House of Commons Hansard #334 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was voting.

Topics

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

7:35 p.m.

Bloc

Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her faith.

I would like to bring her back to familiar territory: common sense. Back home, growing up, my father often talked to us about common sense. Common sense relates to a set of elements that everyone, or almost everyone, agrees on.

Is my colleague's party seeking unanimity? After all, there is a part of the population that is worried about climate change and the astronomical contribution of billions of dollars in taxpayer money that is invested in oil companies that are already worth many billions of dollars since they make a lot of money.

Since my colleague is for common sense, I would like to know if her potential government will stop investing in oil companies that already have billions of dollars. I would also like to know if she is going to increase health transfers to the provinces so that they can use them how they want and breathe a bit of life back into their health care networks.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Madam Speaker, one thing Canadians can count on is that Conservatives are the party of common sense. We are consistent in our approach when it comes to reducing taxes. We are consistent when it comes to making life more prosperous for Canadians. We are consistent when it comes to how we vote in this place, which is something that member should actually talk to her leadership about.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

7:40 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for those comments. I enjoy sitting on committee with her.

I was thinking back to another minority Parliament that saw a tremendous amount of progress when it comes to iconic policies that are now an integral part of the fabric of our country. They are things like the Canada pension plan, Canada student loans, the 40-hour work week and two weeks of vacation time, and a new minimum wage. Many of these things were put in place despite the opposition from the Conservative Party.

Is the member not worried that she is on the wrong side of history when she rails against things like a national dental care plan and universal pharmacare for people who need prescription medication? Is it not clear that these things will make our country stronger?

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Madam Speaker, the member is right. We do serve on the government operations and estimates committee together, and one thing we have been dealing with is the absolute out-of-control spending of the current Liberal government when it comes to outside consultants, and when it comes to lining the pockets of Liberal insiders and their friends.

What I would put back to the member is this question: When is he finally going to start standing up for Canadians and be an opposition member who is looking out for their interests?

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Madam Speaker, I have been around this place long enough to see a clear pattern of what a Liberal budget is, as well as the Liberals' omnibus budget implementation acts, which, of course, they promised not to use.

One might ask what exactly is the pattern of a Liberal budget. We have to go back to 2015 for a moment. What happened in 2015 is that the Prime Minister promised three years of so-called “modest” deficit spending budgets before he made a cast-in-stone promise to return to a balanced budget in 2019. One might ask what happened to that promise. In every one of those three years, the Prime Minister spent considerably more than he promised he would.

In 2019, he did not even attempt to honour his so-called cast-in-stone promise to return Canada to a balanced budget. In other words, the Liberal Prime Minister did not even try to do what he promised he would. Why even make the promise at all to return to a balanced budget if he had zero intention of doing so? It is because, of course, making promises on things he has no intention of ever honouring is basically a hallmark character trait of the Prime Minister.

Where are we today with this latest Liberal 2024 budget? We are now at a total spending of $535 billion for the 2024-25 fiscal year. Let us pause for a moment to recap.

The 2022 so-called “return to fiscal responsibility” budget was $434 billion. Here we are in the 2024 budget, and the proposed spending is up to $535 billion. This means that this latest Liberal budget proposes to spend $100 billion more than what the Liberals themselves labelled as a “return to fiscal responsibility” budget just a short time ago. Let us not forget that before the pandemic began in 2019-20, the Liberals were spending around $338 billion. We went from $338 billion to now $535 billion. That is an increase of almost $200 billion in annual spending. Let us not kid ourselves. Everyone knows the Liberals will spend more than the $535 billion they are proposing, more so given that next year is an election year.

Now we can all see the pattern to Liberal budgets that I mentioned earlier. Every year we are told what will happen, but it never actually comes to pass. The forecasts, the promises, everything the Liberals promise ends up being completely false. They do not even try to live within the fiscal limits they propose for themselves. Most offensive of all is that the Prime Minister's Office has the audacity to label this budget as the “fairness for every generation” budget. I am literally aghast by this.

The 2024 “fairness for every generation” budget proposes a $40-billion deficit for this fiscal year alone. We know that this is not the case. The finance department has said that the government is billions over that particular projection already. This is noteworthy because the Liberals' previous debt forecasts were at $35 billion for 2024-25 and $26.8 billion for 2025-26. That is a big difference we see between $40 billion and the $27 billion or so they had previously said for 2025.

We all know that the cost of servicing the national debt has exceeded the federal spending on health care. This is what the Liberals call fairness for everyone. It is not unlike the capital gains increase. The Liberals will tell us that this tax impacts only Canada's most wealthy, yet we have heard from many everyday Canadians who, through a divorce, a health crisis, retirement or otherwise, are in a one-time situation where they might be looking at paying a once-in-a-lifetime capital gains tax. These are doctors, small business owners, people in the trades. Larry the plumber from Winnipeg was brought up today, who is working hard. None of these people are so-called ultrawealthy, but they will all be hit hard by this latest Liberal tax grab. The Liberals know that these people exist and also know that the Liberal tax grab will hit them hard. However, they would still look them in the eye and say that only the ultrawealthy would be impacted by this.

I do not know if anyone on the Liberal or NDP side of the House realizes how angry people become when they believe they are being deceived and misled by their own government. Make no mistake: They are not happy with the Prime Minister. He needs that extra tax grab for fairness, he says. Let us talk about fairness for a moment.

There is now an entire generation of young Canadians who are left out despite all the Liberal spending. Literally, this problem is so bad that even the Prime Minister himself openly admits that young people now feel like they cannot get ahead in the same way their parents or grandparents could. However, it is much worse than that. The Prime Minister is leaving future generations of Canadians with record levels of debt and no plan whatsoever to return to a balanced budget, ever. The Prime Minister has failed in every single budget to do what he promised he would do in the budget the year previous. He just spends more, and we go further into debt. That is not fairness.

Before I close, I would like to share something with this place. We, of course, spend a portion of our time in this place debating budgets and budget implementation acts. A sitting government hopes to table a budget that resonates with Canadians. As all experienced parliamentarians will know, some budgets resonate more than others, and some, very little at all. This particular budget has not been like most. I do not recall at any time so many different citizens coming forward in opposition to a budget as they are for this budget, and by extension the budget implementation act. I make a point of reading every email, returning every phone call and scheduling as many meeting requests as I can. I can tell every member of this place that this particular budget is not impacting many Canadians the way the Liberal government would have us believe. The Liberals may call this a “fairness for every generation” budget, but many I hear from see this budget as being anything but fair to them.

I am not one to follow polls, so it does not surprise me at all that so many different polls show this budget, like the Liberal government, as falling down so badly. I would submit that this is without a doubt an unfair budget for many Canadians. I will be joining with those Canadians who now say “enough is enough” in rejecting the Prime Minister, his desperation budgets and this flawed budget implementation act.

I have one final point before I conclude my comments this evening. Earlier today, I read a report from the National Post, and the headline said it all: “Airplane food cost more than $220K on [the Prime Minister]'s Indo-Pacific trip: Meals included beef brisket with mashed parsley potatoes with truffle oil, braised lamb shanks and baked cheesecake with pistachio brittle”.

When the Prime Minister and his finance minister lecture others about fairness and needing people to do a little more, why is it that the Prime Minister never does his part? The reason is that the Prime Minister is always above these rules. Why does the Prime Minister consistently make demands upon others that he himself fails to follow? Canadians are tired of this. In my riding, as I am sure in many other members' in this place, people want an election and they do not want this budget or this budget implementation act. That is why I will be opposing it.

I would like to thank all members of this place for taking the time to hear my comments today.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

June 18th, 2024 / 7:45 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to aircraft and expenses. I was in opposition when Stephen Harper flew to India and then made the decision to fly his car to India at a cost of $1 million for the taxpayer. At the end of the day, we value all tax dollars. We also value the services that tax dollars can provide. There is the difference between Conservatives and Liberals: Liberals care; Conservative-Reformers cut.

My question to the member is related to the cuts. We talk about disability benefits. We talk about pharmacare. We can talk about dental care. These are the types of programs that this government is getting behind, providing literally hundreds, if not thousands, of his constituents supports. Why has the Reform Party of Canada, or the Conservative Party, as they are the same thing, made the determination that they are going to cut those services?

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Madam Speaker, I will let Canadians judge the content and the conduct of that member. He cannot even get the parties' correct names in this room, so I do not know if they will trust him with details. When it comes to a prime minister's security detail, it is the RCMP that makes the decision on what security is appropriate. I believe that it is important for a prime minister to remain safe and secure, particularly when we are doing international travel, so I will leave the RCMP to manage those concerns, but what is 100% under the conduct of the Prime Minister is his penchant for expensive hotels and for the $220,000 on meals and alcohol. That is what I am contesting here, not the security detail.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

7:50 p.m.

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Madam Speaker, my colleague began his speech—

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

7:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

7:50 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

We cannot hear what the hon. member is saying because there are people who are participating in the debate when they should not be. I hope that people will follow the rules of the House and refrain from talking when someone else has the floor.

The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

7:50 p.m.

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Madam Speaker, my colleague began his speech by talking about the importance of balancing the budget and cutting the government's unnecessary spending.

Bill C‑69 includes a nice oil subsidy for so-called green hydrogen. It is a tax credit of 15% to 40%. Last year, the federal deficit was about $40 billion. The subsidies and tax credits for oil companies totalled about $30 billion. We could reduce the federal deficit by 75% in one fell swoop.

Is that not something interesting for my colleague to think about?

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Madam Speaker, it is important to know whether the Bloc Québécois plans to vote for or against the government and the bill. The Bloc Québécois member has a choice. She must decide whether the budget and the Prime Minister are acceptable and balanced for Canadians.

It is important to note that the Conservative Party is voting against the government. We do not trust the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. I will never support the bill we are currently discussing.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

7:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I like my colleague, but he said that he has never seen a budget with such a negative response. I remember the terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad Harper budget of 2012, and my colleague should too. It gutted veteran services, gutted health care, forced seniors to work years longer in their lives and gave tens of billions of dollars in handouts to banks, billionaires, and oil and gas CEOs. Conservative financial management is an oxymoron.

I like my colleague a lot, but how could he possibly not apologize for that extraordinarily bad budget and the terrible financial management of the Harper years?

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Madam Speaker, I am happy the member from the NDP raised the subject of choices and what is worthy of support. I spoke to a constituent who could not believe that the NDP supported the budget implementation act last year, because it made big changes to natural health products and their regulations. They cannot understand why the NDP would support the Minister of Health to put in place a regime that is going to see less consumer choice and more expensive natural health products.

I would love for the member to start looking through the budget implementation act as he probably did with Mr. Harper's budget. I would also like to see the NDP start standing up to the Prime Minister and the government's terrible bills.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Is the House ready for the question?

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The question is on the motion.

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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 19, 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 ActGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

Niagara Centre Ontario

Liberal

Vance Badawey LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-65 this evening in the House, the electoral participation act. As the title of this bill suggests, one of its key priorities is to encourage participation in the electoral process. We know that democratic engagement rests on trust in our electoral system, and that is why Bill C-65 proposes to enhance safeguarding measures in the Canada Elections Act.

As we all know, Canada's democracy is among the strongest and most stable in the world thanks in large part to the Canada Elections Act, which is the fundamental legislative framework that regulates our elections in this great nation. We have every reason to be proud of this legislation, but we are not immune to the global challenges that modernized democracies face. The integrity of the electoral process in the lead-up to, during and after elections is a prerequisite for trust in our democracy. This is why it is essential that we continue to address evolving threats to our democracy through regular improvements to the Canada Elections Act. This helps ensure that our system remains robust, resilient and equipped to keep pace with the issues of our time.

It should come as no surprise that safeguarding our elections includes measures to mitigate foreign interference. Foreign interference can take many forms, including social media campaigns designed to sow disinformation. The Communications Security Establishment's latest report highlights that online foreign influence activities have become a new normal, with adversaries increasingly seeking to influence our elections. We and all Canadians have a right to be concerned about these threats. This is why the government has been proactive in taking steps to counter foreign interference.

Our government's work to protect our democracy began as early as 2016, when we tabled Bill C-22. It led to the creation of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, a committee that assembles members from both chambers of Parliament to review matters concerning national security and intelligence.

In 2018, the government put forward Bill C-59, which enacted the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act, giving the agency the mandate to review and investigate all Government of Canada national security and intelligence activities. That same year, we also introduced Bill C-76, which modernized the Canada Elections Act and introduced a number of prohibitions, including a prohibition preventing foreigners from unduly influencing electors, a prohibition against foreign third parties from spending on election-related activities and a prohibition against third parties from using any foreign funds.

In 2019, we put in place the plan to protect Canada's democracy, which included the security and intelligence threats to elections, or SITE, task force. The plan was subsequently updated in advance of the 2021 general election.

Most recently, we introduced Bill C-70, the countering foreign interference act, which complements measures to further safeguard our federal elections and mitigate foreign influence in Bill C-65, which I am speaking to today. Finally, last September, our government launched the public inquiry into foreign interference. We look forward to receiving the commissioner's final report as well as recommendations.

These substantial government-wide initiatives demonstrate this government's commitment to remaining vigilant in our efforts to protect our electoral system. This commitment is further reflected in the safeguarding measures proposed through Bill C-65. I would like to highlight how this bill proposes to better protect our elections from foreign influence, disinformation campaigns and the misuse of technology, all of which seek to erode trust in our institutions. We do this so that Canadians can feel safe and confident when participating in our democracy.

First, we know that election interference can happen at all times and not just during elections. This is why Bill C-65 proposes to extend the application of the existing ban on undue foreign influence at all times, rather than being limited to the election period. This means, for example, that the ban on foreign entities unduly influencing voters to vote a certain way or influencing them to refrain from voting would extend to all times.

Second, Bill C-65 would create a clearer and more consistent definition of foreign entity activities under the act to close any and all gaps. For example, currently foreign entities can circumvent the law by having more than one purpose, where the ban on undue influence is limited to a foreign entity whose only purpose is to unduly influence voters. That would no longer be possible under Bill C-65. The bill proposes that foreign entities who have even just one of their primary activities as unduly influencing electors would be captured.

Third, Bill C-65 proposes important new financing rules to increase transparency and prevent anonymous foreign and dark money from entering our elections. This includes banning the use of crypto asset contributions, money orders and prepaid instruments such as prepaid credit cards or store gift cards for regulated activities by third parties and political actors.

Bill C-65 would introduce important new financing rules for third parties. Allow me to explain. Bill C-65 would allow third parties to use only contributions they have received from Canadian citizens and permanent residents to pay for regulated election expenses. This includes partisan activities, partisan advertising, election advertising and election surveys. This means that third parties would no longer be able to use funds received from any other third parties, such as corporations or businesses, for regulated expenses. For greater transparency, third parties would also need to report on the details of the individuals who contributed in total over $200, including names, addresses and amounts of each contribution.

We understand that third parties may not all receive contributions and may have their own revenue they wish to use for regulated expenses. In those instances, third parties who meet the threshold of 10% or less of their overall annual revenue and contributions would also be able to use their own revenues to pay for regulated activities. In addition, third parties would be required to provide financial statements to Elections Canada proving the revenue is their own.

The amendments to enhance transparency on the source of third party funding are important. Under the current rules, third parties are required to report only on contributions given to them for election purposes. Contributions received for other purposes may be mixed into the third party's general revenue, leaving a transparency gap as to where the funds came from.

The Chief Electoral Officer spoke to this concern in his June 2022 recommendations report tabled here in Parliament. He noted that the proportion of third party reporting on the use of their own funds for regulated expenses increased significantly, from 8% in 2011 to 37% in 2019 and 63% in 2021. This increasing trend in third party financing is concerning, which is why the government is taking action through Bill C-65. Let me reiterate, however, that third parties who do not meet the threshold would still be able to participate in regulated activities, but they would have to do so with the contributions they received as donations from Canadian citizens and permanent residents.

The next element I would like to speak on is disinformation. Disinformation, a key tactic by malign actors, aims to fuel discord and erode public trust in the electoral process. It seeks to manipulate voters and electoral processes through intentional falsehoods, often spread online, as well as, quite frankly, intimidation at times.

In 2022, the Chief Electoral Officer called disinformation about the electoral process the most important threat to Canada's election mandate. Security agencies have noted that disinformation is a persistent threat to election integrity. In the 2021 national electors study conducted by Elections Canada following the 44th general election, 71% of electors were concerned that the spread of false information online could have a moderate or major impact on the electoral outcome. This included 37% who thought it could have a major impact. As noted by the Chief Electoral Officer, intelligence officials and leading academics, the use and impact of disinformation is not limited to the election period.

Bill C-65 aims to build confidence in our electoral process and our democratic institutions through new and expanded prohibitions to address these threats. In particular, the bill would introduce a ban on false statements about the voting process that are deliberately made to disrupt the conduct or the results of an election, all while respecting the principles of free expression and open dialogue.

Amendments provide clear guidance on the type of intentional false statements that could be made or published to ensure that contraventions of the act are clear and enforceable. This includes making or publishing false or misleading statements relating to who may vote in an election; the voting registration process; when, where and how to vote; whom to vote for; the process to become a candidate; how votes are validated or counted; or the results of an election.

Another element I would like to address is the potential misuse of technology. Technology, as we all know, has helped revolutionize democracy, but it also gives rise to risks. For example, content generated by artificial intelligence is becoming harder to distinguish from reality. When paired with disinformation, artificial intelligence such as deepfakes poses a significant threat. Today, with a computer and a few keystrokes, malicious actors can generate highly realistic videos, audio and text content that can depict people saying or doing things they never said or did.

To address this emerging issue, Bill C-65 would amend existing prohibitions in the act that can lend themselves to the misuse of artificial intelligence, namely false statements, impersonation and misleading publications, to provide clarity that they apply regardless of the means used. This would mean, for example, that the prohibition on impersonating the Chief Electoral Officer, an election official, or a candidate would apply regardless of the technology that might be used now, to include deepfakes or other technologies that may evolve in the future.

Bill C-65 would also extend the scope of the existing ban on using a computer to affect the results of an election, to now apply to the use of a computer to disrupt the conduct of an election.

The last element I would like to speak about and highlight is the importance of the personal safety of those people who participate in our electoral process. As my hon. colleagues know well, the threat environment continues to evolve. There has, sadly, been a surge in vandalism at constituency offices, increasingly violent online discourse and threats made against party leaders, candidates and election officials, as witnessed during the 2021 general election.

Bill C-65 therefore seeks to address some of these concerns by providing increased privacy and safety to electoral participants. For example, returning officers' personal information would be better protected by removing the requirement for them to publish their home address in the Canada Gazette; rather, only their municipality and province of residence would be published.

We have also seen reports of or have personally experienced a growing uncivil discourse and behaviour targeting members of Parliament, including me. Members from all parties have spoken out against unacceptable harassment and threats, as well as intimidation.

Indeed, the Sergeant-at-Arms and Corporate Security Officer of the House of Commons recently noted that harassment of people elected to serve this very institution has skyrocketed, increasing 800% in the last five years. To respond to this alarming trend, Bill C-65 proposes two changes to the disclosure of requirements for regulated fundraising events over $200 that include a prominent attendee, such as a party leader. To ensure the safety of all participants, the requirement to provide five days' advance public notice of such regulated fundraising events would be repealed. To ensure ongoing transparency, precise location details for events would continue to be provided to the Chief Electoral Officer as part of the party's postevent reporting requirements under the act.

However, to protect the security of hosts of events who engage in politics or book a political event, the requirement for a public-facing postevent report 30 days later would only include the municipality and the province of the event. This approach aims to prevent bad actors from undermining the safety of participants and hosts at these events. It aims to strike an appropriate balance between the very real security threats faced and the ongoing need for transparency.

In closing, I know that safeguarding our democracy is a priority shared by all of my hon. colleagues in this House. The amendments to the Canada Elections Act proposed in Bill C-65 build on existing safeguards and propose a number of targeted but critical improvements to continue to build trust in our democratic processes.

I am confident that all members of Parliament can work together to ensure that Bill C-65 is studied and passed in time for all measures to come into force before the next fixed-date general election.

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

8:10 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Madam Speaker, a key problem with Bill C-65 is that clauses 40 and 41 would amend sections 269 and 279 of the Elections Canada Act to allow voters to write in the name of a political party rather than a candidate. Does the member opposite agree that this is a dereliction of our historical practice of electing individual members to the House of Commons and not political parties?

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

8:10 p.m.

Liberal

Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question because that is some of the discussion that I actually have in my own riding. It is discussion that my colleagues and I are having, not just here on this side of the House but on all sides of the House.

This being the second reading stage of the bill, I look forward, when it reaches committee, to having those very discussions so that a lot of what we expect to be in the bill is in the bill, once again, for democracy. Equally important is to ensure the protection of the candidates, as well as the MPs who may, in fact, be elected.

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑65 moves the election date from October 20 to October 27. They say that the reason is Diwali, a religious holiday held on October 20.

Considering existing provisions of the Canada Elections Act and amendments introduced through Bill C‑65, however, voters have ample opportunities to vote. People can vote for seven days at a returning officer's office, on election day and six other days. They can vote at any time during the election at the returning officer's office. They can vote using special mail-in ballots. Students can vote in academic institutions, and voting stations are available in long-term care facilities. In short, there are tons of opportunities to vote.

That is generally why these options were created in the first place. The idea was to prevent people from being unable to vote on a specific day because of a specific event. What, therefore, is the real reason for moving the date of the election, especially to a date within just six days of municipal elections in Quebec?

Electoral Participation ActGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

Liberal

Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, as I am sure the member knows, and what has been articulated and brought forward by the folks who are looking at this recommendation, it is the religious and cultural observations that are going to be taking place in that time frame. That is the reason for the decision.