Cathy McLeod

[Citizen Voting Act, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks I outlined the many different countries and approaches, and there are some approaches that are very similar to what we are proposing in this act. I certainly have every confidence that Elections Canada would be able to process these people who are living outside the country and who are so committed to our democratic process and really do take the time. Of course, we always hope that as many Canadians also take the time, when elections come, to exercise that incredible responsibility and opportunity we enjoy in Canada in our democratic system.

[Citizen Voting Act, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to stand to speak to this very important issue today. What I will do is focus on some important measures and how Canada is, in many ways, similar to other countries.

The relationship works both ways. Canada's electoral process serves as a model for other countries to emulate. Our electoral system is deemed to be one of the best in the world. One of the reasons we have this enviable reputation is that we strive to improve how our elections are administered. We review our electoral procedures and laws. We study the recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer to Parliament and the various studies and reviews of election procedures conducted by parliamentary committees. We listen to our constituents, and of course, we all live through elections.

We learn from these experiences, and we build on them to improve the processes in place, particularly the procedural safeguards against irregularities or impropriety that could call into question the validity of electoral results. If there is room for improvement or we find that existing procedures are deficient, we need to respond with new procedural safeguards. This is the responsible thing to do, and that is precisely what we would do here with the citizen voting act.

Election procedures must include the checks and balances that ensure that elections are conducted fairly and with transparency and accountability to instill confidence in the electoral process. At the same time, any new procedures must be developed with a view to ensuring that voting remains accessible. This legislation would achieve both of these aims. It strikes the right balance between procedural safeguards and the accessibility of the voting process.

When we review how other mature democracies, particularly those in the Westminster tradition, structure their voting rules, it further supports this conclusion. Reviewing procedures from other jurisdictions also enables us to assess how well our own electoral processes measure up internationally.

How does the citizen voting act compare with the way non-resident voting is administered in other jurisdictions?

To start, I will talk a little about the United Kingdom. Non-residents must have previously registered to vote in the 15 years before leaving the U.K. To register to vote, the voter must provide the U.K. with the equivalent of a social insurance number, called a national insurance number, which is matched or cross-referenced against various trusted sources of data. If the voter cannot or does not provide the national insurance number, proof of identity may be requested. Failing these options, the voter must provide an attestation from an eligible registered elector living abroad who is not a spouse, civil partner, or immediate relative. All voters, including non-resident voters, must confirm their election registration details each year.

International voters cannot choose the electoral district for which they cast a ballot. The ballot is cast for the electoral district where the voter actually last cast a ballot.

It is very important to see how similar that is to what we are proposing with respect to the attachment voters would need to have to their place prior to leaving.

Another country we could look at that is very similar is Australia. Its rules for non-resident voters have identification and residence requirements. Non-resident Australians may vote only if they have not lived abroad for more than six years. They must register to vote by providing their driver's licence and passport number. If they cannot provide either of these pieces of identification, a registered voter may attest to their identity.

A non-resident voter may not choose the electoral district in which to cast a ballot. People may only vote in the last electoral district in which they last voted. There is no separate register of international electors, like the measure proposed in the citizen voting act. There is only one register of electors.

New Zealand takes a slightly different approach. It has the most specific jurisdiction requirements. New Zealand voters residing outside the country may vote in national elections provided they have lived in New Zealand for more than one year at some point in their lives, have not been absent from the country longer than three years, and have visited the country in the past 12 months.

New Zealand non-resident voters may not choose the electoral district for which they cast a ballot; they may only vote in the electoral district in which they have resided for one month or more. Finally, non-resident voters do not automatically receive ballots. Like the measure proposed in the citizenship voting act, they must apply for a ballot at each election.

Notably, Ireland does not permit voting by non-residents unless they are officials of the Irish government who are posted abroad, or their spouses.

If we look closer to home, there are further examples of different approaches to non-resident voting. For example, Ontario's rules for non-resident voters incorporate elements from many of the international jurisdictions I have reviewed. Ontario non-resident voters may vote in an election for the provincial legislature if they lived in Ontario for at least 12 consecutive months before leaving the province, have not been absent from Ontario longer than two years, and intend to return to Ontario. Members of the Canadian Forces, federal and provincial government employees, students, and the families of these voters are exempted from these particular time limits.

The rules in Quebec similarly impose requirements on non-resident electors. Non-resident Quebec voters are entitled to vote in elections for the Quebec National Assembly provided that they have resided outside Quebec for no more than two years and that they resided in Quebec for a period of at least 12 consecutive months before their departure. Voters must apply for a mail-in ballot by providing two documents that establish proof of identity, date of birth, and residence in Quebec.

I would like to say a few words about France, which has come up in debate in this House. It is important for members to be aware that France has a different approach than Canada or the other Westminster systems I have mentioned. French citizens residing abroad are entitled to vote either in an extra-territorial overseas constituency, sometimes referred to as a consular constituency, or in a domestic constituency. To vote in an extraterritorial or consular constituency, non-resident voters must register in a separate registry of French citizens living outside France. To do so, they must provide proof of identity, citizenship, and address abroad.

As hon. members are aware, Canada does not have extraterritorial constituencies, although I think many of us could think of some wonderful places we might like to live that would provide that extraterritorial constituency. Our system is based on democratic representation based on territoriality, meaning geographic constituencies in Canada, with each domestic constituency returning a member to represent that community.

In France, non-resident voters may also apply to register on a list of electors in a domestic constituency in France. This requires proof of identity and citizenship by means of a French national identity card, a French passport, or a driver's licence accompanied by proof of citizenship. Registration on this list must be renewed every five years, and no later than three months before the expiry of the registration. Failure to do so results in the voter being taken off the register and potentially the register for consular constituencies.

There are two main lessons we can take from the survey of international practices on non-resident voting.

First, all jurisdictions, importantly, impose procedural safeguards to ensure that the integrity of the process is not compromised, and many go further, with limits on the time a citizen can reside abroad.

Second, and as important, the approaches vary widely, reflecting that each democracy must decide for itself how to structure its rules to instill confidence in its own elections.

There are variations in the nature of the procedural safeguards across jurisdictions, variations in how proof of citizenship and identification are established, and variations in residency requirements to maintain the right to vote.

What Bill C-50 is proposing for Canada is not out of line with the approaches of other jurisdictions. Indeed, what is proposed measures up remarkably well with what other jurisdictions have done to construct procedural safeguards for non-resident voters.

We are also seeking to ensure that safeguards do not act as barriers to voting.

In conclusion, the procedural reforms in the citizen voting act are aimed at improving the integrity and fairness of the special ballot process. By strengthening the procedures required to receive a special ballot, we would strengthen our confidence in the integrity of the ballots. By establishing common application and identification procedures for non-residents and non-resident voters, we would reinforce the fair application of rules for citizens, regardless of where they vote.

These provisions of the citizen voting act would accomplish both of these goals. I certainly encourage all members in this House to support it.

[Food Safety, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, not only are the opposition allegations not accurate, they are irresponsibly undermining confidence in our food safety systems.

Again, it is important to note that all issues have been dealt with. The Conference Board of Canada rates our system number one out of 17 countries, and that includes the U.S.

[Food Safety, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, action was taken back in 2014, and prior. All issues have been resolved; none have been left outstanding. It is important to note that nearly 40 inspection staff are on the ground in this facility every single day. For additional reassurance, CFIA is sending in an inspection verification team.

Again for Canadians, it is important to note that The Conference Board of Canada rates our food safety system number one against 17 OECD countries, including the U.S.

[Seniors, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, our government has provided important and significant support for Canadian seniors. We provided the largest increase to the guaranteed income supplement in 25 years, introduced income splitting for seniors and doubled the pension income credit. This, among other measures, has removed over 380,000 seniors from the tax rolls.

Our recent budget further supports seniors by increasing the tax-free savings account limit, creating the new home accessibility tax credit and expanding the El compassionate care benefit to six months.

However, the Liberals and the NDP believe that the hard-earned savings of seniors are just another opportunity to tax. Canadian seniors know they can trust our government to lower their taxes, and provide the support and programs they need.

[The Budget, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I think it was just last week that a study came out with regard to Canada being one of the best places to live in this world. Due to many measures in the last 30 years, in spite of what the opposition says, which is inaccurate, middle-income earners have enormous opportunities. We have enormous mobility within our country for someone who struggles. Another example would be the 32 weeks that are now available for students to access programs. A single mother might be willing to make a commitment to a 32-week course and become a dental assistant.

Really, Canada measures very well in terms of mobility, the middle class and being one of the best places in the world to live.

[The Budget, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the majority of people who have money in the tax-free savings account, apparently 60% of them who have middle and lower incomes, are contributing the full amount. I gave two very important examples. Perhaps there are a number of years where a middle-class family cannot contribute but has space and receives a small inheritance. That is one example where it is an enormous benefit. Maybe in one year the family would contribute $40,000.

I also gave another example of a middle-income single person who has made a commitment to save 10%. Making $50,000 a year and receiving a small raise, that individual would have more flexibility. Again, this is important for Canadians to do. We talk frequently about concerns regarding Canadians saving enough and this is an enormous benefit in terms of people being able to take advantage of saving their hard-earned money.

[The Budget, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it was approximately one week ago that the finance minister stood in this House and delivered economic action plan 2015. We have all had approximately one week to reflect on what is in the plan. I have read the document in greater detail, and I am coming to realize how accurately this budget reflects a lot of the things that were said to me during our round table, my budget consultation process, in many areas. I am very pleased to be speaking to this budget and reflecting on what it means to the residents of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I will speak briefly about a couple of broad themes, but really I want to get into talking about individual families and constituents and what it would mean to them.

I was here in the House as we headed into the global economic recession. I remember the minister of finance of the day saying that we would have stimulus spending that would be temporary in nature and that we would get back to a balanced budget as we did not want to leave a debt for our children. This budget is really a promise made and a promise kept.

Another broad subject is supporting jobs and growth. There is a whole host of measures, again in the riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, that I heard directly about in terms of what is important to support. There is the mining exploration tax credit, the fund around innovation for our forestry sector, the response for technology, responsible resource development, and in particular, LNG, although it is predominantly the accelerated capital cost allowance for the LNG industry to really take hold in British Columbia and will provide enormous benefits. It is not as direct as it is much more north, but we see that there will be tremendous opportunities through that for us.

Obviously, ensuring the safety of Canadians is the government's most solemn responsibility. There are significant and important measures in place for that.

Helping families and communities prosper is where I really want to focus some important comments. I will do this by providing examples. I think the New Democrats need to hear that this is not about supporting families that are rich, that this is about supporting everyday Canadians who work hard and try to move ahead in their lives.

My first example is a young adult whose name is Ali. She graduated from university two and a half years ago. From when she was very young she had always been told by her father to put away 10% of anything she earned, whether it was babysitting money, money from her first job after graduation, or money from her first career opportunity. She is 25 years old now and her tax-free savings account is sitting at $10,000. This is an enormous achievement, because she paid herself first and then looked at the things that she wanted next. This year her employer offered her a bonus for work accomplished and she was able to move ahead of what she had planned for her contribution. That extra bonus will be moved right into her TFSA and it will be tax free. All of us recognize that right now it is very hard for our savings to move forward because of the interest rates. We all talk about how Canadians need to save more, but we also look at the interest rates and how hard it is to have our savings grow. When the government takes a portion of that every time, it makes it that much more difficult. This is one person. This is not a person who is rich, but while she does not make an awful lot of money, she will exceed the $5,000 limit this year because she has savings from paying herself first.

My next example is again from my riding. Peter is in his 40s and is married. They have three children who are all above the age of five. In this case, the mother is working full time to support the family and the father has chosen to home-school his children. They live in a rural area. The father is home-schooling, and he has a small agricultural business on the side.

We can imagine that if a family has predominantly one income and three busy children, it is a little tough to make ends meet. In their particular case, the expansion to the universal child care benefit to now include their three children between the ages of five and eighteen is going to make an enormous difference. The family tax cut is also going to make an enormous difference, with his wife working and him making not as much income. In their case, the changes to the child expense are not going to make a difference. What is happening is that their tax money is not going to pay for services that they are not going to have, such as a bureaucratic program that very few people have access to. Again, it speaks to leaving the money in the pockets of Canadians.

In this particular case, there is something else that is important to recognize. People frequently ask who can afford $10,000, and that only the rich can afford $10,000. In this case, they were given a small inheritance. Some money was given to them. They have not really been able to save for the future, given their circumstances, so they have chosen to have a tax-free savings account. Although they maybe could not put in $10,000 every year, they could take that $40,000 that is coming to them and put it in between the space that they have. It will be an enormous benefit. Again, this is not a family that is rich. This is a family that is very prudent and is working very hard.

My final example is with respect to seniors, a couple in their late 70s. They owned a small business. They partnered in a small business all of their lives. There was no pension plan for them. They have the old age security and they have the money they put aside during their working years in order to give them a retirement that they were comfortable with. They had a huge challenge during the time of the recession, because they had to make fairly high mandatory withdrawals from their RRIFs. That provided a real challenge for them in terms of how they were going to support themselves in the future. Again, for them, there are the changes to the RRIF. Many people came into my office to talk about how they would really appreciate some increased flexibility in their registered retirement income funds. I am really pleased to see that.

There is another item that is of enormous benefit. One of the spouses is beginning to have some significant mobility issues. They have had to adapt their washroom facilities. The home accessibility tax credit is something that is significant.

First of all, what we see in these three examples are everyday Canadians who are working hard and saving money, and who are going to see an enormous benefit from the changes that we have made in our policy, by keeping taxes low and keeping money in their pockets. In the end, it might actually save our system some additional money in terms of how we are supporting Canadians in their homes.

Another important element of this budget that speaks to hearts and something that I see in my constituency is the compassionate care benefit. There is the ability for family members to take time to be with their loved ones, not for six weeks, but for six months.

I could take a lot more time to talk about this particular budget and the elements that I believe are going to be particularly effective in supporting the riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Mostly, this budget is a budget that would be good for communities and would be good for people. They are not rich financially, but they are rich in being able to live in the greatest country in the world, and rich in terms of their life and opportunities.

I am very pleased to see this budget, and I look forward to all parties supporting it.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to the health and safety of all Canadians, including our aboriginal communities. We provide over $2.5 billion toward programs and services with aboriginal health. This includes 24/7 access to nursing services in 80 remote communities, home and community care, and $34.5 million to improve the quality of health services in aboriginal communities. Those are just a few of some very important measures that we are doing in terms of aboriginal health.

[Petitions, April 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to present a petition to respect the right of small-scale family farmers to preserve, exchange, and use seeds. I want to note that in Bill C-18. that ability for farmers to preserve and use their seeds is protected.