SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 334 - Jun/18/24

Jun/18/24 11:16:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is fair to say that I would have a bit of a different view of many aspects of the religious accommodation conversation than my colleagues do. I think that a free society, a rule of law society, should make efforts to ensure the protection of religious freedom, of the deeply held convictions of people. Religious freedom is a foundational aspect of human rights. It is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights very clearly. That said, the member is right that there are many different ways and times people can vote. If we have a situation in which the main election day as well as advance poll days and early voting days also intersect with religious holidays for the same community, then I think there is a much greater problem. In this case, this is just cover for the government. I do not think it is really about accommodation. It is fundamentally about the Liberals' desire to delay the election as much as possible and benefit themselves in the process.

173 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Jun/18/24 11:18:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, among the member's many useless slogans that were put forward once again today, one of them was around the Conservatives being “clear and united”. I find that particularly interesting, because the member said he is not in support of this bill, yet last night the member for Calgary Confederation said very clearly that he would be in support of this bill as long as there is an amendment to move the election date back. I have made it clear that I will be putting forward an amendment to see the election date put back, because I agree that we cannot be looking at legislation that will benefit members at a time when people are struggling to make ends meet. How can the member continue to sabotage legislation that truly supports Canadians?

136 words

Calgary

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jun/18/24 11:18:58 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-65

Madam Speaker, the worker bees in the NDP want to tell us about amendments that they might propose, will propose or intend to propose in the future. Let me tell the House about an amendment Conservatives have already proposed that is at present before the House. This is the amendment I spoke to, from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, which would, on the basis of the attempt to delay the election, decline to give reading to Bill C-65. Our position is to support the amendment that is on the table, not hope that the worker bees in the NDP will, after taking sufficient time off over the summer, eventually get around to coming up with their own amendment in the future.

124 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Jun/18/24 11:19:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to follow up on that point, it seems like we have two options here. One is to get rid of the bill altogether because there is one provision in it that is inappropriate. The other is to continue with the bill that has many important elements in it, for example, making it easier for folks to vote at advance polls, and then at committee, as is often the case here, to address the problematic provision. Greens, of course, would strongly support what the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith has put forward. Why not at least support the bill, given that there are other important measures in it, and address the problematic provision at the place where that is best done, at committee?

124 words

Greens

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jun/18/24 11:20:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, here is the legislative process in a nutshell. At second reading, we look at the principle of a bill and determine whether the principle of the bill is one that we want to support or not. The principle of what the government is trying to do is that it is looking for cover to delay the election; I think it is quite evident. The principle is that Liberals, the member for Kingston and the Islands and others, are reluctant to face the judgment of the electorate. That is what they are trying to do with the bill. We are not going to fall for this Liberal trick.

109 words

Hon. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)

Jun/18/24 11:21:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what my colleague just brought up is interesting. The principle of the bill is, essentially, to make sure that as many Canadians as possible can vote in the next election. I think that is a very noble pursuit that all members of the House should be working toward. To disenfranchise Canadians is not what we have been put in this place to do. We want the next election to be the most participated in, the most fair. The issue that came up with the October 20 election date is one that I know my community faced during the last municipal election, when the election fell on Diwali. There was an extremely low voter turnout. In this case, it falls on Diwali. It also falls on an election in Alberta as well. Canadians will be asked to make up their mind about their federal member and their provincial member. I think this would cause a lot of confusion and cause fewer people to come out to the polls. Let us make sure we all work together to get more people to vote.

183 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jun/18/24 11:22:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do want to assure the member that I think there will be very high participation in the next election, judging from the Leader of the Opposition's rallies and public events and the level of enthusiasm we are seeing from Canadians for the Leader of the Opposition's message. I know that many people who have never participated in politics before are finally hopeful about the direction that this country could go under new common- sense Conservative leadership. Respectfully, the chief government whip wants us to judge the government based on its intention, not based on the results. I am not sure that is actually the intention. The publicly stated justification is one thing, but the reality of what the bill would do is delay the election date. Liberals said that the current proposed date has some issues and problems with it. Why did the government not propose to move the election a week earlier instead of a week later? I would be willing to meet the chief government whip in the middle. How about we just have an election right now, right away? Then we would avoid the potential conflicts that the member mentioned. We are working to have the election as soon as possible, but it is a bit suspicious that they want to delay the election in order to avoid, apparently, a problematic date.

230 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/18/24 11:23:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy hearing from my colleague, but the reality is that the Harper government was terrible in taking away voting rights from racialized people, from indigenous people, from poor people and from young people. The Harper government and the member for Carleton stripped away voting rights for a whole variety of Canadians they do not seem to like or appreciate. It seems that the Conservatives are in the same frame here with a bill that would enfranchise more people, that would ensure that more people can vote, and Conservatives are opposed to it. Why are they opposed to more Canadians voting?

104 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jun/18/24 11:24:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the self-identified worker bee in the corner is making things up about the record of the Harper government, as he regularly does. The choice Canadians will face in the next election is that they will look at where this country was in 2015 and where it was in 2024, and they will say, “Are we better off in 2024 than we were in 2015? Are we better off with the Conservative government or are we better off with the NDP-Liberal government?” That is the choice, and I think the choice will look much better for us when Canadians finally have a chance to decide than it will for the buzzing bees in the corner of the room.

123 words

Mr. Michael Coteau (Don Valley East, Lib.)

Jun/18/24 11:25:28 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-65

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House of Commons on behalf of the great people of Don Valley East to speak to a very important bill, Bill C-65, the electoral participation act. The chief government whip talked about a noble pursuit to actually look at legislation and look for ways to increase participation, which is essentially what the bill is attempting to do. As members of Parliament, we should always be looking for ways to increase participation in elections. There have been some elections over the last decade where the numbers were quite low, and I have seen low numbers in Ontario in provincial and municipal elections. As members of the House, we need to look for ways to better position people so they can participate in elections. It is important to look for ways to increase accessibility. My participation in elections go back seven elections. I have actually run seven times: three times as a school board trustee, three times as a provincial member and once as a member of Parliament. However, every single time I ran, I noticed a bit of a change in the elections overall. I will be sharing my time with the member from Surrey—Newton. It is important for us to reflect on elections from the past, look at those elections and look for ways to constantly make improvements. I remember the first time knocking on a door as a candidate, which was in 2003. I ran for school board trustee in Don Valley East, and I remember knocking on doors with four or five of my friends for the entire summer. We knocked on every single door throughout the riding. In the end, I was successful in winning my first election. The cool thing about that campaign is that we got people involved who had not traditionally been involved in politics, people who saw someone like themselves getting involved in politics. I was the first person from my community, Flemingdon Park, to be elected into any level of government, so it was an important thing for our community. I go out to different schools all the time and I speak to young people. Actually, probably one of my favourite things about this job is talking to young people about politics, going into the classrooms to talk about politics. I always remind young people that to be involved in politics, one does not have to put their name on the ballot. They can help organize or they can advocate. They can write to their elected official or work within the sector. Participation is important because it upholds our democracy and it holds our system accountable, which is an important thing for young people to recognize and to know about. When I go into classrooms, I often talk about June 1215, which was when the Magna Carta was published. It is a document that today still holds a significant role in the timeline of increasing democracy, because it was the first document in the west that said that the king and the government were not above the people and that they should be held accountable by the people. This is the tradition in the House, that we are accountable to the people. However, when only half the people show up to vote, there is obviously a problem in politics. We need to look for ways to increase trust, and Bill C-65 would do that. It would increase accessibility. It would increase integrity within the system, and it would also put trust back into the electoral process. It is important to make sure that as we are building these types of bills, we look at all different ways, especially with emerging technology and the shift within our society as a whole, to make sure that people still feel that the system can be trusted. I do not know whether folks remember, but I think it was in 2011 that there was a major issue in this country with robocalls. This was a new, emerging technology. Some folks got into trouble because they were using it to discourage people from voting at the correct station. They were sending them to different places to vote, and when they got there, they figured out they could not vote. It was all about voter suppression. It is important that we, as part of our due diligence as members of Parliament in the House, look for ways to open up the process even further so that people feel they can trust the system, are a part of the system and are involved in deciding which direction they want their democracy and their government to go in. We have seen the rise of AI over the last several years, especially over the last two or three years, which is going to be a challenge for democracy. It is going to be a challenge for places like the House of Commons and for the electoral process. We have seen recently the use of deepfakes. I know there have been challenges south of the border, and also in India during its election. The use of deepfakes is occurring more and more. When we watch one of these AI-generated images, it is hard to determine whether it is real or fake. In fac I just saw a deepfake with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition trying to sell some type of product. I was thinking, “What is this?” It was so elaborate that it even had an anchor from one of the major media news stations interviewing the leaders. When we see this stuff, the voice and the facial expressions are so perfect, but the message is not real. We need to make sure that we as MPs put into place the right process so that these types of technologies do not disrupt our pursuit for greater democracy and so that we uphold the integrity that citizens require. The other thing that I think is important in the piece of legislation before us is accessibility. We need to constantly look for ways to open up accessibility so that when someone wants to go out and vote, maybe a first-time voter, they are not discouraged by the complexity of going out to vote. A good example of that would be what happens in long-term care, and getting polling stations into those types of facilities where it is hard for people to get to a specific location because of a physical challenge. There may also be people who are living in one part of the province but might be in another part of the province on election day. How do we accommodate them? We need to constantly look for ways to improve the system. This bill would address those challenges as well. Also, one thing that has been a major concern for me over the last several years, not only as a former provincial member but also as a federal member, is the protection of personal data. We live in an age when personal information can be collected, reused and sold. We need to make sure the data collected by Elections Canada that is used during the process is protected, not only with respect to where it is stored but also with respect to how it is disposed of. We need to ensure that the privacy of citizens remains intact and that there is integrity connected to it, in order to ensure that we have the trust of people. This is important for Canadians. It is important for democracy. If people think for even a second that their personal information is going to be used by a third party after an election, perhaps a political party, this would increase the likelihood of their not wanting to vote. That is why the act would put in place a process to ensure the protection and privacy of citizens. I would like to thank the House for listening to me for the last 10 minutes. I thank the people of Don Valley East for their continued support.

1352 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Jun/18/24 11:35:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member delivered a speech about the bill and never mentioned the extension of the voting date by one week to secure the pensions for about 80 MPs, which is about 25% of the House. I wish he had talked about that, because Canadians have been asking about it. We have received so many questions and emails asking about this very important element of the bill.

69 words

Mr. Michael Coteau

Jun/18/24 11:35:56 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member has been around here for a while, and he is a smart guy. He knows the process. The bill goes to committee. If improvements can be made, the member and his team can bring forward suggestions. I was given 10 minutes today to address the issues that I though were very important. That is why I talked about privacy, accessibility, integrity and trust. They mean a lot to me.

73 words

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Jun/18/24 11:36:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I welcome the remarks of my colleague opposite. I would like to know what his position is. There are some good things in this bill, but there is also the date change. Earlier my colleague from Montcalm asked a question about changing the date for a religious reason. I see two things here. First, the religious reason raises a number of questions. How many religions are there in Canada? Will we end up finding a date on which there are no religious holidays? I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this. Will we really have to accommodate all the various religions? Second, there is another aspect I would like to broach. There is a proposal to postpone the elections by a week to allow more House members to qualify for a pension. This is known. Members would miss out by one day if the elections were held on the scheduled date in 2025. This too strikes us as unreasonable, given the often precarious finances of many Quebeckers and Canadians. Not only is a religious holiday being invoked to justify putting off the elections, but a delay would also allow more MPs to qualify for a pension. Does my colleague consider these to be good reasons for postponing election day?

214 words

Mr. Michael Coteau

Jun/18/24 11:37:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is an important question. We have such a beautiful country, from coast to coast to coast. There are so many different nationalities, a mosaic of different cultures, and it will always be difficult for us to find the perfect date. However, as MPs, we should be trying to accommodate people when possible. That should be a common-sense approach to picking an election day, and I think the member would agree with that.

76 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Jun/18/24 11:38:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate hearing from fellow previous school board trustees. There is a lot of value in that experience and bringing that to the House of Commons. My question is specifically around the component of the bill that speaks to lifting the restrictions on who can assist people living with disabilities, having it removed and having the elector choose who assists them. I believe that to be a big step in the right direction, to look at who can support people in having their ballots counted. There is also a lot of work that needs to be done once we get this bill to committee, and I am an eternal optimist, to ensure people are able to have autonomy to cast their ballots. I think about people who are visually impaired as one example. What does the member think about the necessity of us having ballots that make it possible for all Canadians to cast a ballot for who they would like to see elected?

167 words

Mr. Michael Coteau

Jun/18/24 11:39:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my father is legally blind, so I go with him when he votes. I am always amazed at how he is accommodated. The first time we went when he needed assistance, I wondered how they would do it, but it was very professional. If we can look for ways to strengthen the process, through consultation with the disability community, and make it more accessible, it would be a huge priority for me.

74 words

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal (Surrey—Newton, Lib.)

Jun/18/24 11:40:19 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-65

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. The legislation would make it easier to vote and increase voter participation across the country, which is essential to a healthy, modern democracy. One aspect of the legislation includes legislating campus vote as a permanent program. This is particularly important because it will increase voter engagement for youth and young adults. Coincidentally, today, my nephew, Prabh Noor Singh Dhaliwal, a recent graduate of the Wharton School of Business of the University of Pennsylvania, which is one of the top business schools in North America, is visiting Ottawa. I am proud of his accomplishments, including being elected as vice-president of sponsorship and finance for the student body. It is important that our youth are engaged in the political process and are involved in all levels of government. This is the type of legislation that would allow that. This important bill, which supports voter participation, better protects Canadians' personal information and enhances electoral safeguards and compliance measures. On electoral safeguards, the government has been continuously improving its response to the evolving threat of foreign interference by enhancing measures and adding new measures that strengthen Canada's electoral system. The government is not alone in ensuring our electoral system is well protected. Parliament has entrusted responsibility to the independent commissioner of Canada Elections for ensuring that the Canada Elections Act is complied with and enforced. The commissioner's work is an essential element to upholding Canadians' trust in the integrity of Canada's electoral system and maintaining a fair and level playing field for all electoral participants. The critical role of the independent commissioner of Canada Elections and how the safeguards in Bill C-65 would be enforced is what I will speak about today. First, I will outline how the commissioner fulfils her mandate. I will then turn to the specific proposals in Bill C-65. In order to enforce and promote compliance with the Canada Elections Act, the commissioner is primarily responsible for conducting investigations and applying a suite of compliance measures as appropriate. The commissioner may initiate an investigation in a number of ways, including following a complaint from the public, a referral from Elections Canada or on her own initiative. If the investigation reveals any contravention of the Canada Elections Act, the commissioner has a wide range of enforcement tools at her disposal that she can deploy depending on the severity of the contravention. These tools include laying criminal charges, which may lead to prison time and/or a fine; issuing a notice of violation accompanied by an administrative monetary penalty to promote compliance; or simply issuing information or caution letters to raise awareness of the rules, and encourage those who make an honest mistake to course correct. Which enforcement tool the commissioner chooses to use depends on what would best serve the public interest and whether the contravention has been categorized as an offence or a violation under the act. The difference between the two is that offences may result in criminal prosecution, fines and/or prison time, while violations are considered administrative contraventions and are subject to administrative monetary penalties. Some contraventions of the act could be considered either an offence or a violation, meaning that the commissioner would consider the facts of the case to determine which route would better serve the public interest. The tools available to the commissioner have proven to be effective in promoting and maintaining compliance with the act, yet, as we are well aware, there is always room for improvement. Bill C-65 would build on the strong compliance and enforcement foundation by adding to the commissioner's tool box in five new ways. First, to enhance the commissioner's access to information pertaining to investigation, Bill C-65 would clarify that those who have been ordered by a judge to appear before the commissioner or her staff may also be ordered to produce any relevant documents at any time before, during or after the individual's initial appearance. This clarification would help avoid potential delays in the commissioner's gaining access to relevant information and would lower the risk of documents being lost or destroyed. Second, the commissioner's authorities to enter into memoranda of understanding or other similar arrangements with national security organizations, such as FINTRAC or the Communications Security Establishment, would be made explicit. This added clarity around the expectations for collaboration between the commissioner and government security agencies would not only facilitate investigations and ensure the commissioner can gain access to information held by other federal departments, but it would also support government-wide efforts to respond to the threat of foreign interference in our elections. Third, Bill C-65 would give the commissioner the option to pursue administrative contraventions currently treated as offences under the act as violations. An example would be taking a ballot selfie where these types of contraventions are better dealt with by the commissioner as opposed to our judicial system. Other examples of existing offences that would be treated as violations and subject to administrative monetary penalties under Bill C-65 include preventing apartment building access to Elections Canada or campaign staffers for the purpose of engaging voters and wearing partisan materials at polling stations. This expansion of the administrative monetary penalty regime will support the commissioner's ability to maintain compliance with the Elections Canada Act without lengthy unnecessary criminal investigations. In addition to existing contraventions that will be newly classified as violations, non-compliance with a political party's privacy policy would also now constitute a violation. This means that the commissioner will be able to issue a notice of violation and administrative monetary penalty or pursue informal measures to encourage compliance, such as issuing caution or information letters, as appropriate. Fourth, the electoral participation act would also provide the commissioner with the ability to issue administrative monetary penalties to those who support those who contravene the act in addition to the perpetrators themselves. While the measures I have highlighted will support the commissioner in holding those who broke the law accountable, those who conspire or attempt to break the law should also face consequences. This brings me to the fifth and last measure, which would permit the commissioner to use her powers in instances where conspiracies or attempts to contravene the Elections Act have taken place. This means that those who try to break the law or encourage others to do so can be held accountable. Similar laws on conspiracies and attempts can be found in the Criminal Code and have already proven effective. This bill is very important to most of my constituents, who need more time to vote in the pre-elections and different means, so that maximum participation can be had.

1135 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Jun/18/24 11:50:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about the parts of the bill that he, like us, considers very important. However, he avoided talking about postponing the elections, a proposal supposedly aimed at accommodating Canada's Indian communities for Diwali, the festival of lights. Can my colleague look me in the eye and tell me that the Liberals are not using Diwali as a pretext for allowing 22 Liberal members and three ministers to qualify for a pension?

76 words

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal

Jun/18/24 11:51:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member suggested, Diwali is a religious and sacred event in the lives of many Hindus and Sikhs across the globe. We are talking about more participation on the Diwali day when people will be celebrating. There will also be a lot more traffic on the streets of major municipalities, which would distract voters from going to the polls. In fact, it is a very good suggestion. On one side, we could celebrate the religious, sacred day of Diwali. On the other side, the voters could go and vote freely with a lot more numbers during the next week, after Diwali.

107 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Jun/18/24 11:52:23 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I also want to congratulate the member's nephew for his graduation. The member was just talking about transportation. In my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, we have an aging population, and I know a lot of seniors have a difficult time with transportation to the polls and have been asking me for an extension to make it easier, to have more days to vote. Therefore, I wonder if the member would not mind sharing with the House what he is hearing in his riding from seniors on their ability to get transportation to the polls.

99 words