Evidence of meeting #137 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
NDP
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.
December 10th, 2024 / 12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Unless Ms. Barron was living in a long-term care home in 2011, I don't think that pertains to clause 2. We're talking about adding long-term care homes as polling locations. She's talked about herself. Now, she's talking about her past employment in 2011.
I'll just check relevance. We are on clause 2, and I think what she's talking about is not clause 2. I'm always happy to listen, but I think clause 2 is what we're on.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
There is no disagreement from me, Mr. Duncan. I agree with your interpretation.
Ms. Barron, in order to remain relevant here, you're going to have to bring this back to clause 2.
Thank you.
NDP
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.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
The interesting thing is that I'm talking about the impacts of Conservative misinformation and they're heckling me. As to why they're heckling me—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Ms. Barron, I'm going to interrupt you briefly.
Colleagues, I do have resources, which I will exercise, for us to continue sitting until two. Out of fairness to members who may need to find substitutes, because the meeting notice was until one, I will grant a couple of minutes out of courtesy for them to be able to do that. This applies to members from all parties
Just to clarify, we will suspend for a couple of minutes and continue sitting until two. When we come back, Ms. Barron will maintain the floor.
We are suspended.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
We're back.
I trust that gave everyone sufficient time to find a substitute, if necessary, in order for us to continue the affair of clause-by-clause.
Ms. Barron, the floor remains yours.
NDP
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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Colleagues, this is a dilatory motion, meaning we need unanimous consent. There's no debate on it.
For clarity, Ms. Barron is asking that we press pause on clause 2, clause 3 and clause 4, and get to clause 5.
Mr. Cooper, unless it's a point of order, I have to go immediately to asking the committee whether there is unanimous consent.
I'm seeing yes from the Conservatives, who are agreeing. I'm seeing nothing from the Bloc.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Okay, colleagues. The committee has adopted that motion.
(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive allowed to stand)
(On clause 5)
We will now move immediately to clause 5.
Ms. Barron maintains the floor, at this point.
I see you guys.
Ms. Barron, the floor remains yours. We are now on clause 5. Go ahead.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I had no idea that reading from the Chief Electoral Officer's report would have such an impact on the Conservatives. It is great news that this is happening.
Mr. Chair, first, I want to thank all members around this table for agreeing to provide unanimous consent for us to move directly to the amendment that will finally resolve the issue of the benefit to MP pensions. This is something Canadians have made clear is an issue. It is something everyone around the table has said is an issue. I'm grateful that we finally have the Conservatives agreeing to debate this. My hope is that we'll be hearing some facts and actual debate on the issue. If they are against us removing it, perhaps they could some rationale for Canadians as to why they are.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Ms. Barron, I'm sorry to interrupt.
It's my mistake, because we moved so quickly. I didn't ask, now that we are on clause 5, whether you would like to move your amendment. Yours is the first amendment we have, NDP-2. I need you to officially move that if you intend to. If you do, it has some implications for other aspects of the bill that I have to read out.
Liberal
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
NDP-2 has been moved, so I'm going to read the following, colleagues, and please pay close attention.
As NDP-2 has been moved, CPC-3, PV-1 and BQ-0.1 cannot be moved because they are identical.
If NDP-2 is adopted, the following, in addition to what I just read, cannot be moved because of conflicts: CPC-4, CPC-5, CPC-6, CPC-7, CPC-8, CPC-9, CPC-10, CPC-11, CPC-12, CPC-13, CPC-14, CPC-15, CPC-16, CPC-17, CPC-18, CPC-19, CPC-20, CPC-21, CPC-22, CPC-23, CPC-24, CPC-25, CPC-26, CPC-27, CPC-28, CPC-29, CPC-30, CPC-31, CPC-32, CPC-33, CPC-34, CPC-35, CPC-36, CPC-37 and CPC-38. If the amendment we are about to embark upon debating is adopted, then those I just read will not be eligible to be moved.
I apologize for that interjection.
Ms. Barron, we are now debating the amendment you have moved, NDP-2, in relation to clause 5.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for highlighting the other components.
I guess it is worthwhile mentioning that the reason the other amendments, which are actually identical, are no longer able to be moved is that the NDP brought forward this amendment first. That's something for Canadians to be aware of: that there were other amendments that were put forward by other members of Parliament which said exactly the same thing as this amendment.
I don't know what else speaks to a consensus other than what just occurred. We're seeing there is agreement around the table that this is important and that we need to be moving forward on this.
I could not think of anything that would be a better gift for Canadians today, so close to Christmas and in the holiday season, than for them to have the reassurance that this part of the bill, which provides pensions to members of Parliament who would not otherwise receive them, would be removed. This is an issue I have brought up many times now.
For anybody who may be just beginning to pay attention to this meeting now, I want to reiterate that there's a part of the bill where moving the election date would actually end up benefiting the pensions of members of Parliament. This is not at all what I signed up for. This is not at all what the NDP wants to see happen through this bill. Therefore, immediately, I stood in the House of Commons to highlight this issue and to propose a solution.
Unfortunately, the response of the Conservatives has not been to look at the solutions but to try to burn down the entire bill. I'm happy that today we have support from everybody around this table to debate this important amendment to see that MP pensions are not what we are talking about. My hope is that, once we have voted on this and have what we expect would be support around this table, we will be able to truly talk about the issues at hand and move forward with a bill in which Canadians' best interests are put at the forefront, not Conservative slogans and fundraising efforts.
Again, the reason I bring forward this amendment is to see the portion that benefits MP pensions removed so that we can talk about the important content in this bill. I will make clear again that if we're going to talk about MP pensions, we need to do so in a transparent way and not tucked into a bill that is not at all about MP pensions.
I hope my colleagues will agree that this is a reasonable solution. I hope that the vote comes soon so that Canadians can have the reassurance they need and deserve and that we can talk about strengthening our electoral systems.
With that, Mr. Chair, I look forward to hearing my colleagues' stance on this particular amendment.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
For the record, we're supportive of this amendment, so we're looking forward to getting to a vote.
