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.

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

I'd like to clarify something briefly. I didn't say that Mr. Therrien was opposed to Bill C‑19.

Apart from that, Mr. Therrien, you've understood. If we spend a little time between now and June 15 to begin our study of Bill C‑19, then I don't care whether the deadline is June 8 or June 15. I think that it's important for us to complete our report on the prorogation and to get going on our study of Bill C‑19. We could get this done by agreeing that we are going to table a report on the prorogation before the adjournment of the House at the end of June and then refer Bill C‑19 to the House of Commons as soon as possible. That's really what I want. You are therefore correct, Mr. Therrien .

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

First, my NDP colleague said that I was against Bill C‑19. I don't know what this was based on.

I would also like some clarification. Am I to understand that my NDP colleague would be agreeable to the June 18 deadline on condition that we spend some time studying Bill C‑19 between now and June 18? I want to make sure that I've understood properly. It would mean, for example, that next week we could work on the June 8 report and then, on June 10, work on Bill C‑19. He would agree to that on condition that we meet the June 18 deadline. That's how I understood it. Am I right?

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

Madam Chair, I just want to state the obvious, which is that when this subamendment was first presented, I believe it was last Thursday, I had hoped that we might get to a vote on it. We didn't even manage to get to a vote on it on Tuesday. What has become an unreasonable delay in part because of a lack of being able to get to a decision—not delay but délai, en français—has become a tight deadline. It was not a tight deadline when it was first proposed. It fact, it largely mirrored the deadline that Mr. Therrien is now proposing. I'm happy to have a slight extension of the time allowed for the prorogation report provided that we can, nevertheless, start some meetings on Bill C-19 in the time in between. It seems to me that we could.

Mr. Therrien, of course, disagrees, but I think if we wanted to we could get it done. It would be difficult to get it done, but if we could finalize the report by Tuesday, I certainly think that we could do that by the 15th. I think we could do that while allocating some of the intervening meetings. We're talking about the meetings now on the 8th, the 10th and the 15th. I think only two of those or one and a half of those would actually have to be spent on the prorogation report itself. That would also, perhaps, provide a bit more flexibility to the House, which is under some administrative constraints, I understand. Perhaps we could find time for an extra meeting somewhere in there as well.

I think that this is reasonable. I like the fact that we still have a deadline both for finalizing the report, deciding all the questions and then tabling the report. I would not want to do this if it meant that we weren't going to begin our study of Bill C-19. I think this timeline provides time for us to be able to do both.

Thank you.

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

That's actually just the case. Let's say we actually do get done on Tuesday. We would be able to go to Bill C-19. There would be no delays. Is that correct? I just want to ask Mr. Therrien, through the clerk.

This just provides us more time. We could get on to other business if this was fulfilled. Is that correct?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, I do appreciate the opportunity to say a few words and reflect on this.

Certainly, relating back to some of the things that Mr. Blaikie just shared, which I think are quite reasonable, upon first blush when I saw the subamendment I thought that I could support this because it's really prioritizing prorogation and getting that work done before moving on. I think now that it's been clarified, this impacts a reasonable timeline. It certainly is ambitious, but, as Mr. Blaikie said, I feel that it's something we can accomplish.

I think the main body of the report, which I took the time last night to review, is quite good. It does reflect the testimony that was given, so I feel that the onus is on us as members to put together our recommendations in a timeline that I think is reasonable and to utilize our time next week on Tuesday to go through those recommendations from all the various parties with due consideration given and to vote on those as necessary. I really do support the fact that we need to finish this work, wrap up the prorogation study and complete our work on Bill C-19. I feel very strongly that we have a duty to complete both.

I think it was important for me to just share some of those reflections. I really do think we can accomplish this if we set our minds to it. I agree that we're all professionals and the onus is on us to complete this work.

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you very much, Madame Chair. I just wanted to take an opportunity to put on the record some thoughts about Mr. Nater's subamendment and his most recent comments.

First of all, I think there is at least a mild incoherence in the idea that we're more likely to meet a deadline if we don't set a deadline. I think the best way to meet a deadline is to set a deadline. I think the deadline, by virtue of the wording of the subamendment that was adopted, is actually quite strict in that it requires decisions to be taken.

The problem at PROC for a long time now is not that the committee couldn't get through a vote if a vote were held. It's that we haven't been having the votes. The concern that the Conservatives have raised—which is a concern that I share, having looked at other committees and the way some of them have operated in terms of finalizing reports—is that we might not get to where we make those decisions, and therefore the report gets talked out. That's why the subamendment is very clear that the questions necessary for finalizing that report have to be put by the end of the day on June 8.

I respect that there are administrative constraints in this Parliament. In fact, one of the things I've found frustrating, being a member of three committees, is that I find members on those committees often don't take into account.... They want to go on with business as if it were perfectly normal and don't really recognize that there's a duty on members of Parliament to organize our work, to be able to accomplish our legitimate goals within the resources that the House is able to provide in the circumstances. I think we're often asking too much of the House to provide resources to support normal decision-making procedures and timelines that don't recognize where we are. I think that members of Parliament can do that, however, if they're not motivated by other political reasons, perhaps, for delay—in this case whether in respect of not wanting to see a report on prorogation or not wanting to see progress on Bill C-19.

As a New Democrat, I want to see us make progress on both. That's why I think adopting a strict timeline, getting on to consideration of the draft report.... I'm not going to reveal any details, but I've seen that draft report. Overall, I think it's a pretty good reflection of what the committee has heard. I don't think that the main report language ought to be very controversial, frankly. There'll be a question as to recommendations. I think that if we can submit our proposed recommendations by Friday and come prepared for a discussion on Tuesday, we should be able to organize our work to assign a legitimate amount of time to each recommendation and then hold the vote. Once all the votes have been held, we'll have the content of a report that we can then vote on, as the clerk has indicated. If the committee makes the decision that it doesn't want to report to go back to Parliament, that's a horse of a different colour. At that point, it's the committee deciding it doesn't want that.

That won't be my option. Unless things unroll very differently than I imagine they will, I think on balance it's really important for PROC to be reporting back to the House, but I believe that if we want to, we can organize our work to come to a final decision, even within the context of a two-hour meeting on Tuesday. I don't think that it should take us eight or 10 hours if we all behave like grown-ups and do our preparatory work properly. This is something we can do as professionals in a professional workplace. The question is whether we want it done, and the first way to signal that we do want it done is to accept a rigorous deadline, and we have one as it stands.

If we adopt Mr. Nater's subamendment, we will not have a rigorous deadline. In fact, we won't really have any deadline at all, and then I think we run the risk of not only not reporting back on prorogation but also of not reporting Bill C-19 back to the House. That's just an unacceptable outcome to me. I want both, and I think it's still within our power to do both.

I won't waste any more time with my comments, but I wanted to have those on the record.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

The intention was to replace it with that: Basically, let's get this done. My concern is that with the way things are going, as some members maybe want to do, we will basically eat up time over the next two and a half meetings so that the deadline comes and goes, there is no report, and then we move on to Bill C-19 without ever having tabled this report.

So yes, it does get rid of those timelines. The theory is that before we do anything...and there's nothing preventing us from meeting the timeline of Mr. Blaikie. That would obviously be our preference. I just don't want to see us hit June 11 and have missed our own deadline, which we set whether we voted in favour of it or not. The thing is that we want to finish this report and have the report tabled before we go to the next order of business. It does get rid of the timeline, which hopefully we can still meet, but I do not want to see the next three meetings—if we have extra meetings, obviously I'm okay with that as well—eaten up by debating the minutiae of a report for the sole purpose of killing time to get beyond that deadline.

I live in constant optimism that our friends from all parties will meaningfully come to the table, present their suggestions to the report, and not spend two hours debating a comma or a period, but we shall see. Obviously, I am one of four official opposition members of the committee. I can count relatively well, so obviously it's the will of the committee. That's where we're at.

Madam Chair, I will leave my comments there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting back to order.

This is a resumption of meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which started on April 13, 2021.

Today's meeting is taking place in hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25. Therefore, members can attend virtually and in person.

Everyone is attending this meeting virtually, so I'll remind you to make sure your interpretation is switched to the correct channel, to make sure that you mute and unmute yourself and you know the rest of the drill.

I'd like to get back to where we left off in the last meeting. Mr. Nater had just moved a subamendment. We are on the prorogation study at this point. There are three motions before us that are in order. Hopefully, we can dispose of these as quickly as possible. My intention is that, depending on what happens, if we do get to the point where we have voted for or against all of these motions, we can move on to the draft report that was circulated to all of you last Tuesday, June 1.

Has everyone received the draft report?

If we do get to that point, we will have to switch to in camera, since consideration of draft reports happens in camera. That link has been circulated to you with the public link as well.

At this point, let's move back to Mr. Nater's subamendment, which was put forward close to the end of the last meeting on June 1. It states:

That the amendment be amended by replacing all the words after the words “disposed of” with the following: “before the Committee begins consideration of Bill C-19”.

I was going over this with the clerk because I want to make sure that everybody knows what decisions they are making, where we are on all of the motions and what the final motion will end up looking like after all of the amendments that we've had. At first glance, when I saw it, I thought the impact of this subamendment would be to make sure that we do not move on to C-19 until the prorogation study is completed. That's a completely understandable desire that Mr. Nater is putting forward. I can completely understand why he would want that.

However, when you put it side by side, it's replacing the words of Mr. Blaikie's previous amendment, which puts in place a timeline. In order for me to know what kind of timeline we're working with, when we remove the words after “disposed of” in Mr. Blaikie's amendment that was already adopted, that is the portion that actually states....

I'll read it out to you and maybe I can have the clerk also read it out for you in case you're not following me.

Mr. Blaikie's subamendment had said:

, and that all questions necessary for the finalization and tabling of the report be disposed of before the end of the day on June 8, 2021 and that the final report be tabled no later than June 11, 2021

If we were to replace the words after “disposed of” with Mr. Nater's subamendment, “before the Committee begins consideration of Bill C-19”, it does essentially remove the timeline that Mr. Blaikie had proposed and that the committee had voted in favour of in a previous meeting.

I'm just wondering, Mr. Nater, if you can explain to the other members and to me if your intention was to remove the timeline or if your intention was just to add it to the timeline.

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

Thank you very much.

When the NDP reached out to other parties to say, we want to find a way to get Bill C-19 to committee without time allocation, it was a non-starter from the Bloc. Then we got Bill C-19 to committee and then it was the Bloc leader who sent a letter saying they wanted to talk about how to move Bill C-19 forward. We've had many reversals of position by the Bloc. It just seems to depend on the day, Madam Chair, so you'll forgive me if I can't quite decipher the logic of their position.

However, I think it's pretty clear when it comes to the Conservatives. Here we are. We have the opportunity to move forward with a report to make some concrete recommendations about how to improve a standing order in order to prevent future abuses of prorogation, and the Conservatives have picked up the filibuster where the Liberals left off.

I put it to Canadians. Send me your suggestions on how to break this impasse. I would like to put rules in place so that if we have an election during the summer, which the Prime Minister has made it all but clear is his intention unless things are so cataclysmically bad that he can't pull it off, there are some rules in place so that we can have a proper election.

What we've seen here are more delay tactics and efforts, not only to push this report back into the summer where it will cease to exist, but also Bill C-19.

Come on, guys. At a certain point we have to make some decisions here and we do have timelines. I don't like them either, but I'm not the one responsible for the situation we're in either.

I hope at the next meeting people will come actually ready to get on with it, We're probably going to have to look at changing the timelines in the motion, which is obvious to any one with half a brain who's been paying attention—and I know you all have at least half a one. We all know what's going on. When is it going to get fixed [Technical difficulty—Editor] there's an opportunity [Technical difficulty—Editor] pass.

For all the lectures on political this and political that and insinuations and accusations people want to make about me today, I think everyone should go home and look in the mirror before they go to bed tonight.

Thank you very much.

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

Madam Chair, I wanted to take the floor just to express some real disappointment with the way that today's meeting has gone, because I had really hoped that we would get to the point where we could get on with issuing a report. The timeline was tight as it is. My Conservative colleagues know that. They've spent a lot of time talking today, after spending months saying they were tired of hearing talking and that we should vote on issues before the committee so that decisions can be rendered, and they've found ways to extend this debate without us getting to actually making these decisions.

I appreciate the tightness of the timeline. I know that. I'm not happy about it. I get that Liberal members of the committee got us here by filibustering for some time and I appreciate the frustration. The question is whether at some point you want to decide to get anything done or not.

After listening for months to one party that has a Prime Minister about whom there are allegations of political abuse of prorogation, we finally get to the point where there might be a decision taken on how to proceed as a committee. Let the committee speak. That's what we've been hearing from Conservatives, rightly, for months now, and now I'm watching the other party that has had prime ministers who have been accused of political abuses of prorogation take up the filibuster where the Liberals left off, because we have two parties that aren't interested in building in meaningful accountability on how the Prime Minister uses the powers of prorogation and dissolution. That's what's going on.

I'm sorry. I forgot Monsieur Therrien. It's just hard to know where the Bloc is at on any given day.

Before Bill C-19 was sent to the committee, the NDP reached out to other parties to say that we wanted to—

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

That's correct, Madam Chair. The purpose of this subamendment is that the business of the committee will proceed with this committee report prior to taking up any other business, namely, Bill C-19.

I will cede the floor and send out that email immediately so that everyone has it, and we will go from there.

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

Madam Chair, not to prolong this, but I do have a second subamendment. This is very simple. This will require that the committee table this report, and table it before we move forward with any other business of this committee.

I have seen, we have seen and Mr. Kent mentioned his reading of the Globe and Mail about what is happening with us and with other committees' business making it through to the House of Commons.

This would be a fairly simple subamendment. I will read it out. I do have it in both official languages. I will email it directly to the clerk once I've finished having the floor. I will read it out at this point:

That the amendment be amended by replacing all the words after the words “disposed of” with the following: “before the Committee begins consideration of Bill C-19”.

Again, very simply, if we're going to go directly to drafting this report and tabling it in the House of Commons, we need to do this before we move on to the next business of this committee. I do not want to see the past number of months wasted by having a filibuster on a committee report when we do the line-by-line review. We've seen that happen in other committees where there's a draft report left uncompleted for very important and very serious matters that are before those committees.

That's my subamendment.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't want to take up too much time. I do want to say that for me, anyway, the important objective of today's meeting is to get to a point where we know that the committee is resolved to issue a report next Tuesday so that we can go on to studying Bill C-19. One thing that I think is different about what Mr. Nater is proposing, from what he intends to remove, is that in Monsieur Lauzon's amendment....

I mean, while I very clearly share, as I've been stating consistently for months, Monsieur Therrien's and other opposition MPs' desire to see the Prime Minister at committee, I also share their express pessimism about the idea that he will appear. They've been very clear that they don't think he will come. The question, then, is how do you generate some political accountability for that? I believe that's best done with filing a report.

If indeed the Prime Minister doesn't come over the next week, Monsieur Lauzon's version makes a descriptive claim about that. Right now we're really just talking about adding a fact to the report, which won't be in dispute at that point. The Prime Minister will either have come or not come. What Mr. Nater's amendment does is leave the descriptive realm, if you'll excuse a philosopher's definition here, and move into the normative. It starts making claims about what the report, one that we haven't even agreed to yet that we're going to get done, will say. I think we need to resolve the question about whether we are in fact committed to getting a report done before we start discussing the recommendations of the report.

That's why I won't be voting in favour of this amendment, although I'm quite open to a discussion about what the content of the report might be and the kinds of recommendations we'll be making in respect of what I think is a failure of leadership on the part of the Prime Minister not to be here. That's a discussion for what goes in the report once we know we're making one. We have to get there first.

Thank you very much.

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

I sure can.

Just speaking about those things, the one thing I'm really concerned with is that we have seen reports that were supposed to be tabled already this week by committees. The ethics report was not tabled. The defence report was not tabled. These timelines were negotiated just like we see today. I really feel like it's not the members here who are in charge of this committee, but it is the whips, who I know are all watching to see what we do. It's basically people being told that we're not going to have the Prime Minister, so continue to filibuster.

I know that the members of this committee do not have a choice on whether the Prime Minister comes or not because he is in his little circle of “he does not have to come”. I just wish we had the accountability. That's why I sit here and say that I don't know why everybody will just fold on not having the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is absolutely the person who has to come here.

I understand that Daniel wants to get this report tabled. Some good information has come from this report, but without the Prime Minister speaking, this report is just a paper clip at the back saying that the Prime Minister decided not to come. That's really what it is. For three months we heard about how we could invite everybody, although not one of those people we spoke about even considered coming to this committee. Those are concerns that I continue to have.

I will let my time go now, but I understand where Mr. Therrien is on this. For three and a half months, we've listened to issues on relevance and repetition and all that kind of stuff. Now, as he indicates, the clock is ticking. We know there are only a few weeks left. This minority Parliament has not been successful at getting legislation through. It's been very much a joke, if you're looking at even the work that's been done in previous minority governments or the fact it's this length of time. I recognize that we're in COVID. We all know that. I just sit here and ask once again, even if Bill C-19 comes to committee, what then? Is the Senate going to sit through the summer? Is that what's going to happen?

It all comes down to the fact that three and a half months were wasted on this filibuster. At the end of the day, as Mr. Therrien has said, he feels like there's a knife to his throat. I get it. I understand that. I understand why Daniel is doing this as well. I really hold it to these members. I would like to ask the Liberal members of this committee whether or not the PMO will allow them to report on this.

This report is going to be damning of the fact that the Prime Minister had no intention of coming to committee even though he was asked several times. No members of the government were willing to come to this committee, with the exception of Pablo Rodriguez, the House leader. He is a great speaker. I have great admiration for Pablo. I've never seen anybody so smooth. I think I've told him that as well.

At the end of the day, it's not the decision of this committee. It's the decision of the PMO. I just sit there and I think, wow, the PMO sure is powerful. That's very concerning. There are 338 members of Parliament and we have one guy who just won't come to committee because he doesn't have to be held to account.

I will leave it at that. Thank you very much.

Criminal Code

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to debate this bill about a social issue. However, in 2021, we should not have to rise in the House under such circumstances because conversion therapy obviously no longer has a place in our society.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-6. Why? The reason is that the Bloc Québécois is deeply committed to protecting and promoting the rights and freedoms of Quebeckers and has always been quick to combat discrimination based on sexual orientation. Equality between Quebeckers is a fundamental value and an inalienable right in Quebec.

Practices that deny the existence of a person's core identity must be condemned. Historically, Quebec has been a leader in human rights protection. The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms has recognized sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination since 1977, and same-sex marriage was legalized by the National Assembly of Quebec in 2002, when it instituted civil unions.

From a moral perspective, within a democratic society, it is legitimate to affirm fundamental community values. In Quebec, respect for the gender identity and sexual orientation of all people is a value that the practice of conversion therapy undermines.

From a medical perspective, conversion therapy is pseudoscience. Not only is it dangerous and degrading for the patient, but many studies have also proven that it does not work.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that the groups promoting these practices are tiny and in a minority. Moreover, the Bloc wishes to state that respect for beliefs must go hand in hand with respect for differences and the assurance of equality among people. I would add that the Quebec and Canadian societies are distinct societies, but they have much in common, particularly in terms of values.

Also, it is fitting that, on a number of subjects, they agree and adopt concordant policies that move toward the advancement of rights. The Bloc Québécois acknowledges the Quebec government's initiative to protect human rights and welcomes Quebec justice minister Simon Jolin-Barrette's Bill 70. The bill aims to put an end to conversion therapy.

The Bloc Québécois is also pleased that the Canadian government recognizes by means of this bill that, as a democracy, it is appropriate to affirm shared values and pass laws that govern practices arising from beliefs that are in conflict with those values.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois feels that the Criminal Code amendments in Bill C-6 are appropriate.

What is conversion therapy? Here is the definition from a Radio-Canada article:

Conversion therapy, or sexual reorientation therapy, is psychological or spiritual intervention meant to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity with the use of psychotherapy, drugs or a combination of the two.

In Canada, 47,000 men belonging to a sexual minority have been subjected to conversion therapy. According to the World Health Organization, these practices are a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.

The Canadian Psychological Association says that conversion or reparative therapy can result in negative outcomes, such as distress, anxiety, depression, negative self-image, a feeling of personal failure, difficulty sustaining relationships, and sexual dysfunction.

In 2009, the American Psychological Association released a study entitled “Resolution on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts”. According to the study, contrary to claims made by those who administer these treatments, they are ineffective and potentially harmful. The study also noted that attraction to individuals of the same sex is a normal variation of human sexual behaviour and that those who promote conversion therapy tend to have very conservative religious opinions. That might be the crux of the problem.

I would like to talk about an interesting point my colleague from Shefford raised. The government finally chose to not only prohibit conversion therapy but to criminalize it. According to people with first-hand experience, some of these therapies were more like torture than therapy.

I think we can all agree that this practice, which is promoted and supported primarily by religious groups, is based on the idea that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong, that it is one of the most serious sins and that it could lead a person straight to hell.

Unfortunately, homophobia still exists in 2021. Expressions of it can be seen practically every day. It is frankly unacceptable that religious groups continue to stigmatize homosexuality. People in this community should not have to live in fear any longer. Human beings should not be subjected to goodness knows what kind of therapeutic process to become someone they simply are not. Many of us know people in our circles who have admitted how hard it still is to come out of the closet and affirm their identity. This bill does not solve all the problems of the LGBTQ2S+ community, but it is clearly an important step in advancing the debate.

Today is May 31, and we only have 17 sitting days remaining before the break. As we know, Bill C-19, which will change how an election is held during a pandemic, was passed under a gag order. Parliament needs to act quickly. I think there is a good chance that an election will be called, and any bills left on the Order Paper would therefore die. As I said, we only have 17 days left to move forward with this bill and all the others.

I am thinking of my colleague from Drummond who has been working very hard to ensure that Bill C-10 is given priority in the House and that it passes quickly. There is also the Émilie Sansfaçon bill to increase EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. In the context of a serious illness, such as cancer, we must be able to do something. Now, the question is not whether we are for or against conversion therapy. I think we can agree that it has no place today.

The important thing now is to act urgently on this issue. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to do so. We have no control over the timeline, since that is up to the government. If it were up to me, a government would have to complete all four years of its mandate and get through all of the debates that arise, so that bills can be carefully studied.

Bill C-6 on conversion therapy reminds us that we must act urgently. I urge all members of Parliament to reflect and remember that we still need to vote and the bill has to be sent to the Senate. We urgently need to move forward.

Also, we need to reflect on the importance of secularism, which is highly valued in Quebec. There are some ultra-conservative religious groups that are having a significant impact on people's lives. We have a moral responsibility to protect these individuals, given the rejection they often feel and the trauma that conversion therapy can cause. The purpose of this government bill is to provide protections.