Debates of June 17th, 2024

Bill C‑65—Time Allocation Motion

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so that the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader why he has imposed a record number of closures and time allocations, I think, in the history of Canada. Why does he feel it necessary to constantly shut down debate, especially, ironically, on an election bill, or what some might call the “pension” bill? I would like to understand why the government continues to use closure more than any other government in history.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I know that my friend, the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, will be devastated that it is not the government House leader answering the question. He will have to take the answer from me, and I cannot imagine that is not a source of immense happiness for him.

It is somewhat ironic that a member of the Conservative Party would find something strange about using time allocation or closure. I often tease my seatmate, who is the government House leader, that Peter Van Loan, when he was House leader, actually left affixed to the top of the desk the motion that my colleague read, because no previous government in Canadian history used these parliamentary tactics more than the Harper government.

We are facing dilatory tactics from the Conservatives. We are trying to get this legislation to committee and do the business of the Canadian people.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have 30 minutes for questions and comments. I would ask members to please hold off on their questions and comments until they have the floor.

Order.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Democratic Institutions.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, my question for the minister is around the fact that we need to be moving forward to strengthen our democracy, to ensure that Canadians have access to be able to vote barrier-free. There is a lot of work that has to happen, and there is a lot of good content in the bill.

I find it pretty rich to see the Conservatives' response to the bill. There was a problem with the bill, which I identified, and I put forward an amendment. I am going to be putting forward an amendment, of course, to make sure that we move the date back to the original election date so that we do not see the consequence of MPs' pensions being impacted. However, instead of moving forward with solutions, the Conservatives, in true fashion, have been trying to cut and gut the entire bill to not see Canadians able to move forward with having as few barriers as possible in participating in the elections.

Does the minister think it is because the current system benefits the Conservatives that they would want to cut and gut this legislation, and why is it important that we see this bill go through?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank our colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for the work that she and her colleagues in the New Democratic Party did with us, in a collaborative way, to bring this legislation before Parliament.

When the Prime Minister and the leader of the New Democratic Party signed the supply and confidence agreement, one of the elements in that agreement was exactly as our colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith indicated: ways to amend the Canada Elections Act to make voting more accessible. I had the privilege of working with our former colleague, Daniel Blaikie, when we wanted to, for example, make campus voting a permanent fixture of the Elections Act and make it easier for people to register online for mail-in ballots. We think that it is important for Canadians to have access to the electoral process and be able to participate, obviously while ensuring the integrity of our system.

The Conservatives take their page from Donald Trump, trying to suppress votes, trying to make sure it is more difficult to vote and putting barriers in front of people voting. We saw that with Mr. Harper, and now they are doing the same thing here.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, the minister decided to change the election date so as not to disrupt a religious holiday, but clearly he did not consider the fact that he would be disrupting municipal elections.

The former president of the Union des municipalités du Québec, Daniel Côté, who also just happens to be the mayor of Gaspé, pointed out to me that 37 of the 45 days of municipal election campaigns would take place at the same time as the federal election campaign.

The minister knows as well as I do that there is a low turnout for municipal elections. Is he not concerned that democracy will suffer if there are two simultaneous elections in Quebec?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, in principle, I share my colleague's concern about the difficulty of determining a date that does not disrupt municipal elections in her province, as she rightly said. I believe that Quebec's municipal election day falls one week after the date proposed in the bill, which is October 27.

I, too, have a constructive relationship with the mayor of Gaspé. I saw him in the Gaspé last summer, and I hope to return in the coming weeks. I spoke to the mayor of Longueuil, Ms. Fournier, who contacted me about this issue. I am very aware of their views and appreciate the concern.

It is difficult to revert back to the original date of October 20, however, because the municipal elections in Alberta will be held on that same day. I am not talking about the election campaign, but the actual date of the Alberta municipal elections. There is also the religious holiday. That is the challenge of choosing a date. Obviously, we are going to rely on the judgment of parliamentarians.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments, especially when it comes to making voting more accessible for more Canadians. Something I hear in the riding of Waterloo is how we will ensure that Canadians receive good information, real information, and people often remind me of the Conservative history, such as robocalls to ensure that people did not know where to vote. I think the Conservatives were also notorious for even stealing a ballot box one time. I believe that member, the minister, got to see a Conservative taken out of this place in shackles.

I would love to hear from the minister why we are having to use time allocation for a second time today and the importance of Canadians having accessible voting and ensuring that more Canadians are able to vote and participate in democratic institutions.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Waterloo, as always, identified a serious concern that I think many parliamentarians share.

The Conservative Party has a long history of seeking to make voting more difficult by putting barriers in front of people, whether it is to register to vote or whether it is appropriate identification to ensure the integrity of people presenting themselves at the polls. In this case, one thing about this legislation that we think is very positive is that it would ban, for example, disinformation intended to disrupt the conduct of an election. It would remove a time frame limit for offences involving impersonation or false statements: for example, as my colleague from Waterloo noted, attempting to impersonate an official with Elections Canada or another candidate to create confusion around what is the appropriate place to vote.

We are happy to work with members of this House, of course. We think it is important to ensure the integrity of our electoral system, but also to ensure that it is accessible and fair for everyone.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will start by making clear that Greens support this bill, notwithstanding this one silly provision with respect to pensions. We, too, will be working across party lines to remove that from this bill.

When it comes to time allocation, by my count, a total of five members have spoken to this bill at second reading. In fact, I think the minister himself only spoke to the bill when he rose to introduce it originally. Earlier in the day, when it came to time allocation on the budget bill, the Greens supported that, recognizing there are some dilatory tactics at play this time of year. However, this particular bill has been up for debate one time, on a Friday, for a couple of hours.

How does the minister justify time allocation on this particular bill?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I think our colleague, the member for Kitchener Centre, understands the parliamentary process well. He knows that when this legislation gets to committee, it will be an opportunity for members on the committee and others who want to attend the committee to hear from expert witnesses. Obviously, the Chief Electoral Officer and others will be important witnesses for the committee. It will come back to the House at report stage and third reading.

We are also conscious of the importance of adopting legislation like this in a timely way to allow Elections Canada to be ready to implement these provisions. We appreciate that our colleague from Kitchener Centre supports this legislation. We would not, obviously, think that he would, in some cynical way, as the Conservatives do, pretend to take more time precisely to ensure that Elections Canada does not have reasonable time to be ready to implement these changes.

These are discussions I have had with the Chief Electoral Officer. We think it is time for Parliament to consider this legislation at committee as a result of today's proceeding.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is about as cynical as it gets. This is a pension bill under the guise of an elections bill. It ought to be called the “loser Liberal pension protection act”, because that is precisely what it is doing. It is designed to pad the pockets of soon-to-be loser Liberals so that they can secure pensions that they otherwise would not be entitled to. The government is literally giving the middle finger to everyday Canadians who are struggling as Liberals pad their pockets. Is that not the reason why the government House leader is moving to expedite this legislation?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely not. My friend should be concerned about the municipal election in Alberta that would happen on the day that the legislation originally contemplated the election, on October 20. There is also an important religious holiday, Diwali.

We look forward to the committee hearing from witnesses. No matter what date one chooses, any time that fixed election legislation contemplates a day, it will bump into significant religious holidays or some municipal, provincial or territorial elections. If we move the legislation back, for example, to October 20, that is the municipal election day in Alberta. We heard from our colleagues from the Bloc Québécois. They think seven days before the Quebec municipal election is too much time in terms of an overlap.

If the committee in its judgment wants to hear from witnesses and look at this issue, the government will obviously be happy to work with the committee. We think it is important to pass this legislation to make voting more accessible.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, we received this proposal to push back the date of the next federal general election by a week, on the pretext that the current date coincides with a Hindu holiday.

Unless someone can prove otherwise, the options to vote by advance polling or at the office of a returning officer are specifically intended for voters unavailable to vote on election day. I do not think anyone would be offended by that.

However, as we know, by delaying the date of the election for a week, members elected in 2019 would qualify for a pension. Not only would it be a generous parting gift for some of them, but it might be an opportunity to renew the team and attract new candidates.

Are the Liberals showing their elected members the door so that they can shop around for a better team, or are they in ethnocultural vote-buying mode? I think it is probably both.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I never thought I would hear such a cynical question as that from a Bloc Québécois colleague.

His colleague just asked a question about the importance of respecting municipal elections in Quebec. Obviously, we considered the representations of the Union des municipalités du Québec. Municipal elections are also being held in Alberta, as are provincial elections in Newfoundland and Labrador and territorial elections in Nunavut. My colleague chose to base his argument on a religious holiday. That is up to him.

We are also concerned about municipal elections scheduled in certain provinces at the same time. However, as I said, we hope that the committee will study the matter. If it decides to change the date, we will be happy to comply with its decision.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, first of all I would like to commend the great work of the commissioner of Canada elections, who has reached out to my office a few times regarding preparing for the next federal election, based on the work that I had started by introducing my bill, Bill C-297, to amend the Elections Act with respect to indigenous languages. I just want to use this time to follow up and ask the minister what kind of work is being done as a pilot project to make sure that indigenous languages are also on the ballot.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, our colleague from Nunavut again raises a very important point. We were inspired by the work she did in terms of indigenous languages' being included on the ballots. Having had a number of conversations with the Chief Electoral Officer and other colleagues, I was struck by the number of indigenous persons who when they would go to vote would be in a circumstance where, again, their ability to properly exercise their democratic right would be negatively affected by their inability to understand, whether it was English or French, what was on a ballot.

Therefore we thought that the legislation before us, to a very considerable extent inspired by the work of our colleague from Nunavut, would give Elections Canada precisely the authority and the ability to ensure that people in her territory, her constituency and other indigenous communities are able to exercise their rights, including having a ballot in their own language.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to just put one question really clearly to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs. With respect to the clause in the bill that would extend the voting date by one week so a number of Liberal MPs who are about to lose, by one week, their ability to attain a pension, was it put in the bill to appease the minister's caucus and the members who are about to lose their seat? It is a simple question: yes or no?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, no, and it certainly was not put in there to benefit the 32 Conservative MPs who would benefit by that change as well. Therefore the answer is no to both of those questions.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. Bill C-65 contains interesting elements, but it would require that Elections Canada offer online registration. However, we know that Canada has experienced foreign cyber-attacks, and that there have been interference and attempts at fraud. Those actors are trying to sow chaos. Russia has been particularly active on this front.

Would online registration not make us more vulnerable? Have special measures been considered to protect Canadians' data? I think that, in today's context, we are taking a risk. I would like to hear more from the minister on this.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, our colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue raises a question that should concern all members of Parliament. I had this discussion with the Chief Electoral Officer. I know that senior public servants in the Privy Council Office who work with Elections Canada are also concerned. I, too, am concerned.

However, I have been reassured by our cybersecurity services, in particular at the Department of National Defence. I was told that there is indeed a way of ensuring the integrity of the process.

Canadians must register to receive a ballot by mail. I think it is important to make that distinction. We are not allowing people to vote online. We are talking about having people register online to receive a ballot, which they can then return by mail or drop off in an appropriate box at Elections Canada. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses in committee and getting a better grasp of the issue.

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

Madam Speaker, in my riding there is a very large college, Fanshawe College, and I am always very concerned about students and their ability to vote. Could the minister talk about how important it is to ensure that we are constantly making it more accessible for students to have that right? This is especially important because often they are voting for the first time, and they are voting away from home. This would solidify consistency throughout their lifetime of exercising their right.

Business of the House

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28.