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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Yet again, Ms. Barron, this is veering into debate and doesn't serve as a point of order that I can speak to legitimately.
Mr. Cooper, the floor is yours.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
If it's all one big misunderstanding, if Jagmeet Singh isn't selling out Canadians to secure his pension, then I would hope the NDP would support this common-sense Conservative subamendment that would set the date of the next election—the fixed election date of February 24, 2025. The best part about that date is that it's the day before Jagmeet Singh qualifies for his pension. Realistically, looking at the calendar, it is about as early as a fixed election date could be incorporated into a piece of legislation.
I hope that the NDP will prove me wrong, that it's not about renegotiated terms to a coalition deal where Jagmeet Singh gets his pension, Justin Trudeau gets his power and Canadians pay the bill, and that they will instead support this common-sense amendment. We'll see what the NDP does in a few moments.
Liberal
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Wonderful. I've been waiting quite a long time to weigh in on this debate. I'm glad to have the chance to get to speak about this.
What we have witnessed today is the Conservatives first blocking a unanimous consent motion put forward by MP Barron. I really appreciated her intervention earlier saying let's move to a vote on NDP-2. It removes the change the Conservatives have made a lot of interventions about. They have made their views known about this since day one.
What's interesting to me is that the Conservatives blocked that unanimous consent motion. They were the ones who wouldn't allow us to get to a vote on NDP-2, which our members, and I think all members of this committee, supported. It was to move the fixed election date back to where it was previously. I think that's a good amendment.
We see that the Conservatives aren't really interested in fixing the problems they bring up. They're more interested in pushing a partisan slant and assuming the motivations behind.... I think, quite rightfully, that there were conversations about the objectives of this piece of legislation, Bill C-65, which has multiple policy objectives that are quite legitimate. The Conservatives have blown up one feature of this particular bill and used it to fuel misinformation campaigns, fundraise and invent and push out more stale slogans. That has been their play for many months now. They don't actually want to resolve the issues they're bringing up. They seem to want to continue that false narrative. That, to me, is deeply concerning. I think Canadians should know about that. Canadians should know the Conservatives are not willing to address the issues they're bringing up. It's disingenuous. It's hypocritical, because they don't want to deal with those particular amendments.
We also know the Conservative Party, in looking at that change, would have been the party that gets the most benefit. We know that's been said on the record multiple times. There are 32 Conservative members whose pensions would have been impacted positively by that change, so it's no wonder they don't want to change that.
Now they have put forward a subamendment to move the fixed election date to way before, despite the fact that they've been saying forever that they want an election right now. They've been wailing and screaming for many months that they want an election immediately. They're saying that now they want it fixed in a piece of legislation to the date of February 24.
I would like to ask for a point of clarification from the legislative clerks.
I'm not ceding the floor, by the way, so don't get excited over there.
I want to ask for clarification from the legislative clerks on whether that's an actual legitimate change—fixing the election date to February 2025.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Mr. Turnbull, that would not be a question for the clerks. It would be a technical question for our colleagues at Elections Canada or in the Privy Council Office. Perhaps I can, on your behalf, redirect that question to them.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Yes, I wonder if there is a statutory limitation that would prevent an amendment like that, or a subamendment, in this case, from being moved in committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Give me a moment to consult with the clerks, please.
Mr. Turnbull, for clarity here, in terms of whether this is procedurally sound, the answer from the legislative clerks is yes.
Regarding what the impact of a change to the election date would be on the administration of the election, that's a question we would have to pose to Elections Canada.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Chair, I wasn't asking procedurally whether it was legitimate.
I think that procedurally I get that the members can move a subamendment on the floor of a committee proceeding that's in clause-by-clause. I've seen that happen before. I've done it myself. That's fine, but I wondered from a legal perspective whether there are actually any implications of that. On that, I'd love to hear from—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
I think we need our colleagues, probably from Elections Canada, to speak to that first.
Mr. Knight, if you're not capable of providing that answer for one reason or another, we'll probably seek it from your office.
Thank you.
General Counsel, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
Well, I mean, Elections Canada is always ready to hold an election, and even with a fixed election date, there is always the possibility of an early election. I don't see any specific concern from Elections Canada's perspective.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you.
There's no legal limitation. Essentially, you can embed in legislation a fixed date of any date that members of Parliament choose. Is that correct, Mr. Knight?
General Counsel, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
As far as I know now, I mean, the only restriction is that the writ period has to be 36 days, of course, and we don't know when this bill will receive royal assent. That would be relevant to that question, but in theory, yes.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Okay. That's interesting. I didn't know that. That's news to me, but that's the point of having committee proceedings: to be able to clarify these things and to understand the implications of subamendments and amendments that are brought forward by members of Parliament. I appreciate that testimony.
Is this particular change consistent with the overall objectives, the policy objectives, of this bill?
Mr. Knight, that would not go to you. That would be for your colleague, Ms. Pereira.
Director, Electoral and Senatorial Policy Unit, Privy Council Office
Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This wouldn't have implications for the policy objectives, other than perhaps restricting the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer at Elections Canada to implement the proposals in the bill, depending on when the bill received royal assent.
Typically for implementation of measures to the Canada Elections Act, the Chief Electoral Officer requires a certain number of months to implement all of the new measures. Some can be implemented earlier. There's a provision in the bill that allows the Chief Electoral Officer up to six months. It's possible that some measures wouldn't be implemented in time for an election date that's earlier.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Based on what you just said, are there specific things you could point to that would not be implementable, given Mr. Cooper's subamendment here? That would be deeply concerning.
It would undermine the other aspects of this piece of legislation, I would think: to increase voter participation, to limit disenfranchisement, to ensure the maximum number of electors in many segments of the population can participate fully and, also, to prevent foreign interference.
Those are some of the other policy objectives that are incorporated into Bill C‑65, as I understand it. Are there specific examples you can point to of things that would not be implementable within the time frame that Mr. Cooper's subamendment would handcuff us to?
Director, Electoral and Senatorial Policy Unit, Privy Council Office
That is more a question for Elections Canada, because it relates to operationalizing the policy objectives in the bill. I'm not sure if my colleague, Mr. Knight, might be able to speak to what measures might be more challenging to implement in a short amount of time.
General Counsel, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
Yes. There is a provision in the Canada Elections Act, section 554, which provides that no amendment to the law applies in any election that happens within six months of royal assent, unless the Chief Electoral Officer has stated that he is prepared otherwise.
There is a clause in the bill, clause 119, which provides that, despite that section, there are various provisions that would come into force immediately upon royal assent. All the provisions would come into force on royal assent, but they would not apply in an election. There are some that would apply during an election. Those relate to regulated fundraisers and, I believe, the privacy provisions.
In terms of the other substantive amendments that would apply in an election, those would apply in an election only if the Chief Electoral Officer could say, before that election, that he was ready and had undertaken the activities. If the election happens within six months of royal assent...obviously, if there were to be royal assent and then a February 24 election, that would be the scenario we would be operating in.
I'm sorry for the lengthy answer. I hope that was clear enough.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I understand that Elections Canada wants to be prepared at any time, which they should be, especially during a minority Parliament.
Help me understand your response, Mr. Knight, in the simplest terms, without getting into all the legalese.
I understand what you're saying, but what's the message we should give to Canadians? Would Elections Canada be able to hold an election on February 24 with all the provisions in this bill—implementing the campus vote and all of the long-term care facility stuff? Are all of those aspects of this bill implementable between now and February 24?
I find that hard to believe.
General Counsel, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
I want to distinguish between the theoretical question of putting holding an election on February 24 in the bill, which I think was the earlier discussion and which Parliament clearly has the authority to do, and our being ready.
In that respect, I'd point back to the Chief Electoral Officer's appearance before this committee. He has certain concerns about our capacity to be ready, even under the existing bill. That was why he recommended changes to the coming-into-force provisions. I think it is fair to say that much of what is in the bill would be difficult to implement on that timeline. We would, of course, want to ensure we've made the necessary preparations.
Those are two slightly different questions.
December 10th, 2024 / 1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Okay.
Essentially, I hear that more runway is needed, given the implications of what is included in Bill C-65. Although, at the rate of the Conservatives' questioning on clause 2 regarding long-term care facilities.... They spent two and a half hours filibustering on a clause that has no amendments. They quickly abandoned that in order to move to this particular clause when they realized they had an opportunity to move a silly subamendment that makes no sense. Ultimately, are they really that concerned about any aspect of Bill C-65, or is this just another opportunity for political games and partisanship? It certainly seems to me like it's only about that. I've only been here for five years, but I have been on PROC for quite a number of those. I've seen a lot of this from the Conservatives over the years. It's not really that big of a surprise, to be honest.
It's interesting that dealing with the very issue we discussed—moving to the NDP-2 amendment—would have corrected the problem the Conservatives have cited over and over again. Yet, they would not give unanimous consent for that. However, they eventually gave unanimous consent to move to clause 5, only to move a subamendment that would create a whole number of other issues, mostly around inclusion and voter participation. Those are clearly things they have a track record of not demonstrating they care about. What's interesting to me is that we're sitting here now and going to debate a subamendment that causes a whole other number of issues for Elections Canada in terms of accomplishing the things in the bill.
What's also interesting to me is that we've had so much debate on a clause with no amendments. If you look at how long the Conservatives are drawing out Bill C-65, we might not even get it passed through Parliament so it can receive royal assent by the date they're now suggesting.
The other thing that occurs to me is that I thought there was an entrenched rule in our parliamentary system and a tradition that there is a four-year maximum term for any elected government of the day.
Isn't that a tradition that goes back quite a long way?
Mr. Knight, maybe I could pose that question to you, just to help me understand. I don't mean to put.... I mean, I am putting you on the spot, but that's what you're here for. I shouldn't apologize for asking you a question.
General Counsel, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
No. Hopefully, I won't go into too much legalese. I live for that, of course.
The Constitution provides for a five-year period within which an election has to happen. The fixed election date legislation has always had, essentially, a four-year period.
I guess that's what I would add to that.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Essentially, the Conservatives are suggesting that we shorten by much more than four years the fixed election date of any government in the future. Even in a minority Parliament, no government would be able to be in power for up to four years, which has been the tradition.
Without commenting on the Conservatives putting it forward, Mr. Knight, is that really the implication of this subamendment? I know that you wouldn't comment on their motivations for that. I can comment on that politically. I wouldn't ask you to do that. This is just in terms of what's implied here. Would this bind us to changing essentially a tradition of the House of Commons?
Just for context, I sat here and listened for two years to the Conservatives telling me that we couldn't operate virtually, in the middle of the pandemic, because they cared more about parliamentary tradition than they did about getting things done during the pandemic. They lectured me on that for two bloody years—excuse me, for two years—and fought us tooth and nail every step of the way for making a change to the Standing Orders that would allow us to actually get work done for Canadians during the pandemic. I find it hard to believe that they would be so willing to abandon a tradition, a set of rules in Parliament, that has been around for quite some time with regard to a four-year term.
Mr. Knight, can you clarify that this is the implication here, that it would be shortening that four-year term?
General Counsel, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
My understanding of the subamendment is that the next general election would be held on February 24, 2025, and then it would revert to being held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following the last general election.
The fixed election date for the following general election, assuming that this subamendment was put forward and the election happened, would be in October of 2029.
Liberal