Debates of June 17th, 2024

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know both the mover and the seconder would want a recorded vote on their amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 146. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 147.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, since so many Canadians are engaged in following the budget and the upcoming vote, I would ask for a recorded vote on that amendment, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 148. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 149 to 153.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, after nine years, we believe we need some more common sense, and common sense would say that we need a recorded vote on that amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 154. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 155 to 161.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure you I am not doing this to try to beat the word count in the House of Commons of the member for Winnipeg North today, but I will request a recorded vote on that amendment as well.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded divisions stand further deferred until Tuesday, June 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North gave his speech and his comments on the government's proposed legislation, Bill C-65. One thing he forgot to mention was probably the most well-known part of the bill he has just spoken about for several minutes, which is the Liberals' attempt to change the election date; we have affectionately called this the NDP-Liberal pension protection act.

It was the Liberal-NDP agreement to change the election by a week for some reason that just happened to give class of 2019 members of Parliament their pensions if they were defeated in the next election. Thankfully, after relentless pressure from Conservatives, the NDP heard from many Canadians who thought that was an absolutely dreadful and shameful approach.

I want to get the member on the record. Does he now agree that this was nothing but partisan politics in an attempt to try to save some of their pensions for their own gain? Will he now agree that it was a terrible idea and nothing but a fake premise to try to change the date of the election to benefit their pensions?

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

Madam Speaker, I understand the Conservative-Reform party members are a little weak in math. There are actually more than double the number of opposition members who would benefit from this than Liberal members. I can assure the member across the way that it had absolutely nothing to do with the legislation.

It is unfortunate that he did not hear the comments from the minister directly. I would ask the member to reflect on the fact that it is a minority government, which means the will of the committee will ultimately prevail. As the minister himself indicated, we will support the committee.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I am really concerned about is foreign interference. We heard about it in the news. The leader of the Conservative Party refuses to get the security clearance he needs to participate. I think this is happening at a time when there are many things people are questioning around the safety of our elections.

How does the member across the way feel about the Conservative leader's fear, as it seems to be fear, to get security clearance?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think that is a fair question. Why does the leader of the Conservative Party not want to get the security clearance to have the full, unredacted briefing? It is a legitimate question. I suspect that the leader of the Conservative Party would rather play political games than do justice to the issue at hand.

I find that unfortunate. As one of my colleagues asked, what is the leader hiding? We know there are references, for example, to the Conservative leadership. I suspect that might be the leadership he ran in. Is there something that he is scared of? What is the reason? The leader has not provided any explanation other than he does not want to know.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, the legislation amending the Canada Elections Act is an important piece of legislation. In fact, it is critical because it seeks to improve access to electoral participation, while also ensuring the continued integrity of our system. It has to go to committee to be studied further because it is essential to our democratic process.

Can the member elaborate on that? Can he give us his reasoning and his opinion on that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are many aspects of the legislation that would ultimately be modernized. It deals, for example, with issues like cryptocurrency. Across the way, we have the king of cryptocurrency, the member for Carleton, who apparently knows the benefits of cryptocurrency. However, we need to ensure that we do not have foreign actors investing in cryptocurrency and donating to candidates or political entities during or outside of elections. I think that is a positive aspect of the legislation. It deals with misinformation and it enhances the opportunity for people to vote. It makes a whole lot of sense to get behind this legislation.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think a lot of Canadians watching out are not sure what this bill actually refers to. I will quote an article quickly. It states, “Canada soon to be governed by the pension coalition in Ottawa.” It says this new law, Bill C-65, proposes to move the election date, meaning 80 MPs would get vested in their pension. Let us just call the government we have in Ottawa what it would be after this new law, Bill C-65, passes: the pension coalition.

My question is to the NDP and Liberal members. Are they still the pension coalition; yes or no?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is a little weird. There is no NDP-Liberal pension coalition. There is an NDP-Liberal understanding that this is important legislation. Even though the Conservative Party opposes the legislation, there is a great deal of value in strengthening our election laws by seeing the legislation go to committee. If there is a coalition, I would even suggest that the Bloc also recognizes the value of the legislation.

I would remind my friend opposite we are in a minority government. When dealing with this issue, the minister has indicated he will abide by what the committee proposes with respect to that, or listen to any other ideas that would give strength to the legislation. It is beyond me as to why the Conservative-Reform party is not supporting this legislation going to committee.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, we lived under the Harper regime and, of course, the Conservative attempts to ensure that people could not vote, using all kinds of subterfuge and disinformation, trying to attack indigenous peoples, youth and poor people in our communities across the country. The Harper regime was absolutely terrible in trying to reduce the number of Canadians voting. We saw all of the techniques that they used to try to do that. Now, the Republicans in the United States are doing the same thing. They are disenfranchising racialized people. The attempt by the Conservatives and by the Republicans is to have fewer people voting, so they can better control the rest of the population.

I want to ask my colleague, is that why the Conservatives are opposing this legislation, which broadens the vote and makes it easier for Canadians to exercise the fundamental democratic freedom of voting for the government that they choose? Is that why Conservatives are so incredibly opposed to broadening the franchise and letting every Canadian vote?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is a great deal of merit to the argument that the member has just put forward.

I would add to it by reflecting on the voter identification card, which members would remember. The Conservative Harper government, when the current Conservative leader was a part of that government, advocated that that particular voting card should not be used as proof of identification that would enable a person to vote. We even had one Conservative who grossly exaggerated abuse of the card and literally made up a story about how cards were being thrown to the side and then gathered and how people were going to vote, or something of that nature. That member had to formally apologize for being intentionally misleading.

There is a valid argument that the Conservative-Reform party today does not want to see an enhanced electoral system that sees more people vote. That could be a major aspect of the problem.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative leader refuses to get security clearance, so the Conservative leader will not know who in his caucus either deserves not to be in the caucus, or deserves not to be given the leader's signature to run in the next election.

Would my hon. colleague suggest that the Conservative caucus is a safe place for MPs who might be working against Canada?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that leaders of political parties play an important role in terms of signing off on want-to-be candidates, and that is something that has not necessarily been on the table. It is part of the reason why it is so highly irresponsible of the leader of the Conservative-Reform party, today, not to get that security clearance.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to this bill, Bill C-65, the electoral participation act. However, I like to refer to it as the electoral ousted Liberal pension act. Some of my colleagues refer to it as the NDP-Liberal election pension protection act.

As a member of Parliament, though, Madam Speaker, I am deeply committed to upholding the principles of democracy and fairness, and I must voice my strong opposition to this legislation and to its detrimental implications for our political system. At the heart of my opposition is the proposal, or the provision, in this bill to move the election day to a later date, to solely benefit certain members of Parliament in qualifying for their pensions. Literally, this bill is a cynical attempt by the Liberal government to move the election day from October 20 to October 27 next year. This would then result in 80 MPs getting a pension or qualifying for a pension because they will have reached the required six years of service. Long story short, this is a bill aimed at giving pensions to losing Liberals at the next election. In fact, of the 80 MPs, there are 32 Conservatives, 23 Liberals, 19 Bloc Québécois and 6 NDP MPs who would benefit from this proposed election day change.

However, my colleagues, Canada's Conservatives, are very much opposed to this change, even if we are the party that stands to benefit the most. It is not only the Conservatives here who are opposed, but also many others who have not voted Conservative in the past and who are opposed to this bill. It is specifically because of the change in the date of the proposed election. This proposal is not just a procedural tweak. It strikes at the core of what it means to serve in public office with integrity and accountability. Elections should never be scheduled to line the pockets of losing MPs. We all knew the rules when we came here, and we ought to abide by them. One cannot change the rules just because one is losing the game. This is what I certainly see occurring here. It is rather disgusting, in my eyes.

Let me be clear about this proposal in this bill. By shifting the election date, the Liberal government is manipulating the electoral process to serve the interests of a select few MPs who are nearing their forced retirement. This undermines the democratic foundation upon which our country stands, and it reflects poorly on the House as a whole. It has never been okay to change the rules for personal benefit. I even question if those 80 MPs who stand to benefit would be in a conflict of interest when the time comes to vote on this bill. Perhaps they should not be voting on this bill. Perhaps they should not even be speaking to this bill. That is food for thought for colleagues and food for thought for perhaps the Ethics Commissioner.

If the motivation to move to the final election day is actually motivated by an intent to avoid provincial elections or cultural holidays, then the Liberal government should look at moving it up instead, and make it happen sooner so that it does not look so cynical in the eyes of the taxpayer. In fact, we here on the Conservative side of the House, would be happy to move it up maybe a year or even this summer. Let us have it during the stampede. Would that not be a celebration of the stampede, to win the election? Most Canadians are ready to cast their ballots now and not to drag it on for another year and a half.

With respect to existing legislation and to the other additional measures proposed in this bill, Canadians are offered significant alternative ways and days to vote in general elections. I am talking about advanced polls, perhaps.

That is an alternative, absolutely. Advance polls exist; they are held on the tenth, ninth, eighth and seventh days before an election day. In fact I have rarely voted on election day, and I have found that advance polls are a very effective way of guaranteeing making one's vote count. Leaving one's vote to the last days could have some risk, of course. A person can find themselves sick or otherwise unable to attend a polling station, due to weather reasons, a vehicle breakdown or whatever. Advance polls tended to be less crowded also, compared to on election day, which is certainly appealing to me. I hate crowds, so get me in on an advance poll any day for an election for sure.

There are other methods of voting also. People can vote by mail. They must complete an application for the registration and special ballot by mail. They have to do it after the election is called, however. Canadians living abroad can apply any time. They can apply now to vote by mail in a future election, whenever that may be. People can also vote in person at any Elections Canada office across the country when an election is called; they can do that until the sixth day before election day.

If someone is on holiday in Charlottetown and they live in Calgary, for example, they can vote in Charlottetown. They just have to go to an office there and must also, again, complete an application for registration and a special ballot. They have to show their identity and where they live, and they can get a ballot. There are many options, many opportunities and many ways to vote during an election.

I want to talk a bit now about voter participation. Voter participation in Canada, as most of us know, has fluctuated greatly over the time we have been a country. In 1896, for example, only 62.9% of Canadians voted, but the following election, on November 7, 1900, saw the rate rise to a near record of 77.4%. That was when Mr. Wilfrid Laurier was re-elected. He was re-elected to a second majority government then. That was the ninth Parliament of Canada. There were 128 seats. He won over a Conservative, Charles Tupper.

Back then, 77.4% of Canadians participated. The rate of voter participation did not drop below 62% for the next 100 years, so it was fairly high. Since then, there has been a persistent drop in voter participation. In 1988, voter participation started its decline from 75.3% to a rate that now, in the last few elections, has hovered in the low to mid-60s. There is no question that in recent years, voter turnout has been a pressing concern in Canadian elections.

The fact remains, though, that if someone does not cast their vote, the person who does is the one who speaks for them. As the saying goes, those who do not participate in the democratic process are destined to be ruled by those who do. We also have heard it expressed that if someone did not vote, they do not have the right to complain. I certainly have said that to many people whom I have talked to who come to me to complain about the current Liberal government or to complain perhaps about some of the work I do in my constituency. I ask them, “Well, did you vote?” If they say no, I say, “Well, you do not have the right to complain to me.”

However, we can take some satisfaction in knowing that Canadians are traditionally better at turning out for elections than our neighbours to the south. The 2020 election in the U.S. had a record turnout; it brought 66% of the voting population out to vote. Historically, though, American elections are often decided with less than 50% of the population.

For many years, the focus on increasing voter participation has focused on additional voting opportunities and alternative voting methods but it has not worked out as hoped. One must honestly ask why voter turnout continues to go down as the number of opportunities to vote has only increased. The downward trend in voter participation indicates a troubling disengagement among Canadians, and youth in particular, from their democratic process.

Youth voter turnout in Canadian federal elections remains lower than the turnout of all other age groups. The most common reason for not casting a ballot is that many youth are just not interested in politics. They are disengaged. There is no hope for young voters with the current economy the way it is, the way the Liberal government has decimated our economy.

I am pretty confident, though, that voter turnout at all ages and in all age groups will dramatically increase in the next election as people look to make sure change happens in Ottawa. There will be a desire to get rid of a government that has a new scandal by the day and a phony NDP opposition party that sold its soul to keep the Liberals in power this long.

I also think we need to focus on instilling the importance of voting as a civic duty. Let me share part of a speech that I gave a couple of years ago to new citizens. It was at a citizenship swearing-in ceremony in Calgary at the Telus Spark Science Centre, close to the zoo, for those people who want to know where it is.

I said, at the swearing-in ceremony, “Today, you raised your hand and took the oath of Canadian citizenship. Today you become part of the Canadian story—a land of many people from many lands with one shared goal—a better Canada.

“Now, you will be able to participate in our great democracy. No matter your political stripe, you all now have a treasured duty to participate and make Canada even greater.

“Embrace your new citizenship, cherish what it means and enjoy what it provides.

“Your new citizenship carries with it many responsibilities—to better your community, to help your fellow Canadian and to proudly represent our nation around the world.”

We need to instill in Canadians new and old that one has a duty to participate in our democratic process. We need to show people that elections do matter, that their voice is heard and that they have the power to determine who leads their country. We owe it to those who fought for us in past wars and those who died on distant battlefields to ensure that we have that freedom today, the freedom to vote.

Finally, in conclusion, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to uphold the highest standards of transparency and accountability. We are entrusted by the people of Canada to represent their interests and safeguard the democratic values upon which our country was founded.

Bill C-65, the bill we are debating here tonight, in its current form would fail to meet those standards. Let us be honest with Canadians. This is not a bill about increasing voter participation; it is a bill that is aimed at giving pensions to losing Liberals at the next election. It is disgusting. It is self-serving behaviour that is likely the cause of voter apathy in this country more than anything else.

The bill prioritises short-term gains for a handful of MPs over the long-term health of our democracy and the trust of our citizens, so I call upon my fellow colleagues across party lines to join me in opposing the bill, Bill C-65. We need to stand together in defence of democratic principles and the rights of all Canadians, so let us send a message, a resounding message, that we are committed to a political system that values integrity, fairness and above all else, the public trust.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the passion in my colleague's speech, but are we at risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? The one issue, the pensions, I understand. I have had my own correspondence on that, but we are talking about sending something to committee where the committee would have the opportunity to take out the things that the majority in the committee disagrees with. Does the member have faith in the committee system that the committee would actually return a bill to Parliament in a form that Canadians would accept?

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would absolutely hope that if the bill goes to committee, which I expect it to do because of the support of both the Liberal and the NDP caucuses, it has to be amended. It has to eliminate that opportunity for these losing Liberals and losing NDP members to get that pension because of the date changes. That has to change. If it does not change, they are going to hear about it. They are going to hear from their constituents. They are going to hear about it come election day, whenever that date will be. They are hearing about it now. I cannot imagine that the hon. member does not hear it right now from his constituents. I hear it all the time, not only from my Conservative supporters, but also from the people who support the NDP and the people who support the Liberals. They say that, if this passes, they will vote for me for the first time.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It was very thoughtful and wise. I really liked the fact that he said perhaps members should not be allowed to vote to postpone the election because they could be in a conflict of interest. I really liked that.

To me, that is a critical aspect of this legislation. The government is postponing the election for a ridiculous reason. It could have suggested holding it sooner instead. The legislation offers enough opportunities for people to vote early, for example.

The most troubling part is what this does to perceptions of parliamentarians. The public is once again going to take refuge behind arguments like the fact that these MPs will qualify for pensions a little earlier. I myself am one of them. I was elected in 2019, and I absolutely do not support this utterly ridiculous date change.

I would like to hear my colleague talk about how the public would perceive this bill if it were passed.