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.

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleague. I appreciate that there's a lot of information that I want to bring forward, and my goodness, it's not hard to be able to bring it back to long-term care homes. The robocall scandal of course applies to long-term care homes. The robocall scandal phoned many, many humans across Canada, including those in long-term care homes, with information.

Let's see here; I have some points around this robocall scandal that was put forward. Robocalls and human calls were originating from the Conservative Party campaign office in Guelph. We know that these were designed specifically to suppress the vote by misleading electors about the location of their polling stations. In 2011, again bringing it back, I don't know if the long-term care homes were being provided with polling stations at that time. I don't believe they were. Perhaps I can get some clarification on that.

Certainly, when we have people who are residing in long-term care homes receiving phone calls that are providing them with a location of their polling station that isn't in fact the location of their polling station, I don't know about everybody around this table, but I would imagine that there would be consensus that this is a big problem.

We know that there are provisions within Bill C-65 that specifically touch on.... Oh, there are no provisions. Excuse me. Again, this speaks to something that needs to be addressed and that needs to be talked about at more length. Those in long-term care homes deserve to know where they are voting and how they can do so. They deserve to have that clarity in place. Again, it's a given that we would support legislation that ensures that people in long-term care homes have access to polling stations in the most barrier-free way possible and that they are able to do so in an effective manner.

We hear from seniors across the country who have contributed to our country for generations. The work they did is the reason we are able to enjoy so much that we enjoy today. To sit here and to have Conservatives purposely not wanting to see legislation moving forward that would in fact help seniors who are in long-term care homes, that would make sure people understand clearly how to vote, and that would reduce barriers so that we see a strengthened democracy is just....

I can't even bring to words the level of frustration there is in being in this position—representing the good people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, sitting at this table, and knowing that we have legislation that can move us forward in sound ways, with movement in the right direction to have fewer barriers to showing up at the voting station, but instead having the Conservatives use this as a fundraising effort and seeing Conservatives use this as an opportunity to spread misinformation and division amongst Canadians. It's beyond me.

When I first got elected, call me naive, but I was optimistic that this would be an opportunity for us to be able to have these really important discussions. This is what we were elected to do. Instead—I don't even know if this is parliamentary or not—my soul gets sucked every day I have to come in here and listen to the Conservatives spreading misinformation, and the hate that it is fuelling in our communities, because of the fact that fundraising is more important than the rights of Canadians to pass their ballots at the polling stations barrier-free.

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

I'm not the Chief Electoral Officer. I won't pretend to have the same level of knowledge. That's why I lean on experts in the field to provide recommendations to me. It's so I can figure out the best path forward.

One of the recommendations is around flexible voting services. The recommendation says:

To reduce barriers to voting for residents of long-term care facilities, amend the Act as follows:

Authorize additional flexibility for voting days and times in such facilities.

Allow electors residing in long-term care facilities to vote with proof of identity only when voting in the facility.

I thought this was an interesting point the Chief Electoral Officer put in this report, since many of the questions the Conservatives asked our witnesses, who have incredible skill and expertise, today were around long-term care facilities. How many hours has it been? I wish I'd had documented the time. They were asking questions about supports for people living with disabilities.

I don't think I'm allowed to talk about amendments that have been put forward, but it's interesting to see the ways in which the Conservatives try to diminish any movement forward to provide additional supports for people living with disabilities, so residents in long-term care homes can access voting in a way that is reflective of barrier-free voting. That's what I'm trying to say.

This is not something that happens just in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. I'm certain Conservative members around this table have heard directly from Canadians and constituents in their ridings about the barriers they have faced for a long time now, in particular by those living with disabilities.

There is work that needs to be done to reduce barriers so people living with disabilities can cast their ballot and be assured their vote is counted and clear. We've heard from witnesses about this, in particular. There were problems around one of our witnesses, who, unfortunately—because of another Conservative filibuster—was unable to provide testimony in person. This particular witness has visual impairments and was speaking, alongside a legal expert, about the importance of having telephone voting in place. We know there are many reasons why telephone voting is a positive way for those living with disabilities to vote on their own and do so in a way that does not increase barriers to voting.

These are the types of things we need to be talking about as a committee, and not just talking about them but also implementing them in a bill. Then we should move forward with the bill so people living with disabilities can see the benefits and the solutions required for what it is we're talking about.

I don't know about everybody around this table, but I'm quite tired of our talking about the same thing 10 different ways. I'm hearing from Canadians across the country that they want to see solutions put in place. They want to see the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations, which are right here in front of us, being implemented, in order to ensure people can access the polls in a barrier-free way.

Regarding the long-term care facilities, my goodness, we've heard from constituents who are facing barriers because of the fact that they need to show certain types of evidence. We know that many people moving into these facilities don't have the documentation required. To see those barriers reduced would be a huge positive for so many Canadians.

Actually, this is something the Conservatives may be interested in, because I've heard this question asked today, as well, about six different ways. Recommendation 7.4.1 on page 51 of this report says:

To remove barriers, amend the Act to allow an elector to request assistance to mark their ballot from any individual of the elector's choosing, providing the individual makes the solemn declaration required.

This recommendation makes it very clear. A point was brought forward and a solution was recommended that was one of the components of Bill C-65 as it moved forward.

There are other pieces in here that I want to point out. Recommendation 9.2.1 on page 60 is a good one:

To protect the privacy and safety of returning officers, the requirement to publish the name, home address and occupation of returning officers in the Canada Gazette should be removed from the Act.

This is something that I don't think we've talked about too much at this table. I do want to point this one out.

I will tell you that in 2014, I was a single parent with two children. I still am, but my children were significantly younger at that time. I had decided that I wanted to get involved in our local politics. I wanted to see people in lower socio-economic families be able to have their voices heard. I was considering putting my name forward to run in that 2014 election.

I'll bring it around to why this is important. This is important because of the reason I decided not to run: I found out that my home address would have to be made public for everyone to see. Now, I had spoken to those who were in these positions prior about the human feces they'd had delivered to their door and about the level of harassment they'd received because their home addresses had been made public.

I had two young children, and at the time, there were certain instances after school where my children were home alone—at age-appropriate times—for half an hour here or an hour there. The thought that my children might be presented with a not-welcomed gift of human feces at the door was enough for me to make the decision to not run in that municipal election. It's so unfortunate. This is a barrier.

The reason I am talking about this is that it links directly to what is being talked about here around the privacy and safety of returning officers. We need returning officers in order for our democracy to run efficiently and effectively. We need them there to ensure that our democracy is strong. Publishing their home addresses and occupations in the Canada Gazette is just unnecessary. It's putting these people who have decided to do this important work in a position where they are unfairly placed in unsafe circumstances.

These are tangible items that we could put forward to make a real difference in seeing true participation in our electoral systems.

I am almost done here, Mr. Chair. I do want to bring forward a couple more in here. I think it is important that we are reminded of why we are here, that we are reminded of how important many of the components of this bill are and that we are not continuing to sit here and listen to Conservative misinformation and slogans for the rest of these meetings. I feel that it is important.

This is not my own opinion, to be clear. Again, these are recommendations from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. If we take a moment to remind ourselves of what those recommendations are, and perhaps reflect on how those recommendations are seen directly in Bill C-65, maybe that will allow us the opportunity to process and to realize that these recommendations were not just created out of thin air. These recommendations were brought forward by those who are experts in the field.

Another area brought forward in this report is around prohibiting certain false communications. Recommendation 4.1.1., which I hope the Conservatives are paying close attention to, reads as follows:

To protect against inaccurate information that is intended to disrupt the conduct of an election or undermine its legitimacy, amend the Act to prohibit a person or entity, including foreign persons and entities, from knowingly making false statements about the voting process, including about voting and counting procedures, in order to disrupt the conduct of the election or to undermine the legitimacy of the election or its results.

As much as I would like to say that it's not something we need to put into an act and that it's not something we ever need to worry about, well, by golly, we have evidence that that is not the case. We have seen first-hand what happens when Conservatives feel that they can spread misinformation.

There was a former member of Parliament, and I can't find the member's name or remember the story right now, but this can be fact-checked. There was a member of the Conservative Party who shared that he had seen ballots in the garbage can. I'm trying to remember the story.

I wish this could be more of a conversation, because I think more conversations are what we need to have around this table to move forward in the right direction. That Conservative had falsely claimed that ballots were.... I can't remember the exact wording, but basically, he said that people's ballots were not being used appropriately and that he saw them in a garbage can. Later, when evidence came out that this was not true, he took it back. I'd like to argue that a lot of damage had already been done by the time he decided that this was no longer a factual comment.

This is an example of somebody who was trying to purposely manipulate voters to think that something was untrue in order to influence the outcome of an election.

I also would like to point out what's so famously called the robocall scandal in 2011. I was not the member of Parliament for Nanaimo—Ladysmith at that time. In 2011, my goodness, I was working in the school system making sure that children were accessing school food programs, but I won't go down that road right now.

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I absolutely want to hear what my colleague has to say, but I do have more that I would like to say on this, so I will continue.

I found the outcome of the unanimous motion that was brought forward to be interesting but also not surprising. It's quite clear, and once again today it's been made clear, that the Conservatives are not actually interested in seeing solutions to this problem. They're not actually interested in us moving forward with solutions that Canadians are asking for. The reason is that, unfortunately, much to my dismay and to the dismay of constituents in Nanaimo—Ladysmith and Canadians across the country, the Conservatives are using this as a fundraising tactic. They're using this to spread misinformation in order to divide Canadians and in order to convince Canadians that they can't have trust in the people who have been elected. I have concerns that today we've seen once again that the Conservatives want to burn the place down instead of actually see true solutions be put into place to resolve this issue.

I can say with 100% certainty that my colleagues and I did not know that this particular change would result in this. It's frustrating that we're in this position. As soon as the information was brought forward that this was a problem, as soon as that was brought to our attention, we stood up to put forward a solution. To see the Conservatives express this so-called concern over the issue and yet continue to deny this committee the ability to resolve the issue is just.... I don't know how this could possibly be explained to Canadians across the country. I just don't know.

As I have said many times now, I've been sitting in this chair for I don't know how many hours. I wish I had kept track, because I'm certain Canadians would be interested. I can find this out. We've been sitting in these chairs listening to the Conservatives ask the same question 25 different ways in order to delay us moving forward on this important work.

I've also heard the Conservatives talking about things that are completely false. It has been so challenging for me to not call a point of order every 10 seconds to correct it, but do you know what? That's exactly what the Conservatives want me to do. The second I try to call out the misinformation that's being spread, before we even leave this committee, it's clipped and posted on social media. It's spread around completely out of context in order to pad their own pockets with more fundraising efforts to show how “corrupt” all members of Parliament are. It's completely frustrating, and Canadians are paying attention.

Canadians are paying attention today to what's occurring at this committee. Canadians are paying attention to the fact that once again the Conservatives have voted to not see solutions be put into place in order to benefit MP pensions.

I have just another thought on that. It's so interesting to me that when you actually look at the breakdown of the pensions of who would benefit from the particular clause in this bill, the Conservative members of Parliament are actually those who would benefit the most from this particular clause. I don't know if I can personally believe on one side telling Canadians that this cannot be in the bill and that they're not supporting it, and yet here we are in a position where we can resolve the issue and they are not. They are not choosing to resolve this issue.

I really do question the fact that we have the majority of Conservative members of Parliament who would benefit from this remaining in this bill who are today voting against a unanimous consent motion to resolve this issue. What does that mean? Again, I would never begin to pretend that I know the intentions of Conservative members of Parliament, but I do think Canadians should pay attention to those facts. The Conservatives are refusing to resolve this issue and they are in the fact the ones who benefit the most. That's just an interesting piece of information that Canadians should be aware of.

There are many reasons why I'm pushing to see this bill move forward for Canadians.

One piece of information the Conservatives are certainly not talking about is the recommendations that came forward from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. I know that in the “unfair elections act” the voice of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada was something that they most definitely did not want to hear more of.

If members of Parliament took a moment to read these recommendations in here, they would see direct connections between the information that is in Bill C-65 and the information that was put forward and proposed by the Chief Electoral Officer, which is interesting because many of the questions the Conservatives are asking, they're asking as if these were just constructed behind closed doors with.... They're right here. They're in the actual recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer.

A few of the recommendations that are in here relate directly to Bill C-65. I hear the member of parliament from the Conservatives who's heckling me. Perhaps I could provide him with a copy of this information if he'd like to look more closely at it. Perhaps I'm not presenting it as clearly as he would like, but it is quite clear here.

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

—is something that they will also be voting to see removed.

I am hearing the Conservatives, for lack of a better word, heckling me as I speak here. I am not quite certain why, because this is an opportunity for us to unite, to show Canadians that we hear their concerns and that we wish to move forward with a solution to this problem.

It's quite reasonable to me that we take the time to bring this to a vote so that we can show Canadians that we hear them and that we are going to be moving forward with this.

Perhaps I can share a little bit more around some of the background of this unanimous consent motion. It's been quite the process, and I've been sitting here listening to the Conservatives speak at length about their concerns and their many attacks on the intentions behind the NDP. I'm happy to be able to speak a little bit more about this.

I was newly elected in 2021. Upon getting elected, I made a commitment to constituents and to those I represent that I come to the House of Commons, that I represent them, that I speak on their behalf on concerns and that I keep my values intact. That is exactly what I have done.

When it was brought to my attention that there was a clause in this bill that would inadvertently provide members of Parliament with pensions that they would not have received otherwise, I did exactly what any parliamentarian should do, which is to stand in the House of Commons to propose a solution to this problem. The solution that I proposed was that we remove this entire part of the clause so that the date is no longer changed.

I stood in the House of Commons. I made this very clear. I made this clear to my constituents. I made this clear to Canadians across the country. Instead of looking for a resolution, Mr. Chair, the Conservatives stood up and basically said that they were no longer going to support this entire bill. Why? It's because there are some catchy slogans that they can attach to it.

The Conservatives found catchy slogans, and with their incredible fundraising efforts based on misinformation—I will commend them; they are quite successful in their fundraising efforts—they pushed out this information to Canadians that this bill had nothing to do with anything other than MP pensions.

This is disheartening, to say the least. We know there are many components of this bill that move us forward in strengthening our democracy, increasing representation, making sure that many of the issues in previous elections that were barriers to people fully participating in the election process are brought forward. Unfortunately, the Conservatives, in true Conservative fashion, which I've seen over and over since I've been elected, decided to oversimplify, find some catchy slogans and push this out over and over again.

I would like to highlight something that I brought forward in a previous meeting because it does contradict some of the things that I heard from the Conservatives. Specifically, on May 30, 2024, an article came out from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I like this particular article. Let's be honest. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation doesn't spend a lot of time saying nice things about the NDP, so let's just take a moment to celebrate that they acknowledged the important work the NDP is doing. I want to quote from it.

I asked Mr. Terrazzano about this. He was a previous witness here on this exact matter.

The article says:

Today the New Democrats announced they would oppose the government’s amendment to delay the next election. “All MPs must vote against pushing back the federal election and the NDP deserves credit for announcing plans to amend the legislation and scrap the delay,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Canadians are struggling, so there’s no way MPs should rig the system so more politicians can collect lucrative, taxpayer-funded pensions.”

You know, as expected, there is some pretty strong criticism against this being in the bill. To be clear, it's not that I don't think MP pensions are an important discussion. It's that I feel that if we're going to talk about MP pensions, we need to make it clear that we're talking about MP pensions and not see it added into a bill in a behind-the-scenes way. Canadians need transparency. Canadians deserve to know what it is we are debating in the House of Commons and to know our rationale for the decisions we are making. They need to know that the information is made available to them. That's not what we saw in the addition to this bill.

I think this is a reasonable solution for us to move forward with. I would also like to speak to the fact that throughout this time debating Bill C-65 and my short time on this committee, we have heard from the Conservatives many attacks on the fact that this work was done through a supply and confidence agreement with the Liberals and the NDP to be able to bring forward some ways for us to be able to strengthen our democracy. As is the process, it's here at committee for us to debate, to get various opinions and to understand the concerns and ultimately come together with an improved bill. I believe strongly that the key to our democratic processes is to ensure that we are hearing different perspectives. We may not agree, but I believe strongly that our coming together to hear these different perspectives allows for a stronger bill.

I was, however, a little taken aback, for lack of a better word, by the comments that were made as a result of the track record we have seen of the Conservatives. I was not here, but I did hear first-hand about Harper's.... What was it called again? Was it the “unfair elections act”? I believe that was its name.

I did have the chance to ask some of our witnesses about the unfair elections act and to also speak with the Minister of Democratic Institutions, because he was here—I was not fortunate enough to be here during that time—and find out if the Conservative government at that time spent any time at all consulting with the other parties who were elected at that time about this elections act they brought forward. In fact, the answer to that was “no”. We did not see any consultation happening at the time when the Conservatives brought forward this act, so it seems a little rich to be making this criticism.

I would argue that, fair enough, if the Conservatives wanted to bring forward a new elections act, the work would happen at this table. This is the process we have in place to make sure we have all opinions expressed, to bring in experts in the field who can clarify any questions we have, and to bring forward a bill that is stronger and meets the needs of Canadians.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I think we're 2.5 hours into Bill C-65. We've had many, many questions from the Conservatives on clause 2 of this bill. I want to put it in context here. As far as I know, in our package of amendments, and we have many, this clause has no amendments.

Could we check that with the legislative clerk? Were any amendments submitted for this clause?

I'm seeing a no.

[Rachel Pereira]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the questions from the members on this. This relates to clause 2 of Bill C-65. The witnesses may not be in a position to speak to potential foreign interference at long-term care facilities. We just wouldn't be in a position to speak to this, but we're happy to respond to to any sort of technical questions related to the bill. It's just something for the committee's consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Good morning, everybody.

We'll start the meeting immediately.

I call this meeting to order.

This is a resumption of meeting 137 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

This is a reminder to witnesses and others that if you're not using your earpiece, please place it on the sticker in front of you in order to avoid harmful audio feedback that can jeopardize the health and well-being of our translators.

Colleagues, we are here to resume clause-by-clause on Bill C-65.

We do have a couple of witnesses back with us today.

From the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, we welcome back Mr. Knight, the general counsel.

From the Privy Council Office, we have with us Candice Ramalho, senior policy adviser. Joining us virtually is Rachel Pereira, director, electoral and senatorial policy unit.

Mr. Blois, welcome to PROC. It's nice to see you here today.

Colleagues, with that, we are going to resume.

Mr. Cooper, the last time I checked my list, you maintained the floor, so I'm going to give you the floor, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My goal here today is to see us move forward on the work required on this bill, and to make sure Canadians have the facts when it comes to the work that's been put into this bill, and the content of the bill. This is the reason I was reading recommendations and justifications behind much of the information in Bill C-65. That was found directly in the report from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer.

I brought forward a unanimous consent motion for us to all come together and immediately vote on the amendment that would resolve the issue of the MP pensions. Of course, I was not successful with that, as the Conservatives voted against that. For that reason, I'm going to see if I can find a reasonable alternative solution that I hope my Conservative colleagues will stand behind. We know Canadians are asking for solutions to be put forward. Therefore, I have a potential alternative here. I would love it if we could get to the debate and vote on the amendment that would resolve the pension issue currently in place.

With that, I'm seeking unanimous consent, Mr. Chair, for the committee to stand on clause 2, clause 3 and clause 4, so we can immediately move to clause 5 and debate the important issues the Conservatives are bringing forward over and over again, and see solutions put forward so Canadians can have peace of mind.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll go back to where I had left off. I was raising questions about clause 2 of Bill C-65, which has implications with respect to polling stations and long-term care facilities during the writ period. I would make the general observation, based upon the response I received from Mr. Sampson, that Elections Canada....

I'll pose this to Elections Canada. It seems to me that Elections Canada is being asked to do more and more with fewer resources, at least fewer human resources, or is at least having difficulty in recruiting those resources. Is that a fair characterization?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the moment to reflect, because I realize I might not have been 100% clear about the intention of what I'm speaking to today. I want to make sure that everybody around the table is very clear that the intention is that we the election date moved back. This is something that has been brought up as a concern. The reason I want to see this date moved back is so that we don't see the unintentional benefits to members of Parliament receiving pensions who would not have received them otherwise.

The funny thing about this is that everybody around this table says that they agree, and so I'm unclear as to why this is a problematic or a contentious issue for me to bring forward. I cannot stress more that the NDP stood up immediately to put forward a solution to this issue. We heard the Bloc make it very clear that they do not want to see that clause in this bill, and don't want to see the benefits to pensions of members of Parliament as a result. The Conservatives made it very clear that they are not in support as well. The Liberals, by golly, also said that they are in support of our removing this portion of the bill.

I'm going to get to the point of this, but I just need to reiterate that, instead of our moving forward with the solution that can be so easily done, we have seen the Conservatives use this as a fundraising opportunity and as an opportunity to use quick catchy slogans that are spreading misinformation to Canadians about the intentions of parliamentarians. It's a very tragic series of events when Conservatives are spreading misinformation, because we are at a time, right now, when Canadians need to have faith in those they elect. They need to have faith in the people who are there to represent them, that we are standing by the values that we have and are doing what is in the best interest of Canadians, not just spreading misinformation to increase division and to use it for fundraising efforts.

To be clear, the amendment that I'm speaking of was put forward on June 18, 2024. I'll read it, but I'm going to clarify what this means. It's not in language that is very easy to understand because there are so many moving pieces. The amendment is that Bill C-65, in clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 32 on page 2 with the following, and it has, just to make it a little more confusing, the letters:

tion.

To clarify for Canadians who are wondering, this amendment would remove the portion of the bill that benefits MP pensions. It would remove that completely. It would take it out so that it's no longer an issue.

I can't think of a better solution to the problem than for us to support this amendment, have this completely taken out of the bill and move forward. This is an opportunity for all of us to stand by our words and, by this very simple solution to this problem, show Canadians that we hear them, and that, today, at a time when so many are struggling to make ends meet, we are not here to benefit our own pensions.

We are here to represent Canadians, to strengthen our democracy, to see legislation being put forward that hears concerns, to come together and to put something forward that ultimately benefits Canadians and not members of Parliament. That is not what I got elected to do, and so I will make clear that, today, I'm moving a unanimous consent motion to immediately move to a vote on NDP-2 so that we can see this issue resolved, once and for all, and so that all members of Parliament around this table can make their stance clear.

With that, I hope that makes it clear that this is a unanimous consent motion. If there's any further information you need from me, Mr. Chair, please let me know.

[Rachel Pereira]

Through the chair, Bill C-65 introduces new permanent polling stations within long-term care facilities. This is in addition to options that people in long-term care have. If they're able to leave the facility, they could vote on polling day like other electors. They can also vote at advance polls if they're able to leave the facility.

For those who are unable to leave, there will be polling stations set up across the country for those long-term care residents to vote. All of the procedures will be governed by existing procedures in the act that cover advance polling stations, so the management of the boxes and the opening and closing of the stations will all be governed by those rules for the residents in the care facility.

The only change to facilitate voting for those electors is that they will not need to provide their proof of residence if they are a resident in the long-term care facility. They still need to provide their identity, but that will enable those residents to vote, because they often don't have that type of proof of residence on hand. It might be with their families or elsewhere.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I just want some clarification on the long-term care.

During typical elections, mobile polling stations move into various facilities, various places.

What new is being added specifically with the change in Bill C-65? Is it increasing the scope of the long-term care facilities that would be potentially impacted? Are there limits on the number of residents per se? What flexibility will the returning officer have in ensuring that people in long-term care facilities actually get to participate in the electoral process? I've been in six federal elections, and inclement weather and other types of events in the past have been an obstacle as well.

Mrs. Pereira, can you specifically advise me and others here on what assurances we will have to make sure that those folks in long-term care facilities will actually be allowed to vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Good morning, colleagues.

I hope you have had a good week. Obviously, winter has come in earnest to Ottawa.

I am calling to order meeting 137 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Witnesses, welcome back.

I think you'll recall that should you not be using your earpieces, they are to be placed on the sticker in front of you in order to protect the health and well-being of our interpreters.

Colleagues, I'm not going to read the script again about why we're here. I think I did that last time, and we understand we are here to engage in a discussion on clause-by-clause of Bill C-65.

With that, colleagues, we are going to get into it. I've read the introductory notes already, colleagues.

The first order of business is that, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

(On clause 2)

Mr. Berthold, you have the floor.

Alleged Intimidation during Proceedings of the House

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I agree with you, but we find ourselves in this position because that is exactly what the NDP members have done with these outrageous and baseless accusations. I think it is only fair and just that, after making these kinds of allegations, the official opposition be allowed to not only defend ourselves and our integrity, but also put the actual facts of the matter before the Chair if the Chair is going to rule on this.

My NDP counterpart also claimed that pages were withdrawn from the opposition lobby because of what he alleged was the conduct of Conservative MPs. I was briefed by a representative of the House administration relating to the page program and was informed that the baseline issue that ultimately led to a decision being made happened earlier and was completely unrelated to behaviour in the lobby. It was an administrative issue within the page program itself.

I can also say that during the evening there were requests from one side to the other, from the NDP lobby, to turn the volume down on the television that was on. It is a request that was accommodated. This is in stark contrast to the actions of NDP members that evening.

I would also point out that I have been in this place a long time, and on both sides of the House. I have been in a situation where I have shared opposition lobbies with NDP members. They are often gathered together, having a jovial time, just as Conservatives were that evening. I have heard them playing guitars and leading each other in songs. That happens from time to time on late-night sittings. Both parties usually just accommodate each other when they are doing that. We have to share the same space. We try to stay out of each other's way.

This all has come as a complete shock to Conservative staff and Conservative MPs who viewed the events of that evening as exactly that. Our MPs in our corner of the lobby enjoying the evening, knowing that we were about to come in and vote on a confidence matter, having a playful time in the House of Commons, chirping the NDP members who were voting on another side of the issue, which they do all the time. They are now just being selectively sanctimonious.

That being said, let me talk a bit about the NDP member's conduct in the House. We saw unhinged conduct directed at the Conservative lobby coordinator by the NDP member for Vancouver East. Not once, but on two occasions on Thursday night, she used profane language and likened him to a certain body part. On the second occasion, an NDP staffer had to physically come between her and the staffer in question, much like how the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms had to direct the NDP deputy House leader away from the Conservatives she was harassing, as seen on the video that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have witnessed so far.

That interaction between the NDP member and the Conservative staff was an exercise of a position of power, to assert authority over and to bully an employee. There are witnesses to this conduct, as well as, I understand, a video, which I expect will be viewed in other forums.

Earlier in the evening, the hon. Conservative member for St. Albert—Edmonton was attempting to record a message for his constituents and Canadians about his work as our democratic reform shadow minister on Bill C-65, which proposes to delay the fixed-date election by a week in order to secure the pensions of 28 Liberal and NDP MPs.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As Mr. Turnbull himself mentioned in one of his interventions earlier in the meeting, imputing motives or comments to a colleague is not permitted. However, he has just done so by saying that we are perpetuating a misleading narrative. That's not true. What we're submitting here is our thinking on how we should act with respect to Bill C‑65. I would therefore ask him to choose his words carefully.