Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 5th, 2024

[Candice Ramalho]

There is not a strict definition provided in the technical sense of a definition provision. However, I would direct the honourable member's attention to clause 107. I know that we have to jump around the bill, given the technical nature of the Canada Elections Act, but it provides that it would be a place where seniors or persons with a disability reside.

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

You talked about a number of long-term care facilities that are recognized by the various provincial authorities, but, if I go by this definition in clause 107, it can extend to any residence where there is at least one resident receiving long-term care.

Is that correct?

[Trevor Knight]

I think, as in the previous answer, it would be a place where seniors or persons with disabilities reside. Long-term care is, I think, used as a shorthand when we're talking about the bill. However, an institution where seniors reside could be broader, as you've suggested, and my understanding from an operational perspective—again, that's not really my area—is that it is up to the returning officers to contact the local institutions where seniors reside and discuss with them if it would be an appropriate method of polling for them. You are correct in that there is potential for some flexibility in terms of the definition.

I will quickly add that, if only part of the institution has seniors or people with disabilities, it would be the part that was served by the specified polling places.

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

Would everyone in a residence be able to vote?

Let's take the following case. The returning officer's team goes to a facility where 2 of the 40 beds are occupied by people receiving long-term care. Does the bill contain a provision that would prohibit the other 38 people from taking advantage of the returning officer's team's presence to vote, or could all these people vote?

Is this limited to people receiving long-term care? We're talking about facilities, not people.

[Trevor Knight]

I think that the bill does refer to a part of an institution as well, but I think it's difficult to say in a particular hypothetical example how it would play out. The intention of the act is clearly to provide an opportunity for seniors or persons with disabilities to vote where they reside.

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

During the last election, I noticed that, in several seniors' residences, management had exerted pressure on the various candidates to have the opportunity to have their residents vote on site. Could we use this addition we're talking about right now to call for on‑site voting in all seniors' residences that house people receiving long-term care? That's what concerns me.

By the way, the definition of “long-term care” can be very broad. It can be as simple as administering medication once a day. However, even if a person has no other medical needs, that's considered long-term care.

I'm a little concerned about how this provision might be used. I understand from your comments that you haven't foreseen the possibility of residences other than provincially recognized long-term care facilities asking to have this option.

[Trevor Knight]

I think it is possible that it would extend beyond provincially regulated long-term care institutions, because the act does speak to institutions where seniors or persons with disabilities reside. Simply being a senior does not necessarily mean one needs long-term care. Both the bill and the existing act have that possibility.

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

Okay. Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, can I interrupt? I have a unanimous consent motion I'd like to bring forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Ms. Barron, you will have the ability to do that once you have the floor.

I do have Mr. Turnbull at the moment. I will add your name to the speaking order following him.

Mr. Turnbull.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

They certainly can speak if they'd like to, but no was the answer.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

There's another thing I want to clarify. My understanding is that in many previous elections, seniors in long-term care facilities have been able to vote due to mobile polling stations. Is that not the case?

Could someone clarify that?

[Candice Ramalho]

Yes. That is currently the approach.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

For how long has that been the case, or for how many elections, roughly speaking? I know that it's been the last two elections. I can verify that, because I was in those elections, but prior to that, I wouldn't know.

[Trevor Knight]

It's certainly been since 2000. I don't know if it goes back further than that.

One difference between the current law and the bill is that right now, such a mobile poll can be set up to consist of only two or more institutions. In locales where there may be only one institution, the mobile poll for long-term care homes hasn't been available to those electors.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

The relative change, put in the context of the last 24 years of Elections Canada being able to do mobile polling stations at long-term care facilities, is to really formalize and make permanent this program, which essentially has been working, to my knowledge, quite well. This is to change the definition of “polling station” to include long-term care facilities.

Am I understanding that correctly?

[Trevor Knight]

Clause 2 does that, yes. Yes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

You seem hesitant there. Do you want to explain? Is there something else you're leaving out?

[Trevor Knight]

Well, no. There are various changes to the rules around long-term care voting throughout the act, which we have been discussing throughout the bill. In terms of establishing a polling place in an institution, the current act allows for it to happen, and has allowed for it to happen since 2000, in two or more institutions. This bill would change this so that it could be permitted in a single institution or a part of an institution.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Great. I'm in support of that. I'm in support of that, because I think what we want to be able to achieve here is a permanence to having polling stations at long-term care facilities reliably so that seniors who might have mobility challenges who live in those facilities can vote and not be disenfranchised. I think the program has been working quite well.

To me, it achieves a policy objective that I hope at least all of us share, which is to increase the participation and the likelihood of enfranchisement and not disenfranchisement of our seniors who live in long-term care. Is that not the policy objective we're trying to achieve here?

Again, I'll take comments from any of the panellists, even the ones who are joining remotely.

Mr. Knight, you're de facto becoming the default person for answers.

[Trevor Knight]

I shouldn't comment. I have no comment on the policy.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Maybe I'll go to Mrs. Pereira.

[Rachel Pereira]

I can jump in here.

That is exactly the policy objective. It's to remove barriers from electors who want to vote and are able to vote and to facilitate the vote to ensure they're not disenfranchised. This bill, through the long-term care regime, makes voting more accessible to electors with disabilities and electors in care. The existing measures that are available to them, such as a mobile polls, will remain in place, but this establishes those permanent polls with the returning officer working with the administrators of those facilities to enable those individuals to vote.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you for that clarification.

I really think that puts this particular clause, clause 2, which is the first clause we're considering in these committee proceedings on clause-by-clause, in context. Perhaps we can get past this and move toward other clauses.

I'll give up the floor now to Ms. Barron.