Bill C-19 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response)

This enactment adds a new Part to the Canada Elections Act that provides for temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The new Part, among other things,
(a) extends the Chief Electoral Officer’s power to adapt the provisions of that Act to ensure the health or safety of electors or election officers;
(b) authorizes a returning officer to constitute polling divisions that consist of a single institution where seniors or persons with a disability reside, or a part of such an institution, and to set the days and hours that a polling station established there will be open;
(c) provides for a polling period of three consecutive days consisting of a Saturday, Sunday and Monday;
(d) provides for the hours of voting during the polling period;
(e) provides for the opening and closing measures at polling stations;
(f) sets the days for voting at advance polling stations;
(g) authorizes the Chief Electoral Officer to modify the day on which certain things are authorized or required to be done before the polling period by moving that day backward or forward by up to two days or the starting date or ending date of a period in which certain things are authorized or required to be done by up to two days;
(h) provides that an elector may submit an application for registration and special ballot under Division 4 of Part 11 in writing or in electronic form;
(i) provides that an elector whose application for registration and special ballot was accepted by the returning officer in their electoral district may deposit the outer envelope containing their special ballot in a secure reception box or ballot box for the deposit of outer envelopes; and
(j) prohibits installing a secure reception box for the deposit of outer envelopes unless by or under the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer or a returning officer and prohibits destroying, taking, opening or otherwise interfering with a secure reception box installed by a returning officer.
The enactment also provides for the repeal of the new Part six months after the publication of a notice confirming that the temporary rules in that Part are no longer required to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to make a few points. First, I want to pick up on what my colleague, Mr. Blaikie, said. We need to move fairly quickly as a whole. We certainly don't want to filibuster. We want the work to proceed smoothly [Technical difficulty—Editor] months of filibustering in the committee. The work hasn't been very constructive. I still find it unfortunate that we're being asked to proceed very quickly after we took a fairly long break due to issues unrelated to the purpose of our work. That's the first point.

The second point concerns the motion moved by Ms. Vecchio. We're told that the government is giving several signs that it may want to call an election within a certain period. In my opinion, the fact that the government has certain electoral, political or partisan intentions shouldn't influence how we work in the committee. In my view, that isn't an argument for rejecting Ms. Vecchio's motion to hear from many more witnesses. It also isn't an argument for speeding up our work. Like Ms. Vecchio and other members, we would have appreciated hearing from other witnesses in the committee, including representatives of the Institut national de la santé publique du Québec.

We're ready to proceed with the clause‑by‑clause consideration because we want the report to be sent quickly. I also want to reiterate that neither the government's intentions with respect to the election nor the months spent failing to work as productively as possible on Bill C‑19 should influence our decisions today.

Regarding the motion, I can't support it. However, perhaps we in the Bloc Québécois, [Inaudible—Editor] for other cases.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I have just a very few remarks. I'll start by saying I very much appreciate the sentiment of the motion and I think in an ideal circumstance it would behoove the committee to hear from the people that Ms. Vecchio has identified as potential witnesses.

I do think it's important that the bill be reported back to the House as soon as possible for the reasons I was mentioning earlier, that we've heard for a long time now from Mr. Perrault that he's confident Elections Canada can deliver an election that is safe from a public health point of view, but what remains is the question of whether or not enough Canadians are going to feel comfortable enough to vote. What C-19 offers for me, and one of the reasons it's always been very important in light of the CEO maintaining consistently throughout the entire pandemic that they could run an election that's safe from a public health point of view, is that I have tended to see C-19 and the virtue of legislative amendment as being more about ensuring that we actually get people comfortable with voting and that they can do that in ways that not only are safe but also feel safe to them and don't become a barrier to voting.

I know also in the example of Newfoundland it wasn't necessarily that Newfoundland couldn't deliver an election that was safe from a public health point of view. It was the perception of poll workers and voters that caused people to feel that they shouldn't be going out to the polls. What that would mean for the result of the election caused there to be a delay in the election day, in fact many delays, because people recognized that it's not enough to have an election that's safe from a public health point of view. You also have to have enough participation to make the results legitimate, or it wasn't worth having an election in the first place.

I see that as being the virtue of C-19 and that's why it's imperative that we deal with it and report it back to the House quickly. I would have preferred that we not have a months-long filibuster at the committee. It would have created a lot more time for us to consider C-19 properly, but I can't change the past. What I can do is play the hand dealt and to work at what I think the priority should be, which in this case is reporting the bill back to the House.

While I regret that we were tied up for a long time and we weren't able to do this important work in more depth, that's the situation in which we find ourselves. I also just don't have the same faith in Mr. Trudeau that perhaps my colleagues in the Conservative Party seem to have that he won't put his own self-interest ahead of the interest of the nation. If I really felt we weren't going to have an election this summer and that the Prime Minister could be trusted to do the right thing, then we wouldn't be on the timeline that I believe we are on, which is trying to get this bill in place before the summer, because I think it's very unlikely that we're coming back in September.

I don't usually play pundit. It's not a role that I'm comfortable in. I like to work to change outcomes and to decide outcomes rather than to comment on what other people are thinking or doing, but in this case, there are so many signs of a summer election, including the take-note debate tonight for MPs who have announced they are not running again. I can't fathom why a government would agree to that unless they had an intention of calling an election. There are a lot of signs leading towards a summer election. That's why I think it's really important that we get this bill passed and back to the House.

While I would really like to hear from these witnesses, I don't think we're in a position to do that. I think our committee has burned up the time that we would need in order to do that. The important thing right now is to get the bill reported back to the House in order to put Canadians more at ease with the options that they'll have for voting, and to make sure that they feel they're doing that in a safe way and that the legitimacy of the result isn't compromised by low participation. That's why I do not intend to support this motion. Although I think, ultimately, it would have been very nice to hear from these folks, I don't think that a realistic timeline allows for that.

Thank you.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thanks very much. I wasn't sure about this.

Mr. Perrault, thank you very much for being here today, because I think you've brought in so much commentary on what this could look like and what we should be looking at.

Of course, this is the first time we've had a chance to really discuss Bill C-19. The facts you brought out about a three-day writ versus a one-day writ and all of these different issues you're talking about are things that we need to really reflect on. At this time, I recognize that there are opportunities for questions, but I want to move a motion because, specifically after hearing you, Mr. Perrault, it gives us a good reason to make sure there are opportunities for other witnesses.

I had put this motion on notice on Friday. I would like to move the following motion:

That, in relation to its consideration of Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response), the Committee

(a) invite the following to appear as witnesses at their earliest opportunities and prior to clause-by-clause consideration:

(i) the Chief Electoral Officer—

Thank you, Mr. Perrault, for being here today. It's been useful.

—(ii) a panel consisting of the Chief Electoral Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Chief Medical Officer of Health of Newfoundland and Labrador—

[Stéphane Perrault]

There are many factors that affect turnout, and we don't control a number of them. Motivation and whether there are circumstances that light a fire for voters are things that we don't have control of. What we are responsible for is limiting barriers to voting and making sure that there's a range of options for electors who face a range of lifestyles and life circumstances.

For elders, people in remote communities, vulnerable populations, students...for all of these, I can say that we have a range of service options. People who want to vote, whatever their circumstances, should be able to vote in the next election.

Now, Bill C-19, in some ways, gives me a clear mandate to do things that I'm already planning—as I said, the services for seniors in long-term care facilities. If the bill does not have time to pass, I will use the adaptation power.

I think there was a very good idea in this bill, which is the use of drop-boxes in polling places. It's something we can do and we plan to do. It does not require a change to the legislation to do that, but it's certainly something that emerged from the bill. As we looked at it, we decided that this is something we should be doing so that voters, if they receive a postal ballot and it is late in the campaign, do not need to worry about their ability to cast their ballot. There's a range of things we are doing that are very much mirrored both in the report of your committee last February and, in some cases, in Bill C-19 and that will assist in ensuring that voters can cast their ballots.

As I said, I think we are in a good position. It doesn't mean that there won't be challenges. I want to be clear that any election is a bit of a challenge and that in a pandemic it's even more of a challenge, but we have a range of tools to assist voters in these circumstances.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Monsieur Perrault, you've said more than once here today that you're confident, even under the current rules, that you could run an election that is safe from a public health point of view, but there's another important question that I want to put to you.

Strictly speaking, I mean, you can have an election [Technical difficulty—Editor] at 110% that was perfectly safe from a public health point of view. Safety from a public health point of view is one thing—it's very important—but the other thing that the committee was at pains to show, in both the main body of its report on the matter and in the very title, is that there are two things that have to be taken into consideration. The other is the likely turnout and people's comfort with voting, even if voting is safe.

There's a question about whether logistically it will be easier for people to vote under Bill C-19 in a pandemic context, and whether having measures like some of the measures in Bill C-19 would put people at ease and make them feel more comfortable about showing up to vote, either in person or voting by mail.

I want you to answer that other fundamental question, as I see it, in respect to Bill C-19. Do you think that Bill C-19 promises a salutatory effect on turnout and will help Canada have at least the kind of turnout that we've normally seen in elections?

Also, do you think there's a threat of a lower turnout [Technical difficulty—Editor] a non-Bill C-19 context to a Bill C-19 context?

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

Yes. I appreciate that.

That kind of leads in logically to my next question. Obviously, there are four days of advance polls plus however many days of polling we will have under Bill C-19, whether we stick with the three days or move to a single day or a single weekend. It goes back to the staffing challenges. I have heard anecdotally that, with the census, there has been a bit of a challenge in terms of recruiting people to fill these positions.

Looking at an election context, especially within a pandemic, I don't want to stereotype [Technical difficulty—Editor] volunteer or to work as elections officials tend to be slightly older than me, in that age cohort. I want to know what efforts the agency is making currently in terms of ensuring that there are appropriate staffing levels for four days of advance polling before an election day, regardless of how many and what challenges you're seeing. What might need to be done, legislatively or otherwise, to address that staffing challenge?

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

Thank you for that. I appreciate that and I think that is a vote of confidence in your agency and something that we as parliamentarians, and as politicians [[Technical difficulty—Editor] inform our public about the confidence we have in your agency.

If I have time, I will come back to some of the recruitment challenges, but I want to go back to something that's been talked about a few times already. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I think it is an important issue. That's the two-day versus three-day versus one-day writ period. Obviously, your recommendation was a Saturday and Sunday. In C-19, the government has gone in a different direction with the Saturday, Sunday and Monday.

In your opening comments, you did note you would prefer either a traditional Monday or a Saturday and Sunday and not the combination of the two. I just wanted to clarify that, if given the choice, you would rather have a single one-day voting period on a Monday versus the Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Is that your position?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Perrault and our guests from Elections Canada.

I have to apologize. There is a kindergarten class going on in the other room, and it sounds like they're singing a Father's Day song. I'll try to tune that out so that I'm still surprised on Sunday.

Thank you, again, to our witnesses. This has been a fascinating conversation.

I want to start out by saying a word of appreciation to you, Mr. Perrault, and to Elections Canada for the work that you've already undertaken leading up to a potential election by taking into account different mitigation measures if there is a snap election at some point. That kind of leads into my first question.

Obviously, this committee is actually moving heaven and earth, I would say, to get through C-19 prior to the House rising in a week's time. I just want to gauge your comfort level. Obviously, there are risks with this pandemic. There's never not going to be a risk when we're dealing with a global pandemic, but I just want to gauge your comfort level right now—if there was an election over the summer months or early into the fall without C-19 having received royal assent—with running an election under the current rules, taking into account, obviously, the adaptation measures that you've already noted.

[Stéphane Perrault]

According to the bill, if it passes, I must consult with Dr. Tam and decide whether the accommodations are still necessary.

For example, if I still need to provide varied and specific services to each senior centre, even though infection rates have dropped, I can't say that we're finished with the pandemic. I'm still relying on exceptional measures.

As long as I need to use the exceptional measures in Bill C‑19, it means that we're still in a pandemic situation.

Once I'm no longer considering this, and after consulting with public health, I'll issue a notice and the provisions will stop [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you. That's very clear.

I'll ask you another question. I've spoken to the minister about this situation. He considers you a very important part of the decision‑making process. I just want to make sure that this is part of your authority under the act.

Suppose that it's June and an election is called. We're currently seeing cases decrease more and more. However, in September, who will determine whether we're still in a pandemic and whether Bill C‑19 still applies?

Is it you? Is it public health? Is it the bill? How will this work?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Would Bill C‑19 help you with your preparations, for example?

Could you already initiate processes that would make it easier for you and your team to deliver safe elections for the most vulnerable people, who are necessarily the most affected?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam chair.

Mr. Perrault, thank you for taking the time to be with us today. This is the first time that you and I have met as you appear before us as part of our study. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors, I am very concerned about the continued right of seniors to vote should an election be held during the pandemic.

We saw what happened in the U.K. with the new variant. We are in an unpredictable situation, and the role of government is to ensure that we are prepared for any eventuality.

Could you tell us how Bill C‑19 gives you the flexibility to make voting safe for voters who reside in a long‑term care facility?

[Stéphane Perrault, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak with the committee today about Bill C‑19.

Given where we are in the parliamentary calendar, I want to start by saying a few words about our electoral readiness before addressing certain aspects of the bill.

Over the last year or so, we have undertaken extensive readiness activities, not only to prepare for the next election, but also to adjust to the circumstances of the pandemic and ensure that voting can take place safely.

We continue to engage a range of stakeholder groups across the country, as well as with a network of federal, provincial, territorial and indigenous health authorities. We have adjusted voting operations and procured a full range of protective equipment to ensure the safety of electors and workers at polling stations.

We have also prepared a range of service options to deliver the vote in seniors' homes and long‑term care facilities, based on local needs and circumstances. It is these institutions that will choose the options.

Since last fall, we have dramatically increased our capacity to process mail‑in ballots, and we have developed, tested and implemented an online vote‑by‑mail application system. Finally, we have planned for the deployment of drop boxes inside all polling places to help ensure that postal ballots can be returned in time.

I note that all of these measures are possible under the current regime, without Bill C‑19, with some adaptations that I am empowered to make.

With this, Elections Canada is in a relatively good position to administer an election under the current regime, despite the challenges inherent to the pandemic, which is not fully behind us.

In early October I recommended a limited number of amendments to the Canada Elections Act to facilitate election delivery in a pandemic and improve services to electors. Among them was the replacement of the traditional polling day, which of course is Monday, with a two-day weekend voting period.

Bill C-19 proposes, instead, to retain Monday voting and add Saturday and Sunday. I certainly understand the intention behind having more voting days. As I indicated when I appeared before you last fall, this was, in fact, my initial instinct, but after careful review, I recommended against it. This remains my recommendation today. Let me explain.

Three polling days over a weekend and a Monday will increase the risk of labour shortage and limit the number of polling places available for the full voting period, in part because in a pandemic, schools will generally not be available on the Monday and places of worship on the weekend, or at least part of the weekend.

This will result in increasing the number of voters per poll and will not facilitate distancing. Fewer polling places will also result in electors having to travel farther than usual to cast their votes, especially in rural areas where they may have to vote outside of their town or in places that may not meet accessibility standards.

I invite members of the committee to amend Bill C-19 to provide for a two-day weekend voting period or else to simply stay with the traditional Monday. Either solution would, in my opinion, result in better services to electors.

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to draw your attention to one item that is not currently contained in the bill, and it relates to the collection of signatures for candidate nominations. This matter was raised during the Toronto by-elections and discussed, I should say, several times, at the advisory committee of political parties after I had made my recommendations.

The act requires that signatures be collected by candidates from 100 electors, each in the presence of a witness. This will be more challenging, of course, during a pandemic. Currently signatures can be collected electronically but not without difficulty, given the legal requirement to have a witness. A more user-friendly electronic solution is possible, but that would require an amendment to the act to remove the witness requirement, as is the case in some provinces. It would also, however, involve developing new systems and business processes. Given the time this will require and the investments, this is something that should be considered more in the long term and not as a quick and temporary solution, certainly not for the next few months.

As a temporary solution, the committee may wish to consider reducing the number of signatures required for a candidate nomination so as to limit in-person contact. I note that most provinces and territories require significantly fewer signatures. For example, Ontario only requires 25. Some have as few as five signatures.

Thank you for inviting me today. I welcome your questions on these matters, and of course, any other matter addressed in the bill.

Madam Chair, when we spoke last week, you suggested that I bring potential written amendments to the bill to support the work of the committee, which is somewhat unusual. I do have amendments and I'd be happy to share them through the clerk, if that is the wish of the committee. I'm in your hands in that regard.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 31 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The first hour will be public with the Chief Electoral Officer, appearing on Bill C-19. For the second hour, the committee will move in camera to continue consideration of its draft report on its prorogation study.

The public portion of the meeting will be webcast on the House of Commons website. Today's meeting is taking place in hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members can attend in person or virtually.

All the members today are attending virtually, so please be mindful that the meeting is taking place over the Zoom application, and that you are not permitted to take any screenshots or photos of your screen.

I will remind all of you to make sure you have your interpretation on the language you are going to be speaking. It is okay to choose the floor language, if you're going to actually....

Do we not have a floor choice anymore? What's happened to that?

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address this issue this afternoon. There are a couple of aspects that I would like to provide some comment on, but first and foremost is the idea of Bill C-30, now at report stage, and how important passing it is to all Canadians.

The other day, I talked about a progressive agenda. The Government of Canada has put forward a very strong, healthy, progressive agenda that includes today's bill, Bill C-12, Bill C-6, Bill C-10, Bill C-22 and Bill C-21. Of course, I often make reference to Bill C-19 as well. All of these pieces of legislation are important to the government, but I would argue that the most important one is the bill we are debating today, Bill C-30.

The budget is of critical importance for a wide variety of reasons. I can talk about the benefits that seniors would be receiving as a direct result of this budget bill, in particular those who are 75 and over, with the significant fulfillment of our campaign promise of a 10% increase to OAS for seniors aged 75 and above, and a one-time payment coming up in the month of August for that group. During the pandemic, we have been there for seniors, in particular those 65 and over, with one-time payments closer to the beginning of the pandemic, and even an extra amount for those who were on the guaranteed income supplement. That is not to mention the many different organizations that the government supported, whether directly or indirectly, to support our seniors, in particular non-profit organizations.

We have done a multitude of things, many of which are very tangible. The Minister of Finance made reference to the extension of some of the programs, for example, which we brought in so we could continue to be there for businesses and real people. This was so important. At the beginning of the process, the Prime Minister made it very clear that this government, the Liberal Party and the Liberal members of the House of Commons were 100% committed to working seven days a week, 24 hours a day to ensure that the interests of Canadians in combatting and fighting the pandemic were going to be priority number one.

As to that priority, we saw the establishment of a large number of new programs that ensured money was being put directly into the pockets of Canadians. One was the CERB, which benefited somewhere around nine million Canadians. Virtually out of nowhere this program came into being, in good part thanks to our civil servants, who have done a tremendous job in putting in place and administering the many different programs.

We have seen programs to support our businesses in particular, whether it is the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, the emergency rent subsidy program, the emergency business account or the regional relief and recovery fund. We recognized what Canada needed. The Government of Canada worked with Canadians and with, in particular, provinces, non-profits, territories, indigenous leaders and many others in order to make sure that Canadians were going to be protected as much as possible. All of this was done with the goal of being able to get us, as a nation, out of the situation we are currently in.

We have put ourselves in a position where Canada will be able to recover, and recover well. It is interesting to hear the Conservative Party asking about the debt. Many of the things I just finished talking about are the reasons why we have the debt. The Conservatives in many ways are saying we should be spending more money, while the Conservative right is saying we have spent too much money or is asking about the debt. Some Conservatives are talking about the creation of jobs. The most recent Conservative commitment was that they would create one million jobs.

Between 2015, when the Liberals were first elected, and the election of 2019, we created over a million jobs. We understand how important jobs are. Jobs are one of the reasons it was important for us to commit to businesses of all sizes, and small businesses in particular, to get through this difficult time. We knew that by saving companies from going bankrupt and by keeping Canadians employed we would be in a much better position once we got ahead of the pandemic.

I am actually quite pleased today. I started off by looking at the national news. A CBC story said that when it comes to first doses Canada is now ahead of Israel, according to a graph that was posted. When we think of populations of a million or more, Canada is doing exceptionally well. We are ahead of all other nations in dealing with the first dose.

I am now qualified to get my second dose. Earlier today I had the opportunity to book an appointment for a second dose on July 7. Canadians are responding so well to the need for vaccination. We understand why it is so important that we all get vaccinated. We need to continue to encourage people to get those shots.

It goes without saying that we need to recognize many very special people who have been there for Canadians. The ones who come to mind immediately are the health care workers here in the province of Manitoba. They are a special group of people that not long ago, in a virtual meeting, the Prime Minister expressed gratitude for in a very strong and significant way.

Our health care workers, whether the nurses, doctors or lab technicians, and people in all areas of health care, including those providing and sanitizing facilities as well as a whole litany of people, have ensured that we have been there from a health perspective.

We can look at workers involved with essential items such as groceries. Whether it was long haul truck drivers, people stacking groceries or collecting money for groceries, or taxi drivers who took people where they needed to go, whether to the hospital or the grocery store, they were there. Public institutions were there. I think of Winnipeg Transit bus drivers who opened their doors not knowing who was walking onto their buses. They were all there.

This legislation we are debating today is a continuation of getting Canada in a better, healthier position to deal with the coronavirus. We needed to bring in time allocation because of the destructive behaviour of the official opposition. We wanted to work and the Conservatives wanted to take time off. There was an excellent indication of that last Thursday, which was the biggest day in terms of debate for government. The Conservatives attempted to end the session only moments after the day got under way. It is not right that the Conservatives are playing games. We need to pass this legislation. I would ask all members to vote for it.