44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 18, 2024 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, if anything has come to light in the last few months, it is the importance of all legislation looking at the potential of foreign interference, the prevention of and identification of foreign interference. This needs to be implemented in all legislation. Yes, there are some components within this bill that look at addressing that, as the member mentioned, such payments or donations that are not allowed to be made through money orders or cryptocurrencies, as well as looking at who can donate and ensuring they are permanent residents and Canadian residents. These components are part of a bigger puzzle of work that we need to be doing together to ensure that foreign interference is identified, prevented, avoided altogether and that there be accountability when it does happen.
I was happy that all members of Parliament voted together on the recent foreign interference bill, Bill C-70. My hope is that we will see that work, and this work, strengthened, so this is no longer as problematic as has come to light in the last few months.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, let us acknowledge the fact that any legislation amending the Canada Elections Act is significant. This act is the cornerstone upon which the legitimacy of parliamentary democracy, elected officials and, by extension, the government, lies.
My first comment is that this important bill was introduced 48 hours before the summer break, along with a gag order. That is great for debate. They want to facilitate voter turnout. That is the obsession behind this bill, and yet the Canada Elections Act is one of the most lax when it comes to the ability to vote. I will get back to that later.
This is an important bill, fundamental to the legitimacy of parliamentary democracy, yet it was introduced with a gag order. They do not want much discussion. Moreover, people will go on vacation and they are supposed to know what is in the bill. The Liberals think that, during vacation, the bill will get media coverage; they will talk about it and list all of its benefits. Working this way is an affront to the intelligence of members of Parliament and voters.
That is not all. The bill also proposes postponing an election set for a specific date. The October 20, 2025, election would be postponed to October 27, 2025, supposedly to accommodate the Hindu festival of lights, which is not a provincial or federal holiday.
It may have been a noble intention, but this noble intention is hiding the elephant in the room, which is allowing 22 Liberal members and three ministers to get their pension. Let me point out that it is the Liberals who introduced the bill. They were one day short of eligibility for a pension. That is their true motivation.
In my opinion, the rule of law should not be subject to religion. Anyone who has a modicum of respect for religion does not use a belief system to justify a pension. That is what this outgoing government is doing while claiming that it is a very important bill.
Now we are being told that this part could always be removed from the bill. However, even if I had wanted to make an amendment, the Conservative Party's amendment does not allow me to introduce a sub-amendment.
That is why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill. We cannot endorse such a travesty. We cannot endorse an affront to voters' intelligence. If there were only one day to vote, in addition to the two days of early voting, we might consider it. Now, if we add the two days proposed under Bill C‑65, there are six days of early voting. That is unheard of anywhere else in the country.
Why have six days of advance polling? It is because voters have developed a habit of going to the polls before election day. Add in election day and voters have seven days, yet that is still not enough. Not only are there six days of advance polling, but voters can go and vote every day at the returning officer's office.
Now we are being told that there is a festival of lights, which will affect people's ability to go and vote on the big day. We pointed out that they can also vote by mail, but the government said no, we really must accommodate them. It truly feels the need to sacrifice the rule of law to religion, because it is a religious holiday. What a load of rubbish. That is why I am saying that this is an insult to voters' intelligence.
When there are six days for advance polling, in addition to election day, when people can vote every day at the returning officer's office, when people can vote by mail, when there is a mobile polling station for people with reduced mobility and when people can vote in a long-term care home, I do not want to hear about how access to voting is being restricted. What more do they want? The next Elections Act will add two more advance polling days. Election day is no longer the only day when people go out to vote.
We are being told that the election really needs to be put off by one week. This one-week postponement proves how little regard this government has for municipal democracy. In Quebec, there will be elections happening six days later in over 1,100 municipalities. In 2021, turnout fell by 6% because there was a federal election at the same time, although the federal election finished much earlier than the municipal election, which is also on a fixed date. It is not like anyone can claim to be unaware that there will be elections in Quebec in more than 1,100 municipalities. It is 1,108 or 1,109, if memory serves. It is not like no one knows about it. It is on a fixed date, so it always happens at the same time. This government has so little regard. There are municipalities where the turnout in 2021 was as low as 18%, despite a desire and indeed a need to treat municipal governance not as an administrative extension of the Quebec government, but as a full-fledged government in its own right, a local government.
From a logistics standpoint, how will the Chief Electoral Officer go about finding polling places? I would love to hear someone explain that. That will really be something. In 2021, it was already difficult enough. It was a total mess. Now the Chief Electoral Officer will have to compete with municipal returning officers. Will the Chief Electoral Officer be able to use municipal facilities as polling places? The answer is no, not a chance. In Quebec, it is already hard to secure schools to use for advance polls. That is the reality. Those geniuses across the way say it is because they want to accommodate the festival of lights, but it was certainly not a brilliant decision on their part. That is the least we can say.
There are some good things in this bill, to be sure. The problem is this obsession with voting accessibility.
This government is so obsessed with voting accessibility that it is forgetting the need to strike the right balance between preserving the integrity of the process and preserving voting accessibility.
This bill could have been worded in such a way as to simply provide for polling stations in post-secondary institutions, two extra days of advance voting, an easier process for setting up polling stations in care homes, and better tools to combat foreign interference and to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. Had the bill been worded that way, the Bloc Québécois would have considered it worthwhile, but what about municipal elections? Are municipal elections not important?
Did my colleagues know that voter turnout was 44.7% in 2017? In 2021, it was 38.6%. Remember what happened in Quebec in 2008. We need to learn from the past, because these things really happened. In 2008, there was a federal election, and the Jean Charest government called an election in Quebec for six days after the federal election day. Voter turnout in Quebec had always been around 80%, 81%, 78% or 79%, but this time it dropped to 57%. Obviously, people thought he would be punished because he had just been elected. No one had decided to oust the minority government. He wanted to get both hands on the wheel. He focused on the economy, but Quebeckers' savings in the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec were in free fall, and there was no more money under the mattress. The Caisse lost $40 billion. Because he did not want to face this economic disaster during an election, he called an election.
We have fixed-date elections. Unless we bring down the government next spring if it presents a budget no one wants, the election date is set. Bill C-65 states that the Chief Electoral Officer can make accommodations if the fixed election date is in conflict with municipal elections. That is in the bill. However, they decided to choose the festival of lights, a religious holiday, over municipal democracy. Earlier, I heard someone say that Alberta would be holding municipal elections around the same time, and so will Quebec.
In my opinion, someone who has their priorities straight, based on principle, does not subordinate the rule of law to religion, especially when the religious holiday in question is not even recognized as a statutory holiday. If we had to consider all of the different communities' holidays, we might have a hard time. This is creating a precedent. If we decide to accommodate everyone, we will have a bit of a problem. I do not think these communities are even asking us to do that. These people are not even asking for it, and for good reason. They will have plenty of ways to avoid losing their right to vote. For example, they could vote by mail. In fact, the bill would improve the conditions surrounding this special voting method.
It makes no sense. We understand what we need to understand: The government is weaponizing a religious belief, a religious holiday, for purely pecuniary and political purposes. Then it wonders why people are cynical about their representatives and why people do not bother to vote. Does anyone here think there will be enough lampposts during the next election to support the posters for all these municipal and federal political parties? The parties in the House of Commons are not the only ones that will be represented in the federal election. It will be chaos.
The Liberals could at least have made some space and factored that into the bill. This would have given the Chief Electoral Officer the freedom he needs in the lead-up to the election to make sure the process goes smoothly, with no complications, because there are going to be insurmountable logistical problems on the ground.
They should just go talk logistics with the returning officers. As candidates, we had to meet with the returning officers during the last election. They were tearing their hair out. I am anxious to see whether my returning officer has any left. I think it is the same person as in 2021.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will definitely not be supporting this bill without any other guarantees, even in principle, because this was not an acceptable principle to present to the House.
1774 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:09:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is a double standard at play here that should be pointed out. The Bloc party articulated quite well, much like the member just did, why postponing the date of the election would have a negative impact on the province of Quebec because of Quebec's municipal elections.
At the time when the Bloc first raised the issue, it was not even aware there was a municipal election taking place in the province of Alberta on the exact date of the next scheduled federal election. When I pointed that out to the member in the Bloc Party, the response what that it was not the Bloc's problem and that it represents Quebec.
There are many members of Parliament who are national in their thinking. Many of them sit in the Alberta caucus in the Conservative ranks, and they seem to have completely forgotten that particular point. The minister made it very clear that he will support what the committee has to propose.
The NDP is proposing we change the date. We are open to ideas. Should we be respectful of the municipal election, with Calgary and Edmonton having the same election date as the federal election? Those who live in Calgary and Edmonton would be going to vote for a mayor and a prime minister, their members of Parliament. Should we at least be open to the idea at the committee stage?
235 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:11:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it happens all too often that we show up in committee after having voted for a bill in principle, but we do not get a chance to introduce amendments because of the Liberal majority.
The Canada Elections Act is too important to take that risk. There is no way we can trust people who had the gall to present what they did. It is crooked, and we do not trust people like that.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:11:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He clearly explained the problems Quebec would have if a federal election were held a few days before or after municipal elections are held in every municipality in Quebec. It is very difficult.
We went through this in 2021. We saw our municipal colleagues hold elections at the same time as ours. We would run into each other going door to door. That being said, I want to reach out to the NDP. If the NDP is prepared to bring down the government, we could have an election in the coming weeks. Would my colleague be amenable to that?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is not enough to bring down a government.
I would tell my colleague that I hope to get Bill C-282 passed for our farmers before triggering an election. This bill is now in the Senate and is being held up by Conservative and Liberal senators, despite the fact that it was passed almost unanimously in the House. I hope my colleague feels the same way I do.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:13:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. I know how interested and passionate he is about democratic and electoral issues. We both sat on the Special Committee on Electoral Reform back when the Liberals were still claiming they wanted a different voting system, one that would be fairer, more democratic and more egalitarian. They have since changed their tune.
We have all reached the same conclusion regarding this bill. By changing the date of the elections, this bill will allow a number of House members to qualify for a pension. The thinking is that perhaps the Liberals have bad intentions. The Conservatives are criticizing the Liberals today, but most of the members who would benefit from the date change are Conservatives. The hypocrisy on both sides of the House is indeed something to behold.
The bill is not perfect, but does my colleague agree that adding advance polling days, improving voting by mail and special ballots, and allowing students to vote on campus are nonetheless steps in the right direction?
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:14:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, had the bill been drafted to include only those things, our position would probably have been different. I would add that, absent a guarantee that this crooked addition will be removed from the bill, there is no way we can support sending the bill to committee.
This bill also provides that the Chief Electoral Officer may consider conflicts with another election. This is an important measure. For my part, I do not question the Chief Electoral Officer's impartiality or logistical ability to organize elections worthy of a self-respecting parliamentary democracy.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:14:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, all I am asking the member to do is to apply to the province of Alberta the same standards he applies to the province of Quebec with respect to the election law. If the member is concerned about the municipal election in the province of Quebec, should he not at least be concerned about the municipal election in Alberta? It is an issue of fair treatment. Someone can be a separatist in Quebec and still be sympathetic to the democracy in other regions of the country.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:15:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have said many times in the House that I am indeed a separatist, but if I am a separatist, it is because I am fundamentally a democrat, since the democratic ideal is contained in the idea of a people's sovereignty. Just because I am willing to acknowledge that I do not know everything, that does not mean I am against the idea of ensuring that the election in Alberta holds up. I too share this concern. Democracy means democracy for everyone, and not just here but the world over, because we are also fighting for democracy beyond our borders.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:16:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know that the member is from Quebec; usually I would speak French, but I want to be clear to the parliamentary secretary, who keeps raising the point, and I would like to hear the member on it.
I am an Alberta MP. The Local Authorities Elections Act in my province, in section 11, says that any municipality can move up its election to the Saturday before a federal or a provincial election. It is a non-issue, and it is a talking point the Liberals keep abusing in order to try to curry favour or find a way to wedge the Bloc in its principal position on the bill.
What does the member think about the issue? The Liberals seem to want to use Alberta as a talking point, the same way they sometimes use the member's province as a talking point, to further their political ambitions.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:17:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that was a question for me. My colleague's comment was about what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:17:17 p.m.
- Watch
As a reminder, members can ask questions or make comments.
The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:17:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the real question being asked today is this: What was the government's reason for pushing back the election date from October 20, 2025, to October 27, 2025? The reason it gave had nothing to do with municipal elections. It was about the Indian community's festival of lights.
In my colleague's opinion, how could anyone draw a connection between a religious celebration and the date of a general election?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:17:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this is the elephant in the room. It is nothing but an excuse, a self-serving use of religion as a pretext for purely financial gain.
It is unfortunate because it fuels public cynicism toward elected officials. It paints everyone in the House with the same brush.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:18:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my colleague.
If I understand correctly, the Bloc Québécois is going to support the NDP's amendment to set things straight. The election will take place on the originally scheduled date.
We saw this idea of taking voting rights away from a large number of Canadians emerge under the Conservatives, especially the voting rights of low-income and racialized people. We saw how the impact of the Harper government restricted Canadians' right to vote.
Does my colleague agree that what the Harper government did should never happen again? All members should be pushing to ensure that everyone across Canada is able to vote in federal elections.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:19:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Harper government was penalized in 2015, so I think that the member has his answer.
When a government goes beyond the democratic interest, the public is smart enough to penalize that government. I trust the public's intelligence. I trust voters' intelligence.
Indeed, everyone must be allowed to vote. When a society allows an individual to vote, it is the ultimate gesture of integration. The social contract is sealed by this right to vote. In receiving this right, members of the public have the responsibility to prove their eligibility as voters.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today to speak to Bill C-65, the electoral participation act, which amends the Canada Elections Act.
One of the cornerstones of our democracy is our electoral system, and at the root of that system is the Canada Elections Act. I would go so far as to say we all stand here today as beneficiaries of this key piece of legislation, having been chosen by Canadians through free and fair elections. The Canada Elections Act is already recognized worldwide for its robust rules, administrative procedures, tight political financing rules and strict spending limits. It is also recognized for how it promotes transparency, fairness and participation in elections.
We know that Canada is not immune to the growing threats aimed at undermining confidence in the democratic electoral process around the world. For that reason, Bill C-65 proposes a number of improvements to the Canada Elections Act to continue to maintain the confidence of Canadians in our electoral system, which remains the envy of many countries.
Bill C-65 addresses three targeted priorities. The first priority is to encourage participation in the electoral process. The second priority is to enhance the protection of Canadians' personal information. The third priority is to further safeguard the electoral process. Allow me to provide an overview on each of these priorities, starting with voter participation. Unfortunately, we know that voter turnout has been declining over the last two general elections. To help counter this trend, measures proposed in this bill aim to remove barriers to voting and expand the ability for people to participate in Canada's federal election.
We also know that in recent decades, more and more Canadians are choosing to vote ahead of polling day, either through advance polls or voting by mail. In fact, voting at advance polls has increased in every general election since the year 2000, with over one-third of the voters choosing advance polls in the latest general election. To better respond to Canadians, Bill C-65 provides voters with an additional two days of advance polls. That means a total of six advance polling days in addition to election day, making it even more convenient for Canadians to cast their ballots.
This would be a welcome addition, but we know it can be difficult for Elections Canada to hold advance polls in remote and isolated communities because of a lack of poll workers and suitable polling places. To overcome these challenges and ensure all electors have ample opportunity to vote, Bill C-65 provides new flexibility to set up advance polling stations for the days and hours needed to effectively serve electors in more remote communities, many of which are indigenous communities. Voting by mail, also known as voting by special ballot, is growing in popularity and this trend is expected to continue.
This is why Bill C-65 proposes five improvements to the current special ballot process. First, for the fixed-date election, voters will be able to register earlier for a special ballot at the start of the pre-election period, which is June 30, to help reduce late ballots. Second, all electors will now be able to register online a convenient option for voters.
Third, voters will be able to cast their ballot by returning their special ballots in person to a polling station rather than having to mail it back. This was a popular temporary measure tested in the 2021 election. Fourth, people who register for a special ballot but do not use it, for example, by not mailing it, before the deadline, will be able to vote in person at their polling station with safeguards in place to ensure no one votes twice.
Fifth, if a voter writes down a party's name on their special ballot, the ballot would be counted as a vote for the candidate, provided the party has endorsed a candidate in that riding.
656 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:26:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt my colleague in his speech, but there is a loud noise outside the chamber. I can hardly hear the person two seats away speaking.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:26:15 p.m.
- Watch
I appreciate the intervention. The Sergeant-at-Arms is going back there to see who is making all the noise.
I just remind all of our members, when we are coming into our lobbies, to make sure we try to keep our volume down. The sound is coming from the back as people enter. Again, this is a reminder to members in our lobbies and all those who are here today.
The hon. member for Nepean.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
