for some situations we have been able to prevent the worst, specifically with regard to allowing certain people to vote with someone to vouch for them. There is still the issue of a personal relationship with the registered voter; we will see how that turns out on the ground on election day or on advance polling days.

Members of the NDP believe it is important not to prevent the 120,000 people who voted through vouching in the last election, three years ago, from exercising their right to vote. The NDP can take credit for this, because we showed the Conservatives that this was clearly absurd and unnecessary, since it was not based on any evidence or proof of fraud—apart from the imaginary fraud in the mind of a Conservative backbencher. We managed to save this system.

However, the bill is an attack on democracy and on the principle of equality among citizens. Earlier today, I heard my colleague proudly say that they would be keeping big money out of elections. I agree with the principle that money should not be able to have undue influence over politicians or the outcome of an election. If they want to keep big money out of elections, they should reduce the limits on electoral contributions, not increase them.

By raising the maximum annual donation to $1,500 from $1,200, the Conservatives are going in the exact opposite direction from what they say. My colleagues opposite probably have a number of friends who are able to write cheques for $1,500. I have the feeling this may benefit the Conservative Party. Moreover, if a candidate can invest $5,000 in their own campaign, that will give people who have the ability to do that an unfair advantage.

The rules of the game are being interfered with and twisted in favour of people who have financial resources that are well out of reach of the average Canadian and Quebecker.

This is one of our serious concerns. This is one of the reasons why, as progressives, we are going to fundamentally oppose this election reform, or “deform”.

Given that there was no consultation, that a gag order was imposed in the House, that a gag order was also imposed in committee, that not all of the opposition’s amendments could be considered, and that the Conservatives wanted to go at top speed and botch the job with a bill that in fact changes the fundamental law of our democracy, there are things we were not even able to discuss. The public might have wanted to hear some discussion of proportional voting.

I think people who are frustrated with having a majority government that was elected with only 38% of the votes cast might think about the possibility of having a proportional voting system that would result in representation in the House that is closer to the will of the people.

A first past the post voting system produces such distorted results that the winner’s bonus is truly disproportionate. A large majority of Canadians voted against the Conservative Party three years ago, and they ended up with a majority Conservative government. There is something broken in this system. Canada is one of the rare countries in the world that still use this old voting system.

It might have been worthwhile to discuss a regional mixed-member proportional voting system, something like what there is in Germany. The NDP proposed an amendment in committee that was struck down because the Conservatives did not want to hear anything about it. This is extremely worrisome and it is a shame, because this is a missed opportunity. Reforms of the Elections Act are rare. It is not something we do every year.

How could the Conservatives have failed to understand that people could use the voter identification card issued by Elections Canada and delivered to us in our mailboxes as proof of residence, when it is accompanied by another identity card that does not show the address? That is extremely practical. It is widely used, particularly in senior citizens’ homes where people are able to go down the stairs or take the elevator to go and vote, because the polling station is in their building. Those people often do not have driver’s licences or the documents on the long list the Conservatives have given us. The same thing is true for aboriginal populations.

Let us read what Mr. Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, had to say last March about the accuracy of the information on the voter identification card:

It is worth noting that the VIC is the only document issued by the federal government that includes address information. The Canadian passport, for example, does not include an address. In fact, with an accuracy rate of 90%, the VIC is likely the most accurate and widely available government document.

I see no reason why we would deny ourselves that. Mr. Mayrand goes on to say:

During the election period, revision activities at the local level also increase the accuracy of the VIC. This likely makes it a more current document than even the driver's licence....

It is essential to understand that the main challenge for our electoral democracy is not voter fraud, but voter participation. I do not believe that if we eliminate vouching [at the time, vouching was still prohibited] and the VIC as proof of address we will have in any way improved the integrity of the voting process. However, we will certainly have taken away the ability of many qualified electors to vote.

Once again, the particularly scandalous thing about the bill we have before us is that it makes it harder for people who would like to go and vote in good faith and would like to keep using the little card distributed by Elections Canada.

There are many other things that should have been changed or amended in this bill. How can Elections Canada have lost the power to investigate? How can the Commissioner of Canada Elections be moved under the jurisdiction of the Director of Public Prosecutions, when everything was working well and in sync? Elections Canada is being stripped of its investigative powers. As well, the act is not getting enough teeth and strength to give Elections Canada the ability, as part of an investigation, to compel a witness to come answer questions from Elections Canada in order to find out what really happened. Why not give Elections Canada sufficient powers to be able to shed light on what happened?

If Elections Canada had had the power to compel witnesses in the robocall scandal, I think we would have found out exactly what happened.

Today, Elections Canada has hit a wall because the Conservative minister is refusing to give the agency the tools it needs to do its work.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his speech.

I want to talk about something very specific that happened in committee and that I would like to hear his thoughts on. He spoke in detail about the use of the voter information card. He even quoted the Chief Electoral Officer, who explained why the voter information card was very accurate and was a very good document in general.

The Conservatives did not want to agree to our amendments to reinstate the voter information card as an accepted piece of ID. Then, in committee, when we realized that they would not change their minds on using the voter information card, we proposed a new amendment to write in bold on the voter information card that voters could not use the document to vote. That way, people would not assume that they could use the card to vote and they would make sure they had the right pieces of ID.

I do not think there is any downside to that and I am still dumbfounded by the fact that the Conservatives voted against that amendment.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I was not aware of this detail, which is actually more than just a detail.

It is indicative of the primary purpose of the bill, which is to prevent people from voting and to throw up roadblocks in front of them. In real life, if average Canadians are used to going to vote with the card that comes from Elections Canada and then all of a sudden, once they are at the polling station, they are told that it is not sufficient and that they need other ID, then they are going to return home and I would be very surprised if they went all the way back to the polling station again to vote.

That is a shame because this will likely happen to thousands or even tens of thousands of Canadians who will not have been properly informed, as this amendment would have made it possible to do, by indicating on the card at least something about the identification they may need. Although the voter information card can no longer be used for the purpose for which it was created, it could have still been used to tell Canadians that the procedure and the rules have changed.

It is also a great pity that, with the exception of certain groups, Elections Canada will no longer be able to spend money or conduct campaigns to encourage people to vote, even though voter turnout in Canada has been plummetting for decades. It means we are denying ourselves a major voice that could encourage Canadians to exercise their right to vote. I do not understand why the Conservatives are going down this road.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech.

It was very beneficial to hear the Chief Electoral Officer's quote about voter cards. It would have been even more beneficial if the Chief Electoral Officer had been consulted. The Conservatives could have learned something. However, that is a topic for another time.

Does my colleague think it is possible to trust a government that was found guilty of several counts of electoral fraud? There was the in and out scandal, of course, but we also know that many government MPs were accused of electoral fraud in relation to their spending. Then there were also the robocalls.

Is it possible to trust a government that does not obey the law or uphold democratic tradition? Why does this government always try to push ahead even though it knows full well that, according to our country's democratic tradition, electoral reform is usually agreed upon by the majority, out of respect for all Canadians?

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this government, which has been found guilty of fraud and could not care less about democratic tradition.