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.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We've had systematic obstruction from the Liberals for over two months now, and the key issue has been the presence of the Prime Minister.

Ms. Vecchio's motion included several items in addition to his presence. Basically, Mr. Blaikie's proposal was an olive branch because it dropped all the rest and kept only the invitation to the Prime Minister for him to appear. It was therefore a step in the right direction.

The key point has always been the Prime Minister's presence. So we have experienced over two months of systematic obstruction as a result of wanting to require his appearance. I don't want to draw this out any longer, but it was obvious, and it still is, that we want to do some intelligent work with respect to the prorogation. Mr. Rodriguez's presence was the decisive moment in getting us to where we are.

By this I mean that until we have had the Prime Minister appear before this committee, it will be impossible to shed any light on the prorogation.

Do these people have something to hide? I don't think so. Would the Prime Minister be free to spend an hour with us? I think that democracy requires it, and that he ought to find an hour in his schedule to do just that. I understand that he's the Prime Minister, but he is accountable, and should come and explain to us why an extremely important measure in a democracy—the prorogation of Parliament—was used at a time when we should have been sitting because there were a lot of problems to deal with.

The three opposition parties agreed on that. The Liberal Party systematically obstructed it because they did not see that it would be useful for the Prime Minister to appear before this committee, which we understand.

I have previously heard the Prime Minister in committee. I believe that he could present us with some interesting ideas. It's not an inquisition. We don't want to burn him at the stake. We don't want to make the Prime Minister another Joan of Arc. We just want to ask him some questions about what might be the most significant thing he has done over the past year, which was to prorogue Parliament.

We are getting to the end of the systematic obstruction, as we have all understood that he had to be called or invited to appear for at least an hour. This means that the opposition parties have taken a big step forward. The Liberals are now saying that if the Prime Minister comes, that's all to the good, and if he doesn't, we could simply mention that fact in an annex to the report.

It's not serious, and they're trying to lead us up the garden path. But we won't be duped. I'm very surprised that my NDP colleague appears to have been taken in by the idea. It's very unusual. I've been in politics for eight years now, and I can tell you that I've never seen a U‑turn like that. Never. I'm impressed. Not only did my NDP colleague say that it was a good idea, but that he was going to set a deadline for discussions on prorogation, when we've been blocked for over two months because of the Liberals' systematic obstruction. We've just dealt with the systematic obstruction and you're telling us that the problem needs to be dealt with by June 8. It's a joke. We've been stymied for two months, and just when we're seeing a bit of light at the end of the tunnel, we've got a knife at our throat telling us that we have to sort out the situation no later than June 8.

That means we have today's meeting, the Thursday meeting and next Tuesday's meeting before June 8. We have to discuss Mr. Blaikie's amendment, we have an amendment from Mr. Lauzon, and we don't know what other amendments might be proposed. I have a feeling that there are going to be others. You're telling us that we need to get to work so that everything can be settled by June 8.

Honestly, I find it insulting. Insulting in terms of the work we still need to do and insulting to the serious approach that this committee has always taken.

From the very outset, we got along well, worked as a team, worked hard, working effectively, and came up with some good ideas together. Now, we're being told that we've lost enough time and that it needs to be tabled on June 8, on grounds that we need to move on to Bill C‑19. I'm telling you that there is no way I'm going to stop doing intelligent work just because a few MPs are saying that we need to wrap things up by June 8.

What does that mean? Does it mean that if it's not finished by June 8, the meeting will have to be extended, perhaps more than two hours? If that's the case, what does it mean? Does it mean that the IT people will be able to support us during this extension? Does it mean that we'll have to push back other committees? There are others still sitting and we are at the end of the session. The other committees are also overwhelmed. They are pointing a gun at our head and setting a June 8 deadline. Seriously, I don't agree with having a knife at my throat on on grounds that we have to study Bill C‑19.

Given that we had a bill to study, a very important one at that—I'm not saying that it isn't—perhaps the Liberals shouldn't have engaged in such systematic obstruction for over two months. Perhaps that's where the problem lies.

We, however, are being condemned to completing all our parliamentary work on prorogation in only a week. I still have a lot of questions to which I have not received any answers. Parliament prorogued on August 18, 2020, and Mr. Morneau resigned. When I asked Mr. Rodriguez what had happened on August 17, he couldn't give me an answer. So the government's number three ^x resigned.

I can hear something. I don't know what's happening. I'll continue, unless someone stops me.

Mr. Vaive, is everything okay?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

As you say, just for the benefit of the committee I'll recall that the subamendment I proposed really puts some time limits on reporting back on the issue of prorogation to ensure that it does happen and that it happens in a timely way. I think that if we do pass this subamendment and then the amendment and then the main motion today, effectively we'll be in a position to perhaps even begin studying Bill C-19 as early as Thursday.

What I think we'll need a little bit of time to do is to discuss how we can proceed to conclude the report on prorogation according to the timeline in the subamendment. I do have some thoughts about that, but I'm anxious to see if we're going to get to that resolution.

I hope that if we do, we might then make some time to talk about how we can finalize the report a week from today. Of course, I think we all understand from last day that there is a draft of the report already prepared. If the Prime Minister does appear, then that would be the only thing that would need to be added. I hope he will, but in the event that he doesn't, we will have a report that will include that omission and a process where the committee can ensure that we're voting on everything that needs to be voted on to get that report done and get in whatever the committee wants to get in about this journey we've been on together.

I'll leave it at that.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to say thanks to the entire committee, because, as we've seen over the past few months, it really does take everyone being on board to be able to make progress. Otherwise things stall out pretty quickly.

What I heard in Ms. Vecchio's remarks, which I appreciate, was some concerns about it sometimes being hard after months of disagreement and filibustering for the committee to build that trust back up. I've had the good fortune of serving on committees in which there's been a high level of trust, and I've also had the experience of serving on committees in which there's been a relatively low level of trust across the table.

I think part of this exercise is that as a committee we're finally coming together and working in a way that Canadians would expect to see their public officials work across disagreements.

I think maybe there's a way we could further qualify this amendment in order to build some of that trust that Ms. Vecchio was referring to.

I would propose the following subamendment, Madam Chair:

That the amendment be amended by adding after the words “Government's Reasons for Proroguing Parliament in August 2020”, the words: “, 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.

That would give a pretty concrete deadline for Ms. Vecchio and frankly others on the opposition side who may still be experiencing some of those trust issues that come out of long periods of disagreement, and give some certainty to the committee that the report will indeed be filed before we rise for the summer. I would just add that I think if we can build that trust and get to the point where we dispense—and I realize with the subamendment and amendment and a main motion that there are at least three votes before the end of this process—that would allow us then, while we still will have a devoir—I'm thinking of the French word—a duty and a task, so in the double sense of that word, to complete the prorogation study even as we embark on our study of Bill C-19. Once we embark on that study of Bill C‑19, which could happen as early as Tuesday if we're able to dispense with all three votes today, then I think it would be incumbent upon us as committee members to talk to our respective whips' and House leaders' offices about the possibility of perhaps having additional meetings for the procedure and house affairs committee for the purpose of studying Bill C‑19. I think from what we've heard from all parties—not just at this committee but in the House as well—that there is agreement regarding the sense of urgency of this piece of legislation.

If we could dispense with the three questions today, that would open up some possibilities as we embark on the study of Bill C-19. We'll have certainty about tabling a report on prorogation in a timely fashion, but then we can really start talking about the work we need to do in order to get all the voices that we need to hear on Bill C‑19 and try to get it back to the House in a way that gives it time to be dealt with in the House and, I hope, also in the Senate before June. I'm speaking personally here, but in my opinion, the Senate shouldn't have much to say about it. If the House can agree, they don't deal with elections, so they are not subject matter experts as far as I'm concerned. If we can get it through the House, there should be a way to get it through the other place relatively quickly.

I present this subamendment in the spirit of building that sense of trust and hopefully helping us get to a conclusion on this so we can start that study and then maybe talk about the meetings we have. As Ms. Vecchio rightly pointed out, we probably don't have enough meetings on the roster right now in terms of timeline, so if all the parties agree that this is a priority, how do we do that extra work in a timely way? We have to get to the point where we can dispense with these motions so that we can get started on that study in order to have that logistical conversation about how we make time for those additional meetings.

Thank you very much.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I have been quiet today. I just want to put something on the record. First and foremost, I want to go back to the last PROC committee meeting.

Mr. Blaikie—again, I'm not just saying this—you brought forward a very reasonable amendment. I really want to thank you for that. We have been talking and really negotiating over the last meeting and this meeting, and I think we're getting closer here to where we all want to be.

I for one will be very honest: I want to find a path forward for us to be able to get to Bill C-19. We all have a duty as parliamentarians to make sure we look at that and do the work that needs to be done, but I also appreciate that we want to finish this study on prorogation before we can get to that. I really want to see us move forward with respect to that. I can see that we are just so, so close. I appreciate also the comments made by Monsieur Lauzon.

Stéphane, I appreciate what you brought forward.

Again, I think we all truly want to make sure we finish this study, but when it comes to the study of Bill C-19, we can't put that aside. Ethically, we all have a role to play in protecting Canadians. I take that role and that responsibility very seriously, as well as making sure we do the good work that is needed there.

I truly hope that today we will be able to find some common ground and from there move forward to do the important work we have been called upon to do here.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Thanks very much.

I appreciate that Mr. Lauzon has put forward this motion. It's very concerning though, because it seems to me that all this motion—like the Liberal committee members today—is saying is, “Yes, we'll put this carrot in front of you to say that we'll put the Prime Minister there. We're going to invite him. The invitation might be lost in the mail, perhaps, because in one week, when he still hasn't come, we'll be writing the report.”

I have great concerns with that as well. I've looked at the fact that this committee has been willing to filibuster since February 23, knowing that all of this work could be done. Now we're saying there is not enough time to invite the Prime Minister so we need to put this to the annex. We'll get to Bill C-19 knowing that this report is going to indicate that for three months, members of the committee filibustered to ensure the Prime Minister was not here, and we did every single thing we possibly could to negotiate.

It's interesting because during that time there were very few negotiations. I don't think any of the opposition parties really spoke other than to intervene and talk about relevance. When I'm looking at this, I see these government reasons for proroguing. What we're doing once again is saying, “Prime Minister, you don't have to come. We're going to put on that little back page that we sent you an invitation and unfortunately, you did not appear.” I just look at this as understandable, but let's not kid ourselves. There has been ample time for this Prime Minister to appear over the last three months. We have all been busy, each and every member of Parliament. The Deputy Prime Minister, whom you're willing to bring here, was able to come. All of these things are happening.

I just think, “Wow, we're going to invite the Prime Minister but he's not going to come.” It seems like almost a waste of time. We're already saying that we know this is a failure. I wish the members on the government side would recognize that all they've done here is say, “He's still not coming. We have approved of this vote to say we'll invite him, but we've invited him several times—or we've shared this concern several times.”

I know Mr. Lauzon has spoken to the PMO and the Prime Minister has no intention of coming. I just sit there and wonder, “At what point are we going to be accountable to Canadians? At what point should this Prime Minister be coming? Is it okay with every single member of this committee that the Prime Minister does not have to report back? Would we allow this if the tables were turned and this was a prime minister from the Conservative, NDP or Bloc parties?” I think what I see here is a really, really great veil. People were talking about veils earlier. It's a great veil to say, “Look how helpful we're going to be,” but trust me, the Prime Minister's still not coming. Regardless of how good the goodie bag, he's still not going to show up to the birthday party, or to the PROC meeting for one hour.

I look at the amendment put forward by Mr. Lauzon as saying, “We have failed, failed, failed. The Prime Minister does not have to be accountable. We know that he's not going to come. We've put this annex in because we don't want to waste any more time.”

We know we need to get to Bill C-19, which I am happy to get to. I know there are lots of amendments that have been written up. They're very, very good, well-written amendments, so I think that's super. We need to get to this. For this committee, however, I really fear that once we actually start writing this report, because everybody's happy that we'll be putting it in the annex.... I want to see a show of hands from all members of this committee who think we will be going through Bill C-19, going through the report, going through the amendments, doing the first and second drafts and actually having the report tabled before June 23, when this House rises.

Right now, I think I'm looking at a whole bunch of people who know the timeline is not going to succeed, and therefore, allowing today's motion to go through is truly just a case of smoke and mirrors.

Those are some of my concerns. I wish I knew that the government committee members would ensure that something is actually tabled and that we can actually talk to Canadians about the fact that the Prime Minister has failed to come for the last three months. This is an area where transparency and accountability seem to be gone.

As a former chair of a committee, looking at the schedule and watching what people have done for three months, I know that every single person on this committee is able to talk and to talk out the clock, and therefore, the report won't get tabled. The report should include the absolutely disgraceful fact that after three months and four days—February 23 to May 27—we came up with the conclusion...but it doesn't give you anything in the first place. It's like going for a job that you don't get paid for. Yes, you're not getting paid; he's not coming.

I'm really concerned about this. I'm really concerned that if we agree to this, you will once again just pull the rug from under our feet and we won't get what we need. We are truly trying to negotiate here. I just don't trust members of the committee who for the last three months have filibustered. I do not trust that we will get that report.

I respect Daniel. He wants this report tabled, because it should be tabled. I do not know if that will be able to be done. I do not trust the members to not filibuster, and to ensure that Canadians see this report. I'll be honest.

I'll pass my time on. Hopefully, people can say, “Yes, we can be trusted. We didn't waste the last three months and four days filibustering for nothing.” I want to hear it.

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

Yes, Madam Chair, thank you very much.

To be consistent with the changes we've just made, I'd say that I enjoy politics, but only when it's done well.

We've introduced an amendment that would require us to ask the clerk to officially request the Prime Minister's presence.

I believe that the Prime Minister has the prerogative to decide whether or not to accept, and we need to leave the door open to the possibility that the Prime Minister could not appear within a week, as Mr. Blaikie has requested. In the event of non-appearance, I understand that we would add an annex on the non-appearance of the Prime Minister to our report. That would enable us to move ahead and work on Bill C‑19 and, potentially, take stock of how the COVID‑19 pandemic is being managed.

I now give the floor to any other committee members who would like to comment.

Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to comment on the fact that the government cannot even manage its own legislative agenda properly. That is why we are in this situation today.

The government introduced Bill C-19 rather than prioritizing Bill C-15, and yet the Liberals claim they do not want an election. This government prorogued Parliament last summer, when we could have used that time to work faster and more responsibly.

I would just like to point out to the minister that there seems to be a real leadership problem when it comes to the government's legislative agenda.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for this morning's debate, which will be very short.

As the critic for the status of women, I would have liked to see the government have the same sense of urgency when it came to applying the recommendations of the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls as it did this morning for Bill C-15.

How much time has been spent so far debating a document as important as Bill C-15? I will give the House just one guess: barely an hour and 43 minutes and the minister is already imposing time allocation.

Does the minister think that one hour and 43 minutes is enough time to debate this important issue? What about the time allocation on Bill C-19, prorogation of Parliament and obstruction in committee? This government behaves like a majority government when voters gave it a minority mandate.

Opposition Motion—Elections During a Pandemic

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to hear you say that.

Your government was ready to work collaboratively, so long as there was no electoral window suitable for triggering an election. Perhaps unfortunately, you saw my Conservative colleagues drop a little in the polls.

You see this window opening, and your first reflex is to bring back Bill C-19. You bring it back to us under time allocation—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have listened carefully to most of the speeches today, and it occurs to me that I should make a point that I feel it important but that has not been properly emphasized: the purpose of the motion, or my party leader's purpose in moving it.

I would like to focus everyone's attention on what was said yesterday during question period. My colleague from Saint-Jean mentioned it, and I think she put it better than I can.

Yesterday, during question period, the member for Beloeil—Chambly said he was reaching out to the opposition parties to avoid a pandemic election. We got an unmistakable answer today, and I think I would like explain by picking up on what my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said in his speech. He said the Bloc Québécois had, on several occasions, floated the possibility of an election. Making such a claim suggests that he does not understand the opposition parties' role, so I would like to review that role.

We often assign motives to other members in the House. I assign motives to my Conservative, Liberal and NDP colleagues. That is the ideological part of politics, but beyond that ideology, we sometimes have the opportunity to collaborate and work together to advance a file. For example, I will point to our work on CUSMA.

If we all recall, under CUSMA, aluminum did not have the same protections as steel. We worked with the Deputy Prime Minister. I congratulate her on that. What an inspiration she is. I have a feeling that the Liberal Party would benefit from drawing inspiration from what the Deputy Prime Minister is doing. We collaborated with her. At first, she was not of the same view as us, and she misjudged our intentions. We discussed things openly and worked in collaboration with her. It resulted in something fortunate. Ultimately, aluminum got the same protections as steel.

By moving today's motion, the leader of my political party wanted to do the same thing and repeat the same modus operandi. In other words, why not sit down with all the party leaders, whips and others and come up with a solution that everyone agrees on, one that means we can avoid having an election during the pandemic, because that is what the public wants? The Liberal government rejected this overture, and it will have to answer for that.

On the one hand, there was a call to work collaboratively. This reminds me that I have often heard my Liberal colleagues say that we should take a “team Canada” approach. Regarding vaccines, they have told us that we were not working like team Canada. Oddly enough, their “team Canada” operates on a sliding scale. When it suits them, the Liberals talk about consensus and working together, but when it does not suit them, they toss that notion aside.

I thought it was pretty unfortunate today that the House could not get past partisan interests and agree that what we needed to do was have a dialogue in order to potentially find a way out that would allow us to avoid a pandemic election, or at least agree on the rules that would apply.

This brings me back to what I was saying earlier.

It is true that we sometimes assign motives to one another. That may be the somewhat more negative role of the opposition, but there is also a positive role. I was thinking about that just now. What is the role of the opposition? I was thinking of my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who often annoys me when he asks who I work for.

It is true that the role of the opposition and of all members is to present what their constituents want. At present, they are telling us that they do not want an election during a pandemic. Therefore, it is our duty to deliver that message. However, there is another role that we talk about often.

My colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean often asks the question, “Who do we work for?” However, there is another question: what do we work for? That is the role of opposition parties. If I ask a member of the Bloc Québécois what they work for, sovereignty is definitely one answer, but there are also other matters that we have addressed, such as the fight against greenhouse gas emissions, cutting oil subsidies, and vital support for seniors, an issue that brought about collaboration the likes of which we had never seen before and will never seen again, unfortunately, as well as health transfers.

The role of the opposition, and therefore of the Bloc Québécois, is to push the government in a particular direction or advocate for things that bring the organization of society more in line with our values.

That is the opposition's role, and we can only fulfill that role through a balance of power. This is politics 101. It is what I would explain to first-year political science students. Politics is rooted in conflict. Sometimes we settle that conflict through compromise, but politics is ultimately rooted in a balance of power.

That is why I was surprised to hear our NDP colleague saying today that the Bloc Québécois members were finally seeing the light and joining the NDP in saying that there should not be an election during a pandemic. I found that shocking, since the NDP has completely destroyed the balance of power between it and the government by constantly voting with the government. The NDP will no longer be able to advocate for its own proposals, since the current government knows that the NDP will ultimately vote with it. That is diminishing the role of the opposition. I think that is the worst thing that can happen, especially in the context of a minority government.

Today, we are looking for some form of co-operation with the Liberal government, but they are dismissing our offer out of hand. In addition, to add insult to injury, when we are make political decisions and try to advance our interests, such as seniors and health transfers, the Liberals say that we are putting their government at risk because we are not voting with them.

When we voted against the budget because it did not include the things we thought were essential, they said we wanted to trigger an election. It is no longer possible to criticize the Liberal government, because they will accuse us of wanting to trigger an election. That is the worst thing anyone can do in politics. It is called a circular argument.

In other words, if we vote against the Liberal government, that means that we basically want an election. We do not have the option of saying what we want. At the same time, we cannot say anything about how we should not hold an election during a pandemic or about how Bill C-19 is a disaster, because the government will tell us that we are being partisan and that we voted against its budget. It is the perfect way to paralyze the opposition and ensure that there is no political debate. To me, a party that does not want political debate is a party that is in decline, or at least a party that has very little respect for democracy.

I think that we witnessed this today. Some people seem to operate on a sliding scale when it comes to respecting democracy. However, democracy works through negotiation, and we have seen these negotiations many times in the House. Earlier I shared the example of what we did with CUSMA. Another example would be from early on in the pandemic, when we were able to have rational debates with the government about how to manage the pandemic. Through these debates, we were able to come to a consensus in the House to improve the wage subsidy. This negotiation process is essential to how Parliament works, and this is especially true with a minority government.

How did the government put an end to these negotiations? It imposed a gag order, or time allocation, on Bill C-19. That is the worst thing it could do. It is completely unacceptable for a government to use time allocation on a bill that directly affects our democratic processes and principles. I have not seen a single political pundit agree with this move. Worse yet, the NDP supported the government's time allocation motion on Bill C-19, which is completely unacceptable.

Several people who are close to me often ask me if there will be an election. The reason I keep getting asked that question in my riding is that people are worried. Today, I do not have much reassurance to offer them, because when I see what the Liberal government is doing, I am convinced it is waiting for the right time to trigger an election, pandemic notwithstanding.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, the problem is not Bill C-19, but the way it was handled. It could have been dealt with much sooner, seeing as the pandemic had been going on for several months when we talked about it for the first time. We could have debated it in the House for five months and gotten the work done without the need for the government to use time allocation. We need to make a distinction between the content of Bill C-19 and the way it was handled.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this opposition day, especially since we have heard a lot of hasty conclusions during this debate.

The most recent example was from the member for Outremont. She just said that the Liberals do not want an election and that it is clearly the Bloc Québécois that wants one, since it votes non-confidence in the government and is trying to make the government fall. She said that it is the Bloc that wants an election.

I think it is important to remember that there is no connection between voting non-confidence in the government and wanting an election. Some journalists may even need that reminder as well. Yesterday I saw a headline that said, “BQ calls on Liberals to avoid pandemic election, despite voting non-confidence”. This is yet another example of what I feel is an incorrect assessment.

I would like to remind the House of the role of opposition members. It is precisely to scrutinize the government, not to give it a blank check, especially in a minority Parliament. It is also to make sure it adopts good policies and that these are reached through a certain consensus, or at least that a certain majority is favourable to these policies in the context of a minority Parliament. That is the role of opposition members. We cannot systematically tie our own hands just because someone accuses us of wanting to trigger an election. We have an obligation to do our job.

I am going to share a little story about the role of opposition members. Often, during election campaigns, people say to parties like the Bloc Québécois that opposition members serve no purpose, because they are not part of the government and are not important. When that happens, I am happy to ask people what they think of the idea of giving all the seats in the House to the members of the party with the most votes. They always answer that someone has to keep an eye on the government. Precisely. The role of opposition members is to keep an eye on the government.

That being said, the motion put forward today by the Bloc Québécois provides the government with a fine opportunity to clarify its own position on holding an election during a pandemic. We all know the saying “to walk the talk”. In this case, the walk and the talk are not even close. I would suggest to members that today we are handing the government, on a silver platter, the opportunity to be constructive and to really confirm that it does not want an election during a pandemic.

All day long, the Liberals seem to have been trying to argue that they do not want an election. They are saying that they did not introduce Bill C-19 to call an election during a pandemic, but rather because it was necessary and because they had to plan ahead and determine how an election would be managed during a pandemic.

Yes, it is important to pass Bill C-19. That is why the Bloc Québécois contributed to a study on holding elections during a pandemic at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It was necessary and appropriate to do so.

The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the final report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on holding an election during a pandemic. We voted in favour of the principle of Bill C-19 at second reading. We support having a bill that would dictate the rules of the game in the context of a pandemic election.

The problem we have is that the government is not walking the talk with regard to Bill C-19. It is important to remember that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which examined the election issue, prepared its report after hearing from a number of very interesting witnesses, including chief electoral officers who had actually conducted elections during a pandemic. I had the pleasure of attending a few of those committee meetings.

The report was tabled on October 8. Two days later, before the ink was even dry, the government completely ignored the recommendations and introduced its own bill.

Things were off to a bad start. Then a little later, closure was imposed. At that point, things deteriorated even more because closure is anything but consensus building. I will repeat once more some of the remarks quoted by my colleagues.

Emmanuelle Latraverse said that wanting to modify a law without going through government was against the rules of our electoral system, which encourages seeking consensus. According to Ms. Latraverse, the irony is that the Liberals put a gag order on a bill to amend the Canada Elections Act, but made a big fuss when the same thing happened under the Harper government. She stated that the more things change, the more they stay the same, and that the Liberals have only themselves to blame for the timing of this legislation.

The Liberals are sidestepping the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which had reached consensus, and they are invoking closure, which is anything but consensus-building. They say they do not want people to be cynical, but their actions foster cynicism.

All day, the Liberals have been saying that we should not undermine the electoral process or do anything that would cause people to lose faith in it, which is what happened in the United States. If closure does not cause a loss of faith in the legislative and democratic process, I have to wonder what it does.

There is another point to make here. Generally speaking, closure is hard to justify. That is very true in this context because closure was invoked after four hours of debate over a five-month period. The government has done a poor job of managing its legislative agenda. There was no reason to invoke closure.

Since we did not have time to discuss the bill because of the time allocation motion, I will do so now. I would like to remind members of what could have been discussed if we had had the opportunity to do so. Let us not forget that the Bloc Québécois is always ready to co-operate. In fact, my colleagues heard the leader of the Bloc Québécois offer the Prime Minister the opportunity to discuss the content of the bill. We are still prepared to help. For example, we could discuss the deadline for receiving ballots by mail. Currently, the deadline is set for the day after the last polling day, which means that people can continue to vote after the preliminary results.

The procedure and House affairs committee made recommendations to avoid having election day on a Monday. This would make it easier to have more election workers, especially young people, since they work mostly on the weekend, and to have access to more local workers during an election. We will also need extra workers if we want to maintain social distancing.

The issue of advertising and polls could have been addressed. Right now, the bill seems unclear on that issue. Usually, on election day, advertising and the publication of polls are prohibited. Since the voting period will take place over three days, will this guideline be applied to all three polling days? It would be interesting to discuss this. We would have liked more time to do so.

The way the bill was brought before the House suggests that there may be some desire on the part of the government to call an election. Today, we are suggesting that the government clarify matters. We are giving the government the opportunity to confirm that there will not be an election during the pandemic.

In politics, we say that the rule is to hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Today's debate is not entirely about the merits of Bill C-19. Bill C-19 is about preparing for the worst, because we do not know how long the pandemic will last. Should the pandemic last longer than the government's four-year term, which I hope will not be the case, then it is a good idea to have a bill that provides an election framework.

In fact, today's motion does not aim to prevent us from having a bill on preparing for elections. It asks us to draft the best bill we can, to hope for the best, but not to set ourselves up for the worst, which would be to hold an election during a pandemic. It is the responsibility of the government to do everything it can to avoid having an election, so that people will not be called to vote so long as there is a pandemic.

This can be achieved very easily by doing three things. First, we are asking the government to ensure that votes that are confidence votes by default are well structured and to do its best to reach a consensus on the measures it proposes, or at least obtain the agreement of the majority of the House.

Second, we are asking the government not to make confidence votes out of votes that do not necessarily need to be, as we have seen it do on multiple occasions during the current Parliament.

Third, we are simply asking the government not to unilaterally decide to dissolve the House, even if the polls are in its favour.

That basically sums up our motion. It is just plain common sense. That is all we are asking of the government.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the NDP has been clear and consistent that we do not want to have an election during a pandemic and we do not intend on triggering one. We would have liked to see the Prime Minister take some responsibility and commit to the same.

The hon. member talked about Bill C-19, but it only passed second reading on time allocation earlier this week. It has not gone through committee or the Senate. If an election were called, we would be in pretty big trouble.

It is the Liberals who are filibustering the procedure and House affairs committee, which risks delaying Bill C-19. Will the Liberals allow for the vote at committee so we can get on with studying the bill?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, as we all know, our society and our government are still facing unprecedented challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.

For the time being, the pandemic has forced us to change how we live our lives to keep our fellow citizens safe. To be honest, I would have loved to debate this motion and many others with my colleagues in person in the House, but here we are on Zoom in our living rooms back home in our ridings. We now vote remotely using an app.

The pandemic has forced us to change the voting procedure in the House of Commons, a first in 200 years. It has forced us to adapt, and we have had to adapt the electoral process as well. Since the pandemic hit, there have been two federal by-elections and a number of provincial, territorial and local elections. These elections have given voters a broad range of options to exercise their right to vote safely.

Holding an election during a pandemic is, of course, a major challenge. The government has drawn on the experience of elections held in Canada and other jurisdictions, as well as on the analyses of Elections Canada and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

To ensure both the safety of voters and their ability to exercise their right to vote in as large numbers as possible, the government introduced Bill C-19 on December 10 of last year.

Before getting into the details of this bill, I would like to say very clearly that I absolutely do not want an election. Throughout this pandemic, we have worked together to govern the country responsibly and in collaboration with the other parties. We did this to help Canadians and we will continue to do so.

I want to be very clear on another thing: I have nothing against this motion, but I have a real problem with the way this debate has been filled with small partisan attacks implying that the government wants an election during a pandemic. That is totally false, as the facts show.

Getting back to Bill C-19, it makes provisional changes to the Canada Elections Act to support a safe and accessible vote in the event of a general election during the pandemic. This bill is based on recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer in October 2020 regarding voting in the context of a pandemic, as well as the critical work of our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, whom I thank.

Bill C-19 is structured around four main points. First, in order to facilitate physical distancing at the polls, the bill proposes to add two additional voting days, on the Saturday and Sunday before the traditional Monday voting day. This would reduce the number of people at the polls at any given time, which is very important. It would be especially useful in ridings where public health authorities have set strict limits on the number of people allowed in public places. This measure will also provide additional flexibility to those for whom voting on election day would be a problem.

Second, the bill would strengthen the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer to adapt the provisions of the Canada Elections Act to ensure the health and safety of voters and election staff. In its current form, the Canada Elections Act grants these powers only to enable electors to vote or to enable the counting of votes.

Third, the bill would make it easier to exercise the right to vote in a safe manner for one of the most vulnerable groups that has been hit the hardest by the pandemic, those residing in long-term care institutions. The bill would establish a period beginning 13 days before election day to facilitate the administration of voting in these institutions. This period would allow Elections Canada staff to coordinate with the staff of these long-term care institutions and ensure that residents can vote safely.

The bill proposes four measures to enhance access to mail-in voting for all Canadians. This measure makes sense when we know that mail-in voting was the preferred tool used in many countries such as the United States, where nearly two-thirds of voters voted by mail during the presidential election. According to Elections Canada, up to five million voters would choose mail-in voting if there is an election during the pandemic.

First, the bill would allow voters to register online to be able to vote by mail. Then, it would allow voters to use an identification number, for example, like the one on a driver's licence, to confirm their identity and their place of residence in the context of mail-in voting.

It would install secure reception boxes at every polling station and at the offices of the returning officers. This would allow those who cannot send their ballot by mail to deposit it securely.

The bill would allow people who initially chose to vote by mail to change their mind and vote in person, while protecting the integrity of the electoral process.

Together, these measures seek to ensure the security of an election that might be held during a pandemic by providing as many ways possible for voters to exercise their democratic rights.

It is important to note that these measures would be temporary. They would only apply to an election that is called 90 days after this legislation receives royal assent, or earlier if the Chief Electoral Officer has indicated that all the necessary preparations have been completed. These measures would cease to be in effect six months after a general election was administered during the pandemic or earlier, as determined by the Chief Electoral Officer after consultation with Canada's chief public health officer.

We must take steps now to ensure that the next election be held safely and that it be accessible to all voters.

I want to commend Elections Canada for its exceptional work and thank all those who are involved and who will be involved in administering a safe election in unprecedented circumstances.

I am pleased to take questions from and debate with my colleagues.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Outremont.

Today is May 13, and it my father's first birthday since his death. My father is among those people who died during the pandemic. The first part of the Bloc Québécois motion refers to all of the Quebeckers and Canadians who died during the pandemic. I want to express my condolences to all of the families in Quebec, in my riding and across Canada who have lost loved ones.

My father had been in a long-term care unit. Our country has some significant problems when it comes to long-term care. I truly hope that we will take everything that we have learned to ensure that people like my father will be better served in the future.

I fully support the idea of national standards, and I hope that all Canadians will respect not only provincial jurisdictions but also national standards to guarantee that our seniors can enjoy their right to be safe in long-term care homes.

The motion also talks about an election, and I can assure the Bloc Québécois and all the hon. members of the House that I do not have any interest in an election, nor do any of the other people I know on our side of the House. It is one of those things where we can keep repeating it and people may or may not believe us, but in the end result, that is the case.

We also, of course, understand that we are in a minority Parliament. The government does not get to control when the next election happens. All of the opposition parties could force an election, and I am not saying that it is necessarily in bad faith that people may vote non-confidence in the government. It could happen for a variety of reasons.

If non-confidence in the government is voted, then we need to have a safe election. There is no doubt about it, with the entire idea of potentially having an election. I am not blaming opposition parties for voting non-confidence. They have a right to do so, but there have been 14 times in recent weeks when opposition parties have voted non-confidence in one way or another, and as a result we could have an election, so it is really important that we appreciate that we need to find a way to bring Bill C-19 through the House in order to have a fair and safe election.

We have talked a lot about it, and I am very proud of our government having taken many measures to ensure safety in the workplace. Elections Canada needs to ensure safety for its poll workers and for all Canadians who wish to express their right to vote in our society. I am also very pleased that we are in a country where we have national rules on national elections. We see what has happened with our neighbours to the south, where there are different rules in every state and different rules, sometimes, in every county in a state. Different types of election machines in different counties led to a 2000 election where Palm Beach County in Florida managed, by itself, to reverse the results of an election.

In the most recent election in the United States, there was a candidate who refused to accept the results of the election. He launched many lawsuits, which were all unsuccessful, and now he continues to maintain that the election was unfair and is trying to get states to create legislation that makes it more difficult for people to vote.

I am pleased that we would be making it safer and better to vote with Bill C-19. We know that the Chief Electoral Officer and the procedure and House affairs committee are really cognizant of the importance of this issue, as evidenced by their significant work and associated recommendations. In addition to supporting the committee's recommendation with respect to long-term care voting and extending the voting period, Bill C-19 proposes a number of other measures to ensure that our electoral process remains resilient, taking into account the current public health context. Both the committee and Bill C-19 propose increased adaptation powers for the Chief Electoral Officer for the purposes of ensuring the health and safety of electors and election workers, should an election occur during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In its final report, the committee acknowledged that it has the utmost confidence in Elections Canada in undertaking the diligent planning and preparedness necessary to deliver a successful and accessible election during the pandemic.

This is reflected in Bill C-19's temporary amendment to extend the Chief Electoral Officer's power to adapt the provisions of the act to ensure the health and safety of electors or election officers. It seeks to offer greater flexibility, given the rapidly changing nature of the pandemic and the diverse logistics of conducting 338 elections, and each riding having different challenges. On the committee's recommendation that rapid tests be provided, the government is committed to supporting Elections Canada's preparedness, all while respecting its independence.

An election during the pandemic also means that more electors will vote by mail, as we have seen in various Canadian and international jurisdictions. Indeed, the chief electoral officers of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island all told the committee that there were significant increases in demand to vote by mail during their respective provincial elections held during the pandemic. We certainly saw the same thing with our neighbours to the south.

In British Columbia, there was a 100-fold increase of mail-in ballots between the 2017 and 2020 provincial general elections. At the federal level, the Chief Electoral Officer testified that surveys had indicated that 4 million to 5 million electors intend to vote by mail if a federal general election is held during the pandemic. The Chief Electoral Officer noted that steps had been taken to ensure that Elections Canada would be prepared for such an increase.

Although the committee's recommendations on mail-in voting were primarily directed to Elections Canada, it is evident through the report and witness statements that access to mail-in ballots would support electors that may face barriers. As such, measures to shore up the mail-in ballot system are important. That is why Bill C-19 seeks to implement measures to improve access to mail-in voting for all Canadians in numerous ways, including the installation of mail reception boxes at all polling stations and allowing for the receipt of online applications for mail-in ballots.

The committee's final report highlights that mail-in voting was identified by several witnesses as a means of increasing accessibility for electors who face barriers to voting, including persons with disabilities, indigenous voters, persons living in poverty and students. Augmenting mail-in voting procedures will ensure the system is easy to use, accessible and responsive to voter's needs. It will also provide additional alternatives for those who are most vulnerable during the pandemic.

Ensuring that our electoral system is easy to use, accessible and responsive to voter's needs is also very much the advice we heard from international partners and experts from government, industry and civil society. We want good practice. We want a solution tailored to communities. We do not need a one-size-fits-all approach, but we need to ensure that the same access to voting exists across the country.

Multiple witnesses, including Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, told the committee that holding a federal general election during the pandemic would pose significant challenges and difficulties for Elections Canada. Elections Canada has exchanged information on our best practices and contingency planning and commissioned research.

Bill C-19 will reaffirm to Elections Canada, political entities and Canadian electors that the government remains committed to ensuring that a general election during a pandemic, should one be required, which all of us say we do not want, would be delivered in a manner that is safe for electors and election workers, and ensures the overall integrity of the electoral process.

In conclusion, I do believe it is important to pass Bill C-19, whether or not there is an election on the horizon.