44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 18, 2024 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-65 this evening in the House, the electoral participation act. As the title of this bill suggests, one of its key priorities is to encourage participation in the electoral process. We know that democratic engagement rests on trust in our electoral system, and that is why Bill C-65 proposes to enhance safeguarding measures in the Canada Elections Act.
As we all know, Canada's democracy is among the strongest and most stable in the world thanks in large part to the Canada Elections Act, which is the fundamental legislative framework that regulates our elections in this great nation. We have every reason to be proud of this legislation, but we are not immune to the global challenges that modernized democracies face. The integrity of the electoral process in the lead-up to, during and after elections is a prerequisite for trust in our democracy. This is why it is essential that we continue to address evolving threats to our democracy through regular improvements to the Canada Elections Act. This helps ensure that our system remains robust, resilient and equipped to keep pace with the issues of our time.
It should come as no surprise that safeguarding our elections includes measures to mitigate foreign interference. Foreign interference can take many forms, including social media campaigns designed to sow disinformation. The Communications Security Establishment's latest report highlights that online foreign influence activities have become a new normal, with adversaries increasingly seeking to influence our elections. We and all Canadians have a right to be concerned about these threats. This is why the government has been proactive in taking steps to counter foreign interference.
Our government's work to protect our democracy began as early as 2016, when we tabled Bill C-22. It led to the creation of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, a committee that assembles members from both chambers of Parliament to review matters concerning national security and intelligence.
In 2018, the government put forward Bill C-59, which enacted the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act, giving the agency the mandate to review and investigate all Government of Canada national security and intelligence activities. That same year, we also introduced Bill C-76, which modernized the Canada Elections Act and introduced a number of prohibitions, including a prohibition preventing foreigners from unduly influencing electors, a prohibition against foreign third parties from spending on election-related activities and a prohibition against third parties from using any foreign funds.
In 2019, we put in place the plan to protect Canada's democracy, which included the security and intelligence threats to elections, or SITE, task force. The plan was subsequently updated in advance of the 2021 general election.
Most recently, we introduced Bill C-70, the countering foreign interference act, which complements measures to further safeguard our federal elections and mitigate foreign influence in Bill C-65, which I am speaking to today. Finally, last September, our government launched the public inquiry into foreign interference. We look forward to receiving the commissioner's final report as well as recommendations.
These substantial government-wide initiatives demonstrate this government's commitment to remaining vigilant in our efforts to protect our electoral system. This commitment is further reflected in the safeguarding measures proposed through Bill C-65. I would like to highlight how this bill proposes to better protect our elections from foreign influence, disinformation campaigns and the misuse of technology, all of which seek to erode trust in our institutions. We do this so that Canadians can feel safe and confident when participating in our democracy.
First, we know that election interference can happen at all times and not just during elections. This is why Bill C-65 proposes to extend the application of the existing ban on undue foreign influence at all times, rather than being limited to the election period. This means, for example, that the ban on foreign entities unduly influencing voters to vote a certain way or influencing them to refrain from voting would extend to all times.
Second, Bill C-65 would create a clearer and more consistent definition of foreign entity activities under the act to close any and all gaps. For example, currently foreign entities can circumvent the law by having more than one purpose, where the ban on undue influence is limited to a foreign entity whose only purpose is to unduly influence voters. That would no longer be possible under Bill C-65. The bill proposes that foreign entities who have even just one of their primary activities as unduly influencing electors would be captured.
Third, Bill C-65 proposes important new financing rules to increase transparency and prevent anonymous foreign and dark money from entering our elections. This includes banning the use of crypto asset contributions, money orders and prepaid instruments such as prepaid credit cards or store gift cards for regulated activities by third parties and political actors.
Bill C-65 would introduce important new financing rules for third parties. Allow me to explain. Bill C-65 would allow third parties to use only contributions they have received from Canadian citizens and permanent residents to pay for regulated election expenses. This includes partisan activities, partisan advertising, election advertising and election surveys. This means that third parties would no longer be able to use funds received from any other third parties, such as corporations or businesses, for regulated expenses. For greater transparency, third parties would also need to report on the details of the individuals who contributed in total over $200, including names, addresses and amounts of each contribution.
We understand that third parties may not all receive contributions and may have their own revenue they wish to use for regulated expenses. In those instances, third parties who meet the threshold of 10% or less of their overall annual revenue and contributions would also be able to use their own revenues to pay for regulated activities. In addition, third parties would be required to provide financial statements to Elections Canada proving the revenue is their own.
The amendments to enhance transparency on the source of third party funding are important. Under the current rules, third parties are required to report only on contributions given to them for election purposes. Contributions received for other purposes may be mixed into the third party's general revenue, leaving a transparency gap as to where the funds came from.
The Chief Electoral Officer spoke to this concern in his June 2022 recommendations report tabled here in Parliament. He noted that the proportion of third party reporting on the use of their own funds for regulated expenses increased significantly, from 8% in 2011 to 37% in 2019 and 63% in 2021. This increasing trend in third party financing is concerning, which is why the government is taking action through Bill C-65. Let me reiterate, however, that third parties who do not meet the threshold would still be able to participate in regulated activities, but they would have to do so with the contributions they received as donations from Canadian citizens and permanent residents.
The next element I would like to speak on is disinformation. Disinformation, a key tactic by malign actors, aims to fuel discord and erode public trust in the electoral process. It seeks to manipulate voters and electoral processes through intentional falsehoods, often spread online, as well as, quite frankly, intimidation at times.
In 2022, the Chief Electoral Officer called disinformation about the electoral process the most important threat to Canada's election mandate. Security agencies have noted that disinformation is a persistent threat to election integrity. In the 2021 national electors study conducted by Elections Canada following the 44th general election, 71% of electors were concerned that the spread of false information online could have a moderate or major impact on the electoral outcome. This included 37% who thought it could have a major impact. As noted by the Chief Electoral Officer, intelligence officials and leading academics, the use and impact of disinformation is not limited to the election period.
Bill C-65 aims to build confidence in our electoral process and our democratic institutions through new and expanded prohibitions to address these threats. In particular, the bill would introduce a ban on false statements about the voting process that are deliberately made to disrupt the conduct or the results of an election, all while respecting the principles of free expression and open dialogue.
Amendments provide clear guidance on the type of intentional false statements that could be made or published to ensure that contraventions of the act are clear and enforceable. This includes making or publishing false or misleading statements relating to who may vote in an election; the voting registration process; when, where and how to vote; whom to vote for; the process to become a candidate; how votes are validated or counted; or the results of an election.
Another element I would like to address is the potential misuse of technology. Technology, as we all know, has helped revolutionize democracy, but it also gives rise to risks. For example, content generated by artificial intelligence is becoming harder to distinguish from reality. When paired with disinformation, artificial intelligence such as deepfakes poses a significant threat. Today, with a computer and a few keystrokes, malicious actors can generate highly realistic videos, audio and text content that can depict people saying or doing things they never said or did.
To address this emerging issue, Bill C-65 would amend existing prohibitions in the act that can lend themselves to the misuse of artificial intelligence, namely false statements, impersonation and misleading publications, to provide clarity that they apply regardless of the means used. This would mean, for example, that the prohibition on impersonating the Chief Electoral Officer, an election official, or a candidate would apply regardless of the technology that might be used now, to include deepfakes or other technologies that may evolve in the future.
Bill C-65 would also extend the scope of the existing ban on using a computer to affect the results of an election, to now apply to the use of a computer to disrupt the conduct of an election.
The last element I would like to speak about and highlight is the importance of the personal safety of those people who participate in our electoral process. As my hon. colleagues know well, the threat environment continues to evolve. There has, sadly, been a surge in vandalism at constituency offices, increasingly violent online discourse and threats made against party leaders, candidates and election officials, as witnessed during the 2021 general election.
Bill C-65 therefore seeks to address some of these concerns by providing increased privacy and safety to electoral participants. For example, returning officers' personal information would be better protected by removing the requirement for them to publish their home address in the Canada Gazette; rather, only their municipality and province of residence would be published.
We have also seen reports of or have personally experienced a growing uncivil discourse and behaviour targeting members of Parliament, including me. Members from all parties have spoken out against unacceptable harassment and threats, as well as intimidation.
Indeed, the Sergeant-at-Arms and Corporate Security Officer of the House of Commons recently noted that harassment of people elected to serve this very institution has skyrocketed, increasing 800% in the last five years. To respond to this alarming trend, Bill C-65 proposes two changes to the disclosure of requirements for regulated fundraising events over $200 that include a prominent attendee, such as a party leader. To ensure the safety of all participants, the requirement to provide five days' advance public notice of such regulated fundraising events would be repealed. To ensure ongoing transparency, precise location details for events would continue to be provided to the Chief Electoral Officer as part of the party's postevent reporting requirements under the act.
However, to protect the security of hosts of events who engage in politics or book a political event, the requirement for a public-facing postevent report 30 days later would only include the municipality and the province of the event. This approach aims to prevent bad actors from undermining the safety of participants and hosts at these events. It aims to strike an appropriate balance between the very real security threats faced and the ongoing need for transparency.
In closing, I know that safeguarding our democracy is a priority shared by all of my hon. colleagues in this House. The amendments to the Canada Elections Act proposed in Bill C-65 build on existing safeguards and propose a number of targeted but critical improvements to continue to build trust in our democratic processes.
I am confident that all members of Parliament can work together to ensure that Bill C-65 is studied and passed in time for all measures to come into force before the next fixed-date general election.
2164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a key problem with Bill C-65 is that clauses 40 and 41 would amend sections 269 and 279 of the Elections Canada Act to allow voters to write in the name of a political party rather than a candidate. Does the member opposite agree that this is a dereliction of our historical practice of electing individual members to the House of Commons and not political parties?
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:14:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question because that is some of the discussion that I actually have in my own riding. It is discussion that my colleagues and I are having, not just here on this side of the House but on all sides of the House.
This being the second reading stage of the bill, I look forward, when it reaches committee, to having those very discussions so that a lot of what we expect to be in the bill is in the bill, once again, for democracy. Equally important is to ensure the protection of the candidates, as well as the MPs who may, in fact, be elected.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C‑65 moves the election date from October 20 to October 27. They say that the reason is Diwali, a religious holiday held on October 20.
Considering existing provisions of the Canada Elections Act and amendments introduced through Bill C‑65, however, voters have ample opportunities to vote. People can vote for seven days at a returning officer's office, on election day and six other days. They can vote at any time during the election at the returning officer's office. They can vote using special mail-in ballots. Students can vote in academic institutions, and voting stations are available in long-term care facilities. In short, there are tons of opportunities to vote.
That is generally why these options were created in the first place. The idea was to prevent people from being unable to vote on a specific day because of a specific event. What, therefore, is the real reason for moving the date of the election, especially to a date within just six days of municipal elections in Quebec?
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:16:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I am sure the member knows, and what has been articulated and brought forward by the folks who are looking at this recommendation, it is the religious and cultural observations that are going to be taking place in that time frame. That is the reason for the decision.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:16:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on that same point, in the bill, the date is moved from October 20 to October 27. However, there is a perception out there that this is going to allow for some MPs in this place to personally benefit. Therefore, I think it is incumbent upon us to show leadership in this area.
The NDP has publicly committed that, when the bill gets to committee, we are going to move an amendment to bring the date back to the original date of October 20. Will my colleague be joining the NDP in supporting that amendment?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:17:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one thing I really appreciate about the House is that we have the opportunity to bring bills to committee after second reading and have discussions. I look forward, as the member stated, to having a discussion on that very issue. I am sure that folks not only on that side of the floor but on this side will participate in the discussion and make the appropriate decision on that issue.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:17:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois, in opposition to the legislation, is very much concerned about the municipal election taking place in Quebec. October 20, the date currently set for it, is the same day on which Alberta has its municipal elections. Well over three million people will have to vote on October 20 in Alberta. I say that so that members are aware of it and so that when the bill goes to committee, committee members at least give some consideration to Alberta, as the Bloc is giving consideration to Quebec.
Would my colleague not agree that Canada as a whole is recognized as a democracy that works exceptionally well in good part because of Elections Canada and our laws? The changes that are being proposed would give more strength to Canadian election laws. Therefore, the principles of the bill are something we should all get behind, and maybe we should look at some fine-tuning.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:19:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that opens up a huge answer to a large question.
As many members know, I was one of the MPs who—
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:19:15 p.m.
- Watch
Order. Some members are talking amongst themselves. We can hear them very clearly. I would ask them to leave the chamber if they wish to continue their discussion.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:19:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as many members know, I was one of the members of Parliament who had an unfortunate circumstance happen at home. As I stated publicly, how it affected me is how it affected others because of me. I can look at the effect it has had on my family, in particular my spouse, who still has a hard time sleeping, and my neighbours. I believe this bill would at least contribute a bit to resolving a lot of the challenges and toxicity we see out there in the public that is reflected by individuals and taken out on many members of Parliament and even our teams at our constituency offices.
The party on this side of the floor cares. Unlike the folks on the Conservative side, we take into consideration and respect what we hear from our constituents and residents. When we enter the process at committee, the intent is to take what we hear and the concerns people have with this bill, bring them forward, put them on the floor, discuss them and have a dialogue, and address some of the issues that concern the NDP and others in this House with respect to when the election is to take place. Equally as important are the individual components of this bill and ensuring that it provides what it is supposed to provide.
224 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:21:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the government has been been shovelling money to third party influencers since 2015. It refuses to put any frameworks or limitations on artificial intelligence. We know for sure that during the 2019 and 2021 elections, the Prime Minister knew about foreign interference against the official opposition and did nothing about it.
How can the Liberals be trusted? How can we trust them to avoid putting in any loopholes that they will be able to exploit in the next election?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have witnessed in this House for the past nine years an attitude, and most recently a very large attitude by the Leader of the Opposition, that fans the flames of hate and misinformation. We are here now with Bill C-65 speaking about misinformation and that is a perfect example of it.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:22:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member opposite says that there is the fanning of flames, or whatnot, or disinformation, but I think this is a chamber where we hold each other in some esteem. If he wants to note a particular subject and to make an allegation against the leader of the official opposition, we are all here to debate the actual bill and to not cast aspersions on each other's character. If he wants to make a claim, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would like to see the member make some evidence in this chamber.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:22:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask the member, frankly, to pay attention during question period. There is his evidence.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:23:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask the member, in regard to the overall legislation that is being presented and the commitment from the minister responsible, who brought forward the legislation, to look at reasonable amendments that would give more strength and would make the bill better. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to why it is important to allow the bill to get to committee.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:23:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the reason I think it is important to get the bill to committee, quite frankly, based on some questions we had here today, is to have that dialogue. Part of that dialogue would be exactly to answer questions, some of which the Conservative Party is asking today. I very much look forward to that dialogue, to get right to the crux of where the problems exist: the who, the why and the how.
As well, as I said earlier, we have, on this side of the House, a party that cares. We have, on that side of the House, a party that does not care. The Liberals are continuing to put forward regulations and legislation based on the best interests of the public, and we are doing that with a great deal of respect, versus the disrespect that the Reform Party of Canada continues to put forward, almost on a daily basis.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:24:49 p.m.
- Watch
There is still some debate going on, and I would ask members, if they want to continue to have their conversation, to take it out. They may not be in agreement with what is said in the House, but I would hope that they still respect each other.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has the floor.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:25:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to start with a little rebuttal to my colleague who just spoke from the Liberal Party. He said that the Liberals care and the Conservatives do not. I agree with the latter part; I do not agree with the former because for everything that Canadians care about, the New Democrats accomplished in this Parliament, whether we are talking about dental care, pharmacare, anti-scab legislation or affordable housing, and I can go on and on. However, when it comes to electoral law, the reality is that we heard the Prime Minister, when he was campaigning in 2015, saying it was going to be the last election that is first past the post, and we know how much the Liberals cared about keeping that commitment.
That being said, we support the bill because, first off, we know that the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith will be bringing forward an amendment to ensure that the election date is held on the election date as committed to, on October 20. That is an amendment the NDP is bringing forward. We have heard that other opposition parties—
Mr. Warren Steinley: Oh, oh!
Mr. Peter Julian: —support that amendment, even the member for Regina—Lewvan, who is shouting in the House right now—
217 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 8:26:42 p.m.
- Watch
The member should exit the chamber, if he prefers to yell out.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has the floor.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
