Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 7th, 2024

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

With your permission, Ms. Romanado, I would like to make a comment.

You're right. I had forgotten about that. Maybe the Conservatives will see this as a plot by the Quebec municipalities to make sure that certain members of Parliament receive their pensions. I didn't think that they were part of the plot, but we might see a post on social media about this.

You're quite right. This shows the challenge posed by a set election date. Fall is obviously a busy time for elections.

Ms. Romanado, you and I aren't trying to trigger an election right now. Other political parties around the table want an election immediately. This shows a considerable lack of respect for the people of Nova Scotia, who are currently going through a provincial election.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you, minister.

On that note, I just wanted to say, as said by Madam Barron, my colleague across the way, that the NDP will be bringing forward an amendment to this when we get to clause-by-clause. As I said in the last meeting, should that amendment be brought forward to keep the date of October 20, I'd be prepared to support that.

With that, this bill is 48 pages long. We've been focusing a lot on the date, but there are so many more important things. As you said yourself, it's called the elections “participation” act. I want to talk a little bit about the measures in this bill that talk about increasing voter participation.

One part you talked about a little bit is one that I would like to get more feedback on from you. That's with regard to legislating campus voting. I know that we were not able to do that in the last election because of COVID. Could you elaborate on the importance of helping students who may be at universities outside their home province and their home riding to have the ability to participate in that? We've heard previously that when voters start voting at a young age, they're more likely to continue to vote.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Through you, Mr. Chair, Madame Romanado, thank you for, again, focusing on what we think should be a very positive, non-partisan element of this bill, for the exact reasons you enunciated—encouraging young people on campuses to be able to vote. It's proven to be effective. It's easier for students to vote on campus.

I think of Mount Allison University, in my riding. It's largely an undergraduate campus. I think 30% or 40% of the students may come from New Brunswick; 60% would come from other provinces, including a number of them from your province.

When I visit the campus, there are students from across the country whose ability to be able to vote in an October election is very important. Some of them have been on campus for maybe only for a month and a half. We think it shouldn't be at the discretion of a local returning officer, in the case of my riding, in Beauséjour.

Parliament should clearly express its view that Elections Canada and the returning officers in every constituency have an obligation to ensure that the polls can be accessible on university campuses. There are measures in the legislation around making it easier to get mail-in ballots. I spoke about some of the measures in terms of persons in long-term care homes.

Many of these recommendations come, as you would know, from Elections Canada itself. Elections Canada does terrific work. It's world leading and recognized globally as one of the most effective, secure, competent, non-partisan administrators of national elections in four-and-a-half time zones, in 10 provinces and three territories. It does terrific work, including with its provincial counterparts. We should, as a committee and as a Parliament, be very sensitive to the non-partisan suggestions and recommendations that it would make, and we've tried to do that as much as possible to validate the great work that it does.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you.

Ms. Gill, you have two and a half minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to come back to the two questions that I asked earlier. I want to say that the date change actually means two things. It isn't just a date. It means giving religion precedence over democracy. This date change may also adversely affect turnout

Mr. Chair, when a witness doesn't have time to answer our questions, they can also submit their responses in writing. I obviously encourage the minister to do so if he has more to say on these matters. We'll take this into account in our proceedings.

My next question concerns, once again, voter turnout, particularly with regard to subclauses 38(1) and 38(2) of Bill C‑65. These subclauses would amend subsections 243.01(1) and 243.01(2), respectively, of the Canada Elections Act. These provisions concern the fact that a person may accompany an elector who requires assistance to vote. You talked about this in your opening remarks, I believe.

Subclause 38(1) proposes to expand the eligibility of people who may accompany electors into the voting compartment. I would like to know the reason for this proposal.

In addition, subclause 38(2) proposes to repeal a provision concerning the solemn declaration of the person accompanying the elector into the voting compartment. This person used to need to sign a solemn declaration stating that they wouldn't disclose the vote or try to influence it. I would like to know the reason for the proposal to simply repeal this provision.

I have a great deal of respect for voters who need assistance. However, if we really want to make their vote legitimate, I don't understand why we would make this change. I would like to hear your explanations.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

That's a good, but also technical question. Many of these fairly technical changes were inspired by the work and recommendations of Elections Canada.

Ms. Pereira can provide further details.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Ms. Pereira, time is running out. Please answer quickly. You can send us a full response later.

[Rachel Pereira, Director, Electoral and Senatorial Policy Unit, Privy Council Office]

Thank you for your question.

There are two things that are being done in the bill. For electors with disabilities or who need assistance marking their own ballot, the bill removes the restriction on who can help them. Right now, it's limited to family and friends, but those electors will be able to choose anyone, including a personal support worker or someone else, to help them.

The other measure in the bill is that an individual who assists an elector who needs assistance can help more than one person. That's the restriction that's being removed. The integrity measures are still in place. They cannot influence that vote. They cannot share the vote. It has to be secret. That allows, for example, in a long-term care institution, a personal support worker, a health care worker, to help more than one elector if they need assistance marking their ballot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Barron, two and a half minutes go to you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

Minister, I want to first reiterate that even though I wasn't directly the lead—my colleague, former MP Daniel Blaikie, was—I'm incredibly proud of the work that has been done to increase participation and improve our elections. This is vitally important work that we all need to be focused on.

Instead, the Conservatives want to focus on an aspect of this bill that, from the sound of it, is going to be resolved in the clause-by-clause study, if all of my colleagues follow through with what they are saying today. I want to reiterate that I'm happy we were able to talk about some of the positives of this bill, as well as the concerns, because there's still time for those concerns to be mitigated in the clause-by-clause study.

I want to take the time to ask you about an incident I just recently found out about. A former Conservative MP—his last name was Butt—in 2014 claimed he saw voter cards being misused, and he deliberately misled the House. He later retracted these comments.

In this bill, we're talking about false statements being made. I know you talked about the mechanics of the bill. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts of any mechanisms that could be put into place to ensure that Conservative members of Parliament, or any members of Parliament, cannot deliberately mislead the House and Canadians.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

You're right. There is a lot in this bill that speaks to shared objectives our leaders have to make the electoral system more accessible and ensure the continued confidence of Canadians in the electoral system, so I look forward to the committee's work in this regard.

I don't remember that specific incident, although I was in the House 10 years ago, but I remember the so-called “unfair elections act” that the Conservative government introduced. I think I mentioned it in an answer to a previous question. It deliberately tried to restrict the ability of persons to show up at a polling station with the card they received in the mail saying, “This is the advance polling date. This is the election date. You vote at this location.”

We've all received those cards. When we're canvassing before an election, people get their card to ask questions about it. This is a normal thing. We thought that was a reasonable way for people to present themselves at the polling station and confirm their identity. The Conservatives sought to make it more difficult.

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

Minister, before I run out of time, were the Liberals consulted on this change to the Elections Act that was being put forward? Were any other parties, aside from the Conservatives, consulted when this bill was being put forward? Do you recall this from 2014?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Again, I can't speak to other parties. You have some long-serving colleagues who could answer with respect to consultations with your party or your caucus, Ms. Barron, but Mr. Harper's government would certainly have had absolutely no interest in hearing from opposition MPs on strengthening the Elections Act.

Mr. Harper's government was focused on making voting more difficult and more restrictive, and on suppressing the vote. We were the third party in opposition in 2014. It certainly didn't consult us when it sought to bring in a series of those sorts of restrictive amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, that's the end of today's meeting.

Minister, thank you for making yourself available.

Officials, the same goes to you.

The meeting is adjourned, colleagues.