SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 333

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 17, 2024 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 333 - Jun/17/24
Hon. Filomena Tassi
  • Jun/17/24 12:21:55 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the member. She served as my critic, I believe, when I was the Minister of Labour. I always appreciate not only her advocacy, but also the approach she takes in the House. She is respectful and constructive. I am glad she asked me a question about the amount of time we have to pass the bill. Liberals want to get this budget across the finish line because of all of the things I have mentioned thus far, as well as what we have heard in the House throughout debate. Let us look at the amount of time we have had to talk about the bill. There have been six meetings at the finance committee. The last meeting was clause by clause on June 4. On May 22, the Conservatives filibustered. That is regrettable because we lost time. Instead of making up time, we were losing time and actually killed time. Filibustering is permitted in this place, but to be honest, I do not understand why we permit it. On May 30, we had four hours of department witnesses. May 31, we had four hours with many subject matter experts. June 3, we had four hours with many subject matter experts, including the PBO. June 4, we had five hours and clause by clause. We had debate May 6 for two hours. On May 7, we had debate for four hours. On May 8, we had debate for one and a half hours, and on May 20 as well. It has been many hours. The true colours of the Conservatives' position have been made known. Before the budget was presented, and immediately when it was presented, they were in opposition to it. There is opposition to the bill. Let us be clear about what the position is. I say this as respectfully as I can. It is clear the Conservatives do not want the budget to pass, and they will implement every measure that they can to stop the budget from passing. This is not about having enough time to debate. We do have time to debate, and we have had time. That is what I would say in response to the member. Again, I thank her for her approach in the House.
379 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 333 - Jun/17/24
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
  • Jun/17/24 10:41:49 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I am being encouraged to see the clock. If we could pass this bill, I would be happy to do so. At the end of the day, we have before us an important piece of legislation, and the first chance I had to debate the issue inside the chamber, I thought I was rather generous to the Conservative Party in my comments. However, the Conservatives moved an amendment indicating that they would be filibustering the legislation, and because of that, we are now in a position where the bill is limited in the amount of time for debate in an attempt to try to get the legislation to at least the committee stage. The minister, earlier today, answered a series of questions and talked, in essence, about how the minister is open to improvements to the legislation if, in fact, there is something that members opposite would like to see. I would encourage those members to bring forward their ideas and make those suggestions to the minister, possibly even directly. They do not have to even wait until we are at committee, but could maybe send an email or approach the minister. I talked about many things when I previously addressed the bill. However, in going through the legislation, a couple of things came across my mind about what the legislation would do and why it is that the Conservatives have indicated that they are going to be voting against the bill. It is a fairly well-known fact that the crypto king, the member for Carleton, is a big cryptocurrency fan. However, the problem is that it is a way to hide donating to potential candidates or to a political party, which is something that is incorporated in the legislation. It would ensure that there would be a higher sense of transparency and accountability with donations to candidates and political parties. I can appreciate that the crypto king, the member for Carleton, has some concerns regarding that, but I would hope that some of the Reform- Conservatives would see the merit of transparency and a higher sense of accountability in who is donating to political parties and candidates. The bill before us deals with things of that nature. Interestingly, if we go into some of the details of the legislation, members will see that there is a stronger stand on disinformation that is intended to disrupt the conduct of an election. We know for a fact that that actually takes place. It was not that long ago when we had a good example of it, which was when we had robocalls being made that were trying to suppress individuals' opportunities to go out and vote. Members might remember that there was even a high-profile Conservative member who ultimately went to jail as a result of it. This is the type of thing in which information is so vitally important, and we have the Conservative Party not even recognizing the need to fix the issue. I do not quite understand why it is that the Conservative Party is in opposition to the legislation. I look at it as modernizing, to a certain extent, certain aspects and encouraging more people to get engaged in the democratic process. The minister himself, in answers, provided some excellent examples of how it encourages people to get more involved. There are certain things that we learned from the pandemic, such as ensuring that those in long-term care facilities have the opportunity to have more involvement— An hon. member: Foreign interference. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member is right. This government has dealt more with foreign interference in elections than the Stephen Harper administration did. It is a very good point. We will continue to look at ways to enhance the strength of our election laws, and part of that goes to what I just used as an example: long-term care facilities and making it easier for residents to be engaged and vote. That is a positive thing. At the end of the day, it also allows, for example, for youth to be more engaged, with voting at campuses. Why would the Conservatives oppose this stuff? The bill even talks about going into the 2029 election and how we can make it easier, with the hope that Elections Canada will put into place such things as being able to vote at any polling station within a riding. I use the comparison of a provincial election, where people can vote for their candidate in a local constituency anywhere in the province. It is a step forward. The legislation would, I hope, move us in that direction. These are the types of initiatives that really make a difference. We could talk about expanding the number of voting days. We might not be able to implement it for the next election, but in 2029, we may have three days on which people can mark their ballots, with “election day” becoming “election days”. The legislation would do many things. The only thing Conservatives want to talk about is how we supported 32 Conservatives with regard to changing the election date. It is not about helping those 32 Conservatives. It is about making sure the committee understands and appreciates that there are things happening. Edmonton and Calgary were having elections on that day. The entire province of Alberta listened to what the Bloc had to say when it came to the date being too close to Quebec's municipal elections. Where are those Alberta MP advocates?
926 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border