Bill C-50 (Historical)

Citizen Voting Act

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to
(a) eliminate the international register of electors and incorporate all of the information contained in it into the Register of Electors;
(b) require electors who are resident outside Canada to make an application for registration and special ballot after the issue of the writs at each election;
(c) stipulate that electors who are resident outside Canada may only receive a special ballot for the address at which they last resided in Canada;
(d) require that electors who are applying for a special ballot under Division 3 or 4 of Part 11 include in their application for registration and special ballot proof of identity and residence and, if they apply from outside Canada, proof of Canadian citizenship;
(e) require that an external auditor perform an audit and report on election workers’ compliance with special ballot voting procedures and requirements for every election;
(f) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information for the purpose of assisting the Chief Electoral Officer to, among other things, delete from the Register of Electors the names of persons who are not Canadian citizens; and
(g) add the offence of voting or attempting to vote by special ballot under Division 3 or 4 of Part 11 while knowing that one is not qualified as an elector and add offences under those Divisions of attesting to the residence of more than one elector and of acting as an attestor when one’s own residence has already been attested to.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I saw that my friend the opposition House leader was out in the foyer of the House of Commons yesterday having a press conference at which he showcased the incredible productivity of the House of Commons during the 41st Parliament. Of course, these were actually Conservative initiatives he had on display, which were passed thanks to our diligent, hard-working, orderly, and productive approach to Parliament. However, I sincerely appreciate the New Democrats' efforts to associate themselves with the record of legislative achievement that our government has demonstrated.

Before getting to the business for the coming few days, I am sure that hon. members and Canadians will have noticed that we have been bringing forward a number of pieces of legislation in recent days, and we will continue to do so for the days to come.

These bills will give effect to important policy initiatives that the Conservative government believes are important for Canada's future. Together they form the beginning of a substantial four-year legislative agenda that our Conservative government will begin to tackle under the Prime Minister's leadership after being re-elected on October 19.

Thanks to the productive, hard-working, and orderly approach that I just spoke about, we have delivered real results on our legislative agenda. In fact, over 90% of the bills that were introduced by our Conservative government between the 2013 Speech from the Throne and the beginning of last month will become law before Parliament rises for the summer.

Now I will go on to the schedule for the coming days.

This afternoon we will continue debating Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, also known as Quanto's law, at third reading. I am optimistic that we can pass it later today so that the other place will have a chance to pass it this spring.

I also hope that we will have an opportunity to have some debate today on Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference in regulations bill.

Tomorrow, we will finish the report stage debate on Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act. Early and forced marriages, honour-based violence and polygamy should not be tolerated on Canadian soil, but unfortunately the opposition disagree and are striving to rob Bill S-7 of its entire content.

On Monday, we will consider Bill C-59, the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, at third reading. This bill will reduce taxes, deliver benefits to every Canadian family, encourage savings with enhanced tax free savings accounts, lower the tax rates for small businesses, introduce the home accessibility tax credit, expand compassionate leave provisions—and the list goes on.

Tuesday will see the House debate Bill S-7 at third reading.

On Wednesday, we will take up third reading of Bill S-4, Digital Privacy Act, which will provide new protections for Canadians when they surf the web and shop online.

On Thursday I will give priority to any legislation to be considered at the report or third reading stages. On that list will be Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference bill, which would help keep our laws up to date in response to emerging scientific and technical recommendations.

Bill C-50, the citizen voting act, will also be considered once it has been reported back from the procedure and House affairs committee. This legislation would play an important role in accommodating the decision of the Ontario Superior Court should we not have the benefit of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in time for this year's election.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

In your opinion, does Bill C-50 go in an opposite direction? It's certainly different.

[Jamie Biggar, Campaigns Director, Leadnow.ca]

My name is Jamie Biggar. I'm the co-founder and campaigns director at Leadnow.ca. We're an independent non-profit that brings Canadians together for an open democracy, a fair economy, and a safe climate.

Last year we helped tens of thousands of people across Canada speak out against what they called voter suppression measures in the updates to the Canada Elections Act.

I want to start with the premise that voting rights are fundamental rights and essential to the health of our democracy, and then the recognition that in a globalized society and economy, we can expect that Canadians will work, travel, and live abroad extensively and that those trends will only grow. As a forward-looking country that values democratic rights, we should be looking to protect their right to participate in Canada's democracy by strengthening their access to voting.

Unfortunately, the measures in this bill—we agree with many of the other experts and commentators on this issue—would make it harder for Canadians abroad to vote in Canadian elections by creating unnecessary barriers that will stop people from voting. Those include the requirement to register only once the election's been called, the need for constant reapproval of the registration, the one voucher per voter rule, and the limitation that the voucher come from within the person's old riding.

At Leadnow we create a platform for people to speak collectively to government on issues that concern them, especially democratic rights, so I've brought some comments that reflect the input that we've received on Bill C-50 from the community.

Kate writes, “As someone who lives outside of Canada but very much hopes to return some day, it is disheartening that the government is trying to make it more difficult for me to exercise my rights as a citizen and to participate in the governance of my country. It is even more offensive somehow that it is being done in such a banal and bureaucratic way, tightening regulations to address a problem that doesn't really seem to exist.”

Kate's comments reflect some of the core insight and sentiment in the discussions we've seen about this bill from Canadians across the country. Instead of strengthening the voting rights of Canadians, the provisions in Bill C-50 strengthen the growing bureaucratic voter-suppression regime in Canada. As many in this room already know, there's no coherent justification for these measures.

The proponents of bureaucratic voter-suppression measures, especially in some jurisdictions in the United States, point to the supposed threat of voter fraud; however, voter fraud appears to be a largely fictitious problem. Individuals have little incentive or means to impact the outcome of elections through fraudulent measures, so they don't do it. This is actually something we understand quite well through our work at Leadnow, because our work focuses on facilitating democratic participation. We understand that the key ingredients for democratic participation are low barriers and high motivation.

People will act when they believe that a cause matters and that their actions will make a difference. Individuals correctly recognize that individual cases of voter fraud would have little impact on an election, so they don't appear to participate in it on any significant scale.

On the other hand, electoral fraud organized by political parties or other interested groups is a real threat to elections around the world. Efforts to protect the integrity of elections should focus on detecting, preventing, and punishing organized electoral fraud by groups with the means and interest to change election outcomes, and effectively, to steal elections.

To defend the integrity of our elections we should focus on stopping organized electoral fraud. Voting rights make us feel that we are part of the country, part of the body public. To be excluded through bureaucratic voter suppression sends a clear message to Canadians living abroad.

Alexis writes, “A Canadian is a Canadian, regardless as to whether they are in Canada or abroad. We are proud of our country and extremely patriotic, and we care deeply what happens there. We watch news reports and keep up with current affairs and election issues. To deny expat Canadians the right to vote in a Canadian federal election would be extremely undemocratic and far more unpatriotic than what you accuse us of.”

I would urge the committee to consider the examples that we're increasingly seeing around the world where voting access is being strengthened for folks who are living outside of their home countries, increasingly, in fact, through online voting measures. I also urge the committee to consider that instead of imposing bureaucratic voter-suppression measures on Canadians, we should be expanding voting rights to more people living in Canada and strengthening our access to voting at home and abroad.

In sum, instead of imposing bureaucratic voter-suppression measures on Canadians living, working, and travelling abroad, let's focus on the real problems: declining voter turnout, eroding trust in our electoral system, and the threat of organized electoral fraud.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Alexandrine Latendresse]

We are resuming the meeting.

We are continuing the study of Bill C-50. I would like to thank the witnesses very much for being here today.

If everyone is in agreement, I will start with Mr. Paterson and Mr. Biggar because they are appearing by video conference. That way, we can at least be sure that we'll hear their opening remarks in case a technical problem arises. We will then move on to Professor Milner.

To start, I invite Mr. Paterson of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association to make his presentation.

[Prof. Gillian Frank]

When we first brought the lawsuit there was an option to change the rules. Also, Megan Leslie, an MP, introduced a private member's bill asking for the five-year rule to be stricken. There were opportunities along the way to make it possible and available for expatriate Canadians to vote, regardless of duration abroad.

At every turn this government has chosen to fight our attempts to be re-enfranchised, and they continue to do so. I see Bill C-50 as an extension of this ongoing court battle. The short answer is yes, there were opportunities to strike down the five-year rule.

I believe I heard you ask earlier about what could have been done or what other responses were possible. Any number of responses were possible. The most welcoming would be to court Canadian expatriate voters, welcome them to the fold, to embrace them as members of the polity, and to campaign among us to solicit our votes.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you for that clarification on the electronic voting system.

I also wanted to ask Professor Frank a few questions and thank him for being here.

In your opinion, is Bill C-50 an adequate response to the court ruling? Is it the response you expected, yourself being a stakeholder in this matter before the court? Do you think the government's Bill C-50 is a satisfactory response?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I was surprised to hear that you had to hand in your driver's licence to do this, to sacrifice your own driver's licence in order to drive in the United States. This is one of the issues we're going with. As was pointed out earlier, and you quoted, this certainly is a solution in search of a problem.

You also said Bill C-50 falls within this inglorious tradition of what you called voter suppression.

The two things that are at play here, the permanent voters list as well as the time that it takes, in addition to your testimony, as Madame Latendresse also pointed out from being in Moscow, the disenfranchisement under Bill C-50 is now going to be astronomical as opposed to what it was before.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Is it appropriate to be proceeding with Bill C-50 at this time, given the fact of what the decision is and given the fact that the election is coming in October.

[Prof. Gillian Frank]

Is it appropriate for the government to be doing Bill C-50?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Thank you very much.

I don't have a lot of time. I wish I could spend more time with you, but I want to move to Dr. Frank.

Considering the government is challenging Justice Penny's ruling, is it appropriate or not to be doing this Bill C-50? That's probably the easiest question you're going to get.

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

I'll explain the basis of my question. According to the numbers we have currently, about 2.8 million Canadians live abroad. Of that number, barely 6,000 have participated in elections. In my opinion, the changes made by Bill C-50 won't help increase the number of these people and help these millions of Canadian citizens who, I think, have the right to vote but can't because the current system is just too complicated. I think these changes are instead harmful.

I think that if we compare our system to the French system, which seems to really encourage every French citizen to take part in the electoral process, we will see that we still have a lot of work to do.

Professor Frank, my question has to do with the other obstacles faced by Canadians living abroad. You spoke about it earlier.

You and Mr. Reid mentioned the driver's licence. Information I recently received indicates that certain U.S. states require individuals who want a driver's licence from that state to give up the licence they already have. I was quite surprised to learn that. I find it very difficult to justify. Yet that's the kind of situation that we need to consider if we are asking Canadians to prove their residency, their identity and their citizenship using Canadian ID cards. I have a lot of trouble understanding why we are creating obstacles to voting.

In terms of the postal system, you said that it sometimes takes three weeks. When I lived in Moscow, it would take three months to get a letter from my parents. We say we're trying to harmonize the system, but in reality, the experience of citizens living abroad is something else.

Could you give me a reason that justifies the changes that we want to make to the Canadian electoral system?

[Prof. Gillian Frank]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

In March 2011, I learned that I was no longer eligible to vote when I attempted to obtain a special ballot through the Elections Canada website. I discovered that because I had lived outside of Canada for more than five years, I could not participate in the then-upcoming election. I had moved to the United States in 2001 to pursue a Ph.D. Under previous interpretations of the rules, my regular visits to Canada had reset the clock, thereby allowing me to retain my right to vote.

In 2011, I was a post-doc at Stony Brook University where I taught an undergraduate course on the history of civil rights movements in the United States. The irony was not lost upon me that while I was teaching my students about the struggles of individuals and groups to apply their citizenship to the fullest of its means, and to press forward persistently for freedom and democracy and the removal from their society of any forms of second-class citizenship, I was unable to vote anywhere. Essentially, I was teaching my students about people who had far less privilege than me who understood a basic truth: that enfranchisement is a basic recognition of citizenship. The right to vote empowers and dignifies citizens.

If the committee is interested, I can take you through the details of the various attempts I have made, along with others, to ask the government to restore expat voting rights, but I want to rest upon one detail. At the beginning of our effort, we attempted to petition Parliament to ask for redress, only to learn that Parliament does not recognize petitions from non-residents. In other words, until recently I had no vote and no means of petitioning my own government while living abroad.

Over the past four years, I have heard from many Canadian expats from around the world who shared my desire to have their voting rights restored. We believe that democracy, like the Canadian flags we wear on our backpacks, should travel abroad with us. Like me, these expats are likewise concerned about Bill C-50, which they see as an attempt to disenfranchise us.

Because of the tenaciousness and support of our lawyer, Shaun O'Brien, the generosity of her law firm, Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre Cornish, and the wisdom of Justice Penny's 2004 decision, we saw vindicated our conviction that the right of every citizen to vote was at the heart of Canadian democracy. Each citizen must have the opportunity to participate in the selection of elected representatives.

Justice Penny wrote the following:

...the government is making a decision that some people, whatever their abilities, are not worthy to vote—that they do not “deserve” to be considered members of the community and hence may be deprived of the most basic of their constitutional rights. But this is not the lawmakers’ decision to make. The Charter makes this decision for us by guaranteeing every citizen’s right to vote and by expressly placing all citizens under the protective umbrella of the Charter through constitutional limits on the power of the government to limit a citizen’s right to vote.

When I learned of Justice Penny's decision last year, I was elated. I am, however, dismayed at Bill C-50, which threatens to undermine much of our hard work over the past four years. I therefore offer the following to the committee.

Bill C-50, as it is currently written, violates the spirit of Justice Penny's rulings and attempts to perform an end-run around them. It adds onerous requirements by creating a narrow timeframe to submit burdensome paperwork. These new requirements make it more difficult for most expats and impossible for others to vote.

I am directly impacted by the ID requirements. I no longer have my Ontario driver's licence, which was my sole Canadian document listing both my former address and containing a photo. I had to turn this in upon obtaining a driver's licence in the U.S. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of my expat peers in the United States are in a similar position.

While I can probably secure some other forms of documentation, I now have to go through a process that is unnecessarily time-sensitive, time-consuming, and subject to the unpredictable schedule of post offices in Canada and the United States. I wonder why the government is not seeking to make voter registration easier, less time-sensitive, and more accessible. Rigour and access need not be mutually exclusive.

In my course on the history of civil rights, we studied in detail the history of voter suppression. A favoured tactic to thwart further registration, we saw, was the use of bureaucratic red tape to create administrative roadblocks that were justified in the name of protecting the integrity of the system, electoral fairness, or maintaining the democratic process.

Such justifications offered a respectable veneer to those who were actively undermining the democratic process by requiring frequent re-registration, registration at inconvenient times, provision of information unavailable to many targeted voters, and so forth. It also sent a strong message to targeted segments of the population that their vote is not welcome. I fear that by attempting to accomplish administratively what can no longer be accomplished since our recent court victory, Bill C-50 falls squarely within this inglorious tradition.

Over the past four years, reporters have asked me to justify my right to vote. My answer is simple. I am a Canadian citizen and want to have the right to exercise my citizenship to its fullest capacity. I also point out to these same reporters that it is the politicians who are attempting to limit constitutional rights who deserve far more scrutiny than those asking for access to their constitutional rights.

In closing, I wonder why my own government is so determined to spend so much time, money, and energy disenfranchising expat Canadians. Other witnesses have generously suggested that this legislation is a solution in search of a problem. I would merely ask who stands to benefit from making voting so difficult for so many Canadian citizens.

Thank you for allowing me to make these remarks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's great. We'll make a ruling then.

Thank you, Mr. Frank and Ambassador. We're happy to have you here today on Bill C-50.

Go ahead, Mr. Frank. If you have an opening statement we'd like you to start with that. We'll then do an opening statement from the ambassador, and then we'll have a round of questions from the members.

Also, members I will have to leave at about a quarter to noon. My more-than-able vice-chair will be taking over the chair at that time so it should be seamless.

Mr. Frank, please go ahead with your opening statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We can start our meeting. We are still looking at our order of reference on Bill C-50.

We have with us today—is it Professor Frank?

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

Because the two situations are different. Electors living abroad can provide proof of residence in the country where they are currently living. But it would likely be difficult for them to provide proof of an address where they lived 10 or 20 years ago.

We were told very clearly that if the elector is able to provide proof of where they lived in Canada and if their parents or sibling, say, still lives there, that information will remain on the register as long as there hasn't been a change. If the person comes back to Canada and moves to another riding, that's one thing, but until then, why not keep the register as it is now in order to make it easier for these electors to vote rather than harder, which is what Bill C-50 does?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

All right.

The first question related to the international register of electors. What we propose is to fold its contents into the general voters list. That is because the whole basis of this bill is that we would treat international electors the in same way as special voting electors. In other words, if you have a family member who votes from Florida while they're away as a snowbird, their name is in the basic voters list. As a result of the citizen voting act, an elector who permanently resides in Florida would have the same practice in casting their ballot as your relative who's a snowbird. They'll be following the same rules and the same procedures, and therefore, we propose they be part of the same list. The contents of the international register of electors are not being destroyed; they are simply being put into the voters list, where we have one list instead of two.

The second question dealt with the requirement that a ballot be ordered after the writ is dropped. We haven't found this to be a problem with special voting so far.

Mr. Christopherson, for many years people have voted from all around the world using what's called a special ballot, because they're residents of Canada but happen to be abroad during the election period. They have been very successful at ordering a ballot, receiving it, and casting it by mail before election day. I haven't seen a reason we need to change that. The rule will remain as it has always been, that a ballot is ordered once the writ is dropped and cast before the close of election day.

For your third question, the special voting rule, could you remind me what the actual question was?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister for Democratic Reform]

Thank you very much, everyone, for having me here today. Before I begin my remarks, I would like to introduce Isabelle Mondou and Natasha Kim, both of whom work in the Privy Council Office. They are exceptional public servants and they know more about all of these subjects than I do. I'm very pleased to have them at the table with me. I feel assured to have them at my side.

Without any further ado, Mr. Chair, it's a pleasure to address the committee on the citizen voting act. The bill will strengthen Canada's democracy by reinforcing the integrity of the special ballot voting system and ensuring fairness for resident and non-resident votes. The citizen voting act proposes to reform the vote by mail procedures set out in divisions 3 and 4 of the special voting rules of the Canada Elections Act.

The last major update to these procedures was back in 1993. The citizen voting act is in keeping with the government's objective to strengthen the integrity of our electoral process. It builds on the rules enacted by the Fair Elections Act in June of 2014, a bill with which I know all of you are deeply familiar.

The citizen voting act proposes six key measures to reform the special voting rules in the Canada Elections Act and proposes objectives of integrity and fairness.

First, the proposed legislation creates a single process for residents and non-residents who vote by special ballot. Special ballot voting procedures applicable to resident and non-resident electors will be harmonized. Non-resident voters will no longer automatically receive a ballot at election time, mitigating the risk that ballots will end up with unintended recipients. The citizen voting act requires that non-resident electors wishing to vote by special ballot must apply for one at each election, just as resident electors do now.

Second, the bill stipulates non-resident electors will only receive a ballot for the address at which they last resided in Canada. Non-resident electors will no longer be allowed to choose the riding in which they wish to vote.

Third, the bill builds on the Fair Elections Act by requiring all electors voting by special ballot, both residents and non-residents, include in the application proof of identity and residence according to the rules that are similar to those set up in the Fair Elections Act. At the moment, proof of residence in Canada is not required for non-residents. This shortcoming will be remedied, and as with other Canadians, proof of prior residence will be required for expatriate voters.

Under the citizen voting act, resident and non-resident electors voting under the special voting rules will have the same three voter identification options available in order to cast their ballots: a government-issued photo identification with name and address; two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, one with an address and both with a name; or two pieces of authorized identification with an oath or declaration of residence that is attested to by another properly identified elector from the same riding.

Fourth, the proposed legislation requires that electors voting from outside of Canada provide proof of citizenship. Currently, providing proof of citizenship is required administratively by Elections Canada for non-resident electors. The citizen voting act makes this a legislative requirement, including for resident voters temporarily outside of the country.

Fifth, the citizen voting act extends the special ballot voting procedures to the mandatory post-election audit that was introduced in the Fair Elections Act. As you will recall, we required that the Chief Electoral Officer appoint an auditor to ensure identification rules were administered in the course of a general election. That mandatory audit was to apply to domestic voting. The citizen voting act will see to it that it also applies to those voting from outside of the country. To this end, the Chief Electoral Officer will be required to engage an external auditor to carry it out, and he will also be required to report the results of this audit. The audit will look into election workers' compliance with resident and non-resident special voting procedures after every election.

Finally, the citizen voting act adds a new provision authorizing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information such as the name, gender, date of birth, and address of persons who are not Canadian citizens, for the purpose of cross-referencing registrants in the national register of electors. This is to assist in deleting the names of non-residents from the register who are not qualified to vote. This suggestion came to me from the Chief Electoral Officer. He was concerned that there are people on the voter list who are not citizens, and one of the ways that Elections Canada can identify these non-citizens and remove them from the list is by having data on the identity of non-citizens who reside within Canada. So we have agreed to his suggestion and with the passage of this bill, we will permit the immigration minister to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with that data.

Before concluding my remarks to the committee, I would like to report that, following consultations with Elections Canada, and after looking at some of the issues that were raised during the debate in the House of Commons, the government will be proposing seven minor amendments to the citizen voting act.

First, the current bill provides that the Chief Electoral Officer may authorize types of identification issued by, among others, an entity that is “formed in Canada”. This ensures that identification documents must always be Canadian documents and thus reinforces the integrity of the identification procedure. Moreover, foreign-issued identification is likely to be harder to verify, and in some cases, it could be in another language. This requirement raises concerns that it would be difficult to determine whether an entity is Canadian. In particular, it has been argued that it would be difficult for poll officials to make such a determination.

We have noted the concerns and will be proposing to limit the application of this requirement to only electors voting by special ballot under divisions 3 and 4. This means that front-line officials at the polls will not have to evaluate whether a piece of identification was issued by an entity formed in Canada. Rather, this determination will mainly be required when Elections Canada reviews the identification documents provided by electors with their applications for special ballot prior to election day. In other words, it will apply to those voting by mail and those voting outside of the country, but not at the voting booth.

Elections Canada has access to more resources and will have more time than poll officials to assess whether pieces of identification have been issued by a Canadian entity. I believe this amendment will ensure not only that electors voting by special ballot provide Canadian identification to prove their identity and residence, but also that it will be easier for election officials to verify the acceptability of such identification.

Second, another concern that has been raised relates to the requirement in Bill C-50, the citizen voting act, that residents wishing to vote by special ballot using the attestation procedure to prove residency must obtain an attestation from another elector from the same polling division. For those listening who are not familiar with the complexity of local voting, there are electoral districts that each elect one member of Parliament, but within those districts are polling divisions that break down the voting locations where people go to cast their ballots. The reason that the distinction is important is that it is much more difficult to find an attestor who lives in the same polling division or even to know if that voter lives in the same polling division if you are voting from outside of the country and you are resident abroad. This is not a problem when you're actually voting at the polling division location because you're physically there and the person attesting is physically with you, and they would know very well if they are at their appropriate location.

That brings me to the proposed amendment.

Because the requirement would be problematic, we would seek to change the requirement for the fact that the boundaries of the polling divisions are not published by the Elections Canada website until 24 days before the polling day. To facilitate the process, we will propose an amendment to allow non-resident electors voting by special ballot to obtain an attestation from an elector from the same electoral district instead. In other words, anyone living in the same district would be able to act as the attestor for the non-resident voter lacking proof of prior address. They will not have to be from the same polling division. These electors will therefore be able to kick-start the registration process from the day the election is called.

The third amendment that we propose, Mr. Chair, relates also to the attestation process. Bill C-50 currently provides that as part of the attestation, resident and non-resident electors voting by special ballot may sign a declaration to prove their residence instead of taking the oath. Those who attest to the residence of an elector who are abroad may also sign a declaration instead of taking an oath. An amendment will be proposed to clarify that the declarations signed by attestors from abroad will not need to be administered by another person. Signing a declaration will be sufficient to prove or to attest to the residence of an elector. This will simplify the process for electors and attestors abroad.

The fourth proposed amendment relates to the proof of citizenship that electors voting by special ballot would have to provide, if making their application from outside Canada. We will clarify the language to specify that proof of citizenship is required when the ballot is being sent outside of the country rather than to special ballot voters within the country.

The fifth amendment relates to post-election audit. Bill C-50 proposes to extend the audit to include voting by special ballot and to give the auditor access to all documents necessary to perform the audit. A technical amendment will be proposed to ensure that the auditor has access to all documents necessary to perform the audit for voting at the polls as well.

Sixth, an amendment will be tabled to mitigate the risk of a voter identification card being sent to Canadians at an address at which they no longer live, which would increase the risk of such cards falling into the hands of people who are not eligible to vote in our elections. This technical amendment will provide that all non-residents will not receive a voter information card. Under clause 3 of the bill as currently drafted, that exception would apply only to some non-residents.

As amendment number 7, finally, we will propose an amendment for resident electors who vote in person through special ballot initiatives. For example, such initiatives could be held at hospitals, universities, or at remote work locations, as has been done in the past. An amendment will enable those electors, like electors who vote at the polls, to present an original piece of identification, and not only copies, as is currently provided by Bill C-50.

I hope that committee members will support these amendments. I believe they are sensible and that they are consistent with the goal of the bill.

I can just wrap up by highlighting the principle at stake here.

Mr. Chair, we believe that people should provide ID when they vote. This ID should show who they are, where they reside, and in the case of people living abroad, where they used to reside. Those people voting outside of the country should be required to prove that they're Canadian citizens. The Constitution does give every Canadian the right to vote, but that right is predicated on citizenship—explicitly predicated on citizenship—and so too should be the identification requirement for those who are casting a ballot from outside Canada's borders.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Folks, we'll go ahead and get started. We have the minister here today. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 4, we have Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

Minister, it's always great when you can come visit committee. I understand you have an opening statement and will be sharing some stuff with us. Please go ahead and introduce your guests and do your opening statement. We'll get to rounds to questions after that.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have a question. When is the minister coming in on Bill C-50?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

I'm wondering if I could ask you a question, Professor Pilon. You were very gracious in just summarizing your paper, assuming that we've all read it. I think we have, but those following these proceedings might not have.

One of the two sets of concerns you had was about the inconsistent application of rules. You indicated that in the literature put out with this Bill C-50, the so-called citizen voting act, the government argues that its citizen voting act “will ensure that Canadians living abroad follow the same rules as those living in Canada.” On that claim by the government, you're absolutely right, that's what the minister claimed and that's what all their literature said.

Is that an accurate claim?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Along that line, one of the changes in this is to have electors who are voting outside of Canada provide proof of citizenship. That's something that has already been required administratively by Elections Canada for some time, I believe. The citizen voting act would simply make that common practice, enshrined in law.

Do you see any problem with having someone who's living outside of Canada proving that they're a Canadian citizen in order to vote? Do you see any issue with that?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

There's one thing Mr. Simms and I can agree on, and it's the difficulty of having to follow Mr. Christopherson. I'm glad he was able to bring us slowly back towards reality a little bit. Mr. Christopherson can take off his tinfoil hat and we can look at the reality of the matter here. People can cast all kinds of aspersions on the reason for something, but at the end of the day, obviously, the purpose of this legislation is to be able to ensure that there's fairness, to be able to ensure that the same requirements are in place for non-resident voters who are voting by special ballot as for those who are resident Canadians when they're voting by special ballot, in terms of having a process that's fair and equal for all.

I just wanted to ask a couple of questions to you, Professor Lee, because I know you seemed to be fairly rushed to get through some of your opening remarks, and maybe didn't get chance to focus on Bill C-50 as much as I'm sure you would have liked to. I'd like to come to you on that with that very principle, the idea of ensuring fairness and creating a single process for both residents and non-residents who want to vote by special ballot. I want to get your comments on that. Obviously the change being made here is that rather than automatically being sent a ballot at the beginning of an election, and that ballot ending up somewhere it shouldn't be, this will require a non-resident voter to apply for a special ballot, just as the average resident Canadian would have to do.

What are your thoughts on that? Do you think that's a fair change?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all very much for your attendance.

Under the heading of “voter suppression”, the first thing you find is Bill C-50, because that's really what this is all about in our opinion. It's a continuation of the suppression clauses that have been incorporated into our election laws.

I want to make reference to the Chief Electoral Officer. Remember that fellow, the one whom the government didn't consult when they brought all the changes to the “unfair elections act”. He came back to talk about Bill C-50, and one of the things that's been missed, and I don't think it was picked up in the public domain through the media, is that the change in clause 4 of Bill C-50 adds proposed paragraph 143(2.11)(b) to the Canada Elections Act. It incorporates a change. So far we've been focusing on the ID at the polling station as if it only affected foreign patriots voting who live abroad, but the fact remains that this change would change the entire Canada Elections Act.

This is the clause that's causing all the concern. It says, “an entity that is incorporated or formed by or under an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province or”—and this is the key thing—“that is otherwise formed in Canada.” Nobody knows what that means.

The change, if this passed, would not just be for voting abroad. It would be for all voters. Monsieur Mayrand said:

I am, however, concerned with the fact that the bill will make it more difficult for electors abroad to vote, and I expect that many will not be able to do so under the new rules. I am also very concerned with the new requirement that pieces of ID be issued by entities incorporated or “formed in Canada”—a criterion that is unclear and that cannot be administered by election officers. I urge the committee to consider this aspect of the bill, and also to consider other changes set out in the table....

We have our Chief Electoral Officer suggesting this is a real problem and he would like it removed. I wonder, Professor Pal, if you'd be kind enough to comment on that, because you did touch on this a bit, this whole aspect of the confusion it will cause. Would you confirm that your interpretation is that it does change the Canada Elections Act, and that these concerns at the voting station won't just happen outside Canada but could potentially happen in every polling station in Canada? Do you agree with that interpretation, sir?

[Professor Michael Pal, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you very much to the committee for having me here to speak on this important bill. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa where I teach constitutional law and election law. You're all invited to come and speak to my class, if you'd like, down the road.

I'm going to give you a very different perspective than Professor Lee. You would have thought the law professor would be the one quoting Hobbes and Foucault, but instead I'm going to speak to the constitutionality of Bill C-50, particularly the rules on registration and on voter identification for overseas voters.

In my opinion, and I wish it was otherwise, the bill as currently written is unconstitutional for violating section 3, which is of course the guarantee of the right to vote in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's unconstitutional because it substantially burdens the rights of all citizens, no matter where they live, all Canadian citizens, to be able to cast a ballot.

I would also add that I don't believe Bill C-50 is actually in the spirit of the Frank decision. Frank, of course, struck down the rule preventing those overseas for five years or more from voting, so it actually expanded voting rights.

My fear with Bill C-50 is that the House may inadvertently be doing indirectly what the courts have said it cannot do directly. The House of Commons cannot deprive people, ban them from voting. But if the rules are so onerous as to make it nearly impossible to be able to cast a ballot, then the effect is the same.

The relevant sections here for overseas voters, in particular, that raise a constitutional dimension are those that require individuals to register at each election and only once the writ has been dropped, and then the voter ID requirements from the Fair Elections Act being applied here.

Requiring registration only after the writ is dropped is a recipe for denying the right to vote to Canadian citizens. The timelines are extremely tight and I know there has been some discussion at the committee about Canada Post and how long it takes to go back and forth. Once you factor in applying to register, the approval by Elections Canada, and then sending your ballot in, it can become very difficult to get it in on time. It's not impossible, but we shouldn't have to be lucky to be able to exercise our constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. I fear that is what this bill would do.

I would just draw the committee's attention to the recent British election, which also had extensive postal balloting of hundreds of thousands of people, and an article from The Guardian. It said that 113,000 people applied to vote by post, and overseas voters raised concerns they did not receive their ballots in time. We often look to the United Kingdom as a shining example of democracy and here even through best efforts postal voting can be deeply problematic.

Second, to turn to the ID requirements, the driver's licence is, of course, the document that has both your identification and your residence on it. Of those who live overseas, however, or in the United States but are Canadian citizens, very few will actually have an incentive to keep their driver's licence or documents that prove their identification and residence.

I know the committee has had a discussion in Bill C-23 about ID requirements, so all I would add is that for overseas voters, however onerous the ID requirements are for Canadians living in Canada, for Canadians living abroad they're likely to be even more onerous. Why would you keep all those pieces of ID that you might potentially need in order to vote because you probably don't need them for any other reason?

To turn to the constitutionality explicitly, the courts have consistently expanded the right to vote since we've had the charter. The Sauvé decision granted prisoners the right to vote. Cases have also granted the mentally ill the right to vote. Frank, from the Ontario Superior Court—and we'll see what the court of appeal has to say and then potentially the Supreme Court—was absolutely in that tradition. If one is a citizen, any restriction on the right to vote has to be very clearly justified by the government.

The question here is: what is the justification? I believe, as Professor Pilon said, we don't have good evidence of widespread fraud that would lead us to say we should limit the right to vote of those who are non-residents. I would ask the committee to weigh the very direct and concrete harm that's likely to result for Canadians living outside of the country, making it very difficult for them to vote, versus the relatively abstract goal of trying to prevent fraud.

We all agree preventing fraud and electoral integrity are important, but without evidence that this fraud is actually occurring we are potentially creating a real harm through Bill C-50.

To conclude, I would say the timing of registration is something that could easily be fixed. I know Mr. Kingsley said 30 days. Why not a year or perhaps even longer? You could register at any time potentially in between elections and I think that would be administratively possible.

If attestation as to residence is still going to be required, we should perhaps look at why the person who is attesting for you has to have lived in the same riding as you, because that is potentially artificial restriction that may not mean much on the ground and might restrict the right to vote.

Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[Dr. Ian Lee, Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me to once again address what I have characterized as the most astonishing urban legend in Canadian public policy in the 35 years that I've studied public policy.

This urban legend claims that large, significant, or substantial numbers of Canadians lack any ID whatsoever, thereby disenfranchising them from voting. As a former banker deeply familiar with identification systems, I know that the principle of banking goes back to ancient times of “know thy customer” and is grounded in the idea that you can't collect money from someone if you don't know who it is you lent the money to. Therefore, identity and identification have been at the very core of financial systems for thousands of years, and it's only the rest of society, as we've moved into the digital economy, that is realizing what bankers have always understood.

First, I found that no critic had undertaken a systematic empirical review of all major identification systems in Canada using the government reports of the government departments that issue the ID in Canada: Passport Canada, Transport Canada, and so forth. I presented the empirical evidence of these systems both to your committee and the Senate committee in April 2014, and that became the basis of my op-ed published in The Globe and Mail on May 4, 2014, “Canadians who can't vote because they lack any ID? Don't believe it.”

I testified to you and in the op-ed...and I'm just going to summarize this very quickly.

Canadians possess over 200 million pieces of identification or identification documents including birth certificates, as the vital statistics acts of every province compel the registration of every birth in every province. StatsCan reports 29 million people in Canada were born in Canada, with 6.7 million people foreign born.

In Canada there are 29 million birth certificates. There are 22 million drivers' licences—not the 15 million stated by Mr. Mayrand—per the annual Transport Canada report to Parliament. There are 29 million cars and trucks registered in Canada per the Transport Canada report to Parliament, each with an ownership certificate disclosing name and address. It's the same for insurance certificates, and there are nearly 35 million health care cards, as every province requires a health card to access a doctor, a clinic, or a hospital.

According to StatsCan, 69% of Canadians, or 9.2 million, own their own home. Under provincial law, real estate ownership must be in writing with name and address disclosed. Likewise for rentals, 31% of Canadians rent, and under landlord and tenant acts, the name and address must be disclosed in writing in the tenancy.

Per the FCAC established by Parliament, 96% of Canadians have a bank account, and the Bank Act passed by Parliament requires two pieces of primary government-issued ID to open a bank account.

StatsCan 2013 reports that 17.5 million Canadians filed taxable returns with, of course, name and address, while another 8.9 million Canadians filed non-taxable returns to get the GST rebate and so forth, a total of 26.3 million filers. Per StatsCan, in 2014 two million Canadians boarded planes requiring ID three times: once at check-in, once at security, and once at the gate. Per Passport Canada, 70% of Canadians, or 23 million, have a passport. Per the Canadian Bankers Association, there are 71 million credit cards outstanding in Canada.

I'll wrap up very quickly. As the French philosopher Michel Foucault taught us in 1978 in his astonishing article on governmentality, government departments and agencies have been studying, measuring, analyzing, and collecting data on us over very long periods of time in every area of life in western countries from health care to hospitals, to educational institutions, to penal institutions, to security, to borders, to agriculture, to drug use, to seniors' housing, and on and on.

In other words, and I said this before and I'll say it again to you, it is legally and factually impossible today in Canada to be digitally invisible with zero identity of any kind in any database anywhere. The Frank court decision has added an estimated 1.5 million eligible voters abroad.

I support Bill C-50 as Parliament must act to establish a level playing field with respect to voting in federal elections so that voters abroad vote under the same rules as domestic voters. In summary, in a modern, complex society, identity and identification are absolutely essential. The nostalgia for 19th-century voting systems in a far smaller and simpler time simply does not work.

Finally, to the trust issue, to quote the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, if we all really are angels and never do anything wrong, they why do we lock our doors at night? Restated, why do we need ID to board a plane if none of us are terrorists?

Thank you.

[Dr. Joanna Woo, Postdoctoral Researcher, Institute for Astronomy, ETH Zürich, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for inviting me to describe to you my experience of voting in Canadian elections from abroad and how Bill C-50 would impact me.

I consider it both a privilege and a responsibility to participate in the democratic process of my country. That's why I'm here before you today, and that's why I have voted in every federal election since I've been old enough to vote, including the elections that were called while I've been away from Canada for educational and professional reasons.

While studying in Israel, I was on the international register of electors and voted a few times from there. To my dismay, I was then removed because of the five-year rule, so I closely followed the Frank case and was thrilled when that five-year rule was struck down last year. Having since taken up a postdoc position here in Switzerland, I started preparing a new registration with my spouse, who is also Canadian.

The instructions on Elections Canada's website, as well as the registration form itself, indicated that the forms should be returned either by fax or by mail, but oddly there was no email option. I first tried the fax machine, but it returned an error message dated July 14, 2014, last year. The next day, July 15, we sent both our applications in the same envelope by snail mail, since there was plenty of time still before the next election.

I didn't hear back from Elections Canada until October 15, in other words, three months later. I have since learned that email registrations are allowed, even though this is not advertised. Had we sent them by email, or had the fax machine worked properly, two or three weeks may have been saved but not months.

The email correspondence from Elections Canada that I received on October 15 indicated that they had received my application and that it was missing my proof of identity. I'm positive we had sent copies of our passports, but it was not a big deal to send them again, especially since this time they indicated we could send them by email.

Within a week, they confirmed by email that they had received our passport copies and added us to the international register of electors. Perhaps we really did forget to include our passport copies, and somehow this caused some months of delay. However, even after they confirmed they had all our documents, while I received my confirmation in the mail within two weeks, my spouse only received his hard copy at New Year's, in other words, two months later.

In total, the entire process until we received physical mail from Elections Canada took almost four months for me, and almost six months for my spouse. When I registered in Israel a few years ago, even though I don't have the exact dates, I also recall that the process was not particularly rapid.

Over the last 20 years, the length of all but one election campaign was less than 40 days. Under the new rules proposed by Bill C-50, we would have to register for every election and only after an election is called. Given the length of the process we experienced, these rules would make it impossible for me and my spouse to vote. In light of this, I implore the committee to find some way to modify Bill C-50 to make it more feasible for us Canadians living abroad to exercise our democratic rights.

Here I offer some humble suggestions that would greatly help us.

First, Elections Canada should make it clear on its website and its registration forms that email registrations are possible and encouraged.

Second, it would be of obvious help if Bill C-50 were changed so that registrations can be sent outside of an election period. If for some reason Parliament feels that we need to register for every election, I think we could live with that, but at least give us ample time to do so. For example, a year in advance of an election may be sufficient, although since elections are sometimes called early, it would be better if we could register any time between elections.

Third, if for some reason this is not possible, it would be a huge help if snail mail were completely removed from the process. Currently, snail mail is required twice: once when Elections Canada sends the voting kit to the voter abroad, and again when the voter sends the completed ballot back. Both of these steps could be removed if we could vote at Canadian consulates and embassies, for example. Other countries, such as the United States and many EU countries, have made such arrangements for their citizens abroad. Many of them even allow voting at their consulates all the way up to election day. I'm sure Canada could make similar arrangements in such a way as to eliminate the delay of snail mail, while still confirming voters' identities and ridings, allowing us to cast a ballot.

In summary, the process that my spouse and I recently experienced in order to register to vote was much longer than the normal length of an election period. Thus, Bill C-50, as proposed, would make it impossible for us to vote.

Canada is my only citizenship and the only country I'm allowed to vote in. I implore the committee to ensure that this is not taken away from me.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Alexandrine Latendresse]

We are resuming our 83rd meeting.

Today, we are continuing our consideration of Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act. The four witnesses will have five minutes each to make a presentation. Afterwards, the members of the committee will be able to ask them questions.

By video conference, we will hear from Mr. Pilon and Ms. Woo. I will give them the floor first, just in case we experience any technical difficulties. We will then go to Mr. Pal and Mr. Lee.

I now give the floor to Professor Pilon.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Very good, thank you.

In the time I have left I want to come back to Bill C-50. It now says that if you're voting abroad, you can apply to be put on the list to be considered to vote only after the writ is dropped. If you wouldn't mind, it's obvious, but I'd like to hear you say why that is problematic. Second, can you think of anything that is broken that this would fix?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks again, Mr. Kingsley. It's always good to see you and I appreciate your pearls of wisdom. They help us.

One of the concerns that Mr. Mayrand identified, and I'm coming back to something that's already come up, is the issue of changing the language. What we need to understand in this, and I'm not quite sure that it's out there in the public domain in its fulsomeness, is that the changes to what's acceptable voter ID are not just for voters voting abroad. The changes that are being made in Bill C-50 will affect every single polling station in Canada.

That's why Mr. Mayrand said in his analysis of that particular aspect that there “will be no way for deputy returning officers or those receiving applications for special ballots to readily ascertain whether an entity is incorporated in or otherwise formed in Canada”, because that's the new change. “The restriction is likely to cause confusion at the polls on the part of election officers, candidates' representatives and voters.” His recommendation was that the provision be deleted from the bill.

Again I remind all of us that I'm speaking to the change that Bill C-50 causes, which will affect every single voter, every single polling station, and it's this business of a piece of ID. The CEO may authorize only pieces of identification that have been issued by—and this is one of them:

an entity that is incorporated or formed by an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province or that is otherwise formed in Canada.

Nobody yet can tell us what that means. It'll be interesting to see what the minister says when he arrives, but I assume you agree that this doesn't work and that it's problematic.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I know that when you were Chief Electoral Officer, particularly in 2006—and you did mention this in some of your remarks—you spoke quite a bit during that time about non-resident voting limits. I'm sure you're well aware that many other jurisdictions actually do place limits on non-resident voting. There are provinces and territories where most, if not all of them, not only have general residency requirements but also require a minimum period of being an ordinary resident before voting.

I'm just trying to get a better sense here because I think, when you look at Bill C-50, that it's clear that the intent is to fix what we would see as a fundamental unfairness in the system between resident and non-resident voters. I'm trying to get a better sense as to what exactly your issue is here with creating that fairness between resident and non-resident voters.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Monsieur Mayrand was quite laudatory in his comments about that provision contained in Bill C-50. I assume you agree with that and that you think that's a positive move.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Bill C-50 does it by having the Chief Electoral Officer gain access to information with the ministries of Employment and Immigration so that he can access the names of non-citizens.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I appreciate that.

I know that over the past number of elections evidence has come forward that there have actually been non-eligible voters included in the National Register of Electors. I think in the 2006 election evidence came forward that there were over 40,000 people, due to administrative errors, who were actually placed on the National Register of Electors who weren't actually eligible to be on that registry.

What safeguards do you think are required to try to ensure compliance, not just with residents in Canada but more specifically with Bill C-50 with non-residents?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

No comment on age coming from me.

Some of the main criticisms of Bill C-50, at least some of the ones we've heard in committee, have been from those who suggest that the requirements for producing identification for non-residents is too onerous. You mentioned that in your opening remarks, so I'd like to get a bit of an expansion on that. Do you think it is overly taxing on non-residents to have to produce identification that actually proves that they're a citizen of this country? If so, then why would they be treated any differently from Canadians who reside in Canada who have to produce certain forms of identification?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, honourable members, it's a privilege to appear before the committee once again. Thank you.

I believe that I understand the objectives set out in the bill, in light of the court's decision in Frank. I have read the presentation of the Chief Electoral Officer and reviewed members' input, all of which I appreciate.

Consequently, I would like to propose alternatives aimed at achieving the same ends as the bill, all the while unburdening the process in light of the right of Canadians to vote.

The first one would be that a further advantage of the fixed election date would allow the start of the registration process 30 days before the issuance of the writs, therefore allowing reasonable time to process the required documentation and to overcome difficulties, if there are any. In the case of a minority government, the Chief Electoral Officer could initiate the process, and if no election is called within three or four months, let's say, it would have to start again. Registrants would be advised that this had happened.

Second, under Bill C-50, the passport would now be required, as has been the practice until now. That's how people got on the list, essentially. It will serve automatically as proof of ID, as it has your picture and your name. For proof of a last address in Canada, should it coincide with the data in the register of electors, no other proof would have to be required.

Driver's licence data, I remind you, is provided every two or three months for updates to the register, thus making it essentially the same information, and we're asking people to provide proof of a driver's licence amongst one of the documents. If you're already on the register at the address that you're claiming to be your last address, that would be it. If the address differs, the alternatives in the bill will then prevail. You must provide proof of address, as the bill requires. I noted that the register will be purged of non-Canadians, and I think this helps the acceptance of the measure that I've just mentioned.

With respect to the third proposal, the list of those electors would be kept for the subsequent election and not incorporated in the register. Canadians still living abroad would need to reapply, which is what the bill asks for, and would be verified against this list. It would be used by the CEO for registry quality control purposes as well, something that we all aspire to.

I wanted to make a comment as well with respect to military personnel. It's important to remember that they may change their address in Canada annually. That's their right. Spouses and elector dependants do not have that right. Military personnel will receive their voting package automatically. Spouses and dependants will not. They have to reapply one way or the other.

There's a fifth point that I wish to make with respect to proofs of ID and address. A further measure would be to recognize the VIC as proof of address. Another proof of ID would still be required.

I will add as well, as a personal comment, that it is completely incongruent to me that the Canada Elections Act, which is a federal statute, does not recognize the VIC as proof of both when it is the only federally issued document that contains both. A federal law says that you must have these two things, but no federal agency except the Chief Electoral Officer has it, and Parliament says to the Chief Electoral Officer, “You can't use that.”

By the way, my comments are for both proofs, but my recommendation is that it be used as proof of address at this stage, in order to make the recommendation somewhat acceptable. Any resulting confusion with the new terminology on acceptable documents—and I saw the debate on this—should in my view result in a provisional ballot, to be resolved before the official results are announced. We have seven days after polling day for official results.

If a deputy returning officer is not satisfied that the proof of ID or address that's been provided to him is acceptable, he could not reject that elector if the elector said, “I want you to provisionally put that aside and check with the Chief Electoral Officer.” There would not be that many, and therefore, they could be easily controlled after the event.

That also raises, though, the interesting phenomenon of electors not having sufficient ID and proof of address, if we introduce the concept of provisional ballots; and that is that they could vote provisionally, go home and bring the proof that is missing, not having understood what was required when they went to the polls initially and therefore adding to the substitute for vouching, which was introduced in Bill C-23, I think.

Mr. Chairman, those are the comments I had to make with respect to what I considered to be concrete proposals on how to build upon the objectives of the proposed statute and at the same time facilitate this for Canadian electors, and not change the basic tenet, which is that electors living abroad must exercise initiative to get on the list to be approved for that election, and they then must vote. All of that requires initiative beyond what is required here.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We will proceed. We're here at our 82nd meeting of the procedure and House affairs committee, pursuant to an order of reference of Monday, May 4, on Bill C-50. We have with us today—I won't say an “old” friend—a long-time friend.

Mr. Kingsley, it's great to have you back. We've always enjoyed it when you've visited our committee, and we think we'll enjoy it today.

If you have an opening statement, please go ahead. I know the members will be happy to ask you some very hard questions.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Yes, this is back more on the main estimates than Bill C-50. I forgot to ask it originally, so my apologies for that.

I just received information that I need some clarification on from you. It's in regard to what's considered to be pre-writ expenses for an EDA, and it's in regard to polling. If an EDA conducted a poll that was requested by the EDA and not promoted whatsoever by the candidate, and that poll was on a number of questions, on policy questions and other questions, including the horse-race question—electoral preference—I know that in previous years if it was conducted outside of the election period it wasn't considered a campaign expense. My understanding is that now it might be considered a campaign expense. Can you clarify that for me?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thanks.

I'll be very brief. I just want to respond to Mr. Christopherson's earlier comments. I don't know if he said that he didn't want to impugn the motives of the government or would certainly almost retract his statements if he had impugned the motives of the government on some of these key questions. Unfortunately, of course, the minister has not yet appeared before committee to answer the questions that the opposition may have, and frankly, some of our questions as well, but I know he will be coming. I believe he's scheduled for the 28th. Frankly, I wish he could come a bit before then, but unfortunately his schedule doesn't permit.

I can assure you from the government's standpoint that there's no ulterior motive here to deny people the right to vote. That is simply not the intention nor the objective of this bill. If there are problems or perceived problems as identified by members of the opposition, the person to speak with obviously would be the minister. But for the record, I want to point out that all we are attempting to do in Bill C-50 is to ensure the propriety, the accuracy, and the legitimacy of the vote. If that is not understood by the opposition, I'm here to enforce that.

Thank you, Chair.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's problematic for a whole bunch of reasons on your end in terms of time, resources, and the ability to get people in a position such that they can vote. But it also makes it more difficult for people to vote, which takes us right back to some of the problems we had with Bill C-23.

So I want to say to the government right now that on these two issues, unless they have a good explanation of why they're here—I'm going to raise the other issue about voter ID—both of these things look just like the problems we had with Bill C-23. The government is doing whatever they can to put in bureaucratic hoops that make it more difficult for people to vote by virtue of the steps that are involved, so that eventually they'll just say, “Aw, to heck with it.” That's what this looks like.

If we're wrong and I'm impugning the motives of our government, then I'm quite ready to hear quickly from Mr. Lukiwski that this is wrong and that is not the case, but so far it's looking like that to us.

Now, on the other one, voter ID, this was an even bigger issue in Bill C-23. We went through this whole thing. This whole issue of voter ID was part of why we had filibusters. Now it looks as if the government's trying to bring in through the back door with Bill C-50 what they couldn't achieve through the front door in Bill C-23.

My understanding is that the language is pretty clear, and you're very clear in your language, sir, and as an agent of Parliament, you folks are always very careful about words you use. You state in your analysis sheet that:

There will be no way for deputy returning officers or those receiving applications for special ballots to readily ascertain whether an entity is incorporated in or otherwise formed in Canada. The restriction is likely to cause confusion at the polls on the part of election officers, candidates' representatives and voters.

This sounds like the makings of a huge problem. I'm trying to understand—and my sense is that you are too—what it means when the law is now going to say “an entity that is incorporated or formed by...an Act of Parliament” or a provincial legislature “or that is otherwise formed in Canada”. That doesn't make any sense to me. What I'm hearing from you, sir, is that you're not clear on what that means either, or am I missing the point?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

Thank you again, Monsieur, for attending. It's always enlightening to have you here.

I'm somewhat jarred by this one issue, and oftentimes there's maybe a part of it I'm not getting.

First of all, there's the elimination of the International Register of Electors. Bill C-50 would get rid of it. Are you aware of problems? Is it broken and obviously in need of repair?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

The minister has said that Bill C-50 simply extends the rules in Bill C-23 on what the forms of ID are, and that's actually completely erroneous, because the new proposed subsection 143(2.11) is a new restriction on what you, as the Chief Electoral Officer, are allowed to delegate as ID across the board. Is that correct?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Okay. Did you want to add to that? No?

I have a final question on the coming into force. We're not far away from October 19. In light of the changes made by Bill C-23 that have to go through, and now this, Bill C-50, time is really tight. Is it possible to enact all this?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Okay.

One of the issues the minister brings up quite a bit is this idea of “riding shopping”, or being able to vote indiscriminately in any riding they choose, as one of the reasons why Bill C-50 exists. Did you see that as a major problem?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

So experience suggests that waiting to register until the election has been called already increases the chances that a ballot won't come in, and that's even before all these additional procedural components in Bill C-50. I think you would agree—and I think you've already said—that the dangers of delay created by having to wait are real. Is that correct?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Great, and that's something in this bill that we support as a reform. I wanted to make sure it was clear because it's being put out there almost as a way to send a subliminal signal to people about why there's a need for the rest of the bill, which has nothing to do with that issue.

Last, apart from having signalled some time ago in your own report at one stage that this would be a desirable reform—and therefore we have to be thankful the minister has now done it in this bill—were you consulted on Bill C-50?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you again, Mr. Mayrand, for being here.

I have three very quick questions to start with, before some of the more complex ones.

First of all, the Frank judgment struck down provision 11(d) in the Canada Elections Act, which said that if you've been outside the country and don't intend to return for more than five years, you can't vote, even if you're a Canadian. But when the government introduced Bill C-50, it presented Bill C-50 in an almost polemical way as being necessary to implement the Frank judgment.

Is Bill C-50 necessary for that purpose? The reason I ask is that my colleague from Halifax had Bill C-575 that would remove section 11(d) from the Canada Elections Act. She felt that was all you need to do to conform with the Frank judgment. Is Bill C-50 implementing the Frank judgment?

[Marc Mayrand]

Thank you, Mr Chair.

BillC-50 introduces a number of changes to the Canada Elections Act that relate primarily to the process of voting from abroad but that also touch upon various other aspects of our regime. I will keep my remarks relatively brief and, as always, will be happy to answer any questions that may assist the committee in its study of this bill.

The first change I wish to underline is the provision that would allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide information on non-citizens. This is an important proposal. It would improve the quality of the register of electors by preventing the inclusion of non-citizens and by allowing me to remove those who may have already been included.

Over the last few years, my office has had discussions with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, as well as the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, about accessing the department's information on non-citizens in Canada. Unfortunately, in the absence of explicit statutory authority, privacy laws prevent Citizenship and Immigration from sharing this information with us. The amendment proposed in this bill would remove that obstacle.

With access to information on non-citizens, Elections Canada could first match it against persons in the register of electors and contact them to clarify their status. If they are not citizens, they would be removed from the register. Second, we would ensure that on a going forward basis, when individuals wish to be included in the register, they would be checked against information on non-citizens.

The second and perhaps most significant change proposed by Bill C-50 is the elimination of the International Register of Electors. All electors abroad who wish to vote by special ballot, other than military electors, will now be required to make an application after the writs are issued. They would have to provide proof of citizenship, in addition to proving their identity and residence. If they no longer reside in Canada, they would have to prove what was their last place of ordinary residence here in this country.

It is clear that these new rules will make it harder for electors abroad to vote. The requirement to prove citizenship confirms a pre-existing administrative practice for electors who reside abroad.

It would now also apply to people temporarily away, such as snowbirds. These people normally have a passport, and this aspect of the proposed regime is not a concern.

Proving their last place of ordinary residence in Canada, however, is likely to be much more problematic. This is especially true for those who have been away for a number of years and who will not likely have kept any acceptable ID with their former address. Given that their former address will not change until they resume residence in Canada, it is unclear why it must be proven for each election that occurs while an elector is abroad.

Although the bill allows for the attestation of residence by another elector when no documentary proof is available, this procedure is burdensome. It requires attesting electors to provide documentary proof of their place of residence in the same electoral district. It also requires electors and attestors to each take oaths or make statutory declarations administered by a qualified third party. This administrative burden may well be a barrier for some electors.

Another concern for electors abroad, and probably the most significant one, is timing. Currently, once electors residing abroad have established entitlement to be included in the international register, they will automatically be mailed a voting kit after the writs are issued. In this regard, the international register was designed to reduce the number of situations in which an elector is unable to return a completed ballot in time for the election day.

Under Bill C-50, electors would now have to make an application after the issue of the writs and send it to Elections Canada from whatever part of the globe they find themselves in. The application will have to be processed, a voting kit mailed out, and their completed ballot returned by 6 p.m. on election day. While we would strive to reduce the delays as much as possible, the challenge for electors abroad would be unavoidably increased.

Both of these concerns—that is, the problem with having to repeatedly prove a former residence and the difficulty for electors to return their ballot in time—result from the abolition of the International Register of Electors. I see no reason why the International Register of Electors should be abolished or how maintaining the register isn't compatible with the objectives of the bill.

As a third significant change, Bill C-50 proposes to harmonize the voter identification rules by extending to those who vote by mail the rules applicable to those who vote in person.

My concern is not so much with harmonization, which I support, as it is with a new requirement under Bill C-50 that would apply to voter identification, whether in person or by mail. This is the requirement that documents authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer be only documents issued by an entity that is—and I quote—“incorporated or formed by or under an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province or that is otherwise formed in Canada”.

First, it's not clear from a legal point of view what this actually means. Certainly, it is broader than simply entities incorporated under Canadian law, but what exactly is meant by “otherwise formed in Canada”? Does it include entities incorporated abroad but registered in Canada? What else does it include?

I cannot see how election officials, especially deputy returning officers at ordinary polls, will be able to decide whether a particular bank or credit institution, such as Amex or Visa, was incorporated or formed in Canada. This is equally true of a telephone service provider, such as Virgin or Koodoo, or any insurance company, especially when they operate both in Canada and abroad. It is not realistic to expect that election officers will be able to make these determinations or that candidates' representatives will have a clear understanding of what is acceptable ID and what is not. It is also difficult to see how this requirement can be easily communicated or understood by Canadian voters who want to make sure they have the right pieces of ID.

In the absence of clarity, the proposed rules will lead to confusion, inconsistent application, and, quite possibly, controversy at the polls. This begs the question of whether such a new restriction on acceptable pieces of ID is necessary. Documents, including utility bills and bank statements that include an elector's residential address in Canada, will most likely be issued by entities that operate in and have a connection with Canada. But in the event they do not, it is not clear how a communication from a bank or a university abroad is any less trustworthy as a proof of identity and address than a communication from a Canadian university or bank.

I strongly encourage the committee to examine this aspect closely, keeping in mind the fact that election officers will be required to administer these complex requirements. My view is that such a restriction is unnecessary and would not improve the integrity of our system, and that it should therefore be deleted from the bill.

The fourth point I would make relates to a number of more minor, but nevertheless significant, technical and operational concerns I have with the bill as currently drafted. I have brought a table that identifies these concerns and, to the extent possible, proposes solutions. In many, if not all, cases, you will see these are merely drafting adjustments to make sure the bill achieves its intended purpose.

While I do not think it is necessary for me to go through the table with you today, the proposed changes are nevertheless important. For example, with respect to expanding the mandatory procedural audit to include the administration of the special voting rules, the proposed wording may inadvertently prevent auditors from having access to election documents that are critical to the audit of the regular polls. I do not think this is the intent.

Finally, I wish to speak to the implementation of Bill C-50 and the proposed period of 60 days for its coming into force. This is an exceptionally short period for implementing changes to the electoral process.

With respect to receiving information to remove non-citizens from the register of electors, this will take some time to implement. We will need, first, to put in place an information-sharing agreement with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Once this is in place, we will be able to receive and process the data on non-citizens in order to match it with the register. Finally, we will need to write to those in the register who are identified as possible non-citizens and ask them to confirm their status. This is clearly not something that can be done in 60 days.

With respect to implementing the proposed changes to the special voting rules and to the voter identification rules at the polls, this is possible, but not without important challenges and some risks. As you are aware, we have been busy implementing the changes introduced by Bill C-23 and getting ready for a general election.

The further amendments proposed by Bill C-50 would require changes not only to manuals, but also to instructions, forms and public information material for both the special voting process and the regular vote. With respect to the special voting rules, we will also need to develop workarounds for our IT systems, which cannot be redesigned immediately. While we will spare no effort, it can be expected that there will be some confusion, as well as procedural errors.

I will conclude by reiterating that there are aspects of Bill C-50 that I welcome, in particular the new provision allowing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide information on non-citizens to Elections Canada. I also support the requirement to prove citizenship when applying to vote from abroad. I am, however, concerned with the fact that the bill will make it more difficult for electors abroad to vote, and I expect that many will not be able to do so under the new rules. I am also very concerned with the new requirement that pieces of ID be issued by entities incorporated or “formed in Canada”—a criterion that is unclear and that cannot be administered by election officers. I urge the committee to consider this aspect of the bill, and also to consider other changes set out in the table I submitted that are in line with the bill's objectives.

Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to answer any questions from the committee members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Great. Thank you.

Monsieur Mayrand, I understand you have an opening statement under Bill C-50. We'll start there and then ask questions in the same order.

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

My next question is about Bill C-50, and we will likely have the time to discuss it in detail later on.

We briefly talked about issues this bill could bring up if it came into effect before the October 19 election.

Do you think that could in fact be a problem?

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

We will discuss this later, but Bill C-50 will focus on voters outside the country. However, I imagine that reaching those people without being able to use their email address is quite a challenge.

The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Citizen Voting Act

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. He eloquently presented our position on Bill C-50 and the reasons why we are opposed to An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

This bill basically deals with the right to vote of Canadians living abroad. This bill is very important because it directly affects one out of three Canadians. Unfortunately, I see that we are debating this bill under a time allocation motion. In fact, it is the 95th time allocation motion that the Conservative government has imposed on the House since 2011. Despite the fact that we have raised a number of concerns with this bill, the government does not want to have this serious debate in the House, which I find disappointing.

I am also disappointed by this government's approach in terms of the bills it has introduced in the House concerning Canadians' right to vote. A few years ago, it introduced Bill C-23, and I was able to voice my concerns about it in the House. It restricted the right to vote of many Canadians, especially marginalized Canadians. In fact, the bill actually prevented them from voting. Bill C-23 primarily prevents young people from voting, as it does aboriginal people and vulnerable citizens, such as the homeless. Basically, the voter card will no longer be accepted as a form of identification when people go to their polling station to vote in an election. With this bill, 120,000 Canadians who had to have someone vouch for them during the last federal election may not be able to vote in the next election. Bill C-23 is extremely problematic.

However, today, we are debating Bill C-50, which could prevent another cohort of Canadians from voting. I am talking about the 1.4 million Canadians who live abroad. We know that there are many reasons why Canadians choose to live abroad. Some of them are going to school, while others are working and are very mobile. I am the NDP deputy science and technology critic. I therefore talk with many scientists who find very interesting jobs or contracts that require them to live abroad for several years. I am also thinking of some of my constituents who often travel to the United States, including retirees who choose to spend their final years there. They are still very attached to Canada and they feel as though they are 100% Canadian. They would like to have the right to vote in Canada's general elections.

I would like to give a little bit of background to explain why this bill was introduced in the House and why it is so necessary. The bill is before the House because of an Ontario Superior Court decision. That court ruled that paragraph 11(d) of the Canada Elections Act, which prevents Canadian citizens who have been living abroad for more than five years from voting, is unconstitutional. We therefore have a problem. The court forced this government to take action. The decision was rendered in the case of Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada. It is a case that will be quoted often in this debate.

At first glance, the bill seems to harmonize the legislation with the court's decision. However, we need to be careful. We on this side of the House did our homework, and we found that that is not the case.

In fact, the bill does not bring the act in line with the Ontario Superior Court ruling. Bill C-50 does not repeal subsection 11(a) of the Canada Elections Act, and the government has still not withdrawn its appeal of the Frank ruling.

The government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It talks about this ruling and claims to want to find a solution to the problem, but it has introduced a bill that is not consistent with the Ontario Superior Court ruling. In fact, it has introduced a bill that will cause even more problems for Canadians living abroad.

Bill C-50 will make it more difficult for all citizens living abroad to vote, whether they have been abroad for more than five years or for less. Furthermore, the bill provides for new prohibitions on the types of identification that the Chief Electoral Officer will accept from any citizen living in Canada or abroad, which could seriously compromise the votes of many Canadians come election day.

Before going into detail about the problems with this bill, I would like to talk briefly about Bill C-575, which was introduced by my colleague from Halifax. The bill is clear and unequivocal. It is the NDP's response to the decision in Frank et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada.

This bill, which was introduced in good faith, gives all Canadians living abroad the right to vote. I would like to know why my Conservative colleagues did not simply accept and adopt the bill introduced by my colleague from Halifax, which is in line with the court's ruling.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives' bill ties Elections Canada's hands and makes voter identification requirements so complicated that Canadian citizens living abroad will have a much harder time voting. They are doing this for no reason at all.

I listened to my Conservative colleagues' speeches, but I did not hear one single citation or study showing that the measures in this bill are necessary and valid. Back when the Conservative government was advocating for Bill C-23, it was also unable to quote one expert who thought the measures in the bill were a good idea.

Since I have only a minute left, I would like to go into more detail about the provision that removes the Chief Electoral Officer's discretionary power to determine what forms of identification are acceptable under certain circumstances. For example, under clause 143, the Chief Electoral Officer will no longer be able to accept a foreign driver's licence as a main form of identification or even a secondary form of identification to corroborate a main one. We have to wonder how many Canadians living abroad keep a driver's licence that is no longer valid.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to stand to speak to this very important issue today. What I will do is focus on some important measures and how Canada is, in many ways, similar to other countries.

The relationship works both ways. Canada's electoral process serves as a model for other countries to emulate. Our electoral system is deemed to be one of the best in the world. One of the reasons we have this enviable reputation is that we strive to improve how our elections are administered. We review our electoral procedures and laws. We study the recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer to Parliament and the various studies and reviews of election procedures conducted by parliamentary committees. We listen to our constituents, and of course, we all live through elections.

We learn from these experiences, and we build on them to improve the processes in place, particularly the procedural safeguards against irregularities or impropriety that could call into question the validity of electoral results. If there is room for improvement or we find that existing procedures are deficient, we need to respond with new procedural safeguards. This is the responsible thing to do, and that is precisely what we would do here with the citizen voting act.

Election procedures must include the checks and balances that ensure that elections are conducted fairly and with transparency and accountability to instill confidence in the electoral process. At the same time, any new procedures must be developed with a view to ensuring that voting remains accessible. This legislation would achieve both of these aims. It strikes the right balance between procedural safeguards and the accessibility of the voting process.

When we review how other mature democracies, particularly those in the Westminster tradition, structure their voting rules, it further supports this conclusion. Reviewing procedures from other jurisdictions also enables us to assess how well our own electoral processes measure up internationally.

How does the citizen voting act compare with the way non-resident voting is administered in other jurisdictions?

To start, I will talk a little about the United Kingdom. Non-residents must have previously registered to vote in the 15 years before leaving the U.K. To register to vote, the voter must provide the U.K. with the equivalent of a social insurance number, called a national insurance number, which is matched or cross-referenced against various trusted sources of data. If the voter cannot or does not provide the national insurance number, proof of identity may be requested. Failing these options, the voter must provide an attestation from an eligible registered elector living abroad who is not a spouse, civil partner, or immediate relative. All voters, including non-resident voters, must confirm their election registration details each year.

International voters cannot choose the electoral district for which they cast a ballot. The ballot is cast for the electoral district where the voter actually last cast a ballot.

It is very important to see how similar that is to what we are proposing with respect to the attachment voters would need to have to their place prior to leaving.

Another country we could look at that is very similar is Australia. Its rules for non-resident voters have identification and residence requirements. Non-resident Australians may vote only if they have not lived abroad for more than six years. They must register to vote by providing their driver's licence and passport number. If they cannot provide either of these pieces of identification, a registered voter may attest to their identity.

A non-resident voter may not choose the electoral district in which to cast a ballot. People may only vote in the last electoral district in which they last voted. There is no separate register of international electors, like the measure proposed in the citizen voting act. There is only one register of electors.

New Zealand takes a slightly different approach. It has the most specific jurisdiction requirements. New Zealand voters residing outside the country may vote in national elections provided they have lived in New Zealand for more than one year at some point in their lives, have not been absent from the country longer than three years, and have visited the country in the past 12 months.

New Zealand non-resident voters may not choose the electoral district for which they cast a ballot; they may only vote in the electoral district in which they have resided for one month or more. Finally, non-resident voters do not automatically receive ballots. Like the measure proposed in the citizenship voting act, they must apply for a ballot at each election.

Notably, Ireland does not permit voting by non-residents unless they are officials of the Irish government who are posted abroad, or their spouses.

If we look closer to home, there are further examples of different approaches to non-resident voting. For example, Ontario's rules for non-resident voters incorporate elements from many of the international jurisdictions I have reviewed. Ontario non-resident voters may vote in an election for the provincial legislature if they lived in Ontario for at least 12 consecutive months before leaving the province, have not been absent from Ontario longer than two years, and intend to return to Ontario. Members of the Canadian Forces, federal and provincial government employees, students, and the families of these voters are exempted from these particular time limits.

The rules in Quebec similarly impose requirements on non-resident electors. Non-resident Quebec voters are entitled to vote in elections for the Quebec National Assembly provided that they have resided outside Quebec for no more than two years and that they resided in Quebec for a period of at least 12 consecutive months before their departure. Voters must apply for a mail-in ballot by providing two documents that establish proof of identity, date of birth, and residence in Quebec.

I would like to say a few words about France, which has come up in debate in this House. It is important for members to be aware that France has a different approach than Canada or the other Westminster systems I have mentioned. French citizens residing abroad are entitled to vote either in an extra-territorial overseas constituency, sometimes referred to as a consular constituency, or in a domestic constituency. To vote in an extraterritorial or consular constituency, non-resident voters must register in a separate registry of French citizens living outside France. To do so, they must provide proof of identity, citizenship, and address abroad.

As hon. members are aware, Canada does not have extraterritorial constituencies, although I think many of us could think of some wonderful places we might like to live that would provide that extraterritorial constituency. Our system is based on democratic representation based on territoriality, meaning geographic constituencies in Canada, with each domestic constituency returning a member to represent that community.

In France, non-resident voters may also apply to register on a list of electors in a domestic constituency in France. This requires proof of identity and citizenship by means of a French national identity card, a French passport, or a driver's licence accompanied by proof of citizenship. Registration on this list must be renewed every five years, and no later than three months before the expiry of the registration. Failure to do so results in the voter being taken off the register and potentially the register for consular constituencies.

There are two main lessons we can take from the survey of international practices on non-resident voting.

First, all jurisdictions, importantly, impose procedural safeguards to ensure that the integrity of the process is not compromised, and many go further, with limits on the time a citizen can reside abroad.

Second, and as important, the approaches vary widely, reflecting that each democracy must decide for itself how to structure its rules to instill confidence in its own elections.

There are variations in the nature of the procedural safeguards across jurisdictions, variations in how proof of citizenship and identification are established, and variations in residency requirements to maintain the right to vote.

What Bill C-50 is proposing for Canada is not out of line with the approaches of other jurisdictions. Indeed, what is proposed measures up remarkably well with what other jurisdictions have done to construct procedural safeguards for non-resident voters.

We are also seeking to ensure that safeguards do not act as barriers to voting.

In conclusion, the procedural reforms in the citizen voting act are aimed at improving the integrity and fairness of the special ballot process. By strengthening the procedures required to receive a special ballot, we would strengthen our confidence in the integrity of the ballots. By establishing common application and identification procedures for non-residents and non-resident voters, we would reinforce the fair application of rules for citizens, regardless of where they vote.

These provisions of the citizen voting act would accomplish both of these goals. I certainly encourage all members in this House to support it.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of respect, the member across the aisle mentioned in his speech that it is just common sense that non-resident voters should only be able to apply for a special ballot in relation to their last place of residence. It is not just a question of common sense, given that many countries have decided to have representatives for their diaspora. It is just a legislative decision by Canada. We must not assume that Canada's legislative decisions are more intelligent or more reasoned than those of other countries.

However, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on another point. Bill C-50 will create two categories of citizens: one category of people who live in Canada and do not have to register for every election and another category of second-class citizens who will have to register every time there is an election in order to vote.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question concerns members of the Canadian Armed Forces abroad. I understand that a provision in Bill C-50 exempts serving military members outside of Canada from the extra steps, more the difficulties, in voting from outside of our country, and I appreciate that exemption. That shows respect for the men and women in uniform and it recognizes that this bill would make it harder for Canadians to vote.

What the bill would not do is exempt family members of the military. Often, military members serving abroad have family members and a spouse with them. The spouse is treated differently than the military member while being in the same situation outside of the country and potentially unable to go through the bureaucracy and extra paperwork to vote.

Why are the Conservatives showing such disrespect for the family members of the military in that they exempt military members themselves, but put their spouses through all of the extra hoops that this bill would apply to Canadian citizens voting from abroad?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, picking up where I left off, subsection 143(2.11)(b) provides that the Chief Electoral Officer can only authorize the type of identification that has been issued by an entity that is incorporated or formed in Canada. It applies only to entities and not to physical persons. Therefore, private leases would be acceptable as I.D. to prove a Canadian address, even with an individual landlord who is not a Canadian citizen.

There is a third option available to non-residence electors who cannot prove their last place of residence in Canada with documents. These electors would have the opportunity to provide two pieces of authorized identification confirming their name and an oath or declaration as to residence, together with an attestation by another elector from the same electoral district.

The attestation form would be available online, and the attestor would be able to send the attestation to the non-resident elector with copies of their own identification documents by electronic means.

Additionally, proof of citizenship would have to be provided with the application. This should not pose any problems to non-resident electors who would have a Canadian passport or birth certificate. What is more, Elections Canada already requires proof of citizenship for non-resident voters, so nothing would change in that regard.

In terms of applying for a special ballot, this could all be done in an expeditious fashion. Once the writs are issued, a non-resident elector would download the application form, fill it out, copy the required piece of I.D. and proof of citizenship, print scanned copies of the attestation form, if necessary, and then fax or perhaps email the package to Elections Canada.

In my view, these are not unreasonable steps for someone to take in order to have a ballot for a Canadian election mailed to them outside of the country.

Some might ask how the identification requirements would differ between voting by mail and voting at the polls. The citizen voting act would create one set of voter rights identification requirements for all voters. However, minor changes to the requirements are necessary for the attestation of residents reflecting the different situations that apply to non-resident voters. When attesting to prove the last address of a non-resident elector, the attestor can be any eligible voter from that electoral district, while those attesting in Canada must live in the same polling division as the elector.

In addition, either a note or a declaration of residence would be acceptable as part of the attestation process when voting by special ballot, given that oaths administered out by Canada are only accepted as valid in Canada if administered by someone within a limited class of persons abroad. The prohibition on serial and multiple attestations in the Fair Elections Act would continue to apply to all electors.

Canadians support the identification requirements established in the Fair Elections Act, and it is important that Canadians in fact do support those identification requirements that were established in the Fair Elections Act.

According to an Ipsos Reid poll done in April 2014, and this is important because it is very recent, 87% of those polls said that it was reasonable to require someone to prove their identity and address before they were allowed to vote.

The other part of this whole thing is the issue on how many people it affects outside of the country. I heard people talk about trying to prevent folks from voting. This is nonsense. In the 2011 general election, 10,733 Canadians were registered on the International Register of Electors. Of that 10,733 Canadians, the ballots of 6,069 non-residents were counted. That is about average with the returns in all of Canada.

Upon receiving an application for a special ballot, Elections Canada would review the application form, the pieces of identification submitted, the proof of citizenship, and the attestation of residence, if applicable. Upon approval of the request for a special ballot, Elections Canada would update the national register of electors and the list of electors and mail the special ballot voting kit to the non-resident elector. It all seems pretty simple and straightforward. That is similar to what happens now for resident electors applying for a special ballot, as well as for first-time non-registered residents.

Upon receiving the special ballot, the non-resident elector would mark the ballot and send it back to Elections Canada in Ottawa. To be counted, the ballots must reach Elections Canada by 6 p.m. eastern time on election day. Special ballots may also be submitted to the care of Canadian diplomatic and consular offices.

Looking at these rules, I cannot help but ask where the administrative nightmare lies. Not only are these rules clear and easy to follow, but they would provide more tools to verify the eligibility of voters and to instill greater confidence that the ballots are being counted in the right district as non-resident voters would only be able to apply for a special ballot in relation to their last place of residence. That seems to be common sense, but it seems to be of great difficulty for some members on the opposite side. Just to be clear, non-resident voters would only be able to apply for a special ballot in relation to their last place of residence in Canada. Further, they track, in many respects, the rules already in place.

Under the bill, non-resident electors would now have to apply at each election to obtain the special ballot. Yes, that is a change, but a requirement that currently applies to resident electors who are voting by special ballot. There should be no difference between those living in Canada and those living abroad.

Non-residents would have to provide proof of identity, past residence in Canada and citizenship with their application. Apart from providing proof of past residence in Canada, this is already required when non-resident voters wish to register on the international register of electors.

Another change is the clear identification rules including the attestation procedure. This was adopted in the Fair Elections Act and is available to people if they are not in a position to prove their past residence in Canada. The rest is virtually the same.

Are the detractors of the bill being fair when they talk about chaos or administrative nightmare? As far as I am concerned, the answer is that they are obviously not.

The government has strived to ensure our electoral process is fair. Our electoral law is strong, but that strength must be maintained at all times. Bill C-50 is intended to further reinforce the integrity and fairness of our electoral system. It would do so notably by creating one set of rules for all Canadians voting from outside the country, and by ensuring that non-resident voters prove their identity and past residence when they wish to vote from abroad.

There may be questions, either in the House or by people watching today, regarding how the bill would apply to special forces personnel outside the country. A completely separate set of rules contained in division 2 of part 11 of the Canada Elections Act provides comprehensive procedures for voting by the Canadian Forces members at locations where they are stationed. This reflects the unique circumstances faced by Canadian Forces personnel.

As I have already indicated, I believe that this would bring fairness to it. It would also bring credibility to it, and it would make it fairer to every citizen of the country: those who live and vote in the country and those who are living abroad. It is not a difficult and onerous system, but is something that all Canadians could abide by, and believe in the truth and the honesty of the system.

I hope the members of this House will come to see the merits of this reform.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly my pleasure to address the House of Commons today at second reading of Bill C-50, the citizen voting act.

As was already explained, the bill proposes electoral reforms and aims at strengthening Canada's democracy by doing two things. One, it would reinforce the integrity of the special ballot voting system. Two, it would ensure fairness for resident and non-resident voters alike.

Despite these laudable goals, which should command the consent of the House, we have heard criticism from members of the House directed at the bill. Some have alleged that this reform could create chaos with voting in Canada. Nobody understands why we would create chaos in Canada with this kind of legislation, but the opposition would allege it. One member suggested that the bill created an administrative nightmare for non-resident voters. These allegations are fabrications and certainly, overstatements of the facts.

The proposed electoral reform was carefully developed and its impacts were apprised. In truth, the reforms are more in nature procedural adjustments than a substantive overhaul of the special ballot system.

I would like to use my time today to review the new rules from an operational perspective. By this exercise, I wish to demonstrate that the concerns of certain members of the House should be allayed. I therefore propose to review the steps that non-resident electors would have to follow in order to vote in a general election under the new rules.

As is known by every member in the House, an election begins with the issue of the writs. The Governor in Council issues a proclamation that directs the Chief Electoral Officer to issue a writ to the returning officer for each electoral district, fixes the date of the issue of the writ, and then fixes the date for voting. This date must be at least 36 days after the issuance of the writs.

After the issuance of the writs, non-resident voters need to apply for a special ballot. I wish to point out that this is currently what resident electors must do if they plan not to be in their electoral district on election day, either because they are vacationing abroad or for another reason. There is no administrative nightmare here, I would suggest. I do not see why applying the same requirement to non-resident voters would make it one.

The special ballot application should be available on the website of Elections Canada, at any Canadian embassy, high commission or consulate, or by calling Elections Canada. Non-resident voters would have to include with their application proof of identity and proof of residence. Proof of prior residence in Canada is currently not required for non-resident voters.

I would hope members would agree that it is reasonable to require non-resident electors to prove that they have previously resided in Canada. I think most Canadians would think that just makes eminent sense. Such proof of residence is already required from resident electors. We are only asking for the same for non-resident electors.

Non-resident voters would have various options to prove their identity and last place of residence in Canada. They could provide copies of a single piece of identification issued by a Canadian government or an agency of that government with a photograph, name and address. For example, a driver's licence would be accepted, even if it has expired. A second option is to provide two pieces of identification from the list provided by the Chief Electoral Officer, one with an address and both with a name.

I invite members of the House to view the list of the types of ID that have been authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer. They will see that more than 45 types of identification are currently accepted. Perhaps at this point I might address a specific suggestion from the member for Toronto—Danforth that the proposed paragraph 143(2.11)(b) would exclude private leases—

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Hébert for his comments and his question. He raises a fundamental issue in the debate we are having here today on Bill C-50 as well as the debate we held last year on Bill C-23.

Right now, the biggest threat to our democracy in Canada is low voter turnout. That is our biggest problem and that is what we should be trying to fix, by whatever means necessary. We as politicians should be joining forces to try to address the problem of voter apathy and low voter turnout. It is a truly serious problem.

However, the Conservatives have become paranoid about massive electoral fraud by people who use vouching, although that is not at all the reality. There is no evidence whatsoever; nothing like that has ever been documented.

Faced with the immense problem of very low voter turnout, the Conservatives simply shrug their shoulders. They are not worried about it because, ultimately, they know that with fewer people voting, they can hold on to their little powers and their small majority, given to them by a minority of Canadians.

The only thing that matters to them is being able to hold on to power and control. They really do not care whether democracy is advanced in any way.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is actually a major problem because basically, access to different information or resources is not the same around the world, and as my colleague mentioned, that is especially true in China.

If someone happens to be in an area where access is extremely difficult and where very few electronic resources or even telephones are available, how can that person have all the information required in time to be able to vote in an election, given that an election campaign lasts no more than four or five weeks?

How can we reach the millions of Canadians living abroad if we do that just in the period mentioned in Bill C-50?

I believe that is completely unrealistic.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to say that I find it very unfortunate that this is the 95th time the Conservatives have imposed a time allocation motion. I think it is positively shameful that in our democracy, in 2015, the Conservatives will not let us have an honest discussion in the House of Commons on something like closure motions and time allocation motions.

Many of the solutions proposed could help us create a more vibrant democracy. The Conservatives have always rejected the solution proposed by the NDP to have limits on when time allocation motions can be used. I find that unfortunate. Ironically, when the Liberals imposed too many time allocation motions, the Conservatives were the first to denounce it, saying how wrong it was and how limiting debate was an affront to democracy.

Now the Conservatives have set a new record. I think there is an explanation for this. The Conservatives have realized that this is no longer making headlines. Early on, when they began moving closure and time allocation motions, that got a reaction out of people. People wondered why the Conservatives were doing that, and they were not happy about it. Now, 95 time allocation motions later, people are sick of it. There is a certain point where people stop talking about it, because it becomes redundant and there is nothing more to say on the matter. Saying that the Conservatives are attacking our democracy elicits responses like “Yes, but that is the way it is and the way it has always been”. This is nothing new, and people eventually ignore the situation. However, the reality is that we are once again faced with closure on debate. I truly believe that the Conservatives must have some sort of goal to move 100 time allocation motions before the end of the 41st Parliament. It is really unfortunate, but that is just the way it is.

Today I will be sharing my thoughts on Bill C-50. It is yet another bill to amend the Canada Elections Act. This time the amendment has to do with voting from abroad.

Bill C-50 is the solution the Conservative government is proposing in response to the legal problem caused by the Ontario Superior Court ruling in Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada.

I would like to take a bit of time to go over the events that brought us here in order to help those watching at home who may not have all the facts they need to properly understand our discussion today.

Summing things up like that will make it easier for me to explain why I refuse to support this bill. At the same time, I will have the opportunity to share with my hon. colleagues a few suggestions for improving this bill.

First, as I was saying, the impetus for introducing this bill last December was the decision by Justice Michael Penny of the Ontario Superior Court to nullify a part of the Canada Elections Act, specifically paragraph 11(d) regarding certain restrictions on voting applicable to Canadians living abroad.

Up until that verdict was handed down a year ago tomorrow, Canadian citizens living abroad for more than five years would lose their right to vote. Justice Penny held that this loss of the right to vote violated a constitutional right guaranteed by section 3 of the charter, which states that “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.”

This prescribed time limit was contrary to the spirit of the charter because it could not be justified under section 1, which guarantees the right to vote in a free and democratic society. Justice Penny further held that voting is an inalienable right under the charter. That is what is at the heart of the discussion we are having today, and it is this key point that informs my entire understanding of the problem.

We must say it over and over again: every Canadian citizen has the sovereign right to cast a ballot during an election. It is simple. However, this statement has two logical consequences. First, anyone who would attempt to hinder or prevent a Canadian citizen from voting is guilty of very serious wrongdoing. Furthermore, and this is the impetus for the bill, as a moral entity, Canada must do everything in its power to ensure that its citizens can exercise their right to vote during an election. In other words, the state administration must adjust to its citizens and not the opposite. Best efforts must be made to facilitate, encourage and honour the citizens' democratic exercise.

This view of the right to vote that I just explained will be upheld by all the courts in the land, no matter what happens.

I do not believe that I am mistaken when I say that, in addition to the courts, the people themselves will confirm this interpretation of our constitutional rights and defend it. It would seem that the only person who has not understood this is the Minister for Democratic Reform. However, I am not here to argue with and insult the government. I would like all of us to work together to find a solution to this problem.

A consideration related to what I said earlier should be addressed here. We agree that the right to vote is an inalienable constitutional guarantee. The right to vote is also a civil responsibility. A citizen has the right and the duty to vote. However, he or she does not have an obligation to vote. Refusing to exercise one's democratic right is, in my humble opinion, also guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because abstaining from voting or spoiling one's vote constitutes a valid democratic gesture. A vote does not have any qualitative aspect. A spoiled ballot is still a ballot. I am dwelling on these details, these facts, because I want to be clear and I want to properly identify the essential nature of the right to vote. I would like my colleagues to correct me if they believe that my definitions are incorrect.

I would like to come back to the judge's verdict. This Superior Court decision took effect immediately and struck down the five-year limit set out in paragraph 11(d). After all—and I am asking those who are listening this question—why five years? What was the rationale for that timeframe? Why not 6, 10 or 20 years? I am sure that some thought went into that decision when the Canada Elections Act was reviewed in the 1990s, but this number still seems rather random to me. I am not sure when this provision was added to the Canada Elections Act, but perhaps migration was less common or more permanent at that time. When a person left for more than five years, it was only logical to assume that they were never coming back. After all, international travel was not always as easy and common as it is now.

I think that this is one of the shortcomings of the decision to quantify the loss of the right to vote at five years, a flaw that remains in the bill despite the fact that the bill is supposed to fix it. Everything I am about to say now should be taken with a grain of salt. I am going to try to describe the perception that Canadians have of themselves when they take shortcuts. In their minds, Canadians are not the sort of people who tend to emigrate. People leave for a year or two, but then they come back. They may go to the United States or Great Britain to go to school, or they may move for a diplomatic post or because they are in the military and they are stationed abroad. Otherwise, being an expat is not very serious and is more an act of social rebellion than anything else. That is basically the stereotype we have about ourselves. However, it is quite close to the reality of many Canadians. Some Canadians do a lot of travelling. Many of them have dual citizenship and share their time between two countries. These people follow Canadian politics, talk about Canada in their second country and keep up with current events in Canada. These people are full citizens and they have the same constitutional guarantee to the right to vote as every other Canadian.

This was confirmed by Justice Penny in his ruling. If a rose is a rose is a rose, then a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. No matter where a Canadian may be—even on Mars—they have a right to vote. The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer quickly responded to this Ontario Superior Court ruling, and it announced that it would no longer apply the parts of the Canada Elections Act that had been invalidated. In theory, the right to vote was thus expanded to a pool of about 1.5 million newly enfranchised voters. This was a historic decision. An entire group of people had once again been vested with the most fundamental right in our Constitution. It was anachronistic, but still exciting. Just last week we celebrated the anniversary of women obtaining the right to vote in Quebec. Need I remind members that aboriginal people just obtained the right to vote in their own country in 1960?

The five-year period set out in the Canada Elections Act was a remnant of an bygone era, and this ruling appears to have completely eliminated this exclusion.

Although this speech will soon take a more negative tone, I am very happy that the last restriction on enfranchisement in Canada has been eliminated.

With respect to selective inclusion, I would like to share a quote from David Smith of the University of Saskatchewan:

Voting is the hallmark of citizenship, both symbolically and practically....

....at different times, the House of Commons admitted and the House of Commons excluded, but in each instance, the House of Commons defined Canada.

The value of the right to vote as a guarantee of the legitimacy of this House demands absolute respect on our part.

However, this decision creates a big problem. These 1.5 million citizens who will now be able to exercise their right to vote will be added to the approximately 2.8 million other expats who were already eligible to vote.

Electoral logistics need to be properly set up so that these millions of people can vote. After all, as I said, the state is responsible for facilitating the process and collecting ballots everywhere in Canada.

This is where things get a little less fun because we are getting right into the frustrating world of political calculation.

Let us start with the good ideas and the brilliant initiatives. In February, my colleague from Halifax introduced Bill C-575, which presaged Justice Penny's decision and attempted to ensure that absolutely all Canadian citizens residing abroad would have the right to vote.

The thinking behind Bill C-575 is self-evident. In the interconnected and instantaneous world of globalization, it a good thing for Canadians to live and work around the world. The House must take immediate action to confirm these citizens' right to vote.

I would imagine that everyone agrees with the member for Halifax's ideas on this, but of course, such a historic and generous initiative from the opposition could not be tolerated, much less endorsed, by the government. The Conservatives would rather die than take the lead and accept a perfectly acceptable opposition proposal.

Hubert Aquin wrote:

Political partisanship is a means of action, not a mode of thinking.

A year and a half later, the Conservatives are finally taking action. Bill C-50 is the Conservative proposal for dealing with the consequences of Justice Penny's ruling.

However, the minister's response goes much further. In response to a clear legal decision regarding an even clearer problem, we have a vague proposal that is like a reflection dimly seen in a mirror, as St. Paul put it.

When you take a closer look at the proposals in Bill C-50, it becomes very clear very quickly that this bill is not about empowering citizens.

This bill accepts the basic premise that Canadians abroad have the right to vote, but it does so in a backwards way. Expanding the constitutional right that is the very essence of the bill and should be showcased does not actually appear in the bill and can only be read between the lines. It is an odd masterpiece of inversion, like a photographic negative.

In his speech introducing the bill, the minister showed no signs of excitement. This bill is not about the right to vote, nor is it about righting a historical wrong, far from it. Rather, it is about tyring to combat electoral fraud.

The minister said, and I quote:

The citizen voting act has three principal objectives: the first is to help prevent non-citizens from voting in federal elections; the second is to require voters living abroad to provide proof of identity, past residence, and citizenship; the third is to create one set of rules for all Canadians voting from outside the country.

The main focus of the bill is the fear of these so-called collateral misdeeds, which are presented as going hand in hand with the privilege that the government is taking such great risk to provide to Canadians living abroad.

From the outset, the government makes it clear that there is the risk of serious abuses, which are listed and may be impossible to prevent. The government's message is that it is full of goodwill, but the electorate abroad is asking for the impossible and, accordingly, the privilege to vote will come with very strict measures.

It is as though the government were saying that it was giving us the right, but in order to exercise that right, we would have to jump backwards through rings of fire in a hoop skirt. We might go so far as to say that the government is completely disregarding Justice Penny's ruling and not really giving Canadians who live abroad for more than five years the right to vote.

The government did not welcome the decision with great enthusiasm and appealed the Frank ruling. Let us not forget that it also tried to impose a moratorium on the coming into force of the ruling. Clearly, the Conservatives were hoping the problem would go away.

Nonetheless, as I said earlier, no court in this country can justify restricting a Canadian citizen's right to vote. This is the new reality, and we must implement the necessary means to ensure that everything works as it should.

In my naivety, I thought this democratic progress would be heralded for what it says about the maturity of our country. However, I again forgot that I was living in one reality whereas the Conservatives were living in a world of Stalinist paranoia where having a passport is a betrayal.

Under the guise of harmonizing the procedure—creating one set of rules, according to the minister—the Conservatives are turning what they consider to be a reversal of legal fortune into a win. Not only are they not really giving the right to vote to Canadian citizens who live abroad for more than five years, but they are also taking it away from the other 2.8 million Canadians, with a few exceptions, such as people in diplomatic postings and members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

As my colleague from Toronto—Danforth wrote in an article published in the National Post on February 3:

In fact, Bill C-50 uses the court’s rights-expanding ruling as an excuse to actually undermine the voting rights of all Canadians abroad, regardless of how long they have resided outside of Canada. It does this by generating delays that could easily prevent voting in time for election day and that creates disincentives for voting by making it unreasonably difficult.

This is what Bill C-50 is proposing to do: Canadian citizens living abroad who want to exercise their right to vote during an election will have to prove two things. First, they will have to provide proof of citizenship, which goes without saying. Second, they will have to provide proof of address for the place where they last resided before leaving Canada.

To better understand all that, we can propose a hypothetical scenario. Suppose that in 2011, I decided not to stand as a candidate in the federal election, and I decided instead to live happily somewhere abroad. Had I done that, I would have remained the same citizen I was, with less contact with the political world than I have now, a normal citizen with concerns other than the legislative changes debated in the House of Commons. Furthermore, being abroad, I would work regularly to maintain my ties to Canada. I would make an effort to consult the Canadian media and keep abreast of what is happening.

Say I want to vote in the October 2015 election. I am sure that, if I have to go through a whole process to be able to vote, it is better to get started earlier rather than later, so I go online to see what that process involves. If I search for “voting from abroad, Canada”, the first hit takes me to a Government of Canada website. On that website, it says:

If you live abroad, you may apply to be added to the International Register of Electors and vote by special mail-in ballot in future federal elections at any time.

That is no longer true because of Bill C-50. It goes on to say:

To apply, complete an Application for registration and special ballot for Canadian citizens residing outside Canada, available online through Elections Canada, in person at any Canadian government office abroad, or by calling Elections Canada...

Send your completed application and copies of your supporting documents to Elections Canada in Ottawa. Once your completed application has been approved, your name will be added to the International Register of Electors. When a federal election, by-election or referendum is called, Elections Canada mails a special ballot voting kit to all eligible electors whose names appear in the International Register.

In order to remove inaccurate information from the register—according to the government, there are 40,000 non-Canadians on the list—voters who are living abroad are going to be asked to reconfirm their place of residence.

Canadians living abroad generally believe that they will be able to just pick a riding in which to vote, but in reality that is not how it works. Canadians who are living abroad and who have not lived in Canada for a number of years sometimes have difficulty obtaining tangible evidence that they lived at their last place of residence before moving abroad.

Seeing this measure in the bill gives me a feeling of déjà vu and reminds me of the discussions that we had about Bill C-23 last year. It is very simple. Under the guise of improving the accuracy of voter identification and combatting election fraud, the Conservatives are actually making the rules as complicated and as difficult to follow as possible. In a way, they are doing as much as they possibly can to interfere with Canadians' right to vote. As I said, it gives me a feeling of déjà vu and reminds me of Bill C-23.

I do not need to remind the House about all the bad provisions that were passed by the Conservative government in its reform of the Canada Elections Act in Bill C-23. There were so many measures aimed at simply lowering voter turnout, such as no longer allowing the voter information card or vouching as a means of identification, that we can no longer trust this government when it tells us that it is doing good things or that it wants to help Canadians; we know that the underlying philosophy of undermining Canadians' right to vote as much as possible is always there.

That is why I obviously cannot support Bill C-50. We will make a number of suggestions to amend and improve this bill. With Bill C-23, we barely had enough time to debate half of the amendments proposed by the NDP.

I hope that this time we will be allowed to carefully study this bill for real in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that the government will be open to improving it as much as possible.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that we have integrity within our democratic system. During an election, we must ensure that people are rightfully and dutifully casting a ballot, and that they have the integrity to cast that ballot in a fair and democratic manner. That means that Canadians in Canada who come to vote must be able to prove their residence and identity. That is the very fabric of a democratic system. Literally millions of Canadians have voted in subsequent elections, both provincially and federally, and have produced the appropriate ID to do so.

We continue to expand the list of authorized identification so that seniors, young people, middle-income Canadians, low-income Canadians, and Canadians from all walks of life, are able to cast their ballot. To do so, they must be able to demonstrate that they are rightfully on the voters list and live in the electoral district where they are casting their ballot. That is the integrity of the system.

A number of lists and the flexibility have been provided by the Fair Elections Act, and now, through Bill C-50, we will ensure we have an equal and level playing field for Canadians voting in Canada and Canadians voting abroad. We must ensure that there is integrity in both systems, domestically and internationally.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on the second reading of Bill C-50, the citizen voting act.

Bill C-50 proposes important reforms to Canada's election act. These reforms would reinforce the integrity of a special ballot voting system while at the same time showing fairness for resident and non-resident voters alike.

In doing so, the citizen voting act would follow in the footsteps of the Fair Elections Act. In particular, Bill C-50 would ensure fairness by providing that non-resident voting procedures are consistent with the procedures for resident voters that were brought in with the Fair Elections Act.

Among these key provision, the citizen voting act would require that electors applying for a special ballot must include within their application for registration proof of identity and residence, and, if they apply from outside Canada, proof of Canadian citizenship. Electors who are resident outside of Canada would only receive a special ballot for the address at which they last resided within Canada.

In the debate thus far, some concerns have been raised about the potential negative impacts that could arise as a result of the new identification requirements for non-resident voters. I would like to demonstrate that these concerns are unfounded. Accordingly, I will focus my comments today on the voter identification requirements in the Canada Elections Act and what is proposed in Bill C-50 for special ballot voters.

Before addressing any specific concerns, I think it is worthwhile to again briefly review the voter identification requirements in Bill C-50. The voter identification provisions would require that electors voting by special ballot, non-residents and residents, must include within their application for a special ballot proof of identity and residence, similar to that set out in the Fair Elections Act. Further, Canadians living abroad would be required to prove the place of residence in the riding in which they would be voting, using the same documentation that voters living within Canada must also provide. The same general identification scheme that was established in the Fair Elections Act would apply to applicants wishing to vote by special ballot.

Under the first option, a voter may provide one piece of government-issued identification with the voter's photo, name, and address. An example would be a driver's licence or a provincial or territorial ID card. Under the second option, a voter may show two pieces of ID authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, one with the voter's name, and one with the voter's name and their address. An example would be a health card and a phone bill, or a debit card and a bank statement. Under the third option, a voter would provide two pieces of ID with the voter's name, and an oath or declaration of residence that is attested to by a properly identified voter from the same riding.

For non-residents, the attestation process would enable them to provide proof of their last residence in Canada by means of an oath or written declaration. A person providing the attestation could be either a resident of Canada or another non-resident who is qualified to vote in the same electoral district as the person applying for the special ballot. In either case, both the applicant and the person attesting for their residence would have to provide either an oath or a written declaration. An oath would have to be administered by a qualified official, either in Canada or abroad. On the other hand, a written declaration could be completed by the applicant abroad, and it would not require that an official be present in order to administer it.

To sum up, the provisions of Bill C-50 would ensure that Canadians living abroad follow the same rules as those living in Canada. It is only fair that non-resident Canadians be required to comply with the same rules that are followed by other Canadian voters.

I would now like to address the concern that has been raised about potentially disenfranchising voters as a result of the new identification rules set out in Bill C-50. The amendments contained in Bill C-50 would simply ensure that the same clear identification rules that apply to voting in person would apply to voting by special ballot.

I understand that there are now 47 approved identification documents listed on the Elections Canada website, some of which were added recently. The website lists 28 pieces of approved identification providing a voter's name, including, to name a few, a health card, a Canadian passport, a birth certificate, an Indian status card, a Veteran's Affairs health card, a student identity card, and an identity bracelet issued by a hospital or long-term care facility.

The list of pieces of identification providing both name and address currently includes 19 items. Examples on that list are a utility bill; a bank statement; a credit card statement; a residential lease or sublease; an income tax assessment; a letter from a public curator, public guardian, or a public trustee; a letter of confirmation of residence from a first nations band, reserve, or Inuit local authority; a letter of confirmation of residence from one of several designated establishments, including a student residence, a seniors residence, a long-term care facility, a homeless shelter, or a soup kitchen, and the list goes on. This demonstrates the sheer number of pieces of identification that may be used as voter identification, and the breadth of options which are captured by this list. The Chief Electoral Officer is always at liberty to authorize further pieces of identification for the purpose of voting as he sees fit.

I recall an empirical study, conducted by Professor Ian Lee of Carleton University last year, in which he examined the numbers and types of identification that are accessible by Canadians. He concluded that there are identity cards well in excess of 200 million for 18 million voters, and that excluded millions of monthly utility bills. Apart from these sheer numbers, the list that has been approved demonstrates that a lack of identification should not be a barrier to voting in Canada. None of these would change because of the provisions of the citizen voting act.

To conclude, the citizen voting act is designed to reinforce the integrity and fairness of the electoral system for all voters, resident and non-resident voters alike. The new measures will help ensure that non-resident voters have a direct connection to Canada and are subject to similar voter identification rules that all other voters must also follow.

The right to vote is at the very foundation of our democracy. It embodies a responsibility and duty on all of us to familiarize ourselves with the voting process. In that spirit, I encourage all Canadians to become familiar with the identification rules and to ensure that they have the proper ID to vote, whether at the polling station or through a special ballot. It is incumbent upon all of us to support integrity measures aimed at ensuring that ballots are legitimately cast by eligible voters.

The House resumed from February 3, consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-50—Time Allocation Motion

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I continue to have is the false impression being left by the government in general, with the current minister having to carry the can, apparently. I will not go further than to say that she is responding to questions and others are not.

The first thing is that a distinct impression was intended to be left. That is a very awkward way of putting it, but back in December, for two weeks we were all under the impression that the government had decided not to appeal the Frank case. The whole presentation of Bill C-50 was that we needed this to implement the Frank decision as if we were complying. It was a constitutional judgment, the government realized it did not stand any hope of winning an appeal, so it would no longer fight against enfranchising all these Canadians who had, before now, been disenfranchised, and it would not appeal. That turned out to be totally false. Once we started probing, the government case continued.

There is no actual interest on the part of the government in enfranchising Canadians, and that should inform how we understand what it is trying to do with this bill. When it is forced by the courts to abide by the Frank judgment, this is how it is going to do it, and it is going to do it in a way that makes it exceedingly difficult when compared to what the process used to be for citizens abroad.

It has to be put on the record that the government is appealing the Frank decision. That is part and parcel of why it is seeking to make it more difficult for Canadians to vote through this new bill, and why the government does not want a lot of debate or awareness about the bill at all.

The second thing is that our colleague has made a very good effort to present it in a way that suggests that some streamlining is going on here. The presentation is that a bunch of rules are being cleaned up and the Frank judgment has kind of spurred that analysis of how to make the process of citizens voting from abroad more efficient, secure, fair and everything else. The fact is that of the three or four major changes, the single biggest change in the bill is that those who are abroad cannot begin the process of voting until after the writ drops. Only at that point are they allowed to register. Then there is a whole series of steps involving the mail across the globe, which creates the huge risk that they will never get the vote at all. Therefore, the streamlining subtext of this is absolutely inaccurate.

It is really important to know that both of the points I have made about the Frank judgment, and what is going on with the judgment with respect to my last point, speak to why the government delayed so long in bringing it back for debate: because of the attention it would continue to generate. It now wants almost no attention, which is tied to the fact that the bill is set down for debate tomorrow, Friday, the day when the least attention is paid to bills in the House.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as I have just arrived in the House, I hope I do not sound too repetitive after my colleague from Toronto—Danforth.

From Bill C-23 to this bill, Bill C-50, there has been an overall theme. The overarching theme here concentrates on issues and problems that are overblown. We have used this expression before with the prior legislation, and now with this legislation as well, which is that in many cases the Conservatives are cruising for a solution to a problem that does not exist.

The Conservatives do not want people to be shopping ridings when they are living internationally, choosing any riding they wish. To a certain degree, I understand that concept. However, by doing this, it is making it very hard on individuals to go back to the prior addresses. In many cases, some of them are students and unable to do that. Not only that, but the vouching process or the attestations have to be done in that prior riding, which may be impossible. That could be many years prior.

These problems created by the Conservatives are fundamentally keeping people from their charter right to vote. It is their right. That is why my colleague was correct in saying that this did not address the judgment from the court and therefore has to be remedied.

In addition, there are the time constraints on this, time constraints within the legislation itself and time constraints regarding the enactment of the legislation. This is a strange 30-minute debate, because we are talking about time allocation as well. I will not get into that too much.

I am getting into the bona fides of the bill, because I will not have that opportunity too much longer. Therefore, we should look at that. I know the debate will continue soon.

Is there not a great concern about the timeliness of this, about the full debate, as to allow people, even if they live internationally, that fundamental right to vote, as given to them under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are now looking at the 95th occasion of time allocation, and this time on Bill C-50, which would amend the Canada Elections Act particularly to deal with Canadians who are overseas.

I appeal to the minister that this is a bill that we have not had any opportunity to debate before this House. We have not had an opportunity for members of Parliament such as me who represent a smaller party to participate. The Green Party has two members in this place and it takes a great deal of time in debate for the debate slots to come around to an opportunity to allow members such as me to debate the bill.

I acknowledge the bill was tabled some time ago, but nothing has happened for some months and now we are being told we must have time allocation to limit debate. I find this egregious. I regret that it is a particular minister who must defend this. It is obviously the government House leader and decisions made in the PMO that have decided to break all historical precedent with the number of times we have had time allocation. However, it does particularly prejudice members of Parliament in my situation, and I would urge the minister to step back from this time allocation and allow us to have full debate on this important piece of legislation.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I admire the quality of optimism, and I know that hope springs eternal in my colleague's breast.

After this statement, we will complete the motion, pursuant to Standing Order 78, in relation to Bill C-51. After that, we will consider Bill C-46, the pipeline safety act at report stage, and then proceed to debate it at third reading. This bill would ensure that Canada's pipeline safety regime remains world class. That debate will continue next week, on Wednesday.

Tomorrow we will wrap up the second reading debate on Bill C-50, the citizen voting act. The House will have an opportunity later today, I hope, to deliberate on how that will proceed.

Monday, we will conclude the report stage debate of Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015. Our Conservative government takes all threats to the security of Canada and Canadians very seriously.

That is why we are moving forward with Bill C-51 and the crucial provisions contained in it to protect our national security. Third reading of this important bill will take place Tuesday.

Thursday, before question period, we will consider Bill S-3, the port state measures agreement implementation act at report stage, and hopefully, third reading. This bill passed at second reading with widespread support, and I am optimistic that third reading will be no different.

I understand that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is meeting this afternoon to give clause-by-clause consideration to Bill C-52, the Safe and Accountable Rail Act. This bill would further strengthen Canada's rail safety regime and ensure that adequate compensation is available. If the committee finishes that work today, we will consider the bill at report stage and third reading after question period next Thursday.

At second reading, New Democrats spoke about the importance of passing this bill urgently and therefore I hope that they will see to letting this legislation pass next week, so that the Senate will have plenty of time to complete its consideration of the bill before the summer adjournment.

Bill C-50--Time Allocation Motion

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the minister. I would also like to thank the House leader for giving us the opportunity to have more people in the House to listen to exactly why the government is shutting down debate again, for the 95th time in this Parliament.

It is very clear that Bill C-50 is a bill the Conservative government does not want Canadians to know about. It has only received one day of debate so far. The Conservatives have had six months to push it through, and now, on a Thursday, with debate on the bill scheduled for tomorrow, Friday, they want to slip through the fact that, following Bill C-23, Bill C-50 is a deliberate attempt to suppress the votes of citizens abroad.

There is a nonsensical creation of a barrier in the bill that would make it very difficult for many Canadians abroad to register in time to vote. The minister knows that. There is also a stripping of powers from the Chief Electoral Officer to determine what ID is sufficient for citizens abroad.

There are all sorts of things that have actually not registered yet on the radar screen of the media or citizens, and one of the reasons the Conservative government does not want the bill fully debated is exactly that. When Canadians come to realize that it is step two after the former unfair elections act, they will resist, along with the official opposition.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker: I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-50--Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I must advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at a future sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. opposition House leader for his question.

This afternoon we will continue debating economic action plan 2015, our Conservative government's balanced budget, low-tax plan for jobs, growth and security.

He was referring to it and its impact on future generations, and that is where this budget is perhaps at its best, because it delivers long-term prosperity.

With the tax-free savings account, it will provide benefit for generations to come. It helps families save for their children's university education. We have put an additional element in the budget to allow greater flexibility with student loans with calculation of income.

In fact, it is future generations who stand to benefit the most. The most important element from which they benefit, something they would never see under an NDP government, is a balanced budget. That means they will not be paying the freight for generations that came before them for high-spending debt plans that we see from the opposition parties. That is the most important long-term benefit for future generations, so we are very proud of the budget in this regard. Of course, we have been hearing from my colleagues this week that it is a prudent and principled plan that will see Canadians more prosperous, more secure, and everyone confident in Canada's place in the world for some time to come.

While we are focused on creating jobs and putting money back in the pockets of hard-working Canadians, the opposition parties have both confirmed that they want to see higher spending and higher taxes on middle-class families, high taxes on middle-class seniors, high taxes on middle-class consumers. In fact, any tax they can raise, they will probably take a shot at it when they get the chance.

The budget debate will continue on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week.

While I am talking about the budget, I cannot help but note that, when pressed Tuesday night for some detailed insight into the Liberals' economic vision for Canada—something we have been waiting for since the hon. member for Papineau became the Liberal leader two years ago—that member told reporters that he would keep it secret from Canadians for yet more weeks—or months—to come.

I am going to give him an opportunity next week to be courageous and share an actual proposal with Canadians—something beyond the view that budgets balance themselves. Therefore, Monday shall be the second allotted day.

Meanwhile, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, tomorrow. Through this legislation, the government is taking additional action, in line with measures taken by our allies, to ensure our law enforcement and national security agencies can counter those who advocate terrorism, prevent terrorist travel and the efforts of those who seek to use Canada as a recruiting ground, and disrupt planned attacks on Canadian soil.

Next Thursday, after we have concluded the budget debate, we will consider report stage and second reading of Bill S-4, the digital privacy act. This legislation aims to protect better and empower consumers, clarify and streamline rules for business, and enable effective investigations by law enforcement and security agencies.

In anticipation that Bill C-46, the pipeline safety act, will be reported back from committee soon, we will start report stage, and hopefully third reading, after question period that day.

We will round out next week with the debate on Bill C-50, the citizen voting act, at second reading, on Friday.

Citizen Voting Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will try to do the best we can in the four minutes left to us to talk about a bill as important as Bill C-50.

To begin, I want to commend the exceptional work done by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth, who, on behalf of all of us in the official opposition, is trying to make sure that democracy continues to be alive and real in this wonderful country.

I am both happy and sad to rise. I am happy to do so on behalf of the people of Gatineau and to have a moment to speak to Bill C-50. At the same time, I am sad to see that Bill C-50 is being described as a response to a decision of the court. Once again, this shows me that this government has a strange way of responding to decisions of the courts. Every time, I am gobsmacked.

Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada was decided in the context of section 11, paragraph 11(d) of the Canada Elections Act. It stated that every Canadian citizen who had been absent from Canada for at least five consecutive years could not vote in Canadian federal elections.

In fact, what Justice Penny tells us in Frank is simply that the principle stated in section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees every Canadian the right to vote, without limitation. There is no exception depending on the context; it is an intrinsic right of every Canadian citizen. This is the primary method by which we are able to speak democratically in this country. It is the right to speak in the context of an election. It seems to me that this principle was obvious. The court made the decision that had to be made: that the right to vote cannot be taken away from Canadian citizens. We are talking about Canadian citizens. We are not talking about people who have no ties to Canada. They may not be in Canada, but they are Canadian citizens. What did the government do? It introduced Bill C-50.

As I listened to the debates all morning, I was pleasantly surprised. I would say I was was somewhat surprised because people sent me messages on Facebook, including a message from one person in particular. We know that in paragraph 11(d), to which I referred just now, there was in fact an exception relating to the military. The person in question said that all the rules obviously will not apply to our troops—and I am very pleased to know that—but this will not necessarily be the case for the family members of military personnel. That is a double standard.

I have some difficulty with that example and with others as well. What Bill C-50 does is leave us with different kinds of citizens.

I agree with all my colleagues who have spoken in the House and said that, insofar as we can, we must do everything in our power to make access to the vote as easy as possible—not to encourage ways of hijacking democracy, but to enable the most possible people to express their democratic choice. We might say that this government has a lot of trouble acting that way.

The bill tells us that it is in response to the court’s decision, but the decision says that people may not be prohibited from voting. What are the Conservatives doing? They are prohibiting people. I truly have a lot of trouble understanding how this government reads the decisions of the courts. In any event, they have continued to appeal the case.

I know my time on a subject this important has unfortunately already expired. However, I will certainly have an opportunity to speak to this issue at greater length.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

Does he also have concerns about the coming into force of the bill? Clause 20 of Bill C-50 states that the bill will come into force 60 days after it receives royal assent. Elections Canada will only have 60 days to implement the new provisions and make the changes to the register of electors required by the bill.

Does he think that this is a reasonable amount of time for Elections Canada? Should the government at least give Elections Canada the time it needs to make the necessary changes?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Davenport for his excellent speech on Bill C-50.

Since this is a matter of consideration on the government's part, it seems to me that there was not much consultation, based on the replies we have heard so far today from the government. The government does not appear to have consulted Elections Canada in drafting Bill C-50.

I would remind the House that many of the measures in this bill will of course affect Elections Canada, because that is the body that oversees the election process and registration applications for the voters list.

Is the member concerned about the government's failure to consult or about the situation that Elections Canada could face if it receives hundreds of thousands of applications? Is he concerned about the courageous voters who do decide to go through the process? Hundreds of thousands of applications in just 35 days of voting does not leave very much time. Is he also worried about Elections Canada's ability to process all those applications in time for the election and the organization's ability to manage such a huge volume of applications in such a short timeframe?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Davenport in the great city of Toronto to participate in the debate on Bill C-50.

It is important to the people in my riding. Many people in Davenport, in fact many people in Toronto, go back and forth between Canada and their home countries, the countries in which they were born. Many of my constituents live in both places and care deeply about Canada and the electoral process. They are Canadian citizens, yet from time to time over the course of one's life, end up living elsewhere for a period of time.

We already know from the various accounts that we have heard in this place how difficult it is for many immigrant Canadians to receive government services, to access Service Canada, for example, and how difficult and tricky that is for many in our community. We now are seeing another example of how the government erodes the trust of Canadian citizens who are immigrants or Canadian citizens living abroad. This bill is part of a long litany in a grand narrative, the result of which is a deepening lack of trust.

There is also a very adversarial relationship between the government and expert opinion of society and court rulings. In fact, the government has no hesitation in spending money, the dollars of hard-working Canadians, to fight court challenges and to thumb its nose on what Canadian jurisprudence would lead us to.

In this one I am referring to Superior Court Justice Michael Penny who made it clear that long-term expats who cared deeply about Canada should have the right to vote. The federal government, though, did not withdraw its appeal of the Frank judgment when it tabled Bill C-50, even though it wrote its press release and backgrounder on Bill C-50 to make it appear as if it was accepting the Frank judgment.

We have a bill, and it is important that Canadians understand that parliamentarians have been attempting to deal with this issue in a manner that reflects the values of Canadian society, which is that if an individual is a citizen in Canada, regardless of where they live, they have the right to vote.

The government will say, as it did in earlier debates around its unfair elections act, that it is making things simpler and streamlining the system. In fact, we know that is not the case. One would think that when we are faced with the reality of plummeting voting rates in liberal democracies, including Canada, that we would, as parliamentarians, be thinking about ways in which we help facilitate and invite Canadian citizens to participate more fully in the electoral process. However, we are seeing the government, once again, going in the opposite direction, to the extent that organizations have raised serious concerns about this legislation.

Dylan Penner from the Council of Canadians said, “Bill C-50 is a blatant abuse of power. The current government is trying to legislate its way around a court decision it doesn't like”, and we have heard that one before, “to further stack the deck in its favour for the next election”, and we have heard that one before too. He goes on to say, “Rather than accept a court ruling that restores voting rights, the government has decided to change the law in a way that infringes voting rights”.

I would like to add that I will be splitting my time with the member for Gatineau.

I would also like to quote from the organization Leadnow, which asked the Prime Minister and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to commit to respecting section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees all Canadian citizens the right to vote. It reads:

Any further attempt by this government and future governments to overturn the recent court ruling that reaffirms that right will be considered an affront to the democratic rights of all Canadians.

In a sense, that gets to the crux of the issue here.

This is part of a long narrative by the Conservative government in pushing the envelope around democratic rights and freedoms, of obfuscating in and outside this place regarding its intentions. There have been countless inquiries. There have been police inquiries into voter fraud.

In short, Canadians do not trust the government.

We heard earlier this morning from the former minister of foreign affairs about the importance of this place, of the centrality of this place to preserving democracy in Canada. Yet time and time again we see a government that is willing to play fast and loose with the rules, in the hope that Canadians who are struggling just to get by in their day-to-day lives will not notice as the government starts stacking the deck in its favour. This legislation is just an example. We have not heard any compelling evidence or arguments from the government that that is not the case, and here I am talking about the grand narrative.

Over 2.8 million Canadians live abroad. These are Canadian citizens who pay about $6 billion in Canadian taxes. We need to be thinking of ways to include them more easily in our electoral process. That is a project that any government would think important and vital, but that is not what we see here. It is important that we get to some of the nuts and bolts of how these things play out. We have the legislation, but parliamentarians need to hear how these bills would affect people living their day-to-day lives.

Bill C-50 proposes to give Canadian citizens only five weeks before an election to complete the process. The citizen must send in the form and Elections Canada has to mail out a special ballot. The citizen then has to mail that ballot back. As one Canadian abroad put it when consulted on the impact of Bill C-50, “With international postal delays being what they are, expats have to use FedEx or other courier services to have any hope of their vote being counted”.

Elections Canada is not legally mandated to do the same. In other words, if Elections Canada sends the ballot by surface mail, voters outside of North America are going to have a difficult time. Even just the timing of this is going to be difficult. One would think that the government would take these issues into consideration, but what do we expect from a government that is seeking to tear down bit by bit our own postal service. I suppose that is what we get.

This legislation is of deep concern to our party. We have a solution in Bill C-575 put forward by the member for Halifax. I would urge the government to look seriously at that legislation.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a technical question to ask my colleague from Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. I really did not hear my colleague mention this in his speech.

There is a new section in Bill C-50: section 143, subsection 2.11, which specifies the documents that Elections Canada may consider to be a piece of identification. It says that these are documents issued by local governments, the federal government, provincial governments or an entity that is incorporated or formed in Canada. However, it does not specify whether that includes aboriginal governments. This provision still leaves a grey area and it could restrict the right to vote of Canadian citizens who live here. They will have to present two pieces of identification, but they will not necessarily have access to anything other than a document issued by an aboriginal government.

I would like my colleague to state whether his government considers this to be included in the bill or not. If it does, will they clarify this provision in committee?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I should say first that I will be sharing my time with the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification.

I am pleased to address the House with respect to Bill C-50, the Citizen Voting Act. The bill deals with electoral reform intended to strengthen the integrity and fairness of our electoral system.

Canada has one of the world’s most generous electoral systems with respect to the right to vote, and Canadians are proud of their democracy. That is why our government is taking measures to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. I will therefore explain how the citizen voting act, which we have the pleasure of discussing today, protects our electoral system.

Preserving the integrity of our electoral system is important. Elections Canada estimates that there are about 40,000 names of non-citizens currently listed in the national Register of Electors. This means that there are 40,000 non-citizens who could easily obtain a voter information card telling them where and how to vote, and could therefore go to a polling station and vote. As we know, that is in fact illegal.

That is why the citizen voting act will authorize Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the name, gender, date of birth and addresses of non-citizens, so that Elections Canada can compare the data and remove non-citizens from the national register of electors.

The citizen voting act will make it a legal requirement for anyone voting outside Canada to provide proof of Canadian citizenship. The rule does not apply to members of the Canadian Armed Forces, of whom we are extremely proud. I would like to take this opportunity to mention the extraordinary work they are doing against the terrorist threat constituted by the Islamic State in Iraq.

Getting back to the citizen voting act, I would like to talk about another problem that affects the system as it currently exists. Canadians living abroad do not have to prove that they lived in the riding in which they vote. They can in fact vote in the riding of their choice, on the basis of unverified personal or family ties. Voters living in Canada, on the other hand, have to vote in the riding in which they are residing when the election is held. They cannot choose their riding. It is unfair to allow someone who has never lived in a community to vote for the person who will represent that community. That is why the citizen voting act will ensure that Canadians living abroad are bound by the same rules as those who live in Canada.

Canadians living abroad will have to provide proof of their identity and their most recent Canadian address with the same documentation required of voters who live in Canada, namely photo identification with their previous address or two of the 39 pieces of identification approved by the CEO of Elections Canada. If they do not have a piece of identification showing their previous address, voters living abroad may use an attestation as to their previous address produced by a voter in the same riding who has proven their identity.

Like the Canadian public, we believe it is reasonable to require that a person provide proof of their identity and their address in order to be entitled to vote. Canadian residents who happen to be abroad when an election is held, people like the snowbirds, have to apply for a special ballot at each election and produce pieces of identification and proof of residence. It is a different matter for citizens living abroad, who, once they have applied for a ballot for an election, automatically receive a ballot for every subsequent election at their overseas address, even though we do not know whether or not they still live there.

That is why the citizen voting act is so necessary. It will remove this inequality between Canadians by establishing a single set of rules for citizens who vote outside Canada.

The citizen voting act strengthens the rules that apply to special ballots to match the standards of integrity adopted when the Fair Elections Act was passed last June. It harmonizes the rules for voters whether they are temporarily or permanently residing outside Canada.

The Citizen Voting Act contains measures to safeguard the integrity of our electoral system.

To summarize, we will establish a single register, the National Register of Electors, which will be maintained by Elections Canada, for voters who reside in Canada or who are in Canada when an election is held.

The existing information on non-residents will be retained, and all of the information on voters will now be included in the national register. We will ensure that people living outside Canada—other than members of the Canadian Armed Forces—who want to to vote have to produce proof of citizenship.

Voters living abroad will no longer be able, as they were in the past, to choose the riding in which they want to vote without showing a connection to that community, and they will be able to obtain a ballot only for their most recent address in Canada. They will be subject to the same rules as other Canadian citizens with respect to identification and proof of residence.

Lastly, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will be authorized to provide Elections Canada with information about non-citizens so that their names can be removed from the voters list.

Canada has one of the world’s most generous electoral systems with respect to the right to vote. Many democracies like ours place restrictions on voting by non-residents. I am thinking of Ireland, for example, where non-residents cannot vote. Canada is much more generous with respect to the right to vote. It is therefore reasonable to expect citizens living abroad to meet the same identification requirements as those living in Canada.

Since our government came to power, it has worked tirelessly to reform the Canada Elections Act, so that our system remains one of the most respected in the world. Each of the government’s successive reforms have sought to maintain the integrity and fairness of our electoral system.

The Citizen Voting Act is part of that series of reforms and demonstrates once again our government’s commitment to strengthening the integrity and fairness of our electoral system.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague: it is a problem. As I said in my speech, we have to consider the Canadian Forces, but we also have to consider their family members and all of the people who are serving their country and doing important work for governance abroad, people such as public servants and diplomats and their family members.

The Elections Act also included an exemption for members of the RCMP. Unless I am mistaken, that exemption no longer exists in Bill C-50. Once again, I do not mean to suggest that there is a conspiracy afoot, but I do not blame people for reacting to the government's measure with cynicism.

Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister accused us of disrespecting the Canadian Forces because we criticized that part of the bill. That statement was so ridiculous that it was a little hard to believe. It said a lot about the Conservatives' approach.

They grant exemptions for the Canadian Forces not out of respect for the Canadian Forces, but just because they want to hand out goodies in a show of support for the troops. That is the kind of thing we hear quite a lot. If they really supported the people who serve us abroad, they would make more of an effort to encourage them to participate fully in our democracy.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We do not want to buy into conspiracy theories, but the Conservatives' speeches seem to indicate some fear of the unknown, whether we are talking about Bill C-23 or Bill C-50, which is being debated today. They use scare tactics, claiming that people will cheat the system and that non-Canadians will try to vote in our elections. Last time we heard about people who would cheat and vote several times.

Like my colleague, I have to wonder why they are doing this. Perhaps this issue does not concern Conservative voters. I do not think that is the case, since everyone, regardless of their political beliefs, should be trying to make it easier for voters living in Canada or abroad.

As my colleague mentioned in his question, as I said in my speech and as all of my colleagues have said, while other developed countries are using these technologies or using other means to make it easier for citizens, especially with respect to deadlines to register to vote, the Conservative government seems to want to make things harder.

Then we wonder why people are so cynical and why voter turnout is so low. The Conservatives need only look in the mirror.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members may have noticed that some of my colleagues and I are fighting a little cold. If we do not seem all there, it is not because we are not interested in this topic.

Bill C-50 obviously deals with an important issue. The government addresses the same problems and same visions of democracy that we saw in Bill C-23 on election reform—or electoral “deform”, as we nicknamed it.

There are a number of problems with this bill. Before I get into them, I want to give a brief background. This bill came about because of a ruling by the Ontario Superior Court stating that it was unconstitutional to prohibit Canadian citizens living abroad for more than five years from voting in a federal election.

This is an important issue, especially in 2015, in light of the global village phenomenon. We have increased access to other countries and opportunities—this is especially true for young people. I am thinking about young university grads who want to pursue opportunities abroad without ruling out the possibility of returning home. They remain invested in their home community even though they are abroad.

The right to vote has always been essential, because at the end of the day, it is the very essence of what it means to be a citizen. With how easy it is now to find information and follow the events leading up to an election, the right to vote is increasingly important for citizens living abroad, considering the global realities of today's world.

I would like to mention another very important point that also relates to the right to vote, which, as I said, is the very essence of citizenship. The number of Canadian citizens residing outside Canada translates into a lot of money for the public purse because those individuals pay taxes. We all know the famous slogan that served a certain American cause very well: No taxation without representation. This is another important factor that must not be overlooked, beyond the principles of citizenship. Those people pay taxes, and ultimately, they are entitled to have a say in how their tax dollars are used, that is, in the governance of their home country, where they are citizens.

There are a number of problems, but there is one that we already saw with Bill C-23. The government sees problems; some are legitimate, others do not even exist. They are scaremongers. Last time, the government talked about fraudsters, as though there were thousands of fraudsters across the country trying to steal the right to vote from other citizens. Obviously, there were some dubious findings there. The idea was that many non-citizens were trying to take advantage of the right to vote.

Earlier, I heard an hon. member allude to the fact that non-citizens were receiving ballots abroad, as though this happened frequently and there were wide-scale electoral fraud. That being said, some media reports indicated that it was hard to tell the extent to which citizens abroad were affected. If the journalists who were focusing on this issue were unable to dig up these numbers, I do not see how an hon. member can make this observation. What is more, when my colleague from Sherbrooke asked the hon. member whether there were any studies to back her comments, she was unable to provide an answer.

The point I am trying to make is that instead moving forward and finding progressive ways to improve our electoral system, the government always takes a step backward. Instead of moving forward, it takes two steps back. That must be extremely frustrating for the people who, like the NDP, want to see a higher voter turnout. That is the problem we saw with Bill C-23, which had negative consequences for seniors, aboriginal people, young people and students. We see the same problem here.

The thing that strikes me the most is the French example. In 2012, I went to France with my colleagues to observe the presidential election.

I was surprised because I did not know that France had elected representatives—senators and members of the National Assembly—who represent constituencies outside of France. They represent French citizens who live outside of France. I know one person in the area, in Gatineau, who is a French citizen. This is a well-established system because French citizens living outside of France even receive campaign material from political parties.

That says a lot about how important it is to the Republic that all French citizens be properly represented, not just French citizens residing in France. This relates to what I was talking about at the beginning of my speech: in the new global village, where more and more citizens are pursuing opportunities abroad but staying connected to and involved in their communities, the governing body should represent not just residents but all citizens, no matter where they live.

As pointed out by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth—who does an excellent job of developing our positions on democratic reform—the French system has another component: the right to vote by Internet. The Americans allow U.S. citizens living abroad to vote by email.

While other countries look for solutions that will make it easier for citizens living abroad to vote, our government seems to be stuck on making it more difficult. A fine example—and that is another problem with the bill—is the issue of people living abroad who serve the government. We think of course of members of the Canadian Forces who are deployed abroad. The government will say that they are still exempt from the five-week period proposed in Bill C-50.

Although the government is not saying as much, this is a step backwards from what was already in the act. I will explain. Previously, diplomats were also exempt because, after all, they also serve the country, Canadians and the government abroad. Now, diplomats will have to follow the same laborious process as all other Canadians living abroad. They do not get a break even though they are abroad to serve their country.

The same is true for military families. It is a good idea and it is important—and I am not being sarcastic here—to grant exemptions to members of our Canadian Forces. However, we also need to think about their families. Some of these members are undoubtedly accompanied by their 18-year-old children. Some have spouses who also have the right to vote. The government is forgetting to look at the big picture when it comes to people who are living abroad.

Today in his speech, the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke about the team and the public servants who served him abroad. As my colleague from Sherbrooke mentioned, people like that, who are working for a minister and serving the Crown—it is important to point that out—are also not granted an exemption from this long and sometimes difficult process. As a result, they will have to use courier services, which Elections Canada has no legal obligation to use. They will have to turn to courier services that sometimes take a long time to deliver things and, in some countries, are difficult to use. There are many problems with this.

This once again shows, as Bill C-23 did, just how much difficulty the Conservatives have resolving problems, making it easier to access the electoral system and increasing voter turnout. They are once again introducing a bill that makes the process even more complex and forces Canadians to work even harder to exercise their right to vote. The right to vote should be an automatic part of citizenship. The government has the responsibility to make this process easier.

In closing, I would like to quickly mention one more thing, which I did not have time to really talk about. Once again, students are affected. When I was going to McGill, I saw how easy it was for American students to vote, even though they were living in Montreal. However, Bill C-50 contains an error that requires any lease used by a student as proof of residence to be for an official university residence.

Students who are going to school abroad and living off-campus as an individual and not in accommodation such as a university residence cannot use their lease as valid proof of identity.

It is because of these types of problems that we are forced to oppose yet another botched bill on an issue as fundamental as our democracy.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the irony of Bill C-50, which the government claims is a response to the court's ruling.

The court ruling indicated that all Canadians should have the right to vote. That right is protected by the charter. All Canadian citizens have a right to vote. The existing legislation bars Canadian citizens living abroad for more than five years from voting. That provision has been struck down.

However, there is a paradox here. The government wants to give all Canadians the right to vote, but it is discouraging them from doing so by making it extremely difficult or even impossible to exercise that right. That is hard to understand.

We had hoped for a much broader and much more satisfactory response in order to make things easier for Canadians who want to exercise their right to vote. Instead, we have before us today a bill that does quite the opposite.

Canadians will have to re-register every time an election is called and they cannot even pre-register. If we had a fixed election date, then at least Elections Canada could be given a timeframe. That would be the minium. However, that is not the case. The government decided to add a provision to the bill specifying that people cannot register until the day the election is called and they must register for each election.

That means that if a person registers to vote in the 2015 election and another election is called in 2016, that individual will have to register again. The registration is good for only one single election. What is more, people have to register during the election period.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will share my time with my colleague from Chambly—Borduas, who will also talk to us about Bill C-50.

As the deputy critic for democratic and parliamentary reform, I am honoured to speak today and to have the opportunity to work with my esteemed colleague from Toronto—Danforth, supporting him on a number of files. I also thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for all of the work she has done over the past few years as the deputy critic for democratic and parliamentary reform. I also thank her team, Jean-François and Myriam, who work extremely hard. I will have the opportunity to work with them again in the future.

It is an honour for me to rise to speak to Bill C-50, but it is also a disappointment. Instead of making it easier for people to exercise their right to vote in Canada, this bill attempts to make it more difficult. That is the opposite of what we should be doing as a country. The government should be encouraging people to vote and making it easier for them to vote, whether they reside in Canada or are Canadian citizens residing abroad. The bill before us today will make it even more difficult for Canadian citizens residing abroad to exercise their right to vote.

This is out of step with what other countries are doing. Some of my colleagues gave examples of countries where, rather than making it harder to vote, they are making voting easier and more enjoyable, especially for the younger generation, who are voting less and less. Voter turnout for young people aged 18 to 25 has been between 30% and 40% in some elections. That is very low, and it means that over half of young people do not go to the ballot box to exercise their right to vote. Instead of making it harder, the government should be working on making it easier and more appealing for all Canadians to exercise their right to vote.

Bill C-50, introduced by the federal Conservative government, follows the decision handed down recently by the Ontario Superior Court in the Frank et al. case. The bill we are debating here today is supposed to be the government's response to that court ruling. This response is unsatisfactory, to say the least. The bill claims to be a response to that decision, but it is definitely not the response that we were expecting. Anyone who has read the Superior Court ruling would have expected a very different response from the government. The Superior Court ruling struck down paragraph 11(d) of the Canada Elections Act, which deals with the right to vote for Canadian citizens living outside of Canada for less than five years.

We might have expected a response that extended the right to vote to all Canadian citizens living abroad. That is something our party has introduced before. My colleague from Halifax, whom I would like to thank, introduced a bill to extend the right to vote to all Canadian citizens living abroad and to make it easier for them to exercise that right. There are many Canadians—in fact, 2.8 million—who live outside Canada. Unfortunately, not all of them are going to vote. However, if we were being generous, we could say, and I am just picking a number, that an estimated 300,000, 400,000 or 500,000 might vote. It would make a lot of work for Elections Canada, which would have to review all these applications in the 35 days prior to the election.

I will spend a little bit of time talking about these changes because if Bill C-50 does pass in its current form, Canadian citizens living abroad will have to register for every election. When an election is called, they will have to send a form and supporting pieces of identification to Elections Canada. They will be able to vote in the election with a special ballot that they will then have to return to Elections Canada within 35 days, which is the time between the day the election is called and the day of the vote. This extremely short timeframe will make it practically impossible to vote.

In order to vote, the voter will have to prepare in advance and be very familiar with the procedure. When the election is called, the voter will have to immediately fill out forms and pay the requisite fees so that the mail arrives at its destination within the requisite period of time. Depending on where one lives in the world, it can be very difficult to send a document to Canada. These steps will sometimes be expensive for people who want to register to vote in a federal election. This will certainly not encourage them to exercise their right to vote.

If someone has the misfortune of having expired ID or ID that is not considered valid proof for Elections Canada under Bill C-50, then someone else will have to vouch for them. That is another aspect of the bill that makes things even more difficult. A person who was fortunate enough to have the required ID still had to go through a three-part mailing process in a very short time during the election period; but if a person has the misfortune of not having the ID requested by Elections Canada under Bill C-50, then they will have to go through an extra step. This is a complex step, since that person has to find someone to vouch for them who lives in the riding they lived in before leaving Canada. The voucher has to prove that the voter is a citizen of the riding in question and attest to the person's identity, citizenship, and right to vote.

This can take a lot of time if that person lives in a part of the world where postal services are limited, which makes it almost impossible to send the necessary correspondence to register on the voting list. This bill is the government's so-called answer to the Ontario Superior Court decision. However, instead of encouraging people to exercise their right to vote, it makes it almost impossible.

I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister whether the government had conducted any consultations before drafting this bill. He did not answer me, which I took as a no. It seems that Elections Canada was not consulted before this bill was drafted, even though this bill would have a huge impact on the agency. Indeed, Elections Canada will have to process hundreds of thousands of applications in 35 days so that these people can vote before the election date. That is a significant amount of work.

Furthermore, clause 20 of Bill C-50 states that the bill will come into force 60 days after the day on which it receives royal assent. It will be a huge amount of work for Elections Canada to do to implement such a system and to conform with the new legislation.

The government is imposing a huge burden on Elections Canada. It does not even seem to have consulted the agency before it introduced this bill in the House.

I would be happy to take questions from my colleagues.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the citizen voting act, which was introduced by my colleague, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

Our government has a strong record of democratic reform. We ended the per-vote subsidy. We made the House of Commons more representative with the Fair Representation Act. Most recently, we closed loopholes for big money, ensured that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, and made it harder to break election laws with the Fair Elections Act. All of these initiatives have strengthened Canada's democracy and reinforced confidence in our electoral system.

Today I am very pleased to discuss our government's latest democratic reform initiative, the citizen voting act. The bill would ensure that everyone who votes is a Canadian citizen, and it would require voters living abroad to follow the ID rules set out in the Fair Elections Act.

Specifically, the citizen voting act would ensure that only Canadians vote in federal elections by requiring proof of citizenship from everyone voting in federal elections while abroad. This would not apply to Canadian Forces members.

Second, the bill would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to cross-reference the National Register of Electors with Citizenship and Immigration data to remove non-citizens from the voters list.

Third, the bill would put an end to the possibility of riding shopping by ensuring that non-residents receive a ballot only for the Canadian address at which they last resided.

Fourth, the bill would apply the same voter identification rules to all Canadians. Under the Fair Elections Act, Canadians living inside the country must prove who they are and where they live. Canadians support this requirement, and that is why the citizen voting act would expand it further to residents living abroad.

Finally, the bill would create one set of rules for voting from outside the country. Anyone voting while abroad, whether temporarily, on vacation, or permanently, will need to apply for a ballot in the same way and follow the same rules.

Given the limited time that I have today to discuss the citizen voting act, I am going to focus on a couple of items. First, I will focus on riding shopping.

Currently the Canada Elections Act permits non-resident voters to choose the riding that they vote in. They can select from one of four options. First, they can choose their last place of ordinary residence. Second, they can choose the address of a spouse, a relative, or a relative of a spouse. Third, they can choose the address of a dependent. Fourth, they can choose the address of someone with whom they would live if not residing outside of Canada.

Voters living in Canada do not have such flexibility. They must vote where they live at the time of an election. They cannot choose the riding in which they want their vote to be counted, and justly so.

Geographic representation is an essential characteristic of our electoral process. Canadians in each electoral district elect the candidate who they feel will best represent their interests and those of the community. Particularly in this vast country of ours, territorial-based representation ensures that diverse communities are represented in the House of Commons.

I am sure members may think that when an expatriate voter chooses his or her riding, proof of past residence is required. However, they would be wrong: Canadians living abroad are not required to provide proof to Elections Canada of their last Canadian residence. By stipulating that a non-resident voter's last place of residence in Canada would be their residence for voting purposes, the citizen voting act would end the unfair option of riding shopping and standardize the rules for resident and non-resident voters. This would ensure that each voter has a direct and meaningful connection to the riding in which he or she is voting.

I would now like to turn to the issue of voter identification.

The citizen voting act would ensure that Canadians living abroad would follow the same rules as those living in Canada. The bill would build on the Fair Elections Act by requiring Canadians voting by mail—both residents and non-residents—to include proof of identity and residence in their application for a special ballot. This requirement is similar to the rules set out in the Fair Elections Act.

The Fair Elections Act, adopted last June, contained important measures to reinforce the integrity of the vote by strengthening ID rules. According to Ipsos Reid, in April 2014, when debate about the Fair Elections Act was at its height, 87% of those polled agreed that it is reasonable to require someone to provide proof of identity and address before being allowed to vote. The citizen voting act would make this requirement consistent for all Canadians, both resident and non-resident.

The same three ID options for voting at the polls would apply to those applying to vote by mail: either a government-issued photo identification with the name or address; or two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, one with address and both with name; or two pieces of authorized identification with name and an oath or declaration of residence that is attested to by another properly identified elector.

In the case of non-residents, the attestation process would enable them to provide proof of their last residence in Canada by an oath or declaration. The person providing an attestation would be a fully proven resident or non-resident qualified to vote in the same electoral district as the person applying for the special ballot.

To account for the potential difficulty that non-residents might face in obtaining an attestation as to their former residence in Canada, the citizen voting act would allow the attestor for the previous residence of a non-resident to be qualified to vote in the same electoral district not to be of the same polling division. This is a slight variation to the attestation process for Canadians voting at the poll that was introduced by the Fair Elections Act.

A non-resident Canadian applying for a special ballot must also provide, in addition to his or her own identification proving his or her identity, copies of identification providing the identity and residence of the person providing the attestation.

Standardizing the voter identification requirements for resident and non-resident Canadians removes preferential treatment for one group of voters over another and obviously just makes sense.

Our government recognizes the unique circumstances of members of the Canadian Forces. A completely separate set of rules found in division 2 of part 11 of the Canada Elections Act governs their voting procedures. Canadian Forces members serving abroad can vote at the location they are stationed, and the citizen voting act would not affect those rules.

In conclusion, our government remains committed to ensuring that our electoral system meets the needs of voters, both in Canada and abroad. The amendments being made by the citizen voting act are necessary to ensure the fairness of the electoral process and to ensure that one set of rules applies to all Canadians.

To summarize, the bill would strengthen Canada's election laws by, first, ensuring only Canadian citizens vote in federal elections; second, putting an end to the possibility of riding shopping; third, applying the same identification rules to all Canadians; and fourth, creating one set of rules for voting from outside the country.

These important advancements will bring greater accountability, integrity, and accessibility to Canada's fundamental democratic process. These are common sense legislative changes, so I would encourage all members to support the citizen voting act.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that it was never done. Indeed, the government responded as my colleague for Toronto—Danforth said. It did not refuse it, but it did not accept it at the time. The government wanted to submit it to a detailed overall study, which should have been done, but it has not been done. That is why we ended up with the Frank et al. court decision, which the government has appealed and has tried to suspend the implementation of. That might give members a sense of where the government is situated on that.

More proof is contained in Bill C-50. If the questions we have asked are not answered, and if the rationale is not forthcoming, transparent, and real, then I think the concept of some sort of selective voter suppression might indeed be at the root of Bill C-50, and that would make it totally unacceptable.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for sharing his time and my colleagues in the House for unanimously agreeing to let him do so.

I have some questions about the bill. I happen to represent a riding where possibly one of the higher number of electors abroad cast ballots, given the fact that Foreign Affairs and National Defence headquarters, and many public servants, are in the riding. I have had a number of people write to me from abroad asking, “What gives?”

The first thing I need to understand, and I hope the government would offer a rationale for this, is that it used to be that Canadians living abroad beyond five years could not vote unless they were members of the Canadian Armed Forces, public servants working abroad, or Canadian citizens working for an international organization of which Canada was a member, such as NATO or the United Nations. They and their families could keep voting if they had been there for longer than five years.

Two students in the United States wanted to vote in the last general election and could not, because they had been abroad for more than five years and were not part of the forces, were not public servants, and were not working for an international organization that Canada is a member of, so they were not allowed to vote. They challenged that in court. That is the decision we heard referred to this morning, Frank et al. v. AG Canada. I have read it, and I will quote a couple of paragraphs from it in my presentation.

The reason I am bringing this up is that the distinction that remains standing in Bill C-50 is the Canadian Forces. They will be able to continue voting, as they did before, but their spouses and families, and certainly public servants and Canadian citizens working for international organizations, will not.

I have had two people write to me who are working as interpreters for NATO. They are Canadian citizens, and they are concerned now, because the rules under which they used to be able to vote would not apply if the bill were adopted.

What is the rationale for limiting this to the Canadian Forces and restricting, through Bill C-50's measures, the rest of Canadian citizens who used to be able to vote even if they were abroad for longer than five years? That needs to be explained.

I will quote two paragraphs from the decision, because I think they may indicate the nature of the debate here. The magnitude of the vote is not all that much. In paragraph 113 of the decision, it states:

I am equally troubled by the notion of what is or is not “fair” to the resident majority of voters. Substantive “fairness” is almost always in the eye of the beholder. To put the issue in context, since the Special Voting Rules were implemented in 1993, a vastly smaller number of non-resident Canadian citizens have exercised their right to vote than expected. Elections Canada estimated at the time that approximately 2,000,000 Canadians were living abroad and planned for 200,000 registrations. In the election that followed, a little over 15,000 special ballots were requested and issued. Over the next several general elections, the number of external ballots issued ranged from a low of 10,733 (in 2011) to a high of 19,230 (in 2000). In the most recent election, in the ten Canadian ridings with the highest number of special ballots, as a percentage of total registered electors in the constituency, the non-resident votes ranged from a low of 0.05% to a high of 0.2%. Also in that election, Elections Canada reported that barely 6,000 votes were recorded from international electors, compared to approximately 26,000 votes from Canadian Forces electors and almost 15,700 votes from incarcerated electors.

The other paragraph I will quote is paragraph 114.

This is comes from the government in its presentation of arguments.

The second objective, concerns over electoral fraud, while less vague than the first, is subject to the same frailties. In this case, the government has failed to identify any particular problem with non-resident voter fraud or of non-resident voting causing an undue drain on Parliamentary resources. Indeed, the only evidence of these concerns at all comes from the speculation of a political science professor teaching at the University of Buffalo - State University of New York, who opines that an increase in non-resident voting “could,” “may” or “might” give rise to concerns in the future. The available evidence from Elections Canada is that there are no documented problems associated with non-resident voting.

The reason I brought these up is that the numbers also show quite clearly that 6,000 of two million non-resident Canadians voted versus 26,000 Canadian Forces members. I am wondering if that is part of the rationale with respect to the first question I asked. It would be good for Canadians to know that.

Also, as has been brought up a number of times, there is the matter of delays. It is true that if 36 days, which is the span of an election, is the time that triggers when one can register, it will cause significant problems. One has to wonder if indeed that is not a way of suppressing votes that would otherwise be more likely to be cast. The question asked by a colleague of the member for Toronto—Danforth is quite accurate. Given that we now have a fixed election date law, why can Canadians who are resident abroad who want to vote not start registering now? If the law says that the election is going to be on October 19, 2015, then it would help Elections Canada, it would help voters, and it would help declared registered candidates. They would be able to approach these folks in terms of trying to convince them to vote one way or the other. Why not now, as opposed to once the writ is dropped? That to me is troubling, and I would like to hear the rationale for that, too.

Finally, there is a question about the last address. Why would people have to register every election, when they did not have to before? I am wondering about that. If they are part of the registry, and nothing has changed in their citizenship and so forth, why must they always re-register, and with the same address? What happens if they have lived in an apartment building that is now demolished and the address does not exist anymore? Will they be able to register if the address does not exist anymore? If the apartment building is gone and all their neighbours are gone, how will they get someone to ascertain that they were indeed living there? It is going to be difficult.

I wonder to what extent the Conservatives might be open to amendments to this kind of provision, because I do not believe they have thought things through completely.

Finally, a number of us in this room have been declared candidates for our respective parties. I have always tried to send some material to Canadians residing abroad who are eligible to vote. If that registry no longer exists, and if they cannot register until the writ is dropped, then obviously, the local candidates, of whatever party, will have a difficult time communicating with these Canadian citizens who are eligible to vote, presumably, but who may be in the midst of trying to register. Therefore, we would have no idea of how to communicate with them, and voters will not have any idea of who the local candidates are.

All of these are issues of some concern. I have received, again, a number of complaints from constituents who are Canadian citizens who would vote abroad, and I hope that these will be answered either here by the minister or in committee, either by the government or by Elections Canada. These are serious matters, and if they are not answered, I would think we would not be able to support such a bill.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

To the consternation of my colleagues, I was not attempting a bait and switch there. I apologize, but I am sure that members have the deepest respect for the member for Ottawa—Vanier, as I and his constituents do.

I want to start by saying many of the points have been brought out already, and by way of background I want to say that I am a firm believer in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, where in section 3 it says everyone has a right to vote, providing they are a Canadian citizen and 18 years of age or over. The bill raises a lot of questions as to stifling that ability, and that is why I have questions. As another colleague pointed out, obviously with the majority in the House, this bill will end up going to committee, assuming that all members of the governing party vote in favour of this, and when it goes to committee, serious amendments should be sought. I mean serious.

There is one instance where it is positive. The rest, however, raises many questions, and as my colleague pointed out, may result in some chaos, certainly in the administration of our elections, regarding electors outside of the country temporarily or permanently.

I want to talk about some of the things in Bill C-50. I will get to the Frank decision in just a few moments, but first of all, I want to talk about eliminating the register of electors who temporarily reside outside of Canada and incorporating the information found in it into the register of electors. Basically there is a harmonization process that is going on with the process of special balloting.

When we hear Conservatives and the minister, in particular, talk about the same set of rules for both, a lot is being missed, in the sense that the circumstances are different either way. Remember that what is tantamount or most important is not the administration of this and the efficiency of the administration of this. What is most important is that nobody's rights are violated by denying them the right to vote, which is what people talked about with Bill C-23 and now Bill C-50 regarding the suppression of vote. That is the absence of any accusations of that being the intent.

Nevertheless, there is a level of suppression that is a continuation of what we had last, from vouching now to this, not to mention what the voter information card dismissal brought about in the last round of legislation.

The bill would require Canadian electors who reside abroad to apply for registration and a special ballot after the writs are issued at each federal election, stipulating that electors may only receive a special ballot for the address at which they last resided in Canada.

There are a couple of things here. What made it easier in the past was that people could register to vote living outside the country. Now they could only do it when the writ is dropped, and as pointed out before, the time period is of the essence here. The time period would become so narrow. Again these are special circumstances where voters live outside of the country, so we are making it particularly hard for them to do that, in light of the fact that they do have the right to vote.

The bill would require an external auditor to report on election workers, compliance with special ballot voting, procedure, and requirements for every election, and add the offences of attempting to vote by special ballot while knowing that one is not qualified to vote. It refers to electors temporarily residing outside of Canada, electors residing in Canada improperly attesting to the residence of more than one elector, and attesting to the residence of an elector when one's own residence has been attested to.

What we look at here is that we know the government wants to cut down on election fraud. We have heard all this before. It does not want to send a ballot to an address outside of Canada that could be picked up by a non-Canadian citizen. At the same time, we are reverting to a previous argument. The theme is a solution that is looking for a problem. Once again we find it within Bill C-50.

One thing that was brought about in the bill—and I will get to this right now because we agree with it—is authorizing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information to help the CEO to delete the names of non-citizens from the register of electors.

We grant that it is a process that should be done and should be looked at. Virtually everyone in the House would agree that this is the type of measure that should be taken for the sharing of information to make sure we can exercise our right to vote.

The history behind people outside of the country being allowed to vote goes back to the First World War. The soldiers who fought valiantly for us while overseas were given the right to vote. That is a natural extension of being a Canadian and living in the country that we do, which is so great and wonderful. That extension still applies. There are extensions for people who work for the Government of Canada, whether they work for the military or several embassies around the world, to be able to vote as they would if they were residing in this country.

The question I have, and it has yet to be answered, is with respect to the families, particularly spouses or partners, who are eligible to vote but face different rules than do the people who are employed by the Government of Canada. That is problematic because they have to go through the process of re-registering every five years and the others do not. Therefore, there are different rules applying to two different people who are living in the same residence in another country for the same reason. I hope that some of the amendments would address this issue as we get closer to looking at it in committee.

In 1993, the rules were changed further to allow more people the right to vote. However, we again had the five-year rule that if they had been outside of the country for more than five years they were not eligible to vote, which is their right, despite the fact they are above the age of 18 and Canadian citizens. The Frank decision recently decided that was not good because it denies those Canadian citizens above the age of 18 who happen to reside outside of Canada, whether long or short term, the ability to exercise their right to vote under the Constitution.

In looking at the Frank et al decision, I see that section 3 of the charter states:

Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

The Frank decision posed this to the government to take action. However, there is some confusion in Bill C-50 as to whether that was done. I am not a constitutional expert, but in reading it I have yet to square it as to where the vote of these people who are more than five years outside the country has been protected, because it is not protected at all. I think an administrative nightmare has been created for many of them to do that. In the past they could register once they were outside the country. They cannot do that anymore. They have to wait for the writ to be dropped. That puts them in a tricky situation as far as timelines are concerned. I understand there are some online mechanisms that the minister has pointed to that would remedy this, but by the same token there is still that process.

The verification of signatures for those people outside of the country appears to be absent from this, or I have yet to see it. I hope the minister can clarify the situation. That qualification is no longer there. It would have made it easier to identify and verify those people based on two signatures, one on the ballot and one on the application form, and that would have gone a long way toward helping Elections Canada. That is something we have to look at.

I would also like to talk about vote shopping. The government has stated on several occasions that vote shopping is a problem. For those Canadians who are not aware of what vote shopping is, in its base form, those people can choose the riding in which they want to vote. However, Elections Canada has never stated that it was a big problem or that there was too much abuse and the law had to be changed. I again go back to the theme that it was a solution looking for a problem. Unfortunately, it would impede their ability to vote; it would impede their right under section 3 of the charter. Therefore, in looking at this, we see the government wants to cut down on an abuse that we are not sure existed to any extent, by making it problematic for those who want to legitimately vote in the riding they left when leaving Canada. That raises many questions.

My final point is with respect to this coming into force in only 60 days. I cannot see how Elections Canada can administer all of these rules in that 60-day period.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on Bill C-50.

Does the member believe the government's claims that this bill comes in response to the Ontario Superior Court decision in Frank et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada, which specifically addressed paragraph 11(d) of the Canada Elections Act, or is it simply a way for the government to try to change the law on the pretext that it really is a response to the Superior Court decision?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his presentation. Along with my colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, I acknowledge that this may not be the best day for the minister in terms of his health. Accordingly, in the spirit of what we heard from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I may be a little more gentle than I was intending to be.

Some here might have had a chance to read the piece that came out today in the National Post, where I make it very clear that I do believe—this sounds like how I started the debate on Bill C-23, what we call “the unfair elections act”—that the effect, at minimum, of these changes in Bill C-50 would voter suppression of citizens living abroad, and something that I am not sure the minister is fully aware of, namely, that it could create chaos with voting in Canada, because of the changes to a section that would prohibit the Chief Electoral Officer from authorizing any use of ID that basically does not have its origin Canada. I will explain why that could cause those problems.

I will stick with this phraseology that “in the result”, this is the problem, although seeing what has been knowingly put in the bill, I honestly think that the minister has to realize what these impacts would be. I hope that with some of the presentations during this debate and some of the criticisms he is already beginning to receive, he will be open to some serious amendments, including a couple that, to follow his own line, would be quite simple and could actually get rid of some of the serious blocking effects that I see. It is also important to note, although the minister did not really make hay of this in his own speech today, that in the presentation back in December when the bill was tabled, there very much was an effort to spin this bill in a way that created two false impressions. This is important to know.

One is that the press release in the backgrounder made it seem like the government was implementing the Frank judgement, which basically said that citizens away for more than five years now have the right to vote from abroad. It was very unclear from the presentation whether or not the Frank judgment was being accepted. It is important that everyone knows that Bill C-50 would not remove any provision in the Canada Elections Act that was struck down by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Frank decision. It is still sitting in the statute. The reason for this is that the government has clearly decided it is going to continue to fight to prevent citizens who have been away for more than five years from voting. It is appealing the decision, and it even sought a stay of the trial judgment to try to prevent it from going into effect. The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied that stay.

The fact of the matter is that the government is still actively seeking to keep as disenfranchised Canadians who have been living abroad for more than five years. Yet the presentation of the bill made it look like this was somehow an effort to bring things into line. If this were really bringing things in line with the Frank judgment, all the government would have to do would be to adopt the suggestion by the member for Halifax in her Bill C-575 and simply repeal the same sections the judge found to be unconstitutional in the case. Instead, the Frank decision is being used as a supposed reason for a wholesale change of issues that never arose in the Frank case. It is important to ensure that the Frank judgment does not carry the government along in any sense where people think the government is actually respecting that judgment. It is still appealing it.

Second, the press release directly claims that all Bill C-50 would do is to apply the same voter identification rules enacted by the so-called Fair Elections Act, Bill C-23, and extend those rules to Canadians voting from abroad. There is some truth in that. There are some analogues that get brought forward. For instance, the vouching for an address gets brought forward. However, Bill C-50 inserts a new prohibition on the kinds of documents the Chief Electoral Officer could designate as identity documents. It would apply to documents used by all.

The new subsection 143(2.11) would apply to all electors and would basically create additional limitations on what the Chief Electoral Officer would be free to authorize by way of identity documents.

Because of the wording in that provision, this would have impacts in Canada. It would also make it extraordinarily difficult for some Canadians abroad to produce the right kinds of ID that now they have to produce. They would not be able because of this change. This is new. This was not in Bill C-23.

I just want to set the scene by making clear that this is the case.

It is also important to note, to set the scene, although the minister has downplayed it in his presentation today, and I acknowledge that. There was a sign it was not going to go this way. There is virtually no reality to the idea that there is a fraud problem from voters from abroad. The judge in the Superior Court, Mr. Justice Penny, basically said that those kinds of claims were so unreal as to not even constitute a pressing and substantial reason under section 1 of the charter to limit the right to vote.

“Riding shopping” is not something that Elections Canada has ever seen as being a problem. All that happens at the moment is that multiple points of contact are available to increase the chances, the ease with which somebody from abroad can vote. The idea that there is something illicit going on when people choose to vote where their parents live versus choosing to vote where they last lived seems to me to be a spin that is designed to make this look palatable or necessary when there is actually no problem. There is no such thing as “riding shopping”, except perhaps in the minister's imagination.

It is important to clarify that when the minister talks about 40,000 non-citizens being on the register, this was brought to his attention—and I am glad that two years later he is acting upon it—by the Chief Electoral Officer. The new mechanism that would allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to allow Elections Canada access to the non-citizen database that CIC has would be great. However, it is important to note that we are talking about a fear, by error, that approximately that number of people are on the national register, not on what is, until this point in time, the international register. To get on the international register, one has to actually show one's citizenship.

It is a separate issue that would be dealt with in the bill, but it should not be confused with anything to do with a concern that non-citizens are voting from abroad. I fear that, unintentionally, the minister's emphasis on that could allow people to think this is what is going on. No, the issue is cleaning up the national register for people who are in Canada. That is fine. That one particular piece is a good thing in the bill.

I do feel duty-bound to note that Elections Canada was not consulted on this, except for the discussion a couple of years ago on the issue of trying to ensure non-citizens were removed from the national register where they appeared in error. That will probably prove to be a problem at the time of committee because we will probably hear some very detailed testimony from Elections Canada about many problems the bill would create.

As long as the minister is open, seriously open, to changing them, because these have not been foreseen because there has been no consultation, we might well end up with a productive committee process. If the minister thinks it has all been thought through and that whatever he hears from Elections Canada will not change his mind, then we will have a serious problem. What we will have, in effect, is the minister confirming that the intention here is to make it much more difficult to vote from abroad and that it is not just the unfortunate result of how the act was written.

Let me go to this issue that is the sleeper issue. It is the question of subsection 143(2.11). It is a new provision that would basically create a new prohibition on the Chief Electoral Officer. It says:

—the Chief Electoral Officer is not permitted to authorize...a type of identification that has been issued by an entity other than...a Canadian government, whether federal, provincial or local, or an agency of that government; and...an entity that is incorporated or formed by or under an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province or that is otherwise formed in Canada.

It is fairly complex wording.

The bottom line, as the minister made clear, is to ensure that ID only originates in Canada, essentially. That seems to be the general idea. The problem, however, is that it has been done in a way that might actually end up creating some serious administrative, and even more serious problems, in Canada.

This new prohibition, which is intended to deal with voters from abroad so they have to somehow produce Canadian-originated ID, is going to have an impact on everybody who shows up on election day in Canada.

What is the reason for that concern? First, “formed in Canada” is not a legally known concept and is not defined in the bill. The question of what an “entity formed in Canada” means is going to produce some serious problems in Elections Canada trying to scope it out, and then having that interpreted on election day by pressed election officials. We really need to ensure that this will be clear. Obviously the intention is probably that organizations like the CNIB are covered, and it is not just documents issued by corporations, for example, utilities bills, et cetera. However, the language is used in a way that is very unclear.

Here is an issue. Now a voter can use a Visa, Amex or MasteCard bill as one piece of ID to show an address. However, people could show up with it, and the deputy returning officer or the chief poll officer could look at it and ask if Visa is a company incorporated or formed in Canada, is there a Visa Canada and who has issued the document. The chance of that kind of minute questioning will be a problem, even if it seems farfetched. It will create serious workability problems. I know for a fact that Elections Canada is concerned about this extra burden and the mistakes that could be made.

The second thing is that it is not at all clear to me that private leases will be caught by this wording, as I asked in my question to the minister. The language is all about corporations, entities or government agencies. There is no scope there for a document that has effectively been issued by an individual, which is what private rental leases are. They are often a form of identification to prove address that students in university tend to use.

The bottom line is that this will create workability issues that I do not think the minister intended to create, but that we will hear about in committee from Elections Canada. The unworkability issue is major.

I am also concerned that some party scrutineers who now would be allowed to ask to inspect identification documents as a result of Bill C-23 would see these new rules as an opportunity to ask, more often than they should, for proof that this new provision has been met by whatever document has been presented by somebody showing up.

If somebody shows up with a Visa bill, somebody might ask the deputy returning officer if that is a document issued by an entity formed in Canada. Maybe it is a document issued by an entity doing business in Canada. We can imagine the opportunity for mischief that could occur.

I am being a bit like the minister in that I am looking down the line at what kind of abuse is possible. The minister looks in one place and I look in another. We have to talk about that.

In my remaining minutes, I want to talk about what everybody knows is a big concern. The big concern here is that the new requirements for citizens voting from abroad can be extremely onerous. They can produce delays that can result in ballots not arriving in time to be counted.

The primary problem is the requirement that voters have to register for each election, apply to receive their ballot or register, the same kind of thing collapsed into one, only once the writ has been dropped. People have to be aware that it has happened. They have to register quickly enough in order to ensure that all the mail can occur. As the minister has said, sending in their application, even if that is virtually, and receiving the special ballot and mailing it in and doing that from Dar es Salaam, New Delhi or Sydney, requires time.

There are all kinds of reasons to think that the way the mail service works or the way citizens abroad may be not be immediately on top of when a writ has been dropped could result in timelines that could be almost impossible to make. Currently, people can register in the international register at any time. However, I believe we will hear testimony from Elections Canada saying that currently when people wait to register until the election has been called, there is an increased incidence of the ballot not arriving in time.

A system has been created in this new bill whereby that problematic situation that we already know exists, for some who wait too long to register, get their ballots and mail them in, is now scripted as the only way. Therefore, the delay issue is huge.

We should also not underestimate the problem of ID. The longer people have been away, the chances that they have retained Canadian-issued IDs, apart from their passports, may go down dramatically. In some jurisdictions when people get local drivers' licences, they actually have to hand in their old drivers' licences. People who are hoarders, and have kept every ID they have ever had, may have no problem. However, with no notice, many of the two million Canadians already abroad may already have sort of jettisoned or lost the IDs that they now have to use.

They cannot rely on the Chief Electoral Officer to issue a list of acceptable foreign IDs that go along with proving people's addresses. Let us say people still have to prove their last known addresses in the way the bills wants, but they can use their passports and some foreign piece of ID as corroborating ID. The Chief Electoral Officer is not permitted to allow that, even though a foreign driver's licence is at least as good in proving who one is as a Canadian licence. It has nothing to do with the address, but it does with identity. Therefore, there are serious problems with actually producing two pieces of ID for some abroad that we have to take into account.

Let me now talk about vouching. The bill would get rid of the possibility that people could vote where they would have a strong connection to relatives and would focus only on people's last known addresses. The problem is they have to prove it affirmatively. If people do not have pieces of documentation saved, such as a driver's licence, which in New York state they have given up to the Americans, then they basically will have to rely on this new vouching provision.

The new vouching provision says that people have to provide proof of their last place of residence, so they would have to contact their neighbours and ask them if they remembered them when they were neighbours seven years ago. They would have to ask them to do this attestation. They would need a statutory declaration, see their IDs to prove they are voters, have them fill out a form, get the form back to them and then include it in their package in applying to vote. We can obviously see that the one big problem is the delay this will create. The need to have someone vouch for them within a 35-day election campaign period will already make it virtually impossible to meet that deadline.

The other issue is that all the same rules in Bill C-23 apply. A person cannot vouch for more than one individual. If a family of four living abroad can only find one neighbour who still lives where the family used to live and the neighbour lives alone, that neighbour can only vouch for one of them. The other three are out of luck.

Therefore, it is very clear that the issue of how the vouching system would work will not be as relatively easy as it is in Canada when somebody on election days goes with the person to vouch for him or her. The idea of saying that the rules are the same for those voting in Canada and those voting abroad is a very formalistic understanding of equality, because when the same rules are applied to very different circumstances, there is a serious disadvantage in complying with the rules. The committee will find example after example like this and the minister will really have to get his mind around them.

Let me give another example. Students going abroad to get their masters degrees or Ph.D.s quite often are heading off from a previous university. Now, sitting in London, Paris, or New York, they will have to prove that their last residences were in university towns and pretty much the only people who know that was the case are former students, who themselves have moved on. How will a proper vouching system be created for that particular case? It may sound like an imaginary issue, but it is not. When we think about students moving around internationally, they usually move from a university town or an address that they lived at to obtain their education.

What I would say is that in its result, Bill C-50 is a clear exercise in suppressing the votes of citizens abroad in a way that is diametrically opposite to the spirit of the Frank judgement, which the minister started out by invoking as the reason for these changes.

In sympathy for the minister and his illness today, as he seems to have the flu, I will not hit too hard any more, but I very much hope that he is not doing this intentionally in the bill. I also hope that, for once, we will be able to make serious changes at committee based on the evidence that there are problems with this bill.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

moved that Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the occasion to address the House today on the citizen voting act.

The citizen voting act has three principal objectives. The first is to help prevent non-citizens from voting in federal elections. The second is to require voters living abroad to provide proof of identity, past residence, and citizenship. The third is to create one set of rules for all Canadians voting from outside the country.

To start with the background that led us to this legislation, I would bring members' attention to the Ontario Superior Court ruling in Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada. In this case, the court struck down the law that had been in place preventing citizens from voting if they had been out of the country for more than five consecutive years or have no intention of returning. Estimates show that the reading could lead to 1.4 million new eligible voters and an outdated system to administer their votes.

I will now work through some of the individual problems that exist within the status quo and how the bill seeks to address them one by one.

The first problem is that an estimated 40,000 non-citizens are on the voters list. Elections Canada has brought this number to my attention. It has indicated that these lists are not perfect, and that as a result, names of people who have interactions with various levels of governments get into the overall system and inadvertently end up on the list of electors. These people are sent voter information cards that indicate where they can go and vote, although they are not eligible to do so.

The problem is that there will be some who go and vote, even though they are not citizens, because they think that they are allowed. If they get a voter information card that says they should show up at the elementary school around the corner to cast their ballot, logically they would think that they, as permanent residents, are allowed to do that. There will be people among that 40,000 who will accidentally break the law.

There will also be some who might deliberately break the law. With their names being on the voters list, they do not even have to sign oaths asserting that they are a citizens when they go to cast their ballots. It is only those who are not on the voters list who have take an oath of citizenship when they vote.

The solution in the citizen voting act would authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the names, genders, birthdates, and addresses of non-citizens who are in Canada so that Elections Canada can cross-reference and remove them from the National Register of Electors. This would be a very difficult and tedious undertaking, I am afraid, but it is a worthwhile one. If it can reduce that number of 40,000 non-citizens to a smaller number, or perhaps eliminate it altogether, we can celebrate that as an improvement in the accuracy of the voters list and the fairness of our elections.

The next problem is that under the current law, Canadians voting abroad do not need to have any proven link to the riding in which their vote is counted. At present, if a person is living in London, England, or Washington, D.C., for example, and wants to vote in Canada, that person can register to vote in pretty much any constituency with which they feel that they have a connection, and that connection will not be verified by Elections Canada. Everyone else has to vote in the riding in which they reside, because the residential link is a critical part of our constituency-based system, but there is a double standard that allows some to pick their riding and do riding shopping, while others have to vote where they live or where they have a residential connection.

The solution is to bring about the same rules for everybody. The way we would do that is by requiring proof of past residence.

Obviously someone living abroad most likely would not have a current residence in Canada, so I think it would be reasonable to ask them to cast their ballot for the constituency in which they last lived before they left the country. The citizen voting act would do that. The bill would require that they prove their identity and their most recent Canadian address, using the same documentation as do voters who live in Canada under the new rules that came in through the Fair Elections Act.

The options would be a photo ID containing a prior address, or any two of the 39 pieces of ID approved by the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada. If none of the documentation has their address on it, the voters would be able to rely on someone who would sign an attestation that in fact they did reside in the riding in which they want their vote counted, and that attestation would quality as a proof of past residency.

These rules might seem familiar. That is because they are the same ones that the Fair Elections Act brought in. Under that bill, we require people to show ID when they vote, but if that ID does not have an address on it, then they can rely on someone to sign an attestation or co-signing an oath that they in fact do reside in the riding in which they want to vote. We are simply taking that set of rules that we apply within Canada and applying it outside of Canada.

Some might ask about expired documents. If someone has been living abroad for 10 or 15 years, obviously their documents would not be up to date. We have specifically stated in the bill that expired documents are acceptable forms of ID, so if somebody has an old drivers licence that is past the expiration date, it would still qualify as proof of previous Canadian residency and render eligible that voter in the riding where he or she is attempting to cast a ballot.

The next problem is that there is a double standard for voting abroad.

There are two types of voters who cast ballots from abroad. There are those who are resident in Canada but are on vacation or working abroad during the election. Examples are the snowbirds who go down to Florida or California during the winter. They have to vote by something called a special ballot. When they vote, they actually have to apply for the ballot at each election. They have to provide ID to show where they reside in Canada, and then they get a ballot for the riding that they come from. They send that ballot back in the mail, and it is counted in the correct constituency.

By contrast, those who are long-term non-residents, those people who live outside of Canada, do not have any of those obligations. They merely apply to be on the voters list once, and then into perpetuity the ballot arrives in their mailbox as soon as the election is called. This causes a lot of problems.

One problem is that someone could easily have moved. Someone resident in Mexico City might move to another part of the world, but their ballot would still come from Elections Canada to the Mexico City mailbox of someone who has no connection to Canada and should not be in possession of a Canadian ballot. As a result, into perpetuity we would obviously have ballots going to the wrong people, and there is no way of verifying that the address is accurate in that kind of circumstance. The requirement to apply for a ballot for each election is an organic way to keep the list of those Canadians who are voting abroad up to date.

Next we move to the issue of proof of citizenship. The citizen voting acting would require in law that everyone voting outside Canada provide proof of citizenship. This requirement would not apply to Canadian Forces members, but it would apply to everyone else.

Finally, the citizen voting act would apply some audit procedures to Elections Canada to make sure that all of these rules are followed. That process was established in the Fair Elections Act for voting when it occurs within the country. We are simply applying it to all of those who vote from outside of the country.

How does this proposed system compare to other countries around the world? Many like-minded democracies place restrictions on voting by non-residents with limited exceptions for citizens serving abroad.

For example, in the U.K., non-residents can only vote if they have been out of the country for less than 15 years. In Ireland, non-residents cannot vote. If they do not live in Ireland, they do not vote in Ireland. In Australia, non-residents can only vote if they have lived abroad for less than six years and intend to return to resume residence in the country within six years. They must provide either their Australian drivers licence number or their Australian passport number or have a person who is on the federal electoral list confirm their identity—not their address—by signing the application form. In New Zealand, non-resident citizens can vote only if they have been abroad for less than three years. In Germany, non-residents can only vote if they have been abroad for less than 25 years. They also must have lived in Germany for three consecutive months following their 14th birthday.

To avoid getting into all of the details, members can surmise from these examples that among our peer group, Canada, which currently allows Canadians living abroad to vote without restriction, has basically one of the most generous systems of enfranchisement for citizens abroad.

This legislation would not change that, but it would improve the integrity of the system. It would ensure that only citizens vote, that their vote is only counted in the riding from which they come, and that they only vote once. That is basic to the integrity of our electoral system, and the bill would bring the rules for Canadians abroad in line with the rules we have now established for those voting here at home.

That is in essence the proposal we bring forward to the House. I thank the House for this opportunity to address the chamber.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me first say happy new year to my counterpart and all hon. members.

We are back in Ottawa for another hard-working, orderly, and productive sitting of the House of Commons, a sitting in which our respective parties' policies and plans will be debated. Only one party, though, has a plan that will benefit all Canadians, and that is the Conservative plan to create jobs, keep taxes low, and keep our communities safe from crime and the threat of terrorism.

This afternoon we will conclude debate on the Liberal opposition day motion.

Tomorrow we will wrap up debate on Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act, at third reading. This bill is the first step in our legislative measures to ensure that our law enforcement and security agencies have the tools they need to meet evolving threats.

The other part of our program to counter that terrorist threat is a bill that will be introduced tomorrow. It will be called for second reading debate during the week after our upcoming constituency week. That should allow all hon. members an opportunity to study these thoughtful, appropriate, and necessary measures and to hear the views of their constituents before we start that important debate.

Before we get to that constituency week, though, there is one more sitting week. On Monday, we will debate the NDP's pick of topic, on the third allotted day. Before question period on Tuesday, we will start debating Bill C-50, the Citizen Voting Act. After question period, we will return to the third reading debate on Bill C-21, the Red Tape Reduction Act, which will help ensure job creators can focus on what they do best, not on government paperwork.

Wednesday and Friday of next week will be dedicated to Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act. This bill would put victims where they belong: at the centre of our justice system.

Finally, next Thursday will be the fourth allotted day, when we will again debate a proposal from the New Democrats.

Citizen Voting Act

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)