Debates of May 31st, 2024

Electoral Participation Act

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I am wrong, but I do not believe our hon. colleague is in her actual seat.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Perhaps we will give the member a chance to get to her seat.

Everything is in order.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I was so caught up in this compelling and interesting debate that I forgot the rules. I will come back to my question. Bill C-65 is on electoral participation. Above all, our role as elected members is to ensure that more people participate in the electoral process.

For some time now I have seen a pileup of bills, facts or news in the House that are harmful to democracy. Let me explain. When two parties call each other names—I saw this again just this week—this just fuels hate and fosters a hateful environment that discourages people from going out to vote. I do not think that shouting insults is very edifying for democracy.

I have another concern. The Bloc Québécois is losing a riding in eastern Quebec. Not only are we losing political weight in the region, but Quebec is also losing political weight. It is worrisome for democracy. Now more elements are being added that will hinder the next election, namely having the federal election at the same time as another election. Moreover, people will only become more cynical about politics because they will think that politicians are giving themselves a pension by moving the date of the next election.

This is starting to really add up. What does my colleague think?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very good question. I think she raises a good point with the so-called electoral reform, by which I mean the latest redistribution. The electoral map is obviously a part of democracy.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in this bill to correct the issues being faced in regions where the ridings are even larger, where the impression of being far from power is even greater, and where the work of MPs and elected representatives is even more difficult. These are the kinds of issues we would like the feds to address. However, we are getting the impression that the Liberals are turning a deaf ear.

We know that an independent Quebec would be more receptive because there is already a willingness in Quebec to ensure that the regions are heard and well represented. We know that a process of reflection is under way.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the member about applying the same principles that he used in his speech for Quebec to Alberta. His response was that this in Alberta, and it does not matter to him.

There are 30-plus Conservative MPs from Alberta. Does the member believe they should at least give some thought to the impact of having Calgary, Edmonton and municipal elections throughout the province?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member opposite understood my answer. What I am telling him is that I am a member of the Bloc Québécois, a member from Quebec, and that my focus is Quebec.

However, he is a member of the party in power and it is up to the Liberals to manage the entire country and all the concerns of every province. It is up to them to find solutions. If someone tables a solution to these problems, we will not oppose it. However, we are focusing on Quebec's problems.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House to represent the people of London—Fanshawe and to speak today to this really important piece of legislation.

Today is yet another win for Canadians being delivered by the NDP caucus. It is yet another example of what can be accomplished by sending members of Parliament to the House of Commons who put people first. We do not focus on ourselves. We do not work to expand only our own power, or the power of our rich donors, because we do not have rich donors; we have normal people working together for a cause that they believe in. New Democrats work to ensure that our democratic institutions are strengthened for all people. This legislation is a good step. It is one step, but a good step to give power back to Canadians and not tear down democracy simply for clickbait.

When we all arrived in Ottawa, after the 2021 election, there were a lot of choices that had to be made by all members. We had the choice to spend the next four years fighting, accomplishing little for our constituents, throwing tantrums because we could not get the results that we wanted, or we could be better. My caucus knew that Canadians wanted action. As a New Democrat who grew up under the leadership shown by Jack Layton, I knew the importance of balancing a proposition while in opposition. We did not want to be like the Conservatives spending four years fundraising and disrupting Parliament. We knew the Liberals would spend four years breaking the promises that they had been making to Canadians for so long, so we stepped up.

One thing is very clear in the House: New Democrats and Conservatives have a very different understanding of our responsibility in this House. We are elected by constituents as individuals first. We are here to fight for them, sometimes alongside colleagues in the government, sometimes not. We saw this in action during COVID-19. In this chamber, we put politics aside and fought for Canadians in one of the largest crises in Canada. We, the NDP, used our power in a minority government to collaborate with all sides. We increased the Canada emergency wage subsidy to protect jobs. We made sure that the Canada emergency response benefit provided enough supports for everyone so they could make ends meet. We ensured necessary programs were coming out on time with minimal barriers. We made sure that students were supported. All parties, to differing degrees, came together during COVID. I think that Canadians noticed that support for Parliament as an institution and the respect that they had was felt.

Parliament is at its worst when political parties wield their majorities as a way to shut down others, but our experience during the COVID-19 pandemic showed politics can work for Canadians when we come together. We have seen how collaboration can help more and more Canadians. Our agreement with the government says it all. If Liberals finally deliver on their promise of ending first past the post, we can make that collaboration the rule, not the exception. We can end a system where 100% of the power goes to a party with less than 40% of the vote. We can end a system that incentivizes the toxic clip culture and recklessness from opposition parties waiting to have their turn. Canadians would like to see Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc, NDP and Green members working together on solutions. If we can listen to Canadians and end first past the post, we can make that collaboration. Again, it could be the rule, not the exception, in this place.

I would like to talk more about how working together has helped Canadians: 1.7 million seniors have registered for dental care, the single-biggest expansion of our health care system since Tommy Douglas; nine million Canadians will receive barrier-free birth control; 3.7 million Canadians will receive diabetes medication and devices for free; a new rental protection fund to stop greedy corporate landlords from getting rich off the backs of precarious renters is set to happen; a new national school food program will provide meals for 4,000 children across Canada; and now, today, with the introduction of Bill C-65, we can move toward fairer elections.

Today is a great example of why New Democrats needed to step up and use our influence to make Liberals act. I remember knocking on doors in 2015, and the powerful promise given to Canadians by the Prime Minister that 2015 would be our last unfair election under first past the post. How many people in this place remember hearing that? In 2015, the Liberals were elected with a majority government and had four full years to exercise their majority in this House to pass that legislation but, in 2019, confusingly, I was elected to this chamber by London—Fanshawe under first past the post.

Then, in 2021, even the Prime Minister was catching on, saying that we had to eliminate first past the post and he again said, “Oh, I will take on election reform". New Democrats knew that was not going to happen, that we would see that election promise broken again, and that is exactly what happened.

My colleague, the NDP MP for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, brought forward a fantastic motion to create a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. She argued to this House that Canadians were becoming cynical about politics. A 2020 Leger poll showed that 80% of Canadians supported the creation of a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. This was a popular idea to solve the drop in voter turnout in Canada. However, the Liberals and Conservatives teamed up in February to defeat it.

If Canadians are thinking that the new Conservative leader will be any better, I am sad to say that is not the case. In 2014, he was the Minister of State for Democratic Reform and brought forward infamous unfair changes to the Canada Elections Act. At a time when there was growing consensus in Canada to fix our broken electoral system, the Conservative leader created more barriers to vote and made the process less democratic. The Conservative leader was caught misleading this House when he promised he had consulted the Chief Electoral Officer, but within minutes of his making this claim, Elections Canada officials corrected the record to say that they were never consulted on the contents of the bill.

It took years to see the true impact of another major problem with this bill, because the Conservatives stripped the investigative powers of the office of the commissioner of Canada elections. Now we know the rest of the story. We have had years of foreign interference allegations that have shaken this country, but the elections watchdog was stripped. It probably had something to do with the Conservatives' getting caught in that infamous robocall scandal.

Canadians know that our elections need more oversight. Conservatives stripped it away. The Conservative bill also allowed for more monetization of our political system. The Conservative leader spiked the maximum donation limit, so the Conservatives' rich insiders could fill their coffers. The Conservative leader made expense-limit loopholes, further making it easier to influence election outcomes by those who have lots of money.

The most cynical part of the bill was that they doubled down on the systemic barriers for marginalized people to participate in our elections. Indigenous communities, youth, seniors and the poor are disenfranchised by politics. Politicians use their power to benefit the wealthiest elites in this country, but it is these marginalized communities who need to engage in our electoral system to elect officials who will champion their needs. The Conservatives made it harder for them to engage in our electoral process. The Conservatives knew that tightening rules on voter identification would systematically disenfranchise these voters. They did not care. The Conservatives knew it would cause confusion for those communities, and they went as far as banning Elections Canada from advertising to these communities with respect to how to vote under the new system, which was shameful. Finally, the Conservatives rammed this legislation through Parliament to avoid scrutiny, using their majority government and tight time allocation.

Those are not the only changes that the Conservatives made to our elections. The Conservatives used their majority to cut a crucial part of our democracy: per-vote subsidy. Since the NDP was founded in 1961, we have been the party of workers who came together to end the monopoly on politics wielded by the richest and most powerful. The per-vote subsidy meant that Canadian political parties did not need to rely on big donations in exchange for political favours. It allowed Canadians to not only vote for their member of Parliament but to also have a say in which political party had the resources to campaign to get their message out. The Conservatives would rather their insider buddies decide, and they cut the per-vote subsidy while hiking that maximum donation limit. Therefore, the Conservatives made things worse. They made elections less fair, less transparent and less accessible.

After the last election, we saw the impact of lower voter participation on our democracy. We knew, as New Democrats, that we needed to use our influence and place Canadians first. We used our power to get these changes to Parliament.

Now, let me be clear: This bill is not perfect. We have a number of changes that we would like to make when this reaches committee, but in this bill there are important wins.

The bill would add two additional days of advance polling, bringing the total to seven, including election day. It would require Elections Canada to offer online registration for special mail-in ballots. It would create the option to register early for special ballots in the case of fixed-date elections. It would create the option for electors to return special ballots in person or vote in person on election day if they have registered for, but not submitted, a special ballot. It would enshrine in legislation the Vote on Campus program for post-secondary students; and make voting easier in long-term care facilities by allowing returning officers to work with facilities to identify the best date and time for residents to vote early, removing proof-of-address requirements for electors in these facilities and allowing them to choose anyone they would like to assist them with voting.

The bill would require a report to Parliament by the Chief Electoral Officer on steps needed to give electors the ability to vote at any polling station in their riding by 2029. It would require a report to Parliament by the Chief Electoral Officer on steps needed to implement a three-day election day period for general elections by 2029 and beyond. It would increase protections against election interference and foreign financing of third party campaign activities. It would introduce new protections against people knowingly making false or misleading statements related to an election or the voting process.

The bill has new third party finance rules requiring increased transparency on the source of funding that third parties use to pay for regulated activities. It would create new safeguards for voters' personal data held by political parties.

I mentioned that there were things that we wanted to see changed. We need to see more in the bill, and we will be pushing for that at committee. We want to ensure that all communities and Canadians can engage in our electoral system. That means allowing indigenous languages on ballots across Canada. That means allowing telephone voting for people with disabilities. That means lowering the voter age to 16. These changes are critical to ensure we elect politicians who look like and serve all Canadians

We also want to remove any chance of the bill being cynically used for MP pensions. We want to ensure that the bill would not circumvent the normal procedure for allocation of MP pensions and ensure that any change to the election day does not push anyone over the line for access to a pension that they would not have otherwise received.

We also want to ensure that unions are not unduly prohibited from communicating with their own members about politics. Despite attacks by other parties, unions are part of our democracy. They are elected. We cannot just have electoral democracy; Canadians need economic and workplace democracy. That means ensuring workers can come together and work together to change our political system.

We also know Canada is lagging behind on the world stage for gender parity in politics. In 1997, 20.6% of members of Parliament were women. Today, we have only grown to 30.6%, well behind countries, like Mexico, that have reached gender parity by making it a part of their electoral process. I am very proud that the NDP has a robust gender equity policy in our selection of candidates, but the last couple of weeks have shown that we cannot rely on political parties alone to make that change. Canadian women deserve true representation. They need gender parity in this House, and that will require changing how we do elections.

I just wanted to expand on this a bit, too, in terms of what I have seen in the procedure and House affairs committee recently, as we are talking about harassment in this place and in this institution. The misogyny that we see in this place needs to be rectified. I have approached many progressive women, seeing if they would put their names forward. They see what happens in this place. They do not want to be a part of that. They cannot see themselves in this place. That has a huge negative impact on how we govern this country.

As I conclude, the NDP is extremely proud to have pushed the Liberal government to make elections more accessible for Canadians. There is a lot more work to be done, and we need to keep pushing to make sure that it is done. Canadians are sick and tired of those broken promises, and they are sick and tired of being manipulated solely so certain parties can focus on their own power and privilege.

There are fundamental changes that we need to make to ensure that every Canadian's vote matters. I believe that means ending first past the post, which is key for proportional representation; getting indigenous languages on ballots; telephone voting for people with disabilities; and lowering the voting age to 16 years of age for those who contribute to our financial system yet have no voice within our democratic system.

This bill, while a small first step, is a very good step. With New Democrats using our power to deliver fairness for Canadians, we are proud that we will be making our electoral system better and fairer.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, after nine years of the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister and the government's woke, wacko, extremist policies, Canadians are poorer than they have ever been before. It is because the New Democrats have helped prop up the most corrupt Prime Minister in Canadian history. He doubled rents and mortgages and made food unaffordable, all on a pathway to quadrupling the carbon tax scam.

Does the member agree that it is time for her party to stop protecting its leader's pension, stop propping up the corrupt Liberal-NDP government, help put an end to Canadians' misery and call a carbon tax election now so that common-sense Conservatives can axe the tax and Canadians can kick this costly coalition to the curb?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, there were a lot of slogans put into one question, albeit a very concise one.

Interestingly, I talked about clickbait in my speech. I do not know if the member heard that. I do not know if the member has heard me speak in this House about the rage farming that occurs. In my speech, I talked about how we can make our electoral system better, how we can make politics better, how we can work together, not for ourselves and not for the power that Conservatives seem to cling to so tightly, and how we can do that for the people who have elected us and need us to be better.

If I showed up at a workplace and all I did was fight with everybody I worked with, would I get anything done? Would I hold my position for long? No. I have to be better and we all have to be better, and I refute everything the member said.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on expanding advance polling. I will be providing further thoughts on this shortly, but when I reflect on it, I see that advance polling has had an uptick. More and more people are taking advantage of marking their X by participating at advance polls, one of the highlights of this legislation. I think we should all get behind supporting that initiative.

I am wondering if the member wants to emphasize her personal thoughts regarding the benefits of expanding the number of days to vote in advance.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly one of the reasons we are happy to move forward with this bill and make the needed changes. In fact, one of those changes, to put the election day back to the original date, would mean more advance polling or voting days. That is why we want to see the election expanded to three days. In the end, it would provide more opportunities.

We believe we would not have to argue so much about the end date if we had more days, more flexibility and more options for people to vote throughout the election process. This is about expanding that even more, and I am fully in support of it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on a few words that my colleague from London—Fanshawe said.

She said that we need to improve politics, be better, and rise above the kind of petty politicking that we see all too often.

There are a lot of good things in this bill. A more accessible electoral process is a good thing. The idea of extending advance polling station operations by a few days is a good thing.

However, instead of introducing a bill that would have brought the opposition parties together, the government included things like pushing back the election date, which opens the door to legitimate criticism from Canadians who see it as a move by the Liberals to provide pensions to those elected in 2019.

Why use a religious holiday as an excuse for a date change, knowing full well how much it would irritate proponents of a secular state who refuse to make unreasonable accommodations on religious grounds? Why put forward a date just six days away from upcoming municipal elections in 1,109 Quebec municipalities, and thus jeopardize Quebec's municipal election process?

There could have been a way to create a unifying bill that accommodated the sensitivities of all the parties, but no, they did not do that.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, I go back to what New Democrats have put on the table. We want to see this go to committee, so that we can make the changes necessary to do exactly as the member said and bring it back to the original date. We do not want this to be about us. This is about the electors. This is about Canadians and what they need.

To eliminate that conversation, let us make the changes that we need to, but we have to do that together instead of just striking the legislation down. We did not write the legislation. The government wrote it, but we are, again, being the adults in the room and taking the time to take a look at it and see how we can make it better. That is our job. Let us make it better.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that a lot of Canadians are increasingly feeling concerned and separated from government. I think it is imperative that we do not use slogans that separate and divide, but rather, clearly state where we are strong, even if we are reflecting on where other parties are weak.

I represent a more rural and remote community. I know that one of the challenges we have is that people will go to another part of the riding and think they can vote there. Of course, they are not always able to.

Can the member reflect on how having longer advance polls, longer election dates and a longer period of time to vote would allow people who are in a bigger riding to find the right place to vote?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's point of view is very important, in terms of the rural side and the disenfranchisement of those specific voters. They do not have the same access that other Canadians might have. That is key. That is one of the fundamental principles of a democratic election process. Ensuring that we have an expansion of advance days to vote is a really big part of that.

One thing that I would like to see, which has been floated, is for people to be able to vote wherever they are in the electoral district, no matter which polling station they have access to. I think that would take a lot of work. I think we need to put the resources into our Elections Canada office to do that kind of research and make that positive change for Canadians, no matter where they live and no matter who they are, within the democratic system.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I actually work together on the procedure and House affairs committee, and we worked closely together to get a lot of good things done.

The member brought up really good points in her intervention. I was on the electoral reform committee. I still have flashbacks. I know we were together with the member opposite as well.

The member brought up some really good points about increasing voter participation. Does she have any recommendations to include in this bill about how we can continue to increase voter participation?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate working with the hon. member on the procedure and House affairs committee, and the incredibly important work that we are doing in terms of the conversation about harassment in this workplace and what that means to our democratic institutions.

Within this bill, we need to expand a lot more. I am not sure if it would fit within this bill, but I did mention extending and expanding the voter age to 16, which my colleague put forward. Unfortunately, it was defeated, but we will keep trying for that.

Moving to mixed-member proportional representation would provide an understanding and immediate feedback to people that their vote matters. They would be able to see it more directly, as opposed to the first-past-the-post system, which we are stuck in right now.

I think the conversation about per-vote subsidy also has a really big part in this. It would allow the full enfranchisement of all political parties, based on the number of votes they get, to then continue the conversation and be able to get into the public sphere on a far more equal basis, allowing them to communicate to people, and then people would know their choices more.

All of those things need to be part of this conversation. I would love for it to be part of this bill, but these are conversations that we have to have collaboratively and together as part of our healthy democratic institution.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, in my rush to get to Government Orders, I missed a question. I ask for leave to go back.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, Question No. 2548 will be answered today.

Question No.2548—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

With regard to government contracts for dentistry services with Indigenous Services Canada, broken down by fiscal year, since 2017-18: (a) what is the total number of contracts signed; (b) what are the details of all contracts signed, including the (i) agency contracted, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) number of dentists provided, (iv) duration of the contract; and (c) what is the total amount of extra costs incurred as a result of relying on contracted services instead of employing dentists directly?

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to government contracts for dentistry services with Indigenous Services Canada or ISC, ISC does not systematically track this information in a centralized repository.

ISC undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response.

The information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database, and producing a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Electoral Participation Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address an issue that I was not able to address earlier today because of time constraints.

I want to amplify this, because my friend in the Bloc raised a really important point. One issue that was constantly being brought up in questions and answers was why the government gave any consideration to the change of date from October 20. It was interesting when the representative from the Bloc articulated, far better than I ever could have, that we were being insensitive by changing the date from October 20 to October 27 because municipal elections were going to be at the beginning of November. He brought up a lot of excellent representations to validate why he was concerned. He felt, in essence, that Quebec was not being treated fairly because we were moving the date to October 27.

I understood what the member said very clearly. That is why I asked him whether he would apply the very same principles that he articulated, with his concerns about the municipal elections in Quebec in early November, to Alberta, because for Alberta, October 20 is election day. That would mean for people who live in Edmonton, Calgary or any of the municipalities, the election on October 20 would be in direct conflict with both a federal and a provincial election. A voter on election day in Edmonton would be voting for a mayor, councillors, MPs and the prime minister.

We know the Bloc's position. As articulated, the Bloc would not support that if it was in Quebec. They made it very clear that they would not support a federal election that would interfere directly with the Quebec election. We saw the resistance to that when it was getting close to the election.

That causes us to ask this question: What about the Alberta members of Parliament? There are 34 members of Parliament from Alberta, 30 of whom are from the Conservative Party. I will say to those particular members that I give the Bloc some credit for taking into consideration the concerns of Quebec, even though they do not care about Alberta. However, what about Alberta MPs? There is not one word. In fact, from their seats they say they are fine; they are okay, no problems. There is no consideration whatsoever.

At the end of the day, when I look at the issue the Conservatives continue to raise, I see they want to label it for a reason, and I understand why. As a government, we brought forward the legislation, but as I said in my remarks when introducing the legislation, as a minority government, a majority of MPs, which implies more than one political party, have to support the legislation, including the changing of a date.

I understand where the Bloc is coming from, and there are some principled positions there. However, the Conservatives are one hundred per cent political in their nature. We should not be surprised by that, because the Conservative track record on reforming election laws is not all that good.

I was in the chamber, and I actually did a little bit of research on this one on openparliament.ca. I looked up a gentleman by the name of Brad Butt. Do members remember him? He was a Conservative MP who was sitting in the government backbenches. We were talking about the Fair Elections Act. He said:

I am from a semi-urban area of Mississauga, where there are many high-rise apartment buildings. On mail delivery day when the voter cards are delivered to community mailboxes in apartment buildings, many of them are discarded in the garbage can or the blue box. I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.

One has to put the bizarre, untruthful comments to the side and understand what the Conservative Party was trying to do at that time. Conservatives might have called it the Fair Elections Act, but what they were trying to do was deny Canadians the opportunity to use the cards that Elections Canada produced as part of ID, not sole ID, but as a part of it, for one purpose: They wanted to try to minimize the number of people participating in the election. They came up with their arguments to try to justify it, and Mr. Butt actually ended up retracting the claim, saying he never actually saw the incident and that it was just made up.

I have been a candidate in 10 or a dozen elections, and I can recall one mistake where I actually boosted a Facebook post, which I should not have done. I admitted that I should not have done it. No one is perfect. Even though I would argue that it was unintentional, there are intentional things that I see and have seen from the Conservative Party. We all remember the robocall scandal, where Conservatives were spreading misinformation in terms of not voting at a particular place on a particular day, trying to prevent or discourage individuals from voting, through misinformation directing them to other places. It was voter suppression.

Do members remember the in-and-out scandal? In fact in that one, the Conservative Party was actually charged for its inappropriate behaviour. What about Dean Del Mastro himself? I believe he was the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister. He is a gentleman who ended up leaving in handcuffs. We do not need to take lessons from the Conservative Party.

We see the frustrations and the Conservatives' general respect for election laws. I say it in this tone because I say that if one takes a look at what I said this morning, I thought I was maybe a little bit more diplomatic and kinder in my words, ultimately believing that all of us were supportive of the fine work that Elections Canada has done.

The legislation before us was brought forward as a way in which we could make some positive changes to ensure that we have even healthier and stronger elections where we see more voter participation. After I articulated it for a few minutes this morning, in the first question there was a labelling of the legislation as if it were not what it is meant to be: legislation that would enhance opportunities and strengthen our election laws.

Then we have the Conservatives, in particular, who are trying to make it out as a conspiracy that we are trying to beef up 32 Conservatives' pensions, as well as the pensions of 22 Liberal, 19 Bloc and a half-dozen NDP members.

It is as though that was the only consideration for this legislation and that no consideration was given to the Province of Alberta, which is going to be electing mayors and councillors in Edmonton, Calgary and other municipalities, or that we are not recognizing the Indo-Canadian community and Canadians, many of whom acknowledge and celebrate Diwali, including myself.

At the end of the day, as I said earlier this morning, we need to recognize the valuable role Canada plays today and can continue to play in leadership on democracy by supporting such things as the independence of Elections Canada and by looking at ways in which we can strengthen our election laws. That is the primary purpose for the legislation, and members opposite know this full well.

I heard that the NDP is going to be bringing in a motion to change the date and that the Bloc is going to support the motion. As for the Conservatives, who knows what they will do? They are likely going to support that motion too, so the only thing that has to be decided is what day.

I would suggest that maybe we should be considering what the Bloc said about the Province of Quebec and municipal elections. Maybe we should also be considering what is happening in Alberta. After all, the Bloc members said it is the government's problem. We have to deal with the Alberta situation; the Bloc only deals with Quebec. The government is at least putting it on the table, and if the Conservatives want to ignore it—