Bill C-31 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 24, 2006
- Debated in principleNov. 8, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 20, 2007
- Passed the second chamberJune 13, 2007
- Became lawJune 22, 2007
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Pierre Claude NolinSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Scott ReidExplicitly speaks in support of the bill as a means to improve the electoral process and reduce fraud.
- Stephen OwenPresents the bill positively as aligned with the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations and committee work.
- Karen RedmanHighlights the bill as part of efforts to improve the existing electoral system based on committee recommendations.
- Keith MartinPresents the bill's purpose of improving electoral integrity and reducing fraud in positive terms.
- Peter Van LoanDescribes the bill as providing real tangible results and an ideal example of maintaining electoral machinery.
- Larry BagnellExpresses happiness to speak on improving the election process and notes unanimous all-party agreement on its goals.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 18. · 2007-02-06 · Failed
What the Senate tried to change
- removes provisionsPierre Claude NolinDeletes amendment No. 1 from the committee report and modifies amendment No. 7 to limit casual worker extensions to Elections Canada with a 165-day cap.Outcome not recorded in the debate · June 6, 2007 · Senate record
- adds provisionsPierre Claude NolinRestores original title referencing the Public Service Employment Act and adds targeted amendments for casual workers at Elections Canada.Outcome not recorded in the debate · June 6, 2007 · Senate record
- adds safeguardsSerge JoyalAdds offences and penalties for improper use of personal information from lists of electors.Outcome not recorded in the debate · June 14, 2007 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
71% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (7,791 words introduced, 5,665 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core updates to voter lists and access rules but made identifiers mandatory instead of optional and added new provisions on information sharing. Wording tightened in several sections while new clauses on Register access and proof of identity were inserted before royal assent.
- Changed optional identifier language to mandatory in definitions and lists.
Before: “"list of electors" means the list showing the surname, given names, civic address and mailing address of every elector in a polling division and the identifier, if any, that is assigned to the elector by the Chief Electoral Officer.”
After: “"list of electors" means the list showing the surname, given names, civic address and mailing address of every elector in a polling division and the identifier that is assigned to the elector by the Chief Electoral Officer.”
- Shifted Register update rule from permissive to required.
Before: “(2.1) The Register of Electors may also contain, for each elector, a unique, randomly generated identifier that is assigned by the Chief Electoral Officer.”
After: “(2.1) The Register of Electors must also contain, for each elector, a unique, randomly generated identifier that is assigned by the Chief Electoral Officer.”
- Inserted requirement to notify electors about identity and residence proof.
After: “(e) the fact that proof of an elector's identity and residence will be required before the elector is allowed to vote.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses many defined terms, exact dates, numbered fines and fixed times that make obligations clear. It also contains several subjective phrases that leave room for argument over when rules apply.
Open to argument
“if an emergency, an unusual or unforeseen circumstance or an error makes it necessary”
Subjective trigger lets the Chief Electoral Officer decide when adaptation power applies.“in a manner that he or she considers appropriate”
Publication method is left to the officer's opinion rather than a fixed rule.“reasonable doubts concerning whether a person intending to vote is qualified”
Standard depends on an official's subjective assessment at the polling station.
Clear-cut
“between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.”
Exact hours create a bright-line access rule.“a fine of not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three months, or to both”
Maximum penalties are stated in fixed numbers.“two months after the day on which this Act receives royal assent”
Coming-into-force dates are tied to a specific event and calendar period.
Discretion. The Chief Electoral Officer may adapt provisions, choose publication methods, authorize identification, set list formats and decide when to retain or share data, giving that office wide operational control.
Challenging the law itself. Vague adaptation and identification rules could be attacked under section 3 of the Charter for vagueness or overbreadth affecting the right to vote.
Disputing a charge under it. Disputes over whether an oath was properly administered or whether doubts were reasonable can be raised on the facts of each polling-station encounter.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.