Debates of May 11th, 2018

Elections Modernization Act

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having been here longer than the hon. member, I would like to remind him that the Fair Elections Act, or the unfair elections act, was done when I was in Parliament, and I left Parliament in 2011.

Yes, there were lots of robocalls and misconstruction, but in the last election, we had lots of people participating because they wanted to get rid of the Harper government.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we also have to look at is the sheer timeline. The acting Chief Electoral Officer has been very clear that if any major reforms were required for the next election, they would need some meaningful legislation to implement them sooner rather than later, and at this point, the deadline has already been missed.

Here we are, again having these debates on important issues, and the government is not even meeting its promises and is certainly not meeting timelines. I would like the member to speak about why the government does not feel timelines are important.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the 130 recommendations to improve democracy that were suggested by the Chief Electoral Officer have already been implemented into the bill, and therefore it should be sent to committee for further study.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time.

There are few things as fundamental to democracy as the integrity of its elections. Elections are the bedrock upon which many of the tenets of democracy rest, so when we discuss changes to our election laws, we are talking about changes to a cornerstone of our political system.

There are some good things in this bill. The measures to accommodate those with disabilities seem well intentioned and could do a lot of good. They would be a good way to facilitate participation in the democratic process. However, I am opposed to some other measures proposed in Bill C-76.

I would first like to discuss is the status quo and why much of it just does not deserve to be changed. I am not opposed to changing our election laws if it means real improvement. I agree with Ronald Reagan that sometimes “status quo” is Latin for “the mess we're in”.

I have in fact supported past changes to Canada's election laws. In 2014, our former Conservative government passed the Fair Elections Act. It made much-needed changes that helped ensure the integrity of Canadian elections, common sense changes that worked, such as showing pieces of ID in order to vote. This was a basic, logical requirement that worked.

We need to identify ourselves before boarding a plane, which I will do later today; before buying alcohol, and I am not going to do that before I get on the plane; and before buying tobacco, and soon marijuana, if the government follows through on its misguided plan. In fact, in many instances in everyday Canadian life we are required to identify ourselves, so the question is, why does the government not believe our elections deserve to be safeguarded in the same way?

We currently have many ways to prove our identity when we go to vote. This bill would implement amendments to our voter identification rules. It would open the door to a re-implementation of the voter information card as ID. The voter information card is simply not an identification card. It is not. It provides information to the voter; it is not a means of verifying the voter's identity.

As the member for Perth—Wellington noted yesterday, in the 2015 election 986,613 of these voter information cards had inaccurate information—I received an inaccurate one myself—were sent to the wrong address, or were not complete. I do not know why that number does not give the members opposite pause.

Maybe the members opposite do not realize how many legitimate ways there are to prove identity under the current system. We think they would remember, given that three years later they still try to blame their scandals and errors on our former government. Those seem fresh in their minds. However, I have done them the favour of compiling a list, which I am sure they will appreciate. It will refresh their memories of the ways people can prove their identity.

They can use a health card, which we all seem to have; a Canadian passport, which many have; a birth certificate, and we seem to have a lot of those; a certificate of Canadian citizenship; a citizenship card; a social insurance number card; an Indian status card; a band membership card; a Métis card; a card issued by an Inuit local authority; a Veterans Affairs health card; an old age security card; a hospital card—

[An hon. member]

The list goes on and on.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

The list goes on. People can use a medical clinic card; a label on a prescription container, and a lot of seniors have those; an identity bracelet; a blood donor card, and that is a good one; a CNIB card; a credit card or debit card; an employee card; a student identity card; a public transportation card; a library card—I have one of those, and we all should have one of those; a liquor identity card; a parolee card; a firearms licence; a licence or card issued for fishing, trapping, or hunting, which many of us have; a utility bill; a bank statement; a credit union statement; a credit card statement; a personal cheque; a government statement of benefits; a government cheque or cheque stub; a pension plan statement—

[An hon. member]

The list goes on and on.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

It is a long list that they could be using, including a residential lease; a mortgage contract; an income tax assessment; a property tax assessment; a vehicle ownership; an insurance certificate; correspondence issued by a school or college; a letter from a public curator, public guardian, or public trustee; a targeted revision form from Elections Canada to a resident of a long-term care facility; or a letter of confirmation of residence.

It is an unending list of things that could be used for identification. They are not information cards.

There are a lot of options, and voter identification ensures the integrity of our elections. It certainly has not hindered voter participation.

In fact, the last election had one of the highest voter turnouts in Canada's history. As members opposite repeat constantly, it was because Canadians wanted to change the government. If they got them out by record numbers, what is the issue?

More indigenous Canadians voted than ever before, as in my riding. Despite the fearmongering from members opposite, the simple fact is that record numbers of Canadians voted in the last election, under the current system with voter information cards, not voter identification cards.

Beyond the changes the bill would make to voter identification, it also targets campaign financing. Interesting timing on that one.

The Liberals failed in their plan to change our electoral system to their preferred option without a referendum. They failed in their attempt to change our parliamentary rules to silence the opposition. They were caught accepting cash for access to the Prime Minister. Now that their poll numbers are sliding a bit and their fundraising is falling considerably behind our party, they are making a last-ditch effort to change the way campaign financing works to benefit themselves.

The closer we get to the 2019 election, the more interesting tactics start to show up. They are really the same Liberals Canadians have become tired of time and again, and they will try to cover their actions with empty platitudes.

This brings to mind a quote from General Oliver P. Smith, who said, “We're not retreating, we're just advancing in a different direction.” Well, it is time to call the real retreat now. Canadians will not stand for the Liberals' attempts to tilt the democratic process in their favour.

Our party may have a fundraising advantage, but that is because Canadians are sick of the Liberal government's policies. Many more Canadians are willing to contribute their hard-earned money to ensuring we replace the government in 2019.

This legislation also leaves a lot to be desired in combatting foreign influence in our elections. During the new pre-pre-writ period this legislation would establish, foreign contributions still would be allowed. Foreign money can be pumped into Canada and disseminated to numerous advocacy groups intent upon influencing our election. It is not just enough to limit direct foreign spending; it is this huge, gaping loophole that is the problem. There are still numerous allegations circulating about foreign influence in the last election.

The Tides Foundation, a radical group based out of San Francisco, is opposed to Canadian energy, yet it donated $1.5 million to Canadian third parties in the last election year alone.

How can we even have a meaningful debate on this aspect of the bill without knowing the status of any ongoing investigations, or without knowing if anything has been done to address foreign interference in the 2015 election? If the government were actually committed to ending foreign interference, this would have been resolved with this legislation, but it is not. The election is next year.

The bill would do our electoral process a disservice.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

As we have hit 1:30 p.m., the hon. member will have two minutes coming to him, if he wants to take them up, and then questions the next time this topic comes up.

It being 1:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

moved that Bill C-377, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to debate the importance of my bill, a private member's bill, Bill C-377, for my constituents in the riding called, for now, Châteauguay—Lacolle.

This is an important step because every time I address my constituents, either when I am asked to speak on their behalf or when I knock on doors and introduce myself as the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle, I am asked why the name of the riding is still Châteauguay—Lacolle, when Lacolle is not even part of the riding.

I have already spoken at length about the reasons why and how the mistake was made in our riding name. During the last electoral boundaries readjustment in 2013, those who were in charge of correcting the riding name simply failed to do so. I am here today to correct that mistake. I was made aware of it during my nomination process for the 2015 election.

As a longtime resident of Châteauguay, I was pleased to see that our new riding included 14 other wonderful municipalities. However, I was dismayed to discover that the Lacolle in Châteauguay—Lacolle referred to the border crossing in our riding rather than the municipality of Lacolle, which is part of the neighbouring riding, Saint-Jean. How must the residents of Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, who are my constituents, have felt when they realized that the name of our federal riding did not refer to their community, but to the border crossing?

When I visited the representatives of each of our municipalities to talk about the issues of concern to them, the riding name was obviously one of them. People suggested new, more appropriate names. I would like to point out that it was the late Jacques Délisle, who was the mayor of Napierville at the time, who was the first to propose replacing “Lacolle” with “Les Jardins-de-Napierville”. Everyone quickly agreed to his suggestion. The name made sense and was meaningful to people in our region. I have already stated in the House the many reasons why the riding name should be changed to “Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville”.

However, I would like to reiterate what I think are the two most important reasons behind this choice of name. First, the RCM of Jardins-de-Napierville includes nine of the 15 municipalities in our region. They are Sainte-Clotilde, Saint-Patrice-de-Sherrington, Napierville, Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville, Saint-Jacques-le-Mineur, Saint-Édouard, Saint-Michel, Saint-Rémi and, of course, Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle.

The residents of the other six municipalities, which are Saint-Urbain-Premier, Sainte-Martine, Mercier, Saint-Isidore, Léry, and of course Châteauguay, identify with the Grand Châteauguay region. As a result, everyone will see themselves in the name “Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville”.

Yes, we are proud that we enjoy the best of all worlds in our riding, both urban and rural. When I meet citizens at the door, the grocery store, or a town hall and they ask me when the name of the riding is going to be changed, I am so delighted to say that we are getting it done.

However, now it appears that we face opposition in this House to the name change my citizens so desperately want. Indeed, I was confident from the words expressed by my fellow members at the second reading stage and at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that Bill C-377 had the support of all parties in the House. Apparently, as shown by the dissenting voices of last week, that was not the case.

Now I dare hope, knowing how important it is to my constituents to see themselves in the name of of our great and beautiful riding, that every member of this House will vote with me, in one voice, to say yea to the name of “Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville”.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although I plan to support my colleague's bill, I must admit that I am a bit surprised.

Approximately half the members of the House will have the privilege of introducing a private member's bill. Of all the issues of concern to the people in the riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle, the member chose the name of her riding. I must admit that surprises me, particularly since we know that Bill C-402, An Act to change the name of certain electoral districts, was passed unanimously.

Why not introduce a bill about agriculture?

Why not introduce a bill about high-speed Internet service?

Why not introduce a bill about infrastructure?

Why not introduce a bill about employment insurance?

Why not introduce a bill about temporary foreign workers?

Why did she not choose any of these issues that constituents are concerned about?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. As I said in my answers during the first and second debates, this is a concern for my constituents.

Members of the House have a variety of ways to raise the concerns and issues their constituents care about. In this case, I made this promise to my constituents and to those who supported me during and after the election campaign. As a backbencher, I asked myself whether I should follow through on my constituents' request, since I was here to represent them. This is a matter of identity and pride.

Frankly, I find these remarks a bit rich coming from the NDP, seeing as it was my predecessor, an NDP MP, who failed to take action when he should have in the previous Parliament.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her efforts in changing the name of her riding.

I have a historical question. It is quite an evocative name, “Les Jardins-de-Napierville” or “the gardens of Napierville”, and I would just ask her to elaborate as to the historical origins of that name. It is really rather nice.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. While doing research for this bill, I too wondered where the names Napierville, Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville, and Jardins-de-Napierville came from. Interestingly, the name Jardins-de-Napierville refers to the beautiful mosaic of people in the region, who are kind of like flowers in a garden.

The name Napierville is derived from the name of an English soldier, Napier Christie Burton. The town was named Napierville in his honour. This was not a situation where residents were divided. It is important to remember what happened with the patriots in 1837 and 1838. Napierville was a gathering place for both francophones and anglophones, because one of the leaders of the patriots in Lower Canada was Wolfred Nelson.

Napierville has a fascinating history that demonstrates how much the English, the Scots, the Irish, and the Canadians and Quebeckers of the time co-operated. They also worked with the Mohawk people to fend off the Americans in the Battle of Châteauguay and to establish a democratic process in our beautiful country.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-377, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle. I have a lot of respect for the member for the riding. We served together for a period of time on the operations and estimates committee. While we did not always see eye to eye, I believe we did a lot of great work on that committee, whether it was Canada Post or other acts, so I do appreciate her work.

That being said, this bill is not something I can support. Those watching at home on CPAC are probably asking themselves what this bill is about, and why Parliament is debating this instead of important issues of the day, such as the question we discussed earlier in question period of why there is a known ISIS fighter walking free on the streets of Toronto after happily broadcasting how he murdered innocents abroad while fighting for ISIS in Syria. Why is he busy doing press conferences in Toronto instead of being in jail?

What about the constitutional crisis created by the Liberals in their poor handling of the Trans Mountain pipeline issue? Why are we not discussing that? Why are we not debating the issue of the border crisis in the member's own riding, where we have a flood of illegal immigrants coming in from the United States? I notice that over 20% of her riding is made up of seniors. Why are we not debating palliative care or seniors issues instead of this? None of that is going to be debated. The bill is solely about changing the name of the riding. Seriously, it is just a name change.

If people are at home watching CPAC right now, they are probably a bit more engaged than regular Canadians and would know that last week we passed changes to the names of other members' ridings. The chief government whip had a bill passed, which has already gone through the House and is with the Senate, so that MPs can change the names of their ridings at will. They would not need a special private member's bill; they can just change the name.

My colleague from Calgary Signal Hill wants to change the name of his riding to Calgary West. He can go ahead and do it. I have joked in the past about changing the name of my riding from Edmonton West to Edmonton West Edmonton Mall, to honour West Edmonton Mall, the world's largest mall, which is in my riding. I mention that because, again, just last week we were able to change the names of over a dozen ridings, and it took the House just 60 seconds to do so. My point is that we do not need a private member's bill to change the name.

When MPs first get elected, at the beginning of the legislative period, they draw numbers for the order of introducing private members' bills. Those with low numbers get a chance to get their private members' bills heard and debated in the House. I drew a relatively low number and introduced Bill C-301, a bill that would reduce taxes for all seniors across the country. Unfortunately, the bill was shot down by the Liberals.

Because of time constraints, only about half of the members of Parliament will get their private members' bills introduced, debated, and heard in the House. Only about half of us get a bill through. The member for Châteauguay—Lacolle was lucky enough to have that, but, instead of introducing a bill that would actually help Canada and her constituents, she wastes valuable legislative time to debate a bill to change the name of her riding, which is not even needed, because we have procedural rules to change it.

I see that today the Liberals brought closure on a bill once again, this time to limit debate on Bill C-76, where we are debating the ways we are going to conduct our elections. The Liberal bill would allow foreign funds from Tides U.S.A. to flood into Canada to alter our electoral outcomes and attack our democratic process. The bill would allow people who have not set foot in Canada for over two or three decades to still be able to vote and help decide our electoral outcomes.

We have only one hour of debate on the serious issues that affect our democracy, and yet we have just spent four hours to discuss a name change that could have been done simply with an email to the government whip. Again, I have great respect for this member, but I believe it is a great waste of Parliament's time, and it just shows once again the mixed-up priorities of the Liberal government.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-377, but I must admit I would have preferred to talk about subjects that are truly of interest to our constituents in the Montérégie region.

The consultations held by the hon. member for Châteauguay—Lacolle and her Liberal colleagues from the Montérégie region in February 2016 revealed that the locals have other priorities than changing the name of the riding. They are concerned about support for low-income groups, improving access to high-speed Internet, infrastructure, agriculture and protecting supply management in its entirety, trade, and the environment.

Why are we debating a riding name change today when the hon. member had the opportunity to do so during study of Bill C-402? She could have introduced a bill that truly reflects the needs of the people of the Montérégie region. In fact, I introduced a bill to combat poverty and support low-income groups, but it was defeated by the members across the way.

Does it make any sense to hold consultations to find out what matters to one's constituents, then ignore them by failing to introduce a bill or move a motion that is in line with their expectations? The answer to that question is self-evident. Nevertheless, I understand that changing a riding name is a symbolic gesture that matters to us all. That is why I will support Bill C-377.

I am especially proud to announce that, in 2019, my riding will bear a new name, Saint-Hyacinthe—Acton, a name that better reflects the reality of the riding I represent. I am sure the people of Acton Vale will identify with the new riding name more than the old one. By changing the name, I want to highlight the vitality of the people and businesses of Acton Vale. They make our wonderful riding proud. Acton Vale is so dynamic, in fact, that it was named Montérégie's industrial city of the year in 1992, a title that attracted national attention to our region.

I must admit, I am already looking forward to rising in the House in 2019 and hearing the name Saint-Hyacinthe—Acton. In partnership with the Centre d'histoire de Saint-Hyacinthe, we have documented the history of the name of the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to learn more about our rich history and propel us forward by proposing the new name of Saint-Hyacinthe—Acton.

I want to thank the entire team at the Centre d'histoire de Saint-Hyacinthe and all the volunteers who for decades now have been working hard to promote, share, and study the rich history of our town and the region of Saint-Hyacinthe. Ever mindful of innovation, the Centre d'histoire wants to acquire, process, and preserve archives, documents, and artefacts from individuals and organizations, while also sharing them.

The centre has over 500 archival holdings and collections totalling more than one linear kilometre of text documents, nearly 285,000 graphic documents, and 140,000 maps. The Centre d'histoire also has the archival holding of the Seminary of Saint-Hyacinthe, which was founded in 1811. These holdings, which include nearly 70 linear meters of textual documents and over 7,000 photographs, are an undeniable source of information on teaching. For music lovers, the Centre d'histoire also has the holdings of La Bonne Chanson, founded by Father Charles-Émile Gadbois in 1937 at the Seminary of Saint-Hyacinthe.

I thank the Centre d'histoire de Saint-Hyacinthe for all its work and dedication to our community. The people of Saint-Hyacinthe can be proud to have such a centre that really cares about preserving our collective memory.

Getting back to the name of the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, it no longer holds the same meaning as it once did. The riding I represent covers all the municipalities in the Maskoutains RCM and Acton RCM. I therefore think it is important that the riding include the name of both RCMs so that the people of Acton feel just as included as the people of Saint-Hyacinthe.

Since the riding was created in 1860, it has gone by the name of Saint-Hyacinthe, Saint-Hyacinthe—Rouville, Bagot, and now Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

This rich history has made me so proud to represent my constituents in Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale in the House since 2015.

As I already mentioned, I look forward to rising in the House from 2019 to 2023 and to hear myself referred to proudly as the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Acton.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, soon to be known as Saint-Hyacinthe—Acton, on her speech. This is a beautiful riding name. We are all proud of our riding names, because they mean something and they are important to people. If the names were not important, ridings could be referred to as A, B, C, D, E, F, J, or one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, all the way up to 338. Riding names mean something, and that is important.

Riding names are so important that we did a bit of research. During previous Parliaments, members from this honourable House introduced 72 private member's bills to change their riding name. They did not all succeed, but they tried.

Apparently there was one that succeeded in the 38th Parliament, Bill C-304, which was put forward by a Conservative member to change the riding name West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast to what is now the longest name in our House, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. I am sure the citizens of that riding are very proud to have that name. The member at the time thought that was the most important thing for him to do with his time in the House, and that is indeed what he did.

That is really what it comes down to. I do not think we are quibbling any longer about the name of my riding. I think we are talking about how we use the time of the House. We are each here, all 338 of us, to represent our citizens, and it is the priority of our citizens that count. By the way, the citizens in my riding voted for a Liberal member of Parliament because they wanted a Liberal government to put forward the things that were most important to them.

They elected a Liberal member of Parliament. I think it took 30 years. My constituents spent a long time with people who did nothing for their riding. Now, they have a Liberal member of Parliament who works for them and who addresses their needs. I am proud to be a member of the governing party that is doing important things for my constituents. This government is taking care of the important things, like putting more money in families' pockets with the Canada child benefit.

The Canada child benefit is putting more than $6 million a month in the pockets of our local families, which are spending it in our local economy. People on secure incomes have seen an increase. They know they have an ear in Ottawa for the concerns of most importance to them, such as social housing, an expanded employment insurance program, and parental care. They know this government cares about them.

I do not think I need to take up any more of my colleagues' precious time here in this august chamber. I know and I think that I can count on the support of everyone here to change the name of my riding.

If not because hon. members may not necessarily agree with it, or how I did it or how it came to be; it is because the citizens of Châteauguay—Lacolle want to be called citizens of Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 22, at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 24(1) and 28(2).

(The House adjourned at 1:58 p.m.)