Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to an important piece of legislation that I know Canadians, as a whole, what to see enacted for the upcoming election, whenever that might be. There are significant changes to reinforce Canada’s democracy in a very positive way. One of the gravest mistakes we can make as parliamentarians is to take our democracy for granted. That is something this government will not do. We understand and appreciate the need for changing the Elections Act, ensuring the security and protection of our future elections, and even what takes place between elections. First, I approach this issue from a personal perspective of having been blessed by the residents of Winnipeg North in many ways. For five provincial elections, I represented the wonderful constituency of Inkster, and for six federal elections, I have represented Winnipeg North. I have been a candidate more than a dozen times. Obviously, not every election was successful, but I truly appreciate the efforts and support I received, whether it is from family, volunteers or, most importantly, the residents of Winnipeg North. That is why, in all circumstances, I like to believe that I put the residents of Winnipeg North first and foremost in making sure they are represented, whether it is in the city of Winnipeg or here in Ottawa. I want to give a special shout-out of appreciation and express my gratitude in being the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North. Having said that, I mention it in part because I understand the many dynamics of an election and what occurs during an election. One thing that is nice about this legislation is that it does not just deal with the election period. There are all sorts of activities that take place year-round that we need to at least be aware of. Bill C-25, which is before us today, deals with a number of issues. I know some have more of a public interest, if I can put it that way, for example the issue of counting unduly long ballots. That has been an issue in by-elections and in the last couple of general elections, and justifiably so. We do not want to do anything to discourage candidates who, generally speaking, want to represent a constituency. I ran against many of them over the years. It is important to recognize that public policy has always enabled individuals interested in putting their name forward, getting material out, knocking on doors and meeting with the voters. This is something we want to and will protect. Let there be no doubt about that. However, one thing we have experienced is a long list of names being submitted in order to prove a political point, to a certain degree. As a result, it has brought a great deal of confusion to the process. What we are suggesting in this legislation is that two specific actions be taken. The first action is to say that voters will now be able to sign only one nomination form for a candidate, and each candidate in the riding will need a unique official agent. As we all know, those who want to be candidates in an election, whether federal or provincial, have to get signatures. The signatures are required. I remember an argument about why they need to get signatures, as opposed to giving money to register their name. They have to show some intent and get out there and get support. They have to get 100 or whatever number of signatures in order to be able to say they have knocked on doors or visited the voters in the area and acquired, either themselves or through their volunteers, the required number of signatures in order to get their names placed on the ballot. Some have chosen to take that particular rule and ultimately say, “Here are 100 candidates. Will you sign off on 100 candidates?” This is something I believe would help address the issue of the long ballot. The other is the official agent. Today’s official agent does so much for every campaign. I suspect there is not a member of Parliament in the House of Commons today who would not recognize how important our official agents are in a campaign. That person is a very busy person during an election and post-election. I find it very hard to imagine how one individual can be an official agent for 100 candidates or a large number of candidates in one riding. We are not saying that an official agent cannot be an official agent for two or three or whatever number of candidates, but in different ridings, if that is the real desire. When I was with the Manitoba Liberal Party as an MLA, we would often get one official agent working with several different candidates, but in different ridings. I believe those two measures in particular would deal appropriately with the countering of what I would suggest are unduly long ballots. This is something I believe our constituents want to see. Combatting deepfakes to mislead is another very serious issue this legislation attempts to deal with. It would be expanded to ensure that it applies to realistic deepfakes. Of course, political satire and parodies would be exempt. Anything that is in good-faith views, if I can put it that way, we are not after that at all with the legislation. It is not an issue of trying to put in place censorship. One of the things we need to recognize is that technology has advanced, and I am truly amazed at what a combination of AI and a mischievous mind can actually do to deceive people. We have to be aware of that. More and more, we are going to see deepfakes, especially in close ridings, where candidate X is saying something on social media but in reality it is not the candidate actually saying it. This is because of the evolution of AI and high tech and, as I say, mischievous volunteers, which is putting it nicely. Their intent is to mislead the voter in a way that is going to have an impact on the life of a candidate and on the ultimate results in an election. It is absolutely critical that we, as a House, deal with that issue. The legislation attempts to do just that, by targeting the misuse and abuse we have seen already, to a certain degree, in regard to election information. I remember, a couple of elections back, the use of what they called robocalls, where an area was told that a poll station had been changed. It was a misdirection of a large number of voters, using a voice broadcast, robocalls or whatever we want to call it. It is all the same. Hundreds if not thousands of people are contacted and told something that is just not true and that is meant to prevent that particular person from voting or to discourage someone from voting by telling them where their poll station is or that it has been closed. These types of things have happened in the past, and I suspect they could happen again in the future. It is one of the reasons it is absolutely critically important that we move on that issue. In terms of foreign interference, we have found and learned that a lot of these activities do not just occur inside Canada. For example, if we have a mischievous volunteer, to put it nicely, who happens to be outside of Canada, the laws from within would in fact apply to that individual. A lot of the rules we have would apply, and that is the way it should be. I would ultimately argue that the recommendations and the legislation that we have before us today are based on the foreign interference inquiry, the Canada elections group and the commissioner of Canada elections, all of which, either directly or indirectly, have contributed to the legislation we have here, not to mention the feedback we have from previous standing committees or members expressing their opinions through news media and so forth. It is very much a holistic approach to dealing with the issue of our elections. There are areas where we would be protecting the nomination and leadership contestants, such as undue foreign influence on how to vote in contests, offering or accepting bribes about how to vote in a contest, intimidating someone on how to vote in a contest, realistic deepfakes of contestants that intend to mislead, misleading publications falsely purporting to be issued by a contestant, and unauthorized use of a computer to affect the conduct or results of an election. Again, I would emphasize that this is not about censorship. We are not talking about good-faith views. That is a very important aspect, because we can easily slide down that slippery slope. It is recognizing the need for some of these changes to take place. We have the cabinet directive. Things take place during an election, but we also need to recognize that things can take place in between elections. The cabinet directive on the coordinated response to threats to elections would be extended, justifiably so. Membership of that would include the Clerk of the Privy Council, the national security to the PM, the Department of Justice and the Department of Public Safety. Think in terms of foreign affairs and where we could develop an all-party consensus in a non-partisan way. The potential incidents that may be threats to the integrity of our elections are what this panel would deal with, and not only during elections. We have to think outside of elections. That is something the legislation also deals with. There are a number of measures within the legislation that deal with what would be classified as AMPs or financial penalties and provide opportunities for the commissioner to be able to deal with violations. Not all violations should be treated equally, I would suggest. I had an incident, for example, on election day. I was out doing some car waving and we had a Facebook Live, and then we boosted the Facebook Live. Technically, candidates cannot do that on election day because it is considered an advertisement. It was absolutely innocent. No one even thought it was wrong. Ensuring that we have increased opportunity for administrative monetary penalties with these changes is something that all members should support. Members will find that these penalties have been applied to different candidates and political parties. It would allow for a more efficient system, in the sense that honest mistakes do happen. However, when the mistakes are intentional, that is when we need to ensure that there are teeth within the legislation and that we have the opportunity to ensure that there is some accountability. This is something that is within the legislation in a very real way, to ensure that individuals who are directly or even indirectly involved are so in such a manner that does not take away from or threaten Canada’s democracy. Nowadays there are many things that can take place during an election that could have a profound impact on the outcomes. We saw this just recently with Tatiana in her riding, winning with one vote in the last federal election. Every vote counts. I was really encouraged, I must say on a side point, to see that her margin went from one vote to 800 votes. The example validates the importance of every vote, and we should collectively never take it for granted. Canada is very fortunate, in the sense that we have Elections Canada as an independent agency. Elections Canada is recognized around the world for the fine work it does in protecting the institution of our democracy here at home. I have had the opportunity to have many discussions with election officials, and I have always reinforced my confidence, even if at times I disagree with some of the things that are being said, in Elections Canada and Elections Manitoba, because I believe it is absolutely critical that we recognize the work they do and respect it. Part of that is looking at ways we can continue to improve the system. I would like to share some personal thoughts in regard to changes. We hear a lot about how to get more people to vote. I believe there are things we can do. Some jurisdictions have done it a little better than other jurisdictions. I, for one, for example, believe that given today’s technology, we could incorporate some of the more high-profile areas like malls. Canadians love going to the mall. If we can better utilize those types of public and private facilities to make it easier for Canadians to vote, I am game for it, and I would encourage Elections Canada and provincial and territorial jurisdictions to look at ways we can enhance voters’ opportunities to vote. I am not convinced about Internet voting. I have not been sold on it, far from it. I suspect that Elections Canada at the very least is looking into that area. I would very much want more public discussion on voting over the Internet. With respect to mail-in ballots, I think, again, that I am open to some more dialogue on that. Mail-in ballots have actually increased. I am all for including advance polling within the legislation and for looking at how we can increase voter participation. I look forward to the bill’s coming back from third reading after it goes through committee, because I know that, like me, members of all political parties have a keen interest in how our elections are run. I know that the minister and the government as a whole are very much open to good ideas if we can improve the legislation.
