Madam Speaker, I want to ask if I could get unanimous consent to have my vote recorded as a yea earlier. I was unable, for technical reasons, to vote.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal
In committee (House), as of June 19, 2024
Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-65.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to, among other things,
(a) provide for two additional days of advance polling;
(b) authorize returning officers to constitute polling divisions that consist of a single institution, or part of an institution, where seniors or persons with a disability reside and provide for the procedures for voting at polling stations in those polling divisions;
(c) update the process for voting by special ballot;
(d) provide for the establishment of offices for voting by special ballot at post-secondary educational institutions;
(e) provide for new requirements relating to political parties’ policies for the protection of personal information;
(f) establish new prohibitions and modify existing prohibitions, including in relation to foreign influence in the electoral process, the provision of false or misleading information respecting elections and the acceptance or use of certain contributions; and
(g) expand the scope of certain provisions relating to the administration and enforcement of that Act, including by granting the Commissioner of Canada Elections certain powers in respect of any conspiracy or attempt to commit, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to, a contravention of that Act.
The enactment also provides that the Chief Electoral Officer must make a report on the measures that need to be taken to implement a three-day polling period, a report on the measures that need to be taken to enable electors to vote at any place in their polling station, a report on the feasibility of enabling electors to vote at any polling station in their electoral district and a report proposing a process for the determination of whether a political party has as one of its fundamental purposes the promotion of hatred against an identifiable group of persons.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Madam Speaker, I want to ask if I could get unanimous consent to have my vote recorded as a yea earlier. I was unable, for technical reasons, to vote.
Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders
June 18th, 2024 / 11:10 a.m.
See
context
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL
Madam Speaker, before I get to my question, the member mentioned an employee who received his master's today. An employee of mine in my Hill office received two master's degrees. I do not like to be outdone by a Conservative, so I will note that. As well as having a dual master's in political science, he has been accepted into the Ph.D. program. Again, I want to congratulate my employee, Liam O'Brien.
When the member talks about moving to the election, has he spoken to the 32-plus members on his side who would not qualify for a pension when they do not get re-elected?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, first, I want to associate myself with the member's comments and also share congratulations to his employee who is getting his second master's. Maybe once he gets his third master's, he will see the light and become a Conservative. I wish him the best with that intellectual journey.
In terms of the views of members, the Conservative Party has been clear and united that we are ready for an election. We want an election, and we want a carbon tax election where Canadians can choose. We do not want to delay the election. As members will see when this measure comes to a vote, that is the united position of every single Conservative in the House.
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Madam Speaker, voting in federal elections is allowed every day at the office of the returning officer. Currently, without the law, there are four days of early voting prior to voting day, people can vote by mail and they can vote on campuses. Simply put, there are plenty of opportunities to vote.
Officially, the government is citing the need to accommodate the festival of lights, Diwali, a holiday celebrated by Indian communities, to justify postponing election day. The Liberal government has chosen to integrate the religious calendar into the electoral calendar. It has chosen to subordinate the rule of law to religious considerations. With that in mind, I would like the member to tell me what he thinks of this official reason.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
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.
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
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?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
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.
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
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?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
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.
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
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.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
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.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
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?
