44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 18, 2024 10:00AM
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- 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
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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
