Electoral Participation Act

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act

Sponsor

Dominic LeBlanc  Liberal

Status

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.

Summary

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.

Elsewhere

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.

Votes

June 19, 2024 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act
June 19, 2024 Failed 2nd reading of Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (reasoned amendment)
June 17, 2024 Passed Time allocation for Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.
See context

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Madam Speaker, with respect to the piece of legislation before us, the defeated Liberal MPs' protection act or, forgive me, it says it is the electoral participation act, the parliamentary secretary did not answer the colleague for St. Albert—Edmonton's question about the pension, specifically. All the parliamentary secretary has talked about is supposed electoral participation improvements and process improvements. He refuses to answer as to why the Liberals feel the need to delay the next federal election by a week, when the only reason to do so is to protect defeated MPs' pensions.

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, who am I to defend the 32 Conservative MPs who would benefit by that? Let us have that discussion at the committee stage.

We have before us a substantial piece of legislation, and I am glad that all opposition parties are taking positions on it. Let us allow the bill to go to committee. Remember that we are a minority, and if a majority of members of Parliament want to change the election to whatever date, they are entitled to do so.

I am hoping that the opposition Conservatives will see the value in the legislation itself, think beyond just the one issue and see how more Canadians would be able to get engaged as a direct result of the passage of the legislation. I suspect, contrary to the impression that the Conservatives are giving, that for a vast majority of things that are being suggested within the legislation, the Conservatives will be voting in favour of it.

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.
See context

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, there are three reasons why the Bloc Québécois cannot vote for this bill. None of them are positive.

The first is that we should not be making accommodations on religious grounds. When it comes to something as important as the democratic process in a G7 country, for us, that simply has no merit.

The second is that we think it is irresponsible to postpone this for a week when we are going to be six days away from municipal elections in 1,109 municipalities across Quebec. We already have trouble mobilizing people for municipal elections.

I do not have time to talk about the third reason. I will let the parliamentary secretary answer.

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, there is a great deal more than just the change of a date within the legislation. Let us think in terms of foreign interference. Let us think in terms of voter participation. These are very positive, progressive measures that would enhance the legislation.

Let us always remember that it is a minority government, so that means that it takes more than one political party to ultimately make a determination of the bill's passage. Let us see it go—

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.
See context

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.
See context

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-65, and I will use the official title for the moment: an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

I would first ask for unanimous consent to split my time with my hon. colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton.

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.
See context

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Is it agreed?

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.
See context

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2024 / 10:35 a.m.
See context

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Madam Speaker, I often begin my interventions in the chamber with the following statement: “It is an honour for me to bring the voices of the residents of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this place.” I have and retain that privilege only by a process. It is the election process, and that is what Bill C-65 purportedly seeks to amend.

Running in and the timing of an election should always be about maintaining the confidence of this place, about putting a vision forward for the country and about running on one's record in serving the country. Therefore, while some of the provisions of the bill are supportable, Conservatives have serious concerns about the changing of the fixed election date.

Let me first make a few comments with respect to the laudable provisions contained in the bill. The modest changes to the third party regime, where foreign entities should not be permitted to contribute to third parties that engage in election-related activities, are supportable. There has been much discussion regarding foreign interference in our elections, so measures that would address these activities can be supported.

While there are costs associated with advance polling days and locations, they pale in comparison to the costs involved with the amendment to move the next election date from Monday, October 20, 2025, to October 27, 2025. Therefore, any further possible committee examination of the bill should be contingent on addressing the following point: These additional seven days would cost Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars. I will be focusing on this aspect of the legislation in my remarks today, because the provision would make the bill an MP pension bill impersonating as an elections bill. This begs the question of why the government is proposing it.

The Liberals are claiming that they would be changing the election date so as not to overlap with the festival of Diwali, and it just coincidentally happens to be that the seven-day additional delay would secure the pensions of over 80 MPs after six years of service, meaning any MP elected after October 21, 2019, would reach that six-year threshold only if the election occurs after October 21, 2025. I will note that this includes me and 31 of my Conservative colleagues, and I am prepared to run on my record. Will my Liberal colleagues make the same vow? Will they run on their respective records before October 21, 2025?

Of the 80 members elected in 2019, here is how the members pushing the pension date break down across the political parties represented in the chamber: Conservatives have 32 members of Parliament from the cohort of 2019, and the Liberals have 22. The Bloc Québécois has 20, and the NDP has 6. The Conservative caucus and all of the 2019 cohort support running on our record and not delaying the final election date.

Will the Bloc members also support not delaying the final date for the election? I welcome in the Q&A that follows my remarks any formal statement by the members on the record from that party. Similarly, I would invite my NDP colleagues, who have been alluding to that as well as the Bloc, to put on the record in their questions to me that they will not support the change. That is first and foremost, before we go on to any further discussions on the bill.

The Liberal government is adamant that the sole reason for the proposed legislation is to strengthen our democracy. In fact, the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs was quoted in a recent National Post article as saying the following: “[The] government believes that a strong democracy begins with enabling...Canadians to freely exercise their fundamental right to choose their representatives and we’ll always be there to defend that right”. However, the actions of the government and the Prime Minister show otherwise.

I will go back for a moment to foreign interference and the intimidation my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills and his family faced from foreign state actors. Our security agencies learned of this and informed the Prime Minister, and he did nothing. With the interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections in several ridings across this country, where was the government action? What about the unnecessary invocation of the Emergencies Act, an action that erodes the very foundational principles of our democracy and the rights of our citizens? We only need to look at the conduct of our present Speaker and the lack of respect he has shown for the non-partisan role of his office not once and not twice. I cannot keep track of the number of violations.

The government continues to erode the institutions that support the foundation of our democracy. If the minister and the government are so concerned about the defence of democracy, why do they not give Canadians back some of the freedom from the fiscal black hole they have imposed upon the citizens of this nation and not force us to pay an estimated $120 million if all MPs were to lose their seat in the next election?

I have an idea. What if the government held the 2025 election on October 6, 2025 instead? That way it would not interfere with Diwali, nor would it affect the Jewish celebration of Shemini Atzeret, allowing the Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Buddhist and Jewish communities to vote on election day if they chose not to vote in advance polls. It bears noting that this is not the first time the issue has come to the forefront. In 2019, the Chief Electoral Officer ruled against changing the fixed election date. In 2019, Aryeh-Bain, a Jewish Orthodox woman running for the Conservatives in Eglinton—Lawrence, attempted to have the October 21 election date switched to October 22. She wanted to avoid the overlap of the Jewish holiday of Shemini Atzeret, which was to begin on October 20 and end on October 22 of that year.

The riding of Eglinton—Lawrence was home to about 5,000 Orthodox Jewish voters in 2019, and the previous, 2015, federal election had been decided by fewer than 4,000 votes. Aryeh-Bain argued the merits of her case based on the closeness of the results in the previous election. As I mentioned earlier, the Chief Electoral Officer in 2019 ruled against it, stating, “There is no such thing as a perfect election day, especially in a country as diverse as Canada. There are always Canadians who are unable to vote on election day.”

Given the precedent set in 2019 by Elections Canada in that ruling, the government need not be selective in its observance of religious holidays. However, an October 6 election date would seem to resolve all of the possible issues around religious observances. Even better yet, let us have an election now, which would allow the government to run on its carbon tax record that it so proudly defends in the chamber. It can run on its housing record. It can run on its record on fiscal management of the country.

After nine long years of the Liberal government, we can ill afford another selfish Liberal policy that would further bankrupt future generations. Conservatives will bring down inflation, allowing interest rates to fall by capping federal government spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule, and we will ensure that Canadians are not on the hook for tens of millions of dollars in pensions from moving the election date for spurious or disingenuous purposes.

The bill before us is an MP pension bill impersonating as an election bill. Conservatives will restore hope to Canadians. We will bring it home for Canadians to unite this country for our common home. It is your home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2024 / 10:40 a.m.
See context

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, that is a bit much. I do not want to defend 30-plus Conservatives, the largest number that would actually benefit, if the member wants to look at it as a benefit. There are 30 Conservatives, 20 Liberals, just under 20 Bloc members I think, and a half-dozen New Democrats who would be affected by what the member is actually talking about.

As opposed to trying to recognize that aspect and only that aspect, let us look at how the legislation would enhance our electoral system. We would get more people participating in elections, and I see that as a positive thing, which is why we would be increasing the number of advance polling days. Students would be able to vote on their campuses. These are positive measures.

The question I have for the member is this: It is a minority government, which means that if a majority of the House wants to change—

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2024 / 10:40 a.m.
See context

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I have to allow for other questions.

The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2024 / 10:40 a.m.
See context

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Madam Speaker, I am very relieved that I can assure the member that he does not have to defend the interests of our Conservative members, of the Bloc members or of the NDP members. We will put that question to Canadians. We are very willing to put the question to the Canadian electorate, and they can decide. That is how the government works. That is how our institutional democracy should work. The issue of MP pensions should not come into play in an election, period, simple, done.

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2024 / 10:45 a.m.
See context

Bloc

Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I know he worked very hard last night to prepare it.

Although many of the measures in this bill are generally aligned with our vision of democracy, there is still one very problematic element.

Pushing back the date of the federal election by a week would mean that it would take place just six days before municipal elections which, in Quebec, are also very important. We are talking about a local democracy that is already struggling to carve out a space, and we absolutely want to protect it.

We want these two elections to be held on very different dates. I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on this.

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2024 / 10:45 a.m.
See context

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the preparation that goes into the work that all members in this chamber do. I also want to acknowledge the hard work of our municipal politicians. As I said in my speech, moving the election date ahead, or even calling it anytime, would avoid exactly those conflicts regarding the date.

I appreciate the member's and everyone else's hard work in this chamber.

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2024 / 10:45 a.m.
See context

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington on his speech.

My colleague just spoke about municipal elections, which are extremely important in Quebec, and about the need to motivate the public to get involved at every level in each election.

However, the sensitive issue of pensions cannot be overlooked. I know that my colleague touched on it earlier. Personally, I am extremely uncomfortable about telling Quebeckers that we are going to push back the date of the election. The only message that people will remember is that a whole bunch of MPs elected in 2019 are going to be eligible for their pensions. I think that sends a very bad message. It encourages and fuels cynicism toward politicians.

I would like to know whether my colleague would agree to a possible proposal to amend this bill and move the election to a different date, two or three weeks earlier if necessary. This would address concerns over the municipal elections scheduled at the same time and quell public cynicism toward politicians, precisely over the pension eligibility issue.