Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the government House leader and the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River for their highly informative and interesting speeches. I would also like to thank the government for taking the time, with this bill, to consult the opposition parties and listen to the different suggestions and recommendations that we made.
The bill seeks to reform the Canada Elections Act, and nothing is more important than the public's trust in its democratic institutions. That trust is exactly what this bill seeks to strengthen, and the highly collaborative approach that was taken actually helps to do just that, because all members of Parliament are participating in the process. This is not something that can be done unilaterally and I commend the way in which this bill was introduced.
I would like to outline our views on this bill in four parts. First, there are the points on which we agree. In fact, the government House leader has spoken about them at great length. I would also like to raise a few concerns regarding certain aspects or questions on which we would like more information in committee when the bill is referred there. I will briefly touch on what we would have liked to see in the bill. Finally, I think I will be the first to mention that the bill also includes a provision changing the name of certain ridings. I will briefly address that toward the end.
Nevertheless, we agree with a large part of this bill. We are quite satisfied with many aspects of this bill, including the firm commitment to address the issue of foreign interference by expanding offences tied to influencing an elector. We know that foreign interference exits. There have been lengthy committee studies and hearings, including with Commissioner Hogue, who reported on this issue. The bill would introduce measures to strengthen the Canada Elections Act and add offences to address interference to influence an elector to vote for a certain candidate or to dissuade them from voting altogether, which would have an impact on the potential outcome of an election. We welcome those measures.
We also welcome the fact that it gives a nod to events in Quebec and what is commonly know as the “anti-brownie bill”. We also welcome the fact that rules that were already in place for regular general elections have been extended to nomination and leadership contests. For example, the bill bans donations, financial consideration or any other consideration in exchange for voting for a candidate. As my colleague from Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne mentioned, sometimes, it is harder to win a nomination contest than an election in some ridings where electoral history makes the outcome largely predictable. As such, it is great that the rules have been extended to nomination and leadership contests.
The bill also seeks to strengthen transparency around the sources of donations to prevent donations from anonymous, opaque sources or hostile foreign third parties. The bill bans the use of cryptocurrency and prepaid credit card contributions to make it easier to trace and identify funding sources. We welcome these aspects. Penalties are also being increased and new ones involving disinformation and deepfakes are being created. This is a timely issue. The bill will ensure that it will no longer be possible to misinform electors about polling locations or the conduct of an election. It will ensure the democratic process follows its course. All of these changes proposed in the bill are quite welcome.
Our main reservations have to do with the issue of the longest ballot committee, which has been the subject of discussion. The issue was discussed in committee and, basically, all parties are in agreement. While we welcome the fact that there is good voter participation and that people want to get involved and stand for election, unfortunately, as we have seen in the past, the electoral process has been taken hostage by candidates that do not actually want to be elected or to convey a message. They used their candidacy not for the right reasons, but to divert the election from its true purpose, jeopardizing part of the electoral process.
Some ballots have had a long list of names, including more than 200 in the riding of Battle River—Crowfoot, which meant that it took longer to count votes, ballot boxes filled up ten times faster, and electors were forced to write in the names of candidates on plain ballot papers. The longest ballot had so many names that it was becoming problematic and difficult to handle for some individuals, resulting in higher costs, so the choice was between the lesser of two evils, namely, a very long ballot or a blank ballot.
Parties agreed that this issue had to be dealt with. We agree with most of the measures to address the issues, including the fact that an official agent should only be able to act on behalf of one candidate per riding, even though they can represent several candidates in different ridings. No one had any objection to this, which is common practice, to an extent. The fact that one official agent could represent several candidates in the same riding ultimately brought to the fore the ridiculous nature of the longest ballot initiative.
We also agree with the idea of creating an offence for soliciting or inciting someone to sign more than one nomination form in the context of an organized operation. We also agreed with the idea of having penalties for collecting signatures on nomination papers that do not bear the name of the candidate. We completely agree with that.
However, for a number of reasons, we do not fully agree with the idea of requiring that electors only sign one nomination form. This may be perceived as a breach of ballot secrecy. A person who is told that they can only sign one nomination form may perceive this as a desire to support a specific candidate even though, in principle, that is not the case; the idea is to support the possibility for someone to be a candidate.
One has to wonder if this is putting the onus on the right person, the elector, rather than on the candidate or the group of candidates who want to collect signatures. The elector will be required to remember whether they have signed more than one form and to choose the form they will sign. They will also be prevented from signing more than one nomination form even if they would have liked to see two different candidates on the ballot. Furthermore, some electors are used to signing an opponent's ballot in order to have democratic debates. I have done that myself a few times.
There is also a risk of harming bona fide candidates. The Chief Electoral Officer told us that if signatures appear on two different sets of nomination papers, for example, then it would be basically impossible to know which papers were signed first. What do we do with the signature that has to be removed? In any case, the Chief Electoral Officer also told us that it would take a fairly long time to compile the signatures and that a candidate should not be prevented from running if they have many signatures on their nomination papers. Would limiting the number of so-called bogus nominations in an election really have a positive impact? One has to wonder. We do not think that it is the best idea to limit nomination papers to one signature per elector. It has more drawbacks than actual benefits and no real impact on the final number of candidates running in an election.
One thing we are glad to not see in the bill is the requirement for individuals who want to stand as candidates to make a financial deposit. That issue was discussed in committee. I am happy that requirement is not in the bill because that monetary burden could have had an impact on candidates, including me. In 2019, I was beginning my career. If I had been required to pay $1,500 to run for election, I may not be here today. When I ran in 2008‑09 as a young student, I would not have been able to do it. If political parties had to pay that amount, it could be too heavy a burden for some smaller parties. For example, in order to run 343 candidates at $1,500 a head, a third party would have to spend half a million dollars simply to run candidates. That would also limit the number of parties and candidates who would want to run as independents. In our opinion, that would be a needless and excessive burden. We are pleased that it is not in the bill.
One issue that we have with the bill involves the whole concept of what could be called cash for access, and I look forward to hearing greater clarification about that in committee.
There is a very delicate balance to be struck between the need for transparency in the process of providing donations in exchange for access to decision-makers and the importance of protecting individual privacy and security. Some of the information I received during briefings and discussions seemed to contradict my own interpretation of the bill. That is why I am eager to learn more in committee about the ultimate purpose of this measure. I will explain.
Before that, however, I want to point to an example to explain cash for access. In May 2016, the Globe and Mail revealed that Chinese businessmen had access to the then prime minister, Mr. Trudeau, during private receptions, in exchange for $1,500, the price of admission. A short time later, it was noted that Wealth One Bank had gotten the green light to become a chartered bank. A connection was thus established between the access these businessmen gained to the Prime Minister at a cocktail party or an exclusive gathering and the bank's subsequent approval to become a chartered bank.
These select gatherings are sometimes held in private homes, and the guest lists are limited but can sometimes include lobbyists, so there is a risk that access to an elected official could be exchanged for money and party funding. However, I understand that it is important to protect people's private addresses, particularly from doxxing, when personal information is shared for malicious purposes. I am eager to see how that balance can be struck.
I also want to make sure I fully understand the amendments proposed in the bill with respect to protecting the identities of individuals who attend or organize these very private and exclusive fundraising events. I am open to discussion as long as two objectives can be met: first, transparency concerning the funding sources and the private and exclusive fundraising events that are being held, and second, the protection of the people who organize them, including the protection of their personal information and addresses.
That said, as my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean mentioned, we would have liked the bill to address the issue of bringing back public funding for political parties. In a context of foreign interference, we believe that would have been a good idea. It is worth noting that this kind of amendment can be done at no cost. I want to suggest a potentially useful course of action.
Currently, when someone donates money to a party, they can get a tax receipt. For example, if they donate $400, they are eligible for a tax credit of up to $300. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates this costs the government approximately $35 million to $45 million annually, depending on the year. Obviously, during an election year, people give more, so the cost to the government is higher. Between elections, the cost is slightly lower, which explains the wide range of the estimate.
If the concept of tax refunds were replaced with funding of about $2 per vote, for example, the cost would be $40 million. Parties would ultimately receive the same amount of funding from the government, but in a much more democratic way. For example, when I give $400 to the Bloc Québécois, I am forcing the government to give $300 to the Bloc Québécois. I am influencing where the public funds will end up, meaning which party will get the money. If we change the system, funding could be tied to the democratic will of Canadians. The amount of funding would depend on how Canadians vote, not on which parties' donors have the deepest pockets.
I think that limiting tax refunds and using the money to fund political parties based on the number of votes they receive would be a more authentic democratic exercise. We could also limit the maximum donation per contributor. We think it should be lowered to $500 to avoid larger contributions, particularly from foreign actors.
Finally, on the issue of changing constituency names, MPs from various parties have proposed a list of new names for their constituencies. In the case of the Bloc Québécois, there are three. Allow me to list them. We would like the constituency of Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon to be renamed Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent; the constituency of Jonquière to be renamed Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets; and the constituency of Rimouski—La Matapédia to be renamed Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques.
The name changes proposed by the Bloc Québécois are the result of consultations held with the public, with local councillors and with elected representatives from the various regional county municipalities, or RCMs. One of the tools used by the Bloc Québécois to gauge what voters in a constituency think of a particular name proposal is the use of mass mailings, which is an excellent tool available to parliamentarians for taking the pulse of the public and gauging their views on various issues. I know that my colleagues who proposed these amendments carried out this exercise beforehand. They consulted their constituents and ensured that the name they were proposing truly reflected the will of the constituents and also truly represented their constituency.
When it comes to renaming constituencies, we typically trust that the members proposing names have also used this process to ensure that the name they are submitting truly reflects the will of the people. I therefore defer to my colleagues from other parties who are also suggesting changes to constituency names and trust that they did the groundwork on the name change and factored in the reception it received. I can assure the House, however, that our members were truly committed to ensuring that the name genuinely reflected the will of their constituents.
I am getting to the end of my remarks on the bill. I would once again like to commend the government for its openness regarding this bill and particularly for its willingness to work collaboratively on issues as sensitive as foreign interference. I believe that on some matters, we must set partisan differences aside and work for the common good. I expect that this will be the attitude adopted by all members who will be working on the bill in committee.
It has certainly been on display here and was also mentioned by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs during its study of the longest ballot. The questions put to the various stakeholders truly reflected a desire to improve the situation and rise above purely partisan ends, with some exceptions. Of course, from time to time we need to spice things up a little. On the whole, however, the process was very constructive and very collaborative.
I commend the work that was accomplished, and I expect it to continue in the same way moving forward, with healthy, constructive discussions ultimately leading to a bill that is unanimously supported, agreed on and approved by all the parties.
