Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 31st, 2024

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Ms. Barron, you have two and a half minutes. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, again, to the witnesses.

I'm wondering, Mr. Sutherland, if you could speak a bit about the mail-in ballot process. What are the changes and current barriers? Every year, we hear about so many Canadians waiting for mail-in ballots. We know there are delays and problems.

Can you talk a bit about that?

[Allen Sutherland]

I'd be happy to.

This represents, as I think I said earlier, an important and growing element of how Canadians choose to exercise their franchise. There are a couple of elements that are proposed in the legislation for consideration.

The first is that for a fixed-date election, registration would be open during the pre-election period, to give more time for electors to register. The second is to offer an online registration option, which is particularly important for folks who may be overseas.

This is really intended to provide more flexibility to citizens. I may choose as a citizen to get a mail-in ballot, but I may, in the event, want to exercise my franchise the normal way by going to a polling station. You actually have the option to return your mail-in ballot in person at a polling station, again, to provide that flexibility.

We've already talked about permitting ballots with the name of the registered party. Part of that is because for mail-in ballots, it may not be known who the candidate is at the time when you want to fill in your ballot. That's part of why allowing the parties.... It's something that's done in most western provinces at the provincial level, by the way.

We're also making progress on allowing people to vote at any polling station, which isn't exactly mail-in balloting, but it allows greater flexibility in how you exercise your franchise.

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

There are many important points in there. I know I've heard from people who didn't get their mail-in ballot on time and then tried to show up at the polling station with it and were turned away because of that; they were not able to vote in person because they had the mail-in ballot. It's a big problem, and I'm happy that's being resolved.

Also, being able to vote at any polling station, in the recent British Columbia election, was a big bonus for British Columbians.

The last question I wanted to ask, although I think I'm running out of time, is around enshrining into legislation the vote on campus program. We saw vote on campus being removed recently, and we saw the student vote decrease along with community members' access to another polling station. I was hoping to get some information around that, but I think I'm out of time.

[Allen Sutherland]

Very quickly, I think you're right.

B.C., to be crystal clear, is a leader in this area. We're trying to follow them down that path. We're not going to be there for the next election, but the hope is in future elections we'll hit that standard.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks very much, Ms. Barron.

Colleagues, the next four witnesses are virtual, and it's going to take a bit longer for a sound check.

I was going to give us the 10 minutes back here, but colleagues would like to use that time with the current witnesses.

We may cut 10 minutes off the back end in the second panel if we end up going too late, because we're not sure how long it's going to take to do our sound check. Nonetheless, we're going to finish this round with five minutes from the Conservatives and then five minutes from the Liberals.

Mr. Duncan, for five minutes, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's important to understand what we've heard this morning, through the testimony.

We now have confirmation, after several rounds of questions, that the NDP were invited to...and provided briefings by the Liberals in advance of proposed changes to Canada's election laws. I can clarify: I'm pretty sure Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois were not invited to those briefings. Canadians should be very surprised, stunned, by the fact that we have two political parties that were denied the possibility of working behind the scenes, at first. Then we found out they were provided information briefings. We're going to find out who was at those meetings and when they took place.

It's completely unacceptable, now, for the NDP to say there are problematic parts of the bill. This proves what we heard this morning: They were absolutely complicit and aware, and they agreed to the bill proposed—specifically, changing the election date, which did nothing more than preserve their pensions. The NDP leader is going to get his pension in January or February of 2025. That's why he doesn't want to have an election now. The NDP complain that it's problematic. It's problematic for the NDP now only because they got caught this morning. They were fully aware of what was happening. They knew what was in the bill. It is only because of the backlash they rightfully got from Canadians that, all of a sudden, they now deem this problematic.

The other part that I think was important to learn this morning is the rationale for the date change and the arguments that were made. I'm trying to understand what the rationale is. The date had to be moved back a week, to October 27. It couldn't be moved ahead. It had to be moved back so it wouldn't conflict with a cultural event—Diwali. Instead, it now conflicts with a territorial election. However, here's the interesting thing: You didn't want to move it ahead to conflict with or “break into the summer”. That was the line given, yet the Prime Minister had no problem calling an election in the middle of August 2021, when it seemed opportunistic and advantageous for him.

This morning, we heard all the reasons...and confirmation that the NDP were in on this all along. Second, the rationale the Liberals and the NDP are desperately trying to spin away was exposed. The date was moved not for any cultural event. It was moved for purely political purposes, in terms of pension protection for the Liberals and NDP.

Look, Conservatives want an election now. I'm not worried about my pension or anybody else's pension. I'm worried about Canadians. I think what we've seen today is confirmation. There were many opportunities for some sort of clarification or rationale. It remains crystal clear. The cynical attempt by the Liberals and NDP to protect their pensions and claim something else.... That just disintegrated at this committee this morning.

That's all I have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Gerretsen, go ahead for five minutes. The floor is yours.

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

Would you just stop, Eric?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Honestly, just so you know, it sounds as ludicrous to everybody else as it does to us on this side. The reality is this, Eric: You're the only one sitting at this table who would benefit from that.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Give me a second.

There are two points of order at the same time, one from Mrs. Gill and one from Mr. Berthold. They're probably identical.

Mrs. Gill, you have the floor.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you. We should do what we are supposed to do, which is to ask the witnesses questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

That said, I would still like the tone of the conversation to remain respectful and professional.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you. On the other hand, Mr. Gerretsen can choose to use his time as he sees fit.

I want to reassure members that I have stopped the clock.

Mr. Berthold, you had a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, I think that Mr. Gerretsen's arrogance and tone, and especially the fact that he addresses another member directly in this way, are not acceptable. As we all know, in this case, questions for members and particularly for witnesses are normally addressed to the chair. Mr. Gerretsen's actions are unacceptable in a committee.

I think you don't want us to fall into a situation where we start accusing each other directly, without respecting your authority. I think it's up to you to maintain order here, and Mr. Gerretsen has clearly crossed a line that is unacceptable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

All right. Thank you for your comments.

Mr. Gerretsen, did you want to speak on the points of order? If not, I'll respond.

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

I do.

On the first point, to Madame Gill's point, Mr. Duncan didn't ask a single question of the witnesses in his last round, and to suggest that I am being more personal than he was is just simply false.

Second, to Mr. Berthold's point, we don't speak through the chair in this committee. Everybody who's been sitting here has been directing their questions directly at the witnesses and receiving them back.

It is very common in committee meetings to have your time and use your time for your own purpose. If I want to use my time to be critical of other things I've heard at this table, it is entirely within my right, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay, colleagues. Thank you.

Is this on a point of order, Mr. Arnold?

Go ahead, sir.

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

It is. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to point out that Mr. Gerretsen said he was being no more personal than Mr. Duncan. He was. He was directing the attack at Mr. Duncan when he stated that MP Duncan—