Debates of June 18th, 2024

Electoral Participation Act

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. The legislation would make it easier to vote and increase voter participation across the country, which is essential to a healthy, modern democracy.

One aspect of the legislation includes legislating campus vote as a permanent program. This is particularly important because it will increase voter engagement for youth and young adults.

Coincidentally, today, my nephew, Prabh Noor Singh Dhaliwal, a recent graduate of the Wharton School of Business of the University of Pennsylvania, which is one of the top business schools in North America, is visiting Ottawa. I am proud of his accomplishments, including being elected as vice-president of sponsorship and finance for the student body. It is important that our youth are engaged in the political process and are involved in all levels of government. This is the type of legislation that would allow that.

This important bill, which supports voter participation, better protects Canadians' personal information and enhances electoral safeguards and compliance measures. On electoral safeguards, the government has been continuously improving its response to the evolving threat of foreign interference by enhancing measures and adding new measures that strengthen Canada's electoral system.

The government is not alone in ensuring our electoral system is well protected. Parliament has entrusted responsibility to the independent commissioner of Canada Elections for ensuring that the Canada Elections Act is complied with and enforced. The commissioner's work is an essential element to upholding Canadians' trust in the integrity of Canada's electoral system and maintaining a fair and level playing field for all electoral participants. The critical role of the independent commissioner of Canada Elections and how the safeguards in Bill C-65 would be enforced is what I will speak about today.

First, I will outline how the commissioner fulfils her mandate. I will then turn to the specific proposals in Bill C-65.

In order to enforce and promote compliance with the Canada Elections Act, the commissioner is primarily responsible for conducting investigations and applying a suite of compliance measures as appropriate. The commissioner may initiate an investigation in a number of ways, including following a complaint from the public, a referral from Elections Canada or on her own initiative.

If the investigation reveals any contravention of the Canada Elections Act, the commissioner has a wide range of enforcement tools at her disposal that she can deploy depending on the severity of the contravention. These tools include laying criminal charges, which may lead to prison time and/or a fine; issuing a notice of violation accompanied by an administrative monetary penalty to promote compliance; or simply issuing information or caution letters to raise awareness of the rules, and encourage those who make an honest mistake to course correct.

Which enforcement tool the commissioner chooses to use depends on what would best serve the public interest and whether the contravention has been categorized as an offence or a violation under the act. The difference between the two is that offences may result in criminal prosecution, fines and/or prison time, while violations are considered administrative contraventions and are subject to administrative monetary penalties.

Some contraventions of the act could be considered either an offence or a violation, meaning that the commissioner would consider the facts of the case to determine which route would better serve the public interest.

The tools available to the commissioner have proven to be effective in promoting and maintaining compliance with the act, yet, as we are well aware, there is always room for improvement.

Bill C-65 would build on the strong compliance and enforcement foundation by adding to the commissioner's tool box in five new ways.

First, to enhance the commissioner's access to information pertaining to investigation, Bill C-65 would clarify that those who have been ordered by a judge to appear before the commissioner or her staff may also be ordered to produce any relevant documents at any time before, during or after the individual's initial appearance. This clarification would help avoid potential delays in the commissioner's gaining access to relevant information and would lower the risk of documents being lost or destroyed.

Second, the commissioner's authorities to enter into memoranda of understanding or other similar arrangements with national security organizations, such as FINTRAC or the Communications Security Establishment, would be made explicit. This added clarity around the expectations for collaboration between the commissioner and government security agencies would not only facilitate investigations and ensure the commissioner can gain access to information held by other federal departments, but it would also support government-wide efforts to respond to the threat of foreign interference in our elections.

Third, Bill C-65 would give the commissioner the option to pursue administrative contraventions currently treated as offences under the act as violations. An example would be taking a ballot selfie where these types of contraventions are better dealt with by the commissioner as opposed to our judicial system.

Other examples of existing offences that would be treated as violations and subject to administrative monetary penalties under Bill C-65 include preventing apartment building access to Elections Canada or campaign staffers for the purpose of engaging voters and wearing partisan materials at polling stations.

This expansion of the administrative monetary penalty regime will support the commissioner's ability to maintain compliance with the Elections Canada Act without lengthy unnecessary criminal investigations.

In addition to existing contraventions that will be newly classified as violations, non-compliance with a political party's privacy policy would also now constitute a violation. This means that the commissioner will be able to issue a notice of violation and administrative monetary penalty or pursue informal measures to encourage compliance, such as issuing caution or information letters, as appropriate.

Fourth, the electoral participation act would also provide the commissioner with the ability to issue administrative monetary penalties to those who support those who contravene the act in addition to the perpetrators themselves. While the measures I have highlighted will support the commissioner in holding those who broke the law accountable, those who conspire or attempt to break the law should also face consequences.

This brings me to the fifth and last measure, which would permit the commissioner to use her powers in instances where conspiracies or attempts to contravene the Elections Act have taken place. This means that those who try to break the law or encourage others to do so can be held accountable. Similar laws on conspiracies and attempts can be found in the Criminal Code and have already proven effective.

This bill is very important to most of my constituents, who need more time to vote in the pre-elections and different means, so that maximum participation can be had.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about the parts of the bill that he, like us, considers very important. However, he avoided talking about postponing the elections, a proposal supposedly aimed at accommodating Canada's Indian communities for Diwali, the festival of lights.

Can my colleague look me in the eye and tell me that the Liberals are not using Diwali as a pretext for allowing 22 Liberal members and three ministers to qualify for a pension?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member suggested, Diwali is a religious and sacred event in the lives of many Hindus and Sikhs across the globe. We are talking about more participation on the Diwali day when people will be celebrating. There will also be a lot more traffic on the streets of major municipalities, which would distract voters from going to the polls. In fact, it is a very good suggestion. On one side, we could celebrate the religious, sacred day of Diwali. On the other side, the voters could go and vote freely with a lot more numbers during the next week, after Diwali.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I also want to congratulate the member's nephew for his graduation.

The member was just talking about transportation. In my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, we have an aging population, and I know a lot of seniors have a difficult time with transportation to the polls and have been asking me for an extension to make it easier, to have more days to vote. Therefore, I wonder if the member would not mind sharing with the House what he is hearing in his riding from seniors on their ability to get transportation to the polls.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's gesture toward my nephew.

I am hearing the same thing in my constituency because elderly people and people with disabilities need more time and an accessible system to vote. That is why we are encouraging having an extra two days for the advance polls so that those members of the community who are willing to vote would be able to make sure that their vote is polled and counted. I appreciate the member's concern about our seniors and people with disabilities.

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

Madam Speaker, we all know that the House of Commons hosts the king of cryptocurrency here, better known as the leader of the Conservative-Reform party. Within this legislation we see more transparency and accountability. For example, cryptocurrency is something that people would not be able to give through a donation, whether it is to a candidate or to a political party, not only during elections but also between elections.

I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts on why it is important that we pass the legislation because there are many aspects of the legislation that would enhance and make our election laws stronger, healthier and better. Would the member not agree?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, my dear friend, is always inspiring when it comes to making suggestions about the electoral process and helping communities that need more help to participate in the electoral system.

Cryptocurrency should not be accepted as part of donations. That is why we have to make sure that we are able to strengthen the Canada Elections Act. Let us pass the bill through here and let it go to committee where all members, including Conservatives, Bloc, New Democrats and Liberals, would be able to make suggestions to strengthen the bill to make sure that we have a fair and integral election.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians have a right to be thoroughly cynical about this legislation. For all the public hype about how the Liberal government wants to encourage Canadians to participate in the electoral process, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's claims that he is taking action to prevent interference in our elections from hostile foreign governments, Bill C-65 should give little comfort to Canadians who feel that our mock democracy is eroding before our very eyes.

Living in Canada is like winning the lottery. We have a history of standing for justice. We are a country dedicated to the rule of law. We are prosperous. We are safe. We have been blessed with an embarrassing abundance of natural resources. Our citizens are among the best educated in the world. We boast a strong democratic system and a commitment to peaceful transitions of power.

Since 2006, I have had the honour of serving the constituents of Abbotsford, British Columbia, who have elected and re-elected me six times through a robust, fair and transparent electoral process. This very process is what Bill C-65 claims to improve upon.

Trust in our democratic institutions, in our elections, is critical to a peaceful and vibrant society. Canadians must have confidence that the members of the House, who are right here in this chamber, have been elected and have arrived here fairly, without interference from foreign powers. As such, there are some provisions in the bill that we Conservatives would agree with, but we are also deeply concerned that the provisions of the bill are an attempt to conceal from Canadians a much more cynical ploy, namely the promotion of the private financial interests of the Prime Minister's NDP-Liberal caucus, a group of MPs who expect not to be re-elected again. I will get to that in a moment.

To be sure, there are provisions in the legislation that we support. To begin with, there are provisions that would make changes to third party donations. Those changes are welcome, particularly as they are aimed at preventing foreign entities from contributing to election-related activities in Canada.

With the recent revelations regarding interference in our democracy by hostile foreign actors, and the shocking disclosure that our Prime Minister failed to act in a timely manner to warn Canadian MPs and party candidates of threats to their own elections, we parliamentarians must act to ensure that our institutions remain secure and accountable to the only people who really matter, Canadians themselves, and not to hostile foreign powers. Ensuring that foreigners cannot easily donate to candidates for a federal election is a sensible, albeit very modest, improvement for a stronger democracy.

If that were the sole purpose of Bill C-65, we would be content. However, this modest improvement in our election laws is marred by other elements that are problematic. I speak, of course, of the Prime Minister's cynical efforts to extend the so-called fixed election date by one week.

A fixed election is exactly that, or it is supposed to be that, which is the setting of a fixed date for an election to take place in a predictable manner, instead of the Prime Minister gaming the system for his own partisan purposes. Sadly, the fixed election that the law prescribes is no more. Instead, the Prime Minister is cynically pushing it back. He is pushing back the fixed date to benefit his NDP-Liberal MPs who are facing imminent defeat in the next federal election.

According to the legislation, Canadians would have to pay more to pay for the pensions of MPs. Accordingly, this piece of legislation is now becoming known as the “loser NDP-Liberal pension protection act”. That is what it is.

I will explain for Canadians who have just tuned in. They deserve to know that, for MPs to qualify for a parliamentary pension, they must have served a total of six years in the House of Commons. It just so happens there were 80 MPs elected in 2019 who will not qualify for a pension if they lose the next election. They would fall one day short. The Prime Minister, of course, sensing that he and many of his NDP-Liberal coalition MPs will not survive politically, has cynically included in this legislation before us a provision that would extend the fixed election date by one week to secure the pension entitlements of NDP-Liberal MPs.

The Prime Minister claims this extension to the fixed election date has nothing at all to do with vesting in pensions for his MPs and everything to do with the Indian festival Diwali. That is a fair point, except that he had the option of moving the date one or two weeks earlier to avoid a conflict with Diwali, or of calling an election right now, as Conservatives have asked him to do. This would spare Diwali and avoid some of the corrosive cynicism that Canadians are experiencing today, but no, the Prime Minister has again exploited our long-suffering taxpayers by favouring the financial interests of elected officials who work here and, quite frankly, are well compensated for the work they do in the House.

We should remember that it is the Liberal government that has amassed more debt than all other Canadian governments in Canadian history combined. This is the Prime Minister who so glibly proclaimed that budgets balance themselves. This is the Prime Minister who asked Canadians to forgive him for not thinking about monetary policy. What are a few more taxpayer dollars going to pension off well-to-do and well-paid politicians? On that basis alone, Conservatives will vote against this legislation. We will always promote the interests of Canadian taxpayers. By the way, it is true that 32 of my Conservative colleagues are within that group of 80 MPs, but those Conservative MPs have made it very clear that they are prepared to go into an election right now and put our Conservative vision and plan for this country to the Canadian people against the disastrous Liberal record.

There are also other elements of the bill that are problematic. Under the legislation, taxpayers would have to foot the bill for having more advanced polling days, which is more cost to taxpayers. Conservatives are also concerned about new provisions that would place the political party above the candidate on a ballot. Let me again explain that. Elections determine who we wish to have represent us in Canada's Parliament, here in the House of Commons, and which individual would be our community's voice in Ottawa.

When Sir John A. Macdonald, our first prime minister, and the other fathers of Confederation came together to create the Dominion of Canada, they agreed that Canadians should elect a hard-working person from each of their communities to represent them in our capital city, someone dedicated to serving the interests of their communities and country without compromise. This would be an individual, not a political party, who truly cares for their district and the people within it. Sadly, this bill before us flips that time-honoured principle on its head by suddenly prioritizing the party on the ballot rather than the candidate himself or herself.

Rather than marking down the candidate of their choice on the ballot, Bill C-65 would now allow a voter to simply mark down the name of a political party, and that ballot would then be valid. This provision goes against everything our parliamentary democracy has been based on for over 150 years, the premise that elected members of the House serve Canadians and that we members, not our political parties or special interest groups, are employed by and accountable to Canadian voters.

It is beyond worrying that the NDP-Liberal coalition believes bringing American-style ballot box party politics into Canada, with its attendant ballot harvesting abuses, will be embraced by Canadians. It will not, and it is not. More likely, it is our NDP-Liberal coalition friends who seek to gain an advantage over their political adversaries in the House.

I began my remarks by describing this bill as cynical, with a capital “C”. It is our Prime Minister who, over a period of nine long years, has failed to seriously address the integrity of our elections and the interference from hostile foreign actors. For many years, the Canadian government has known of foreign interference in our elections. In fact, the director of CSIS, which is our security and intelligence apparatus, warned our Prime Minister that there was a legitimate and significant threat, particularly from China, with respect to our democratic institutions and the elections that undergird those institutions.

Time and time again, the Prime Minister refused to act. It does not stop there. In July 2021, a CSIS report said that China viewed Canada as a high-priority target and invests substantially into influencing our elections and civil society. Indeed, my hon. colleague and friend, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, has said that he and his extended family were even targets of the Communist regime in Beijing and that the Liberal government failed to let them know, to inform them of that fact.

More egregiously, the recent top secret NSICOP report on foreign interference names MPs who have wittingly or unwittingly engaged in election interference. That report, sadly, has been censored by our own Prime Minister, who refuses to let Canadians know who among us is suspected of acting on behalf of a foreign government. It is completely unacceptable that a parliamentarian who has wittingly aided a hostile foreign power should have their name protected and be able to run for re-election. That is incomprehensible, and Canadians deserve better.

Ask Canadians whether they believe someone suspected of disloyalty to our country and who is in thrall to a foreign power should remain anonymous. The overwhelming response would be absolutely no, so it is fair to ask what the Prime Minister is hiding.

Accordingly, it should surprise nobody that Canadians are losing confidence in their electoral process and have grown cynical about anything the Liberal government does or says, and yet our Prime Minister continues to claim that only he and he alone can fix his own mess and the many other things that are broken in Canada. At its very essence, this boils down to an issue of trust. Do Canadians trust the Prime Minister? Do they trust the government? Overwhelmingly, the answer to that is no.

Our Liberal Prime Minister and his NDP-Liberal coalition have failed Canadians so badly that we cannot even trust our electoral process. This broken country needs a fix that only a change in government can deliver. The winds of change, fortunately, are sweeping across Canada, fanned by our Prime Minister's broken promises and his reckless disregard for the institutions of our democracy.

This bill in no way fixes that. Trust has been broken, and this bill before us will do nothing to materially fix that. For all of those reasons, and many more, I will not be supporting this bill, and I do not believe any of the Conservatives in the House will be supporting this bill.

I ask again: do Canadians have a right to feel cynical? That is what I asked at the beginning of my speech. Do they have a right to feel cynical about their government? The answer is yes. They have a right to feel cynical about their government, about their Prime Minister, and yes, about this disingenuous bill.

The good news is that help and hope are on their way. Let us remember what things were like in Canada back in 2015, before the NDP-Liberal coalition broke everything. It messed it all up. Remember, we had low inflation. We had low interest rates. We had affordable homes and affordable food. We had safe streets. We had respect on the international stage. We had balanced budgets. We all had hope for a brighter and better future.

I am confident that a new government, a Conservative government, will restore the Canadian dream and the hope of a brighter future. We will axe the taxes, build the homes, stop the crime and fix the budget. Canadians are counting on us.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly going to miss that over-the-top rhetoric when this member is gone, as he has announced that he will not be running again.

I will say that he seemed to bring up a lot of issues that do not jive with what was being said previously. The member for Calgary Confederation yesterday said:

The issue that my Conservative colleagues and I have is...the date change that would create pensions for losing Liberal and NDP members. If that date changed, I would be in full support of this bill.

The only issue to Conservatives, according to the member for Calgary Confederation, is the date. The minister made it very clear yesterday, when he was speaking, that he was trying to change the date because there are also municipal elections going on in Alberta on the same day. People will effectively have to go and vote at two polling locations on the same day. The minister also said that if the committee decides it wants to put the date back to where it was, he is willing to accept that.

Given that this is the only thing that seems to be problematic with Conservatives, as stated by the member for Calgary Confederation, why does the member not just let it go to committee and change the date?

Better yet, during his 20 minutes of speaking, why did he not just introduce an amendment to change the date? He could do either of those, and he has not. Why?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in that question but I was pleased to hear him mention Alberta. The Liberal Party and the Liberal government and former Liberal governments have never cared for Alberta. Remember the national energy plan? The reason I focused—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order.

The hon. member for Abbotsford has the floor.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that I touched a nerve. These folks over here do not care for Alberta. They do not care for western Canada. My speech focused in on the totality of this legislation. The reason my colleagues focused on the cynical ploy that is the election date is because Canadians, by and large, are not aware of this. They are not aware that the Prime Minister is monkeying around with the election date simply to protect the pensions of his own well-paid MPs. Shame on them.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am anxious for Quebec to become a country so that we do not have to listen to the bickering of these three federalist parties. It will happen one day, I guarantee it.

I listened to my colleague's speech. Something we have agreed on since the beginning is that it is offensive to have wanted to change the date of the election, especially for a completely unreal reason, namely that that day is a holy day. There are many holy days because there are many religions and many days in a year. At some point, that cannot be used as an excuse to change the date. We all know that it is mainly to allow some members to get their pension.

My question is simple. Does my colleague find it as offensive as I do that they drew religion into an election date?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I find really shocking is the Liberals are prepared to Mickey Mouse around and gerrymander our election laws to favour themselves. They are going so far as to actually try to protect and vest the pensions of MPs who would not qualify otherwise.

There is a very easy way to fix this and that is for the Prime Minister to go to the polls. Call an election right now. Let us see if the Liberals can back up their words. Everyone knows that they will never call an election now because they know they are going to lose because of their disastrous record.

As I said in my speech, I am prepared to put up the Conservatives' plan for the economy and for our country and show how we can unite Canada against the Liberals' disastrous plan any day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Abbotsford for a very long career in representing the constituents of Abbotsford.

I want to share with the member for Abbotsford that I have some great news. We have been talking about this from the onset of Bill C-65. I will be putting forward an amendment to change the election date back to the original date, so that this is no longer an issue.

We have made this very clear. The Liberal minister has made it clear that he would follow the will of the committee. The Conservatives are against it. The Bloc is against it. The NDP is against it. This is no longer a part of this legislation that we need to be worrying about.

Will the member share this with his constituents in Abbotsford, so they can also share the good news?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members, who are part of the disastrous coalition, are saying “trust us”. They will fix it at committee, but let it go ahead in this House. They are saying to let these pensions vest for MPs who are not going to get elected and should not have these pensions vested.

The member is asking me whether, if this gets fixed at committee, I would support it. If this change did not come along, Conservatives would be very happy. Leave the fixed election date as it is. However, I am not prepared to, any longer, accept “trust us” as being the mantra coming from the Liberal-NDP coalition.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say that I believe today is the 50th anniversary of the member for Abbotsford's 19th birthday. I do wish him well on this special occasion.

The member talked about foreign interference in Canadian elections. How concerned is the member about the government's response and the other coalition partner's response to foreign interference into Canadian elections? Does he share my concern that the government really has not lived up to its responsibilities in keeping Canadian elections safe from foreign interference?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not only the member and I who have concerns about foreign interference. We, as Conservatives, have a real concern about foreign interference

Canadians across this country are shocked to learn that the Prime Minister has already known for many years that foreign hostile actors were interfering in our elections. He knew about it, did not advise MPs who were affected by it, and did not put into place anything that would push back on efforts by foreign hostile regimes that were trying to manipulate our election outcomes.

As we know, there are a number of MPs in Canada who likely lost their re-election because of interference from the Communist regime in Beijing. Did it affect the ultimate outcome of the election? No, but it certainly affected the lives and futures of those individual MPs.

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

Mr. Speaker, imagine actually hearing such hypocrisy. The member is saying that the Conservative Party cares. That is a bunch of bull.

At the end of the day, let us think about this. The leader of the Conservative-Reform party—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I only interrupt when I hear disorder in the House. There was a statement there that the hon. member used. Members cannot do indirectly what they cannot do directly. The hon. parliamentary secretary should know better.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Sometimes I get a little colourful, I guess, Mr. Speaker. I will delete the word “bull”.

At the end of the day, the point is that the Conservative leader will not even get a briefing so he could find out which members of the Conservative Party might be interfered with on the international scene. He does not even want the briefing. He would rather be naive, unlike the NDP leader or the Green Party leader.

Where does the member get off saying that the Conservatives are genuinely concerned about foreign interference, in any fashion whatsoever, when in fact their own leader will not get the security clearance to find out what is actually taking place?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as they have done many times before, our Liberal friends across the aisle are trying to muzzle our leader. That is not going to happen.

Our leader will speak out on the issues of the day, especially foreign interference. Foreign interference is corrosive to our democracy. These folks over there are laughing at us. Look at them, Mr. Speaker. They are mocking us for taking foreign interference seriously.

When Conservatives form government, we will take foreign interference seriously, and we will take steps to fight back and ensure that we remain free and sovereign.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand today to speak to Bill C-65.

First and foremost, because I do not want to forget, I want to thank and give a really big shout-out to my former colleague, past MP Daniel Blaikie, who did a tremendous amount of work on this file and deserves an acknowledgement for all the work he has done to date. I am going to try to carry the baton for the work he has handed to me. They are big shoes to fill, literally, but I will continue doing this important work.

The bill we are talking about today is an important one. We know it is vitally important for Canadians to have access to voting in a way that is barrier-free to increase the participation of Canadians across the country, so they feel their vote counts. This is a time right now when it is vital for Canadians to know that our democracy is strong and that the process for everybody to vote is accessible.

We are in a climate crisis. We are feeling the impacts of that right now with the heat wave here in Ottawa. We are seeing smoke-filled skies in British Columbia from forest fires. There is flooding. There are endless examples of the ways in which we are being impacted by the climate crisis. We know that people across Canada are struggling to make ends meet, to put food on the table and to keep a roof over their head. Right now, Canadians deserve to know that our elections are fair and accessible, as well as that our democracy is strong. Therefore, it is vitally important that we are doing the work today to set Canadians up for success for elections to come.

The bill would do a lot. One of the things, and I will get into some of them, is around the two additional days of advance voting. This is really important because we know Canadians are busy and we need to make sure they have access to be able to show up at the polls and cast their vote for the candidate they feel is the best fit. Expanding these days out allows Canadians more options for being able to do so. With the passing of the legislation, there would be a phased implementation for people to vote anywhere.

I am sure that members have heard from their constituents, as I have in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, that there are barriers when people go to vote in federal elections. They show up at the poll, excited to cast their ballot, but are told that the polling station they need to go to is on the other side of town. Let us imagine a single mom who has worked all day, packing up her kids to get to the polling station and show her kids she is participating in our electoral system, but then being told that she has to go to the other end of town. This is a huge barrier. I hear this not only from constituents in my riding but also from Canadians across the country. They need to know that they can go to a polling station within their riding, similar to other levels of elections, and their vote will be counted.

There are also improvements to the mail-in ballot process. We know that, in previous elections, there were barriers, particularly when people registered for mail-in ballots. If they received a ballot and forgot to mail it back, then showed up at the polling station, they would not be able to cast their vote. These are busy times and, of course, this happens. This is a huge problem and an issue that is being looked at in the legislation to ensure that people who register for a mail-in ballot can still vote at the polling station and have their vote count.

There are a lot of good pieces. Another piece is around students voting. In 2015 and 2019, we had the vote on campus program, where we saw big turnouts of students showing up at the polls to cast their ballots. Unfortunately, that is no longer in place. The legislation would make the vote on campus program permanent in all general elections. It is vitally important for students to know that, while they are on campus, they can easily and accessibly cast their ballots.

This would offer an additional option for community members in the surrounding area to have another poll where they could go and cast their ballots. This is really important at a time when we need young people to participate in our elections. It is ultimately their futures that we are making decisions about today, and this is an important part of the bill.

Another piece in the bill is around long-term care polling stations. We know that many people across the country are aging in long-term care homes. They would not need to leave their residence and could instead cast their ballot right at home, at their care home. This is a huge step in making sure that the people who have contributed to our communities across the country for years and years can continue to have their votes counted.

I would like to point out something that is not in the legislation but that I would love for us to dig into further at committee stage. This is ensuring that we see an increase of polling stations, as well as having mandatory polling stations, on reserves and in Métis settlements. Because of the impacts of colonization throughout history, there are many reasons we are not seeing the participation of indigenous people across the country at the level that it should be. This would be a step in the right direction. It would make sure that indigenous people are able to vote accessibly right at home among community members.

I found it interesting to learn, just today actually, of article 5 of UNDRIP, which I want to reiterate as a very important piece to this discussion that I hope to have at committee. Article 5 of UNDRIP says, “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.” I read that out because it is in UNDRIP, which is vitally important work that we all need to be paying attention to and prioritizing, as well as because of the fact that this could help to ensure that indigenous people understand their rights when they show up at the polls to vote for the candidate they see as the best fit at the federal level. This is work that needs to happen, and it needs to be prioritized.

Another piece of the legislation, which is something I spoke to earlier in a question, would be ensuring that people who may be living with disabilities, as one example, are able to cast their ballots. Currently, there are restrictions on who can assist in casting ballots. However, the legislation is working to address that and broaden the scope of who can support electors, specifically allowing the elector to choose who can assist them. For example, somebody could have a support worker cast the ballot on their behalf, which is very important work in the right direction toward making sure that everybody's votes can count.

In addition to that, once the bill gets to committee, we need to look at ways in which people with disabilities can maintain their autonomy and be able to cast their ballot independently, without the support of other individuals. Yes, again, I am an eternal optimist and hope that we can come together to see the bill at committee. It is great to set up those systems of support. Where we can, let us set up a system where all Canadians can show up at the polls and know that they can confidently and successfully cast their own ballot. I think about the tremendous amount of people who are reaching out with visual impairments as just one example. People with visual impairments could cast their own ballot if the systems were set up for them to do that on their own, so it is important that we look at this.

Another piece I want to cover is around the inclusion of Inuktut on federal ballots, which is vitally important. I had the honour of visiting my colleague, the member for Nunavut. In Nunavut we visited Pangnirtung and Iqaluit, and it is quite evident that there are a tremendous number of individuals living in Nunavut who speak Inuktut as their primary and first language, so making sure that the ballots have the language spoken by the residents in the area is vitally important to decrease barriers to participation and to ensure that people understand confidently whom it is they want to vote for.

My colleague, the MP for Nunavut, has been doing an incredible amount of work on this. The member has put forward, for example, Bill C-297, which I wanted to highlight. The goal of this bill is that in an electoral district on indigenous land, the Chief Electoral Officer may require all the ballots for the electoral district to be prepared and printed in both official languages, as well as in the indigenous language or languages of the electors, using the appropriate writing systems for each language, including syllabics, if applicable. It is really important that we listen to indigenous people across the country and make sure that ballots are accessible for them to be able to vote as well. This is an example of important legislation that the government can be leaning on to move us in the right direction. I hope this is legislation that we will be reviewing very closely at committee stage.

The MP for Nunavut did actually participate in the process of a report from the Standing Committee on Procedural and House of Affairs that is entitled “The Inclusion of Indigenous Languages on Federal Election Ballots: A Step Towards Reconciliation”. There were a couple of pieces in it that I wanted to highlight. The MP for Nunavut pointed out that “most elders in Nunavut cannot read English or French.” This expands on what I was just talking about. She spoke to the fact that in order “to make reconciliation meaningful, Indigenous languages needed to be protected and promoted.”

She went on to point out that “unilingual Inuktitut speakers find the complaints process inaccessible”, so that makes it challenging for them to be able to voice the barriers that they are experiencing in being able to cast their ballots as a result of previous oppressive systems that they have experienced. Also, the MP for Nunavut told the committee that she heard of people who have been “turned away from voting in Nunavut because of language barriers.” This is clearly not good enough, and it is something we need to be looking at closely in committee to make sure that we are moving in the right direction.

The proposed bill does have some pieces we need to be sure to look at in committee stage. One piece is around the third-party activities. I would like to reiterate that it is vitally important that unions are able to communicate with their members. We know that “at the core of a union's mandate and function is the ability to communicate freely and effectively with...members.” Workers across the country who are unionized are impacted dramatically by the decisions being made right here in the House. We know that these decisions are life-altering. It is important that people across the country are aware of these, and it is vitally important that union representatives are able to communicate these matters with their membership. With that, there is some work that needs to happen and that needs to be prioritized at committee stage to ensure that the bill is not taking away those rights of unions across the country.

I would be remiss if I did not speak about the issue that seems to be coming up over and over again in the House. There was a date proposed to push forward the date of the election by one week in the legislation. Unfortunately, this is highly problematic. I cannot speak to any other members' intentions. Whether intended or unintended, the consequence of this proposal would be that members of Parliament would receive a pension that they would not have otherwise been eligible for. As I said at the beginning of my speech, there are so many people across the country struggling to make ends meet, and now is not the time for members of Parliament to think about their own financial gains or their own pensions. Now is the time for members of Parliament to create legislation that would truly help Canadians across the country.

Therefore, I want to reiterate that first priority. Once we get this bill to committee, I would be moving an amendment to ensure that this date would be moved back to the original date so this would no longer be a concern of members of Parliament and of Canadians across the country. It is vitally important that we do what this legislation intends to do, which is to strengthen our democracy and to make sure that we reduce barriers so that people would be able to fully participate in our electoral system. There is important content within this legislation that we need to be moving forward with.

Much to my surprise, but yet also not much to my surprise, in response to this portion of the legislation, the Conservatives came out with an amendment to cut and gut the entire legislation, which would see this legislation no longer move forward at all. With that, it would take all of the items that I have been talking about during my intervention today. It would take away the proposed increase in accessibility for people living with disabilities. It would take away having polls in long-term care homes or having polls on student campuses, and looking at increasing the advance polling days so that we are not so reliant on just one day. There are many important aspects in this bill.

To see the Conservatives respond by saying that we just need to cut the whole thing is not surprising because, currently, we have a system that benefits the Conservatives. We know that the existing system, where we have barriers to participation that benefit the Conservatives' corporate friends, is exactly what the Conservatives want to see maintained. Therefore, instead of putting forward an amendment to cut and gut the legislation, my NDP colleagues and I are proposing a solution to the problem, which is to amend the existing legislation to move the election date back to the original date and to see that particular issue no longer in place in the bill so that we can move forward with strengthening our democracy and with making sure that Canadians can fully participate in the electoral processes.

There is a lot of work that needs to be done to strengthen our democracy. This is an important step in the right direction, which I am fully in support of. The NDP has done a tremendous amount of work to make this legislation happen and to see all of this work put into place. There is more that needs to be done. I hope that my colleagues in this chamber will continue the important work of looking at electoral reform and looking at implementing a system of proportional representation.

The Liberal Party campaigned on the 2015 election being the last first-past-the-post election. Now would be a really wonderful time to see the Liberals follow through with that promise so that Canadians could see their votes adequately and effectively represented right here in the House of Commons. With that, I will say that this is an important bill. There is some work that needs to be done, but it is vitally important that all members unite to see Canadians show up at polling stations, feeling confident in our democracy and in their votes.