Bill C-65

Electoral Participation Act

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act

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.

Electoral Participation Act

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

moved that Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and talk about anything related to Elections Canada and our election laws. When I think of elections, I think of the stakeholders. The most important stakeholders, of course, are those who vote. Next to that, we should always consider the candidates, who play a very important role. I have a bit of experience in that sense. I have been a candidate a dozen times or more. Volunteers and, of course, third parties also play important roles in our elections.

It is important for us to recognize that Elections Canada plays an absolutely critical role in building and ensuring public confidence in our electoral system. I would suggest that Elections Canada is second to no other independent election authority in the world, to no other agency or country. I have a deep respect for the fine work that individuals at Elections Canada do, not only during an election but also between elections. That often gets lost. We often take Elections Canada and its work for granted. Countries around the world will often talk with Elections Canada to get the insight to improve their democracies and elections.

I will start by highlighting how important the work is that Elections Canada does and that we recognize the individuals involved. We all have something at stake in our democratic system, and nothing highlights that more than a general election. Bill C-65 is a positive step forward. For quite a while now, the government has been looking at ways to make positive changes to the Elections Act that will engage more people and increase the confidence that people have in our system; the legislation would do that in several ways.

It would make it easier to vote. The best way to amplify that is voting by mail. More and more, we need to recognize the options there are. How can we ensure that someone in a situation requiring them to vote by mail has that option? Elections Canada has done a great deal of work to ensure the legitimacy and the integrity of mail-in ballots.

We are also looking at increasing the number of days people can go to advanced polls. I would like to think that every one of us, in all political parties, can appreciate the importance of advanced polls. When election results come in, we wait for the results of advanced polls because a higher percentage of the population uses them. More political parties, candidates and voters depend on advance polls. I see that as a good thing. As parliamentarians of whatever political stripe, we need to recognize where we can enhance voting opportunities and do just that. This is one aspect of the legislation I would think every member is solidly behind. We should all be concerned about getting more people to vote.

There are other aspects, such as campus voting. We often hear from members about how important it is to get the younger generation to be engaged, to go out and vote and to volunteer. The roles they play are important, whether it is by voting or being a candidate. More and more young people are getting elected at a younger age. When I was first elected, I was 26. At the time, I think I was only the third. Nowadays, a lot of people are getting elected in their twenties, which is a great thing to see. We want more young people engaged in our democratic system. We all have a vested interest, so it is encouraging to see that.

One way we can enhance that is to have more voting at post-secondary institutions, on campuses. The legislation would also take a positive step towards that. Increasing the percentage of votes is of the utmost importance.

One thing we need to be aware of is the importance of protecting personal information. The data bank has evolved to quite the thing in politics. I remember my first election, when the best data bank was the Who Called? book. For those who are not familiar with it, the Who Called? book was like a phone book, but instead of being based on last names, it was based on addresses. If I wanted to find out how to contact people, I would take a look at Burrows Avenue, for example. I would be able to see every house with a phone number attached to it, and 85% to 90% of the people would be in that book.

If one wanted to be a candidate, all one really needed to reach out by phone was a phone bank and a Who Called? book. How things have changed. Dealing with data is so very important. It has become apparent that we need to ensure we protect personal information as much as we can, without compromising the principles of democracy.

It is interesting to contrast, and I might do this in a couple of ways, what we do with what other jurisdictions do. At the national level, there is certain information that Elections Canada collects in co-operation with the Canada Revenue Agency to ensure we have a base of a data bank that candidates can use to contact the voter. It differs by jurisdiction.

I like what the Province of Manitoba does. It also provides a telephone number along with the collection. It is optional, but its data bank has far more opportunities to be able to make telephone contacts than the Elections Canada list does. That might be worth some discussion at the committee stage. I say that because, even as I go through some of these items, I think it is important for us to recognize that different members might have different experiences and thoughts on how the legislation, the electoral participation act, can work.

When one thinks about it, there are ways for all of us to have the opportunity to participate. Some of the actions in the legislation are not only for this upcoming election but also the election of 2029. These are such things as being able to vote anywhere in one's riding.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind hon. members that they are to wait for questions and comments. We have lots of time. I just ask members to please wait as opposed to interrupting other members.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that one literally came out of the blue.

When one thinks of it, the ability to vote anywhere in a riding is actually a positive thing. It might be a bit difficult for Elections Canada to put something in place that would allow that to occur for this election. However, for 2029, I think it is a fair expectation that we should be able to vote anywhere in the riding. Again, I will compare it to an election in Manitoba.

In Manitoba, one can vote at any poll within the constituency; in fact, one can even go to a mall and vote. Enabling people to vote in malls and at any polling station would give people the opportunity to exercise their franchise and vote. That is one thing.

When we talk about how members can contribute, going into committee and talking about ideas, there is another thing on the books, and that is to extend the number of election days. It is within the legislation and being proposed for 2029.

We seem to be of the mindset that the election has to be on one day and that this is the only day people can actually go. If one cannot go then, one goes to an advance poll. There is a valid argument to be made to extend it for a three-day period, for a wide variety of reasons. One could take a look in terms of anything from an environmental condition in a region of the country—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères on a point of order.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to know if we have quorum in the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will ask the clerk to count the members present.

And the count having been taken:

We have quorum.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, Friday morning quorum calls are an interesting tactic. It interrupts my speech a bit. I can assure the member that if they look at the chamber and the lounges where we have the TVs, where people participate online, there are a number of people around, listening to the debate.

Members might want to take a look at the legislation and parts of the legislation. It would be great to have feedback because not all members go to the committee stage. I was commenting in regard to voting anywhere inside one's riding and what other possibilities are out there. Members might want to encourage, and I would encourage, Elections Canada to look at other options. I cited the Province of Manitoba that has the ability to vote in malls and other places.

I made reference to a three-day election and why it is so important that we look at making that a reality because that will be the case in the 2029 election. It takes some time to make those types of arrangements. I am not confident enough to say that it would happen in 2025, but who knows what the standing committee might say on that.

There are all sorts of reasons that we could easily justify moving in that direction. There could be something taking place in a community, which could cause a problem on a particular election day. On the current October 20 election date, I believe the Province of Alberta and its municipalities are having their election on that particular day.

Having the option to vote over two or three days, as we will see in 2029, could be a very positive thing. It could be something of that nature, or there could be something weather related. From a personal voter perspective, something could come up within the family. These are the types of discussions that should take place.

It is important to realize that when a minister and the department have put a great deal of effort into this legislation, they are very open to hearing what members of Parliament have to say. Elections Canada not only will be monitoring this debate, but also will be looking at what is said at committee.

I would suggest that there are other aspects to the legislation that would make things easier and that would alleviate the administrative burden for candidates, such as pre-registering a candidate, facilitating the use of e-signatures by eliminating the witness requirement or reducing the signatures required for the nomination papers. Some candidates submit 200-plus signatures as a mechanism to get an introduction at the door and whatever else they might want, but they get a lot of signatures on their nomination papers.

That is great if someone wants to be able to do that. However, we are proposing, in this legislation, to see a reduction in the signatures required. I believe that would help facilitate many would-be candidates. Again, it would be interesting to hear the thoughts from across the way.

The bill, Bill C-65, would establish polls in long-term care facilities and would remove requirements for long-term care residents to show proof of address when voting on site. It would allow electors who need assistance to select anyone they wish to help them cast their ballots. These are the types of initiatives that I think we learned a lot from during the pandemic. There are opportunities to enhance people's abilities to get out and vote.

The Electoral Participation Act accounts for the fact that outreach, contact and engagement between federal political parties and voters are absolutely essential and healthy to a modern democracy. Having said that, I would quickly make reference to those data banks. We need to ensure that we have checks in place that ensure privacy for a wide spectrum of ideas. I mentioned the idea of the "Who called?” book, back in the day, where at one time, the poll list was actually posted publicly so that someone could easily find out the names of individuals, where they lived and even their phone numbers, in certain types of elections. One can appreciate and understand why, today, we would have a very difficult time with that. We have a Privacy Commissioner and many parliamentarians who I believe are very much concerned about the privacy issue. A lot of that is now within the legislation being proposed. Federal privacy regimes would also bolster privacy requirements for political parties and would ensure a single, complete and comprehensive federal privacy regime.

As I only have one minute left, I will talk about electoral integrity. The legislation would ban disinformation that is intended to disrupt the conduct of elections. It would remove the time frame limit for offences involving impersonation or false statements and more. It would ensure that malicious actions using artificial intelligence are captured. It would safeguard against foreign, untraceable and difficult-to-trace donations, so in other words, it would ban things such as prepaid credit cards, cryptocurrency and other things. It would prohibit the aiding and abetting of a violation. We are strengthening Elections Canada's enforcement and compliance abilities.

This is all good stuff. I would highly recommend that members of all political parties see the value in bringing forward any thoughts they might have at committee stage and, hopefully, we will see the bill, Bill C-65, pass relatively quickly so that we can start the dialogue at the standing committees and get this exchange in the legislation moving forward.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, what we have is a self-built elections bill that really is a pension bill. It ought to be called the “loser Liberal pension protection act” because what we have is a deeply unpopular government faced with an election date of October 20, 2025. The problem is that the Liberals elected in 2019 would not qualify for their pensions, so what does the government do? It tries to push back the election date to pad its pockets at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. It is about as cynical and as dishonest as it gets. To add to the level of dishonesty, the Liberals initially said that it was all about Diwali. It has nothing to do with Diwali.

If it has nothing to do with pensions, then why do the Liberals not get on with it and call a carbon tax election so that Canadians can be put out of the misery that the Liberal government has caused them?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I was speaking, the member seemed to be agitated as he was kind of bubbling in his seat. Now I think I know why.

Here is a news flash for the member across the way. This is a minority government. In a minority government, the Liberal government, as he puts it, does not get everything it wants. This is legislation that not only one political party is behind. I like to think there are many aspects of it that even the member who posed the question is going to support, at least I would hope.

First, let us get the consensus. Elections Canada is an incredible organization and does a wonderful job of protecting the security and the confidence of Canadians in our electoral system.

The second thing I would say is that if the member is passionate about one aspect, it takes more than one party in order to pass any aspect of the legislation.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite gave an excellent speech praising the merits of the bill introduced by his government. From what he said, it seems like this is a very worthwhile bill. I want to commend him for that. There seem to be a lot of good things in his bill.

However, he did not mention the issue that this bill fails to address, and I am wondering why. Often, when the Liberals introduce bills, they brag about all the extraordinary measures the new bill contains to show us all the good things about it, but sometimes there is another side to things. History has shown us that we often need to see if there is a partisan angle to consider. We could well wonder about the Liberals' partisan interest in a bill, for example.

In this case, can the member opposite tells us how many Liberal members would not have been entitled to a pension if the date of the election had not changed by one week and how many Liberal members will be entitled to one now with the date change?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the Conservative member, in order to pass the legislation, we are required to have a majority of votes. I would not be focusing much attention on that particular issue because it is the Conservative Party that would actually benefit the most. The Conservative Party has over 30 members that would benefit. They would benefit more than any other political party in the chamber. If the Conservatives do not want to see it, okay. Do the NDP members not want to see it? Do the Bloc members not want to see it? Do the Green members not want to see it? Maybe there might be some Liberals who do not want to see it.

Let us allow the process, and allow it to go to committee. Is there validity in saying that there are celebrations on some days that might justify having the election on a different date? Members of the opposition are creating something in the room, which they could ultimately change. If all the opposition parties, and maybe even some Liberals, were to say that they wanted to have it on x date as opposed to this date, then we would go with the majority.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, as we all know, there are some very important components within this bill, Bill C-65, specifically around adding two additional days for advanced polling and enshrining legislation for the vote on campus program; that is huge. I could go on.

As my colleagues have mentioned, there is one portion of this bill, Bill C-65, that speaks to moving the election date forward, which has consequences on members of Parliament's pensions. There is a reason that my colleagues are bringing this up. Canadians do not want to see members of Parliament putting forward legislation that personally benefits their own pensions. They want to see solutions being put forward that would address the climate crisis and the affordability crisis that many Canadians are experiencing.

The NDP has made it very clear that we will be putting forward an amendment to move this election date back to the original date, and to see this important legislation go forward but not to see this component that unfairly benefits members of Parliament. Will the member be supporting this amendment?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can assure you that I will fully respect what the majority of members of the House want to see when it ultimately comes to a vote.

One can do the math. If every member of the Conservative Party, of the Bloc and of the NDP says that they want to go to October 20, I suspect the election will be on October 20. It is as simple as that.

We should not be looking at only that issue. The committee will no doubt deal with that issue. I hope that they have all sorts of discussions with respect to it and that they are able to resolve it. However, there are other critically important aspects to the legislation that the members made reference to, including increasing the number of advance voting days. That would help immensely in ensuring that more people get engaged in the 2025 election.

Whether it is voters themselves, political parties or Elections Canada, we are seeing an uptick on the number of people participating at the advance polls. Increasing the number of advance poll days would be a positive thing. There are a lot of positive things within this legislation.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary 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—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to allow for other questions.

The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I fully agree with the opinion expressed by my colleague. Cynicism is something we should be addressing, and we should not be trying to drape an elections bill over, as he correctly characterized, an MP pension bill. We can talk about improvements to our elections, absolutely, but not when we are trying to slip something through and pull the wool over the eyes of the Canadian electorate. Let us address that issue first. Then there is an opportunity to improve our election system.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. I listened attentively to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader's speech. He characterized the bill as “good stuff” and suggested that at the end of the day, the Conservatives would support the bill. I can assure him that what is in the bill is not good stuff and that the Conservatives will not be supporting it.

There are problems with this bill, putting aside the pension issue, which I will get into later. There are amendments that we cannot support. For example, one of the amendments provided for in the bill is with respect to special ballot voting, whereby a voter would be able to mark their ballot by filling in their preferred political party as opposed to their preferred candidate. This raises constitutional questions.

Under our Constitution, there are multiple references to individuals being elected to the House of Commons. In contrast, there is not a single reference to political parties, and that is because in Canada, we elect individuals to the House of Commons; we do not elect political parties. This amendment would completely upend that. I submit that, while it is arguable that the amendment is unconstitutional, at the very least it is problematic. For instance, if it were to be adopted, what is to say that another amendment could not be made to the Canada Elections Act whereby the names of individual candidates are removed altogether and Canadians would simply mark their ballot by filling in their preferred political party?

Another problematic amendment to the Canada Elections Act provided for in the bill relates to assisting voters marking their ballots. As it stands today, a voter who requires assistance may receive assistance from an individual to help them mark their ballot. Such an individual may only help one voter in an election, and there must be some personal connection between the voter and the individual assisting them. This legislation would remove both of those criteria. With this bill, an individual would be able to help an unlimited number of voters mark their ballot, notwithstanding any connection of any sort between the person assisting and the elector. I would submit that this, on its face, raises questions of potential abuse, and I therefore suggest that this amendment be carefully scrutinized at committee.

With respect to the third party financing regime, this bill is a step in the right direction but is inadequate. It is a step in the right direction insofar as it makes an important step forward with respect to financing during the pre-election and election periods. It appears that the objective of the changes to third party financing is for the expenditures third parties make during those periods to be made from funds donated by individual Canadian contributors in the same way as political parties must raise donations from individual Canadians. The problem is that it does not entirely close a long-standing loophole whereby third parties can use contributions made from foreigners, foreign funds, to influence elections.

I have to ask why the Liberals have not seen fit to close that loophole. We know that during the 2015 election, millions and millions of dollars were funnelled from U.S.-based organizations, including the U.S.-based Tides Foundation, to registered third parties that ran a coordinated campaign to defeat Conservatives, to the benefit of the Liberal Party.

After nine years of the Prime Minister, we have seen a Prime Minister and government that have a deeply troubling record of turning a blind eye to foreign interference and even being complicit in foreign interference, whether that foreign interference emanated from Beijing or from the U.S., so long as it benefited the Liberal Party. I cannot help but wonder if the reason the Liberals have not fully closed this foreign money loophole with respect to third party financing is that they see it as a loophole that benefits them electorally.

I could go on to talk about other aspects of this bill and problems with it, but at the end of the day, it really does not matter, because this bill is not an elections bill. That is not what this bill is about. It is a pension bill. It is the loser Liberal pension protection act, under the guise of an elections bill.

By the way, the government is not fooling anyone. To put it into context, we have a deeply unpopular Prime Minister in government who is on the verge of facing a massive electoral defeat whenever he has the guts to call the next election. What that means, of course, is that many of the Liberals sitting across the way are not going to be here after the next election. They have to call an election by October 20, 2025, but the problem they have is that the Liberals who were elected in 2019, many of whom face almost certain defeat, do not qualify for their pension. What do the Liberals do? They introduce the loser Liberal pension protection act to push back the election date so that all of a sudden, the soon-to-be loser Liberals can pad their pockets with a pension.

This is about as cynical and dishonest as it gets from arguably one of the most cynical and dishonest governments that have ever governed this country. It is an absolute abuse of the legislative power of the government. It constitutes the government yet again giving everyday Canadians, as it does every day, the middle finger, as the Liberals pad their pockets. After nine years, they have pummelled everyday Canadians, made life less affordable and caused enormous hurt and pain for Canadians.

Contrary to the representation of the member for Winnipeg North, the Conservatives will not be supporting the loser Liberal pension protection act.

With that, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, as the Bill delays the next federal election so that more departing members of Parliament can collect taxpayer-funded pensions, a measure that is particularly offensive at a time when Canadians are struggling due to the NDP-Liberal Government's inflation, carbon tax and housing costs.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, who am I to defend 32 Conservatives? Some 32 Conservative MPs are the biggest beneficiaries, yet the member is calling out the Liberals for defending the Conservatives. There are 22 Liberals and—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. We all want to hear the question. If not, I would still ask members to not disrupt the proceedings.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are 32 Conservatives, 22 Liberals, 19 from the Bloc and half a dozen New Democrats. Those are the individuals who would be affected.

That aside, I do not understand the Conservatives. The last time they brought in legislation, they tried to get rid of the voter ID card as a way of identifying ourselves. We remember voter suppression and robocalls. We remember when Dean Del Mastro was led out handcuffs.

Why does the Conservative Party not understand the importance of democracy in Canada?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would invite the member to talk to the member for Steveston—Richmond East, and then compare that to the testimony of our former colleague, Kenny Chiu, who provided evidence of the Liberal Party amplifying disinformation for the partisan gain of the Liberal Party.

That speaks to the integrity of the Liberals. If they had any integrity, and if it really was not about protecting their pensions, they would support my amendment and remove the loser Liberal Pension Protection Act from the bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, my northern neighbour from St. Albert—Edmonton, cleared up quite a few issues in his speech. While we are hearing a lot of push-back from the government to his speech, I would just like to get a bit more feedback on whether the member really believes this is a pension bill for future Liberal losses for their benches or an actual change to the Electoral Participation Act. Why is it focusing so much on extending pension privileges for losing Liberal MPs, rather than focusing on helping Canadians in the election process?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the bill ought to be called the “loser Liberal pension protection act”, and if it has nothing to do with pensions, then frankly, the government members should get on with what Canadians want so badly, which is for them to call a carbon tax election so that Canadians can once and for all rid themselves of arguably the most rotten and corrupt government in Canadian history.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually want him to follow up a little more on that because maybe it has potential. I know we have heard an amendment from the NDP to potentially move the election date back to the normal date. Maybe another amendment would be just to move it a full month or a month and a half further into the future, or maybe even to next week.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians would like it if the Prime Minister, this afternoon, went down to Rideau Hall and called a carbon tax election. That is what Canadians would like, but it will not happen because the Prime Minister knows, and the member for Winnipeg North knows, that they would be decimated.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that all the Conservatives want to say is to axe the tax and to call an election. That is all they ever say inside the House of Commons. They do not necessarily realize that there is still another year plus, in terms of the mandate that was provided. Here, we are talking about changes to the election that would enable more Canadians to potentially participate, such as increasing the number of advance voting days.

Does the member support the recommendation to increase the number of advance voting days?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes. I do support that aspect of the bill, but there are other problems with the bill, which I outlined in my speech, with respect to some of the special balloting measures contained in the bill, the inadequacy of the amendments to the third-party financing regime, and above all else, the fact that the overriding purpose of the bill is to pad the pockets of soon-to-be defeated Liberal MPs.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-65, tabled by the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs.

I want to give a bit of background on the content of the bill before delving into the details of the Bloc Québécois's position.

The bill is presented as a means to encourage voter participation. It is hard to be against such an objective. I could talk about certain aspects of the bill, such as the idea of “two additional days of advance polling”. Giving voters two extra days to cast their ballot is certainly not a bad idea. We are not opposed to that.

The bill also seeks to “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”. Basically, the goal is to set up polling stations in long-term care facilities or in residences for people who are elderly or who have severe disabilities or mobility issues, so that they can vote on site. Again, that is not something we are opposed to. It is actually rather positive.

The bill seeks to “provide for the establishment of offices for voting by special ballot at post-secondary educational institutions”. The government wants to let people vote in schools. These are things that have already been done, particularly in Quebec. We do not have any problem with that. We tend to agree with that measure.

Then, there are other measures that would not be implemented right away but that could be implemented later if the findings of the Chief Electoral Officer's reports show that they would be worthwhile. Those measures could be put into in a second bill later. The Chief Electoral Officer would be responsible for presenting a few reports on various topics, one of which is “the measures that need to be taken to implement a three-day polling period”. The government wants to determine how the Chief Electoral Officer can ensure that polling is carried out over three days rather than just one. We are talking about the final election or D-Day, as we say.

The bill also provides for the Chief Electoral Officer to submit a “report on the measures that need to be taken to enable electors to vote at any place in their polling station”. Often, when people go to vote, there are several small polling stations scattered around. There are lists, and the polling stations are divided into several lists, so there are four or five polling stations. Thanks to this measure, people can go to any polling station to vote and will not have to wait if, for example, everyone happens to go vote at the same time and there is a line. That way, people can vote at the nearby polling station to avoid having to wait. This might speed up the processing rate. Again though, we will have to see how this measure can be implemented. How will we ensure that the right people are crossed off the right list? How will we ensure real-time monitoring? It will be up to the Chief Electoral Officer to tell us whether this is feasible or not.

The same goes for the three-day voting period. It is already hard enough to find places for people to vote. I have worked on elections in the past and have had discussions with returning officers. Many facilities need to be found, because there are several polling stations in each riding. Then people are divided up based on where they live. We must find locations that are close to where people live and that are available during the hours in question.

Is a three-day voting period a positive thing? If it is feasible, why not do it? It could be somewhat problematic. It will be up to the returning officer to determine whether there are possible solutions. For example, it would be hard to close schools for three days. If events are planned in certain locations, those rooms will have to be reserved. This can pose logistical problems.

The Chief Electoral Officer will also have to provide “a report on the feasibility of enabling electors to vote at any polling station in their electoral district”. Electors will not only be able to go to a different polling station if theirs is busy, but they will be able to go to any polling station in their electoral district. For example, instead of voting at the community centre next door, the elector could go vote at the school in the neighbouring town, at a polling station three blocks down, or even at a church. That type of location is often used for this type of event. People will be allowed to walk from one polling station to another to go vote. Again, this poses the same problem: We will have to ensure that no individual can vote at three or four different stations. The lists will need to be monitored. The returning officer might tell us how to manage this part.

There again, these are all things that we are prepared to look into to see how they could be implemented. They are not necessarily bad suggestions, on the contrary. They may even be good, if we can figure out a way to implement them properly.

When it comes to extending the polling period to three days and adding two additional days of advance polling, the only thing that presents an additional problem is the impact that will have on election workers, who are often students or retirees, because people who work full time are at work or sometimes have a family that they need to look after. They do not necessarily have time to work at an election. If we ask election workers to do more, we may need more workers to cover all the shifts. That may mean hiring more election workers or asking the same election workers to do more. The Chief Electoral Officer may find it difficult to get enough people who are trained and available. We will see what the Chief Electoral Officer says, but there are definitely some potential problems. In Quebec, the returning officers are saying that it is already hard sometimes to find election workers.

Finally, the bill provides for “a report proposing a process for the determination of whether a political party has as one of its fundamental purposes [or relies on] the promotion of hatred against an identifiable group of persons.” No one wants to see hate speech or hateful politics directed at an identifiable group of persons. The Chief Electoral Officer will therefore take responsibility for examining this issue as well.

All the items I mentioned are relatively worthwhile and positive. However, I wonder if anyone has considered the practical side of implementing all this. As I mentioned, the last items we talked about would not be implemented right away. They would be deferred until a later time. We therefore have time to think things through, although I believe that we have to consider practicalities before implementing anything, to nip all sorts of problems in the bud.

As we know, our electoral system is important. People generally trust our electoral system. We do not want to break with that trust in the integrity of the electoral process. It is too valuable, just like the public's trust in the process is valuable. If we decide to do something, we need to do it right.

However, there is something else in the bill that the Liberals are not talking about. We have been listening carefully, and so far, they have barely mentioned it in their speeches. Every time the Liberals introduce a bill, I always wonder why they are introducing it. Is it for partisan reasons? One has to wonder. The bill before us would delay the election by one week from October 20, 2025, to October 27, 2025. Why move the election by one week?

The official reason we were given is that the government wants to accommodate Indian communities and their celebration of Diwali, which is a festival of lights. That is the reason the government gave us. If it were a statutory holiday, we could understand that, but I find it odd that an election would be moved because of a religious holiday. Canada is supposed to be a secular state. A secular state, by definition, is not supposed to bend to the whim of every religion.

Whether it is Mardi Gras, the Feast of the Assumption or Palm Sunday, will the government start saying that we cannot vote because there is a religious holiday that day? If we take into consideration all the religious holidays that exist, we will never find a day to vote. It seems to me that this is a slippery slope and that it is not the right direction to take. I am even wondering whether that is the real reason.

I would like to remind members that people already have six days to go to the advance polls, so if they want to celebrate Diwali, for example, then good for them. That does not prevent them from voting during the six days of advance polling, since this bill adds two additional days to the four advance polling days that we already have. They can also go to the returning officer's office to vote at any time.

If people can already go vote at the office of the returning officer at any time during an election, is it really a major issue if the last day on which they can exercise their right to vote falls on a religious holiday? I am not so sure.

People can also vote by mail. That was implemented during the last election and it is now more widespread. People can vote in schools. That was mentioned earlier. There are even going to be mobile voting options for people with reduced mobility. That means that if someone has difficulty getting around physically, because they are in a wheelchair, for example, someone will visit them so they can vote. People can also vote in long-term care facilities or CHSLDs. That is why I am not entirely sure that Diwali celebrations are the real reason behind this.

This creates another problem. The Liberals did not think of it or maybe they do not care, but there will be municipal elections in 1,108 municipalities in Quebec at roughly the same time. In fact, the date of the municipal election is November 3, 2025. The date of the federal election was initially set for October 20, 2025. If it is moved to October 27, there will be six days between the two elections. I do not know if anyone has any idea of what that might look like.

There will be signs for every federal party: the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party, the NDP and all the other possible parties. Add to that all the signs for all the municipal parties. There will be a fight to see who posts their signs first. This will also create a media situation where everyone is clamouring to be on the news. Everyone will be in battle mode to get media coverage. Will the coverage be on the municipal election or just the federal election? The journalists, whose numbers are already dwindling, will have difficulty finding the time to properly cover both election campaigns.

All 1,108 municipalities will hold elections at the same time. It is not like one small remote town or a single school board was having an election—those do not exist anymore anyway. My point is, 1,108 municipalities is a lot of people. All these people will have to ponder, think, listen to debates, get informed—because not everyone is a full-time follower of politics—and make a choice. They will now have to do all of this twice in the same period.

What is more, something tells me that there will not be enough space—mental space, space in the media, physical space and space for volunteers. We want people to get involved, but, judging by what I can see in my riding, it is the same people who are volunteering in municipal, provincial and federal elections. They are also the same people who organize social and community events. Very often, the same people are involved in everything. Now, we are going to tell these people that they have to take care of all the elections. Volunteers are not the only ones. There are also election workers. The people who work for municipalities during the elections and who get paid by returning officers will be called upon to work during the federal elections. This will create a competition of sorts. Federal and provincial polling stations will have to be set up and staff will need to be trained. That will quite the whirligig.

I cannot understand why the Liberals overlooked that, unless they do not care. We know that they often skip over Quebec's cities, refuse to even listen to them and want nothing to do with them. For the Liberals, Quebec's cities do not exist. Sometimes, the Liberals even interfere in their areas of jurisdiction. We often talk about it in the House. I think it is sad, because it makes no sense. It almost seems like they are deliberately trying to confuse people. Why would they do such a thing?

In fact, it is because the Liberals are a bit desperate. I visited the 338Canada site this morning. At the moment, the Liberals have 156 seats, but the latest projections show that they would win 71 seats if an election were held tomorrow morning, meaning that 85 Liberal MPs would lose their jobs. Some of them would lose more than just their jobs. If an election were held on the date originally scheduled, they would lose their pension too. If that date were pushed back a week, they would get it.

As we understand it, the Liberals have found a way to say that they might be defeated in the next election, but they intend to give their friends a little parting gift, a bigger cheque, to make them richer on their way out the door. No member of the Liberal family will be abandoned or allowed to fall through the cracks. It is pathetic.

Now the cat is out of the bag. All of the good intentions and positive measures in Bill C‑65 that the government has been bragging about do not seem quite so great when we find out why the bill was actually introduced. The real reason is that the Liberals want to treat themselves with taxpayers' money.

I am rather taken aback by that. Over the past several weeks in the House, often during question period, the member for Honoré-Mercier, who is the Minister of Transport and the Quebec lieutenant, has sometimes been taking pleasure in answering the questions of Bloc Québécois members by saying that we are not here for our convictions but for our pensions. That is what he said. I am 35 years old, so I am not going to be getting a pension anytime soon.

Now we are learning that, while the Liberals say that, what they are really doing is scheming, with the complicity of the NDP, to get themselves some nice pensions. Come on. Perhaps the NDP brought it up during question period because that is what they were thinking about. That is what was on their mind. The NDP was wondering how to make the Canada Elections Act best serve the interests of the Liberal Party.

This reminds me of the infamous wage subsidy. The government said that it wanted to help struggling businesses keep their employees during the COVID-19 crisis so it would subsidize wages. The Liberals also found a clever trick with that program. They figured that they needed the money as well, so they got the wage subsidy. Nothing is too good for the Liberals. The same thing is happening again with Bill C-65. It is pretty discouraging.

In fact, it is discouraging and sad because making changes to election legislation is a sensible thing. Making changes to election legislation is, in fact, the very essence of democracy. The public trust is sacred; we should not play around with it, indulge in self-serving largesse and constantly try to make it work to our advantage. In the end, these little Liberal shenanigans only serve to fuel public cynicism and make people feel more disconnected from our institutions. People tell themselves that this does not really represent them and that they do not trust it.

For these reasons, we are obviously going to vote against the bill. We are saying no to chaos in municipal elections held at the same time as federal elections and no to accommodations for religious holidays when we are a secular state and we are told that religious holidays will determine the timing of elections. Who understands that? I do not. Above all, I say no to Liberals who decide to fatten up their pension funds just before they leave.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening very closely to my friend across the way. He was talking about the consideration for the Province of Quebec and raised a lot of valid points. I wonder if he is aware that the City of Edmonton, the City of Calgary and the municipalities in Alberta have their elections on October 20. That is when the legislation is proposed. If nothing is done, we will have our election on the same date as those municipalities.

When he makes reference to Diwali, I myself appreciate Diwali, which is good over evil. There are all sorts of things that I would talk about with respect to Diwali. Having said that, I share the same concerns the member just talked about for the Province of Quebec. That is why I ask: Would he apply the same principles he just finished talking about with respect to the Province of Quebec for the people in the Province of Alberta? Should that be taken into consideration at all?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I could answer quickly that the concern for a Bloc Québécois MP like me is primarily for Quebec, the municipalities of Quebec, its jurisdictions and all the rest.

I am not necessarily against what my colleague is proposing, that we should take into consideration the dates of other provincial and municipal elections. In fact, from the point of view of a parliamentarian or a federal government, it should go without saying that efforts should be made to avoid having these elections at the same time. Is it my role, as a member from Quebec, a member of the Bloc Québécois, to check whether there is an election in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba? No, that is my colleague's job. It is his responsibility.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to see you in that chair.

I appreciated my colleague's speech very much. He was elected for the first time in 2015. He mentioned his age. I did not think he was that young. The member raises a very important question regarding the necessary coordination when an election is called. We know that we have three levels of government in Canada: municipal, provincial and federal. We try to avoid creating bottlenecks whenever possible.

On the other hand, we recognize that Canada has 10 provinces and tens of thousands of municipalities, each with their own agenda. We recognize that. However, in this specific case, given the timing of the municipal elections in Quebec, we can plainly see that we are headed for a perfect storm in the name of a theoretically fixed-date federal election.

I believe that the same timing issue happened in the last election, in 2021. Members may recall that the Prime Minister called an election during the fourth wave of the pandemic, after a year and a half of a minority government. The current minority government is now in its third year and he will draw things out for a fourth one.

I want to draw members' attention to what my colleague said. Some members will have reached the six-year mark by the next election. What a coincidence. The government is proposing to have the next election after the supposed fixed date. I wonder if my colleague would be open to examining the proposal to hold the election 10 days before the fixed date. In that case, some members might not get their pension.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague raises a very interesting point.

The government's priority should not be to work to ensure that its members make bank. The government's priority should be to ensure that the public can vote under the best possible circumstances. The government is saying that it is going to make elections better, that it will be easier for people to vote, but that it wants to do it at the same time as municipal elections. I am not sure that this will help people.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for those who are watching, you are one of the longest-serving members in the chamber here, so it is good to see you in this role.

To my colleague, the NDP has proposed a change to stop the extra week that would allow this pension issue to rear its head and really distract from some good, necessary electoral reforms. There may be some other potential amendments that would help increase voting; voting numbers have not been as robust as what we would want.

The Liberals cannot get out of their own way. They continue to be the only party that wants to have this pension benefit thing exist. Would my colleague be supporting the NDP amendment to get rid of this entire pension debate, as well as other amendments to increase participation in democracy?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that the NDP would like to keep the original date with an amendment. What I do not understand is why the NDP needs it and why it is announcing it now.

When the bill was introduced, the NDP was patting itself on the back, saying that they had worked on it together and that it was so proud of the bill's outcome. In the end, they came forward with something else today.

It would be better if the date were moved by a week. It is better to vote a week and a half before a municipal election in Quebec than to vote six days before a municipal election. We agree on that. That said, the dates would still be very close together, and there would still be confusion. What would be even better would be to move the date back a little further, so that the election would be called a little earlier.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his extremely interesting and enlightening speech.

I would like to remind members of the title of the bill, which is the electoral participation act. Our number one concern in the House is to get as many people to participate in elections as possible. My number one role is to get elected by the people of Shefford. I am starting to see a pileup—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Scott Reid]

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George on a point of order.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I am wrong, but I do not believe our hon. colleague is in her actual seat.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Perhaps we will give the member a chance to get to her seat.

Everything is in order.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I was so caught up in this compelling and interesting debate that I forgot the rules. I will come back to my question. Bill C-65 is on electoral participation. Above all, our role as elected members is to ensure that more people participate in the electoral process.

For some time now I have seen a pileup of bills, facts or news in the House that are harmful to democracy. Let me explain. When two parties call each other names—I saw this again just this week—this just fuels hate and fosters a hateful environment that discourages people from going out to vote. I do not think that shouting insults is very edifying for democracy.

I have another concern. The Bloc Québécois is losing a riding in eastern Quebec. Not only are we losing political weight in the region, but Quebec is also losing political weight. It is worrisome for democracy. Now more elements are being added that will hinder the next election, namely having the federal election at the same time as another election. Moreover, people will only become more cynical about politics because they will think that politicians are giving themselves a pension by moving the date of the next election.

This is starting to really add up. What does my colleague think?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very good question. I think she raises a good point with the so-called electoral reform, by which I mean the latest redistribution. The electoral map is obviously a part of democracy.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in this bill to correct the issues being faced in regions where the ridings are even larger, where the impression of being far from power is even greater, and where the work of MPs and elected representatives is even more difficult. These are the kinds of issues we would like the feds to address. However, we are getting the impression that the Liberals are turning a deaf ear.

We know that an independent Quebec would be more receptive because there is already a willingness in Quebec to ensure that the regions are heard and well represented. We know that a process of reflection is under way.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the member about applying the same principles that he used in his speech for Quebec to Alberta. His response was that this in Alberta, and it does not matter to him.

There are 30-plus Conservative MPs from Alberta. Does the member believe they should at least give some thought to the impact of having Calgary, Edmonton and municipal elections throughout the province?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member opposite understood my answer. What I am telling him is that I am a member of the Bloc Québécois, a member from Quebec, and that my focus is Quebec.

However, he is a member of the party in power and it is up to the Liberals to manage the entire country and all the concerns of every province. It is up to them to find solutions. If someone tables a solution to these problems, we will not oppose it. However, we are focusing on Quebec's problems.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House to represent the people of London—Fanshawe and to speak today to this really important piece of legislation.

Today is yet another win for Canadians being delivered by the NDP caucus. It is yet another example of what can be accomplished by sending members of Parliament to the House of Commons who put people first. We do not focus on ourselves. We do not work to expand only our own power, or the power of our rich donors, because we do not have rich donors; we have normal people working together for a cause that they believe in. New Democrats work to ensure that our democratic institutions are strengthened for all people. This legislation is a good step. It is one step, but a good step to give power back to Canadians and not tear down democracy simply for clickbait.

When we all arrived in Ottawa, after the 2021 election, there were a lot of choices that had to be made by all members. We had the choice to spend the next four years fighting, accomplishing little for our constituents, throwing tantrums because we could not get the results that we wanted, or we could be better. My caucus knew that Canadians wanted action. As a New Democrat who grew up under the leadership shown by Jack Layton, I knew the importance of balancing a proposition while in opposition. We did not want to be like the Conservatives spending four years fundraising and disrupting Parliament. We knew the Liberals would spend four years breaking the promises that they had been making to Canadians for so long, so we stepped up.

One thing is very clear in the House: New Democrats and Conservatives have a very different understanding of our responsibility in this House. We are elected by constituents as individuals first. We are here to fight for them, sometimes alongside colleagues in the government, sometimes not. We saw this in action during COVID-19. In this chamber, we put politics aside and fought for Canadians in one of the largest crises in Canada. We, the NDP, used our power in a minority government to collaborate with all sides. We increased the Canada emergency wage subsidy to protect jobs. We made sure that the Canada emergency response benefit provided enough supports for everyone so they could make ends meet. We ensured necessary programs were coming out on time with minimal barriers. We made sure that students were supported. All parties, to differing degrees, came together during COVID. I think that Canadians noticed that support for Parliament as an institution and the respect that they had was felt.

Parliament is at its worst when political parties wield their majorities as a way to shut down others, but our experience during the COVID-19 pandemic showed politics can work for Canadians when we come together. We have seen how collaboration can help more and more Canadians. Our agreement with the government says it all. If Liberals finally deliver on their promise of ending first past the post, we can make that collaboration the rule, not the exception. We can end a system where 100% of the power goes to a party with less than 40% of the vote. We can end a system that incentivizes the toxic clip culture and recklessness from opposition parties waiting to have their turn. Canadians would like to see Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc, NDP and Green members working together on solutions. If we can listen to Canadians and end first past the post, we can make that collaboration. Again, it could be the rule, not the exception, in this place.

I would like to talk more about how working together has helped Canadians: 1.7 million seniors have registered for dental care, the single-biggest expansion of our health care system since Tommy Douglas; nine million Canadians will receive barrier-free birth control; 3.7 million Canadians will receive diabetes medication and devices for free; a new rental protection fund to stop greedy corporate landlords from getting rich off the backs of precarious renters is set to happen; a new national school food program will provide meals for 4,000 children across Canada; and now, today, with the introduction of Bill C-65, we can move toward fairer elections.

Today is a great example of why New Democrats needed to step up and use our influence to make Liberals act. I remember knocking on doors in 2015, and the powerful promise given to Canadians by the Prime Minister that 2015 would be our last unfair election under first past the post. How many people in this place remember hearing that? In 2015, the Liberals were elected with a majority government and had four full years to exercise their majority in this House to pass that legislation but, in 2019, confusingly, I was elected to this chamber by London—Fanshawe under first past the post.

Then, in 2021, even the Prime Minister was catching on, saying that we had to eliminate first past the post and he again said, “Oh, I will take on election reform". New Democrats knew that was not going to happen, that we would see that election promise broken again, and that is exactly what happened.

My colleague, the NDP MP for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, brought forward a fantastic motion to create a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. She argued to this House that Canadians were becoming cynical about politics. A 2020 Leger poll showed that 80% of Canadians supported the creation of a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. This was a popular idea to solve the drop in voter turnout in Canada. However, the Liberals and Conservatives teamed up in February to defeat it.

If Canadians are thinking that the new Conservative leader will be any better, I am sad to say that is not the case. In 2014, he was the Minister of State for Democratic Reform and brought forward infamous unfair changes to the Canada Elections Act. At a time when there was growing consensus in Canada to fix our broken electoral system, the Conservative leader created more barriers to vote and made the process less democratic. The Conservative leader was caught misleading this House when he promised he had consulted the Chief Electoral Officer, but within minutes of his making this claim, Elections Canada officials corrected the record to say that they were never consulted on the contents of the bill.

It took years to see the true impact of another major problem with this bill, because the Conservatives stripped the investigative powers of the office of the commissioner of Canada elections. Now we know the rest of the story. We have had years of foreign interference allegations that have shaken this country, but the elections watchdog was stripped. It probably had something to do with the Conservatives' getting caught in that infamous robocall scandal.

Canadians know that our elections need more oversight. Conservatives stripped it away. The Conservative bill also allowed for more monetization of our political system. The Conservative leader spiked the maximum donation limit, so the Conservatives' rich insiders could fill their coffers. The Conservative leader made expense-limit loopholes, further making it easier to influence election outcomes by those who have lots of money.

The most cynical part of the bill was that they doubled down on the systemic barriers for marginalized people to participate in our elections. Indigenous communities, youth, seniors and the poor are disenfranchised by politics. Politicians use their power to benefit the wealthiest elites in this country, but it is these marginalized communities who need to engage in our electoral system to elect officials who will champion their needs. The Conservatives made it harder for them to engage in our electoral process. The Conservatives knew that tightening rules on voter identification would systematically disenfranchise these voters. They did not care. The Conservatives knew it would cause confusion for those communities, and they went as far as banning Elections Canada from advertising to these communities with respect to how to vote under the new system, which was shameful. Finally, the Conservatives rammed this legislation through Parliament to avoid scrutiny, using their majority government and tight time allocation.

Those are not the only changes that the Conservatives made to our elections. The Conservatives used their majority to cut a crucial part of our democracy: per-vote subsidy. Since the NDP was founded in 1961, we have been the party of workers who came together to end the monopoly on politics wielded by the richest and most powerful. The per-vote subsidy meant that Canadian political parties did not need to rely on big donations in exchange for political favours. It allowed Canadians to not only vote for their member of Parliament but to also have a say in which political party had the resources to campaign to get their message out. The Conservatives would rather their insider buddies decide, and they cut the per-vote subsidy while hiking that maximum donation limit. Therefore, the Conservatives made things worse. They made elections less fair, less transparent and less accessible.

After the last election, we saw the impact of lower voter participation on our democracy. We knew, as New Democrats, that we needed to use our influence and place Canadians first. We used our power to get these changes to Parliament.

Now, let me be clear: This bill is not perfect. We have a number of changes that we would like to make when this reaches committee, but in this bill there are important wins.

The bill would add two additional days of advance polling, bringing the total to seven, including election day. It would require Elections Canada to offer online registration for special mail-in ballots. It would create the option to register early for special ballots in the case of fixed-date elections. It would create the option for electors to return special ballots in person or vote in person on election day if they have registered for, but not submitted, a special ballot. It would enshrine in legislation the Vote on Campus program for post-secondary students; and make voting easier in long-term care facilities by allowing returning officers to work with facilities to identify the best date and time for residents to vote early, removing proof-of-address requirements for electors in these facilities and allowing them to choose anyone they would like to assist them with voting.

The bill would require a report to Parliament by the Chief Electoral Officer on steps needed to give electors the ability to vote at any polling station in their riding by 2029. It would require a report to Parliament by the Chief Electoral Officer on steps needed to implement a three-day election day period for general elections by 2029 and beyond. It would increase protections against election interference and foreign financing of third party campaign activities. It would introduce new protections against people knowingly making false or misleading statements related to an election or the voting process.

The bill has new third party finance rules requiring increased transparency on the source of funding that third parties use to pay for regulated activities. It would create new safeguards for voters' personal data held by political parties.

I mentioned that there were things that we wanted to see changed. We need to see more in the bill, and we will be pushing for that at committee. We want to ensure that all communities and Canadians can engage in our electoral system. That means allowing indigenous languages on ballots across Canada. That means allowing telephone voting for people with disabilities. That means lowering the voter age to 16. These changes are critical to ensure we elect politicians who look like and serve all Canadians

We also want to remove any chance of the bill being cynically used for MP pensions. We want to ensure that the bill would not circumvent the normal procedure for allocation of MP pensions and ensure that any change to the election day does not push anyone over the line for access to a pension that they would not have otherwise received.

We also want to ensure that unions are not unduly prohibited from communicating with their own members about politics. Despite attacks by other parties, unions are part of our democracy. They are elected. We cannot just have electoral democracy; Canadians need economic and workplace democracy. That means ensuring workers can come together and work together to change our political system.

We also know Canada is lagging behind on the world stage for gender parity in politics. In 1997, 20.6% of members of Parliament were women. Today, we have only grown to 30.6%, well behind countries, like Mexico, that have reached gender parity by making it a part of their electoral process. I am very proud that the NDP has a robust gender equity policy in our selection of candidates, but the last couple of weeks have shown that we cannot rely on political parties alone to make that change. Canadian women deserve true representation. They need gender parity in this House, and that will require changing how we do elections.

I just wanted to expand on this a bit, too, in terms of what I have seen in the procedure and House affairs committee recently, as we are talking about harassment in this place and in this institution. The misogyny that we see in this place needs to be rectified. I have approached many progressive women, seeing if they would put their names forward. They see what happens in this place. They do not want to be a part of that. They cannot see themselves in this place. That has a huge negative impact on how we govern this country.

As I conclude, the NDP is extremely proud to have pushed the Liberal government to make elections more accessible for Canadians. There is a lot more work to be done, and we need to keep pushing to make sure that it is done. Canadians are sick and tired of those broken promises, and they are sick and tired of being manipulated solely so certain parties can focus on their own power and privilege.

There are fundamental changes that we need to make to ensure that every Canadian's vote matters. I believe that means ending first past the post, which is key for proportional representation; getting indigenous languages on ballots; telephone voting for people with disabilities; and lowering the voting age to 16 years of age for those who contribute to our financial system yet have no voice within our democratic system.

This bill, while a small first step, is a very good step. With New Democrats using our power to deliver fairness for Canadians, we are proud that we will be making our electoral system better and fairer.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, after nine years of the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister and the government's woke, wacko, extremist policies, Canadians are poorer than they have ever been before. It is because the New Democrats have helped prop up the most corrupt Prime Minister in Canadian history. He doubled rents and mortgages and made food unaffordable, all on a pathway to quadrupling the carbon tax scam.

Does the member agree that it is time for her party to stop protecting its leader's pension, stop propping up the corrupt Liberal-NDP government, help put an end to Canadians' misery and call a carbon tax election now so that common-sense Conservatives can axe the tax and Canadians can kick this costly coalition to the curb?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, there were a lot of slogans put into one question, albeit a very concise one.

Interestingly, I talked about clickbait in my speech. I do not know if the member heard that. I do not know if the member has heard me speak in this House about the rage farming that occurs. In my speech, I talked about how we can make our electoral system better, how we can make politics better, how we can work together, not for ourselves and not for the power that Conservatives seem to cling to so tightly, and how we can do that for the people who have elected us and need us to be better.

If I showed up at a workplace and all I did was fight with everybody I worked with, would I get anything done? Would I hold my position for long? No. I have to be better and we all have to be better, and I refute everything the member said.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on expanding advance polling. I will be providing further thoughts on this shortly, but when I reflect on it, I see that advance polling has had an uptick. More and more people are taking advantage of marking their X by participating at advance polls, one of the highlights of this legislation. I think we should all get behind supporting that initiative.

I am wondering if the member wants to emphasize her personal thoughts regarding the benefits of expanding the number of days to vote in advance.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly one of the reasons we are happy to move forward with this bill and make the needed changes. In fact, one of those changes, to put the election day back to the original date, would mean more advance polling or voting days. That is why we want to see the election expanded to three days. In the end, it would provide more opportunities.

We believe we would not have to argue so much about the end date if we had more days, more flexibility and more options for people to vote throughout the election process. This is about expanding that even more, and I am fully in support of it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on a few words that my colleague from London—Fanshawe said.

She said that we need to improve politics, be better, and rise above the kind of petty politicking that we see all too often.

There are a lot of good things in this bill. A more accessible electoral process is a good thing. The idea of extending advance polling station operations by a few days is a good thing.

However, instead of introducing a bill that would have brought the opposition parties together, the government included things like pushing back the election date, which opens the door to legitimate criticism from Canadians who see it as a move by the Liberals to provide pensions to those elected in 2019.

Why use a religious holiday as an excuse for a date change, knowing full well how much it would irritate proponents of a secular state who refuse to make unreasonable accommodations on religious grounds? Why put forward a date just six days away from upcoming municipal elections in 1,109 Quebec municipalities, and thus jeopardize Quebec's municipal election process?

There could have been a way to create a unifying bill that accommodated the sensitivities of all the parties, but no, they did not do that.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, I go back to what New Democrats have put on the table. We want to see this go to committee, so that we can make the changes necessary to do exactly as the member said and bring it back to the original date. We do not want this to be about us. This is about the electors. This is about Canadians and what they need.

To eliminate that conversation, let us make the changes that we need to, but we have to do that together instead of just striking the legislation down. We did not write the legislation. The government wrote it, but we are, again, being the adults in the room and taking the time to take a look at it and see how we can make it better. That is our job. Let us make it better.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that a lot of Canadians are increasingly feeling concerned and separated from government. I think it is imperative that we do not use slogans that separate and divide, but rather, clearly state where we are strong, even if we are reflecting on where other parties are weak.

I represent a more rural and remote community. I know that one of the challenges we have is that people will go to another part of the riding and think they can vote there. Of course, they are not always able to.

Can the member reflect on how having longer advance polls, longer election dates and a longer period of time to vote would allow people who are in a bigger riding to find the right place to vote?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's point of view is very important, in terms of the rural side and the disenfranchisement of those specific voters. They do not have the same access that other Canadians might have. That is key. That is one of the fundamental principles of a democratic election process. Ensuring that we have an expansion of advance days to vote is a really big part of that.

One thing that I would like to see, which has been floated, is for people to be able to vote wherever they are in the electoral district, no matter which polling station they have access to. I think that would take a lot of work. I think we need to put the resources into our Elections Canada office to do that kind of research and make that positive change for Canadians, no matter where they live and no matter who they are, within the democratic system.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I actually work together on the procedure and House affairs committee, and we worked closely together to get a lot of good things done.

The member brought up really good points in her intervention. I was on the electoral reform committee. I still have flashbacks. I know we were together with the member opposite as well.

The member brought up some really good points about increasing voter participation. Does she have any recommendations to include in this bill about how we can continue to increase voter participation?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate working with the hon. member on the procedure and House affairs committee, and the incredibly important work that we are doing in terms of the conversation about harassment in this workplace and what that means to our democratic institutions.

Within this bill, we need to expand a lot more. I am not sure if it would fit within this bill, but I did mention extending and expanding the voter age to 16, which my colleague put forward. Unfortunately, it was defeated, but we will keep trying for that.

Moving to mixed-member proportional representation would provide an understanding and immediate feedback to people that their vote matters. They would be able to see it more directly, as opposed to the first-past-the-post system, which we are stuck in right now.

I think the conversation about per-vote subsidy also has a really big part in this. It would allow the full enfranchisement of all political parties, based on the number of votes they get, to then continue the conversation and be able to get into the public sphere on a far more equal basis, allowing them to communicate to people, and then people would know their choices more.

All of those things need to be part of this conversation. I would love for it to be part of this bill, but these are conversations that we have to have collaboratively and together as part of our healthy democratic institution.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, in my rush to get to Government Orders, I missed a question. I ask for leave to go back.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address an issue that I was not able to address earlier today because of time constraints.

I want to amplify this, because my friend in the Bloc raised a really important point. One issue that was constantly being brought up in questions and answers was why the government gave any consideration to the change of date from October 20. It was interesting when the representative from the Bloc articulated, far better than I ever could have, that we were being insensitive by changing the date from October 20 to October 27 because municipal elections were going to be at the beginning of November. He brought up a lot of excellent representations to validate why he was concerned. He felt, in essence, that Quebec was not being treated fairly because we were moving the date to October 27.

I understood what the member said very clearly. That is why I asked him whether he would apply the very same principles that he articulated, with his concerns about the municipal elections in Quebec in early November, to Alberta, because for Alberta, October 20 is election day. That would mean for people who live in Edmonton, Calgary or any of the municipalities, the election on October 20 would be in direct conflict with both a federal and a provincial election. A voter on election day in Edmonton would be voting for a mayor, councillors, MPs and the prime minister.

We know the Bloc's position. As articulated, the Bloc would not support that if it was in Quebec. They made it very clear that they would not support a federal election that would interfere directly with the Quebec election. We saw the resistance to that when it was getting close to the election.

That causes us to ask this question: What about the Alberta members of Parliament? There are 34 members of Parliament from Alberta, 30 of whom are from the Conservative Party. I will say to those particular members that I give the Bloc some credit for taking into consideration the concerns of Quebec, even though they do not care about Alberta. However, what about Alberta MPs? There is not one word. In fact, from their seats they say they are fine; they are okay, no problems. There is no consideration whatsoever.

At the end of the day, when I look at the issue the Conservatives continue to raise, I see they want to label it for a reason, and I understand why. As a government, we brought forward the legislation, but as I said in my remarks when introducing the legislation, as a minority government, a majority of MPs, which implies more than one political party, have to support the legislation, including the changing of a date.

I understand where the Bloc is coming from, and there are some principled positions there. However, the Conservatives are one hundred per cent political in their nature. We should not be surprised by that, because the Conservative track record on reforming election laws is not all that good.

I was in the chamber, and I actually did a little bit of research on this one on openparliament.ca. I looked up a gentleman by the name of Brad Butt. Do members remember him? He was a Conservative MP who was sitting in the government backbenches. We were talking about the Fair Elections Act. He said:

I am from a semi-urban area of Mississauga, where there are many high-rise apartment buildings. On mail delivery day when the voter cards are delivered to community mailboxes in apartment buildings, many of them are discarded in the garbage can or the blue box. I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.

One has to put the bizarre, untruthful comments to the side and understand what the Conservative Party was trying to do at that time. Conservatives might have called it the Fair Elections Act, but what they were trying to do was deny Canadians the opportunity to use the cards that Elections Canada produced as part of ID, not sole ID, but as a part of it, for one purpose: They wanted to try to minimize the number of people participating in the election. They came up with their arguments to try to justify it, and Mr. Butt actually ended up retracting the claim, saying he never actually saw the incident and that it was just made up.

I have been a candidate in 10 or a dozen elections, and I can recall one mistake where I actually boosted a Facebook post, which I should not have done. I admitted that I should not have done it. No one is perfect. Even though I would argue that it was unintentional, there are intentional things that I see and have seen from the Conservative Party. We all remember the robocall scandal, where Conservatives were spreading misinformation in terms of not voting at a particular place on a particular day, trying to prevent or discourage individuals from voting, through misinformation directing them to other places. It was voter suppression.

Do members remember the in-and-out scandal? In fact in that one, the Conservative Party was actually charged for its inappropriate behaviour. What about Dean Del Mastro himself? I believe he was the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister. He is a gentleman who ended up leaving in handcuffs. We do not need to take lessons from the Conservative Party.

We see the frustrations and the Conservatives' general respect for election laws. I say it in this tone because I say that if one takes a look at what I said this morning, I thought I was maybe a little bit more diplomatic and kinder in my words, ultimately believing that all of us were supportive of the fine work that Elections Canada has done.

The legislation before us was brought forward as a way in which we could make some positive changes to ensure that we have even healthier and stronger elections where we see more voter participation. After I articulated it for a few minutes this morning, in the first question there was a labelling of the legislation as if it were not what it is meant to be: legislation that would enhance opportunities and strengthen our election laws.

Then we have the Conservatives, in particular, who are trying to make it out as a conspiracy that we are trying to beef up 32 Conservatives' pensions, as well as the pensions of 22 Liberal, 19 Bloc and a half-dozen NDP members.

It is as though that was the only consideration for this legislation and that no consideration was given to the Province of Alberta, which is going to be electing mayors and councillors in Edmonton, Calgary and other municipalities, or that we are not recognizing the Indo-Canadian community and Canadians, many of whom acknowledge and celebrate Diwali, including myself.

At the end of the day, as I said earlier this morning, we need to recognize the valuable role Canada plays today and can continue to play in leadership on democracy by supporting such things as the independence of Elections Canada and by looking at ways in which we can strengthen our election laws. That is the primary purpose for the legislation, and members opposite know this full well.

I heard that the NDP is going to be bringing in a motion to change the date and that the Bloc is going to support the motion. As for the Conservatives, who knows what they will do? They are likely going to support that motion too, so the only thing that has to be decided is what day.

I would suggest that maybe we should be considering what the Bloc said about the Province of Quebec and municipal elections. Maybe we should also be considering what is happening in Alberta. After all, the Bloc members said it is the government's problem. We have to deal with the Alberta situation; the Bloc only deals with Quebec. The government is at least putting it on the table, and if the Conservatives want to ignore it—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I need to interrupt the hon. member. We are out of time.

Bill C‑65—Time Allocation Motion

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so that the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader why he has imposed a record number of closures and time allocations, I think, in the history of Canada. Why does he feel it necessary to constantly shut down debate, especially, ironically, on an election bill, or what some might call the “pension” bill? I would like to understand why the government continues to use closure more than any other government in history.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I know that my friend, the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, will be devastated that it is not the government House leader answering the question. He will have to take the answer from me, and I cannot imagine that is not a source of immense happiness for him.

It is somewhat ironic that a member of the Conservative Party would find something strange about using time allocation or closure. I often tease my seatmate, who is the government House leader, that Peter Van Loan, when he was House leader, actually left affixed to the top of the desk the motion that my colleague read, because no previous government in Canadian history used these parliamentary tactics more than the Harper government.

We are facing dilatory tactics from the Conservatives. We are trying to get this legislation to committee and do the business of the Canadian people.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have 30 minutes for questions and comments. I would ask members to please hold off on their questions and comments until they have the floor.

Order.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Democratic Institutions.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, my question for the minister is around the fact that we need to be moving forward to strengthen our democracy, to ensure that Canadians have access to be able to vote barrier-free. There is a lot of work that has to happen, and there is a lot of good content in the bill.

I find it pretty rich to see the Conservatives' response to the bill. There was a problem with the bill, which I identified, and I put forward an amendment. I am going to be putting forward an amendment, of course, to make sure that we move the date back to the original election date so that we do not see the consequence of MPs' pensions being impacted. However, instead of moving forward with solutions, the Conservatives, in true fashion, have been trying to cut and gut the entire bill to not see Canadians able to move forward with having as few barriers as possible in participating in the elections.

Does the minister think it is because the current system benefits the Conservatives that they would want to cut and gut this legislation, and why is it important that we see this bill go through?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank our colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for the work that she and her colleagues in the New Democratic Party did with us, in a collaborative way, to bring this legislation before Parliament.

When the Prime Minister and the leader of the New Democratic Party signed the supply and confidence agreement, one of the elements in that agreement was exactly as our colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith indicated: ways to amend the Canada Elections Act to make voting more accessible. I had the privilege of working with our former colleague, Daniel Blaikie, when we wanted to, for example, make campus voting a permanent fixture of the Elections Act and make it easier for people to register online for mail-in ballots. We think that it is important for Canadians to have access to the electoral process and be able to participate, obviously while ensuring the integrity of our system.

The Conservatives take their page from Donald Trump, trying to suppress votes, trying to make sure it is more difficult to vote and putting barriers in front of people voting. We saw that with Mr. Harper, and now they are doing the same thing here.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, the minister decided to change the election date so as not to disrupt a religious holiday, but clearly he did not consider the fact that he would be disrupting municipal elections.

The former president of the Union des municipalités du Québec, Daniel Côté, who also just happens to be the mayor of Gaspé, pointed out to me that 37 of the 45 days of municipal election campaigns would take place at the same time as the federal election campaign.

The minister knows as well as I do that there is a low turnout for municipal elections. Is he not concerned that democracy will suffer if there are two simultaneous elections in Quebec?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, in principle, I share my colleague's concern about the difficulty of determining a date that does not disrupt municipal elections in her province, as she rightly said. I believe that Quebec's municipal election day falls one week after the date proposed in the bill, which is October 27.

I, too, have a constructive relationship with the mayor of Gaspé. I saw him in the Gaspé last summer, and I hope to return in the coming weeks. I spoke to the mayor of Longueuil, Ms. Fournier, who contacted me about this issue. I am very aware of their views and appreciate the concern.

It is difficult to revert back to the original date of October 20, however, because the municipal elections in Alberta will be held on that same day. I am not talking about the election campaign, but the actual date of the Alberta municipal elections. There is also the religious holiday. That is the challenge of choosing a date. Obviously, we are going to rely on the judgment of parliamentarians.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments, especially when it comes to making voting more accessible for more Canadians. Something I hear in the riding of Waterloo is how we will ensure that Canadians receive good information, real information, and people often remind me of the Conservative history, such as robocalls to ensure that people did not know where to vote. I think the Conservatives were also notorious for even stealing a ballot box one time. I believe that member, the minister, got to see a Conservative taken out of this place in shackles.

I would love to hear from the minister why we are having to use time allocation for a second time today and the importance of Canadians having accessible voting and ensuring that more Canadians are able to vote and participate in democratic institutions.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Waterloo, as always, identified a serious concern that I think many parliamentarians share.

The Conservative Party has a long history of seeking to make voting more difficult by putting barriers in front of people, whether it is to register to vote or whether it is appropriate identification to ensure the integrity of people presenting themselves at the polls. In this case, one thing about this legislation that we think is very positive is that it would ban, for example, disinformation intended to disrupt the conduct of an election. It would remove a time frame limit for offences involving impersonation or false statements: for example, as my colleague from Waterloo noted, attempting to impersonate an official with Elections Canada or another candidate to create confusion around what is the appropriate place to vote.

We are happy to work with members of this House, of course. We think it is important to ensure the integrity of our electoral system, but also to ensure that it is accessible and fair for everyone.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will start by making clear that Greens support this bill, notwithstanding this one silly provision with respect to pensions. We, too, will be working across party lines to remove that from this bill.

When it comes to time allocation, by my count, a total of five members have spoken to this bill at second reading. In fact, I think the minister himself only spoke to the bill when he rose to introduce it originally. Earlier in the day, when it came to time allocation on the budget bill, the Greens supported that, recognizing there are some dilatory tactics at play this time of year. However, this particular bill has been up for debate one time, on a Friday, for a couple of hours.

How does the minister justify time allocation on this particular bill?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I think our colleague, the member for Kitchener Centre, understands the parliamentary process well. He knows that when this legislation gets to committee, it will be an opportunity for members on the committee and others who want to attend the committee to hear from expert witnesses. Obviously, the Chief Electoral Officer and others will be important witnesses for the committee. It will come back to the House at report stage and third reading.

We are also conscious of the importance of adopting legislation like this in a timely way to allow Elections Canada to be ready to implement these provisions. We appreciate that our colleague from Kitchener Centre supports this legislation. We would not, obviously, think that he would, in some cynical way, as the Conservatives do, pretend to take more time precisely to ensure that Elections Canada does not have reasonable time to be ready to implement these changes.

These are discussions I have had with the Chief Electoral Officer. We think it is time for Parliament to consider this legislation at committee as a result of today's proceeding.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is about as cynical as it gets. This is a pension bill under the guise of an elections bill. It ought to be called the “loser Liberal pension protection act”, because that is precisely what it is doing. It is designed to pad the pockets of soon-to-be loser Liberals so that they can secure pensions that they otherwise would not be entitled to. The government is literally giving the middle finger to everyday Canadians who are struggling as Liberals pad their pockets. Is that not the reason why the government House leader is moving to expedite this legislation?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely not. My friend should be concerned about the municipal election in Alberta that would happen on the day that the legislation originally contemplated the election, on October 20. There is also an important religious holiday, Diwali.

We look forward to the committee hearing from witnesses. No matter what date one chooses, any time that fixed election legislation contemplates a day, it will bump into significant religious holidays or some municipal, provincial or territorial elections. If we move the legislation back, for example, to October 20, that is the municipal election day in Alberta. We heard from our colleagues from the Bloc Québécois. They think seven days before the Quebec municipal election is too much time in terms of an overlap.

If the committee in its judgment wants to hear from witnesses and look at this issue, the government will obviously be happy to work with the committee. We think it is important to pass this legislation to make voting more accessible.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, we received this proposal to push back the date of the next federal general election by a week, on the pretext that the current date coincides with a Hindu holiday.

Unless someone can prove otherwise, the options to vote by advance polling or at the office of a returning officer are specifically intended for voters unavailable to vote on election day. I do not think anyone would be offended by that.

However, as we know, by delaying the date of the election for a week, members elected in 2019 would qualify for a pension. Not only would it be a generous parting gift for some of them, but it might be an opportunity to renew the team and attract new candidates.

Are the Liberals showing their elected members the door so that they can shop around for a better team, or are they in ethnocultural vote-buying mode? I think it is probably both.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I never thought I would hear such a cynical question as that from a Bloc Québécois colleague.

His colleague just asked a question about the importance of respecting municipal elections in Quebec. Obviously, we considered the representations of the Union des municipalités du Québec. Municipal elections are also being held in Alberta, as are provincial elections in Newfoundland and Labrador and territorial elections in Nunavut. My colleague chose to base his argument on a religious holiday. That is up to him.

We are also concerned about municipal elections scheduled in certain provinces at the same time. However, as I said, we hope that the committee will study the matter. If it decides to change the date, we will be happy to comply with its decision.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, first of all I would like to commend the great work of the commissioner of Canada elections, who has reached out to my office a few times regarding preparing for the next federal election, based on the work that I had started by introducing my bill, Bill C-297, to amend the Elections Act with respect to indigenous languages. I just want to use this time to follow up and ask the minister what kind of work is being done as a pilot project to make sure that indigenous languages are also on the ballot.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, our colleague from Nunavut again raises a very important point. We were inspired by the work she did in terms of indigenous languages' being included on the ballots. Having had a number of conversations with the Chief Electoral Officer and other colleagues, I was struck by the number of indigenous persons who when they would go to vote would be in a circumstance where, again, their ability to properly exercise their democratic right would be negatively affected by their inability to understand, whether it was English or French, what was on a ballot.

Therefore we thought that the legislation before us, to a very considerable extent inspired by the work of our colleague from Nunavut, would give Elections Canada precisely the authority and the ability to ensure that people in her territory, her constituency and other indigenous communities are able to exercise their rights, including having a ballot in their own language.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to just put one question really clearly to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs. With respect to the clause in the bill that would extend the voting date by one week so a number of Liberal MPs who are about to lose, by one week, their ability to attain a pension, was it put in the bill to appease the minister's caucus and the members who are about to lose their seat? It is a simple question: yes or no?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, no, and it certainly was not put in there to benefit the 32 Conservative MPs who would benefit by that change as well. Therefore the answer is no to both of those questions.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. Bill C-65 contains interesting elements, but it would require that Elections Canada offer online registration. However, we know that Canada has experienced foreign cyber-attacks, and that there have been interference and attempts at fraud. Those actors are trying to sow chaos. Russia has been particularly active on this front.

Would online registration not make us more vulnerable? Have special measures been considered to protect Canadians' data? I think that, in today's context, we are taking a risk. I would like to hear more from the minister on this.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, our colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue raises a question that should concern all members of Parliament. I had this discussion with the Chief Electoral Officer. I know that senior public servants in the Privy Council Office who work with Elections Canada are also concerned. I, too, am concerned.

However, I have been reassured by our cybersecurity services, in particular at the Department of National Defence. I was told that there is indeed a way of ensuring the integrity of the process.

Canadians must register to receive a ballot by mail. I think it is important to make that distinction. We are not allowing people to vote online. We are talking about having people register online to receive a ballot, which they can then return by mail or drop off in an appropriate box at Elections Canada. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses in committee and getting a better grasp of the issue.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my riding there is a very large college, Fanshawe College, and I am always very concerned about students and their ability to vote. Could the minister talk about how important it is to ensure that we are constantly making it more accessible for students to have that right? This is especially important because often they are voting for the first time, and they are voting away from home. This would solidify consistency throughout their lifetime of exercising their right.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Bill C-65—Time Allocation Motion

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, our colleague from London—Fanshawe again identifies one of the things we think is very important in the legislation. We worked on this with our colleagues in the NDP caucus. Our leader and her leader agreed, for example, regarding campus voting, whether at Fanshawe College or Mount Allison University in Sackville, New Brunswick, in my riding, on allowing students, for the reasons our colleague from London— Fanshawe correctly identified, to be able to easily access campus voting and making the campus voting program permanent in the election legislation, as well as making it easier for persons living with disabilities to be able to access voting.

We think these are important changes that we hope will garner the support of all parliamentarians, and I totally totally share the view of our colleague from London—Fanshawe about the importance of having young persons, when they leave home and are living away from home for college or university, getting in the habit and easily being able to cast their democratic ballot in a way that we should make more accessible, obviously while ensuring the integrity of the system.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, a talking point the minister often likes to use is that Alberta is going to have a municipal election in 2025. He uses the talking point repeatedly despite the fact that the Local Authorities Election Act allows any council across Alberta to move the election from the Monday to the Saturday just with a bylaw change. I would hope the minister's staff would go back and do their homework so they can better inform the minister that this is not a problem in Alberta. Albertans will figure it out on their own, as we have in the past.

Is it not the case then that the piece of legislation before us is strictly about protecting the pensions of loser Liberal MPs in the next general election?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I answered that question a moment ago. Absolutely not, nor is it about protecting the pensions of the 32 Conservatives who would be eligible with this particular scenario.

We have made it clear that if the committee, in its study of the legislation, wants to look at this particular date, obviously it is within the purview of the committee to do that. In my discussions with Elections Canada, it is clear that there are significant religious holidays that bump into any one of these potential dates. In some cases, there are municipal elections. Again, if colleagues at the committee want to study the issue and hear from the appropriate witnesses, the government will obviously be very happy to work with the committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, at the get-go, I want to recognize Elections Canada and the outstanding work it does. It is recognized around the world as an agency that does a fantastic job in protecting Canada's democracy. When I think of the legislation, what I see, put very simply, is that it would enable more people to participate in the voting process, by simplifying it.

One of the areas is long-term care facilities. The minister has pointed out others. I would like to get his overall thoughts on how important it is that as a democracy we continue to take steps forward at enhancing our democracy, which is exactly what the legislation would do.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the House leader has said it very well. We on this side, with the co-operation of some opposition parties, I hope the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois, think it is important to offer thoughtful ways to enhance citizens' ability to participate in the democratic process.

Our colleague from Winnipeg North referred to long-term care homes. We just discussed the importance of campus voting and persons with disabilities. We talked about indigenous languages, for example, in a territory as vast as Nunavut. All of these are very important, thoughtful and balanced ways to ensure that Canadians are easily able to access the democratic process, obviously while at all times ensuring the integrity of the process.

I also share our friend's view with respect to the importance of Elections Canada and the terrific work it does, which is recognized around the world.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-65 is filled with nothing but rank hypocrisy. First the Liberals talk about giving voters access to voting, yet it was the Prime Minister and the minister who sat around the cabinet table and chose to call an election when they promised not to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Canadians, including students by not allowing campus voting in the last election. That is on the Prime Minister and the minister. The rank hypocrisy is simply stunning.

When it comes to misinformation and disinformation, the Deputy Prime Minister had a video flagged on Twitter. Also, the member for Calgary Skyview stole his Conservative opponent's election literature. There are many other examples where we have seen the Liberals stop at nothing to try to gain a political advantage.

My question is very simple. This is not an elections bill but truly a pension bill. At any point in time, did the minister get feedback from his caucus, his department officials or anybody within the Liberal Party about the consequences of adjusting the election date so that losing Liberal MPs would qualify for a pension? I have heard from many constituents who want a clear answer from the minister about the pension bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the hon. member to be extremely careful about making accusations about members in the House of Commons. He used the word “stole”, and I would ask him not to do that again.

The hon. minister.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, in spite of the manufactured indignation from our colleague, he knows very well that the Conservatives are experts at the very words the member used. I will not repeat the words my colleague used, because of your admonishment, which I obviously take seriously.

Former prime minister Harper introduced, with the current Leader of the Opposition as the minister responsible for democratic institutions, a series of measures deliberately designed to suppress the vote and to make voting more difficult. They were deliberately designed to ensure that some people, whether students or persons with disabilities, were not able to easily access voting.

Liberals think it is important. We have worked happily with our colleagues in the New Democratic Party as our two leaders committed to doing in their supply and confidence agreement. We think there are a number of very important and significant steps to making voting more accessible in Canada. We look forward to hearing from colleagues in committee and when the legislation, we hope, comes back to this place.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You referred to some of the words that I had stated in the preamble to what was ultimately my question. However, I would ask for clarification from the Chair whether anything I said was untrue because everything that I—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is no clarification on the point of order, and the hon. member is actually challenging the Chair. I would ask him to be very careful.

Before I go to other questions, I want to remind members that I did ask how many individuals wanted to speak to this. Before I go to a second round of questions, I need to get through the first round.

The hon. member for York—Simcoe.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the minister tonight. This is coming from a government that called an election in the middle of a pandemic, and now it is worried about voting. This is about moving a vote date for an election.

I have been out in my riding knocking on doors, and I can make it really simple for the minister. The people of York—Simcoe would love an election, a carbon tax election, tonight. We can make it very simple and go to an election tonight.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure that there was a question in the comments from my colleague from York—Simcoe.

Liberals think Canadians want the House and the government to focus on the important issues that matter to them. We think one of the fundamental issues for Canadians is having an electoral system that is accessible, open and fair, obviously while ensuring all of the important elements of integrity. We have a lot of confidence in the work of Elections Canada.

We think there is an opportunity here for parliamentarians to come together. As my friends across the aisle, not from the Conservative Party of course but from other political parties, have said, this is an opportunity to do something significant to improve our democratic process.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank this place for having a meaningful discussion about democracy, which I think is something we should be talking about frequently. I know that holistically, when we look at the bill, most of the things do strengthen our democracy, and I think there are some good steps that have been taken. Obviously, the Conservatives have a concern about their 32 members who will be eligible for a pension. I know that our member who is the critic for democratic reform has been very clear that she will be moving an amendment to remedy that issue by moving the date of the election back.

I am wondering if the minister would share with this place if the Liberals would be supporting that amendment.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to discuss this very issue with the member's colleague, the critic for democratic institutions. As I have said in previous answers, if the committee in its wisdom wants to look at this issue and wants to hear from witnesses and from the Chief Electoral Officer, who may have some views, we would obviously abide by the consensus of the committee. We do think it is important for people, however, to recognize that at any moment, when we move that date, we are going to bump into significant religious holidays and some municipal, or potentially provincial or territorial elections. However, obviously, if the consensus of the committee is to adjust the date, the Liberal Party would, of course, be happy to go along with that consensus.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask for a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #829

Electoral Participation Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from May 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am being encouraged to see the clock. If we could pass this bill, I would be happy to do so.

At the end of the day, we have before us an important piece of legislation, and the first chance I had to debate the issue inside the chamber, I thought I was rather generous to the Conservative Party in my comments. However, the Conservatives moved an amendment indicating that they would be filibustering the legislation, and because of that, we are now in a position where the bill is limited in the amount of time for debate in an attempt to try to get the legislation to at least the committee stage.

The minister, earlier today, answered a series of questions and talked, in essence, about how the minister is open to improvements to the legislation if, in fact, there is something that members opposite would like to see. I would encourage those members to bring forward their ideas and make those suggestions to the minister, possibly even directly. They do not have to even wait until we are at committee, but could maybe send an email or approach the minister.

I talked about many things when I previously addressed the bill. However, in going through the legislation, a couple of things came across my mind about what the legislation would do and why it is that the Conservatives have indicated that they are going to be voting against the bill.

It is a fairly well-known fact that the crypto king, the member for Carleton, is a big cryptocurrency fan. However, the problem is that it is a way to hide donating to potential candidates or to a political party, which is something that is incorporated in the legislation. It would ensure that there would be a higher sense of transparency and accountability with donations to candidates and political parties. I can appreciate that the crypto king, the member for Carleton, has some concerns regarding that, but I would hope that some of the Reform- Conservatives would see the merit of transparency and a higher sense of accountability in who is donating to political parties and candidates. The bill before us deals with things of that nature.

Interestingly, if we go into some of the details of the legislation, members will see that there is a stronger stand on disinformation that is intended to disrupt the conduct of an election. We know for a fact that that actually takes place. It was not that long ago when we had a good example of it, which was when we had robocalls being made that were trying to suppress individuals' opportunities to go out and vote. Members might remember that there was even a high-profile Conservative member who ultimately went to jail as a result of it. This is the type of thing in which information is so vitally important, and we have the Conservative Party not even recognizing the need to fix the issue.

I do not quite understand why it is that the Conservative Party is in opposition to the legislation. I look at it as modernizing, to a certain extent, certain aspects and encouraging more people to get engaged in the democratic process. The minister himself, in answers, provided some excellent examples of how it encourages people to get more involved. There are certain things that we learned from the pandemic, such as ensuring that those in long-term care facilities have the opportunity to have more involvement—

[An hon. member]

Foreign interference.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is right. This government has dealt more with foreign interference in elections than the Stephen Harper administration did. It is a very good point.

We will continue to look at ways to enhance the strength of our election laws, and part of that goes to what I just used as an example: long-term care facilities and making it easier for residents to be engaged and vote. That is a positive thing. At the end of the day, it also allows, for example, for youth to be more engaged, with voting at campuses. Why would the Conservatives oppose this stuff? The bill even talks about going into the 2029 election and how we can make it easier, with the hope that Elections Canada will put into place such things as being able to vote at any polling station within a riding.

I use the comparison of a provincial election, where people can vote for their candidate in a local constituency anywhere in the province. It is a step forward. The legislation would, I hope, move us in that direction. These are the types of initiatives that really make a difference.

We could talk about expanding the number of voting days. We might not be able to implement it for the next election, but in 2029, we may have three days on which people can mark their ballots, with “election day” becoming “election days”.

The legislation would do many things. The only thing Conservatives want to talk about is how we supported 32 Conservatives with regard to changing the election date. It is not about helping those 32 Conservatives. It is about making sure the committee understands and appreciates that there are things happening. Edmonton and Calgary were having elections on that day. The entire province of Alberta listened to what the Bloc had to say when it came to the date being too close to Quebec's municipal elections. Where are those Alberta MP advocates?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North gave his speech and his comments on the government's proposed legislation, Bill C-65. One thing he forgot to mention was probably the most well-known part of the bill he has just spoken about for several minutes, which is the Liberals' attempt to change the election date; we have affectionately called this the NDP-Liberal pension protection act.

It was the Liberal-NDP agreement to change the election by a week for some reason that just happened to give class of 2019 members of Parliament their pensions if they were defeated in the next election. Thankfully, after relentless pressure from Conservatives, the NDP heard from many Canadians who thought that was an absolutely dreadful and shameful approach.

I want to get the member on the record. Does he now agree that this was nothing but partisan politics in an attempt to try to save some of their pensions for their own gain? Will he now agree that it was a terrible idea and nothing but a fake premise to try to change the date of the election to benefit their pensions?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I understand the Conservative-Reform party members are a little weak in math. There are actually more than double the number of opposition members who would benefit from this than Liberal members. I can assure the member across the way that it had absolutely nothing to do with the legislation.

It is unfortunate that he did not hear the comments from the minister directly. I would ask the member to reflect on the fact that it is a minority government, which means the will of the committee will ultimately prevail. As the minister himself indicated, we will support the committee.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I am really concerned about is foreign interference. We heard about it in the news. The leader of the Conservative Party refuses to get the security clearance he needs to participate. I think this is happening at a time when there are many things people are questioning around the safety of our elections.

How does the member across the way feel about the Conservative leader's fear, as it seems to be fear, to get security clearance?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think that is a fair question. Why does the leader of the Conservative Party not want to get the security clearance to have the full, unredacted briefing? It is a legitimate question. I suspect that the leader of the Conservative Party would rather play political games than do justice to the issue at hand.

I find that unfortunate. As one of my colleagues asked, what is the leader hiding? We know there are references, for example, to the Conservative leadership. I suspect that might be the leadership he ran in. Is there something that he is scared of? What is the reason? The leader has not provided any explanation other than he does not want to know.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, the legislation amending the Canada Elections Act is an important piece of legislation. In fact, it is critical because it seeks to improve access to electoral participation, while also ensuring the continued integrity of our system. It has to go to committee to be studied further because it is essential to our democratic process.

Can the member elaborate on that? Can he give us his reasoning and his opinion on that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are many aspects of the legislation that would ultimately be modernized. It deals, for example, with issues like cryptocurrency. Across the way, we have the king of cryptocurrency, the member for Carleton, who apparently knows the benefits of cryptocurrency. However, we need to ensure that we do not have foreign actors investing in cryptocurrency and donating to candidates or political entities during or outside of elections. I think that is a positive aspect of the legislation. It deals with misinformation and it enhances the opportunity for people to vote. It makes a whole lot of sense to get behind this legislation.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think a lot of Canadians watching out are not sure what this bill actually refers to. I will quote an article quickly. It states, “Canada soon to be governed by the pension coalition in Ottawa.” It says this new law, Bill C-65, proposes to move the election date, meaning 80 MPs would get vested in their pension. Let us just call the government we have in Ottawa what it would be after this new law, Bill C-65, passes: the pension coalition.

My question is to the NDP and Liberal members. Are they still the pension coalition; yes or no?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is a little weird. There is no NDP-Liberal pension coalition. There is an NDP-Liberal understanding that this is important legislation. Even though the Conservative Party opposes the legislation, there is a great deal of value in strengthening our election laws by seeing the legislation go to committee. If there is a coalition, I would even suggest that the Bloc also recognizes the value of the legislation.

I would remind my friend opposite we are in a minority government. When dealing with this issue, the minister has indicated he will abide by what the committee proposes with respect to that, or listen to any other ideas that would give strength to the legislation. It is beyond me as to why the Conservative-Reform party is not supporting this legislation going to committee.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, we lived under the Harper regime and, of course, the Conservative attempts to ensure that people could not vote, using all kinds of subterfuge and disinformation, trying to attack indigenous peoples, youth and poor people in our communities across the country. The Harper regime was absolutely terrible in trying to reduce the number of Canadians voting. We saw all of the techniques that they used to try to do that. Now, the Republicans in the United States are doing the same thing. They are disenfranchising racialized people. The attempt by the Conservatives and by the Republicans is to have fewer people voting, so they can better control the rest of the population.

I want to ask my colleague, is that why the Conservatives are opposing this legislation, which broadens the vote and makes it easier for Canadians to exercise the fundamental democratic freedom of voting for the government that they choose? Is that why Conservatives are so incredibly opposed to broadening the franchise and letting every Canadian vote?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is a great deal of merit to the argument that the member has just put forward.

I would add to it by reflecting on the voter identification card, which members would remember. The Conservative Harper government, when the current Conservative leader was a part of that government, advocated that that particular voting card should not be used as proof of identification that would enable a person to vote. We even had one Conservative who grossly exaggerated abuse of the card and literally made up a story about how cards were being thrown to the side and then gathered and how people were going to vote, or something of that nature. That member had to formally apologize for being intentionally misleading.

There is a valid argument that the Conservative-Reform party today does not want to see an enhanced electoral system that sees more people vote. That could be a major aspect of the problem.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative leader refuses to get security clearance, so the Conservative leader will not know who in his caucus either deserves not to be in the caucus, or deserves not to be given the leader's signature to run in the next election.

Would my hon. colleague suggest that the Conservative caucus is a safe place for MPs who might be working against Canada?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that leaders of political parties play an important role in terms of signing off on want-to-be candidates, and that is something that has not necessarily been on the table. It is part of the reason why it is so highly irresponsible of the leader of the Conservative-Reform party, today, not to get that security clearance.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to this bill, Bill C-65, the electoral participation act. However, I like to refer to it as the electoral ousted Liberal pension act. Some of my colleagues refer to it as the NDP-Liberal election pension protection act.

As a member of Parliament, though, Madam Speaker, I am deeply committed to upholding the principles of democracy and fairness, and I must voice my strong opposition to this legislation and to its detrimental implications for our political system. At the heart of my opposition is the proposal, or the provision, in this bill to move the election day to a later date, to solely benefit certain members of Parliament in qualifying for their pensions. Literally, this bill is a cynical attempt by the Liberal government to move the election day from October 20 to October 27 next year. This would then result in 80 MPs getting a pension or qualifying for a pension because they will have reached the required six years of service. Long story short, this is a bill aimed at giving pensions to losing Liberals at the next election. In fact, of the 80 MPs, there are 32 Conservatives, 23 Liberals, 19 Bloc Québécois and 6 NDP MPs who would benefit from this proposed election day change.

However, my colleagues, Canada's Conservatives, are very much opposed to this change, even if we are the party that stands to benefit the most. It is not only the Conservatives here who are opposed, but also many others who have not voted Conservative in the past and who are opposed to this bill. It is specifically because of the change in the date of the proposed election. This proposal is not just a procedural tweak. It strikes at the core of what it means to serve in public office with integrity and accountability. Elections should never be scheduled to line the pockets of losing MPs. We all knew the rules when we came here, and we ought to abide by them. One cannot change the rules just because one is losing the game. This is what I certainly see occurring here. It is rather disgusting, in my eyes.

Let me be clear about this proposal in this bill. By shifting the election date, the Liberal government is manipulating the electoral process to serve the interests of a select few MPs who are nearing their forced retirement. This undermines the democratic foundation upon which our country stands, and it reflects poorly on the House as a whole. It has never been okay to change the rules for personal benefit. I even question if those 80 MPs who stand to benefit would be in a conflict of interest when the time comes to vote on this bill. Perhaps they should not be voting on this bill. Perhaps they should not even be speaking to this bill. That is food for thought for colleagues and food for thought for perhaps the Ethics Commissioner.

If the motivation to move to the final election day is actually motivated by an intent to avoid provincial elections or cultural holidays, then the Liberal government should look at moving it up instead, and make it happen sooner so that it does not look so cynical in the eyes of the taxpayer. In fact, we here on the Conservative side of the House, would be happy to move it up maybe a year or even this summer. Let us have it during the stampede. Would that not be a celebration of the stampede, to win the election? Most Canadians are ready to cast their ballots now and not to drag it on for another year and a half.

With respect to existing legislation and to the other additional measures proposed in this bill, Canadians are offered significant alternative ways and days to vote in general elections. I am talking about advanced polls, perhaps.

That is an alternative, absolutely. Advance polls exist; they are held on the tenth, ninth, eighth and seventh days before an election day. In fact I have rarely voted on election day, and I have found that advance polls are a very effective way of guaranteeing making one's vote count. Leaving one's vote to the last days could have some risk, of course. A person can find themselves sick or otherwise unable to attend a polling station, due to weather reasons, a vehicle breakdown or whatever. Advance polls tended to be less crowded also, compared to on election day, which is certainly appealing to me. I hate crowds, so get me in on an advance poll any day for an election for sure.

There are other methods of voting also. People can vote by mail. They must complete an application for the registration and special ballot by mail. They have to do it after the election is called, however. Canadians living abroad can apply any time. They can apply now to vote by mail in a future election, whenever that may be. People can also vote in person at any Elections Canada office across the country when an election is called; they can do that until the sixth day before election day.

If someone is on holiday in Charlottetown and they live in Calgary, for example, they can vote in Charlottetown. They just have to go to an office there and must also, again, complete an application for registration and a special ballot. They have to show their identity and where they live, and they can get a ballot. There are many options, many opportunities and many ways to vote during an election.

I want to talk a bit now about voter participation. Voter participation in Canada, as most of us know, has fluctuated greatly over the time we have been a country. In 1896, for example, only 62.9% of Canadians voted, but the following election, on November 7, 1900, saw the rate rise to a near record of 77.4%. That was when Mr. Wilfrid Laurier was re-elected. He was re-elected to a second majority government then. That was the ninth Parliament of Canada. There were 128 seats. He won over a Conservative, Charles Tupper.

Back then, 77.4% of Canadians participated. The rate of voter participation did not drop below 62% for the next 100 years, so it was fairly high. Since then, there has been a persistent drop in voter participation. In 1988, voter participation started its decline from 75.3% to a rate that now, in the last few elections, has hovered in the low to mid-60s. There is no question that in recent years, voter turnout has been a pressing concern in Canadian elections.

The fact remains, though, that if someone does not cast their vote, the person who does is the one who speaks for them. As the saying goes, those who do not participate in the democratic process are destined to be ruled by those who do. We also have heard it expressed that if someone did not vote, they do not have the right to complain. I certainly have said that to many people whom I have talked to who come to me to complain about the current Liberal government or to complain perhaps about some of the work I do in my constituency. I ask them, “Well, did you vote?” If they say no, I say, “Well, you do not have the right to complain to me.”

However, we can take some satisfaction in knowing that Canadians are traditionally better at turning out for elections than our neighbours to the south. The 2020 election in the U.S. had a record turnout; it brought 66% of the voting population out to vote. Historically, though, American elections are often decided with less than 50% of the population.

For many years, the focus on increasing voter participation has focused on additional voting opportunities and alternative voting methods but it has not worked out as hoped. One must honestly ask why voter turnout continues to go down as the number of opportunities to vote has only increased. The downward trend in voter participation indicates a troubling disengagement among Canadians, and youth in particular, from their democratic process.

Youth voter turnout in Canadian federal elections remains lower than the turnout of all other age groups. The most common reason for not casting a ballot is that many youth are just not interested in politics. They are disengaged. There is no hope for young voters with the current economy the way it is, the way the Liberal government has decimated our economy.

I am pretty confident, though, that voter turnout at all ages and in all age groups will dramatically increase in the next election as people look to make sure change happens in Ottawa. There will be a desire to get rid of a government that has a new scandal by the day and a phony NDP opposition party that sold its soul to keep the Liberals in power this long.

I also think we need to focus on instilling the importance of voting as a civic duty. Let me share part of a speech that I gave a couple of years ago to new citizens. It was at a citizenship swearing-in ceremony in Calgary at the Telus Spark Science Centre, close to the zoo, for those people who want to know where it is.

I said, at the swearing-in ceremony, “Today, you raised your hand and took the oath of Canadian citizenship. Today you become part of the Canadian story—a land of many people from many lands with one shared goal—a better Canada.

“Now, you will be able to participate in our great democracy. No matter your political stripe, you all now have a treasured duty to participate and make Canada even greater.

“Embrace your new citizenship, cherish what it means and enjoy what it provides.

“Your new citizenship carries with it many responsibilities—to better your community, to help your fellow Canadian and to proudly represent our nation around the world.”

We need to instill in Canadians new and old that one has a duty to participate in our democratic process. We need to show people that elections do matter, that their voice is heard and that they have the power to determine who leads their country. We owe it to those who fought for us in past wars and those who died on distant battlefields to ensure that we have that freedom today, the freedom to vote.

Finally, in conclusion, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to uphold the highest standards of transparency and accountability. We are entrusted by the people of Canada to represent their interests and safeguard the democratic values upon which our country was founded.

Bill C-65, the bill we are debating here tonight, in its current form would fail to meet those standards. Let us be honest with Canadians. This is not a bill about increasing voter participation; it is a bill that is aimed at giving pensions to losing Liberals at the next election. It is disgusting. It is self-serving behaviour that is likely the cause of voter apathy in this country more than anything else.

The bill prioritises short-term gains for a handful of MPs over the long-term health of our democracy and the trust of our citizens, so I call upon my fellow colleagues across party lines to join me in opposing the bill, Bill C-65. We need to stand together in defence of democratic principles and the rights of all Canadians, so let us send a message, a resounding message, that we are committed to a political system that values integrity, fairness and above all else, the public trust.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the passion in my colleague's speech, but are we at risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? The one issue, the pensions, I understand. I have had my own correspondence on that, but we are talking about sending something to committee where the committee would have the opportunity to take out the things that the majority in the committee disagrees with. Does the member have faith in the committee system that the committee would actually return a bill to Parliament in a form that Canadians would accept?

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would absolutely hope that if the bill goes to committee, which I expect it to do because of the support of both the Liberal and the NDP caucuses, it has to be amended. It has to eliminate that opportunity for these losing Liberals and losing NDP members to get that pension because of the date changes. That has to change. If it does not change, they are going to hear about it. They are going to hear from their constituents. They are going to hear about it come election day, whenever that date will be. They are hearing about it now. I cannot imagine that the hon. member does not hear it right now from his constituents. I hear it all the time, not only from my Conservative supporters, but also from the people who support the NDP and the people who support the Liberals. They say that, if this passes, they will vote for me for the first time.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It was very thoughtful and wise. I really liked the fact that he said perhaps members should not be allowed to vote to postpone the election because they could be in a conflict of interest. I really liked that.

To me, that is a critical aspect of this legislation. The government is postponing the election for a ridiculous reason. It could have suggested holding it sooner instead. The legislation offers enough opportunities for people to vote early, for example.

The most troubling part is what this does to perceptions of parliamentarians. The public is once again going to take refuge behind arguments like the fact that these MPs will qualify for pensions a little earlier. I myself am one of them. I was elected in 2019, and I absolutely do not support this utterly ridiculous date change.

I would like to hear my colleague talk about how the public would perceive this bill if it were passed.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member brought up the point of conflict of interest, which I brought up in my speech, and I absolutely believe that these individuals who were elected in 2019, who are the ones who would benefit from this change of date with the pensions they would be provided, should not be able to vote in the House on the bill, not be able to speak in the House on the bill and not be able to even ask questions about the bill if there is any conflict of interest, and I see it with these members. I think they have a right to say that they will not speak to the bill and they will not vote on the bill because there is a definite conflict of interest. If they do not, then shame on them.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member, and I know he did not really mean it when he said that I had sold my soul.

He also went on, passing misinformation that the NDP is somehow in favour of moving the election date to favour pensions. We have been very vocal about opposing that. The member can be confident that, within committee, this would be eliminated.

The member mentioned young voters, and I just wanted to ask him what he thought of the growing feeling in various countries in the world about allowing the voting age to go down to 16 so that young people would really have a reason to vote and engaging those students while they are in school. When I go to schools and talk to young people, they are engaged. They are intelligent and are very much concerned about their future.

We are voting on matters that will affect these people. They are not going to affect most of us. I am just wondering if the member would support the policy of lowering the voting age to 16 so we can get those young people voting.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is a good man who I highly respect, and even more so for opposing this in committee, where it will go. On that note, I feel that perhaps the pension date may not change as long as the Liberals do not support that portion of the bill.

With respect to youth, they are becoming more vocal and more engaged, which is what I have seen in the schools that I have attended. The youth have become more engaged, because they do not have hope. They do not have hope in the future. They do not have hope in being able to buy a home. They do not have hope in being able to have the standard of living that their parents once had.

This hope is what we need to be able to instill in them to get them out to vote for a better government that would change this society and this country in order for this country to be the future of hope. That new government would have to be the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to ask the Conservative member who raised this a question.

As the member knows, the NDP are the worker bees in this Parliament. We get things done, including dental care, pharmacare, affordable housing, anti-scab legislation and “by indigenous, for indigenous” housing.

In terms of the amendment that the member is opposed to, the Conservatives did not offer any solutions. The NDP, as we always do, provided the amendment that it appears the Conservatives are going to support. Why did the Conservatives not do any work at all on this? Why do they just talk and not actually present the amendment that the NDP has presented?

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think about the NDP going into this committee and opposing the date change. That is very important and I applaud them for that.

Now when it comes to the member's question on what ideas are out there, and what the Conservatives are bringing forward, perhaps I can bring an idea forward to get Canadians more engaged. Maybe we should throw a referendum question on the ballot, some type of a question in order to engage Canadians even more in the voting process.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I listened very closely to what the member was saying.

It seems to me that virtually all the other aspects of the legislation, which enhance or give strength to the elections laws, would have more people participate. It seems to me that that is what the member was asking for, but he does not like the date that is being suggested.

Based on what the member is hearing, if the date were changed, would he support the legislation?

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am all about engaging Canadians and getting them out to vote. Whatever it takes to get them out to vote, let us get them out to vote. The issue that my Conservative colleagues and I have is, again, I repeat, the date change that would create pensions for losing Liberal and NDP members. If that date changed, I would be in full support of this bill.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

Bill C‑65 amends the Canada Elections Act. It seems the road to hell is always paved with good intentions. First, to be honest, it is a bill with many very interesting elements. We know that voter turnout has trended downward. When we look at long-term trends in voter turnout, we see a slight but permanent decline.

We definitely have some questions to ask ourselves. We are the representatives of a people within a democracy. We are better off when people participate in this democratic exercise. We will quite simply be stronger here if we are more represented by the public.

However, there is a catch. I would like to say that there is an elephant in the room, but it is more like a brontosaurus. It is a big deal, a huge deal. It is funny because people in my riding are not usually up in arms about a bill to amend the Canada Elections Act. I would normally never hear a peep about it something like that. No one would be coming to see me. However, this time, people are going full throttle. People are coming to see me at my office. When I am out and about, people come up to me to talk about this bill. It does not happen all the time, but it does happen often. People think that this bill is shameful.

The bill says that an election can be held on another day if the original election day is “in conflict with a day of cultural or religious significance or a provincial or municipal election”. I think that everyone agrees that the date should be changed in the case of a provincial or municipal election. It is already hard enough for people to follow one election. Following two at the same time would not be easy, especially if people also have to vote. At some point, they will lose track of everything that is going on. Let us just say that this all seems strange.

It made me think of something that sticks in my mind. At the time, I was not in politics in this Parliament; I was in Quebec City. The Prime Minister said that Canada would be the first postnational state. I do not know if anyone remembers that. I thought that was pretty rich. In order to have a postnational state, people have to forget their nation and its culture. They have to open up to other cultures and respect them. People are supposed to open up to the world while smothering their own culture and who they really are. I find that rather odd. It is called multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism means saying that we must respect cultures from other places. I have no problem with that, but things have reached the point where the cultures and religions we respect come from other places. There are many different cultures on this planet. People who travel a lot know this. There are plenty of cultures, and I hope they survive. Every time a culture disappears somewhere, history and customs disappear. That is always sad. That is why we are fighting very hard to ensure that Quebec's culture lives and survives permanently, insofar as possible.

We can all agree that there are quite a few cultures and religions in the world. There are more religions around the world than hairs on my head. Of course, I used to have more hair than I do now, but in any case, let us just say that there are a lot of them. There is even a spaghetti king or spaghetti deity. Followers of this religion spend their days eating spaghetti and meatballs. In any case, it does not matter. The spaghetti king does exist. Some people believe in it. There are all kinds of religions.

A year has just 365 days. I am convinced that if we looked hard enough, we would never be able to hold an election, because every day of the year would be a cultural or religious holiday somewhere. I do not think that is a good idea.

October 20 happens to be Diwali. I did not know that, but it sounds really fun. It is the festival of lights. Maybe the Liberals could use a little light these days. If we put up some lights, it might illuminate them a little. The last time they saw the light, I think it was a train, and it shows. Anyway, Diwali is the festival of lights for Hindus and Sikhs. I salute them. I am very fond of them.

We wondered where this was coming from, and then the truth came out. I was elected on October 21, 2019. If we do the math, we realize that October 20, 2025, is four hours short to qualify for a pension. Imagine, only four hours. Since those are the rules, we have to accept them. I accept them. There are 22 Liberals who are in the same situation as me who realize that, for the sake of four hours, they are going to lose money. It is odd that the Liberals are the ones talking about this, because the Minister of Transport keeps saying that it is the Bloc MPs who are thinking about their pensions. He is wrong. We are saying that we will play the game, even if we are just four hours short. That is the game of democracy. Win some, lose some. The Liberals need to look at the polls upside down to improve their mood. Things are not going well for them. I would say to them that they have a year to pull up their socks if they want to keep their pensions, if they do not want to be defeated. If not, at least 100 of them stand to be defeated.

Madam Speaker, I am not talking about you, my constituency neighbour. I sometimes go to restaurants in your riding, and your voters clearly adore you. You have no reason to worry. I do not go to your riding to steal votes or talk politics; I just think you have good restaurants. However, some Liberals are scared. They think they are going to lose their pensions. They can see that they are not making any headway. I have watched them over the last few months. There are people I like on the other side. I like them, but it seems as though they are deliberately trying not to win. They need to wake up. The problem is simple: They are struggling to manage and do their job. Instead of coming up with things that makes no sense, like this bill, they need to smarten up and do a good job, and perhaps they will get to keep their pensions as a reward.

I do not wish misfortune on anyone, but there are probably about 22 members who are going to lose their seat in the next election. However, using something like this to make sure that some MPs get to keep their retirement pension is dishonest, and people do not like that. People are saying that some politicians are only here to get a pension. It fuels cynicism. I think that is unfortunate, because it affects everyone here. No one is spared. Honestly, I think that the Liberals should reconsider and remove that from the bill. What is more, the change in date will mean that the federal election is closer to the municipal election in Quebec. People already do not go out of their way to vote in municipal elections. It is difficult. We need to encourage people. We need to do our part. Now, the government is saying that it is going to hold a federal election six days before a municipal election. That does not make any sense. I am seriously speaking from the heart here.

Unfortunately, this is tarnishing the reputations of the Bloc Québécois members. The Liberals could tell people who are celebrating Diwali that they think that is important and that they have a great deal of respect for them. It is true that people have the right to celebrate that holiday. However, they can vote in the advance polls and still celebrate on October 20. As things now stand, the advance polls open four days before an election, and this bill will add two extra advance polling days. That brings us to six days. The number six makes me think of something. Do you know what the number six makes me think of, Madam Speaker?

There are six days of advance polling for people who want to celebrate Diwali. Moreover, people can vote directly at the returning office at any time. They will be able to take part in the democratic activity and cannot say that they were prevented from celebrating. They will be able to celebrate. I have not done much research, but it seems to me that there was once a Jewish holiday on election day, and people in that community were encouraged to go vote in advance. I think that went quite well. Still, there are a lot of things in this bill that look very good. Advance polling will be extended from four days to six. There are also plans to make voting easier, clearer and faster by allowing people to vote at any table in four years' time. There are some interesting bits. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We have to keep this bill. We are with the Liberals, but they have to try to be better. They may yet manage to salvage their pension. That is what I wish for them, because if they are better off, Quebeckers and Canadians will be better served. We are there to help them. We have a lot of good ideas. If only they would listen to the Bloc Québécois, everything would be all right.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are getting high-centred on the one thing that it seems a lot of people would not like to see in the bill, so let us turn this inside out. I would like the hon. member to maybe talk about things that are not in the bill that he would like to see. For instance, there has been mention of voting at 16. How close are we to voting online?

Are these the sorts of things that perhaps the hon. member would like to see, or are there other things?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interesting question.

The Bloc Québécois has already said that we are in favour of allowing the vote starting at age 16. Have all the parties reached that point? That is up for discussion.

In terms of online voting, I do not know. There are some advances in the bill. Mail-in voting is an improvement. Other improvements relate to foreign interference and the possibility of voting in long-term care facilities, CEGEPs and universities. There are some good measures in this bill. Can more be added?

Before we talk about what more we can do, let us vote for that. Let us remove the stumbling block that everyone sees and then, at that point, we can do it. Then, we can discuss voting at age 16 and other things that we could introduce later. What a great job.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for so clearly explaining the absolutely unacceptable aspect of this bill, namely the change in the election date, which, as he said, will be very close to the date of municipal elections in Quebec. As my colleague said, there is no rush to vote at the municipal level in Quebec. I quite agree with him on that.

There is, however, one thing that has been bothering me since the beginning of his speech. The Bloc Québécois is here in Ottawa. It sees Canada as another country. However, most Bloc members are going to receive a pension from that other country.

I would like him to tell me if he thinks it is okay for him to receive a pension from another country, only to one day go back to his own country and collect a pension there, too.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are people who go to work in the United States, who drive trucks to the United States and who are paid by the Americans. What is the problem?

We are the Bloc Québécois. We represent Quebeckers, who contribute $80 billion in taxes. I work for them. I work to ensure that this money is spent wisely and that the will of Quebeckers is respected when it comes to where the money goes. That is why we are here.

We work on bills that govern Quebeckers' lives. That is why we are here. In our minds we are in foreign country, but, unfortunately, that foreign country is going to take money out of our pockets. We are here to stand up for our people and ensure that their money is spent wisely.

I do not think that I am as adored in my riding as you are in yours, Madam Speaker, but I am sure that the people in my riding are happy with the work I am doing.

During the next election, my colleagues are welcome to come to my riding to see how proud people are of the work the Bloc Québécois is doing. They say that, yes—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is a foreign country, according to my colleague from La Prairie. I love listening to him, but there are 700,000 Quebeckers who have benefited from dental care in this foreign country. This dental care was put in place thanks to the NDP. In the first five weeks alone, 700,000 Quebeckers have already taken advantage of this new program, which will really improve their health.

It is obvious that Quebeckers disagree with my colleague, but does he agree with the NDP amendment, which will completely fix this bill?

The Conservatives and the Bloc did not introduce any amendments. The NDP did. Does the member support the NDP amendment?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, what has the NDP done when it comes to dental coverage? We already have dental coverage in Quebec. What is going to happen is that they are going to add another structure on top of that insurance. People are going to pay—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate. The poor interpreters have had enough.

The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is quite humorous what is happening on the other side in the corner there, but I will let the two MPs continue the conversation outside the House.

On a much more serious note, and on a note of gratitude, this is the second time I have spoken today and, in case I do not have an opportunity to speak before the House rises for the summer, I wish to thank my team here in Ottawa, Sashalie and Dima, for all their hard work. I would also like to thank the team back in the city of Vaughan, in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, at the constituency office, Pina, Anthony and Francesco, for all their hard work. As we all know, our staff are the ones who do a lot of the heavy lifting for us and keep us going strong to the extent needed. To the family back home, my kids, wife and all the folks who believe in me and encourage me to do better and be better, I wish to send my thanks as well.

I am proud to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-65, the electoral participation act.

The government introduced Bill C-65 to increase participation and confidence in Canada's electoral process. This bill implements lessons learned from recent elections. It takes into account the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, as well as the concerns and changing views of voters. It responds to the evolving threats to our democracy.

Although Bill C-65 contains many important proposals, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the provisions in this bill to strengthen the protection of Canadians' personal information by federal political parties.

I am sure my colleagues will agree that communication between parties and voters is essential to a healthy, modern democracy. Personal information contributes to this ongoing dialogue. It enables parties to communicate with Canadians and understand their views and priorities. In turn, these connections can help voters make informed choices about who they want to represent them in Parliament.

Unfortunately, we know that malicious actors can try to access or disclose personal information held by the parties. In fact, the Communications Security Establishment Canada has established that the theft and manipulation of databases containing personal information are a major threat to political parties. That is unacceptable, and we recognize that we need to do more so that Canadians know that their information is protected.

That is why, in 2018, Parliament took an important first step by passing the Elections Modernization Act, which imposed the very first privacy requirements on federal political parties by creating a condition of registration under the Canada Elections Act.

Finally, each party has been required since 2019 to provide Elections Canada with a policy for the protection of personal information that meets the requirements set out in the act. Parties that do not comply with this requirement can be deregistered or denied the right to register. Currently, under the Elections Modernization Act, all federal political parties have a publicly available policy for the protection of personal information that addresses a range of privacy issues, such as how a party collects, uses and shares data.

It was a first step in the right direction. Bill C‑65 proposes to enhance these requirements. With interactions between the political parties and the voters being increasingly focused on data, more robust, national measures for the protection of personal information are needed.

In budget 2023, Parliament took another step forward by establishing that the Canada Elections Act is a national regime that governs the collection, use, disclosure, retention, and disposal of Canadians' personal information by federal political parties and any person acting on their behalf. It was established that the same rules apply to the federal political parties and the persons acting on their behalf, regardless of the voters' place of residence or the territory where the party operates.

This also crystalized the fundamental objective of the federal political parties that collect, use, disclose, retain and dispose of personal information, which is to participate in Canadian democracy by supporting the activities of candidates who share the same values as the party.

However, we know that it is always possible to do more. That is why the government is now proposing to enhance the requirements that need to be included in each federal party's policy for the protection of personal information, so as to promote the principle of transparency, protection, accountability and compliance.

I will address each of these principles separately. Many requirements will promote greater transparency. Every party must make its policy for the protection of personal information publicly available in both French and English, and the policy must be written in plain language. In order for Canadians to better understand the elements of this policy, every party must give examples illustrating how it collects, uses, discloses and disposes of personal information.

Every policy must indicate not only the types of personal information that the party collects, as is currently the case, but also the types of personal information that it retains, uses, discloses and disposes of. However, even though transparency is important, it is not enough. Additional safeguards are needed.

First, the policy for the protection of personal information must require that personal information be protected through physical, organizational and technological security safeguards.

These safeguards can include locked filing cabinets or secure areas, document encryption, password protection and the sharing of personal information on a need-to-know basis. The level of protection must be proportionate to the sensitivity of the information.

Second, the policy for the protection of personal information will require the party to ensure that any individual or external organization that receives personal information from a federal political party, such as a supplier or contractor, has equivalent safeguards.

Third, every political party must prohibit the sale of personal information. That is an important change because, right now, the act only requires the policy to include a statement indicating the circumstances under which personal information can be sold.

Fourth, the updated privacy policies would also prohibit parties from providing false or misleading information to Canadians about why they are collecting personal information.

Finally, Bill C-65 would prohibit the disclosure of personal information with malicious intent.

All these requirements that would apply to the parties are reasonable and sensible. Requiring greater accountability also helps meet that objective. Each party should have a designated privacy officer who would be responsible for—

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

That is all the time. The hon. member will have five minutes of questions and comments the next time the bill comes before the House.

The House resumed from June 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-65. Before I do that, if members would indulge me, I want to send congratulations to a member of my staff, Ali Shahsamand, who is receiving his master's degree today. Based on his excellent work in my office, he could be teaching many of the classes, but he is nonetheless learning a lot through his master's degree. I am going to do my best to pop over there if there are not too many shenanigans from the other side that keep me here throughout the day. Members are pointing out that I might be the cause of some shenanigans later as well. We will see. I think that is tough, but fair.

We are debating Bill C-65 and, in particular, an amendment put forward at second reading by my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton. I do not know that there has been much discussion of the amendment in particular, so I do want to review. The amendment proposes that the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Elections Canada Act, as the bill would delay the next federal election so that more departing members of Parliament could collect taxpayer-funded pensions, which is a measure that is particularly offensive at a time when Canadians are struggling due to the NDP-Liberal government's inflation, carbon tax and housing costs. It is a wise and thoughtful amendment from my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton, which I am pleased to support, and I am looking forward to discussing it.

By way of context about the state of the country right now, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, two of my children, Gianna and Phineas, are in Ottawa as well, and it is great to have them here. I was reflecting on some conversations I sometimes have with my children when I ask them to do a task. My children are very responsible 99% of the time, but sometimes, it comes to pass that a part of the house needs to be cleaned, and I tell them to put the toys away and to clean up an area of the house. Maybe I have a phone call from someone or have some work I have to do, and when I come back an hour later, nothing has changed; all the toys are exactly where they were, or maybe it is even worse. Then, I ask them what is going on and explain that they have to clean it up. They say that they have been working at it for an hour, but nothing has changed.

As parents, we want to look at not just the amount of time spent on an activity, but also the results of the activity and whether things have changed as a result of the efforts that have been put in. It is a good lesson for children that their activities will be judged not just by the effort they put in, but also by the results they achieve. If people do not learn that they will be judged by the results they produce and not by the efforts they put in, they might grow up to become Liberals.

The Liberals would like us to judge their activities over the last nine years not by the results but by the amount of money they have spent and the amount of energy they have purportedly exerted on behalf of certain outcomes. However, Canadians are judging them on the results. After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, it is undeniable that the results are much worse.

I think back to 2015 when I was first elected as a member of Parliament for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. It was the same year that we had a change in government. We had the Conservative government of Stephen Harper prior to 2015, and the current Prime Minister came in 2015, promising real change. That was the slogan. In 2015, the Liberals' slogan was “real change”, and in 2024, their slogan is “boo hoo, get over it”. It is quite a real change that this country has experienced in nine years.

In 2015, the Prime Minister said that real change was coming and, indeed, real change is here. Rents have doubled. The violent crime rate, which was going down, has now gone back up and is continuing to be on the way back up. The national debt has more than doubled. I recall debates previously where people had concerns about the size of our national debt. The national debt has more than doubled since 2015. We are now spending more on servicing the national debt than is transferred to the provinces in health care. As this debt was escalating, the message we heard from the government was not to worry because interest rates were low. However, interest rates have not remained low, and as a result, we are paying more and more in debt servicing costs.

Debt is up. Costs are up. Inflation is up. Crime is up. Canadians are now looking at these results, and they are judging the government, not by its flashy slogans, by its professions of concern or by its promises to spend even more. Canadians are judging the government based on the results that are being achieved. It is amazing to hear the Liberals talk as if they just have to talk in a different way and explain what they are doing in a different way.

After nine years, Canadians have seen what the Liberals have done and have seen the results. What are they doing in response to that? After nine years of failures, costs and crime being up, what are Liberals interested in talking about in the House? What are they trying to focus our attention on? They have this new bill, Bill C-65, and in response to all these challenges and the public anger at the failures of the government, they are proposing to delay the election even further. It is unbelievable.

If the public is upset and it is demanding change and new direction, the Liberals had better delay the election a little longer so that they can stay in power for as long as they can and collect their pensions. That is the approach we are seeing from the Liberal government. I look around the world, and there are a number of cases where governments that are struggling for various reasons have at least the willingness to put their programs to the people and to make their cases to the voters.

We have challenged the government. Rather than a delay to the election, most people I talk to in all parts of this country actually want an election sooner, not later. They want an opportunity to pronounce on the government's failures and to replace it as soon as possible. In the context of the level of fierce criticism and of the challenges the country is facing, the responsible thing to do would be for the government members to say that they were ready to make their case, to put their case before the Canadian people and to let the Canadian people decide on that trajectory in a carbon tax election.

However, the Liberals are trying to move in the other direction. They want to delay the election further. They want to stay in power for as long as they possibly can and avoid the inevitable judgment of the Canadian people on their nine years of terrible failures and the results that it has produced for this country.

Naturally, Conservatives are opposed to the proposed bill. We believe that instead of having a later election, it is time for an earlier election. Canadians want to have a chance to rule on the many failures of the government, and we will, of course, be opposing the bill.

In addition to its evident desire to delay the election and to cling to power as long as it possibly can, the Liberal government has coincidentally put forward a date change to the election that just so happens to allow many additional members of Parliament across the way to be eligible for a pension, and that is certainly suspicious. The members across the way are putting their own pensions ahead of the desire of Canadians for an election that would allow us to replace this costly, corrupt coalition NDP-Liberal government.

The wise amendment from my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton points out that this focus on protecting their own position and protecting their own pensions is particularly galling to Canadians at a time when so many Canadians are indeed struggling. The struggles Canadians are facing, by the way, are things that the Liberal government loves to try to blame on other people. How can we explain that after the government has pursued inflationary policies, things cost more? The government has chosen to pursue policies that make things more expensive, and on this point, the amendment mentions the carbon tax, and I want to spend a couple of minutes on the carbon tax.

The funny thing about the carbon tax is that New Democrats and Liberals refuse to acknowledge the basic logic of how a carbon tax is supposed to work, even as advocated by its proponents. Proponents of the carbon tax—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have a point of order from the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I have recognized a half a dozen times where my hon. colleague keeps talking about everything else but the amendment and the bill before us. As a reminder, this bill is about electoral reform and not about carbon tax, and not about the umpteen other things that he has mentioned.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind hon. members that there is some flexibility when members are debating. However, I would ask members when they are debating to bring it back to the legislation that is before the House.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will just reacquaint my friend across the way, and the one person who applauded her intervention, with the fact that we are debating an amendment from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, which says the following:

the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, as the bill delays the next federal election so that more departing members of Parliament can collect taxpayer-funded pensions, a measure that is particularly offensive at a time when Canadians are struggling due to the NDP-Liberal government’s inflation, carbon tax and housing costs.

I am, of course, speaking, as I said, about the amendment. That would be not only related to the topic, but definitively the most germane thing that one could possibly talk about: that is, the amendment that is presently before the House. The amendment highlights how the efforts by the Liberals to cling to power by their fingernails, by passing a bill to delay the election, are particularly offensive to Canadians, who would like to see the carbon tax end as soon as possible.

Canadians know that the next election will be a carbon tax election. It will provide an opportunity for the Canadian people to make a decision about whether they approve of the NDP-Liberal plan to massively hike the carbon tax in the years ahead or the Conservative plan to scrap the tax, to axe the tax in every region of the country, and for good. That is the choice that Canadians will have in the next election. A confident government would say they are ready for that choice. It would say, let us have that debate. The member for Winnipeg North says he welcomes that debate. It seems that he has more courage than the leader of his party, because the leader of his party and the minister responsible for this bill have put forward a bill to delay that great clash of ideas that will occur in the next election. Whenever the member for Winnipeg North is ready for this conversation and is ready to allow his constituents to rule on this vital question, then I suggest he tell his Prime Minister to scrap Bill C-65 as they are ready for an election.

I can tell colleagues that, on this side of the House, we are ready. We want to let Canadians decide: Do they prefer the radical NDP-Liberal plan to hike the carbon tax, to quadruple the carbon tax, or do they prefer the common-sense Conservative plan to axe the tax everywhere, and for good? I think Canadians will choose to axe the tax, but in any event, we are ready for that debate. We are ready to submit ourselves to the judgment of the Canadian people. Instead, the government, rather than being prepared to submit itself to the common-sense judgment of the common people, wants to be able to delay the election so the Liberals can hang on to their pensions for as long as possible, hang on to power as long as possible, rather than letting the Canadian people decide.

The government will not be able to delay this inevitable carbon tax election forever. When the inevitable carbon tax election comes, Liberals and New Democrats will have to explain the following to the Canadian people: that the very purpose of a carbon tax is to increase costs. That is what even proponents of the carbon tax say it exists to do. The carbon tax exists to make driving one's car more expensive and to make taking that family road trip more expensive, the family road trip that the Minister of Health thinks is going to burn the planet. I think it was notable after that how various people on social media were able to find posts from the Prime Minister about family road trips he has taken. The Prime Minister does not just take family road trips. He travels much greater distances, using more carbon-emitting options than the simple family van. It is another example of “do as I say, not as I do”. Apparently, when everyday Canadians want to spend a few days seeing beautiful parts of our country, putting their kids in the car and travelling places, the Minister of Health thinks that is going to burn the planet. This is the kind of “do as I say, not as I do” radical extremism that we have come to expect from the radical NDP-Liberal coalition government.

Let us be clear. The purpose of a carbon tax, what it is designed to do, is to increase the price of goods so that people will consume those goods less. That is the theory behind the carbon—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert on a point of order.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have had approximately 150,000 opposition days on the carbon tax. Today, we are studying a different bill, and yet my colleague is talking only about the carbon tax, which—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is a point of debate. As I mentioned before, there is some latitude. The hon. member is talking about an amendment that mentions the carbon tax. I will let the member continue his speech. He has four minutes and 43 seconds.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, at the risk of being accused of repetition, I will clarify the point for my Bloc colleagues again, as I did earlier. We are, at present, debating an amendment put forward by my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton, which is about declining to give second reading to Bill C-65, because the bill reveals the priorities of the government, priorities that are dead wrong. Conservatives would like to focus on providing economic relief to Canadians. We are ready for a carbon tax election, in which the choice will be clear, between a Conservative common-sense plan and the plan of the NDP-Liberals and the Bloc to impose additional costs on Canadians, punishing new costs that would further undermine opportunity for everyday Canadians.

Here is where we are. It is clear and unmistakable that we are at a time when Canadians are overwhelmingly disapproving of the direction of the NDP-Liberal government, when Canadians' disapproval of the government reflects their own frustration and the fact that they can see how policies of the government have made their lives materially worse, how there is more poverty in this country, more division and more crime as a result of policies that have been pursued by the NDP-Liberal government. In that context, where Canadians are upset with the government, see how the government has made their lives worse and are, therefore, looking for an alternative to the current approach, the Liberal government, rather than recognizing its failures, changing course in its policies and putting its programs to the Canadian people, is focused on pushing forward legislation to try to delay when that ultimate judgment will come down from the Canadian people. That is what we are debating. That is what Bill C-65 is about.

Bill C-65 is before this House because, rather than calling an election or putting forward bills that would actually make Canadians' lives better, Liberals are focused on delaying when that election will come. Conservatives are ready to put our plan before the Canadian people, our plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, our plan to focus on the common sense of Canadians.

I want to remind the New Democrats that the plan is to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. I think we are winning converts. I think—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind members that they will have an opportunity to ask questions and make comments, so I would ask them to please wait until the appropriate time.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think we are finally getting through. I think New Democrats are finally hearing us. I think they may be reflecting. The House leader—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I want to remind hon. members again that they will have an opportunity to ask questions and make comments, so I would ask them to please wait.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the NDP House leader self-identifies as a worker bee. He has told us that he is a worker bee. If we doubt that he is a worker bee, all we have to do is ask him, and he will tell us that he is a worker bee. Meanwhile, New Democrats are at committee putting forward motions specifically to avoid doing parliamentary work over the summer. Imagine that. At a time when Canadians are suffering, at a time when Canadians want their politicians to get down to work and find solutions to the challenges this country is facing, Liberals are putting forward a bill to delay the election, and New Democrats are putting forward motions so they do not have to work until the election comes. This is what the NDP coalition is about: delaying the election and doing as little work as possible until it comes.

Conservatives are ready to get down to work. We are ready to replace the government. We are ready to clean up the mess that has been created over the last nine years, because our country did not have these problems nine years ago. It will be set on the right path under the principled leadership of the member for Carleton. This is what we are offering Canadians.

Conservatives are ready for an election. We oppose Bill C-65, because we do not want to delay the election. We are ready for a carbon tax election, to put our common-sense plan before Canadians for lower, fairer and simpler taxes, to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, to bring it home.

Let us reject Bill C-65, let us have a carbon tax election and let the Canadian people decide.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I believe the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill is rising on a point of order.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Avalon.

[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?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the self-identified worker bee in the corner is making things up about the record of the Harper government, as he regularly does.

The choice Canadians will face in the next election is that they will look at where this country was in 2015 and where it was in 2024, and they will say, “Are we better off in 2024 than we were in 2015? Are we better off with the Conservative government or are we better off with the NDP-Liberal government?” That is the choice, and I think the choice will look much better for us when Canadians finally have a chance to decide than it will for the buzzing bees in the corner of the room.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

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.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member delivered a speech about the bill and never mentioned the extension of the voting date by one week to secure the pensions for about 80 MPs, which is about 25% of the House. I wish he had talked about that, because Canadians have been asking about it. We have received so many questions and emails asking about this very important element of the bill.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member has been around here for a while, and he is a smart guy. He knows the process. The bill goes to committee. If improvements can be made, the member and his team can bring forward suggestions.

I was given 10 minutes today to address the issues that I though were very important. That is why I talked about privacy, accessibility, integrity and trust. They mean a lot to me.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the remarks of my colleague opposite.

I would like to know what his position is. There are some good things in this bill, but there is also the date change. Earlier my colleague from Montcalm asked a question about changing the date for a religious reason. I see two things here. First, the religious reason raises a number of questions. How many religions are there in Canada? Will we end up finding a date on which there are no religious holidays? I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this. Will we really have to accommodate all the various religions?

Second, there is another aspect I would like to broach. There is a proposal to postpone the elections by a week to allow more House members to qualify for a pension. This is known. Members would miss out by one day if the elections were held on the scheduled date in 2025. This too strikes us as unreasonable, given the often precarious finances of many Quebeckers and Canadians. Not only is a religious holiday being invoked to justify putting off the elections, but a delay would also allow more MPs to qualify for a pension. Does my colleague consider these to be good reasons for postponing election day?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an important question. We have such a beautiful country, from coast to coast to coast. There are so many different nationalities, a mosaic of different cultures, and it will always be difficult for us to find the perfect date. However, as MPs, we should be trying to accommodate people when possible. That should be a common-sense approach to picking an election day, and I think the member would agree with that.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate hearing from fellow previous school board trustees. There is a lot of value in that experience and bringing that to the House of Commons.

My question is specifically around the component of the bill that speaks to lifting the restrictions on who can assist people living with disabilities, having it removed and having the elector choose who assists them. I believe that to be a big step in the right direction, to look at who can support people in having their ballots counted.

There is also a lot of work that needs to be done once we get this bill to committee, and I am an eternal optimist, to ensure people are able to have autonomy to cast their ballots. I think about people who are visually impaired as one example.

What does the member think about the necessity of us having ballots that make it possible for all Canadians to cast a ballot for who they would like to see elected?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, my father is legally blind, so I go with him when he votes. I am always amazed at how he is accommodated. The first time we went when he needed assistance, I wondered how they would do it, but it was very professional. If we can look for ways to strengthen the process, through consultation with the disability community, and make it more accessible, it would be a huge priority for me.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

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.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about the parts of the bill that he, like us, considers very important. However, he avoided talking about postponing the elections, a proposal supposedly aimed at accommodating Canada's Indian communities for Diwali, the festival of lights.

Can my colleague look me in the eye and tell me that the Liberals are not using Diwali as a pretext for allowing 22 Liberal members and three ministers to qualify for a pension?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member suggested, Diwali is a religious and sacred event in the lives of many Hindus and Sikhs across the globe. We are talking about more participation on the Diwali day when people will be celebrating. There will also be a lot more traffic on the streets of major municipalities, which would distract voters from going to the polls. In fact, it is a very good suggestion. On one side, we could celebrate the religious, sacred day of Diwali. On the other side, the voters could go and vote freely with a lot more numbers during the next week, after Diwali.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I also want to congratulate the member's nephew for his graduation.

The member was just talking about transportation. In my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, we have an aging population, and I know a lot of seniors have a difficult time with transportation to the polls and have been asking me for an extension to make it easier, to have more days to vote. Therefore, I wonder if the member would not mind sharing with the House what he is hearing in his riding from seniors on their ability to get transportation to the polls.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's gesture toward my nephew.

I am hearing the same thing in my constituency because elderly people and people with disabilities need more time and an accessible system to vote. That is why we are encouraging having an extra two days for the advance polls so that those members of the community who are willing to vote would be able to make sure that their vote is polled and counted. I appreciate the member's concern about our seniors and people with disabilities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, we all know that the House of Commons hosts the king of cryptocurrency here, better known as the leader of the Conservative-Reform party. Within this legislation we see more transparency and accountability. For example, cryptocurrency is something that people would not be able to give through a donation, whether it is to a candidate or to a political party, not only during elections but also between elections.

I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts on why it is important that we pass the legislation because there are many aspects of the legislation that would enhance and make our election laws stronger, healthier and better. Would the member not agree?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, my dear friend, is always inspiring when it comes to making suggestions about the electoral process and helping communities that need more help to participate in the electoral system.

Cryptocurrency should not be accepted as part of donations. That is why we have to make sure that we are able to strengthen the Canada Elections Act. Let us pass the bill through here and let it go to committee where all members, including Conservatives, Bloc, New Democrats and Liberals, would be able to make suggestions to strengthen the bill to make sure that we have a fair and integral election.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians have a right to be thoroughly cynical about this legislation. For all the public hype about how the Liberal government wants to encourage Canadians to participate in the electoral process, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's claims that he is taking action to prevent interference in our elections from hostile foreign governments, Bill C-65 should give little comfort to Canadians who feel that our mock democracy is eroding before our very eyes.

Living in Canada is like winning the lottery. We have a history of standing for justice. We are a country dedicated to the rule of law. We are prosperous. We are safe. We have been blessed with an embarrassing abundance of natural resources. Our citizens are among the best educated in the world. We boast a strong democratic system and a commitment to peaceful transitions of power.

Since 2006, I have had the honour of serving the constituents of Abbotsford, British Columbia, who have elected and re-elected me six times through a robust, fair and transparent electoral process. This very process is what Bill C-65 claims to improve upon.

Trust in our democratic institutions, in our elections, is critical to a peaceful and vibrant society. Canadians must have confidence that the members of the House, who are right here in this chamber, have been elected and have arrived here fairly, without interference from foreign powers. As such, there are some provisions in the bill that we Conservatives would agree with, but we are also deeply concerned that the provisions of the bill are an attempt to conceal from Canadians a much more cynical ploy, namely the promotion of the private financial interests of the Prime Minister's NDP-Liberal caucus, a group of MPs who expect not to be re-elected again. I will get to that in a moment.

To be sure, there are provisions in the legislation that we support. To begin with, there are provisions that would make changes to third party donations. Those changes are welcome, particularly as they are aimed at preventing foreign entities from contributing to election-related activities in Canada.

With the recent revelations regarding interference in our democracy by hostile foreign actors, and the shocking disclosure that our Prime Minister failed to act in a timely manner to warn Canadian MPs and party candidates of threats to their own elections, we parliamentarians must act to ensure that our institutions remain secure and accountable to the only people who really matter, Canadians themselves, and not to hostile foreign powers. Ensuring that foreigners cannot easily donate to candidates for a federal election is a sensible, albeit very modest, improvement for a stronger democracy.

If that were the sole purpose of Bill C-65, we would be content. However, this modest improvement in our election laws is marred by other elements that are problematic. I speak, of course, of the Prime Minister's cynical efforts to extend the so-called fixed election date by one week.

A fixed election is exactly that, or it is supposed to be that, which is the setting of a fixed date for an election to take place in a predictable manner, instead of the Prime Minister gaming the system for his own partisan purposes. Sadly, the fixed election that the law prescribes is no more. Instead, the Prime Minister is cynically pushing it back. He is pushing back the fixed date to benefit his NDP-Liberal MPs who are facing imminent defeat in the next federal election.

According to the legislation, Canadians would have to pay more to pay for the pensions of MPs. Accordingly, this piece of legislation is now becoming known as the “loser NDP-Liberal pension protection act”. That is what it is.

I will explain for Canadians who have just tuned in. They deserve to know that, for MPs to qualify for a parliamentary pension, they must have served a total of six years in the House of Commons. It just so happens there were 80 MPs elected in 2019 who will not qualify for a pension if they lose the next election. They would fall one day short. The Prime Minister, of course, sensing that he and many of his NDP-Liberal coalition MPs will not survive politically, has cynically included in this legislation before us a provision that would extend the fixed election date by one week to secure the pension entitlements of NDP-Liberal MPs.

The Prime Minister claims this extension to the fixed election date has nothing at all to do with vesting in pensions for his MPs and everything to do with the Indian festival Diwali. That is a fair point, except that he had the option of moving the date one or two weeks earlier to avoid a conflict with Diwali, or of calling an election right now, as Conservatives have asked him to do. This would spare Diwali and avoid some of the corrosive cynicism that Canadians are experiencing today, but no, the Prime Minister has again exploited our long-suffering taxpayers by favouring the financial interests of elected officials who work here and, quite frankly, are well compensated for the work they do in the House.

We should remember that it is the Liberal government that has amassed more debt than all other Canadian governments in Canadian history combined. This is the Prime Minister who so glibly proclaimed that budgets balance themselves. This is the Prime Minister who asked Canadians to forgive him for not thinking about monetary policy. What are a few more taxpayer dollars going to pension off well-to-do and well-paid politicians? On that basis alone, Conservatives will vote against this legislation. We will always promote the interests of Canadian taxpayers. By the way, it is true that 32 of my Conservative colleagues are within that group of 80 MPs, but those Conservative MPs have made it very clear that they are prepared to go into an election right now and put our Conservative vision and plan for this country to the Canadian people against the disastrous Liberal record.

There are also other elements of the bill that are problematic. Under the legislation, taxpayers would have to foot the bill for having more advanced polling days, which is more cost to taxpayers. Conservatives are also concerned about new provisions that would place the political party above the candidate on a ballot. Let me again explain that. Elections determine who we wish to have represent us in Canada's Parliament, here in the House of Commons, and which individual would be our community's voice in Ottawa.

When Sir John A. Macdonald, our first prime minister, and the other fathers of Confederation came together to create the Dominion of Canada, they agreed that Canadians should elect a hard-working person from each of their communities to represent them in our capital city, someone dedicated to serving the interests of their communities and country without compromise. This would be an individual, not a political party, who truly cares for their district and the people within it. Sadly, this bill before us flips that time-honoured principle on its head by suddenly prioritizing the party on the ballot rather than the candidate himself or herself.

Rather than marking down the candidate of their choice on the ballot, Bill C-65 would now allow a voter to simply mark down the name of a political party, and that ballot would then be valid. This provision goes against everything our parliamentary democracy has been based on for over 150 years, the premise that elected members of the House serve Canadians and that we members, not our political parties or special interest groups, are employed by and accountable to Canadian voters.

It is beyond worrying that the NDP-Liberal coalition believes bringing American-style ballot box party politics into Canada, with its attendant ballot harvesting abuses, will be embraced by Canadians. It will not, and it is not. More likely, it is our NDP-Liberal coalition friends who seek to gain an advantage over their political adversaries in the House.

I began my remarks by describing this bill as cynical, with a capital “C”. It is our Prime Minister who, over a period of nine long years, has failed to seriously address the integrity of our elections and the interference from hostile foreign actors. For many years, the Canadian government has known of foreign interference in our elections. In fact, the director of CSIS, which is our security and intelligence apparatus, warned our Prime Minister that there was a legitimate and significant threat, particularly from China, with respect to our democratic institutions and the elections that undergird those institutions.

Time and time again, the Prime Minister refused to act. It does not stop there. In July 2021, a CSIS report said that China viewed Canada as a high-priority target and invests substantially into influencing our elections and civil society. Indeed, my hon. colleague and friend, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, has said that he and his extended family were even targets of the Communist regime in Beijing and that the Liberal government failed to let them know, to inform them of that fact.

More egregiously, the recent top secret NSICOP report on foreign interference names MPs who have wittingly or unwittingly engaged in election interference. That report, sadly, has been censored by our own Prime Minister, who refuses to let Canadians know who among us is suspected of acting on behalf of a foreign government. It is completely unacceptable that a parliamentarian who has wittingly aided a hostile foreign power should have their name protected and be able to run for re-election. That is incomprehensible, and Canadians deserve better.

Ask Canadians whether they believe someone suspected of disloyalty to our country and who is in thrall to a foreign power should remain anonymous. The overwhelming response would be absolutely no, so it is fair to ask what the Prime Minister is hiding.

Accordingly, it should surprise nobody that Canadians are losing confidence in their electoral process and have grown cynical about anything the Liberal government does or says, and yet our Prime Minister continues to claim that only he and he alone can fix his own mess and the many other things that are broken in Canada. At its very essence, this boils down to an issue of trust. Do Canadians trust the Prime Minister? Do they trust the government? Overwhelmingly, the answer to that is no.

Our Liberal Prime Minister and his NDP-Liberal coalition have failed Canadians so badly that we cannot even trust our electoral process. This broken country needs a fix that only a change in government can deliver. The winds of change, fortunately, are sweeping across Canada, fanned by our Prime Minister's broken promises and his reckless disregard for the institutions of our democracy.

This bill in no way fixes that. Trust has been broken, and this bill before us will do nothing to materially fix that. For all of those reasons, and many more, I will not be supporting this bill, and I do not believe any of the Conservatives in the House will be supporting this bill.

I ask again: do Canadians have a right to feel cynical? That is what I asked at the beginning of my speech. Do they have a right to feel cynical about their government? The answer is yes. They have a right to feel cynical about their government, about their Prime Minister, and yes, about this disingenuous bill.

The good news is that help and hope are on their way. Let us remember what things were like in Canada back in 2015, before the NDP-Liberal coalition broke everything. It messed it all up. Remember, we had low inflation. We had low interest rates. We had affordable homes and affordable food. We had safe streets. We had respect on the international stage. We had balanced budgets. We all had hope for a brighter and better future.

I am confident that a new government, a Conservative government, will restore the Canadian dream and the hope of a brighter future. We will axe the taxes, build the homes, stop the crime and fix the budget. Canadians are counting on us.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly going to miss that over-the-top rhetoric when this member is gone, as he has announced that he will not be running again.

I will say that he seemed to bring up a lot of issues that do not jive with what was being said previously. The member for Calgary Confederation yesterday said:

The issue that my Conservative colleagues and I have is...the date change that would create pensions for losing Liberal and NDP members. If that date changed, I would be in full support of this bill.

The only issue to Conservatives, according to the member for Calgary Confederation, is the date. The minister made it very clear yesterday, when he was speaking, that he was trying to change the date because there are also municipal elections going on in Alberta on the same day. People will effectively have to go and vote at two polling locations on the same day. The minister also said that if the committee decides it wants to put the date back to where it was, he is willing to accept that.

Given that this is the only thing that seems to be problematic with Conservatives, as stated by the member for Calgary Confederation, why does the member not just let it go to committee and change the date?

Better yet, during his 20 minutes of speaking, why did he not just introduce an amendment to change the date? He could do either of those, and he has not. Why?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in that question but I was pleased to hear him mention Alberta. The Liberal Party and the Liberal government and former Liberal governments have never cared for Alberta. Remember the national energy plan? The reason I focused—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order.

The hon. member for Abbotsford has the floor.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that I touched a nerve. These folks over here do not care for Alberta. They do not care for western Canada. My speech focused in on the totality of this legislation. The reason my colleagues focused on the cynical ploy that is the election date is because Canadians, by and large, are not aware of this. They are not aware that the Prime Minister is monkeying around with the election date simply to protect the pensions of his own well-paid MPs. Shame on them.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am anxious for Quebec to become a country so that we do not have to listen to the bickering of these three federalist parties. It will happen one day, I guarantee it.

I listened to my colleague's speech. Something we have agreed on since the beginning is that it is offensive to have wanted to change the date of the election, especially for a completely unreal reason, namely that that day is a holy day. There are many holy days because there are many religions and many days in a year. At some point, that cannot be used as an excuse to change the date. We all know that it is mainly to allow some members to get their pension.

My question is simple. Does my colleague find it as offensive as I do that they drew religion into an election date?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I find really shocking is the Liberals are prepared to Mickey Mouse around and gerrymander our election laws to favour themselves. They are going so far as to actually try to protect and vest the pensions of MPs who would not qualify otherwise.

There is a very easy way to fix this and that is for the Prime Minister to go to the polls. Call an election right now. Let us see if the Liberals can back up their words. Everyone knows that they will never call an election now because they know they are going to lose because of their disastrous record.

As I said in my speech, I am prepared to put up the Conservatives' plan for the economy and for our country and show how we can unite Canada against the Liberals' disastrous plan any day.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Abbotsford for a very long career in representing the constituents of Abbotsford.

I want to share with the member for Abbotsford that I have some great news. We have been talking about this from the onset of Bill C-65. I will be putting forward an amendment to change the election date back to the original date, so that this is no longer an issue.

We have made this very clear. The Liberal minister has made it clear that he would follow the will of the committee. The Conservatives are against it. The Bloc is against it. The NDP is against it. This is no longer a part of this legislation that we need to be worrying about.

Will the member share this with his constituents in Abbotsford, so they can also share the good news?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members, who are part of the disastrous coalition, are saying “trust us”. They will fix it at committee, but let it go ahead in this House. They are saying to let these pensions vest for MPs who are not going to get elected and should not have these pensions vested.

The member is asking me whether, if this gets fixed at committee, I would support it. If this change did not come along, Conservatives would be very happy. Leave the fixed election date as it is. However, I am not prepared to, any longer, accept “trust us” as being the mantra coming from the Liberal-NDP coalition.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say that I believe today is the 50th anniversary of the member for Abbotsford's 19th birthday. I do wish him well on this special occasion.

The member talked about foreign interference in Canadian elections. How concerned is the member about the government's response and the other coalition partner's response to foreign interference into Canadian elections? Does he share my concern that the government really has not lived up to its responsibilities in keeping Canadian elections safe from foreign interference?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not only the member and I who have concerns about foreign interference. We, as Conservatives, have a real concern about foreign interference

Canadians across this country are shocked to learn that the Prime Minister has already known for many years that foreign hostile actors were interfering in our elections. He knew about it, did not advise MPs who were affected by it, and did not put into place anything that would push back on efforts by foreign hostile regimes that were trying to manipulate our election outcomes.

As we know, there are a number of MPs in Canada who likely lost their re-election because of interference from the Communist regime in Beijing. Did it affect the ultimate outcome of the election? No, but it certainly affected the lives and futures of those individual MPs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, imagine actually hearing such hypocrisy. The member is saying that the Conservative Party cares. That is a bunch of bull.

At the end of the day, let us think about this. The leader of the Conservative-Reform party—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I only interrupt when I hear disorder in the House. There was a statement there that the hon. member used. Members cannot do indirectly what they cannot do directly. The hon. parliamentary secretary should know better.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Sometimes I get a little colourful, I guess, Mr. Speaker. I will delete the word “bull”.

At the end of the day, the point is that the Conservative leader will not even get a briefing so he could find out which members of the Conservative Party might be interfered with on the international scene. He does not even want the briefing. He would rather be naive, unlike the NDP leader or the Green Party leader.

Where does the member get off saying that the Conservatives are genuinely concerned about foreign interference, in any fashion whatsoever, when in fact their own leader will not get the security clearance to find out what is actually taking place?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as they have done many times before, our Liberal friends across the aisle are trying to muzzle our leader. That is not going to happen.

Our leader will speak out on the issues of the day, especially foreign interference. Foreign interference is corrosive to our democracy. These folks over there are laughing at us. Look at them, Mr. Speaker. They are mocking us for taking foreign interference seriously.

When Conservatives form government, we will take foreign interference seriously, and we will take steps to fight back and ensure that we remain free and sovereign.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand today to speak to Bill C-65.

First and foremost, because I do not want to forget, I want to thank and give a really big shout-out to my former colleague, past MP Daniel Blaikie, who did a tremendous amount of work on this file and deserves an acknowledgement for all the work he has done to date. I am going to try to carry the baton for the work he has handed to me. They are big shoes to fill, literally, but I will continue doing this important work.

The bill we are talking about today is an important one. We know it is vitally important for Canadians to have access to voting in a way that is barrier-free to increase the participation of Canadians across the country, so they feel their vote counts. This is a time right now when it is vital for Canadians to know that our democracy is strong and that the process for everybody to vote is accessible.

We are in a climate crisis. We are feeling the impacts of that right now with the heat wave here in Ottawa. We are seeing smoke-filled skies in British Columbia from forest fires. There is flooding. There are endless examples of the ways in which we are being impacted by the climate crisis. We know that people across Canada are struggling to make ends meet, to put food on the table and to keep a roof over their head. Right now, Canadians deserve to know that our elections are fair and accessible, as well as that our democracy is strong. Therefore, it is vitally important that we are doing the work today to set Canadians up for success for elections to come.

The bill would do a lot. One of the things, and I will get into some of them, is around the two additional days of advance voting. This is really important because we know Canadians are busy and we need to make sure they have access to be able to show up at the polls and cast their vote for the candidate they feel is the best fit. Expanding these days out allows Canadians more options for being able to do so. With the passing of the legislation, there would be a phased implementation for people to vote anywhere.

I am sure that members have heard from their constituents, as I have in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, that there are barriers when people go to vote in federal elections. They show up at the poll, excited to cast their ballot, but are told that the polling station they need to go to is on the other side of town. Let us imagine a single mom who has worked all day, packing up her kids to get to the polling station and show her kids she is participating in our electoral system, but then being told that she has to go to the other end of town. This is a huge barrier. I hear this not only from constituents in my riding but also from Canadians across the country. They need to know that they can go to a polling station within their riding, similar to other levels of elections, and their vote will be counted.

There are also improvements to the mail-in ballot process. We know that, in previous elections, there were barriers, particularly when people registered for mail-in ballots. If they received a ballot and forgot to mail it back, then showed up at the polling station, they would not be able to cast their vote. These are busy times and, of course, this happens. This is a huge problem and an issue that is being looked at in the legislation to ensure that people who register for a mail-in ballot can still vote at the polling station and have their vote count.

There are a lot of good pieces. Another piece is around students voting. In 2015 and 2019, we had the vote on campus program, where we saw big turnouts of students showing up at the polls to cast their ballots. Unfortunately, that is no longer in place. The legislation would make the vote on campus program permanent in all general elections. It is vitally important for students to know that, while they are on campus, they can easily and accessibly cast their ballots.

This would offer an additional option for community members in the surrounding area to have another poll where they could go and cast their ballots. This is really important at a time when we need young people to participate in our elections. It is ultimately their futures that we are making decisions about today, and this is an important part of the bill.

Another piece in the bill is around long-term care polling stations. We know that many people across the country are aging in long-term care homes. They would not need to leave their residence and could instead cast their ballot right at home, at their care home. This is a huge step in making sure that the people who have contributed to our communities across the country for years and years can continue to have their votes counted.

I would like to point out something that is not in the legislation but that I would love for us to dig into further at committee stage. This is ensuring that we see an increase of polling stations, as well as having mandatory polling stations, on reserves and in Métis settlements. Because of the impacts of colonization throughout history, there are many reasons we are not seeing the participation of indigenous people across the country at the level that it should be. This would be a step in the right direction. It would make sure that indigenous people are able to vote accessibly right at home among community members.

I found it interesting to learn, just today actually, of article 5 of UNDRIP, which I want to reiterate as a very important piece to this discussion that I hope to have at committee. Article 5 of UNDRIP says, “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.” I read that out because it is in UNDRIP, which is vitally important work that we all need to be paying attention to and prioritizing, as well as because of the fact that this could help to ensure that indigenous people understand their rights when they show up at the polls to vote for the candidate they see as the best fit at the federal level. This is work that needs to happen, and it needs to be prioritized.

Another piece of the legislation, which is something I spoke to earlier in a question, would be ensuring that people who may be living with disabilities, as one example, are able to cast their ballots. Currently, there are restrictions on who can assist in casting ballots. However, the legislation is working to address that and broaden the scope of who can support electors, specifically allowing the elector to choose who can assist them. For example, somebody could have a support worker cast the ballot on their behalf, which is very important work in the right direction toward making sure that everybody's votes can count.

In addition to that, once the bill gets to committee, we need to look at ways in which people with disabilities can maintain their autonomy and be able to cast their ballot independently, without the support of other individuals. Yes, again, I am an eternal optimist and hope that we can come together to see the bill at committee. It is great to set up those systems of support. Where we can, let us set up a system where all Canadians can show up at the polls and know that they can confidently and successfully cast their own ballot. I think about the tremendous amount of people who are reaching out with visual impairments as just one example. People with visual impairments could cast their own ballot if the systems were set up for them to do that on their own, so it is important that we look at this.

Another piece I want to cover is around the inclusion of Inuktut on federal ballots, which is vitally important. I had the honour of visiting my colleague, the member for Nunavut. In Nunavut we visited Pangnirtung and Iqaluit, and it is quite evident that there are a tremendous number of individuals living in Nunavut who speak Inuktut as their primary and first language, so making sure that the ballots have the language spoken by the residents in the area is vitally important to decrease barriers to participation and to ensure that people understand confidently whom it is they want to vote for.

My colleague, the MP for Nunavut, has been doing an incredible amount of work on this. The member has put forward, for example, Bill C-297, which I wanted to highlight. The goal of this bill is that in an electoral district on indigenous land, the Chief Electoral Officer may require all the ballots for the electoral district to be prepared and printed in both official languages, as well as in the indigenous language or languages of the electors, using the appropriate writing systems for each language, including syllabics, if applicable. It is really important that we listen to indigenous people across the country and make sure that ballots are accessible for them to be able to vote as well. This is an example of important legislation that the government can be leaning on to move us in the right direction. I hope this is legislation that we will be reviewing very closely at committee stage.

The MP for Nunavut did actually participate in the process of a report from the Standing Committee on Procedural and House of Affairs that is entitled “The Inclusion of Indigenous Languages on Federal Election Ballots: A Step Towards Reconciliation”. There were a couple of pieces in it that I wanted to highlight. The MP for Nunavut pointed out that “most elders in Nunavut cannot read English or French.” This expands on what I was just talking about. She spoke to the fact that in order “to make reconciliation meaningful, Indigenous languages needed to be protected and promoted.”

She went on to point out that “unilingual Inuktitut speakers find the complaints process inaccessible”, so that makes it challenging for them to be able to voice the barriers that they are experiencing in being able to cast their ballots as a result of previous oppressive systems that they have experienced. Also, the MP for Nunavut told the committee that she heard of people who have been “turned away from voting in Nunavut because of language barriers.” This is clearly not good enough, and it is something we need to be looking at closely in committee to make sure that we are moving in the right direction.

The proposed bill does have some pieces we need to be sure to look at in committee stage. One piece is around the third-party activities. I would like to reiterate that it is vitally important that unions are able to communicate with their members. We know that “at the core of a union's mandate and function is the ability to communicate freely and effectively with...members.” Workers across the country who are unionized are impacted dramatically by the decisions being made right here in the House. We know that these decisions are life-altering. It is important that people across the country are aware of these, and it is vitally important that union representatives are able to communicate these matters with their membership. With that, there is some work that needs to happen and that needs to be prioritized at committee stage to ensure that the bill is not taking away those rights of unions across the country.

I would be remiss if I did not speak about the issue that seems to be coming up over and over again in the House. There was a date proposed to push forward the date of the election by one week in the legislation. Unfortunately, this is highly problematic. I cannot speak to any other members' intentions. Whether intended or unintended, the consequence of this proposal would be that members of Parliament would receive a pension that they would not have otherwise been eligible for. As I said at the beginning of my speech, there are so many people across the country struggling to make ends meet, and now is not the time for members of Parliament to think about their own financial gains or their own pensions. Now is the time for members of Parliament to create legislation that would truly help Canadians across the country.

Therefore, I want to reiterate that first priority. Once we get this bill to committee, I would be moving an amendment to ensure that this date would be moved back to the original date so this would no longer be a concern of members of Parliament and of Canadians across the country. It is vitally important that we do what this legislation intends to do, which is to strengthen our democracy and to make sure that we reduce barriers so that people would be able to fully participate in our electoral system. There is important content within this legislation that we need to be moving forward with.

Much to my surprise, but yet also not much to my surprise, in response to this portion of the legislation, the Conservatives came out with an amendment to cut and gut the entire legislation, which would see this legislation no longer move forward at all. With that, it would take all of the items that I have been talking about during my intervention today. It would take away the proposed increase in accessibility for people living with disabilities. It would take away having polls in long-term care homes or having polls on student campuses, and looking at increasing the advance polling days so that we are not so reliant on just one day. There are many important aspects in this bill.

To see the Conservatives respond by saying that we just need to cut the whole thing is not surprising because, currently, we have a system that benefits the Conservatives. We know that the existing system, where we have barriers to participation that benefit the Conservatives' corporate friends, is exactly what the Conservatives want to see maintained. Therefore, instead of putting forward an amendment to cut and gut the legislation, my NDP colleagues and I are proposing a solution to the problem, which is to amend the existing legislation to move the election date back to the original date and to see that particular issue no longer in place in the bill so that we can move forward with strengthening our democracy and with making sure that Canadians can fully participate in the electoral processes.

There is a lot of work that needs to be done to strengthen our democracy. This is an important step in the right direction, which I am fully in support of. The NDP has done a tremendous amount of work to make this legislation happen and to see all of this work put into place. There is more that needs to be done. I hope that my colleagues in this chamber will continue the important work of looking at electoral reform and looking at implementing a system of proportional representation.

The Liberal Party campaigned on the 2015 election being the last first-past-the-post election. Now would be a really wonderful time to see the Liberals follow through with that promise so that Canadians could see their votes adequately and effectively represented right here in the House of Commons. With that, I will say that this is an important bill. There is some work that needs to be done, but it is vitally important that all members unite to see Canadians show up at polling stations, feeling confident in our democracy and in their votes.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they are talking about dropping the idea of postponing the official election date, which is the third Monday in October, for a totally absurd reason. That is truly bizarre. I can find no other word for it. I wonder how that ended up in the bill. Why is that in the bill?

In this discussion, the NDP has said that it will introduce an amendment, and that we should believe them. Of course everyone appears to want to introduce an amendment to this aspect if the bill is referred back to committee. Why do we not adopt the bill now, and settle once and for all the matter of postponing the date of the election so that it can be referred back to committee? I wonder what formal guarantee we have that it will disappear and we will not have to live with it.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of responses around that. First of all, I am so pleased to hear that the member is in support of this legislation so that we can get it to committee to ensure that we are moving in the right direction. I am seeing a “no”, but I would like to clarify. That is what I heard, so I apologize if that is not what the member was saying. To clarify, first, this legislation needs to make sure we look at increasing accessibility for Canadians to be able to cast their ballots. We do need to look at other things that happen in those timelines.

I believe that the strength in this legislation is that we would be looking at not having all of our options on one day. Rather, we would be looking at Canadians having multiple ways in which they could participate, such as expanding the advance voting days and having the polling stations accessible and available. We need to not have just one day as the main date. That would help resolve many issues we are talking about today.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, with respect to the whole issue around changing the election date, I appreciate it, and I support the member's initiative to change the date. Maybe at committee they would find that a week earlier is better because it would help to accomplish a bunch of things, and I think that would be great.

I took note about the issue of proportional representation the member talked about. If we go back to the supply and confidence agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, some issues listed under “democracy” are these: a “commitment to...work with Elections Canada to...expand [voter participation]”, a change of the election rules to “[allow] people to vote at any polling place”, “[improvements to]...mail-in ballots” so that “voters...are not disenfranchised” and a commitment “to ensuring that Quebec's number of seats in the House of Commons remains [consistent].” There was no talk, in the supply and confidence agreement with the Liberals, about proportional representation. If it is an issue that is so important to the NDP, why did they not bring it up and put it into that agreement?

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I know, as a fact, that this issue was brought up by the NDP with the Liberals to try to get it into the supply and confidence agreement. We could not get the Liberals to agree. This is an unfortunate series of events.

However, I would like to reiterate that there was an opportunity, aside from this legislation we are talking about today, for the Liberals to show their support for proportional representation and for electoral reform when I brought forward Motion No. 86, recently. That motion came to a vote, in this exact chamber, for members of Parliament to vote for a national citizens assembly on electoral reform so that Canadians could provide their voices on how to best move forward.

[An hon. member]

I voted in favour.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard that the member voted in favour, but many of the Liberals and the Conservatives, which I would like to call the “Conservative-Liberal coalition”, voted against the motion moving forward, so we did not see Motion No. 86 pass.

Perhaps the Liberals, who are in the position of power, could put forward legislation to see electoral reform happen.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her work and congratulate her on her speech.

What we are seeing today with this bill is the NDP once again forcing the Liberals to make our voting system more accessible. As my colleague mentioned, that is the least of it for the New Democrats, who have far more ambitious goals. She spoke of her Motion No. 86, which, unfortunately, was rejected by both Liberal and Conservative members.

My colleague also spoke about the Liberal Party's betrayal regarding electoral reform. The Liberals told us that the first-past-the-post system would never be used again. The New Democrats continue to promote a proportional representation system because it is fair, it fosters better democracy and it respects the will of the people and what Canadians want.

Why is having proportional representation so important for the people my colleague represents and for our democracy?

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for all of his work. One thing that gave me optimism when putting forward Motion No. 86, despite it failing, was that members across party lines voted in favour of looking at how to improve our electoral system and strengthen our democracy. This gives me the optimism to believe that just because Motion No. 86 did not pass, it does not mean there are no opportunities for members of Parliament to make it happen. The Liberal government is in power right now, and it can make it happen today. It can follow through with its promise that the 2015 election would be the last first past the post election, but it is too late for that.

How about this? The upcoming election will no longer be a first past the post election and we can move forward with a system of proportional representation. That can happen today. The Liberals can follow through with their promise, although with a very long delay. My hope is that will happen.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the fact that a lot of aspects in the legislation would provide strength to the Elections Act. It would make it stronger, healthier and better for Canadians and our democratic system as a whole. I cited things such as enhancing accountability for individuals donating to the campaign, issues like cryptocurrency and other ways to shed more light on it.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on some of the things that we do not necessarily talk much about during this debate. A lot of detail within the legislation would add a great deal of value and strength to our elections.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

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.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

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?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

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?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

As a reminder, members can ask questions or make comments.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

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?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

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.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

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.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

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.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, despite the growth in popularity of advance polls and special ballots, voting on polling day still remains the most popular option for how Canadians vote. That is why our government also wants to pave the way to make it easier and more convenient for those who vote on election day to eventually be able to vote at any polling station in their electoral district. This would shorten lineups for voting, provide more options for voting, make voting more convenient and allow election officers to make better use of their time. However, this significant change can only be done after the appropriate technology and procedures have been tested, to ensure the integrity of the voting process.

This is why Bill C-65 asks the Chief Electoral Officer to prepare two reports for Parliament on implementing voting at any polling station through a phased approach.

The first report, which must be tabled 120 days before the next fixed-date election, would outline the measures that would be put in place for the 2025 election, so that voters can vote at any table within their riding's polling station in 2025. This is a critical first step for voters, to be able to walk into their polling station and go to whoever is available to cast their ballot, rather than waiting in line based on alphabetical order of their last names. This is possible because Elections Canada has been testing the use of an electronic list of electors to ensure the success of this technology, including in the Durham by-election earlier this year.

The second report, to be tabled in 2027, would look at what is needed for voters to be able to vote at any polling station anywhere in their riding by 2029. This report would outline expected costs, new technology and any legislative amendments needed for full implementation. These are critical milestones toward giving electors the flexibility to be able to vote in person anywhere in their riding.

I also want to take a moment to highlight the targeted new initiatives that would make voting easier for post-secondary students, residents of long-term care facilities and electors who may require assistance in marking their own ballot, such as electors with disabilities.

For students, Bill C-65 would enshrine the vote on campus program that Elections Canada has offered in past general elections. Working with willing post-secondary institutions, as it did in 2015 and 2019, Elections Canada would set up offices on campus so that Canadian students studying anywhere in Canada would be able to easily vote for any candidate in the student's home riding during a general election. In 2015, close to 70,000 electors cast their votes through this initiative at 39 post-secondary campuses. In 2019, more than 110,000 electors voted at approximately 100 post-secondary campuses. Currently, an estimated 120 campuses across the country are set to host the program at the next general election.

With respect to residents in long-term care, the pandemic highlighted for all of us in this chamber the challenges faced by those residents when trying to vote. During the 2021 election, the Chief Electoral Officer rose to this challenge and established a process for those residing in long-term care facilities to vote safely. Bill C-65 would facilitate voting for the residents in long-term care homes across Canada, building on the success of the Chief Electoral Officer's temporary changes made in 2021.

First, returning officers would work with the staff of these facilities to identify the most convenient dates and times for residents to vote. Voting would continue to be 12 hours in total but could be spread over more than one day to take into account the specific needs of residents.

Second, proof of address would no longer be required for those residents choosing to vote in their long-term care facilities. Many residents have difficulty proving their residence because identity documents are often in the possession of family members, or they no longer have a driver’s licence, which is the most common proof of residence. This change removes an unnecessary obstacle to voting for those in long-term care.

In addition, the Canada Elections Act already permits electors to request and receive assistance at the polls, including to mark their ballot, from Elections Canada officials, friends or family. However, this assistance is currently limited to a friend, spouse or family member. Bill C-65 proposes to remove these restrictions and give electors the freedom to choose their assistant, including caregivers or personal support workers. To maintain both the integrity and the secrecy of the vote, a solemn declaration would continue to be required from the assistant. Election workers would also continue to be available to assist electors if needed.

The final measure to support participation in our electoral process that I will speak to is the proposal that the Chief Electoral Officer prepare a report for Parliament on a three-day election period for any general elections held in 2029 and beyond. This report would allow for a detailed consideration of the feasibility and the path forward, given the considerable operational shift and electoral integrity implications that a three-day election period would bring. It would also identify challenges and potential solutions for implementation.

The second key priority of Bill C-65 is further protecting the personal information of Canadians. In this day and age, personal information is a coveted commodity that must be protected, including in the electoral process and by federal political parties.

In order to do so, the government took a first step in 2018 through Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act, introducing the first-ever policy requirements as a condition of party registration. Another step was taken last year through Bill C-47, the Budget Implementation Act, 2023, to affirm that the Canada Elections Act is the exclusive and national regime applicable to federal political parties and those acting on their behalf.

Bill C-65 proposes to expand on these measures to better protect personal information. In order to be a duly registered political party with Elections Canada, each political party must already provide a policy on the protection of personal information. This condition of registration would be maintained, but Bill C-65 adds the following new privacy policy requirements.

Political parties must have the appropriate physical, organizational and technological safeguards, such as locked filing cabinets, in place and must restrict access to those who need it. It would ensure that suppliers or contractors who receive personal information from political parties have the equivalent safeguards in place. Parties must notify affected individuals in the event of a serious breach. It would also prohibit political parties from selling personal information, providing false or misleading information regarding why personal information is collected, and disclosing personal information to cause harm.

The privacy regime under the Canada Elections Act recognizes that outreach, communication and engagement between federal political parties and voters are essential to a healthy, modern democracy. Personal information is at the root of the dialogue between political parties and the Canadian electorate. It is therefore essential that this information be protected accordingly, which is exactly what Bill C-65 proposes to do.

Finally, I am proud to highlight the measures proposed in Bill C-65 to safeguard the electoral process.

This year is an important year for elections around the world. While Canada's next federal election is not scheduled until 2025, over 60 countries, encompassing almost 50% of the world's population, will have elections in 2024. I would like to highlight the elections that were just concluded this month in the largest democracy in the world, India, where about one billion people were eligible to vote, approximately 900-odd million, with about 60% turnout. I think the elections were held over a period of seven to eight weeks. Interestingly, I am told that it is proposed, going forward, that in the next general elections in India, the federal elections will be held simultaneously with about 32 states, 32 provinces, in India.

As I mentioned earlier, we are fortunate in Canada to have one of the most secure and reliable electoral systems in the world. Canada's electoral system is grounded in accessibility, fairness and integrity through the Canada Elections Act. Canadians have confidence in their electoral system. In a survey by Elections Canada following the 44th general election, 82% of participants felt that Canada's voting system was safe and reliable. Yet, Canada's democracy, like other democracies globally, is being tested. Rising security threats that undermine the credibility of democratic elections include foreign interference, disinformation, the misuse of evolving technologies and the threat against its participants.

To address these concerns, Bill C-65 introduces a series of amendments to the Canada Elections Act to further protect the integrity of the electoral system from these threats.

The Canada Elections Act already has strong and wide-ranging measures to help counter these threats to the electoral system. However, as the threats evolve, so too must our response. Currently, certain provisions of the Canada Elections Act apply only during elections. Since people and entities with ill intentions do not limit their activities to a specific time frame, Bill C-65 would expand certain provisions beyond the election period. This includes expanding existing bans so that they are not limited to the election period, specifically those against foreign influence on an elector to not vote or to vote in a certain way, and misleading publications that falsely purport to be from someone they are not, such as the Chief Electoral Officer or a political party.

Like all my hon. colleagues in this House, I have great faith in, and a deep appreciation for, Canada and its democratic institutions. Bill C-65 would further strengthen Canada's world-renowned electoral system, which is at the heart of our democratic system.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with this bill the government is proposing that the 2025 elections be held a week later than the date that had been set.

The government claims that this is on account of a religious holiday, Diwali, a festival held by the Hindu religious group. Apparently there are other groups that celebrate it as well, namely the Sikhs and Buddhists.

I quickly logged on to the Statistics Canada site to ascertain the proportion of religious groups present in Canada. The site counts over 21 religious groups. I noted that 2.3% of Canada's population is Hindu, 2.1% Sikh and 1% Buddhist.

What this government is proposing to do, then, is to push back the elections to allow less than 4.5% of the Canadian population to celebrate their religious holiday. I would remind members that in Canada, over 34.6% of the population do not practise any religion and 29.9% are Catholic, so I find this a little curious. I have to ask myself whether it is not irresponsible, or even dangerous, to start changing such an important date as the federal election date on account of a religious holiday.

I was speaking about the 21 religious groups identified. There are probably a number of religious holidays for these groups, perhaps more than 365, so if we try to be fair, we might end up never finding a day during the year to hold the federal elections.

I wonder whether it is not irresponsible on the government's part to invoke this reason for postponing the elections.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a Hindu by religion, I do not need the election date to be postponed so I can celebrate my religious holiday. As the member mentioned, there are many religious groups in Canada. There are Jewish Canadians, Buddhist Canadians and Muslim Canadians. To accommodate every single religious day not being affected by election day would be very difficult going forward.

One of the flexibilities proposed in this legislation is to provide the Chief Electoral Officer the flexibility to determine a fixed date on which the election should, depending on the circumstances surrounding that date. It can be similar to provincial or municipal elections. What we are promoting is to provide flexibility. I agree that we cannot start making exceptions based on the religious requirements of various Canadians.

This is not the only issue on the election date. I was recently at committee when one of the major corporate players declined to appear, stating that it was during the quiet period enforced by the Ontario Securities Commission. Parliament is supreme. We cannot make exceptions based on witnesses called to appear before any parliamentary committee.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who has really opened the debate and discussion on electoral reform in this Parliament.

One of the things the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith raised today was the opportunity for persons with disabilities to have an independent and private vote in an election, even from home, if we go to what could be telephone voting. I want to know what the member thinks about the fact that there are persons with disabilities who do not have the opportunity to secretly and privately vote in an election because they need an assistant.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the important things we have proposed is to ask the Chief Electoral Officer to submit a report on how we can make it easier for people with different abilities to actively participate in elections by using whatever technologies are made available.

The member mentioned voting by telephone. I am not very sure that, as of today, the technology is secure enough for any Canadian to vote privately using the telephone as a voting system. Hopefully, in the future, the technology will advance so that every single Canadian, with whatever abilities, should be able to vote privately and securely.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about diversity in Canada. When I think of diversity, I think of Eid celebrations taking place today in our Muslim community, or Christmas celebrations in the month of December, or Diwali, a festival of lights, light over darkness, and I participate in that. We do not have to be of a particular faith to enjoy or participate in a celebration.

We need to put into perspective that the suggestion brought forward also reflects on the fact that there is a municipal, province-wide election taking place in the province of Alberta, in Calgary and Edmonton, with two million-plus people. Is that not worth at least giving some thought to and, at the very least, sending this legislation to committee? The minister has indicated he will support the will of the committee.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. There is an municipal election in Alberta, with about two million Canadians participating, and we need to look at changing the date of the election. At the same time, as a Hindu by religion, I do not want it signalled that the Canadian government is making any concessions to Canadians, due to their religious faith and practices, that the election date needs to be changed.

As the hon. member said, Diwali is not just celebrated by Hindu Canadians. Many other Canadians of different religious faith groups also participate, like we participate in all religious faith groups and heritage events of Canadians.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have an interesting question related to the government's commitment to indigenous peoples. It has been very obvious that the government publicly has stated that it supports indigenous peoples' rights, most particularly the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Particular to that document, it suggests, in article 5, that:

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.

Does the member have any comments as to when or how the government will continue to advance reconciliation, continue to advance the principles of the United Nations declaration, in particular to this legislation, and ensure that indigenous people can be seen as self-determining and even sovereign if they so choose?

Could the member speak to his support, if he does have it, of indigenous people's pursuit of self-determination and sovereignty?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has done tremendous work on the reconciliation process with indigenous communities. Even in this bill specifically, I can state that for many indigenous people who live in the northern parts, in the remote parts, we have made specific efforts so that their participation in the electoral process is pain-free.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as is often the case with the Liberals, this is a pretty hypocritical piece of legislation. On the pretext of expanding democracy or access to democracy for senior citizens, students and so forth, we are presented with a bill that is actually aimed at allowing Liberal members at risk of losing their election to qualify for a pension.

If such a thing is even possible in the House, I would like my colleague to tell us in good conscience what he thinks of the substance of this bill. At a time when there is a housing crisis, when senior citizens are struggling and when every dollar is needed to help Canadians, what does he think of the fact that we are spending hours debating and voting on a bill aimed solely at allowing Liberal members to collect a pension? When he looks into his heart, what does he think of this?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's Canadian democratic system is the envy of the world. One of the reasons why we are the best in the world is that we always try to improve on what we have now.

The member touched upon students and seniors in long-term care facilities. We have made provisions especially to encourage easier voting by seniors in long-term care facilities and voting by students on campus, which is increasing year by year. In 2015, around 70,000 students voted. That increased to more than 110,000 in 2019, and it will increase much further in 2025.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

The Liberals call it Bill C-65, the electoral participation act, but maybe it would be more accurately titled as the “Help our friends qualify for a pension act.” Perhaps that was an unwritten part of the deal by which the New Democrats have propped up the incompetent Liberal government for two years, two years that have shown us this was not a good deal for Canadians.

The NDP pharmacare program only covers two types of medication, which is not what Canadians were promised. It is just another broken promise, like so many the NDP have supported.

Now, though, there would be guaranteed pensions for those first elected to the House of Commons in the general election of 2019, pensions they would not qualify for if the 2025 election were held at its scheduled date of October 20, 2025. What a reward for propping up the Liberals.

This bill, rather than encouraging electoral participation, would delay the day when Canadian voters can hold parliamentarians to account in a federal election. In the process, it ensures that taxpayers are on the hook for millions of dollars in pension payments that might not have been required.

The government tells us that the next election cannot be held as scheduled on October 20, 2025, because it conflicts with Diwali, a festival celebrated by many Canadians. The Liberals want to move it a week later, to October 27. It is merely a coincidence that 80 members of Parliament would qualify for a pension on October 26, 2025, a pension they would not qualify for if they were to be defeated on October 20 or if they choose not to offer themselves to the voters once more.

Of course, just about every day is a holiday or a special occasion for someone. October 20, 2025, is Guatemala's revolution day. It is also Heroes' Day in Kenya, Jamaica and the British Virgin Islands. For Jews, it is Sukkoth. Let us not forget the date is also International Chefs Day and World Osteoporosis Day. Serbia will be celebrating Belgrade Liberation Day on that day. In Vietnam, it is Women's Day. In Ukraine, it is breast cancer awareness day. Those are all dates worthy of celebrating, even if the Liberals do not mention them as important enough to mention as a reason for changing the fixed election date.

There is no perfect date for an election, no date that does not conflict with something else for some people. That is why we already have advance polling in place. Even more, those unable to get to an advance poll can vote anytime at the returning office in their riding.

No one is being forced to vote on Diwali. Who is the government trying to fool? The date change is not about Diwali; it is about securing pensions. If that were not the case, why not move the date earlier in October or even into September?

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation tells us that the change means 80 additional MPs would be eligible to collect a pension. The estimated lifetime pension costs, should all 80 of those members lose their seats or opt to retire rather than face voters, is $120 million.

We already know that $120 million means nothing to the Liberals. Having saddled Canadians with record deficits and the biggest national debt in our history, they apparently do not see that as an amount worth worrying about. What they do not seem to realize is that people care about government spending.

Canadians understand debts must be repaid. Canadians know it is ludicrous to pay more on interest to service the debt than we pay on health care. Canadians realize that such a fiscal irresponsibility needs to stop. It is also too bad that Liberals and their NDP allies seem incapable of grasping the simple math involved.

As custodians of the public purse, the $120 million should make us pause and think before supporting this legislation. However, neither the Liberals nor the NDP have shown any understanding of the value of a dollar. They seem to believe that government can spend and spend, and who cares if it is our grandchildren or great-grandchildren who have to pay the bills. All that matters is that they get their pensions.

I am sure that once I am finished and the floor is open to questions, some brave Liberals or New Democrats will point out to me that there are many Conservatives who would benefit if the bill passes. That is true, but Conservatives are united in their opposition to the legislation, even those who stand to benefit if it passes. This is a matter of principle and honour. Conservatives do not believe in changing the rules to benefit themselves.

I would like to list the names of those who are set to benefit from the legislation. The Canadian people need to know who would make money from the change. I think those names should be in the record of the House; however, the rules prevent me from naming them. The rules and conventions of this place, as it is sometimes the case, allow members to pretend that the truth does not matter. What Canadians do know is that when the former members of Parliament receive the pension cheques, money that came from Canadian taxpayers, they will have the former members' names on them.

They will not be addressed to “the minister of the environment” or to “President of the Treasury Board”. Nowhere will the cheques read “payable to the parliamentary secretary” or “payable to Minister of Environment and Climate Change”. Whether they are for the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona or the member of Parliament for Don Valley North, the pension cheques will have their names, the names of real people, but under the rules, I cannot mention those names here.

No wonder so many Canadians are fed up with this place and feel that all politicians are hypocrites. I should point out that any member who would be affected by the date change, anyone who was first elected in the general election of 2019, would be in a conflict of interest if they vote in favour of the bill.

The Conflict of Interest Act is quite clear:

...a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests.

[Furthermore] no public office holder shall make a decision or participate in making a decision related to the exercise of an official power, duty or function if the public office holder knows or reasonably should know that, in the making of the decision, he or she would be in a conflict of interest.

No minister of the Crown, minister of state or parliamentary secretary shall, in his or her capacity as a member of the Senate or the House of Commons, debate or vote on a question that would place him or her in a conflict of interest.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

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.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

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?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

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.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

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?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

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.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

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?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, that opens up a huge answer to a large question.

As many members know, I was one of the MPs who—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

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.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

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?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

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.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

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.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member, frankly, to pay attention during question period. There is his evidence.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

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—

[Warren Steinley]

Oh, oh!

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

—support that amendment, even the member for Regina—Lewvan, who is shouting in the House right now—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member should exit the chamber, if he prefers to yell out.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has the floor.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an unruly, motley crew over there on the Conservative benches. We will see how unruly they get as the evening rolls on.

The reality is that all Conservatives should be supporting the bill with the NDP amendment, and here is why: The Conservatives have not spoken one iota about this throughout this debate. They always talk about having more debating time. They never seem to actually read the bills that we are debating. Not a single one, not a single Conservative commented on these facts in any of their speeches. What the bill does is to add two additional days of advance polling, which includes a total of seven advance days and polling days, including election day. That is a good thing, to have more access for elections. In addition, it enshrines in legislation the vote on campus program for post-secondary students. We want to have young people voting. Not a single Conservative talked about that. Why would Conservatives oppose having post-secondary students and people on campus actually voting?

The bill also makes voting easier in long-term care facilities across the country. The elders of our nation, those who have given so much for this country, often have difficulty voting. Why would Conservatives oppose ensuring that long-term care residents actually have the right to vote? One would expect that this would be the first thing that would lead them to support the bill. I imagine that not a single Conservative has even read the bill, because if they had read it, one would expect them to mention that it increases protections against election interference and foreign financing during election campaigns. With all of those provisions, things that the NDP pushed for and that we have in Bill C-65, why would Conservatives oppose the legislation?

I believe that Conservatives are taking their lead from what we are seeing happening with the deplorable Republican Party south of the border. What Republicans have noticed is that they cannot win a free and fair election. We have seen the extent to which MAGA Republicans are actually willing to usurp democracy. It has shades of what we saw a century ago, in Europe, when the far right movement basically threw out elections and destroyed democracy in one country after another. MAGA Republicans, knowing that they cannot win a free election, have decided that they are going to exclude wide swaths of the population from actually having the right to vote. They are trying to limit voting, in the way that we saw in the 19th century, when large groups in the population could not vote.

This, as well, comes back to the deplorable record of the Harper government. What the Harper government did, when the member for Carleton had the lead in that file, was to try to restrict and limit voting, to try to make it more difficult for groups of Canadian citizens to actually vote. They succeeded in putting up so many roadblocks and obstacles that it made it harder for poor Canadians, for younger Canadians, for racialized Canadians and for indigenous peoples to vote. They put restrictions on that sacred right to vote in democracy.

When colleagues hear the Conservative opposition say that they are not going to pass the legislation, that they are going to fight it tooth and nail, it is because this is a tradition in the far right. We see this with the MAGA Republicans, who cannot win a free and fair election. The MAGA Republicans are trying to cheat to win victory, to usurp democracy, to try to ensure that they can win, regardless of the cost to our institutions and to our democracy. We have seen the foreign interference that is writ large.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I am hoping that means the Oilers have just scored, but I am sure somebody will rise on a point of order and perhaps update the House. If anybody is aware, if anybody has any information, I would be more than pleased to be interrupted.

Does somebody know what is going on, even you, Madam Speaker?

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I think the hon. member just got his answer.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is the sweetest point of order I have ever heard from a Conservative in the House. I thank my colleague for raising that point.

Madam Speaker, getting back to more serious matters, our democracy is not to be trifled with. We all think back to the days in 2015 when the current Prime Minister promised to overhaul our electoral systems and make them even more democratic. With proportional representation, we would have a much different House, as members know. There would not be 24 or 25 NDP MPs, but nearly 70. There would be fewer Liberal MPs, Conservative MPs and Bloc MPs. There would be more Green Party MPs.

What it would do is change the composition of the House. That is why so many countries around the world have adopted proportional representation. The idea would be to have a fair electoral system where votes count and where there is, through mixed member proportional, the ability to cast one's ballot both for local candidates and also for a larger percentage that is divided up. It would reflect, in the House of Commons, more faithfully how Canadians actually vote.

The Prime Minister, at the time, in 2015, undertook that solemn commitment. He said that it was the last election that was first past the post. We saw the results: He reneged on that when it suited him. We know that if in the next election, whenever that comes, the New Democrats become the governing party in this country, we will bring in proportional representation. We will make sure that it truly is the last first-past-the-post election, because that would be in the interest of Canada. That is why we and our leaders have campaigned over the years to make sure that we have a fair electoral system.

However, it is not just about the system itself; it is also about giving people access to voting. This is why the bill is important. The NDP pushed hard to make sure there were provisions in place in the bill that would actually ensure that the next election has the greatest participation possible of Canadians of all ages, all backgrounds and all colours and creeds, to make sure that every Canadian has a right to vote.

That is why we pushed so hard for additional days of advance polling. Canadians are working hard. As Conservatives have said, the New Democrats are the worker bees in Parliament. We work hard on behalf of our constituents and we know that they are sometimes working 12-hour and 16-hour shifts. On an election day, even though they do have the right to go to vote, it sometimes is impossible for them to do so. Therefore having additional days of advance polling would ensure that we do have in place the ability for every Canadian to vote.

In post-secondary institutions and apprenticeship and trade schools there are sometimes real challenges for the youth of this country to get out to vote. That is why we pushed hard to ensure that the vote on campus program for post-secondary students would be put into place. That, again, would be vitally important for the next election, to ensure that every Canadian has that right.

Making voting easier in long-term care facilities is something I feel particularly strongly about, because the last election, in 2021, was the last election that my father and mother voted in. They were in a long-term care facility. I took them to vote in that election. They both passed away shortly thereafter. A few weeks after the election, my father passed away. It was a year later that my mother passed away. I was able to take them to the polls to vote, but there were other residents of that long-term care facility who could not vote that day.

We need to make sure that long-term care residents who have contributed their lives to this country, to building this country and to ensuring that this country is the free and fair democracy that is the envy of the world, can vote. For long-term care facilities to not have special voting provisions to ensure that every resident could vote does a disservice to those incredible sacrifices that long-term care residents have made over the course of decades to our country, so we pushed hard for that to make sure it was in place.

That is why we are proud to see that in the legislation. We also need to ensure that we do not have the election interference and foreign interference that has been reflected in the NSICOP report. They are profoundly worrisome allegations of foreign interference, particularly around the Conservative leadership conventions and particularly in 2021. We need to find out about the extent of that foreign interference.

We have seen other democracies suffering under foreign interference, whether it was the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom or the election of Donald Trump in 2016. These are cases of documented foreign interference that had profound impacts on those democracies.

We need to make sure that this does not happen in Canada. That is why we pressed for these provisions in Bill C-65, to ensure that we increase protections against election interference and that we stop the ability of foreign financing of third-party campaigns or of the parties or candidates themselves. We all need to take that threat to our democracy seriously because this foreign interference does not come from countries that have a democratic tradition. This comes from foreign dictators who have control over their countries and who want to extend that control to Canada.

We need to ensure that we have full access for all Canadians in the next election campaign, that we open those ballots for advance polling early, and that we ensure that we have a free and fair election. That is why the NDP is supporting this bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 8:38 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, June 17, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

[Chair read text of amendment to House]

If a member present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would ask for a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 19, at the expiry for the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from June 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of Mr. Cooper to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-65.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #848

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare the amendment defeated.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The next question is on the main motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #849

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill will stand referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)