44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 31, 2024 10:00AM
- May/31/24 10:14:44 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères on a point of order.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 10:15:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would just like to know if we have quorum in the House.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 10:15:58 a.m.
- Watch
I will ask the clerk to count the members present.
And the count having been taken:
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): We have quorum.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Friday morning quorum calls are an interesting tactic. It interrupts my speech a bit. I can assure the member that if they look at the chamber and the lounges where we have the TVs, where people participate online, there are a number of people around, listening to the debate.
Members might want to take a look at the legislation and parts of the legislation. It would be great to have feedback because not all members go to the committee stage. I was commenting in regard to voting anywhere inside one's riding and what other possibilities are out there. Members might want to encourage, and I would encourage, Elections Canada to look at other options. I cited the Province of Manitoba that has the ability to vote in malls and other places.
I made reference to a three-day election and why it is so important that we look at making that a reality because that will be the case in the 2029 election. It takes some time to make those types of arrangements. I am not confident enough to say that it would happen in 2025, but who knows what the standing committee might say on that.
There are all sorts of reasons that we could easily justify moving in that direction. There could be something taking place in a community, which could cause a problem on a particular election day. On the current October 20 election date, I believe the Province of Alberta and its municipalities are having their election on that particular day.
Having the option to vote over two or three days, as we will see in 2029, could be a very positive thing. It could be something of that nature, or there could be something weather related. From a personal voter perspective, something could come up within the family. These are the types of discussions that should take place.
It is important to realize that when a minister and the department have put a great deal of effort into this legislation, they are very open to hearing what members of Parliament have to say. Elections Canada not only will be monitoring this debate, but also will be looking at what is said at committee.
I would suggest that there are other aspects to the legislation that would make things easier and that would alleviate the administrative burden for candidates, such as pre-registering a candidate, facilitating the use of e-signatures by eliminating the witness requirement or reducing the signatures required for the nomination papers. Some candidates submit 200-plus signatures as a mechanism to get an introduction at the door and whatever else they might want, but they get a lot of signatures on their nomination papers.
That is great if someone wants to be able to do that. However, we are proposing, in this legislation, to see a reduction in the signatures required. I believe that would help facilitate many would-be candidates. Again, it would be interesting to hear the thoughts from across the way.
The bill, Bill C-65, would establish polls in long-term care facilities and would remove requirements for long-term care residents to show proof of address when voting on site. It would allow electors who need assistance to select anyone they wish to help them cast their ballots. These are the types of initiatives that I think we learned a lot from during the pandemic. There are opportunities to enhance people's abilities to get out and vote.
The Electoral Participation Act accounts for the fact that outreach, contact and engagement between federal political parties and voters are absolutely essential and healthy to a modern democracy. Having said that, I would quickly make reference to those data banks. We need to ensure that we have checks in place that ensure privacy for a wide spectrum of ideas. I mentioned the idea of the "Who called?” book, back in the day, where at one time, the poll list was actually posted publicly so that someone could easily find out the names of individuals, where they lived and even their phone numbers, in certain types of elections. One can appreciate and understand why, today, we would have a very difficult time with that. We have a Privacy Commissioner and many parliamentarians who I believe are very much concerned about the privacy issue. A lot of that is now within the legislation being proposed. Federal privacy regimes would also bolster privacy requirements for political parties and would ensure a single, complete and comprehensive federal privacy regime.
As I only have one minute left, I will talk about electoral integrity. The legislation would ban disinformation that is intended to disrupt the conduct of elections. It would remove the time frame limit for offences involving impersonation or false statements and more. It would ensure that malicious actions using artificial intelligence are captured. It would safeguard against foreign, untraceable and difficult-to-trace donations, so in other words, it would ban things such as prepaid credit cards, cryptocurrency and other things. It would prohibit the aiding and abetting of a violation. We are strengthening Elections Canada's enforcement and compliance abilities.
This is all good stuff. I would highly recommend that members of all political parties see the value in bringing forward any thoughts they might have at committee stage and, hopefully, we will see the bill, Bill C-65, pass relatively quickly so that we can start the dialogue at the standing committees and get this exchange in the legislation moving forward.
924 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 10:24:09 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what we have is a self-built elections bill that really is a pension bill. It ought to be called the “loser Liberal pension protection act” because what we have is a deeply unpopular government faced with an election date of October 20, 2025. The problem is that the Liberals elected in 2019 would not qualify for their pensions, so what does the government do? It tries to push back the election date to pad its pockets at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. It is about as cynical and as dishonest as it gets. To add to the level of dishonesty, the Liberals initially said that it was all about Diwali. It has nothing to do with Diwali.
If it has nothing to do with pensions, then why do the Liberals not get on with it and call a carbon tax election so that Canadians can be put out of the misery that the Liberal government has caused them?
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 10:25:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I was speaking, the member seemed to be agitated as he was kind of bubbling in his seat. Now I think I know why.
Here is a news flash for the member across the way. This is a minority government. In a minority government, the Liberal government, as he puts it, does not get everything it wants. This is legislation that not only one political party is behind. I like to think there are many aspects of it that even the member who posed the question is going to support, at least I would hope.
First, let us get the consensus. Elections Canada is an incredible organization and does a wonderful job of protecting the security and the confidence of Canadians in our electoral system.
The second thing I would say is that if the member is passionate about one aspect, it takes more than one party in order to pass any aspect of the legislation.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 10:26:28 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member opposite gave an excellent speech praising the merits of the bill introduced by his government. From what he said, it seems like this is a very worthwhile bill. I want to commend him for that. There seem to be a lot of good things in his bill.
However, he did not mention the issue that this bill fails to address, and I am wondering why. Often, when the Liberals introduce bills, they brag about all the extraordinary measures the new bill contains to show us all the good things about it, but sometimes there is another side to things. History has shown us that we often need to see if there is a partisan angle to consider. We could well wonder about the Liberals' partisan interest in a bill, for example.
In this case, can the member opposite tells us how many Liberal members would not have been entitled to a pension if the date of the election had not changed by one week and how many Liberal members will be entitled to one now with the date change?
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 10:27:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the Conservative member, in order to pass the legislation, we are required to have a majority of votes. I would not be focusing much attention on that particular issue because it is the Conservative Party that would actually benefit the most. The Conservative Party has over 30 members that would benefit. They would benefit more than any other political party in the chamber. If the Conservatives do not want to see it, okay. Do the NDP members not want to see it? Do the Bloc members not want to see it? Do the Green members not want to see it? Maybe there might be some Liberals who do not want to see it.
Let us allow the process, and allow it to go to committee. Is there validity in saying that there are celebrations on some days that might justify having the election on a different date? Members of the opposition are creating something in the room, which they could ultimately change. If all the opposition parties, and maybe even some Liberals, were to say that they wanted to have it on x date as opposed to this date, then we would go with the majority.
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as we all know, there are some very important components within this bill, Bill C-65, specifically around adding two additional days for advanced polling and enshrining legislation for the vote on campus program; that is huge. I could go on.
As my colleagues have mentioned, there is one portion of this bill, Bill C-65, that speaks to moving the election date forward, which has consequences on members of Parliament's pensions. There is a reason that my colleagues are bringing this up. Canadians do not want to see members of Parliament putting forward legislation that personally benefits their own pensions. They want to see solutions being put forward that would address the climate crisis and the affordability crisis that many Canadians are experiencing.
The NDP has made it very clear that we will be putting forward an amendment to move this election date back to the original date, and to see this important legislation go forward but not to see this component that unfairly benefits members of Parliament. Will the member be supporting this amendment?
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 10:29:59 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can assure you that I will fully respect what the majority of members of the House want to see when it ultimately comes to a vote.
One can do the math. If every member of the Conservative Party, of the Bloc and of the NDP says that they want to go to October 20, I suspect the election will be on October 20. It is as simple as that.
We should not be looking at only that issue. The committee will no doubt deal with that issue. I hope that they have all sorts of discussions with respect to it and that they are able to resolve it. However, there are other critically important aspects to the legislation that the members made reference to, including increasing the number of advance voting days. That would help immensely in ensuring that more people get engaged in the 2025 election.
Whether it is voters themselves, political parties or Elections Canada, we are seeing an uptick on the number of people participating at the advance polls. Increasing the number of advance poll days would be a positive thing. There are a lot of positive things within this legislation.
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 10:31:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with respect to the piece of legislation before us, the defeated Liberal MPs' protection act or, forgive me, it says it is the electoral participation act, the parliamentary secretary did not answer the colleague for St. Albert—Edmonton's question about the pension, specifically. All the parliamentary secretary has talked about is supposed electoral participation improvements and process improvements. He refuses to answer as to why the Liberals feel the need to delay the next federal election by a week, when the only reason to do so is to protect defeated MPs' pensions.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 10:32:01 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, who am I to defend the 32 Conservative MPs who would benefit by that? Let us have that discussion at the committee stage.
We have before us a substantial piece of legislation, and I am glad that all opposition parties are taking positions on it. Let us allow the bill to go to committee. Remember that we are a minority, and if a majority of members of Parliament want to change the election to whatever date, they are entitled to do so.
I am hoping that the opposition Conservatives will see the value in the legislation itself, think beyond just the one issue and see how more Canadians would be able to get engaged as a direct result of the passage of the legislation. I suspect, contrary to the impression that the Conservatives are giving, that for a vast majority of things that are being suggested within the legislation, the Conservatives will be voting in favour of it.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 10:33:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are three reasons why the Bloc Québécois cannot vote for this bill. None of them are positive.
The first is that we should not be making accommodations on religious grounds. When it comes to something as important as the democratic process in a G7 country, for us, that simply has no merit.
The second is that we think it is irresponsible to postpone this for a week when we are going to be six days away from municipal elections in 1,109 municipalities across Quebec. We already have trouble mobilizing people for municipal elections.
I do not have time to talk about the third reason. I will let the parliamentary secretary answer.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 10:33:57 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a great deal more than just the change of a date within the legislation. Let us think in terms of foreign interference. Let us think in terms of voter participation. These are very positive, progressive measures that would enhance the legislation.
Let us always remember that it is a minority government, so that means that it takes more than one political party to ultimately make a determination of the bill's passage. Let us see it go—
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 10:34:29 a.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-65, and I will use the official title for the moment: an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.
I would first ask for unanimous consent to split my time with my hon. colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 10:34:51 a.m.
- Watch
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I often begin my interventions in the chamber with the following statement: “It is an honour for me to bring the voices of the residents of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this place.” I have and retain that privilege only by a process. It is the election process, and that is what Bill C-65 purportedly seeks to amend.
Running in and the timing of an election should always be about maintaining the confidence of this place, about putting a vision forward for the country and about running on one's record in serving the country. Therefore, while some of the provisions of the bill are supportable, Conservatives have serious concerns about the changing of the fixed election date.
Let me first make a few comments with respect to the laudable provisions contained in the bill. The modest changes to the third party regime, where foreign entities should not be permitted to contribute to third parties that engage in election-related activities, are supportable. There has been much discussion regarding foreign interference in our elections, so measures that would address these activities can be supported.
While there are costs associated with advance polling days and locations, they pale in comparison to the costs involved with the amendment to move the next election date from Monday, October 20, 2025, to October 27, 2025. Therefore, any further possible committee examination of the bill should be contingent on addressing the following point: These additional seven days would cost Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars. I will be focusing on this aspect of the legislation in my remarks today, because the provision would make the bill an MP pension bill impersonating as an elections bill. This begs the question of why the government is proposing it.
The Liberals are claiming that they would be changing the election date so as not to overlap with the festival of Diwali, and it just coincidentally happens to be that the seven-day additional delay would secure the pensions of over 80 MPs after six years of service, meaning any MP elected after October 21, 2019, would reach that six-year threshold only if the election occurs after October 21, 2025. I will note that this includes me and 31 of my Conservative colleagues, and I am prepared to run on my record. Will my Liberal colleagues make the same vow? Will they run on their respective records before October 21, 2025?
Of the 80 members elected in 2019, here is how the members pushing the pension date break down across the political parties represented in the chamber: Conservatives have 32 members of Parliament from the cohort of 2019, and the Liberals have 22. The Bloc Québécois has 20, and the NDP has 6. The Conservative caucus and all of the 2019 cohort support running on our record and not delaying the final election date.
Will the Bloc members also support not delaying the final date for the election? I welcome in the Q&A that follows my remarks any formal statement by the members on the record from that party. Similarly, I would invite my NDP colleagues, who have been alluding to that as well as the Bloc, to put on the record in their questions to me that they will not support the change. That is first and foremost, before we go on to any further discussions on the bill.
The Liberal government is adamant that the sole reason for the proposed legislation is to strengthen our democracy. In fact, the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs was quoted in a recent National Post article as saying the following: “[The] government believes that a strong democracy begins with enabling...Canadians to freely exercise their fundamental right to choose their representatives and we’ll always be there to defend that right”. However, the actions of the government and the Prime Minister show otherwise.
I will go back for a moment to foreign interference and the intimidation my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills and his family faced from foreign state actors. Our security agencies learned of this and informed the Prime Minister, and he did nothing. With the interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections in several ridings across this country, where was the government action? What about the unnecessary invocation of the Emergencies Act, an action that erodes the very foundational principles of our democracy and the rights of our citizens? We only need to look at the conduct of our present Speaker and the lack of respect he has shown for the non-partisan role of his office not once and not twice. I cannot keep track of the number of violations.
The government continues to erode the institutions that support the foundation of our democracy. If the minister and the government are so concerned about the defence of democracy, why do they not give Canadians back some of the freedom from the fiscal black hole they have imposed upon the citizens of this nation and not force us to pay an estimated $120 million if all MPs were to lose their seat in the next election?
I have an idea. What if the government held the 2025 election on October 6, 2025 instead? That way it would not interfere with Diwali, nor would it affect the Jewish celebration of Shemini Atzeret, allowing the Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Buddhist and Jewish communities to vote on election day if they chose not to vote in advance polls. It bears noting that this is not the first time the issue has come to the forefront. In 2019, the Chief Electoral Officer ruled against changing the fixed election date. In 2019, Aryeh-Bain, a Jewish Orthodox woman running for the Conservatives in Eglinton—Lawrence, attempted to have the October 21 election date switched to October 22. She wanted to avoid the overlap of the Jewish holiday of Shemini Atzeret, which was to begin on October 20 and end on October 22 of that year.
The riding of Eglinton—Lawrence was home to about 5,000 Orthodox Jewish voters in 2019, and the previous, 2015, federal election had been decided by fewer than 4,000 votes. Aryeh-Bain argued the merits of her case based on the closeness of the results in the previous election. As I mentioned earlier, the Chief Electoral Officer in 2019 ruled against it, stating, “There is no such thing as a perfect election day, especially in a country as diverse as Canada. There are always Canadians who are unable to vote on election day.”
Given the precedent set in 2019 by Elections Canada in that ruling, the government need not be selective in its observance of religious holidays. However, an October 6 election date would seem to resolve all of the possible issues around religious observances. Even better yet, let us have an election now, which would allow the government to run on its carbon tax record that it so proudly defends in the chamber. It can run on its housing record. It can run on its record on fiscal management of the country.
After nine long years of the Liberal government, we can ill afford another selfish Liberal policy that would further bankrupt future generations. Conservatives will bring down inflation, allowing interest rates to fall by capping federal government spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule, and we will ensure that Canadians are not on the hook for tens of millions of dollars in pensions from moving the election date for spurious or disingenuous purposes.
The bill before us is an MP pension bill impersonating as an election bill. Conservatives will restore hope to Canadians. We will bring it home for Canadians to unite this country for our common home. It is your home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.
1317 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 10:43:26 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a bit much. I do not want to defend 30-plus Conservatives, the largest number that would actually benefit, if the member wants to look at it as a benefit. There are 30 Conservatives, 20 Liberals, just under 20 Bloc members I think, and a half-dozen New Democrats who would be affected by what the member is actually talking about.
As opposed to trying to recognize that aspect and only that aspect, let us look at how the legislation would enhance our electoral system. We would get more people participating in elections, and I see that as a positive thing, which is why we would be increasing the number of advance polling days. Students would be able to vote on their campuses. These are positive measures.
The question I have for the member is this: It is a minority government, which means that if a majority of the House wants to change—
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 10:44:31 a.m.
- Watch
I have to allow for other questions.
The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
