SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 322 - May/31/24

May/31/24 12:20:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians would like it if the Prime Minister, this afternoon, went down to Rideau Hall and called a carbon tax election. That is what Canadians would like, but it will not happen because the Prime Minister knows, and the member for Winnipeg North knows, that they would be decimated.

53 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/31/24 12:20:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that all the Conservatives want to say is to axe the tax and to call an election. That is all they ever say inside the House of Commons. They do not necessarily realize that there is still another year plus, in terms of the mandate that was provided. Here, we are talking about changes to the election that would enable more Canadians to potentially participate, such as increasing the number of advance voting days. Does the member support the recommendation to increase the number of advance voting days?

93 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

May/31/24 12:21:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, yes. I do support that aspect of the bill, but there are other problems with the bill, which I outlined in my speech, with respect to some of the special balloting measures contained in the bill, the inadequacy of the amendments to the third-party financing regime, and above all else, the fact that the overriding purpose of the bill is to pad the pockets of soon-to-be defeated Liberal MPs.

74 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

May/31/24 12:22:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-65

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-65, tabled by the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs. I want to give a bit of background on the content of the bill before delving into the details of the Bloc Québécois's position. The bill is presented as a means to encourage voter participation. It is hard to be against such an objective. I could talk about certain aspects of the bill, such as the idea of “two additional days of advance polling”. Giving voters two extra days to cast their ballot is certainly not a bad idea. We are not opposed to that. The bill also seeks to “authorize returning officers to constitute polling divisions that consist of a single institution, or part of an institution, where seniors or persons with a disability reside”. Basically, the goal is to set up polling stations in long-term care facilities or in residences for people who are elderly or who have severe disabilities or mobility issues, so that they can vote on site. Again, that is not something we are opposed to. It is actually rather positive. The bill seeks to “provide for the establishment of offices for voting by special ballot at post-secondary educational institutions”. The government wants to let people vote in schools. These are things that have already been done, particularly in Quebec. We do not have any problem with that. We tend to agree with that measure. Then, there are other measures that would not be implemented right away but that could be implemented later if the findings of the Chief Electoral Officer's reports show that they would be worthwhile. Those measures could be put into in a second bill later. The Chief Electoral Officer would be responsible for presenting a few reports on various topics, one of which is “the measures that need to be taken to implement a three-day polling period”. The government wants to determine how the Chief Electoral Officer can ensure that polling is carried out over three days rather than just one. We are talking about the final election or D-Day, as we say. The bill also provides for the Chief Electoral Officer to submit a “report on the measures that need to be taken to enable electors to vote at any place in their polling station”. Often, when people go to vote, there are several small polling stations scattered around. There are lists, and the polling stations are divided into several lists, so there are four or five polling stations. Thanks to this measure, people can go to any polling station to vote and will not have to wait if, for example, everyone happens to go vote at the same time and there is a line. That way, people can vote at the nearby polling station to avoid having to wait. This might speed up the processing rate. Again though, we will have to see how this measure can be implemented. How will we ensure that the right people are crossed off the right list? How will we ensure real-time monitoring? It will be up to the Chief Electoral Officer to tell us whether this is feasible or not. The same goes for the three-day voting period. It is already hard enough to find places for people to vote. I have worked on elections in the past and have had discussions with returning officers. Many facilities need to be found, because there are several polling stations in each riding. Then people are divided up based on where they live. We must find locations that are close to where people live and that are available during the hours in question. Is a three-day voting period a positive thing? If it is feasible, why not do it? It could be somewhat problematic. It will be up to the returning officer to determine whether there are possible solutions. For example, it would be hard to close schools for three days. If events are planned in certain locations, those rooms will have to be reserved. This can pose logistical problems. The Chief Electoral Officer will also have to provide “a report on the feasibility of enabling electors to vote at any polling station in their electoral district”. Electors will not only be able to go to a different polling station if theirs is busy, but they will be able to go to any polling station in their electoral district. For example, instead of voting at the community centre next door, the elector could go vote at the school in the neighbouring town, at a polling station three blocks down, or even at a church. That type of location is often used for this type of event. People will be allowed to walk from one polling station to another to go vote. Again, this poses the same problem: We will have to ensure that no individual can vote at three or four different stations. The lists will need to be monitored. The returning officer might tell us how to manage this part. There again, these are all things that we are prepared to look into to see how they could be implemented. They are not necessarily bad suggestions, on the contrary. They may even be good, if we can figure out a way to implement them properly. When it comes to extending the polling period to three days and adding two additional days of advance polling, the only thing that presents an additional problem is the impact that will have on election workers, who are often students or retirees, because people who work full time are at work or sometimes have a family that they need to look after. They do not necessarily have time to work at an election. If we ask election workers to do more, we may need more workers to cover all the shifts. That may mean hiring more election workers or asking the same election workers to do more. The Chief Electoral Officer may find it difficult to get enough people who are trained and available. We will see what the Chief Electoral Officer says, but there are definitely some potential problems. In Quebec, the returning officers are saying that it is already hard sometimes to find election workers. Finally, the bill provides for “a report proposing a process for the determination of whether a political party has as one of its fundamental purposes [or relies on] the promotion of hatred against an identifiable group of persons.” No one wants to see hate speech or hateful politics directed at an identifiable group of persons. The Chief Electoral Officer will therefore take responsibility for examining this issue as well. All the items I mentioned are relatively worthwhile and positive. However, I wonder if anyone has considered the practical side of implementing all this. As I mentioned, the last items we talked about would not be implemented right away. They would be deferred until a later time. We therefore have time to think things through, although I believe that we have to consider practicalities before implementing anything, to nip all sorts of problems in the bud. As we know, our electoral system is important. People generally trust our electoral system. We do not want to break with that trust in the integrity of the electoral process. It is too valuable, just like the public's trust in the process is valuable. If we decide to do something, we need to do it right. However, there is something else in the bill that the Liberals are not talking about. We have been listening carefully, and so far, they have barely mentioned it in their speeches. Every time the Liberals introduce a bill, I always wonder why they are introducing it. Is it for partisan reasons? One has to wonder. The bill before us would delay the election by one week from October 20, 2025, to October 27, 2025. Why move the election by one week? The official reason we were given is that the government wants to accommodate Indian communities and their celebration of Diwali, which is a festival of lights. That is the reason the government gave us. If it were a statutory holiday, we could understand that, but I find it odd that an election would be moved because of a religious holiday. Canada is supposed to be a secular state. A secular state, by definition, is not supposed to bend to the whim of every religion. Whether it is Mardi Gras, the Feast of the Assumption or Palm Sunday, will the government start saying that we cannot vote because there is a religious holiday that day? If we take into consideration all the religious holidays that exist, we will never find a day to vote. It seems to me that this is a slippery slope and that it is not the right direction to take. I am even wondering whether that is the real reason. I would like to remind members that people already have six days to go to the advance polls, so if they want to celebrate Diwali, for example, then good for them. That does not prevent them from voting during the six days of advance polling, since this bill adds two additional days to the four advance polling days that we already have. They can also go to the returning officer's office to vote at any time. If people can already go vote at the office of the returning officer at any time during an election, is it really a major issue if the last day on which they can exercise their right to vote falls on a religious holiday? I am not so sure. People can also vote by mail. That was implemented during the last election and it is now more widespread. People can vote in schools. That was mentioned earlier. There are even going to be mobile voting options for people with reduced mobility. That means that if someone has difficulty getting around physically, because they are in a wheelchair, for example, someone will visit them so they can vote. People can also vote in long-term care facilities or CHSLDs. That is why I am not entirely sure that Diwali celebrations are the real reason behind this. This creates another problem. The Liberals did not think of it or maybe they do not care, but there will be municipal elections in 1,108 municipalities in Quebec at roughly the same time. In fact, the date of the municipal election is November 3, 2025. The date of the federal election was initially set for October 20, 2025. If it is moved to October 27, there will be six days between the two elections. I do not know if anyone has any idea of what that might look like. There will be signs for every federal party: the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party, the NDP and all the other possible parties. Add to that all the signs for all the municipal parties. There will be a fight to see who posts their signs first. This will also create a media situation where everyone is clamouring to be on the news. Everyone will be in battle mode to get media coverage. Will the coverage be on the municipal election or just the federal election? The journalists, whose numbers are already dwindling, will have difficulty finding the time to properly cover both election campaigns. All 1,108 municipalities will hold elections at the same time. It is not like one small remote town or a single school board was having an election—those do not exist anymore anyway. My point is, 1,108 municipalities is a lot of people. All these people will have to ponder, think, listen to debates, get informed—because not everyone is a full-time follower of politics—and make a choice. They will now have to do all of this twice in the same period. What is more, something tells me that there will not be enough space—mental space, space in the media, physical space and space for volunteers. We want people to get involved, but, judging by what I can see in my riding, it is the same people who are volunteering in municipal, provincial and federal elections. They are also the same people who organize social and community events. Very often, the same people are involved in everything. Now, we are going to tell these people that they have to take care of all the elections. Volunteers are not the only ones. There are also election workers. The people who work for municipalities during the elections and who get paid by returning officers will be called upon to work during the federal elections. This will create a competition of sorts. Federal and provincial polling stations will have to be set up and staff will need to be trained. That will quite the whirligig. I cannot understand why the Liberals overlooked that, unless they do not care. We know that they often skip over Quebec's cities, refuse to even listen to them and want nothing to do with them. For the Liberals, Quebec's cities do not exist. Sometimes, the Liberals even interfere in their areas of jurisdiction. We often talk about it in the House. I think it is sad, because it makes no sense. It almost seems like they are deliberately trying to confuse people. Why would they do such a thing? In fact, it is because the Liberals are a bit desperate. I visited the 338Canada site this morning. At the moment, the Liberals have 156 seats, but the latest projections show that they would win 71 seats if an election were held tomorrow morning, meaning that 85 Liberal MPs would lose their jobs. Some of them would lose more than just their jobs. If an election were held on the date originally scheduled, they would lose their pension too. If that date were pushed back a week, they would get it. As we understand it, the Liberals have found a way to say that they might be defeated in the next election, but they intend to give their friends a little parting gift, a bigger cheque, to make them richer on their way out the door. No member of the Liberal family will be abandoned or allowed to fall through the cracks. It is pathetic. Now the cat is out of the bag. All of the good intentions and positive measures in Bill C‑65 that the government has been bragging about do not seem quite so great when we find out why the bill was actually introduced. The real reason is that the Liberals want to treat themselves with taxpayers' money. I am rather taken aback by that. Over the past several weeks in the House, often during question period, the member for Honoré-Mercier, who is the Minister of Transport and the Quebec lieutenant, has sometimes been taking pleasure in answering the questions of Bloc Québécois members by saying that we are not here for our convictions but for our pensions. That is what he said. I am 35 years old, so I am not going to be getting a pension anytime soon. Now we are learning that, while the Liberals say that, what they are really doing is scheming, with the complicity of the NDP, to get themselves some nice pensions. Come on. Perhaps the NDP brought it up during question period because that is what they were thinking about. That is what was on their mind. The NDP was wondering how to make the Canada Elections Act best serve the interests of the Liberal Party. This reminds me of the infamous wage subsidy. The government said that it wanted to help struggling businesses keep their employees during the COVID-19 crisis so it would subsidize wages. The Liberals also found a clever trick with that program. They figured that they needed the money as well, so they got the wage subsidy. Nothing is too good for the Liberals. The same thing is happening again with Bill C-65. It is pretty discouraging. In fact, it is discouraging and sad because making changes to election legislation is a sensible thing. Making changes to election legislation is, in fact, the very essence of democracy. The public trust is sacred; we should not play around with it, indulge in self-serving largesse and constantly try to make it work to our advantage. In the end, these little Liberal shenanigans only serve to fuel public cynicism and make people feel more disconnected from our institutions. People tell themselves that this does not really represent them and that they do not trust it. For these reasons, we are obviously going to vote against the bill. We are saying no to chaos in municipal elections held at the same time as federal elections and no to accommodations for religious holidays when we are a secular state and we are told that religious holidays will determine the timing of elections. Who understands that? I do not. Above all, I say no to Liberals who decide to fatten up their pension funds just before they leave.

2906 words

Hon. Dan Vandal (Minister of Northern Affairs, Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Lib.)

May/31/24 12:40:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I wish to designate Monday, June 3, as the day appointed for the conclusion of the debate on the motion to concur in the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

34 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/31/24 12:40:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was listening very closely to my friend across the way. He was talking about the consideration for the Province of Quebec and raised a lot of valid points. I wonder if he is aware that the City of Edmonton, the City of Calgary and the municipalities in Alberta have their elections on October 20. That is when the legislation is proposed. If nothing is done, we will have our election on the same date as those municipalities. When he makes reference to Diwali, I myself appreciate Diwali, which is good over evil. There are all sorts of things that I would talk about with respect to Diwali. Having said that, I share the same concerns the member just talked about for the Province of Quebec. That is why I ask: Would he apply the same principles he just finished talking about with respect to the Province of Quebec for the people in the Province of Alberta? Should that be taken into consideration at all?

167 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

May/31/24 12:42:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I could answer quickly that the concern for a Bloc Québécois MP like me is primarily for Quebec, the municipalities of Quebec, its jurisdictions and all the rest. I am not necessarily against what my colleague is proposing, that we should take into consideration the dates of other provincial and municipal elections. In fact, from the point of view of a parliamentarian or a federal government, it should go without saying that efforts should be made to avoid having these elections at the same time. Is it my role, as a member from Quebec, a member of the Bloc Québécois, to check whether there is an election in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba? No, that is my colleague's job. It is his responsibility.

133 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

May/31/24 12:42:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to see you in that chair. I appreciated my colleague's speech very much. He was elected for the first time in 2015. He mentioned his age. I did not think he was that young. The member raises a very important question regarding the necessary coordination when an election is called. We know that we have three levels of government in Canada: municipal, provincial and federal. We try to avoid creating bottlenecks whenever possible. On the other hand, we recognize that Canada has 10 provinces and tens of thousands of municipalities, each with their own agenda. We recognize that. However, in this specific case, given the timing of the municipal elections in Quebec, we can plainly see that we are headed for a perfect storm in the name of a theoretically fixed-date federal election. I believe that the same timing issue happened in the last election, in 2021. Members may recall that the Prime Minister called an election during the fourth wave of the pandemic, after a year and a half of a minority government. The current minority government is now in its third year and he will draw things out for a fourth one. I want to draw members' attention to what my colleague said. Some members will have reached the six-year mark by the next election. What a coincidence. The government is proposing to have the next election after the supposed fixed date. I wonder if my colleague would be open to examining the proposal to hold the election 10 days before the fixed date. In that case, some members might not get their pension.

276 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

May/31/24 12:44:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague raises a very interesting point. The government's priority should not be to work to ensure that its members make bank. The government's priority should be to ensure that the public can vote under the best possible circumstances. The government is saying that it is going to make elections better, that it will be easier for people to vote, but that it wants to do it at the same time as municipal elections. I am not sure that this will help people.

89 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

May/31/24 12:45:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, for those who are watching, you are one of the longest-serving members in the chamber here, so it is good to see you in this role. To my colleague, the NDP has proposed a change to stop the extra week that would allow this pension issue to rear its head and really distract from some good, necessary electoral reforms. There may be some other potential amendments that would help increase voting; voting numbers have not been as robust as what we would want. The Liberals cannot get out of their own way. They continue to be the only party that wants to have this pension benefit thing exist. Would my colleague be supporting the NDP amendment to get rid of this entire pension debate, as well as other amendments to increase participation in democracy?

137 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

May/31/24 12:46:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that the NDP would like to keep the original date with an amendment. What I do not understand is why the NDP needs it and why it is announcing it now. When the bill was introduced, the NDP was patting itself on the back, saying that they had worked on it together and that it was so proud of the bill's outcome. In the end, they came forward with something else today. It would be better if the date were moved by a week. It is better to vote a week and a half before a municipal election in Quebec than to vote six days before a municipal election. We agree on that. That said, the dates would still be very close together, and there would still be confusion. What would be even better would be to move the date back a little further, so that the election would be called a little earlier.

160 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

May/31/24 12:47:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his extremely interesting and enlightening speech. I would like to remind members of the title of the bill, which is the electoral participation act. Our number one concern in the House is to get as many people to participate in elections as possible. My number one role is to get elected by the people of Shefford. I am starting to see a pileup—

71 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott Reid)

May/31/24 12:47:42 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George on a point of order.

13 words

Mr. Todd Doherty

May/31/24 12:47:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I am wrong, but I do not believe our hon. colleague is in her actual seat.

21 words

Seat

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott Reid)

May/31/24 12:47:57 p.m.
Watch

Perhaps we will give the member a chance to get to her seat. Everything is in order. The hon. member for Shefford.

22 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

May/31/24 12:48:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-65

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I was so caught up in this compelling and interesting debate that I forgot the rules. I will come back to my question. Bill C-65 is on electoral participation. Above all, our role as elected members is to ensure that more people participate in the electoral process. For some time now I have seen a pileup of bills, facts or news in the House that are harmful to democracy. Let me explain. When two parties call each other names—I saw this again just this week—this just fuels hate and fosters a hateful environment that discourages people from going out to vote. I do not think that shouting insults is very edifying for democracy. I have another concern. The Bloc Québécois is losing a riding in eastern Quebec. Not only are we losing political weight in the region, but Quebec is also losing political weight. It is worrisome for democracy. Now more elements are being added that will hinder the next election, namely having the federal election at the same time as another election. Moreover, people will only become more cynical about politics because they will think that politicians are giving themselves a pension by moving the date of the next election. This is starting to really add up. What does my colleague think?

226 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

May/31/24 12:49:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very good question. I think she raises a good point with the so-called electoral reform, by which I mean the latest redistribution. The electoral map is obviously a part of democracy. Unfortunately, there is nothing in this bill to correct the issues being faced in regions where the ridings are even larger, where the impression of being far from power is even greater, and where the work of MPs and elected representatives is even more difficult. These are the kinds of issues we would like the feds to address. However, we are getting the impression that the Liberals are turning a deaf ear. We know that an independent Quebec would be more receptive because there is already a willingness in Quebec to ensure that the regions are heard and well represented. We know that a process of reflection is under way.

150 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/31/24 12:50:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I asked the member about applying the same principles that he used in his speech for Quebec to Alberta. His response was that this in Alberta, and it does not matter to him. There are 30-plus Conservative MPs from Alberta. Does the member believe they should at least give some thought to the impact of having Calgary, Edmonton and municipal elections throughout the province?

67 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

May/31/24 12:50:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member opposite understood my answer. What I am telling him is that I am a member of the Bloc Québécois, a member from Quebec, and that my focus is Quebec. However, he is a member of the party in power and it is up to the Liberals to manage the entire country and all the concerns of every province. It is up to them to find solutions. If someone tables a solution to these problems, we will not oppose it. However, we are focusing on Quebec's problems.

99 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

May/31/24 12:51:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-65

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House to represent the people of London—Fanshawe and to speak today to this really important piece of legislation. Today is yet another win for Canadians being delivered by the NDP caucus. It is yet another example of what can be accomplished by sending members of Parliament to the House of Commons who put people first. We do not focus on ourselves. We do not work to expand only our own power, or the power of our rich donors, because we do not have rich donors; we have normal people working together for a cause that they believe in. New Democrats work to ensure that our democratic institutions are strengthened for all people. This legislation is a good step. It is one step, but a good step to give power back to Canadians and not tear down democracy simply for clickbait. When we all arrived in Ottawa, after the 2021 election, there were a lot of choices that had to be made by all members. We had the choice to spend the next four years fighting, accomplishing little for our constituents, throwing tantrums because we could not get the results that we wanted, or we could be better. My caucus knew that Canadians wanted action. As a New Democrat who grew up under the leadership shown by Jack Layton, I knew the importance of balancing a proposition while in opposition. We did not want to be like the Conservatives spending four years fundraising and disrupting Parliament. We knew the Liberals would spend four years breaking the promises that they had been making to Canadians for so long, so we stepped up. One thing is very clear in the House: New Democrats and Conservatives have a very different understanding of our responsibility in this House. We are elected by constituents as individuals first. We are here to fight for them, sometimes alongside colleagues in the government, sometimes not. We saw this in action during COVID-19. In this chamber, we put politics aside and fought for Canadians in one of the largest crises in Canada. We, the NDP, used our power in a minority government to collaborate with all sides. We increased the Canada emergency wage subsidy to protect jobs. We made sure that the Canada emergency response benefit provided enough supports for everyone so they could make ends meet. We ensured necessary programs were coming out on time with minimal barriers. We made sure that students were supported. All parties, to differing degrees, came together during COVID. I think that Canadians noticed that support for Parliament as an institution and the respect that they had was felt. Parliament is at its worst when political parties wield their majorities as a way to shut down others, but our experience during the COVID-19 pandemic showed politics can work for Canadians when we come together. We have seen how collaboration can help more and more Canadians. Our agreement with the government says it all. If Liberals finally deliver on their promise of ending first past the post, we can make that collaboration the rule, not the exception. We can end a system where 100% of the power goes to a party with less than 40% of the vote. We can end a system that incentivizes the toxic clip culture and recklessness from opposition parties waiting to have their turn. Canadians would like to see Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc, NDP and Green members working together on solutions. If we can listen to Canadians and end first past the post, we can make that collaboration. Again, it could be the rule, not the exception, in this place. I would like to talk more about how working together has helped Canadians: 1.7 million seniors have registered for dental care, the single-biggest expansion of our health care system since Tommy Douglas; nine million Canadians will receive barrier-free birth control; 3.7 million Canadians will receive diabetes medication and devices for free; a new rental protection fund to stop greedy corporate landlords from getting rich off the backs of precarious renters is set to happen; a new national school food program will provide meals for 4,000 children across Canada; and now, today, with the introduction of Bill C-65, we can move toward fairer elections. Today is a great example of why New Democrats needed to step up and use our influence to make Liberals act. I remember knocking on doors in 2015, and the powerful promise given to Canadians by the Prime Minister that 2015 would be our last unfair election under first past the post. How many people in this place remember hearing that? In 2015, the Liberals were elected with a majority government and had four full years to exercise their majority in this House to pass that legislation but, in 2019, confusingly, I was elected to this chamber by London—Fanshawe under first past the post. Then, in 2021, even the Prime Minister was catching on, saying that we had to eliminate first past the post and he again said, “Oh, I will take on election reform". New Democrats knew that was not going to happen, that we would see that election promise broken again, and that is exactly what happened. My colleague, the NDP MP for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, brought forward a fantastic motion to create a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. She argued to this House that Canadians were becoming cynical about politics. A 2020 Leger poll showed that 80% of Canadians supported the creation of a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. This was a popular idea to solve the drop in voter turnout in Canada. However, the Liberals and Conservatives teamed up in February to defeat it. If Canadians are thinking that the new Conservative leader will be any better, I am sad to say that is not the case. In 2014, he was the Minister of State for Democratic Reform and brought forward infamous unfair changes to the Canada Elections Act. At a time when there was growing consensus in Canada to fix our broken electoral system, the Conservative leader created more barriers to vote and made the process less democratic. The Conservative leader was caught misleading this House when he promised he had consulted the Chief Electoral Officer, but within minutes of his making this claim, Elections Canada officials corrected the record to say that they were never consulted on the contents of the bill. It took years to see the true impact of another major problem with this bill, because the Conservatives stripped the investigative powers of the office of the commissioner of Canada elections. Now we know the rest of the story. We have had years of foreign interference allegations that have shaken this country, but the elections watchdog was stripped. It probably had something to do with the Conservatives' getting caught in that infamous robocall scandal. Canadians know that our elections need more oversight. Conservatives stripped it away. The Conservative bill also allowed for more monetization of our political system. The Conservative leader spiked the maximum donation limit, so the Conservatives' rich insiders could fill their coffers. The Conservative leader made expense-limit loopholes, further making it easier to influence election outcomes by those who have lots of money. The most cynical part of the bill was that they doubled down on the systemic barriers for marginalized people to participate in our elections. Indigenous communities, youth, seniors and the poor are disenfranchised by politics. Politicians use their power to benefit the wealthiest elites in this country, but it is these marginalized communities who need to engage in our electoral system to elect officials who will champion their needs. The Conservatives made it harder for them to engage in our electoral process. The Conservatives knew that tightening rules on voter identification would systematically disenfranchise these voters. They did not care. The Conservatives knew it would cause confusion for those communities, and they went as far as banning Elections Canada from advertising to these communities with respect to how to vote under the new system, which was shameful. Finally, the Conservatives rammed this legislation through Parliament to avoid scrutiny, using their majority government and tight time allocation. Those are not the only changes that the Conservatives made to our elections. The Conservatives used their majority to cut a crucial part of our democracy: per-vote subsidy. Since the NDP was founded in 1961, we have been the party of workers who came together to end the monopoly on politics wielded by the richest and most powerful. The per-vote subsidy meant that Canadian political parties did not need to rely on big donations in exchange for political favours. It allowed Canadians to not only vote for their member of Parliament but to also have a say in which political party had the resources to campaign to get their message out. The Conservatives would rather their insider buddies decide, and they cut the per-vote subsidy while hiking that maximum donation limit. Therefore, the Conservatives made things worse. They made elections less fair, less transparent and less accessible. After the last election, we saw the impact of lower voter participation on our democracy. We knew, as New Democrats, that we needed to use our influence and place Canadians first. We used our power to get these changes to Parliament. Now, let me be clear: This bill is not perfect. We have a number of changes that we would like to make when this reaches committee, but in this bill there are important wins. The bill would add two additional days of advance polling, bringing the total to seven, including election day. It would require Elections Canada to offer online registration for special mail-in ballots. It would create the option to register early for special ballots in the case of fixed-date elections. It would create the option for electors to return special ballots in person or vote in person on election day if they have registered for, but not submitted, a special ballot. It would enshrine in legislation the Vote on Campus program for post-secondary students; and make voting easier in long-term care facilities by allowing returning officers to work with facilities to identify the best date and time for residents to vote early, removing proof-of-address requirements for electors in these facilities and allowing them to choose anyone they would like to assist them with voting. The bill would require a report to Parliament by the Chief Electoral Officer on steps needed to give electors the ability to vote at any polling station in their riding by 2029. It would require a report to Parliament by the Chief Electoral Officer on steps needed to implement a three-day election day period for general elections by 2029 and beyond. It would increase protections against election interference and foreign financing of third party campaign activities. It would introduce new protections against people knowingly making false or misleading statements related to an election or the voting process. The bill has new third party finance rules requiring increased transparency on the source of funding that third parties use to pay for regulated activities. It would create new safeguards for voters' personal data held by political parties. I mentioned that there were things that we wanted to see changed. We need to see more in the bill, and we will be pushing for that at committee. We want to ensure that all communities and Canadians can engage in our electoral system. That means allowing indigenous languages on ballots across Canada. That means allowing telephone voting for people with disabilities. That means lowering the voter age to 16. These changes are critical to ensure we elect politicians who look like and serve all Canadians We also want to remove any chance of the bill being cynically used for MP pensions. We want to ensure that the bill would not circumvent the normal procedure for allocation of MP pensions and ensure that any change to the election day does not push anyone over the line for access to a pension that they would not have otherwise received. We also want to ensure that unions are not unduly prohibited from communicating with their own members about politics. Despite attacks by other parties, unions are part of our democracy. They are elected. We cannot just have electoral democracy; Canadians need economic and workplace democracy. That means ensuring workers can come together and work together to change our political system. We also know Canada is lagging behind on the world stage for gender parity in politics. In 1997, 20.6% of members of Parliament were women. Today, we have only grown to 30.6%, well behind countries, like Mexico, that have reached gender parity by making it a part of their electoral process. I am very proud that the NDP has a robust gender equity policy in our selection of candidates, but the last couple of weeks have shown that we cannot rely on political parties alone to make that change. Canadian women deserve true representation. They need gender parity in this House, and that will require changing how we do elections. I just wanted to expand on this a bit, too, in terms of what I have seen in the procedure and House affairs committee recently, as we are talking about harassment in this place and in this institution. The misogyny that we see in this place needs to be rectified. I have approached many progressive women, seeing if they would put their names forward. They see what happens in this place. They do not want to be a part of that. They cannot see themselves in this place. That has a huge negative impact on how we govern this country. As I conclude, the NDP is extremely proud to have pushed the Liberal government to make elections more accessible for Canadians. There is a lot more work to be done, and we need to keep pushing to make sure that it is done. Canadians are sick and tired of those broken promises, and they are sick and tired of being manipulated solely so certain parties can focus on their own power and privilege. There are fundamental changes that we need to make to ensure that every Canadian's vote matters. I believe that means ending first past the post, which is key for proportional representation; getting indigenous languages on ballots; telephone voting for people with disabilities; and lowering the voting age to 16 years of age for those who contribute to our financial system yet have no voice within our democratic system. This bill, while a small first step, is a very good step. With New Democrats using our power to deliver fairness for Canadians, we are proud that we will be making our electoral system better and fairer.

2485 words