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.

[Stéphane Perrault]

I want to make an important distinction. The recommendation was to hold the election on a Saturday or Sunday, instead of a Monday, not in addition to a Monday. That was discussed in relation to Bill C-19. It would give voters some flexibility and make it possible for those who work on elections, or would like to work on elections, to do so even if they have a job or go to school. That would make it easier for us to recruit workers.

It would also make schools more available to us. In 2019, a total of 46% of electors cast their ballots in schools. I don't have the figure for the last election, but it was a fairly minor percentage. We lost much of that access to schools. If Monday were added to the two weekend days, some places would not be available all three days.

Giving people more opportunities to vote is a good thing, but my preference would be to hold election day on the weekend, rather than over three days.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to Mr. Perrault and team for being here. I'm sorry I couldn't be there with you in person. Nonetheless, I have lots of questions, as always, and look forward to this study. I think it's a really important one. I was a member of PROC in the last Parliament, where this was suggested under some other work we were doing on Bill C-19, which was more pandemic-focused. I'm really glad we're returning to this now, because I think it's really important work.

Mr. Perrault, I'm glad to hear about your commitment to incorporating indigenous languages and increasing indigenous participation. I think we all recognize that those are not exactly the same. Indigenous participation is far more than just including indigenous languages on ballots. This is an important aspect of that conversation. Thank you for outlining the four options and for contrasting them with some of the policy, operational and electoral integrity challenges or concerns you have. I think that's really helpful. Your opening remarks were quite well taken.

I have three lines of questioning. We'll see if we get to all of them. One of them is trying to unpack the conversation a little in terms of the threshold. One of the options you highlighted in your opening remarks on multilingual ballots was the threshold of 1%, which I think is interesting for us to consider. I wanted to contrast that. I understand that in the last election, you already tried to incorporate supporting documentation in indigenous languages. Based on the work you already did in the last election, what languages were selected? How did you make decisions about which indigenous languages to offer supporting documentation in?

I think that might highlight how you determined that threshold or what threshold was kind of implicit in what you were already doing in the last election. Could you unpack that for us a bit?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just as a point of clarification, for electors voting in their electoral districts by mail, one of the aspects that was in place was that they voted locally, in the sense that the mail was sent to the local returning officer so as to prevent that transit time from wherever they are to Ottawa. It is only out-of-district electors who vote and send their ballots nationally.

I did indicate in my remarks a range of measures that we put in place to reduce the number of late ballots. I'm not going to repeat them. Obviously, any late ballot is unfortunate. These are people who wanted to cast a ballot and who cast a ballot, but we were not able to count them.

I had recommended a longer election period. If you look at the results from table 4 in the report, it shows that there was a much lower percentage of late ballots with just a few days. Now, that's not the only factor. I had also recommended that ballots received one day after close of the polls be counted, and this was indeed part of Bill C-19. This is something that we may want to look at in the future.

I think we delayed on our side to look at our communications strategy: Was it aggressive enough? I know that in Canada at the federal level electors who vote by mail or by special ballot must write in the name of the candidate. They cannot vote by writing in the name of the party. That is not so in some of the provinces, so this means that people who apply early have to wait until the close of nominations to see the full slate of candidates. Again, that is something that we could look at to change the rules so that voting by party would be acceptable, such that we could promote voting by mail much more aggressively in the early stages of the campaign.

We have never had such a large-scale vote-by-mail operation, and we're looking at every angle to see how it can be improved in the future.

[Stéphane Perrault, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak with the Committee today about the 44th general election.

While no election is like any other, it is safe to say that this was one of the most challenging in our history. I would like at the very outset to express my gratitude to the 338 returning officers and their staff, as well as the 195,000 Canadians who served their fellow citizens to the best of their ability in sometimes difficult circumstances.

I had indicated to this committee last year that we would be in a position to deliver a safe election, and I can confirm that this was the case.

A range of measures to protect electors and poll workers was implemented in consultation with public health authorities across the country, and we continued to adjust those measures throughout the election as the situations evolved locally.

Various service options were also offered to long-term care facilities and seniors' homes to reflect the needs and circumstances of each institution and serve electors who reside there.

While the election was safe, the pandemic presented a number of challenges. These were not unforeseen. As I had indicated to this committee prior to the election, recruiting and training poll workers and securing polling places were the main concerns, and they proved to be difficult. This was particularly true of polling places. In a normal election, approximately half of the electors would be assigned to vote at a nearby school. This time, schools and other usual polling places were generally unavailable.

In preparing for the election, returning officers worked to identify and confirm alternative locations. However, once the election was called, several landlords who had earlier indicated they would rent to us reversed their decision in the context of the emerging fourth wave. Difficulties in confirming polling locations led to delays in issuing voter information cards.

This did not prevent us from increasing the number of advance polls by 18% to meet an expected increase in early voting. But it did have an impact on services on polling day, especially in some urban centres—around Toronto in particular—where the scarcity of polling places led to longer wait times.

To support recruitment, our enhanced national recruitment campaign emphasized the measures in place to protect the health and safety of election workers. At the local level, there were efforts to recruit bilingual election workers and those in indigenous communities. Overall, we recruited 15% fewer poll workers than in the previous election.

Apart from these overarching challenges, there were specific areas in which our services were below expectations.

Students in particular were disappointed that we were unable to offer vote-on-campus kiosks. This initiative was piloted in 2015 and deployed more broadly in 2019, but in each case it required many months of planning and coordination with post-secondary institutions. Pandemic circumstances and the lack of a fixed-date election meant that we were unable to offer it this time. Our goal moving forward is to make campus kiosks part of our permanent service offerings.

As with previous elections, returning officers reached out to all first nations communities in their electoral districts to arrange polling operations. Unfortunately, some first nations electors in parts of Kenora in Ontario were unable to vote as a result of errors and miscommunication. I apologize to these electors, and we are putting in place measures to improve our services to first nations communities across Canada.

Finally, several measures were implemented to assist voters who wished to vote by mail, including a new online application system, prepaid postage, a special information campaign and a ballot drop-off service at local polls, which we have set up by adapting the act through bill C‑19. Procedures were also put in place to ensure the integrity of the process, which meant that the preliminary voting results took several days to complete.

Knowing that election results would not all be available on election night this time, and in the shadow of inaccurate information surrounding the 2020 US election, we took steps to maintain confidence in the process and results. We communicated early and often and were very transparent about the measures we put in place to make voting accessible and secure, as well as to ensure its integrity. I believe that this level of transparency was instrumental in preserving trust in the election. Preliminary results from our post-election surveys of electors indicate that trust and satisfaction levels remained very high.

I will now turn briefly to the ongoing electoral boundaries redistribution exercise. Canada has a robust process to ensure that the periodic redrawing of electoral boundaries is done in an independent and non-partisan manner. In October, I announced that the number of seats in the House of Commons will increase to 342. This figure is calculated, as required by law, using the July 1, 2021 population estimates provided by the Chief Statistician and a formula found in the Constitution. I would like to remind members that the calculation done to determine the number of seats allocated to each province is a mathematical operation over which I exercise no discretionary authority.

The 10 independent commissions were created last fall. Their work began on February 9 with the receipt of the census population numbers. Over the next 10 months, each commission will develop boundary proposals, hold public hearings—where members of the public and MPs may make presentations—and complete a report on the new electoral districts. These reports will be submitted to the Speaker for tabling in the House of Commons and referred to this committee starting in fall 2022. Over the next few weeks, my team will be providing technical briefings on the redistribution process at the various party caucuses in the House. You will have more detailed information on the electoral map revision process.

Thank you for inviting me today. I welcome your questions.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I get to speak to you while you are in the Chair. To anyone who is tuning in right now, I wish all the best to the Speaker in the Chair right now. I know that the next chapter of your life will be very fulsome. It has been wonderful working with you. Hopefully, we will be able to work together again in September.

I will continue with some of my thanks. I know so many people are involved in making sure that this chamber can run. I am thinking of all the House staff, the interpreters about whom we have heard so much, making sure we are not popping in the mike, the technical support folks for the hybrid virtual Parliament who have been very busy, and the table staff, especially one of my favourites, André Gagnon. I have always said that he is going to be stuck in my living room forever, because one of my favourite photos is of him and me at my second swearing in. Thanks to all of the great people working in our House and making sure the democracy of Canada continues.

It truly has been a great pleasure serving in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd session, as the deputy House leader for the Conservative Party. There has been a lot of learning to do and a lot of procedural things, as well. All of us are working together to get that done.

I thank my colleague who spoke before me, because when we talk about results, that is something we really focus on. I would like to see results. When I first got here in 2015, we would talk about the government. We would talk about what we had done in government for nine and a half years, and some of the positive changes that we saw here in Canada. Some very good legislation was put forward. Every single time I was on a panel, I recall that the words used against me were, “Ms. Vecchio, that's rich.” Those were the words of our Liberal government members, all of the time: “That is rich,” any time we asked for something to be justified or asked for verification on things.

The government just does not want to answer. When we see an omnibus bill like this budget implementation bill, we should not be surprised. When we try to have debates, we should not be surprised when we do not get answers. I know that shortly we will be going into Question Period where that will continue.

In this Parliament specifically, we have seen things, such as the WE scandal, prorogation and Bill C-19 being done wrong. I want to focus on that. As of yesterday, Bill C-19 was reported back and tabled in the House of Commons. The fear that I have, and the fear that I think so many other Canadians should have, is that we are putting forward bills that have no witnesses coming to talk about these things. When we wanted to discuss Bill C-19, there was a motion to have important organizations representing everyone from seniors to people with disabilities look at this legislation and ask what it means. We were looking to speak to chief electoral officers who were on the ground and could talk about some of the things we needed to do.

What would a pandemic election look like in London North Centre or London West? I am looking at the member of Parliament for London West right now. What would it look like for London West? What would it look like for Elgin—Middlesex—London? I am seeing that special member look at me right now. I would like to thank her for all of the work that she has done. It has been great having a person beside me in London West who is part of the government and who has always ensured that when I give her a call, she knows what is happening in Elgin—Middlesex—London.

On behalf of all the constituents of Elgin—Middlesex—London, on behalf of my municipalities, I know I can call that member and say that we need an announcement, and the member for London West will ensure that announcement is made. If it is sitting on a minister's table, she is one person I know who can get it done. I really appreciate all of her hard work.

Moving on, when I am talking about some important things, I see that we are truly not doing what we should always be doing. We talk about due diligence. Last night, I got to listen to the member for Winnipeg North talk about the Conservatives and how awful they are. Although the word “corrupt” was not being used, he loved to use the word “obstruction.”

I will tell Canadians what obstruction looks like. Obstruction looks like 101 days in a filibuster when we are talking about prorogation of the government. That is what obstruction looks like. I love looking at the member, because he is laughing. I think it is because he knows exactly what I am getting at. He knows. He has been in politics for over 30 years. He knows how to wing this. He knows when we are playing these games, and we know that when the member for Winnipeg North is coming to a committee, the plan is to filibuster. When some of the greatest speakers who can speak 700 or 800 times in Parliament are brought in, we know the government is bringing in the big guns to filibuster. I would like to commend my colleague for Winnipeg North because that is exactly the type of work that they are able to do.

We have seen committee reports delayed. As the former chair of the status of women and as the former shadow minister of the status of women, I am really concerned that the defence committee could not table a report. Why it could not table a report, I think, has to do with the obstruction in committee. There has not just been obstruction in the Procedure and House Affairs committee. There has been obstruction in the committees for defence, ethics and any other committee in which the reports and information going forward are not to the liking of the government. That is just the type of thing that I have been seeing.

I do a lot of outreach as well in my riding. When reflecting on this budget, what do we see and what is important? I like to go out and speak to my constituents. We do a lot of householders. We do a lot of mailers and get a lot of information back. I would say that we probably got the most information back ever from replies to our last householder. We looked at that data. Do not worry. We were not using Liberalist. We actually looked at this data in our own office to see what my constituents were saying. I did not send it off to somebody to ask them to please look at it analytically and then let us know, while targeting my voters. I actually wanted to hear what they have to say. It is not just about how I am going to get their vote the next time. I want to be sure that I am serving them with a purpose.

However, 66% of our respondents believe there should be an increase in health care funding to the provinces. The government can talk about the funding put forward through this pandemic when it comes to health care. It did have to put some forward, but why? It was not prepared for a pandemic. It had taken some of the money and it had taken some of the programs. We know that the system to alert us of a coming pandemic and its impacts was not there. The information we should have been able to receive was not there because of some cuts and things they were doing while thinking that it was not important.

Sixty-six percent of our respondents believe there needs to be more money put into this health care system, but in this budget we do not see an increase in health care. We can see some things when it comes to pandemic spending, but as the former speaker talked about, we need to look at long-term plans as well. They cannot just be short-term. They cannot just be about how we get people voting for us today. It is about how we can provide good lives and better opportunities for them.

Coming from a farming community, one thing I always talk about is sowing the field. How do we prepare the field so that people can be the best crop possible? How do we encourage great growth? I look at all of these programs coming forward from the government and I am very concerned. What do we see for these people moving forward? I look at my son, who is 27 years old, and know that if he were to try to purchase a house in Elgin—Middlesex—London and put down the $20,000 he has been able to save, it would get him nothing. Why? It is because we have seen a 46% increase in housing prices in my area alone.

Those are some of the things that I think the government needs to tackle, along with the fact that we see inflation going higher and higher. That inflation is going to impact us greatly, especially if the interest rates go up.

I look at my own children who want to buy houses. The rates for getting a mortgage are awesome, but how can they buy houses when the prices start at almost half a million dollars? How are they ever going to get into the housing market and out of renting? I think that 55% of renters have been paying more in the last six months than they were before. How are people able to move forward and go up the housing ladder? How will they be able to go from being renters to being home owners and into those next homes for retirement? How will they be able to do that? I just do not see the path, unfortunately. I am very concerned with that.

We have 73% of respondents who were concerned about Bill C-10, which we voted on last night. At about 1:30 a.m. we saw that some amendments went through. We also saw the bill pass, unfortunately. I can tell colleagues that in my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London this was an issue about which I heard from tons of my constituents. They said they did not want Bill C-10, and that they believed it needed to be amended. The amendments we put forward did not, unfortunately, go through.

Finally, 86% of respondents were concerned about the level of debt in this budget. These are the types of things I talk about.

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

Thank you very much.

I'm quite supportive of the intent of the motion. It's consistent with the amendment that we presented to Bill C-19. Of course, I do want to echo comments that have been made already. I mean, it would be nice to see this coming directly from government. I would rather study it in the context of a bill. I think there is enough knowledge out there. Indigenous peoples have been here and speaking their languages long before Canada was an entity. It's not a mystery that they're here. It's not a mystery that they have their own languages. I think we're finally coming to a place as a country where we're willing to acknowledge that instead of trying to erase that reality.

It's really just a question of a concrete proposal for legislative change. We tried to make that change when it came to Bill C-19, because it appeared to be a way to do it. We know that there will already be a lot of barriers to voting as a result of the pandemic.

With the caveat that I really would like to see the government come forward with something.... If we're not going to be studying this until the fall anyway, that's a lot of time for the government to draft a bill and bring it forward in the fall. That would be [Technical difficulty—Editor] to a simple committee study that doesn't have the ability to then go ahead and enact, in legislation, whatever the conclusions of our study might be.

I'm certainly prepared to support this study, but I would really like to see some leadership from the government in getting it going so that at the end of the study we're changing the law instead of recommending to government that they go away, take more time to figure out how they might draft an amendment, and then have to study it all over again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, thank you for that.

I myself did not want to rule that out of order, but procedurally, after advice and after looking at what Bill C-19 entailed...it felt like it was one of those technical issues that I wish wasn't really a technical issue.

I'm glad you brought this forward, because I'm committed to this too. Whether we move forward as this committee or in another committee later on, it's figuring out how to support indigenous languages on the ballot in the future, and as quickly as possible.

We'll hear from a few people who wish to speak to this.

Mr. Nater is up first.

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

Thank you very much.

Thanks very much, Daniel. I know that this is a really very important study for you and I know that we have discussed it several times.

I would like to move an amendment to this though. What I would like to do is this. In your motion I would like to add after the word “reform” in paragraph (f) the following:

including the need for a national referendum in order for Canadians to have the opportunity to approve and propose changes to Canada's democratic system.

That is what we're looking at for our amendment. I know we have it in English. I have the English done and we will ensure that we get the French one to Alain as soon as possible as well, but as we're looking at this I think one of the most important things—and we saw this when we were talking about Bill C-19—is that the impact of elections is very, very important. When we talk about democracy, we're talking about the need for 15 million people to have the ability and the right to vote specifically during a pandemic, and I think this is just an opportunity for Canadians to say what our electoral system looks like.

That is the amendment I would like to move, and we will get that out to you as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, thank you. In the last couple of days, I haven't heard anything, but just as for that last meeting we had, sometimes some of you hear about it even before I do. For that extra meeting, you guys heard about that before I was able to hear about that on Friday, but that worked out nicely for us because we were able to complete that report on Bill C-19 that I then tabled that yesterday, for your information, as well. That report was tabled, so we tabled the prorogation study and the Bill C-19 study, and as far as I know, just as Ms. Vecchio has confirmed, at this point in time, we would not be able to sit in the summer unless it was in person and outside of those blackout periods.

We will move back to Mr. Blaikie's motion, and I will give Mr. Blaikie the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to address the House on such an important piece of legislation. To be very clear, in budget 2021 the government has outlined a plan to allow us to finish the fight against COVID-19, heal the wounds left by the COVID-19 recession as much as we can, and ultimately create more jobs and prosperity for Canadians in the days and decades to come.

This is critically important legislation, and we would encourage all members of all political stripes to support it. Within it is a continuation of the government's focus on the pandemic. In the last federal election, Canadians wanted Parliament to work well together. They wanted us to come together to do the things that were necessary to facilitate a more positive environment for all Canadians, and being thrown into a pandemic made the priority fighting COVID-19: the coronavirus.

From the very beginning, our Prime Minister and this government have made it very clear that fighting the pandemic was our number one priority. We put into place a team Canada approach and brought together all kinds of stakeholders including different levels of government, indigenous leaders, individuals, non-profit organizations and private companies. We brought them all in to hopefully minimize the negative impact of the coronavirus.

It is because of those consultations and working with Canadians that Canada is in an excellent position today to maximize a recovery. The statistics will clearly demonstrate that. We have a government that has worked day in and day out, seven days a week, and is led by a Prime Minister who is truly committed to making Canada a better community.

I have, over the last number of months, witnessed a great deal of frustration from the opposition, in particular the Conservative opposition. The Conservatives continuously attempt to frustrate the process on the floor of the House of Commons. There was a time when all parties inside the chamber worked together to pass necessary legislation, and worked together to come up with ideas and ways to modify things so we could better support individuals and businesses in Canada. However, that time has long passed. The degree to which we see political partisanship on the floor of the House of Commons today is really quite sad.

Yesterday was embarrassing. I know many, if not all, of my colleagues found it embarrassing and humiliating to see one of Canada's most noble civil servants at the bar on the floor of the House of Commons. The New Democrats and the Bloc joined with the Conservatives to humiliate a civil servant who should be applauded for his efforts over the last 12 months. He was publicly humiliated by being addressed in the manner he was, on the floor of the House of Commons, and it was distasteful. I say shame to the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives.

There were alternatives. If they did not want to take shots at the civil service, they could have dealt with it in other ways. For example, the Minister of Health provided the unredacted information to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which was made up of parliamentarians from all political parties. Instead of passing the motion they did, they could have passed a motion for that committee to table the documents they wanted from the civil service. After all, the civil service provided the unredacted copies to that committee, not to mention that documents that had been redacted for national interest and security reasons were sent to another standing committee.

The political partisanship we are seeing today is making the chamber, for all intents and purposes, dysfunctional. We have seen the official opposition, less than a week ago, come to the floor of the House of Commons and within an hour of debate attempt to shut down Parliament for the day. It actually moved a motion to adjourn the House. The opposition is oozing with hypocrisy. On the one hand, it criticizes the government for not allowing enough time for debate, and on the other hand it tries to shut down the chamber in order to prevent debate.

If we were to look up the definitions of the words “hypocrisy” and “irony” in Webster's, which I have not, I wonder if they would describe what we are seeing from the opposition party, which moves concurrence debate, not once or twice but on many occasions, so that the government is not able to move forward on legislation, including Bill C-30, which we are debating today. That legislation is there to support Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Members of the Liberal caucus have fought day in and day out to ensure those voices are heard, brought to Ottawa and ultimately formulating policy that will take Canada to the next level. However, we have an official opposition that I would suggest has gone too far with respect to its resistance and destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons.

I have stated before that I have been a parliamentarian for approximately 30 years, the vast majority of which were in opposition. I am very much aware of how important it is that we protect the interests of opposition members and their rights. I am very much aware of the tactics opposition parties will use, but at a time when Canadians need us to work together, we have an official opposition that is acting as an obstructive force. When we talk about how Bill C-30 will be there to support small businesses and put money in the pockets of Canadians so they have the disposable income necessary to pay the bills that are absolutely essential, the Conservative Party continues to play that destructive role. It continues to focus on character assassination and on ways to make something out of something that is often not real. The Conservatives are more concerned about political partisanship than getting down to work, which was clearly demonstrated last Thursday. They are more concerned about character assassination, as we saw the official opposition, with the unholy opposition alliance, take personal shots at a national hero, someone we all know as the Minister of National Defence. This is unacceptable behaviour we are witnessing.

We have critically important legislation before the House. We can think about the types of things Bill C-30 would do for Canadians. If we want to prevent bankruptcies from taking place, we need to support this legislation, as it supports small businesses through the extension of the wage subsidy program, a program that has helped millions of Canadians, supporting tens of thousands of businesses from coast to coast to coast.

This is the type of legislation that we are actually debating today. It is not the only progressive, good, solid legislation that we have brought forward. Yesterday, through a closure motion, we were able to push through Bill C-10. We can imagine that legislation not being updated for 30 years. It is a major overhaul. We can think about what the Internet looked like 30 years ago, compared to today.

The Liberal government understands, especially during this pandemic, and we see it in the budget, the importance of our arts community, whether it was with Bill C-10 yesterday, where the government had to push hard to get it through, or the budget implementation bill today, where we are again having to use time allocation. It is not because we want to, but because we have to.

If we do not take measures of this nature, the legislation would not pass. The opposition parties, combined, often demonstrate that if the government is not prepared to take the actions it is taking, we would not get legislation through this House. The opposition parties want to focus on electioneering. We have been very clear, as the Prime Minister has stated, that our priority is the pandemic and taking the actions necessary in order to serve Canadians on the issue. It is the opposition parties that continuously talk about elections.

In my many years as a parliamentarian, in the month of June we have often seen legislation passing. It happens. It is a part of governance. One would expect to see a higher sense of co-operation from opposition parties, in particular from the official opposition party, not the obstruction that members have witnessed, not the humiliation that we have seen on the floor of the House of Commons at times.

Liberal members of the House are prepared to continue to work toward serving Canadians by passing the legislation that is necessary before the summer break. We still have time to address other pieces of legislation. Minutes prior to going into this debate, I was on a conference call in regard to Bill C-19. Again, it is an important piece of legislation. I challenge my colleagues on the opposition benches to come forward and say that we should get that legislation passed so that it could go to the Senate.

I mentioned important progressive pieces of legislation, and the one that comes to my mind, first and foremost, is this legislation, Bill C-30. Next to that, we talk a lot about Bill C-6, on conversion therapy. We talk a lot about Bill C-10, dealing with the modernization of broadcasting and the Internet, and going after some of these large Internet companies.

We talk about Bill C-12 and net zero, about our environment. We can check with Canadians and see what they have to say about our environment and look at the actions taken by opposition parties in preventing the types of progressive legislation we are attempting to move forward with.

We understand that not all legislation is going to be passed. We are not saying the opposition has to pass everything. We realize that in a normal situation not all government legislation is going to pass in the time frame we have set forth, given the very nature of the pandemic, but it is not unrealistic for any government, minority or majority, to anticipate that there would be a higher sense of co-operation in dealing with the passing of specific pieces of legislation. Bill C-30 is definitely one of those pieces of legislation.

Unfortunately, some opposition members will have the tenacity to say they are being limited and are unable to speak to and address this particular important piece of legislation. Chances are we are going to hear them say that. To those members, I would suggest they look at the behaviour of the Conservative official opposition and remind them of the Conservative opposition's attempts to delay, whether it is through adjourning debates, calling for votes on those kinds of proceedings, concurrence motions or using questions of privilege and points of order as a way to filibuster, which all happen to be during government business.

Bill C-3 was a bill that initially came forward a number of years ago from Rona Ambrose, the then leader of the Conservative Party, about judges. We can look at the amount of debate that occurred on that piece of legislation. It is legislation that could have and should have passed the House with minimal debate. It was hours and hours, days, of debate. Even though the Conservatives supported the legislation, even back then they did not want to have the government passing legislation.

Their purpose is to frustrate the government, prevent the government from being able to pass legislation, and then criticize us for not being able to pass legislation. What hypocrisy this is. Sadly, over the last week or so, we have seen the other opposition parties buy into what the Conservative opposition is doing, which has made it even more difficult.

As much as the unholy alliance of opposition parties continues to do these things and frustrate the floor of the House, I can assure Canadians that, whether it is this Prime Minister or my fellow members of Parliament within the caucus, we will continue day in, day out to focus our attention on the pandemic and minimizing its negative impacts.

We are seeing results. Over 32 million vaccine doses have been administered to Canadians. We are number one in first doses in the world. We have close to 35 million doses already in Canada, and we will have 50 million before the end of the month. Canada is positioning itself well, even with the frustration coming from opposition parties. We will continue to remain focused on serving Canadians, and Bill C-30 is an excellent example of the way in which we are going to ensure that Canadians get out of this in a better position. We are building back better for all Canadians.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We've completed our study of Bill C-19. It will be reported back to the House at the earliest convenience.

I'll work with the legislative clerk and his team to figure out how long it will take to have a reprint of this bill. It all depends on the number of amendments we have now passed. The more amendments, the longer it can sometimes take. Hopefully, I'll be in a position to report it back on Monday or Tuesday. We'll see.

Thank you, Mr. Méla, for being here and helping us through this process.

Mr. Blaikie.

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

Why don't we do a recorded vote and then it's happy joyful, if that's okay. It will take 10 seconds.

(Bill C-19 as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

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

Thanks very much.

The thing is, even when this gets royal assent.... First of all, when we're looking at this, most of Bill C‑19 could be brought into force by the CEO between zero and 90 days after royal assent is received, so if this receives royal assent, it can go there. That doesn't change with this amendment. It just says that it can't bring them into force before September 20.

We're focusing on what this actually looks like, and we're saying that when we come back, the opportunity.... We can go to voting, and C‑19 could be implemented if there was an election. I think the most important thing is whether we could have a safe election. That's the most important thing that we want to look at. I am very grateful to hear from Mr. Roussel that this is what the focus is. I think what we're recommending here.... Let's not forget that we're talking about whether there should be a summer election versus actually getting back to work and doing our work in the House of Commons.

If, at that time something happens to the government, and the government does fall in a non-confidence vote, these provisions would be in place. We're saying that we do not believe that there should be a summer election, and that would be at the turning of the Prime Minister. That is one of our greatest concerns.

Thank you.

[Anne Lawson, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Regulatory Affairs, Elections Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As was pointed out, there are certain provisions of the Canada Elections Act that come into effect on royal assent, and one of those would be around specific measures in the act that would permit the CEO to take certain actions with respect to long-term care. Another one would be the gentle expansion, if you like, of the adaptation power that would allow the CEO to take certain adaptations to protect the health and safety of electors.

I think Mr. Roussel was saying that those provisions would either come into force on royal assent, or in the case of the long-term care changes that are proposed in Bill C-19, we have taken some steps because we believe those changes can be implemented already under the adaptation power in the Canada Elections Act. If those changes were needed in a pandemic, they would be facilitating voting on the part of long-term residents according to the terms of the current act. We have taken some steps to discuss those opportunities in the field in order to be able to deliver them in an election without Bill C-19 being in force. That's one piece.

The other part that Mr. Roussel was talking about, which the CEO has also talked about, has to do in particular with the three-day voting, but there are other aspects as well, which would only come into force after 90 days, and rightly so, because we would need the 90 days to bring those provisions into force. We would not expect to be able to deliver three-day voting in any election that took place before the 90 days had expired.

I hope that's helpful.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'm sorry. I have to clarify, though, that this amendment makes it so that you can't do certain things until after September 20. That is my understanding.

You're saying both that you're in the process of doing things to get ready now and also that the added powers and amendments to the Canada Elections Act within Bill C-19 are enabling you to do those things.

If an election were to arise at a point before September 20, I guess you would have your hands tied, because you wouldn't actually be able to do certain things until that time. Is that right?

[Michel Roussel]

What I would say on this is that the Chief Electoral Officer is prepared to adapt the Canada Elections Act in the event of an election so that provisions respecting voting in long-term care facilities could be enforced. We have already instructed our returning officers to get in contact with administrations of care facilities and examine the ways in which there can be more flexibility to the voting process as is contemplated in Bill C-19. I am confident that under the current legislation we would make that happen.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I just want to also clarify that there are powers. The adaptation powers and measures around long-term care facilities come into effect upon royal assent for Bill C-19. I know that those must be extremely important for moving forward. I know this amendment doesn't explicitly deal with that, but the challenge I have with this amendment is that it seems to go contrary to the CEO's ability to actually prepare for an election, which is the whole intent of this legislation, to be as prepared as possible for a pandemic-context election, should one arise. That's my challenge with this.

Maybe I'll ask Mr. Roussel. How important is it to have those powers in place immediately?

As to the other part of my question, my understanding is that you don't have to wait three months. If you can make things happen sooner, you would do that. Would you not? I think it's incumbent upon Elections Canada, within their mandate, to be ready at any time to do this as quickly as possible.

Regarding the timeline of putting this into the bill, it seems very counter to the intentions of the bill. It seems counter to even the mandate of Elections Canada. Would you not agree?

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

Along that same line, in the event that Bill C-19 did not pass Parliament before the summer, and passed, let's say, sometime in September or October, it would then likely take 90 to 120 days from that point in order to implement the provisions of C-19, or would you expect that these provisions would be implemented by September, whether the bill passes or not?

[Michel Roussel]

Thank you.

I am pleased to reaffirm that. I would add, Madam Chair, that the Chief Electoral Officer had once indicated that it might take at least 120 days to fully and properly implement Bill C-19, so it will certainly be at least 90 days, to reassure the members.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I wonder if Mr. Roussel would reaffirm the comment that I believe he made at the last meeting, that to fully implement all of the provisions of Bill C-19, Elections Canada would require the full 90 days.

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

Mr. Roussel, can you confirm for the committee that when you're talking about Bill C-19—Elections Canada obviously and rightly has an important public health focus—that you don't consider turnout to be part of your mandate? When you comment on C-19, you're not providing comment on whether turnout would be likely to be better under a C-19 regime versus the existing regime.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 33 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-19.

The meeting will be webcast on the House of Commons website. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members can attend either in person or remotely using the Zoom application. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that taking screenshots or photos of your screen is prohibited.

Since I don't see anybody attending in the room, I will just remind everyone who's participating virtually to select your language of interpretation at the bottom of your screen. Ensure that you are on gallery view so that you can see the entirety of the committee. As well, you will have to mute and unmute yourselves throughout the meeting. Please raise your hand on the toolbar below if you wish to speak to an amendment.

(On clause 10)

At our last meeting, we left off with CPC-17.

Ms. Vecchio, maybe we can have you reintroduce it. I know that you already moved CPC-17. If you wish, you can speak to it again, just to give the committee a refresher on that amendment.

[Michel Roussel]

Thank you for your questions.

I would say first that Elections Canada is ready to deliver an election in the current context. We've made good preparation for that. That's the first thing.

Second, Bill C-19 has a lot of provisions to put in place, and we want to do things right. We want Canadians to trust the result of the next election.

I'm not in a position to make any commitments at this stage, and the Chief Electoral Officer would not want me to do that, to make any commitment to deliver things before the deadline that is found in Bill C-19, which is 90 days.

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

All that is to say that, if not availing himself of Bill C-19 was going to stop the Prime Minister from calling an election, I'd be very happy to support this. However, I don't think that's really factoring into his decision, unfortunately. I want to be in a position where, if there is an election called, this law can apply.

[Manon Paquet]

Clause 7 is in consequence to a change in the number of polling days. They are transitional provisions with respect to the reporting of third parties. After clause 6 comes into force and the repeal of part 22, it would allow for the transition from the three-day polling period back to a one-day polling period after Bill C-19 is no longer in effect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. This amendment seeks to amend sections 266 and 278 of the Canada Elections Act. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771:

...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since sections 266 and 278 of the Canada Elections Act are not be amended by Bill C-19 and no prior amendments have been adopted that would necessitate amending them, it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Just very quickly, I think C‑19 already, if I'm not mistaken, has within it that flexibility. If someone had registered for a special ballot and then wants to go in and physically vote at a polling location, it is already included. At least in the kit that was provided to us, it does require that an elector must attest that they have not already voted, sign a declaration to that effect or return their special ballot kit in person at their polling station or returning office. If I'm not mistaken, that's already in there. I think that provides the reassurance that the members opposite are looking for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I find that this is beyond the scope and the principle of the bill, because the amendment seeks to add the term “polling station”, among other things, to documents provided by Elections Canada or for statistical purposes. The addition does not seem to address the question of enhanced health and safety of electors or electoral officers.

The amendment also amends a section of the parent act not amended by the bill. Bill C-19 does not touch upon this aspect.

Ms. Vecchio, would you like to move to the next one or...?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Honestly, I thought this would be ruled out of order, because of the nature of Bill C‑19, which aims to guarantee election health safety. Perhaps Mr. Blaikie can explain it to me, but I don't see the connection between this amendment and elections in pandemic times.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You might not be surprised that, since it's similar to one earlier on, I find this to be outside of the scope and inadmissible.

Bill C-19 amends the Canada Elections Act. This amendment seeks to add that the Chief Electoral Officer must obtain agreement of the registered political parties represented in the House of Commons for any modification he wishes to make under proposed subsection 582(1). Since the Chief Electoral Officer is independent from political parties, the amendment is a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill.

That is my ruling.

Are we okay with moving forward? Thank you. I appreciate that.

We're now on CPC-12.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Chair, that's just what I was about to say.

If we don't want elections during the pandemic, I don't know why we're working on Bill C‑19.

[Michel Roussel]

Sure.

This amendment, accepting electronic signatures, is something that Elections Canada would have to be prepared to do within the deadline set within Bill C‑19.

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

First of all, I'd like to say that New Democrats do think that the option of phone voting in particular should be explored in the future. We heard very clearly from the disability community that they believe this would help enfranchise members of the disability community.

We also recognize that we're apparently on a short timeline. This is about what we can do in the context of the pandemic. We've heard from the CEO that he doesn't think it's feasible to be able to implement these things on the timeline that I think everybody is working under, whether that's this summer or sometime later in the future. I know that the Prime Minister said we're not going to have an election this summer, but even if it's in the fall or the subsequent spring, that's a pretty tight timeline.

If it gives my Conservative colleagues and others some comfort to add this to the bill, I don't....

I think there is a little bit of a philosophical difference here with my Liberal colleague. I don't think there's anything wrong with the legislature being prescriptive. I don't think our job is to simply give the maximum power to an arm's length organization and then trust them to make good decisions. I think it is appropriate for us to clearly signal what we think is the direction we would like to see those authorities go in and to provide some more substantial direction. In fact, in some cases, they would also appreciate that. For example, the Chief Electoral Officer believes that it's in his purview to do many of the things that are in C-19 under his current powers of adaptation, but he said that he would feel more comfortable having clearer direction from the legislature. That's the enterprise we're engaged in right now.

If it gives some comfort to my colleagues to know that these things would not be implemented on a short timeline in a pandemic and have that in the legislation, I'm happy to support it for that reason, even though I think that in the longer term these are things worth exploring.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Bill C-19 amends the Elections Act to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to extend time for doing any act to ensure the health and safety of electors or election officers pursuant to proposed subsection 17(1) of the bill.

This amendment proposes to disallow the Chief Electoral Officer from doing so in relation to voting hours or voting days at an advance polling station, or in relation to the voting hours during the polling period. As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” This would be deemed to be beyond the principle of the bill.

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

I appreciate that, Madam Chair, but both NDP-1 and NDP-3 were designed to give indigenous people across Canada access to voting in their own language. NDP-2 and NDP-4 were designed to pilot that initiative within Nunavut. The amendments work together as a pair.

Given that the committee has already expressed support for your decision to rule them out of order, I don't think it would behoove the committee to spend time to relitigate issues that have already been decided by the committee, given the limited amount of time we have and the importance of getting C-19 through committee today.

If an overwhelming number of members on the committee have changed their minds since our last vote and they would like to disclose that to the committee, I would be very happy to hear that. In that case, I'd also be happy to move those amendments. However, given that I doubt that is the case, I appreciate that we now need to move on to the other important issues that the committee will be considering today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Sure.

I just wanted to add for further clarification that the form of the actual ballot has not been mentioned in C-19 and is not touched by the bill. That's another hopefully clearer explanation as to why it's outside of the scope. The bill does not affect the ballot.

We'll go to the vote.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Ms. Qaqqaq.

Your words have had an impact on me, and I'm sure they have on others, as well. You're right in many ways. Hopefully, we can figure out a way to make this happen and make action happen.

Once again, like the previous ruling, this is found to be outside the scope of Bill C-19 and the principle of the bill.

Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

What I would like to add to Ms. Qaqqaq's remarks, just from my own experience here on the committee of having participated in the study of pandemic elections and then in the process up to now on Bill C-19, is that I think it's very clear, if you look at the study that the committee conducted and at some of the remarks that the government has made at this committee in respect of C-19, that the purpose of the bill and the things that we should take into account for consideration when we're talking about conducting an election during the pandemic certainly include public safety, but they also extend beyond that to ensuring that in a time when it's very difficult for people to vote—and we heard testimony from indigenous peoples at this committee during our study that there were additional barriers to voting because of the pandemic—we facilitate voting.

This is one thing that the committee might do and that Parliament might do through this bill, even as new barriers are being presented because of the pandemic, to eliminate some long-standing barriers at least on a trial basis.

I would argue certainly that it is within the scope of the bill, because I think the bill ought to be interpreted in accordance with that dual purpose of both protecting public health and safety, and facilitating voting and ensuring that people aren't disenfranchised at a time when it's arguably going to be more difficult than ever to feel comfortable casting a ballot. We have seen in the example of Newfoundland and Labrador, for instance, the effect that can have on an election.

This is the kind of thing the committee could do in the spirit of facilitating voting and avoiding the kind of aversion to voting that we saw in Newfoundland and Labrador and all the challenges that lower turnouts present to the outcomes of a democratic election.

With that in mind, Madam Chair, I would respectfully challenge your ruling and ask for a recorded vote by the committee on whether or not to sustain your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Ms. Qaqqaq.

I agree. It should have already been done. I think there are ways to maybe do this in the future as well, but I will read my ruling.

I'm following the procedure laid out in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice for amendments to legislation.

Bill C-19 amends the Canada Elections Act. The amendment seeks to add that all ballots must be printed in the provided indigenous languages. Since the bill itself does not address this issue, it is therefore beyond the scope of the bill. The amendment also amends a section of the parent act not amended by the bill. Therefore, it's beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

That's my ruling at this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Since this is a very important issue, I was wondering whether Ms. Lawson or anybody else could step in and explain what is being done to facilitate other languages and how Ms. Qaqqaq or any other members who wish to try to make this type of change for the future could do so without it being at this point in Bill C-19, since it is beyond the scope of Bill C-19 at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Ms. Qaqqaq.

I think it's very important for you to have explained your amendment.

You made a very powerful and moving speech in the House the other day. I was grateful to have been a witness to that.

On a more procedural issue, this committee has dealt with these issues in the past as well, with the fact that indigenous languages now can be spoken in the House and translation can be provided. I know that perhaps there are still some delays in making the requests and making sure we can have those interpreted on the spot. We can still do better with that, but it's an important step that this committee had taken in the past to make that possible. I do believe that ballots should be available in many indigenous languages.

As for Bill C-19, however, it is a temporary measure in order to make elections safer during the pandemic, and the original bill does not touch upon ballots being changed for this election. Therefore, after having consulted with the legislative clerk, it has been found that this amendment—along with amendment NDP-2—are beyond the scope and principle of this bill and are therefore deemed to be inadmissible as amendments for this bill.

That doesn't mean that.... We do have Elections Canada come and report to us after each election takes place, and I think it would be something that we should be considering as perhaps a change to the bill as is. Maybe Elections Canada officials or the legislative clerk, who is here today, could help explain what they think as to why they think this is beyond the scope of the bill.

[Mumilaaq Qaqqaq, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Matna. Thank you, all, and thank you for the opportunity. I really appreciate it and the time and space here.

We have thought of great things happening, and of course we know that in this amendment we're looking at indigenous languages and ensuring that we see that on the ballot. Bill C‑19 is about protecting democracy. It's about ensuring that indigenous peoples can be included in the voting process.

I look and think of my riding in particular where about 84% or 85% of the constituency is Inuk and where for the majority of those people, about 60%, their mother tongue is Inuktitut. That's not including whether or not they actually speak the language, that is just encompassing their first language. Nunavut in particular can be viewed as an already very indigenous language-based riding, if you will.

What we're talking about is expanding that and making that more entrenched in our actual policies and the things that we do to ensure that we can see indigenous peoples included in this democracy. Keep in mind that while I have spoken a bit about my riding specifically, there are ridings all across the country that are in the same situation. If we're talking about reconciliation and the need for promoting that, the need for promoting indigenous languages, this is an amazing opportunity of course to be able to do that as well, and it should quite frankly already have been something that's in place. I'm really glad that we're here at least starting the conversation and really have an opportunity to do some really cool stuff and create some change.

We know that the Commissioner of Nunavut has stated that indigenous people's voter turnout reduces when their language is not available on the ballot. We know that Minister LeBlanc acknowledged that a broad view is needed as to what's in the scope of Bill C‑19 and said that the government will not object to something beyond the scope of the legislation if it's designed to further our collective best efforts to come up with the right mix of measures.

Again, this is something that should already be available. We should already be encouraging this. If the federal institution is really invested in reconciliation, here's an action item that we can do to show that to the rest of Canada. We also need to ensure that indigenous peoples like the Inuit can be included in the democratic process.

It was basically on day one of my election where people thought it was my fault as a newly elected member of Nunavut that there was no availability for them to vote in their language. There were so many elders and others who came up to me who said, I wasn't sure if I even voted right, or I decided not to vote. We can't have that happen because people can't have those kinds of clear barriers, and we can be lifting those up.

I really look forward to seeing support for this. Indigenous language is something that is so incredibly important and should be a priority to everybody here on the committee. You have all seen me talking about reconciliation and those talking pieces. Here's an action item. Here is something concrete to do to make change. It's so important that we ensure Inuit and indigenous peoples are included as a part of the democracy.

Let's take it a step further and show them that Canadians also want to learn about indigenous people, want to learn about indigenous languages, want to promote those kinds of things and want to see pride in that. This is Canadian history. This is Canadian people where indigenous peoples are the first of this country. These are the original languages of Canada. Why aren't they on the ballot? Today is an opportunity to see some of that change, to see that availability to be able to actually make change and progress and move forward altogether.

Thank you so much again for the opportunity to be able to speak.

I'll just leave you with this. Imagine if your voters could not vote in English or French. That is very much a situation similar to what many indigenous peoples are facing.

I look forward to your support, and of course this amendment is about ensuring everybody is included in this process, and we want to ensure that happens to the best of our ability.

Thank you, everybody, and I look forward to that support.

Matna.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

For all those attending virtually, I'll just remind you to select your language of interpretation at the bottom of your screen. Raise your hand in the toolbar below if you would like to speak to something. If you have a point of order, just unmute yourself and state that you have a point of order.

Before we begin, I have a minor administrative matter to take care of. A request for the project budget was circulated to everyone. This is for Bill C-19. Did everyone see the budget for C-19? I was hoping we could quickly approve the budget before we proceed.

Is everyone okay with the budget that has been sent around?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 32 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-19.

The public portion of the meeting will be webcast on the House of Commons website. Today's meeting is taking place in hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Is the meeting taking place in camera?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(i) the Chief Electoral Officer—

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

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

[Stéphane Perrault]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. I appreciate that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

[Stéphane Perrault]

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

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

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

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

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you. That's very clear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Madam chair.

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

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

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

[Stéphane Perrault, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alleged Breaches of Privilege Presented in the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry. My hon. colleague from Jonquière is absolutely right. I mentioned it, but I used my inner voice. I was unable to speak because my lips were zipped. It happens sometimes and I am very sorry.

You are very kind, Madam Speaker, to give us a chance to share our time. You will not regret it because the member for Jonquière is a great orator. You will be impressed by what he has to say.

Now, for the matter at hand. That reduced the amount of time we would have liked to have in the House. Of course, we must understand that these are extraordinary circumstances. In addition to the pandemic, which is complicating the work that we do in the House and in committee because of limited resources, there is something else going on. I will give my colleagues the scoop. They will be impressed by what I know. We are in a minority Parliament. No one seems surprised to hear that, I see.

This means that an election can happen at any time. Some may expect, and I say so with due regard, that elections may perhaps be called in August, September or October. Over the weekend, the Prime Minister appeared on different television stations. It is as though the Liberals are getting ready. It is as though he had put on his running shoes. It may not mean that he is going to call an election, but it might be about that. Now, we are going to prepare for an election.

There are lots of irons in the fire. A lot of documents are on the table and they just need a little push to be passed. In some cases, it represents the fruit of almost one year's labour. Some bills have been waiting for a long time, and we must try to pass them so we can say that our efforts bore fruit. That is always rewarding.

The Liberals recently told us that they have priorities, including Bill C‑6, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to conversion therapy, Bill C‑10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, Bill C‑12, Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, Bill C‑19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with regard to the COVID‑19 response, and Bill C‑30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1. Those are the government's absolute priorities.

The Liberals also have two other priorities that they would like to refer to committee. I will not speak at length about them, but I am talking about Bills C‑21 and C‑22. We need to move these bills along.

For reasons it has already given, the Bloc Québécois absolutely wants Bill C‑10 to be passed by Parliament and the Senate, because that is what the cultural sector wants.

Madam Speaker, you know Quebec as well as anyone. You are the member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert, and there are surely artists in your riding who have called and asked you to help get this bill passed because Quebec's cultural vitality depends on it.

Quebec's culture is very important; it is the soul of a nation. This bill must be passed. Quebeckers are calling for it, the Quebec National Assembly has unanimously called for it, and my colleagues know that Quebec's cultural sector is waiting for this bill. We want to be able to accomplish this goal we have been working so hard on.

Unfortunately, we must face the fact that the Liberal Party is in power. I have been in Parliament for a year and a half. I was expecting to be impressed. I thought it would be impressive to see 338 members of Parliament capably and efficiently managing a huge country. As I watched the Liberals manage their legislative agenda I was disappointed on more than one occasion, and even very disappointed at times. They did not seem to want to get anything done. It never seemed as though they were taking things seriously.

For example, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs worked very hard on Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act regarding the COVID-19 response. We held 11 meetings and heard from 20 experts at all levels, and we finished drafting the report after the Liberals had introduced the bill.

If I were a sensitive guy, I might have thought I had done all that work for nothing. It might have hurt my feelings. Think of how much work went into coming up with solutions to help the government draft a smart bill. Instead, the government chose to introduce its bill before the committee had even completed its study, without even looking at what we had to say. To top it off, the government waited another three months to bring it up for debate, and that debate lasted just four hours.

Then it decided to move time allocation because the matter was suddenly so urgent despite the fact that the government spent just four hours on it over the course of five months, choosing instead to engage in three months' worth of obstruction at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which wanted to move the bill forward but was working on prorogation and had asked the Prime Minister to appear.

Once the obstruction was over, we asked if we could carry on with our work, but the government accused us of delaying the committee's work when it was actually the Liberals who stalled things. Once again, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had to get to work on Bill C‑19 at the last minute.

That is how the government is managing its legislative agenda, and I could go on about that for hours. On Bill C‑10, the committee wanted the ministers to appear but the government stalled, forcing the committee to wait and obstructing the committee's work. When we were finally able to begin, we were like excited puppies waiting for visitors, but the government said we were too late. However, it is the government that has created the problem we are facing today. We are being squeezed like lemons, and the government thinks that if the committee members are not studying an issue, there is something wrong with them. This is what happens when the legislative agenda is not managed properly.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois will support this motion because we want to move things forward for Quebec.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Since I have a number of questions, I would kindly ask the minister to keep his answers as short as possible, in the spirit of co-operation.

Bill C‑19 contains a slew of measures that would authorize the Chief Electoral Officer to take certain measures and disregard others. That would give returning officers greater power, would it not?

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

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Minister, or I guess good afternoon, depending on the time difference.

Earlier in your introductory remarks and since then, in some of the answers to questions that committee members have put, we've heard of the importance of some of the modifications that Bill C‑19 would allow in the context of a pandemic election. I wondered if in light of that and in light of the importance of the content of the bill, your government is prepared to commit to not calling an election unilaterally prior to the provisions of Bill C‑19 being in place.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

In that case, I'll ask you a simple question, and we can come back to this later, if you don't mind.

Right now, the number of COVID‑19 cases is dropping significantly and the vaccine rollout is going well. If that continues and an election is called in the fall, are you still going to move forward with Bill C-19?

I am genuinely curious, because we are really moving in the right direction. Is it possible that you might withdraw Bill C-19?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Therrien. It's a pleasure to see you again, even if it is virtually.

Quite the contrary, we were very much aware. Privy Council staff, people in my office and I, myself, followed the committee's proceedings. We spoke with our fellow members on the committee, so we were very much abreast of what was going on. We paid close attention to what the witnesses you mentioned had to say.

We decided to bring forward a draft bill just a few days before Christmas. I say “draft” because, as we all know, in a minority Parliament, the final product is the result of consensus among members. In order to start the conversation, we thought it was appropriate to introduce a draft bill that largely took into account the recommendations that followed and the input of the witnesses, which we took note of throughout the process.

We know that the members of the committee and other members will likely propose amendments and changes. As a government, we are more than willing to listen to suggestions aimed at making the bill better or perhaps addressing certain aspects that are not sufficiently dealt with in Bill C‑19.

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

Thank you, Minister, for being here today for this important meeting on Bill C‑19.

I'm a bit stunned to hear Mr. Nater asking questions that are outside the context of Bill C‑19, while we're all, in good faith, working out solutions for the election, and while Mr. Lukiwski is concerned that you're here for the full hour of the meeting. This committee will be cut short, and your very important presence will be cut short, by the Conservatives who are playing a political game in the House right now that will interrupt this meeting. I find that deplorable.

Let us get straight to the point. You talked about the broad strokes, but you know that I am particularly concerned about seniors. We know that seniors are the people who have been most affected in terms of long-term care during this pandemic.

What would be the consequences for seniors if Bill C‑19 were not passed before the next election?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's all the time we have for that round.

If I can remind the committee, the minister is here on Bill C‑19. We don't have a lot of time to get the valuable information we need in order to make the recommendations needed. There was an opportunity to invite the minister on estimates, where there would have been a broader scope, and I know that Mr. Nater is genuinely interested in these matters, so I did allow that leeway, but I would hope that we can refrain from that and really home in on Bill C‑19 going forward.

Next we have Mr. Lauzon.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Chair, thank you for inviting me. Good afternoon. It's the afternoon in Fredericton, New Brunswick, where I am today.

Good afternoon, colleagues. I'm pleased to appear before your committee, before PROC. I was a member of PROC for a number of years, so I am familiar with the good work your committee does. It's a privilege for me to be here to discuss Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with regard to the COVID-19 response.

Bill C‑19is our government's response to one of the priorities that the Prime Minister entrusted to me, namely to work with all Parliamentarians to ensure the passage of any amendments necessary to strengthen Elections Canada's ability to conduct an election during the pandemic and to allow Canadians to vote safely. Obviously, the time during which we work with you and hear your views on this issue is important to our government.

As the chair indicated, I am joined by two senior officials of the Privy Council Office, Al Sutherland and Manon Paquet. They will be available to answer technical questions or to offer a perspective that perhaps I'm not able to contribute.

We are fortunate to have a robust legislative regime in the Canada Elections Act and a world-class electoral management body in Elections Canada, which celebrated its 100th anniversary just last year.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been among the most challenging issues in generations, leading to far too many deaths and severely affecting vulnerable people around the world. Governments have, in turn, been forced to take unprecedented steps to stem the virus's spread.

While Canadians have demonstrated incredible resolve, they need to know that in spite of the pandemic, an election can be administered in a way that is safe, secure and accessible to all. Indeed, this topic has seized the attention of all elected officials and election bodies, as evidenced by the Chief Electoral Officer's call for temporary changes to the act and by your timely study, which put forward several recommendations in support of a safe election in these challenging times. We followed them closely and reflected them in many ways in Bill C-19.

Bill C-19 proposes changes that protect the health and safety of Canadians while allowing them to exercise their democratic rights. A three-day polling period will spread electors out and support physical distancing and other public health measures at polling stations. The three-day polling period specifically recognizes Monday as a voting day. We believe this to be important. Maintaining the Monday voting day recognizes that in some circumstances people might not be able to vote because of a religious obligation over the weekend and that public transit, together with child care options, may be more limited over the weekend. Thus, we thought keeping Monday as a voting day was important. Simply put, we're providing electors with as many opportunities as possible to vote should there be an election during the pandemic.

Bill C-19 would also support a safe vote in long-term care facilities and in facilities for persons living with disabilities. Sadly, as one of the most at-risk populations, the residents of these facilities have been gravely impacted by the pandemic. I think all of us were touched by some of the very difficult stories of COVID-19 in the context of long-term care homes. Bill C-19 would provide enhanced flexibility to election workers through a 13-day period during which they can work with long-term care facility staff to determine the most opportune dates and times to deliver the vote in those facilities.

To be clear, this does not mean that voting in long-term care facilities would take place over 13 days; it merely means that facilities would be able to determine for themselves the appropriate window for their residents to safely cast their ballots. This will support a vote that is safe for the residents, the election workers and the staff in these homes.

Holding a general election at any time requires an organizational tour de force. Canada is a large and diverse country, with 338 electoral districts of varying sizes and composition. In times of pandemic, the task is all the more daunting.

Public health circumstances across the country continue to evolve, pointing to a clear need for increased legislative authority for Elections Canada to react to any specific circumstance that may arise across the country in a particular electoral district. Accordingly, Bill C-19 would provide the Chief Electoral Officer with enhanced adaptation powers to adapt provisions of the act in support of the health and safety of electors and those working or volunteering at the polls themselves.

We have seen that jurisdictions across the country and around the globe have had elections during the pandemic and have seen a steep increase in mail-in voting. Research conducted by Elections Canada indicates that potentially up to five million electors may choose to vote by mail if there were an election during a pandemic.

At the federal level, Elections Canada has delivered this system safely and securely for decades, and there are important safeguards designed to maintain the secrecy and the integrity of the vote. Nothing in Bill C-19 would change that. In fact, we're proposing targeted mail-in voting measures to strengthen a system that we expect will see a surge in usage. Among its proposals, Bill C-19 will allow electors to apply online for a mail-in ballot and will establish secure mail receipt boxes across all polling stations for voters to drop off their ballots. To maintain the integrity of the vote, Bill C-19 includes strict prohibitions on installing or tampering with secure mail reception boxes.

Lastly, I would like to stress that the mail-in ballots cast within electoral districts will continue to be counted locally. As honourable members know, there was a drafting discrepancy between the English and French versions of a provision in Bill C-19 that made its meaning unclear. As a result, we will bring forward an amendment correcting this unfortunate error during the committee's clause-by-clause study of this bill. As you are aware, the Speaker ruled that this error can be corrected by the committee in studying the legislation.

Madam Chair, in conclusion, I would light to highlight three points.

First, these measures would be temporary, only applying in the event of an election held during an ongoing pandemic. These measures would cease to be in effect six months, or at an earlier date determined by the Chief Electoral Officer, after a notice that the Chief Electoral Officer publishes in the Canada Gazette that indicates the measures are no longer necessary in the context of COVID-19. This notice would obviously only be issued following consultations with the chief public health officer.

Second, the long-term care measures and adaptation powers would come into force immediately upon royal assent. The remaining measures, including the three-day polling period, would come into force 90 days following royal assent, or earlier, should the Chief Electoral Officer be satisfied that all the necessary preparations are in place.

Finally, Madam Chair, I would like to reiterate that our government is committed to working with all of you on the committee and with all members of the House of Commons to ensure that this legislation can be amended if it can be improved, but to ensure its passage as quickly as possible.

Madam Chair, thank you. I hope I haven't run over the time. I'm really looking forward to seeing some old friends who serve on your committee and to answering questions.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 29 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

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

This portion of the meeting will be webcast [Technical difficulty—Editor] Only the speaker will show on the screen, not the entirety of the committee.

Pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021, members can attend in person or virtually. I believe all members are attending virtually at this point.

Just as a reminder, mute and unmute yourselves and check your interpretation language. Make sure that it's selected and you're ready to go.

I don't have any other real issues to bring up at this time. However, I will, if I can, take five or 10 minutes at the end of the second portion of the meeting to take care of some committee business. That is expected.

Before us today we have Minister Dominic LeBlanc, president of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. With him are Allen Sutherland, assistant secretary to the cabinet, and Manon Paquet, director of special projects at the democratic institutions secretariat.

You can proceed with your opening statement, Minister. Thank you for being here today.

Extension of Sitting Hours in June

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I value the comment. I, like a majority of members inside the House of Commons, want to be able to sit these extra hours to ensure that we can contribute more to the debate on a wide selection of the very important issues I referenced, such as the environment with respect to net zero, the budget, the support of the Bloc to get Bill C-10 out of committee, which is so critically important, or the importance of the Bill C-6 legislation or Bill C-19. There is so much that is there that we can, through these additional hours, allow for more direct input from political entities in our respective parties and the individual opinions that members might want to express on the floor that reflect the concerns of their party or their constituents. At the end of the day, what we really want to be able to do is provide Canadians the types of supports they need to get out of this pandemic and at the same time—

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

Madam Speaker, I am very glad that we were able to get to this point. I am concerned and disappointed, even in the last half-hour. I think we need to realize that, although members of the Conservative Party will say they want more debate time, in reality nothing could be further from the truth. I would argue that ultimately the Conservatives have been very much a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. I would like to explain why it is so important that we pass the motion that the minister of procurement has just presented.

The pandemic really challenged all of us. We needed to find new ways to get the job done, the job that Canadians have been very much relying on us to do. We gradually brought in a hybrid Parliament to ensure that MPs could do their job from wherever they are in the country. This was so it would be inclusive, whether they are up north, the west coast, the east coast or in central Canada, like me here in Winnipeg. We found ways for the House to debate and pass legislation that would ultimately help Canadians during the pandemic. Many bills were passed to ensure that millions of Canadians had the funds that they needed to put food on their table, pay the rent, cover mortgages and so on.

We have a number of pieces of legislation before the House in one form or another. I would like to give some examples of the legislation that are in limbo because the Conservatives are more interested in playing political games than they are in serving the best interests of Canadians. I would like to highlight a few of those pieces of legislation and then make a point as to why this particular motion is necessary.

We have seen motions of this nature previously. I have been a parliamentarian for 30 years now, and I have seen it at the provincial level and at the national level. Political parties of all stripes have recognized that there is a time in which we need to be able to bring in extended hours. In the most part it is meant to contribute to additional debate and to allow the government to pass important legislation. That is really what this motion is all about.

Looking at the last vote we just participated in, it would appear as though Bloc members, New Democrats and Greens are in agreement with the members of the Liberal caucus that we need to sit extra hours. My appeal is to the Conservatives to stop playing their political, partisan games and start getting to work.

There is nothing wrong with sitting until midnight two to four times between now and mid-June. Stephen Harper did it. He had no qualms moving motions of this nature. Yes, we will also sit a little extra time on Friday afternoons. I believe Canadians expect nothing less from all members of the House.

When Canadians decided to return the government in a minority format, it was expected that not only we as the governing party would receive a message, but also that all members of the House would receive a message. The Conservative opposition has a role to play that goes beyond what they have been playing and what we have been witnessing since November or December of last year. I would cross the line to say that it is not being a responsible official opposition.

I spent well over 20 years in opposition. The Conservative Party, with its destructive force, is preventing the government of the day and other members, not only government members, from moving the legislation forward. I appeal to the official opposition to not only recognize there is a genuine need to move this legislation forward, but also recognize that, at the end of the day, we extend hours to accommodate additional debate.

My concern is that the Conservatives will continue the political, partisan games, at great expense to Canadians. I will give an example. Bill C-30 is at report stage and third reading. We were supposed to debate that bill today. Chances are that we will not get to that bill today. We have not been able to get to other legislation because of the tactics of the official opposition, the reform Conservative Party, as I often refer to it.

The last budget legislation was Bill C-14. The first female Minister of Finance of Canada presented an economic update to the House back in late November, and the legislation was introduced in December. For days, the Conservatives would not allow it to pass. This was legislation that helped businesses and Canadians in many ways, yet the Conservatives saw fit to filibuster it. Bill C-30 will pass. It is budget legislation. It is not an option for the government.

Bill C-12 is the net-zero emissions legislation. If members canvass their constituents, they will find out that it does not matter where they live in Canada, our constituents are concerned about the environment and are telling all members of the House that we need to do more. Bill C-12, the net-zero emissions bill, is very important legislation. It answers, in good part, the call from Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

To a certain degree, we have seen a change in attitude by some Conservatives with their new leadership. Some in their caucus do not support it, but the leadership agrees that there is a need for a price on pollution. They seem to be coming around, even though they are five, six or seven years late. Surely to goodness, they would recognize the value of the legislation. Bill C-12 is stuck in committee.

What about Bill C-10? Bill C-10 would update very important legislation that has not been updated for 30 years, since 1990 or 1991. Let us think of what the Internet was like back in 1990. I can recall sitting in the Manitoba legislature, hearing the ring, the buzzing and then a dial tone. We can remember how slow it was.

I will tell my Conservative friends that things have changed. Now all sorts of things take place on the Internet. This is important legislation. The NDP, the Greens and the Bloc support the legislation. The Conservatives come up with a false argument, dig their feet in and then say they are not being given enough time, yet they have no problem squandering time.

Thankfully, because of the Bloc, we were able to put some limits on the committee, so we could get it though committee. If the Bloc did not agree with the government and with that concurrence, it would never pass the committee stage. There is absolutely no indication that the Conservatives have any intent of seeing Bill C-10 pass through committee stage.

If members have been listening to the chamber's debates in regard to Bill C-6, they have heard the Conservatives disagree with another piece of legislation. They say they do not support mandatory conversion therapy, and they are using the definition as a scapegoat to justify their behaviour on the legislation. Once again they are the only political entity inside the House of Commons that is preventing this legislation or putting it in jeopardy. The leadership of the Conservative Party might think one thing, but the reality is that the behaviour of the Conservative Party has put Bill C-6 in limbo.

I could talk about Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. Members know that the Conservatives have been using firearms as a tool for many years. Even when I was an MLA in the mid-nineties, I can remember the Conservative Party using firearms as a tool, and nothing has really changed. The bill is still in second reading. There is no indication at all that the Conservatives are willing to see that piece of legislation pass. Members can check with some of the communities and stakeholders that are asking and begging not only the government, but also opposition parties, to let this legislation pass.

That is not to mention Bill C-22, which is about criminal justice reform. That is another piece of legislation that, again, the Conservative Party has given no indication it intends to let see the light of day or go to committee.

Another piece of legislation that is important not only to me, but should be to all members of the House, is Bill C-19. I understand this important piece of legislation is going to committee tomorrow, but if we apply what we have seen at second reading to the committee stage, it is going to be a huge concern. This bill would give Elections Canada additional powers to administer an election in a safer, healthier way for voters and for Elections Canada workers. It is a good piece of legislation. I am somewhat familiar with it because of my role as parliamentary secretary to the minister, who I know has worked very hard on bringing this legislation forward and wants to see it passed. It is a piece of legislation on which the Conservatives have said we should have more debate.

The government attempted to bring this legislation in a long time ago. It tried to get it to committee a long time ago. One day I was ready and primed to address Bill C-19, and the Conservatives' game at that time was to bring in a concurrence motion, because if they did that they could prevent debate on Bill C-19. That is what they did, and it was not the first time. The Conservative Party does not even recognize the value of it. It is a minority situation. We do not know when there is going to be an election. It seems to me that the responsible thing to do is to get Bill C-19 passed. As I say, it is at the committee stage today. I hope that the Conservative Party will see the merits of passing that bill out of the committee stage.

At the beginning of the pandemic, there seemed to be a greater sense of co-operation. From the very beginning, the Prime Minister has been very clear: He and the Government of Canada have had as their first priority minimizing the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and being there in a real and tangible way for Canadians. That is for another speech in which I can expand on the particular argument the Prime Minister put forward.

We can do other things. We have seen that in some of the legislative initiatives that we have taken. As I say, at the very beginning there was a high sense of co-operation and the team Canada approach applied within the House of Commons. The Conservatives started falling off the track last June. One year later, there is no sign that the Conservative Party recognizes the value of working together.

I would remind my Conservative friends that, as we in government realize, it is a minority government. If someone gives me 12 graduates from Sisler High School, or any high school in the north end of Winnipeg, whether it is Maples Collegiate, Children of the Earth High School, R.B. Russell Vocational High School or St. John's High School, I can prevent the government from being able to pass legislation. It does not take a genius to do that.

We need co-operation from the opposition, and the Conservative Party has been found wanting in that. It has not been co-operative in the last number of months. I find that shameful. Obviously, the Conservatives are not listening to what Canadians expect of them. In fact, what we have seen is delay and more delay, to the point that it becomes obstruction.

Conservatives have obstructed the work of the House as it has debated Bill C-14. If I were to draw comparisons, I would compare Bill C-14 and Bill C-3. Bill C-14 is vitally important to all of us. Canadians needed Bill C-14 passed, but look at the amount of debate and filibustering we had from the official opposition.

On the other hand, Bill C-3 was also a very important piece of legislation. All parties supported it. In fact, the initial idea came from the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. Everyone supported it. We spent many hours and days debating that piece of legislation, when we could have been debating other legislation. Not that the other legislation was not important, but we all know there is no time process outside of time allocation to get government legislation through. That is in a normal situation, when we have an opposition party that recognizes the value of actual debate of government agenda items that they should pass through, but they did not. Instead, they would rather debate it.

We have moved motions to have extended sittings in the past to accommodate additional debate. I say, in particular to my Conservative friends, that if they are going to behave in this fashion they should not criticize the government for not affording time to debate bills. What a bunch of garbage. They cannot have it both ways. I appeal to the Conservative Party to recognize true value. They should work for Canadians and let us see if we can make a more positive contribution and start working together for the betterment of all.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, if I could just clarify, I wasn't intending to propose a timeline. I was actually trying to confirm that this seemed to be where the conversation was going and that my understanding was correct that maybe some consensus was building around that. Perhaps I was wrong.

I think what you're saying and what I've heard back is that no decisions have been made yet and we need to discuss that after dispensing with this. I'm obviously a little concerned about whether this delays the work on Bill C-19. That's something I'm reflecting on. I think that's really important. It does seem that it may have that effect. That's what I need to think through and perhaps talk about with my colleagues.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

There's been no decision on that timeline.

Ms. Vecchio was suggesting that after the report is done, in that period while translation and stuff is happening, we could have a meeting. We could do what you have proposed, but I feel like we're putting the cart before the horse right now. This is stuff that we're supposed to discuss after we've passed these motions and we start the study. If we do find ourselves having it completed, then of course we could move on to Bill C-19 very quickly. That is something we can discuss in terms of timelines and how we organize ourselves, at some point.

We have a link set up for an in camera meeting today, and hopefully we'll get to use it for some review of the body of the report.

Mr. Nater, you had a comment as well.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Nater.

I just wanted to clarify. In terms of this discussion about dates and how we use time and organize our work, we're basically saying that on June 8, we'd work on the report. On June 10, we'd work on Bill C-19. On June 15, we would finalize the report and table it on June 18.

Am I understanding that correctly?

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

I just wanted to add to that.

With the subcommittee, these are the things that we do need to look at—the witness lists—so perhaps a subcommittee should be scheduled so that the preliminary work on Bill C-19 could get started outside of the regular committee. That's another suggestion as well.

[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.

[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.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleague from the Bloc to comment on the absurd inconsistencies that the government is highlighting today. First, the government seemed to want to litigate Bill C-19 when it brought in closure, and now it claims not to want an election but refuses to work with opposition parties to find consensus in what is a minority Parliament.

I am curious if the member would agree with what I am increasingly hearing from pundits and many political observers, that the Liberals are refusing to accept that Canadians only gave them a mandate for a minority government, but they continue to drive down the path thinking they have a majority and trying to utilize a national, global crisis like a pandemic to further their political agenda.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have big shoes to fill in following my colleague from Shefford, who is always eloquent and on point. It is my turn to congratulate her on her speech.

It is unbelievable. I am somewhat appalled to see our Liberal colleagues speak so passionately in this debate on Bill C-19. I think that, had he known they were so passionate about the subject, the Prime Minister might have thought twice before forcing closure on it. It seems to me they really need to talk about it.

I believe we are all of one mind in saying that a pandemic is not the time to hold an election. The motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois today is plain common sense. It simply reminds us that an election was held in October 2019, that 1.3 million Canadians, including almost 360,000 Quebeckers, have been infected by COVID-19, that nearly 25,000 people have died as a result and that, in the opinion of the House, holding an election during a pandemic would be irresponsible, and the government must make every effort to ensure that it does not happen. It is a common sense motion.

I get that the government wants to be ready in case the opposition parties decide to bring it down. That is the cheap excuse the government is using, but we are not naive, and neither are Quebeckers. The only reason the Liberals want to pass Bill C-19 is that they expect an election in the coming months. I think it is as simple as that.

I think it is irresponsible of the government to even be thinking about an election, never mind doing everything it can to blame it on the opposition parties. I think that is the height of cowardice. Under normal circumstances, yes, there would probably have been an election this year, or maybe even before now because the Liberals, quite frankly, are just not rising to the occasion. They do not seem worthy of the trust that voters placed in them.

There are some fairly recent examples, like that of the Minister of National Defence, who took no action on allegations of sexual misconduct against the former chief of the defence staff, and the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages, who did nothing to save French-language programs at Laurentian University. She even said that her government would take action to reverse the current anglicization of Quebec. We are still waiting. In the meantime, Quebec had the time to come up with its reform of Bill 101, which was introduced today.

Another example that is very important to me is that of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who has difficulty putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to greenhouse gas reductions. In fact, his actions encourage businesses to increase their emissions. For example, he granted exemptions to DuPont and Owens Corning, which are manufacturing giants. These exemptions let them ignore the new standards established by his own department for the manufacture of XPS insulation board. I mention this because it was done to the detriment of companies such as Soprema, which is a well-established company in my riding of Drummond that has suffered huge financial losses just because it agreed to comply with these new standards.

There is also the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who has been in the hot seat a lot recently. He still has not come up with a solution to the urgent problem facing our print media, which have been suffering for years because of GAFAM, which is taking advertising revenues on the backs of our journalism content creators. This is to say nothing of the current impasse on Bill C-10 and how the government is managing that file.

In fact, the only minister who did something and took full responsibility was the former minister of finance. I am talking about when he resigned, of course.

If this government knew how to collaborate, listen and govern in a minority context, it would not have such a hard time convincing us of its good faith. Instead, rather than listening to the criticisms and comments of the opposition parties, it prefers to act like a two-year-old child.

When kids are two or three, they go through a phase of saying no. The Liberals are going through that phase right now. They say no to health transfers. They say no to increasing the old age pension starting at age 65. They say no to a single tax return for Quebec. They say no to applying the digital services tax to Netflix, Amazon Prime and other subscription-based content streaming companies. They say no to print media, as I just mentioned.

In fact, they say no to good suggestions from the Bloc Québécois, but those good suggestions will likely become more appealing at election time because we know that the Bloc Québécois proposes things that reflect the interests and demands of Quebec.

I experienced this “no” phase with my own children. They went through it. It is so annoying. It is tiresome and counterproductive. They are so stubborn that there is no way to make them listen to reason. That was at age two. Now we are stuck with a government that is in its “no” phase.

If there is an election during this pandemic, we can conclude that all of the measures announced in the budget were probably meant to become election promises. There is nothing concrete. The government simply made announcements without any follow-up. The Liberals have been doing this since well before the 2019 election.

One example is that the government is promising an inadequate increase to old age security in 2022. Their motto seems to be “why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?”

The government announced $1.3 billion to support the cultural and tourism sectors. The government had the opportunity with its budget implementation bill to include a number of proposed measures to support the cultural and tourism sectors. These sectors would finally have gotten the money they so urgently need. However, the government did not do this.

Two years ago, the Prime Minister promised that his government was going to plant two billion trees by 2030. That comes out to 200 million trees a year. That announcement sounds great, but I do not think that many trees have been planted so far. In fact, I am not even sure there have been many shovels in the ground since 2019.

Since we cannot count on the Liberals for that, I thought maybe the 184 opposition members could give them a hand. According to my calculations, if we decide to do the work for them, every MP will have to plant 10,869,565.2 trees. I do not want to brag, but I have already planted two trees in my yard, and I believe my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert has planted one or two as well. We are ahead of the game. Other MPs will have to catch up with us because there is a long way to go.

As Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in his book, The Prince, to govern, one must make others believe. The Liberals have read the book, and they are putting that theory into practice.

According to a Global News study published on April 18, 57% of voters feel that an election during the pandemic would be unfair. Another survey, this one by Leger, shows that 60% of Canadians do want an election, but they want it to happen later, at least after the fall.

The opposition parties are not the only ones against holding an election in a pandemic. Over 22 million Canadians feel the same way. The Liberals have been getting ready to trigger an election for a while now. In an article published in Le Devoir, journalist Boris Proulx wrote that, in the fall of 2020, candidates under consideration received invitations, in the form of letters addressed to them, to run under the Liberal banner. In the same article, he wrote that, in a year-end interview with CBC, the Prime Minister let slip the words “next year's election”, referring to this year. Either his subconscious is playing tricks on him or plans have been laid.

Why is the government in such a hurry to call an election? I use the word “hurry” because Bill C-19 has been languishing on someone's desk for four months now, and suddenly, the government leader put it on the agenda, with only four hours of debate and time allocation. We are not the only ones wondering about this. The media has often talked about the Liberals' intentions, wisdom or opportunism in trying to trigger an election.

In January 2021, Louis Lacroix, a Cogeco Media host, said that, if he were prime minister, he would want to hold elections as quickly as possible, because once the vaccine begins to have an impact a few months from now and the pandemic starts to recede, we will have time to analyze all these programs and spot the mistakes that were made, which will come back to bite the Prime Minister.

The government would like to have an election because things are getting better and better. The vaccine rollout is generally going well, and we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

In closing, I will repeat what Bernard Drainville, a radio host on 98.5, had to say. On Monday morning, he said that if the government wants to change the election act, it must seek as broad a consensus as possible. He also mentioned that changes were made unanimously in Quebec.

What the the Bloc Québécois is proposing is to have the leaders of the four parties meet to discuss the proper way to do things and reach a consensus, as befits a subject that is so important to the people we represent. It is just common sense.

The Bloc Québécois has always been clear about what it expects for Quebeckers. When the government criticizes us for voting against the budget, that makes me feel quite cynical because we have always made it very clear that we would support the budget if it included an OAS increase for seniors 65 and up and higher health transfers, which Quebec and the provinces were unanimous in calling for. The government knew that it would not get the Bloc Québécois's support without those things.

The Bloc said in advance what it wanted. Its demands were transparent. When it votes against a budget that does not contain those things, whose fault is that? Is it the Bloc Québécois's fault? I think not.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from La Prairie, who is on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, did a great job of explaining this morning that there was a minor disagreement within the Liberal Party. The committee members all supported the idea that there should not be an election during the pandemic, but the Liberals ended up introducing Bill C-19 with a gag order. It is an affront to democracy, and proposing an election bill with a gag order is contradictory. Even members of the Liberal Party recognize that.

Again, there was a simple solution. We could have reached a consensus. Why was this not done? Why is the way things are done in Quebec being ignored?

That is how we do things in Quebec. We reach a consensus.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on this Bloc Québécois opposition day to speak to the important issue of elections during a pandemic.

The motion reads as follows:

That:

(a) the House remind the government that a general election was held in October 2019 and sadly note that more than 1.3 million Canadians...have been infected with COVID-19 and that nearly 25,000 people have died as a result;

The critic for seniors adds here that seniors were the first victims of this pandemic, and that the government should not try to use them in a cheap election ploy by promising them a one-time cheque for $500 in August, just before its target period for launching the election during the pandemic. I will continue reading:

(b) in the opinion of the House, holding an election during a pandemic would be irresponsible, and that it is the responsibility of the government to make every effort to ensure that voters are not called to the polls as long as this pandemic continues.

This afternoon, I will address this issue from three perspectives. First, I will explain the theme we chose for our opposition day, then I will put on my former journalism student's hat, and finally, I will put on my former political science student and confirmed social democrat's hat.

To begin with, I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois does agree with one thing. If there is an election during the pandemic, adjustments will have to be made to ensure that polling takes place in compliance with the public health rules issued by Quebec and the provinces. That is the question though: Should there be an election?

We moved this motion today for several reasons. From a technical perspective, the bill is flawed and contains significant grey areas we have to discuss and debate. From a public health and ethics point of view, holding an election under the current circumstances is not responsible. Here is a specific example.

As the Bloc Québécois's critic for seniors, I am concerned. The bill provides for polling stations in residences for 16 days before voting day. Somehow or other, election workers would have to be there for 19 days. That is not necessary, and we would have liked to change that. Voters have a number of different ways to cast their ballot. If they cannot go to a polling station, they can always vote by mail, as usual.

In addition to the logistical issue, there is also the psychological issue around strangers being in these homes and constantly asking people to vote. We do not yet know exactly how it will unfold, but it is not hard to imagine.

Furthermore, as a former journalism student, I always pay attention to what commentators have to say. I will quote a few of them to show that this is not just a whim of the Bloc, as the other parties would have people believe with their rhetoric. Rather, our motion today is based on the concerns of the people of Shefford who wrote to me, as well as those of other Quebeckers and Canadians.

First, there was Mario Dumont on QUB radio. This is what he said on his show on May 10:

I remember that, at the National Assembly, the advisory committee of the chief electoral officer was meeting in camera because they did not want to have public grandstanding and bickering over the Quebec Election Act. They said that the parties had to agree first…

Invoking closure to pass new election rules for an election that is only a few weeks away is not a good thing…

This may be difficult to understand for the Liberals, who have a tendency to ignore the specifics relating to Quebec and its National Assembly.

Furthermore, on the May 10 episode of La joute, Emmanuelle Latraverse said that wanting to amend a law without going through Parliament was against the rules of our electoral system, which encourages seeking consensus.

The irony is that the Liberal Party has put a gag order on a bill to amend the elections legislation, but the Liberals made a big fuss when the Harper government tried to pull the same stunt. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The Liberals have only themselves to blame for the timing of this legislation. I could name several others who have spoken out in response to what they have heard on the ground.

Still in the media world, in order to gauge public opinion, Ipsos conducted a poll for Global News on April 18, 2021, so relatively recently, and found that 57% of voters believed that an election during a pandemic would not be fair. A Leger poll on April 16, 2021, found that only 14% of Canadians wanted an election this spring, 29% this fall and 43% later. Liberal voters are even more hesitant. Only 6% want a spring election and 26% want a fall election. Sixty percent want it to be later. That is a huge number.

Finally, as a former student of politics, I am very worried. It is well known that every crisis carries two main risks. One is the federal government interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, and the second is austerity for the recovery. This could be disastrous, especially for our health care system.

I would add to that the serious risk of eroding our democratic systems. That is why it is inconceivable that a government is imposing time allocation in Parliament on a bill meant to frame the democratic rights of the people.

Let us not forget the context for introducing Bill C-19. Since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, there have been questions about holding an election in this particular context given the minority status of the current government. Using the current provisions of the legislation, general elections were held in New Brunswick, British Columbia and Saskatchewan and two federal by-elections were held in Ontario.

Then there is the example of the provincial election in Newfoundland and Labrador. We all know what happened there. That election illustrated the risks of holding an election during a pandemic. The rise in the number of COVID-19 cases forced the cancellation of a polling day and the shift to mail-in voting.

In 2019, 61% of Newfoundlanders voted and that rate fell to not quite 51% in the last election, which tarnishes the legitimacy of a government. We need to do what we can to have the highest voter turnout possible. That is what should happen. In a federal election this type of scenario could have a considerable impact on voter turnout.

Let us now continue with our timeline. On October 5, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada tabled a special report with his recommendations for holding an election during a pandemic. On December 8, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs released a report entitled “Interim Report: Protecting Public Health and Democracy During a Possible Pandemic Election”. The Bloc Québécois issued a supplementary opinion, proof of its usual willingness to collaborate.

The government ignored the work of the committee and introduced its bill to amend the Canada Elections Act in response to COVID-19 on December 10, 2020. For his part, the Chief Electoral Officer considered a range of administrative measures to adapt to operations during a pandemic.

I am going to discuss the impact of COVID-19. Since Bill C-19 was introduced five months ago, we have had only four hours to debate it. Finally, last Friday, the Leader of the Government in the house of Commons indicated that he intended to move a time allocation motion, or closure, with respect to Bill C-19 on the following Monday, May 10, 2021.

After a 45-minute debate on the gag order, there was a vote. The Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party voted against the gag order but in favour of sending the bill to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This was followed by three hours and 15 minutes of debate, primarily on the gag order. The Liberals let this bill languish and now they are rushing it through at the end of the session, as we approach the summer break and a drop in their polling numbers.

Furthermore, running a Canada-wide mail-in vote presents some significant logistical challenges and could prevent some people from exercising their right to vote.

In conclusion, the Liberals' gag order on C-19 shows that they plan to call an election during the pandemic. That is how pundits are interpreting this unnecessary legislative manoeuvre. The Liberals are telling us that their political agenda comes before getting everyone vaccinated, helping our economy recover and lifting the health measures and stay-at-home orders. This will not all be wrapped up with a wave of a magic wand at the end of the summer.

I repeat, nobody wants an election. The Bloc Québécois wants all the party leaders to meet, reach a consensus and find common ground. Yes, the Bloc Québécois is a party of ideas.

In our democratic system, we are well within our rights to make demands of the government. The government's job is to listen to opposition proposals to make Parliament work.

We wanted health transfers to go up to 35% of total health spending. That is what Quebec and the provinces called for during the health crisis. We wanted an extra $100 per month for seniors 65 and up. Our asks are perfectly legitimate and absolutely essential. The government chose not to take them into account in its budget, so it is responsible for the fact that we voted against that budget.

We have always said that if it is good for Quebec, we will vote for it, but if it is not good for Quebec or if it is against our interests, we will vote against it. We made our intentions clear well in advance.

If the government had been sincere, it would not have hidden everything or tried any excuse to trigger elections to gain a majority. It would have listened to us and would not have settled for a budget that announced a host of electoral promises. In fact, many of the measures it announced will not be rolled out until 2022, after the next election. Is that a coincidence?

My leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, reached out to the government and suggested organizing a private meeting, inviting anyone the government chose. They could have met in an office and tried to reach a consensus, without resorting to closure—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity today to discuss this opposition motion that was introduced by the member for La Prairie. It is a very important discussion to be having, and I have been listening closely to what members from all sides of the House have had to say about this.

I will admit I am perplexed, as I mentioned in a few different interventions today. Despite the fact that I am squarely in the camp of those who do not want to have an election during a pandemic, I am concerned about the manner in which this motion is being brought forward by the Bloc Québécois. Namely, only two days ago during question period, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, said in response to a question from the Prime Minister that he was not afraid of an election and to bring it on.

The Conservatives and the Bloc seem to be startled by the concept that we would like to be prepared in the event of an election, one that could easily be triggered by the opposition. They seem to be confused by that, yet we have the leader of the Bloc Québécois saying to bring it on. This is what he actually said during question period. When the leader of the Bloc Québécois, a party that quite often is put in the position of being the party that decides between going to an election and not, makes comments like that it gives a great need to be properly prepared and bring forward legislation as is being brought forward in Bill C-19.

I also find it very interesting that the Bloc Québécois has talked about consensus when talking about Bill C-19. There is a need to ensure we have consensus when changing our election laws in this country. Bloc members have mentioned it many times today, but this is extremely hypocritical.

Something else that relies tremendously on consensus in the House is changing our Standing Orders. For those who do not know, when we change the Standing Orders, the rules that govern how we debate in the House, how we conduct ourselves and how we follow procedures, they are usually changed with consensus. Only a year ago, the Bloc Québécois teamed up with the Conservatives, the NDP, the Green members and probably the independents at the time to change the Standing Orders and change the number of opposition days given.

Bloc members come in here and say that we need consensus for Bill C-19 and that there absolutely must be consensus among all parties. However, their actions a year ago when it came to changing the Standing Orders indicated that consensus was not needed because they had a majority. The rules could just be changed with their majority. I find it extremely hypocritical when the Bloc comes in here and starts preaching about consensus.

Of course the response to that suggestion, as I heard before, is that the rules were only being changed temporarily to add those three days. They were not being changed indefinitely. Guess what? Bill C-19 is just a temporary bill. It would temporarily be putting some temporary rules in place in the event that an election happens to get called.

The Bloc really needs to stand up. Somebody needs to stand up and explain to me what the difference is between consensus on Bill C-19 and consensus on Standing Orders. From my position, the only difference is the Bloc's opinion on the matter and its desire on the outcome. We need very important measures in place during a minority Parliament in the event that an election happens to be called, and people change their minds all the time.

The Conservatives right now are saying that they do not want an election, but I sat in the House for five years when the Conservatives said that they did not want carbon pricing. Guess what? They changed their minds on that. Who is to say that they will not change their minds on an election? Maybe, in the event that the Conservatives suddenly say they have changed their minds, as they did on carbon pricing, and that they want an election now, we should have some measures in place on how our Chief Electoral Officer should run an election. That is all that Bill C-19 would do.

Members have been saying it is a permanent change to our election process. I have heard Conservative after Conservative say that we are changing the way that Canadians vote and other misleading information, such as that we could count the ballots until the day after the election, which is totally false. One small exception built into the legislation talks about if an election happens on a holiday Monday when mail is not delivered, then there should be a consideration to count those ballots on the Tuesday morning because they would not have been delivered on the Monday. However, the Conservatives talk about a massive shift in the way that we run elections and count ballots, and about counting ballots after election day.

Think of the possibilities of that happening. There are only so many holiday Mondays during the year, and if it happened it would only be because the mail was not delivered. However, there is a deeper problem to this. When people start making comments like that, when they start talking about counting ballots afterwards, it starts to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of Canadians as it relates to the integrity of their elections. Did we see that anywhere else recently? I think we did. Not that long ago, our neighbours to the south had a leader who sowed the seeds of doubt for months. I think all members of the House would do very well to be very careful when it comes to sowing the seeds of doubt about our electoral process.

Members need to be up front. If they have a problem with the fact that under certain circumstances ballots might have to be counted on a Tuesday, if the Monday was a holiday, they should at least identify that is the case. They should not outright say that all ballots will be counted after. They could then take it to committee and see if the committee could look at how to fine-tune that, but they should not intentionally sow the seeds of doubt in Canadians. I will say I am skeptical on this, because when PROC was studying this in the spring I was on the committee and indeed, Conservative members at the time were sowing the seeds of doubt. I would refer members to David Akin's reporting from back at that time, where he specifically said as he was watching the committee meeting that Conservatives were sowing seeds of doubt about the validity of mail-in ballots.

Bill C-19 is really about temporary measures. It is about putting measures in place just in case. I have also heard numerous members in the House talk about the Liberals being the only ones talking about an election. The member for Calgary Nose Hill said that. I encourage anyone to go on to the Twitter and Facebook feeds of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, and tell me who keeps talking about an election. The Conservatives shared a tweet yesterday. As if there was nothing else to get political gain from, they shared a tweet of a meme that had two pictures in it. The top picture was a bunch of people having fun and dancing in the sun. Above it, it said a one-dose summer.

The picture below that was of a middle-aged man with an oxygen mask on his face, lying in a hospital bed. The caption above that said “Trudeau's summer”. I am referencing it. I am quoting it. I maybe should not have said that. I am happy to be corrected.

However, that is what it said. My point is, who is looking for an election right now? Who is trying to gain political points right now? Go no further than the social media feeds of the two political parties, and we will see who is talking about an election.

We have the Conservative Party blasting out these tweets that are politically motivated. We have the Bloc Québécois whose leader said in the House, two days ago during question period, “bring it on,” in reference to an election, and then opposition members are standing here trying to wrap their heads around why it is we want to be prepared with Bill C-19. It really should not be a mystery to anybody.

If that does not convince Canadians, how about the fact that on 14 occasions, Conservatives and Bloc members have voted non-confidence in the government? It happened on March 8, with Bill C-14; on March 25, with a concurrence motion to pass supplementary estimates; on March 25, with Bill C-26 at second reading, report stage and third reading; on March 25, with concurrence on the interim supply; on March 25, with Bill C-27, which was more interim supply. All of these were confidence votes. On April 15, there was the fall economic statement, Bill C-14; on April 21, there was the budget motion; on April 22, the budget motion amendment; on April 26, another budget motion; on April 30, there was the motion to introduce the budget implementation act. Time after time, opposition members are voting against the government and showing they do not have confidence.

I will hand it to the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who said earlier in his intervention that it was necessary for somebody to work with the government. I will hand it to the NDP: It works with the government from time to time. We used to see that in the beginning, a little, from the Bloc as well. We totally do not see that anymore. The NDP still does, to a certain degree.

I know I am getting towards the end of my time. I want to highlight one more thing with respect to the motion. If we look at the “second resolved clause” in this, it says:

In the opinion of the House, holding an election during a pandemic would be irresponsible, and that it is the responsibility of the government to make every effort to ensure that voters are not called to the polls as long as this pandemic continues.

I agree with this. Actually, I agree with the motion by and large. What I disagree with is that it is only the responsibility of the government. I believe that this is the responsibility of all of Parliament. The government certainly has its job to do in making sure that we can avoid an election to the best that we are humanly possible, but the opposition has a responsibility to do that as well. The opposition plays a key role here in a minority Parliament. It could very easily take down the government, as I have indicated numerous times throughout my speech. I think it is important that what is reflected in this motion is the fact that the opposition has to play a role in that too.

With that, I would like to move an amendment to this opposition motion presented by the member for La Prairie, and I hope it will garner the support of this House. It is seconded by the member for Kanata—Carleton.

I move that the motion be amended by adding, after the words “responsibility of the government”, the words “and opposition parties.”

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the discussion around Bill C-19, I cannot understand why the Conservatives and the Bloc continue to harp on this point of receiving mail-in ballots until the day after an election. That is not true. The only situation where the act suggests it would be appropriate to receive mail-in ballots the day after is if the Monday is a holiday. Every time the Conservatives or the Bloc bring it up, they make it seem as though it can be done no matter what. Does the member agree that it perhaps contributes to the lack of trust in the mail-in ballot system?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on the Bloc Québécois's opposition day.

Opposition days are few and far between, and therefore it is important to choose a very specific topic to debate. Most of the time, we ask ourselves the following questions. What do electors want? What subjects do the people we represent want to see their representatives debate? What is important to them? What is important to them in these difficult times?

On a few occasions, we have used opposition days to call for an increase in health transfers for Quebec and the provinces because the needs of our health care systems are acute. In a health crisis, everyone, except perhaps the Liberals, seems to agree that health is the logical priority.

We used one opposition day to demand that EI benefits for people with serious illnesses to be extended from 15 to 50 weeks. Many Quebeckers are experiencing this type of discrimination, and they want their elected officials to fight for that.

We also took advantage of an opposition day to demand that the government increase old age security by $110 per month for all seniors 65 and over. That is what seniors across Quebec are asking for. They are also telling us that people aged 65 to 74 need it just as much as those 75 and over.

On an opposition day, we usually ask ourselves the following question: What do our constituents want? This time, the question is more like, what do they not want? They do not want a federal election called in the middle of a global pandemic. It is as simple as that.

By introducing Bill C-19 and imposing a gag order, the government is pushing us to debate, in a very limited amount of time, an issue that the majority of the people who elected us do not want to hear about. The Liberals know as well as we do that the opinion of voters is fundamental. However, they are turning a deaf ear.

An Ipsos poll conducted on April 18 for Global News found that 57% of electors believe that an election during a pandemic would be unfair. As my colleagues have said over and over again, people are already overwhelmed with the day-to-day management of the pandemic. An election is most likely the last thing on their list of priorities.

Voter turnout is low enough as it is, so calling an election now is extremely risky for several reasons. It is not just us or our constituents saying this. Everyone is saying it. The leaders of the three opposition parties are saying it, and even the Prime Minister has said it. He has repeatedly stated that he is not interested in holding an election and that nobody wants an election during a pandemic.

The problem is that, unfortunately, no one believes him, considering that the government introduced Bill C-19 and imposed closure. No one in Quebec believes him. No political analyst is buying it, and no one thinks it would be a good idea to call an election until the situation is stable. People like Mario Dumont, Paul Arcand, Bernard Drainville, Emmanuelle Latraverse, Pierre Nantel and Mathieu Bock-Côté come to mind. None of them think that triggering an election is a good idea.

If everyone agrees on that right from the outset, including all the opposition parties, the Prime Minister himself and most of his Quebec ministers, who said publicly that no one wanted an election, then no one should have a problem voting in favour of our motion. It is so simple. It reminds us that a general election was held in October 2019. Some might say that feels like yesterday, but it may seem longer to the government because it is a minority.

We are quick to forget one thing, which is the current environment. The country is going through one of the worst health crises in its history. Since March 2020, more than 1.3 million Canadians have been infected with COVID-19 and nearly 25,000 people have died as a result. It is for this simple and very important reason that holding an election during a pandemic would be downright irresponsible. We believe it is the responsibility of the federal government to do everything it can to avoid sending voters to the polls for as long as we are in a pandemic. So long as the crisis has not subsided and the situation has not stabilized, that would be not only irresponsible, but also dangerous to the health of our fellow Canadians.

I can already hear Liberals telling us that it is also the responsibility of the opposition to make every effort to ensure that voters are not called to the polls. Who gets to decide which votes are confidence votes? Is it the government or the opposition parties? Who can go to the Chief Justice of Canada or the governor general to call an election? Is it the government or the opposition parties? Who can dissolve Parliament? Is it the government or the opposition parties? The answer is obvious. It looks like the government is confusing the executive with the legislative.

I do not know about my Liberal colleagues, but it would make me feel very uncomfortable to go knocking on people's doors to talk about an election at a time when they cannot even have their own family members over, at least in Quebec. Many of them have children who have to do their schooling at home. Some of them still cannot reopen their businesses. Others have lost their jobs, because the company they worked for closed down. Some are health care professionals who are at the end of their rope or family caregivers who have been unable to see their parents for weeks.

Worse still, perhaps they themselves were infected with COVID-19 and will suffer the effects for the rest of their lives, or they have lost a loved one to the virus. That is what they are concerned about right now. They need a government that cares more about them and their needs than about its own re-election.

As my colleagues have said before me, the Bloc Québécois agrees with the government on one thing. If an election were to be held during a pandemic, adjustments would have to be made to ensure that polling takes place in accordance with the health rules set out by Quebec and the provinces.

However, from a public health and even an ethical perspective, calling an election in the current environment is not a responsible decision. From a technical perspective, Bill C-19 contains major flaws and inaccuracies that must be discussed and debated. From a democratic standpoint, it is completely inconceivable that a minority government would impose time allocation on Parliament regarding a bill intended to provide a framework for the democratic rights of citizens.

I am sure you will have guessed where we stand on this, Mr. Speaker. That does not mean we are acting in bad faith. The Bloc Québécois did propose a compromise to address this issue. The Bloc Québécois leader invited the Prime Minister to set up a private meeting with the leaders of all the parties at which they could reach a consensus and then honour that consensus instead of invoking closure. What was the Prime Minister's response? He says he does not want an election, but he keeps trying to shove a bill that would enable a pandemic election down our throats. Is that not ironic?

I think this shows a blatant lack of judgment and a failure to grasp the situation. I would even go so far as to say that taking steps to trigger an election in the short term shows a lack of empathy for voters. That is why the Bloc Québécois moved this motion today.

I could spend hours talking about why, from a public health and safety perspective, it would be a bad idea to trigger an election. However, I also want to talk about what is in Bill C-19, such as provisions for polling in seniors' residences. The bill provides for 16 polling days, 16 days during which election workers would be on site in every long-term care home and residence. We think that is unrealistic.

Another thing that bothers us is the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots. For instance, Bill C-19 would allow Elections Canada to receive mail-in ballots until the day after polling day. We think that is unjustified and would only delay the release of the election results.

That is not to mention the issue of voter turnout. A Leger poll conducted in early March found that less than a quarter of Quebeckers and Canadians would want to vote by mail if a federal election were to be held soon. According to the poll, it would take a good awareness campaign to get people to accept that this way of voting is secure. The majority of voters prefer to vote in person. It would be unfortunate if the pandemic led to a drop in voter turnout, which is already low, I might add.

Under Bill C-19, voting would be held over three days, with eight hours of voting on Saturday, eight hours on Sunday and 12 hours on Monday. However, if the vote is held on a Monday, a change of venue might be required for that day, making it very difficult to organize the whole thing.

Confidentiality is another one of the Bloc Québécois's concerns. Mail-in voting is generally safe, but the voter can be identified if the ballot is viewed or handled. That is why it is always better to exercise the right to vote in person. In addition to preserving the integrity and secrecy of the vote, it also promotes the symbolism behind the socially committed act of voting.

All these concerns have to do with the technical considerations of holding an election during a pandemic, but let us get back to basics, to the reason behind today's motion. From a public health perspective, holding an election during a health crisis is, and I cannot say this enough, an irresponsible choice. In fact, if there is one thing that all parties and every leader in the House can agree on, it is that it is inappropriate to hold an election during a pandemic.

What is even more important, however, is that the Quebeckers and Canadians we represent do not want an election. They have made this very clear. We must listen to them, respect them and ensure that they will not be forced to the polls while we are combatting COVID-19.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak today to this proposal by the Bloc Québécois on this, our opposition day.

This is a proposal that goes to what may be the very heart of our political commitment, that is, the expression of democracy itself. There are several components and several things to say about this proposal. There would also be several things to say about Bill C-19.

Today, it has come down to us making a common sense proposal that no election be held while the pandemic is at its peak, which has yet to be confirmed. By definition, we never know what the future holds. The first wave was strong, the second was even stronger, and the third is bringing particularly harmful variants that are more dangerous and more contagious. With each wave, we told ourselves that it could not be worse than what we had just come through, but unfortunately we were wrong. Such are the vagaries of public health and the life we have been living for a year now.

I feel it is a shame to present a motion on something that is just plain common sense. This motion is not even binding. If the situation changes and the need for an election becomes palpable, it will still be legal to hold one. That is not the issue. This motion is really an affirmation of good old common sense: we all understand, collectively, as a political class, that the priority is not to hold elections. It seems to me that should be obvious.

However, evidence of the government's desire to trigger an election is piling up. Unfortunately for the Liberals, they are always forced to put it off. If it were not for this third wave today, which is especially bad in Ontario, a province we know will be hotly contested, we would not be here right now. We would all be in our ridings, campaigning. There is not a shadow of a doubt about that.

In January, when the House resumed after the holiday recess, several newspapers reported that the government had asked its party and its riding associations to be at the ready and to prepare for an imminent campaign. It was not the Bloc Québécois saying it, but some very serious newspapers.

I feel it is a shame that, because we are raising this issue, the government has nothing better to do than to pass the buck to us, saying that it is the Bloc Québécois that often votes against the government. I have news for the government: as my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé said earlier, this is a minority government. It is the government that often decides that a given matter will be a confidence vote. That is called blackmail.

I will take the example of the Bloc Québécois's amendment to the amendment to the budget bill. As a reminder, we proposed an increase in the pension for seniors and an increase in health transfers, and the government told us that it would make it a confidence matter. Here is a minority government that says it does not want an election, that criticizes us for voting against it when there are confidence votes, but that itself turns important votes into confidence votes.

The government is telling us that, if a majority of the members of the House impose a policy that the Liberals do not want, it will not respect democracy or the constitution of this democratically elected Parliament that, in the current context of a minority government, gives the upper hand to the opposition, which has a majority. The government tells us that there will be an election, and then blames certain opposition parties for wanting to trigger the election. This is rather odd and ethically dubious.

There are more and more signs, and I think there is no doubt that the government wants to call an election. Let me give Bill C-216 as an example that is very important, particularly for my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. I raised a point of order on it a few days ago.

The government agreed to vote in favour of the bill to embarrass the official opposition. Since then, however, it has done everything it can to ensure that, contrary to custom, the bill does not receive priority consideration at the Standing Committee on International Trade, on which I sit.

The government expressed circumstantial, partisan and temporary support for this bill, figuring that if it delayed the study of the bill as much as possible, it would not make it back to the House before the next election. The government thinks that it will win a majority in the next election and that this will all be ancient history, but that it will not have come off looking all that bad in the meantime.

We have seen it before. We were not born yesterday. This shell game is quite elaborate, but we know exactly where the government is going with this.

I want to get back to the gag order that was imposed on a debate about an act that is fundamental to our democracy, the act that sets out the rules by which Quebeckers and Canadians choose their elected officials.

Questions about holding an election in this particular context will obviously come up, since the current Liberal government has a minority. If the government had a majority, we can assume that this pandemic would have ended before the next fixed election date. Since the government has a minority, however, an election could be called at any time. As I was saying, there would be an election right now. If not for the third wave, we would not be in the House because Parliament would have been dissolved.

We have no problem with an election being held before the health situation improves. We said as much last fall. We said that we needed to put rules in place and we invited the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, or CEO, to come up with a formula. We were the first to say it. Elections must obviously be held as safely as possible. That is not the issue. Democracy should not be suspended because of the health crisis.

Nevertheless, I want to point out that Bill C-19, regarding potential elections during a pandemic, was introduced last December and completely ignored the study previously done on this issue by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It even ignored the CEO's recommendations from November 2020. The government only brought the bill back up for debate in the House on March 8. Five months have passed since the bill was introduced, and barely four hours have been allocated for debate in the House. I repeat, only four hours to review the Canada Elections Act.

Suddenly, last Friday, we got a surprise. The issue just so happened to become a national emergency, to the point where a gag order was imposed with support from the NDP to limit debate and speed up passage of the bill. In the end, we spent as much time debating time allocation as we did debating the bill. It is outrageous when I think about it.

This bill would make fundamental changes, including giving the Chief Electoral Officer additional powers and replacing election day with three polling days. That means voting day would stretch out to three days.

Notwithstanding the merits of the various measures in this bill, such changes to such a fundamental act must not be made under time allocation. We are talking about changing the rules governing the expression of democracy. This should not be done under time allocation, which is a procedure used exceptionally to limit democratic debate.

In any case, everyone is saying that they do not want an election, so there is no point. What is the rush? Where is the emergency? We would like to understand.

Considering the examples I gave earlier, no one believes that the Liberal Party does not want an election. I want to reiterate that we are calling for all the parties to meet up, to replace the gag order with an amicable agreement to reach a consensus on election laws. Let us not waste our time. Let us acknowledge today that we have more important things to do than to call a snap election.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear on at least one of the points the member raises.

If the opposition is going to continue to vote non-confidence in the government, it would be irresponsible for them not to have measures in place to protect Canadians. Bill C-19 is necessary, because of, in good part, the behaviour of opposition members and the potential real threat of an election. It is not this Prime Minister or this government that has been talking about an election. It has been opposition parties doing that. We continue, day in and day out, to ensure that Canadians' backs are being covered and taken care of during this pandemic.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would commit, as much as possible, to ensuring that Bill C-19 ultimately gets through and passed because I believe it is in the best interests of all Canadians to see it passed. To that extent, I would encourage members of the PROC committee to deal with it as soon as possible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises concerns that would be best addressed and very easily addressed at the committee stage. That is the reason I think members of the House should encourage PROC members of all political stripes to put Bill C-19 first on their agenda, which would be my recommendation. For example, with regard to Monday versus Tuesday, there is a consideration for whether an election is taking place on a long weekend, which might have some consequences for a Tuesday.

The detailed answers my friend is looking for could probably be provided to him at the committee stage. As I indicated in my comments, the government is very much open to ideas that would improve the legislation.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I'll repeat what I just said. I'd like to thank Mr. Lauzon behalf of everyone for having given us some time to speak. I know that he had a lot to say, but I'd like to thank him for having passed the puck to us. It was very kind of him.

My apologies to Mr. Turnbull because I hadn't noticed earlier that he came before me on the list. I hadn't intended to take his place. Quite the contrary, because I always like to hear what he has to say.

I'll be brief. I think that Mr. Blaikie's motion is a step in the right direction.

The number two person in the government did in fact come. My view is that on matters like these, the House leader is really number two. I have a lot of respect for the Deputy Prime Minister, but the House leader is responsible for House procedures. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Rodriguez. Unfortunately, when he appeared before the committee—and I already mentioned this, but simply want to reiterate what I said—he was unable to answer the existential questions that needed to be asked to understand why the government had prorogued Parliament.

. This leads me to believe that if number two cannot give us the information we need, then we need number one to come and see us if we are to do our work properly. We have a mandate to study the prorogation, and I know that here on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we are professionals and know that beyond partisanship, we have work to do. If we want to get it done, then the Prime Minister has to come and answer our questions.

I commend Mr. Blaikie's approach. If we could meet with Mr. Trudeau for at least an hour, we could wrap up the study of the prorogation and then move on to Bill C‑19.

That would suit me. I believe it's important and it would open the door to the only opportunity we have to do our work as well as possible. Having Mr. Rodriguez here convinced me that without Mr. Trudeau, it would be impossible to do an intelligent analysis of the prorogation.

That's all I wanted to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I absolutely do. It is a good suggestion.

I'm bound to follow the list. Right now we have Mr. Lauzon, Mr. Turnbull and then it's you, Mr. Therrien. Perhaps now that you have intervened and made your suggestion, it will be up to the next speakers on the floor to maybe keep their comments short and pass it on to you if they wish, but that's the speaking order I have right now.

Mr. Lauzon has the floor. Then it's Mr. Turnbull and then it's you, Mr. Therrien, followed by Mr. Long and Mr. Simms. If Mrs. Vecchio wishes to speak, she could be at the end of that speakers list as well, or whoever from her party.

I will also just let everyone know that on the issue of the prorogation study, the draft report—the incomplete draft report, if you want to call it that—is complete thus far, so don't get too upset. I'm not saying it's the final report that I'm about to submit or anything like that. Of course not. It's just that the translators have translated what the analysts have compiled for us thus far, and that is ready to go.

If more witnesses are to be added, those would have to be added and then translated. Everything we've done up to this point is ready for us to view. If the committee wishes to view it thus far, that's something you could do as well. I'm just throwing that out there as something we could do if the committee wishes.

Of course, as the speakers have mentioned, Bill C-19 has been referred, but of course we have the amendment and main motion to take care of, I believe, before we get to that point.

I just thought I'd make a bit of an announcement to let you guys know that both of those things are waiting for us on the sidelines, if we want to take a look at them.

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

Once again, this is directly linked to the amendment suggesting that the Prime Minister appear next week. First of all, we all have good reasons to move on to something else and secondly, it's impossible on such short notice for the Prime Minister to come. We appreciate Mr. Blaikie's work, but the time periods are unreasonable or even impossible.

To manage a national pandemic in a country like Canada requires negotiations with other countries, like the United States at our borders, and with indigenous peoples. That's significant. It's extremely important to speak about the things we need to address and allow the Prime Minister enough time to come. I admire Mr. Blaikie's work. He has previously stated the reasons why he wanted the Prime Minister to come and also said that he wanted it to be in the week following the adoption of the motion. No responsible government could demand that from its prime minister.

The third wave we are currently experiencing, in spite of a vaccination process that is going extremely well and is even accelerating, shows how important it is for us to continue to work together and to set partisanship aside for the good of Canadians.

Madam Chair, I'm not going to change my mind on this. You may tell me that it's not related to the motion that was introduced; but I'm sorry, the information I have in hand shows that the motion should be delayed so that we can do other extremely important things.

There are some facets of Bill C‑19 that we need to analyze quickly. If I remember correctly, there is a voting period of 13 days…

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I just want to get back on topic, which is this amendment. I recognize that Bill C-19 is sitting at the door, and it is this filibustering that is holding up all of the opportunities to get to Bill C-19, so perhaps we can get back to Mr. Blaikie's motion, or considering his amendment to that, and get back to it.

I understand that this will probably be overruled, but at the same time, let's get back to the real business of what we're doing on this.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Once again, I'd like to thank everyone for being here today.

We made progress as members of this committee and can now see some daylight. Before giving you my own comments, I'd like to thank Mr. Blaikie. He took the time to give us a clear explanation of why , in his proposed amendment to remove the paragraphs following paragraph (a), he wanted the Prime Minister to appear in the week following the adoption of the motion.

I took note of a number of points in Mr. Blaikie's comments because he took the time to properly explain things. He clearly said that he wanted to know whether the prorogation was tied to the WE Charity or to the pandemic. That was at the beginning of his statement. The committee did look into this from the outset, with witnesses, with the presence of Pablo Rodriguez, and with all of the questions we had to deal with about whether the WE Charity or the pandemic was the reason for the prorogation.

Things have changed since then. Time moves quickly in politics. The Ethics Commissioner's report clearly showed that the Prime Minister had no links to the WE Charity, which in turn had nothing to do with the prorogation. The report cleared the Prime Minister, leaving us with the other option—the pandemic. If the pandemic was not a good reason to prorogue Parliament, I now find myself wondering what other reasons for doing so there could possibly be.

If I remember correctly, Mr. Blaikie also came up with an argument about a confidence vote that doesn't hold water. Allow me to explain. Mr. Blaikie mentioned that Canadians did not want an election. He also said that no one wanted an election in the summer and that these were all things for which the prime minister is accountable. However, that's not really the way things work. It's true that a minority government always depends on a vote of confidence or a vote on a budget or a budget statement, a throne speech or various other reasons for opposing a government. One can be forced to call an election, and it is the prime minister's prerogative to go to the Office of the Governor General to request one. However, it's wrong to say that it is solely the prime minister's responsibility.

If the parties work together, an election during the pandemic, and during the summer while waiting for people to be vaccinated, can be avoided. That's not only a prime minister's responsibility, it's the responsibility of the government, and the opposition has an extremely important role to play when it's a minority government.

Everyone knows that political jousting is involved and that the prime minister is not the only person to decide when there will be an election, which is why Bill C‑19 is so important.

No one around this table wants an election or an election campaign to begin next week. However, if there were one, then as a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I would feel irresponsible not to have gone ahead with the study of Bill C‑19. I believe that it's very important.

I'd like to speak to you about something that is essential to the proper operation of Parliament under a minority government. We really all want the same thing, which is to provide better support to Canadians. It's extremely important for the various parties to work together effectively. We currently have an amendment before us. From the outset, I have argued vehemently that the Prime Minister is in the middle of managing a crisis caused by a pandemic. The Prime Minister has an extremely busy schedule. We could always knock on his door and ask him to come and speak to the committee, but doing so at such short notice is almost impossible for him. The wording of the amendment and the motion makes it extremely difficult to require the presence of a Prime Minister who is tied up dealing with a pandemic.

I'm not closing the door. We are continuing with our work, Mr. Blaikie. My colleague Mr. Turnbull demonstrated this clearly in his amendment with respect to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Minister of Finance. That would have shown that we were very open to suggestions. Mr. Turnbull's amendment showed that there were many possible ways of getting answers to our questions and producing a good report. We would have had a better chance of getting the Deputy Prime Minister to appear, even though she too is very busy during this pandemic. She is of course also very busy as Minister of Finance. Wearing two hats is very demanding.

We were ready to move ahead. It's simply a matter of governing properly. I respect all the decisions that this committee will make. We voted against Mr. Turnbull's amendment and I have already moved on to the next one, from Mr. Blaikie.

This pandemic has gone on for just over a year now, and we could not have predicted where we would be now. I gave a presentation this morning about tourism and people were saying they would like to have a longer-term outlook. We would, six or seven months ago, liked to have had long-term forecasts so that we could better plan things like tourism and reopening the borders.

A pandemic doesn't come with an instruction manual. We're here to make decisions based on public health recommendations and we are going to continue to do so.

When we found ourselves in the middle of a pandemic, we didn't think that the priorities of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would still be the same as those on the list, which we were lined up to deal with at the outset. The priorities are no longer the same today. Sixteen months ago, who could have guessed that the top priority now would be Bill C‑19 in the post-pandemic period?

We need to begin working on how to manage a future pandemic or disaster. We need to focus on those areas where we are likely to be successful. We need to write down what happened now, because it's still fresh in our minds and were still living through it. Now is the time to finalize the reports, and to archive the committee's data and experience so that it can become better in future at managing another pandemic, or even a flood, like the one that occurred in my riding.

We can learn a lot from what we did. Bill C‑19 remains a priority.

I understand why Mr. Blaikie is saying that he would like to turn the page, but from that to wanting the Prime Minister to appear here within a week is rather a stretch. He's all over the place at the moment. Everyone wants to see him. He has an extremely busy schedule. You can't mess with the Prime Minister's schedule like that. I would rather have him managing the country than appearing here before the committee to answer questions about the scale of the pandemic or about the WE Charity. People say they want to know whether he's guilty, even though we all know that he's been cleared by the Ethics Commissioner. I'm still standing my ground, but I agree with Mr. Blaikie when he says we need to vote, at which time I'll decide how to vote. That's all there is to it.

Lately, unfortunately, some people appear to have forgotten that we're in a pandemic, and I find that deplorable. Not only that, but Dominic LeBlanc sent a letter to the leader of the official opposition about the importance of collaboration among the parties because, as we all know, the Conservatives used procedural tactics in the House to slow down debate over Bill C‑19. And here we are with Bill C‑19 is now before us.

As I was saying, Bill C‑19 is upon us. The bill will make it possible for Canadians to vote safely if there is an election. I've heard people speculating about specific dates for the election. We don't have an election date. We don't even have an election calendar. Some are saying that the election will be held this summer, while others are saying that it will be in September. Many journalists have been making predictions based on their own analyses. I'm amused by all this, because I don't have a date. Our priorities are the safety of Canadians, managing a country, and having as many motions as possible adopted before the end of this parliamentary session. This committee has important work to do. We all know that time is slipping by, which means that it's important to prioritize the various matters at hand. I'm pleased to say that thus far, in spite of everything, we've been able to move ahead with this bill.

We've set aside Mr. Turnbull's amendment. I've got over it already. Now, there is another amendment on the table. We need to discuss it because I feel that what Mr. Blaikie has suggested is a compromise. He worked very hard on it, not only in terms of document disclosure, the hours and weeks of work that were required, testimony from the two Kielburger brothers, etc.

We know now that Mr. Blaikie has put some water in his wine.

I'm worried about the timing. It's very difficult for us to ask the Prime Minister to change his schedule and appear here within a week. He needs to meet provincial representatives on a regular basis. We are still negotiating various things with the provinces and territories. There is also the status of the indigenous territories and we are all aware of the Prime Minister's involvement in this issue. In the House this morning, there was another speech at 10 a.m. It never stops. The Prime Minister is in great demand. I'd like him to come and pay me a visit, but he can't. His schedule is too busy.

I'm still of the opinion that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, could have come and spoken to us at greater length about the need to create a recovery plan and a collaborative approach by the parties that would help Canadians. She's an extraordinary and open-minded woman who generates optimism when she speaks. I'm certain that the Honourable Chrystia Freeland could add some very interesting points.

I'm convinced that she could have spoken to us about the need to step back and develop new priorities for Canadians.

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

Talking about the Prime Minister's behaviour often makes me want to shower as well, Peter, so I appreciate your contribution and I take it as being quite on theme. Relevance is a rarity here on committee.

It's because of the fact that there are questions as to the way in which the Prime Minister exercises the special prerogatives of his office that we need to have a timely study of Bill C-19. If the Prime Minister would just say that he is not going to call an election during the summer, we'd have lots of time to study Bill C-19. It's not a problem. We could study it over the summer and we could have something that the House could be prepared to vote on in the fall. The urgency for studying Bill C-19 comes directly as a result of the behaviour of our Prime Minister, and I put it to you that it's a false sense of urgency.

Canada does not require an election this summer. There shouldn't be an election this summer. Canadians don't want an election this summer. All of the opposition leaders have pledged not to trigger an election before the summer because they've all pledged not to trigger an election during the pandemic.

Certainly if we can get through these next five weeks without the opposition parties voting non-confidence, there could be no reason for the Prime Minister to decide to trigger an election in the summer, other than because he considers it to be in his own political interest. The opposition parties can't obstruct a Parliament that's not meeting. If there's a way to do that, why don't you let me know?

I'm looking at Mr. Turnbull there, because it seems to me that if Parliament is not meeting, opposition members can't obstruct it. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be perfectly reasonable for the Prime Minister to say that if we get to the point where Parliament is not meeting, he's not going to be the one to call an election. We can't get that. That's where the sense of urgency comes from on Bill C-19.

It would be a mistake to simply move on from this study. I do think we need to get to the point where we report back to the House. Look, PROC has spent a completely disproportionate amount of time debating how to proceed with this study. I think it would be an awful shame if we didn't report anything back to the House on that.

Simply moving on to the study of Bill C-19 and not coming to some kind of agreement as a committee on how we might proceed is a mistake. I recognize that it's challenging. I know that government members have dug in on various positions over the course of the debate, and I recognize that opposition parties don't always agree and that it can be difficult to carve a path forward. That's something I mentioned last time in the context of committing to try to do that, as the other parties did. We did indeed meet to try to find that way forward.

Again, we've seen what can happen to a committee when the interests of one political organization are at play. We've been going through dozens of hours of debate because Liberals don't want to have a vote on the motion that was put forward, despite the fact that there seems to be a majority consensus on the committee to move forward in the way proposed in Mrs. Vecchio's motion. Then you try to take three different political organizations, with different goals and different thoughts about where to go and how to do it, and that discussion certainly can become quite difficult as well.

However, we have been having that conversation over some time because I don't think anybody wants to hold this up. I don't want to speak for anyone, but certainly my impression in the discussion with the other parties is that I don't detect a real desire to be holding up the study of Bill C-19. However, I did also hear loud and clear that there needs to be some kind of resolution to this study.

I want to remind Liberal members on the committee that the reason we're in this study is because of a mechanism that the Prime Minister brought forward. As members here have heard me say before, it's not my preferred method for how to deal with questions on prorogation, or even dissolution. Again, I think those are very related powers, and they should be dealt with in a related way.

The best way that is not outlandish or coming from nowhere...In fact, the United Kingdom, which is where our model of Westminster parliamentary democracy comes from, has adopted a provision, so that it's actually Parliament that makes decisions about prorogation and dissolution.

Unfortunately, those more democratic ways of navigating the questions of dissolution and prorogation have not yet come to Canada. There are some reasons why it's more difficult to implement in Canada, but like many politically difficult situations, provided there's adequate supply of political will, there's usually a solution.

When it comes to prorogation, for instance, I've heard that Canada may even need to go so far as having a constitutional amendment in order to allow the House of Commons to make a decision about prorogation as opposed to leaving it uniquely up to the Prime Minister.

There have been some really interesting witnesses here. I think of Hugo Cyr, for instance, who was here talking about prorogation. Some witnesses essentially proposed workarounds in recognition of the fact that, by convention, it seems to be a constitutional power of the prime minister, and therefore, needing some kind of constitution-level intervention in order to change the way that prerogative would be exercised.

I think the best way to deal with prorogation...That would get us around the need to even have this study, because we would have a fulsome debate in the House of Commons, and then a decision by elected members of our Parliament on whether to prorogue or dissolve earlier than a fixed election date. That's the gold standard.

However, that's not the one the Prime Minister chose. What did the Prime Minister choose? The Prime Minister chose to say that the government would table reasons for prorogation, and that those would be deemed referred to PROC. Presumably, that didn't mean, “Let's refer them to PROC, so that PROC can use the file as a door stop.” As is often the case, when things are deemed referred to a committee for the purpose of study, just as the estimates are typically deemed referred, a committee typically deals with them if it's a well-functioning committee, and they are not held up in filibuster over what is a pretty straightforward motion.

That was the Prime Minister's solution, and that's why we're here. So, yes, Liberals did agree to have a study of prorogation. I take that to mean that they agreed to honour the Prime Minister's intent when he said that political abuses of prorogation were real. He recognized, in that proposal, the political dimension of accountability, that is to say, the dimension of accountability that goes above and beyond, strictly speaking, legal questions of the kind that a conflict of interest commissioner might rule on, for instance.

Here we are, and we're undertaking that study. We're undertaking it for the first time ever. I say with some measure of embarrassment, not individually but as a member of this committee, that when people look back to the founding study at PROC on reasons for prorogation, in some future instance where a prime minister is alleged to have prorogued for political reasons above other kinds of more altruistic reasons, or political reasons in the pejorative sense...There can be political reasons in a good sense, as well, and some of those may have been at play with respect to the pandemic, but they were used as cover for some other kinds of political motivations.

Fair enough, let's get the guy in here. Let's talk to him about it. That's the whole point after all.

Here we are, and this has been the kind of launch, if you will, of Prime Minister Trudeau's idea about how to stem political abuses of prorogation. I don't think it's gone very well, but I don't think it's beyond redemption.

It was very good until the filibuster started. We heard from people that we ought to have heard from. I'd have been happy not to have heard from the Government House Leader, though, and go straight to the Prime Minister, because, as I say, it was very clearly a decision for him to make, and that he did make.

We did all of that. It was going very well and then there were some reasonable proposals for other witnesses that had to do with some of the alleged reasons for prorogation. Suddenly, that wasn't acceptable to the government, so here we are stuck in a filibuster.

I think it's really important, in terms of setting a good precedent, that the Prime Minister appear. I think it's even more important that the upshot of this entire process not be that PROC fails to report back and that the Prime Minister uses a similar special prerogative to end the Parliament before PROC ever has a chance to report back. It would be a really bad precedent to say that these reasons are going to be flipped to PROC, that they might start to study it and hear from some good voices, but then they descend into a completely unproductive, months-long period of debate and never emerge. I think that would send the wrong message.

I would hope that if the Prime Minister or some of his folks are listening or some Liberals on the committee report back, there would be some sense of duty to this proposed solution so that we don't end up in a place where we don't even bother reporting back. How sad would that be?

I do think it's incumbent upon us to work towards some kind of resolution to what has been a very frustrating ordeal. That's why members of the opposition parties have been discussing what a way forward might look like. It's an odd position of reverse onus.

I've been part of opposition filibusters. If you're in an opposition filibuster, usually you see it as your own responsibility to find a way out of the filibuster.

With respect to Mr. Turnbull for having tried, it didn't really work. We haven't seen a lot of flexibility in terms of what the government might be prepared to accept or not accept. We had an up-and-down offer from Mr. Turnbull. I'm appreciative of the fact that we finally got to vote on that. I think that was good. As I say, it kind of clears the space for trying to find some other kind of alternative.

We may have to cycle through several attempts. If we can get into a place where we're proposing things and dealing with them without having to debate each proposal for months at a time, I think the committee would be well served. I think this special mechanism of the Prime Minister would be well served because it might actually get us to a point where we break the impasse.

If the model is that we're waiting on one person to propose one solution that's automatically going to rally everyone and if it doesn't, we're stuck in a months-long filibuster, we don't have enough time to make that model work. Arguably, even if we had another two years, we might not have enough time to make that model work. I'm just basing that on the precedent we've already set with the length of time we've spent considering Mr. Turnbull's amendment. That all gets hard to do.

I would definitely encourage, as we work through these things, a spirit of voting within a few meetings on any one proposal, so if it's not the one that's going to do it, we can dispense with it and move on and hear some other proposal. I think that might be a nice way to break the deadlock. There is definitely going to have to be some deadlock-breaking at this table, it seems to me.

I don't know that we're going to be able to negotiate something behind the scenes that brings everyone aboard all at once. The rhythm of the committee has to change because it's been quite slow. We need to move from what we've been doing in a couple months to doing in a couple meetings. I'm willing to make some proposals and not take their passage or failure personally. I think one is always disappointed if one makes a proposal toward resolution and it doesn't pass—at least in the sense of being hopeful for a resolution.

I would rather know that something I propose isn't going to work within a couple of meetings than to have to take a couple of months to get to a rather obvious conclusion.

In any event, I do now want to propose something. I know it may not be the thing for which everybody suddenly says, “That's amazing, I love it, obviously, why didn't we all think of this months ago?” I want to throw it out there as something for consideration. I would urge members to take a reflective approach to the proposal. I do think that there are advantages and disadvantages for all in this proposal. I certainly don't want to be causing any knee-jerk reactions.

I think it's fair to say, and other opposition members can correct me if I'm wrong, that I don't think we have a fully formed three-party proposal that's going to come forward today, so I'm going to put something out there that I think probably won't be shocking to anyone, but with an adequate period of reflection I think may be the solution. If it's not the way forward, then perhaps we could vote on it next day and dispense with it, so that the table can be clear for somebody else to put something forward. Maybe in the meantime there will be some discussions that help shepherd us all towards a common solution. I would certainly invite that and be happy to talk to people about what that might look like, if it's not the thing that I'm going to propose.

would like to propose an amendment to Ms. Vecchio's motion. I would move that the motion of Karen Vecchio concerning the committee's study of the government's reasons for the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020 be amended by 1) replacing paragraph a) with the following:

a) renew the invitation issued to the Prime Minister to appear before the committee, provided that if he does not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to appear for at least three hours, the Chair shall be instructed to report to the House forthwith a recommendation that this committee be empowered to order his appearance from time to time;

2) by deleting paragraphs b) through h).

I want to talk about some of the advantages of this proposal. One of the things that we have heard loud and clear at this table many times is that the government takes exception to the idea that the procedure and House affairs committee would be for lack of a better term—I'm not sure I like this term—but relitigating the WE Charity scandal in the way that it has been dealt with at other committees.

We have heard that very clearly. It's something that I'm prepared to do, because I still think there's a dearth of answers. As I say, I don't think the government has really adequately been held to the kind of political accountability that I think the WE Charity scandal demands. That's why I've been very happy and comfortable about supporting Ms. Vecchio's motion.

I do hear that the government doesn't want to do that. For me, the question about the WE Charity scandal in the context of this study isn't about all of the details of the WE Charity scandal. We have seen the ethics committee deal with a number of those questions and hear from a number of the witnesses who were in Ms. Vecchio's motion. Rather, for me, the interest of the WE Charity scandal, as I say, has to do with the timing, the length and the nature of the prorogation that the Prime Minister in fact executed. Why did he prorogue on the day that he did? Why did he cancel a unanimous decision of Parliament to have four summer sittings? Why did he not heed calls by at least some opposition parties—I'll speak for the NDP here—to resume earlier in order to have some time for parliamentary dialogue about the replacement of CERB?

These are all important questions. I think the details of the WE Charity scandal do bear on those issues. I do want to talk to the Prime Minister about those things. Do I need to talk to the Deputy Minister and Minister of Finance, and to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth? Even though a lot of the parliamentary dialogue certainly, and a lot of the media conversation and the evidence, points to their involvement in the way that the WE Charity scandal unfolded, they aren't the decision-makers when it comes to the timing and the nature of prorogation.

While I would like to hear from them here, and while I think their interventions may have some light to shed on how things happened, I don't need to hear from them in the same way in a study on prorogation. If I have to prioritize one witness in the entire motion by Ms. Vecchio, the Prime Minister is clearly it—for political reasons, sure, in the best sense. He was the decision-maker. The very kind of political accountability that Parliament is at least in part established to deliver rests with him. He is the appropriate person to ask about those issues.

I don't think I'm going to learn more about the nature of prorogation from the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth than I am from the government House leader. Those are two people who are part of a cabinet that the Prime Minister might have spoken to about the decision, but they aren't ultimately responsible for it. I do think that in the case of the Prime Minister, there's cause to believe that we might yet learn something. Even if we don't learn something new, it will have been a valuable exercise. That is how political, as opposed to legal, accountability operates. The decision-makers have to answer questions about what they did and why they did it.

Likewise, I think it would be very interesting to hear from Mr. Morneau about what his reasons for resigning were and why he thinks his resignation happened. I dare say it was “precipitated”...but I won't use that kind of prejudicial language, although it did happen right before prorogation. Does Bill Morneau think there's a link between those two things? I'd love to hear whether he thinks so or not.

The point remains that it wasn't Bill Morneau who decided to prorogue Parliament. It wasn't Bill Morneau who went down to the Governor General's residence when he did—because he didn't. The Prime Minister did. He made that call.

It would be useful to hear from Katie Telford, who I'm sure was involved in the decisions that led up to the Prime Minister exercising his special prerogative in the way that he did. Is it strictly necessary in order to better understand prorogation? It is not anywhere near to the same degree that the Prime Minister is.

The Kielburgers clearly had something to do with WE Charity, had a role to play in the proposal that WE Charity was pursuing with the government and had relationships with government that landed Bill Morneau in a conflict of interest. Did they decide when Parliament would be prorogued? No, they didn't decide that. Only one person could decide that, and that was the Prime Minister.

In a study of prorogation, who is it most important to hear from out of all these witnesses? It's the Prime Minister. There's no big surprise here, but I think it's important to reinforce. I recognize that the Kielburgers weren't the ones who made that decision. By saying we're going to limit the scope of this motion, does that mean there will be no questions about WE Charity for the Prime Minister? Absolutely not. If the Prime Minister appears, those questions will be properly directed at the decision-maker on prorogation. They can be asked in a way that gets to the bottom not just of the fact of prorogation, which obviously happened and is obviously a prerogative of the Prime Minister to prorogue, and nobody has ever disputed that....

The question is how he has used that prerogative and whether he has used it appropriately. There you have to get into the details of the actual prorogation. While many of these witnesses can help us get into the details of something that I think still calls for answers—that is, the WE Charity scandal itself—they can't give us any kind of privileged information or insight into the nature of the prorogation.

The same would go for the Perelmuters, who have testified at other committees that were looking directly, and rightly so, and I'm glad for their work.... I'm grateful to Charlie Angus for the leadership he showed in that study and the work he did along the lines of holding the government politically to account for what was a serious scandal, but I don't think that the Perelmuters are going to have a lot of insight into the nature of prorogation. Again, while I think it would be helpful to hear from many of the witnesses in this motion in order to better understand the WE Charity scandal, which might help us better understand some of the motivations of the Prime Minister, if we're looking to try to wrap up this study now on an expeditious basis after spending a lot of time on it, I don't think they're the one witness that we need to hear from in order to get that work done.

Likewise, there was a call for the production of a lot of papers, papers that I think ought to be produced, papers that I think would give more insight into the WE Charity scandal that Canadians deserve to know about, but those papers are not going to shed light on the question of why the Prime Minister decided to prorogue Parliament the day after the resignation of his finance minister, which apparently had nothing to do with the WE Charity scandal or his, at that time, very recent appearance before another committee of the House where he was held to account for the fact that he actually had a debt of $40,000 to the organization that was being sole-sourced for a large government contract that he had only cleared the night before.

Are we really supposed to believe that none of these things are connected? I'm sorry, Madam Chair, but I wouldn't be doing my job if I accepted such a facile explanation.

Even all those things considered, there's still a question, as I say, when you consider all of the needs of the pandemic and the desire of many government backbenchers to spend some time consulting with their constituents on what might be in the Speech from the Throne. I would note, Madam Speaker, that we only had one scheduled sitting day over the time of that prorogation, but that one scheduled sitting day also happened to coincide with the deadline for documents like the ones called for in this very motion that we've been debating.

Our Liberal colleagues would like us to believe that it's a coincidence. Coincidentally, the timing of the prorogation just happened to rub up against the deadline when documents like the ones in this motion were actually due and which the government clearly doesn't want to provide.

Again, we have this odd coincidence about the timing and the nature of that prorogation, how long it lasted and the effects of proroguing at that exact moment, on the heels of the resignation of the finance minister after embarrassing testimony on the WE Charity scandal and on the eve of an important deadline for the tabling of documents that would lay out many details about that scandal.

Despite the recent finding that the Prime Minister wasn't in a legal conflict of interest, what we do know is that his right-hand man was. We know that political accountability has a broader application than legal accountability and that the Prime Minister does share in the political blame for this fiasco that even the finance minister refuses to take responsibility for. If he has taken responsibility for it somewhere, then I would urge my colleagues to point us in the direction of where that happened, because I haven't seen it yet.

In fact, I think the predominating quote in response to inquiries about the recent conflict of interest report by the former finance minister, Mr. Morneau, is “no comment”, which has been what I've seen. If he has commented more extensively on that, I haven't seen it. I might have seen something that was a prepared statement that was to the effect that it was in the past and it doesn't matter anymore. Of course, we all remember Rafiki's compelling refutation to Simba in The Lion King of the claim that actions of the past don't matter anymore.

I'm just trying to generate some interest on the committee, Madam Chair. I am beginning to suspect they might be losing interest, so I thought maybe a reference to The Lion King would spice things up, but it's a tough crowd. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the reasons for that.

What am I saying? What I'm saying is that this particular amendment offers, I think, a real and significant olive branch to members of the Liberal Party on the committee who have spent a lot of time telling us how irrelevant many of the witnesses are. While I don't agree with them in that assessment, what I am offering here is to dispense with all of that. Not only am I dispensing with that, or proposing that the committee does, I am also reducing the amount of time that the Prime Minister would have to appear from three hours to one.

Essentially, everything that Liberal members of this committee found objectionable in the other motion disappears except for one hour of the Prime Minister's appearing. That's, I think, pretty good, because, if you were to make a list of what the Liberals didn't like about this motion, to have everything off the list except for one thing, and to have the length of that presentation be reduced by two-thirds, is a pretty good offer.

I won't speak for the other parties on this, but what I will say is that I think I'm not alone in feeling that it is very important that the Prime Minister appear in this study.

I won't be alone in asking some questions about the WE Charity scandal in that hour either, but my questions will certainly revolve around the circumstances of the prorogation, as I see them mattering to Canadians who were concerned, while on CERB, about having a better sense of what was waiting for them on October 1. Having then participated in the rushed debate that occurred at the end of September in Ottawa, I can tell you, that would have been time well spent, having heard from tons of Canadians from coast to coast to coast in the lead-up to that deadline about the anxiety and the uncertainty they faced. I can tell you that it would have been productive to create more space for Parliament to hash out what the agreed-upon way forward at the end of CERB would have been.

Having heard from students who were very disappointed that the NDP's proposal for a student benefit was cut down and didn't match what was on CERB, and the fact that those extra jobs that were supposed to top up that income support didn't happen, I can tell you that this was a decision that is very real to a lot of Canadians and had an impact on them in a very difficult time.

Folks on CERB ultimately did get an answer. We, the NDP, were ultimately able to maintain the benefit level. Even last summer, the government was looking at cutting the benefit level. We were able to avoid that. I was happy for that.

Students, on the other hand, never did see that income they lost made up. When you're a worker and the only thing you have to sell is your time, that kind of lost time really matters. It's not that easy to bounce back from. There's no extra cheque coming for the time you couldn't spend working and getting paid a wage. That's why this continues to be a very relevant matter.

Again, I know this is not totally new. I don't know that any committee member is going to get particularly excited at the proposal. In my experience, the fact that nobody is particularly overjoyed is usually a sign that some kind of meaningful compromise is afoot. I can tell the committee that I share that feeling in respect of this amendment, but I do think it's a way forward. We clearly need a way forward.

Before the constituency week, we were building some momentum to a way forward. I appreciated that Liberal members of the committee allowed us to have a vote on the amendment that had been before us for a very long time, to clear the way to have a discussion about another proposed solution. Given the fact that we spent months on the last solution, I think it would make sense to spend at least this meeting on the current solution. I'm quite open to having a vote on it at the next meeting. I think that might be useful. If folks want to talk about it a little bit more, I'm obviously happy to do that.

If this isn't going to be the one to do it—which I hope nobody will decide today because in these kinds of delicate conversations, time for reflection is important—then I do think that we can try to dispense with it relatively quickly the next day or at some subsequent meeting in the not-too-distant future.

I'm trying to honour here what I perceive to be an important need to conclude this study. I really think it's important that we report back to the House somehow. I'm satisfied that if we hear from the Prime Minister, we can at least report back. That's something we can get done. That's worth an hour of the Prime Minister's time. I think it would be worth it, anyway.

Frankly, I think there's a duty here, as the decision-maker, for him to appear. It's a double duty because I think he also has a duty to honour what he proposed as the solution to potential political abuses of the power of prorogation. He proposed that decision-makers answer for that. Of course, he is the decision-maker. That's important and that allows us to get on, conclude this study and report something back before the end of June. I think it is very important to do, so that when people look back on this....

I appreciate that, clearly, Liberal members feel there was no political abuse either in the fact of having prorogation or, apparently, even in the details of the prorogation, such as the nature, the length and the timing. That's fine, but that doesn't mean that at some future point they aren't going to suspect another prime minister of having abused that political power to prorogue Parliament. Indeed, I can find some common ground with Liberal members on the committee about past abuses of prorogation.

The question then becomes what we think is a good process for how to introduce some meaningful political accountability into that. I think having some written reasons tabled and forwarded on to PROC, which hears from some academics and then just buries it as a testimony item rather than reporting back to the House, would be a mistake. That's what we're at risk of doing if we don't find a way to wrap up this study.

I think the quickest and most straightforward way of doing that is to have that opportunity for political accountability with an appearance by the Prime Minister. That allows us to move on quickly, if the Prime Minister is prepared to do that in the spirit of his own solution.

The other reason it's important to try to find some kind of conclusion to this is that I want to see us get on to the study of Bill C-19. I want to see Bill C-19 sent back to the House with enough time for it to pass before summer. Again, to be very clear, I mean that I want that because I don't trust the Prime Minister not to call an election during the summer.

If the Prime Minister would do one of two things, it would help the situation at the committee a lot. If the Prime Minister would appear, I think this would reasonably resolve our issues here at the committee. If the Prime Minister would say that he's not going to call an election during the summer months when Parliament isn't meeting, then that would give us more time to consider Bill C-19 and again would help with the work of the committee.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's an odd scenario to have government members filibustering a committee with an expectation that the opposition is going to help them break their own filibuster. As I say, in the filibusters I've been engaged in before, we talk about what our end game is and we talk about how to get out of it if it's not producing what we want, because we recognize that the people who start a filibuster are the people who have the obligation to finish it.

We're in this odd moment where I think government members are trying to shift the onus onto the opposition to break their filibuster. They can break it at any time. I'm not the one, with the exception of a longer intervention today—and I appreciate the patience and interest of members of the committee with my intervention today—who has been filibustering for the last number of months, so it's not for me to end it. I can't end the filibuster just by stopping talking, which is normally the power of somebody who is engaged in a filibuster, and it's normally up to that person who has the power to end it by stopping to find a way forward.

It's a very odd position to be in, with having colleagues imply that somehow it's the responsibility of the other side of the table to find a way out of their own filibuster so that we can consider their own legislation. I hope the Canadians who are listening appreciate what an unlikely and broken kind of situation this really is. I've done my best in good faith to try to bring about an end to this filibuster on a number of occasions, but it's true that I have not been willing to compromise on the importance of getting the Prime Minister here, because, significantly, I believe there are some really important non-partisan parliamentary reasons for having the Prime Minister at this committee, and I'm not really prepared to bend on those.

This amendment brings us a long way towards getting rid of what government members found most offensive—if you take them at their own word, and we should here—in the motion. In fact, I think just prior to my own intervention, it was Mr. Turnbull's contention that one of the things that was so objectionable about the motion was this litany of witnesses and documents. With this amendment, that's gone. It's a request for the Prime Minister to appear for an hour. All of the additional stuff that government members have said is a fishing expedition that has nothing to do with prorogation—all of that is done. All of that is gone with this amendment, if it passes.

This is a real opportunity for government members to be able to take out of the motion the lion's share, and I'm talking everything but one hour with the Prime Minister—all of the witnesses who are only being called because they have a connection to WE but don't have a clear connection to prorogation except through WE. We hear that Liberal members aren't interested in exploring those connections, even though I think those are connections that ought to be explored. We take them off the table.

The only call here is for the principal decision-maker in respect of prorogation, which is of course what we are studying. How do we know he's the principal decision-maker? Because you can go back to 1935, when cabinet said, by special proclamation, that those decisions—the decisions around prorogation and dissolution—rest with the Prime Minister alone as a special prerogative.

That is to say it is different from many of the other prerogatives of his office that he often jointly exercises with cabinet. It's not to say there wasn't a discussion at the cabinet table, but it is to say that, at the end of the day, he is the sole decision-maker.

It's why the NDP has asked the Prime Minister, not the Deputy Prime Minister, not the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, not the Minister of Finance, not anybody else. We've asked the Prime Minister to commit to not calling an election during the summer, because we recognize it is a special prerogative of the Prime Minister to make that call or not. We haven't asked that question of any other member of cabinet. Why? Because no other member of cabinet makes that decision. Cabinet does not make that decision collectively. It's the Prime Minister that does it.

We heard many things about how far-reaching the motion was, what a fishing expedition it was, how we should be talking about prorogation and not going down rabbit holes. While I say to my honourable colleagues on the other side that I don't agree with that analysis of the motion, for the sake of having five weeks left and in the context of a Prime Minister who won't commit to not calling an election during the summer, we need to get on Bill C-19. We need to do it in a way that, above all, sees this committee report back on the issue of prorogation.

It's not for the reasons of this Parliament but for the reason of future parliaments, which is what, presumably, the Prime Minister wanted when he pursued a change to the Standing Orders because he recognized that the prerogative of prorogation was sometimes abused. He wanted a mechanism in order to create the context for political accountability.

If the Prime Minister is really comfortable in his reasons for having prorogued, when and how he did, then he ought to be willing to come to PROC for an hour to allow the work of a senior committee of Parliament to continue. Particularly, in light of the fact that our next bill and the consideration of that bill.... It's a bill of his own government. It's a bill that has a sense of urgency attached to it, because of the way he carries himself in respect of a special prerogative—just like the one we are studying.

When it comes to proroguing and dissolving Parliament, the power is the same. It rests uniquely with the Prime Minister. Bill C-19 is urgent, because he refuses to say that we're not going to have an election during the summer. That has everything to do with his exercise of the prerogative that's at issue in the report we're doing.

Like I say, with no pretension that this is a perfect solution or that it's going to satisfy everybody.... In fact, it will be dissatisfying to all of us in some way, shape or form, but it might be the way that we can move forward on this. Before anybody makes any hasty decisions, it's important to have some time for reflection. It's important to have time for news of this proposal to work its way up to the Prime Minister and the people around him, so that they at least have an opportunity to consider whether they think this is worth it. I do think that the way out of this quagmire is through prime ministerial leadership.

While I may have my own doubts about how on supply that really is, I want the opportunity to be proven wrong in what I think about the Prime Minister. I want to give him the opportunity to come to this committee for an hour and explain his reasons for prorogation, so that we can file our report and move on.

My proposal to you, Madam Chair, seeing that we happen to be at our normal ending time for meetings.... I know my Liberal colleagues are great believers in coincidences, so this is just one more for them to believe in.

I would propose that we suspend our meeting at the normal time, so that we can come back on Thursday at 11 o'clock. Perhaps by then, people will have a sense of where they would like the debate on this particular amendment to go. If at that time, members would like to have a vote so that we can dispense with it, that would be great.

With that, I'll cede the floor.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much.

I wish Mrs. Vecchio the best of luck in correcting technical difficulties. I had one of my own this morning. That certainly has been a frustrating feature of virtual Parliament. I hope she's able to get that sorted out.

I thought I might begin by addressing some of the comments that have been made already this morning. I will start with Mrs. Shanahan in terms of responsible government.

I took the gist of the argument that Mrs. Shanahan was making to essentially mean that if opposition parties don't vote to have an election in the face of things they don't like about the government, it means there's nothing to criticize or that the government can do whatever it wants. It effectively has carte blanche until opposition parties decide to trigger an election.

I want to propose to Mrs. Shanahan that I think this is an important misunderstanding of the principle of responsible government. We have question period. We have committee work. We call ministers to committee. We have all sorts of tools to interrogate the government about its course of action. We do that because there is more than one way to hold the government to account.

In fact, sometimes an election is exactly the wrong way to hold the government to account, particularly if you're trying to focus in on specific decisions of the government. As we all know at this table, elections are very general affairs. There are a lot of issues that come up in an election. There are many kinds of issues that rightly preoccupy the attention of voters during an election. While voters may be very dissatisfied with the government in respect of some of its decisions, that may not ultimately be the vote-determining issue.

Just because a particular instance of government wrongdoing isn't the ballot question at the ballot box, that doesn't mean the government's behaviour is justified. It doesn't mean there isn't still a need to hold government to account. In fact, that is the function of Parliament.

The function of Parliament isn't to cause elections. The function of Parliament is to hold the government to account between elections. A number of mechanisms have been developed to do that, including calling ministers to testify before committee about decisions they have made.

What's been tying us up hasn't been the fact that the opposition refuses to call an election. Even in ordinary times, it's not clear to me that that would be the right solution for this particular scandal. What's been tying us up is that government members haven't been allowing a committee to proceed in using some of the normal tools of accountability in order to hold decision-makers to account for something they have done.

In this case, the thing they did—that the Prime Minister did—was prorogue Parliament in the wrong way for the wrong period of time. That is not to say that it was wrong to prorogue at all, but we have heard that there are different ways to do a prorogation and there are different periods of time. We have heard very clearly in a number of ways that this was ultimately the Prime Minister's decision.

We have heard, as Mr. Turnbull indicated earlier, that it's a decision that is often political all the way down. I think that means that it stands to reason that members of Parliament would care to interrogate the only decision-maker about his political reasons for prorogation.

What's at issue is whether the predominant concerns had to do with the pandemic or whether they had to do with getting out of the political heat on the WE Charity scandal. The only person who can answer those questions is the Prime Minister.

Nothing untoward has been going on here at committee with opposition members supporting a motion to get the Prime Minister and a number of other players who were involved in what is also quite plausibly a major reason, not just for the prorogation itself. I agree there can be multiple reasons for prorogation. Often in government there's more than one thing going on in a decision. In fact, the art of government, arguably, is to balance competing demands and competing interests. Very often, when government makes a decision worth taking note of, it's because it is complicated because there are a number of things at play.

I do think it is quite reasonable that even if the WE Charity scandal wasn't the only reason for the prorogation, it affected the nature, duration and timing of that prorogation. That's fair game. The only person who can really settle that question for the committee is the Prime Minister. I submit to you that the government House leader did a bad job of that, and people are free to disagree with that. I'd love to hear from the person who made the decision, and I really don't think that is unreasonable. It's just not something I can accept, that, first of all, it's unreasonable to insist on hearing from the principal decision-maker with respect to a file.

The last time Mrs. Shanahan spoke about responsible government, prior to today, I tried to highlight for her some of the ways a decision about prorogation or dissolution is a special.... I mean, this is the language right out of the order in council; I'm not making up new terms. Since 1935, at least, decisions about prorogation and dissolution have been a special prerogative of the Prime Minister. That is something that, by order in council, that is, by a decision of the entire cabinet, has been set aside for the Prime Minister to make alone. That's in keeping with the Prime Minister's special role as an adviser to the Crown.

There are many people, I'm sure, who would have loved to be in the meeting in one controversial prorogation I can think of, where former prime minister Harper met at length, for hours, with the Governor General on the eve of a prorogation. There was some debate in the lead-up to that meeting, and in fact during the many hours of that meeting, live on radio and the 24-hour news cycle and all that good stuff that politicos watch with fascination at times like that.

There were lots of people who would have loved to be in the room. The government House leader wasn't in that room. Staff from the whips' offices weren't in that room. I'm not even sure the Prime Minister's chief of staff was in the room. That was a meeting between the Prime Minister and the Governor General. To me, that just highlights the nature of that special relationship and the nature of the special decision-making authority of the Prime Minister and the extent to which nobody can stand in for the Prime Minister when it comes to decisions having to do with either the prorogation or dissolution of Parliament.

I thought that was important to state, if I haven't been clear enough about that in the past. I don't think that's a viciously partisan interpretation of the facts. I think that's a pretty good exegesis of parliamentary process and a little bit of parliamentary history, for that matter.

The idea that, when the opposition is dissatisfied, responsible government calls for an election is a broken idea. It's broken at least because it would mean that we have no responsible government in majority parliaments. I think that's a pretty clear implication. If responsible government demands that the opposition trigger an election any time they think there's something seriously wrong with the way the government has behaved, and they don't have that power in a majority Parliament, then that means we have no responsible government in majority parliaments.

I'm sure that's not what Mrs. Shanahan intended to imply. That would certainly shed a different light on the last Parliament, I would think. Although I could appreciate it if some people wanted to maintain we didn't have a proper kind of responsible government in the last Parliament, I doubt it would be Mrs. Shanahan and her colleagues in the Liberal Party. I'm happy to be corrected on that point at any time if someone would like to claim otherwise.

Those are some things I think are important to say.

With respect to Mr. Turnbull's comments, I would say this. The timing and the nature of the prorogation are important to me for a couple of reasons, as I've said before. They're important because there was a pending deadline for CERB, and millions of Canadian households were depending on that program and didn't know what was coming down the pipe. The government made an announcement about what it intended to do at the end of CERB the day after prorogation. That is to say, they chose when to prorogue, and they chose when to announce that package. They chose to announce it at a time when there could be no meeting of Parliament for parliamentarians to ask questions in the House.

We had another scheduled summer session. In fact, it was going to be within seven or eight days of the Prime Minister's announcing that prorogation. I can't for the life of me, in any of the testimony that we heard or any of Mr. Turnbull's best arguments, see why that prorogation couldn't have at least waited until the day after the last scheduled sitting of Parliament in the summer.

Those four sittings of Parliament were negotiated among the parties, recognizing that there was a pandemic, recognizing that there was an important role for Parliament, not just the government but for Parliament during the pandemic. The Prime Minister unilaterally decided to break that all-party consensus to have Parliament play that role and cancelled the last scheduled sitting of Parliament in the summer. I think that was a serious mistake. I think he did something wrong when he did that.

I am not satisfied by the answers of the government House leader as to why. It's not an on/off switch, prorogation or no prorogation. The Prime Minister also made decisions about when to prorogue. I want to ask him about those decisions, and I do believe that the WE Charity scandal, and trying to protect himself and his government from that fallout, played a role in the timing of the prorogation. I'd like an opportunity to press him on those issues, because I think they matter.

I think it matters that an all-party consensus to have Parliament meet biweekly during the summer was unilaterally quashed by the Prime Minister. There would still have been weeks for the government to consult, when Parliament wasn't scheduled to sit. Why was that last summer sitting cancelled, after the work of getting all the parties of the House on board? That was something that was done, if I recall correctly, by unanimous consent. Not only were the recognized parties on board, but that meant that the independent members and members of the Green Party also supported that consensus.

I don't think it was appropriate for the Prime Minister to act against Parliament in that way, and that's the way I see it. Frankly, that's not something that's really been addressed in the hours of debate that we've heard from Liberal members. Nobody has spoken directly to the issue of why the prorogation had to occur on the day it did. That's fine. I don't really care to hear Liberal members opine about that, because I know who made that decision. The Prime Minister made that decision, so I'd love to hear the Prime Minister opine on that.

I'd love to hear him give his reasons, not for prorogation in general but for prorogation on that day and why he saw fit to upend a unanimous decision of the House of Commons to meet twice in August—four times overall over the course of the summer—and why he would choose to cut that sitting off to announce the package for the replacement of CERB, which was likely to be controversial, in the non-pejorative sense of that term. That is to say, it was very reasonable to expect that there would be different opinions about what that would look like from the various political parties and that there would be some discussion required in order to get to something looking like a consensus.

Why take away the opportunity for parties to question the government about what that consensus might look like, with enough time for that to actually be hammered out, not at the eleventh hour when households are wondering what the heck they're going to do next month if they can't make rent? It could have been done progressively over the course of four or five weeks, or at least there could have been an initial conversation on the record that allowed the parties to stake out their preliminary positions and thoughts on the government's proposal.

To me, that's a matter of significance. It cuts to the question of how the Prime Minister handles the prerogatives of his office—dissolution and prorogation—and it's quite topical. I know the Liberals want to say that everybody has moved on. There are still people, incidentally, who are upset about the WE Charity scandal. If the Liberals don't hear much about them, then I think they should at least do a little more listening in western Canada, where I'm from, because I certainly hear about it, and I know it's a common criticism of the Liberal Party that they don't listen enough in western Canada. Maybe it's just a regional thing and you guys aren't hearing it, but if it's the case that Ontario has moved on—and I doubt that too—it's certainly not the case that people west of Ontario, I can tell you, have moved on from concerns about the WE Charity scandal.

It's topical even if people have moved on from the WE Charity scandal—which, as I said, I don't think they have. What they haven't moved on from is wondering whether we have a Prime Minister who's going to act unilaterally to call an election at a time when Canadians really don't think we should.

I've been part of efforts to demand an answer from the Prime Minister on this. The NDP asks very openly in the House whether the Prime Minister will commit to not calling an election unless he actually loses a vote of confidence. I've seen him sidestep that issue repeatedly.

If Canadians don't have confidence in the Prime Minister's ability to use that prerogative well, then I think having him at the committee is an opportunity for him to better explain how he used the prerogative of prorogation. That might give Canadians some insight into how he intends to use the prerogative of dissolution. It's very much a topical conversation, because those two powers are intimately connected. They're both mentioned in the order in council from 1935 that I made reference to earlier today and in my remarks on the last day of the committee meeting.

We are very much in a time when Canadians have every right to wonder at the way in which the Prime Minister uses those special prerogatives of his office. I think examining his decision on prorogation is an important part of examining his use of those special prerogatives overall.

Again, I don't think this is a viciously partisan argument. I think it's actually pretty straightforward. I think it makes a lot of sense, if the committee is able to put the focus squarely on the Prime Minister, instead of this becoming about WE Charity writ large, in the kind of investigation that Mr. Turnbull has rightly mentioned has been pursued at other committees—in fact, with more success than we've seen here. A number of the requests that are in this motion have already been made successfully at other committees. The sky didn't fall and the world didn't end. Frankly, with the benefit of hindsight, although I have supported the motion all along, I think we could say that if we had just passed the motion and heard from those witnesses who were willing to appear, we'd be a lot further along by now than we are.

Putting the focus on the Prime Minister means making it about prorogation. It's not about an on/off switch—prorogue or not prorogue—but about why he chose the timing that he did. Why did it follow immediately upon the resignation of the finance minister? Why didn't he give it several extra days to ensure that Parliament could get the additional sitting that was agreed to unanimously by all members of the House? Those are good questions.

Mr. Turnbull has suggested that we don't need to explore any of those questions because the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has ruled that there was no conflict of interest for the Prime Minister. I wish he had also read the conclusions of the second report that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner filed at the same time. I'm sure members of the committee know that report has to do with the role of Bill Morneau, who, at that time—and through the entirety of the last Parliament, I think it's fair to say—was the Prime Minister's right-hand man. I think there's clearly an affinity between them in terms of how they think about issues. Bill Morneau was trusted to lead many aspects of government. We know the importance of finances. We know the importance of money. We know that the person who's put in charge of that for the government is somebody who has the total trust of the Prime Minister.

I can also tell you that many times during the pandemic when there were negotiations between New Democrats and the Liberals, it was very clear that many things were going back to the finance minister. In fact, the finance minister was often cited above the Prime Minister in terms of whose sign-off was really needed. I think there were some good things that didn't happen, as a matter of fact, as a result of that particular finance minister's involvement.

One of the things that didn't happen was getting students on CERB at a rate of $2,000 a month. One of the reasons was that there was going to be this great new jobs program that was going to help top up the lower CERB rate under the CESB that students received. That was a great idea that came out of the Department of Finance and former minister Morneau, among others.

Those extra jobs and that extra funding never came to pass, because a scandal developed. How did the scandal develop? Well, it had a lot to do with the involvement of the finance minister, who, incidentally, as was omitted in Mr. Turnbull's earlier intervention, was found to have breached the Conflict of Interest Act on three separate counts.

The idea that somehow the Prime Minister isn't politically responsible for that kind of mismanagement by his own government is wrong. I accept the finding that there was no personal conflict of interest in the case of the Prime Minister, but that doesn't mean there's no political accountability.

I think this ties back to what I would say is a mistaken concept of responsible government on the part of Mrs. Shanahan. Political accountability is not the same as a narrowly defined legal sense of accountability. That's why we have a Parliament. That's why we don't just leave it to the courts. If the only way people could fail in political leadership was according to the law, then we would hardly need a Parliament for the accountability function. We might still have a Parliament to supplement the legislative intentions of a government and challenge some of the legislative initiatives that it intended to move forward with, but in terms of accountability, we would just leave that to the courts. I think that would be a deficient system, because it would fail to capture a lot of really important things.

This is something we've seen develop over many decades. It used to be the case that, if you had a serious case of mismanagement under a file, you would see ministers take individual responsibility for that. Individual responsibility for that, most often, would look like a resignation. That would happen when things went really wrong. When or if a government took a position that somebody seriously disagreed with, it used to be that you would more frequently see the resignation of individual ministers. You don't really see that anymore. Instead, there's more of an emphasis on collective responsibility, but somehow the guy at the top doesn't bear responsibility. It becomes quite unclear who is responsible for the bad decisions of government.

When Bill Morneau left—although I truly believe that he left not to pursue a new executive position with an international organization, but because of the way he had mishandled the WE Charity file—he didn't take responsibility for it, though. You saw that again, the failure of a minister to accept individual responsibility beyond the collective responsibility.

As it is, by the Liberals' own telling, nobody has accepted responsibility for the WE Charity scandal. There's been no minister who's left government as a result of that scandal. That's what I hear from Liberal colleagues, anyway. If that's not true, I'd love to hear it. I'd love to hear that Bill Morneau left because he had mismanaged the WE Charity scandal. They recognized there was a problem, and he accepted responsibility for that, and that's the reason his political career ended, but I haven't heard that. I heard he was off chasing a job with OECD, which he quietly announced a little while later, to no one's surprise except maybe some Liberal Party faithful. He was abandoning that pursuit.

We are in this awkward situation where there was a major mismanagement of a big file that had serious material consequences for thousands and thousands of Canadians who were registered as students, who really ought to have seen themselves rolled into the CERB program, but instead were offered a discounted program on the promise of jobs that never came, because the finance minister, who did breach three sections of the Conflict of Interest Act in terms of his own conduct on this file, mucked it up. He made a political mess of what should have been straightforward aid to students, particularly in light of the fact that the government already runs the Canada summer jobs program, which is a perfectly acceptable way to provide employment to students. It was never clear why a third party organization was required, when the infrastructure for administering Canada summer jobs was already there and could have been supplemented instead.

Excuse me if I think it's too much to call coincidence the fact that the finance minister appeared at committee and wrote a $40,000 cheque to WE the night before, because he suddenly remembered that he owed $40,000 to an organization, which is not the experience of most people. Most people I know who have a $40,000 debt are very aware of it and they don't have the ability to write it off in an evening as an afterthought off the side of their desk. I think that showed to a lot of Canadians just how out of touch one of the principal decision-makers in Justin Trudeau's government really was. I think that was unbearable and he had to go. That just happened to coincide with prorogation.

Yes, a pandemic can be a reason to prorogue Parliament, but the timing? Mr. Turnbull acts as if this is some kind of terrible surprise. I've said this before. In fact, he's repeatedly misquoted my attempt to say that before and he likes to bring it up, where I've tried to indicate that there can be more than one reason, that the pandemic may have been important in the decision to prorogue, but there are many of us who feel that the timing and the nature of that prorogation, which unilaterally busted up a consensus in Parliament to meet four times over the summer, had everything to do with the WE Charity scandal and getting out of political accountability for the WE Charity scandal.

Political accountability and legal accountability are not the same thing. If there was an opportunity to see some political accountability over the WE Charity scandal, it would have come if Bill Morneau had fessed up in terms of his real reasons for leaving government. He didn't do that, so we're still in this place where there hasn't been any political accountability for a major mess-up by the government that had real material consequences for a lot of students from coast to coast to coast.

So yes, I've been happy to support Mrs. Vecchio's motion. I continue to be happy to support Mrs. Vecchio's motion, but I also recognize that there's an imperative to get on with studying Bill C-19.

Why is it important to study Bill C-19? It's important to study Bill C-19 so that, hopefully, we can make some changes to the way elections unfold before the summer, because it's very likely that the Prime Minister, just as he used his special prerogative for prorogation last summer in order, I think, to further his political interests, which incidentally aren't covered by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's report, because they're out of scope by law, as they should be..... That's fine. We're not asking the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to weigh in on questions of political accountability. That's what Parliament is for.

Last summer, the Prime Minister used his special prerogatives to prorogue Parliament at a time that was in his political interest. We're now coming up against a summer where there's some real suspicion he is going to use a similar special prerogative to call an election because it furthers his personal political interests and the political interests of his party, even though Canadians don't want an election. All we would like the Prime Minister to say is that if we get to the end of June without his government losing a confidence vote, he's not going to call an election in the summer. He won't say that.

The question is, how can Parliament not be working in the summer, when it's not meeting? It seems to me that a Prime Minister who was really interested in listening to Canadians, who overwhelmingly are not interested in having an election right now, would be willing to say that if the opposition gets us to the end of the session in June without triggering an election themselves, he'd be happy to do his part and not trigger an election until Parliament resumes and we see how it goes after the summer.

[The Clerk]

The question is on Mr. Turnbull's motion to proceed to another order of the day, which would be Bill C-19.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate your reminder about Bill C-19 being a government bill. These usually take precedence in committee business, or at least I think that's the informal practice that's generally followed. I hope that today the committee will see some movement on Bill C-19.

That's my hope. I'm stating that outright. It might be because we had a constituency week, but I'm coming back to the committee with renewed optimism. A little bit of sun on my face and—I don't know why—it has invigorated me. I'm looking forward to today's meeting. It's good to see everybody.

I appreciate Mrs. Shanahan's comments. I especially appreciated the story she told about the significance of the holiday, which I think exists differently within different cultural contexts. I appreciated that very much. I thought that was insightful.

I also appreciated your speaking to the amendment that I had put forward, even though we're not on the amendment. It was an attempt to appease some of the opposition parties and, hopefully, to move forward. I know the committee voted that down, so I won't cover anything having to do with that today, but I do want to quickly frame where I think we are as a committee. Then I look forward to hearing from Mr. Blaikie.

I've said this multiple times, but I really think it's important to emphasize. From the very beginning of this particular conversation, which started a long time ago, we as a committee agreed to study prorogation. We heard from witnesses. We heard from quite a number of witnesses. I think the government in general has been very transparent when it comes to prorogation. I've said from the beginning that if a global pandemic is not a good enough reason to prorogue Parliament, then I don't believe any reason will satisfy the opposition parties. I have to keep stating that, because I really feel that's the grain of truth here that I'm holding on to: that eventually the opposition parties are going to realize that, yes, given a global pandemic, given a government that's been as responsive as possible, there was a need to re-evaluate and reset the agenda. That's exactly what happened.

I've argued this point over and over again, and I'm not going to go through all the data and the evidence I've provided for how the throne speech reflects all the consultation work and the incredible data-gathering that happened during prorogation. I already got that. The opposition parties, as far as I can tell, don't care about that argument. They're not listening to that reasonable explanation, which is, to me, a rational explanation that makes perfect sense, given the context of a global pandemic.

I also want to speak to the fact that, from my perspective, we are now debating a motion on WE Charity. Look at Mrs. Vecchio's motion. It has in it the Kielburgers, the Honourable Bill Morneau, Katie Telford, the Perelmuters and the speakers bureau. It has massive, huge requests for documents that would have to be produced and translated. WE Charity is mentioned multiple times. Sections (f) and (g) of her original motion specifically reference WE Charity. There's absolutely no doubt.... Well, there can be no doubt out there, for anybody watching or anybody on this committee, that the motion is to try to connect WE Charity to prorogation as some ulterior motive, which I think the opposition parties have been trying to prove.

We heard from witnesses. Some of them speculated. Most of them said that there has always been a potential political motive for prorogation throughout history, and that there are always multiple narratives on why prorogation happened, but most of them also claimed that, given a global pandemic and the context, it was actually a pretty good reason to prorogue.

What I find strange, though, is that we're still stuck on this motion after the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's report has come out. I took a little time over the week that we were in the constituency, when I had a little time in the mornings in between meetings, and I read a good portion. I don't think I pored through every single page, but I read a lot of it, and I found it really interesting to see the analysis that was done by the Ethics Commissioner, Mario Dion.

What shocks me and surprises me.... The Prime Minister has been completely exonerated by that report of all counts that the opposition parties have been claiming over and over again, taking up committee business in other committees. Fine, I got it. They wanted to “hold the government accountable”, which is what opposition parties are supposed to do, so I got that. But, at this point, at this juncture, at this moment in time we're still in a global pandemic, and opposition parties are voting against the government, in many cases coming dangerously close to triggering an election, and yet they don't seem to be willing to move on to study Bill C-19, which would ensure that Canadians can vote safely, that their health and safety would be protected and their democratic right would be protected if an election were triggered.

I'm still feeling like, can we just face reality here? The reality is that the WE Charity supposed scandal is not a live topic anymore. It's a closed book. The Ethics Commissioner reviewed all the evidence and data. They reviewed it. I'm going to read you the conclusions here, just in case people haven't taken the time to read that document.

There are three major sections of the ethics code, or the Conflict of Interest Act, that were said to be the sections that were pertinent to the study that was done, or the report that was written. Section 7 is one that “prohibits public office holders from giving preferential treatment to a person or organization”. Now the Ethics Commissioner.... This is in the executive summary, so I'll just read the quick conclusion. I could go into more detail if people want, but I don't think that will be necessary per se. This is on page 2.

The evidence also shows that Mr. Trudeau had no involvement in ESDC’s recommendation that WE administer the CSSG. I am satisfied that Mr. Trudeau did not give preferential treatment to WE.

That's one conclusion. Now the other section, subsection 6(1) of the act, “prohibits public office holders from making or participating in the making of a decision that would place them in a conflict of interest.” On this one as well, the Ethics Commissioner concludes, “I am satisfied that there was no opportunity to further Mr. Trudeau’s own interests or those of his relatives from WE’s role as administrator of the CSSG or from its Social Entrepreneurship proposal.”

That's one conclusion. There's another related to this:

WE’s private interests would have to have been furthered improperly. In my view, there is no evidence of impropriety in relation to Mr. Trudeau’s decision making in relation to WE’s Social Entrepreneurship proposal or WE’s administration of the CSSG.

Those are two quotes that demonstrate that there are clear conclusions that the evidence has been reviewed. This is the Ethics Commissioner we're talking about, who has done the due diligence and found and ruled that the opposition parties.... I know this is disappointing to the opposition parties, because they wanted a scandal out of this, but there is none. The Ethics Commissioner's report is very clear.

The other section I would just quote quickly is section 21, which requires recusal “only in instances where the public office holder would be in a potential conflict of interest.” In this one as well, the Ethics Commissioner says, “I therefore found that Mr. Trudeau did not contravene subsection 6(1), section 7 or section 21 of the Act.”

Just take a step back for a second, please, committee members. I'm appealing to your better interests here. Take a step back.

For months and months, opposition parties have been trying to claim that prorogation was tied to WE Charity. We now have conclusive evidence, and all the due diligence has been done, that says there was no conflict of interest. The conclusions are clear, based on a really in-depth assessment of all the evidence and facts.

How, then, can we possibly continue to debate a WE Charity motion at this committee, when we have business that this committee needs to attend to, to protect the health and safety of Canadians? Members of this committee, tell me, do you feel that's responsible for us to do?

All of us are responsible for this work to continue forward. We have a government bill that has been referred to our committee, Bill C-19. We need to get on with studying this bill. That's my plea to you. I don't know how we can not face reality and debate this whole WE Charity and prorogation link, because it's non-existent. If there was no conflict of interest, does it even make sense for opposition parties to try to tie the two together? It doesn't even make sense anymore. Give it up, and let's move on to Bill C-19, please.

I move that the committee proceed to study Bill C-19.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mrs. Shanahan.

There are a couple of things I feel I should have probably said at the beginning of the meeting just as a refresher, because we were all on a constituency week as well. We have had Bill C-19 referred to the committee as of May 11. It's been some time. We had the constituency week in between, obviously, which took up time. This is a government bill, so there's no time limit for the committee to consider the bill, but generally, legislation is given priority by committees.

If the committee chooses to move forward on that, there are some things the committee will have to keep in mind. We would need to decipher how many witnesses to have, which witnesses and the dates for those witnesses. Those suggestions need to be sent to us. Just keep all that in mind so that we can schedule them. There are always scheduling difficulties, so we need to know that stuff as soon as possible if we wish to make any amendments to the bill. Then we would need to determine a date for clause-by-clause and basically an overlying deadline for that.

As another reminder to the committee, the next meeting, on May 27—today is May 25—would be the last date for us to consider the main estimates. Otherwise, on May 31, they will revert back to the House. That's just a reminder on the main estimates as well.

I will move to Mr. Turnbull, and then Mr. Blaikie right after that.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is announcing that the government will impose another gag order to pass Bill C-19, but his arrogance is truly disappointing and distressing.

In 2014, he said that it was unacceptable to suspend the rules of democracy in order to change them. Today, he is in power in a minority government, and now he thinks it is acceptable. Is he really open to amendments? Since he knows the bill so well, will he be able to give me an answer if I propose one?

Does he think it is okay that his minister told us this morning that there would be no delay in releasing the results, when, according to the bill, voting day ends on Monday but mail-in ballots can be submitted until 6 p.m. on Tuesday? Moreover, I could even deliver a mail-in ballot to the office of the returning officer on Tuesday morning.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons agree that the vote should end on Friday, to avoid confusion and to ensure health and safety on the ground?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to provide some thoughts on the opposition motion. There has been a great deal of misleading information, if I can put it that way, so let me start by being crystal clear for those following the debate that the Government of Canada, headed by the Prime Minister, has been very, very clear: Our focus since the beginning of the pandemic has been on delivering for Canadians.

Canadians expect their Parliament to work to deliver for them through this pandemic, and indeed over the past many months, we have put in extra effort to make that happen. If we go back to the very beginning, we see the creation of programs that have assisted millions of Canadians, programs that have provided a lifeline to many small businesses, preventing bankruptcies and keeping people employed. We have seen support programs for seniors and people with disabilities, and enhancements of youth employment opportunities. We have seen provincial restart money, money being put into our school systems and the speeding up of infrastructure programs.

The government has taken a team Canada approach. For the first couple of months, there was a high sense of co-operation coming from the House of Commons, but that changed. For the Conservative Party, it started to change toward the end of June. For others, it took maybe a bit longer. Let there be no doubt that from the very beginning, the Government of Canada's focus has been the pandemic and having the backs of Canadians day in and day out, seven days a week. Let there be absolutely no doubt about that.

It is the opposition that continues to want to talk about elections. Further, we have even seen threats of elections coming from some politicians in opposition parties. What is really interesting about the motion today is that we have the Bloc party saying that it does not want to have an election during the pandemic. That is what it is saying today publicly.

I challenge Bloc members to share with Canadians what they truly believe. Last year, the leader of the Bloc party made it very clear. He vowed that if the Prime Minister of Canada did not resign, he would force an election during the pandemic. That is what the leader of the Bloc party said. The very same Bloc party today is saying that we should not have an election during the pandemic.

When he was asked about it last year, he responded by saying that allowing the government to remain in a position of power would do more damage to the country than forcing Canadians to head out to cast their ballots in the midst of a pandemic. He made it very clear that he would move a motion of non-confidence if the Prime Minister did not resign. In my books, that is pretty clear.

We have seen on numerous occasions all opposition parties, or at least the Conservatives and the Bloc, vote non-confidence. We have even seen some individuals from the New Democratic Party support non-confidence measures inside the House, from what I understand. Maybe not collectively as a party, but definitely as individuals.

Members should listen to what is being said in the speeches. The member for Kingston and the Islands and I spend a great deal of time in the chamber or in the virtual Parliament, and we listen to what members of the opposition are saying. Contrary to what some members of the Bloc are telling us today, it is completely irresponsible for us to believe that an election could not take place, when we have had threats coming from the leader of an official recognized party of the House, who is vowing to have an election. Am I to believe that the Bloc members, as a group, have had a road to Damascus experience and now do not want an election? Does that mean they fully endorse the Prime Minister and that what they said last year was wrong, that Canadians misunderstood and the Prime Minister is doing a good job, according to the Bloc now? Is that what we are to believe?

I will tell members what I believe. I believe in the reality of what I see in terms of votes on the floor of the House and some of the words we hear from members opposite, who talk consistently about elections and challenge the government on an election with the actual votes, not once, twice or three times. I loved the way the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is responsible for the Canada Elections Act, asked how many times opposition members voted no confidence in the government: (a), (b), (c) or (d). Those following the debate should keep in mind that any loss of a confidence vote precipitates an election. People may be surprised at the actual number. The President of the Queen’s Privy Council asked whether it was (a) one to four times; (b) five to nine times; (c) 10 to 14 times; or (d) more than 15 times. I am virtually in the House of Commons, and I know it is well over 14 times.

It is not only votes of confidence. Let us look at the destructive force that the official opposition party has played on the floor of the House of Commons and some of the questions that were asked today. Members are talking about Bill C-19, which is a very important piece of legislation. We cannot continue to have confidence votes and not recognize the value of the legislation, but a couple of members said the government brought in time allocation and how mean that was because, after all, it is a minority government and it is forcing election legislation through. We cannot do that. We need the support of an opposition party to do it. Fortunately, the New Democrats stepped up to the plate so we could pass Bill C-19.

Then another Conservative member said the government brought in time allocation and there was very little time for members to debate it. On the very same day the time allocation was brought in, what did the Conservatives do? They brought forward a concurrence motion on a report, preventing hours of debate on Bill C-19. Did it prevent the bill from going to committee later that day? No, it did not. Did it prevent members from being able to speak to the legislation? Yes, it did.

Then some opposition members said it was a bad bill and asked about consensus and even quoted me on it, in terms of how we should strive to get consensus. Need I remind members how they voted? Liberals know how they voted on it. Every political party voted in favour of Bill C-19 going to committee. What the opposition is attempting to do here just does not make sense. We can talk about the frustration of government in terms of legislation.

The Prime Minister says the pandemic is the government's number one concern. We will have the backs of Canadians and we will be there for them. That means we need to pass important legislation that matters to every Canadian. The best example I can come up with offhand is probably Bill C-14.

Last fall, Canada's very first female Minister of Finance presented a fall statement, brought in legislation in December, and brought it up on numerous occasions for debate. We had to force it to get through because the opposition was not co-operating. There was no sense of how long opposition members were prepared to keep it in the second reading stage of the process. That legislation provided support programs and many other things for real people and businesses being challenged by the pandemic.

The government has a very limited number of days and hours to actually conduct government business. The Conservatives, who are the official opposition, know that. They understand it. One might think, given the pandemic and their talk about the importance of being there for Canadians during the pandemic, that the Conservatives would come to that realization, as opposed to debating Bill C-19. One might think they would allow the debate on Bill C-14 to be conducted in a better, healthier way for all parliamentarians and, indeed, Canadians and that they would be willing to participate. One might think that, but that is not the reality.

I have been listening to a number of people speak to the motion we have before us today. I am still trying to learn some of the acronyms in texting, such as OMG, which I believe means “oh my God”. I have probably had three or four of those OMG moments today when I wondered where this was coming from. How could members really say some of the things they are saying?

We had a member talking about how terrible the Liberals were. He said that we were an absolute and total failure and that we were so bad. Is the member scared we are going to call an election because we were so bad? Some members were saying how bad Canada was in acquiring vaccines. The last time I looked, we were the third best in the G20 countries. Canada is doing exceptionally well. We will actually have received somewhere between 45 million and 50 million doses of vaccine before the end of June. As of yesterday, in the province of Manitoba, anyone over 18 can book an appointment to get their first shot.

Conservatives then had to come up with something to be critical of the government on the vaccine front, so they hit on the double dose issue. Conservatives thought they could say that the government was not doing a good job on the double dose issue.

I ask members to remember, back in the December, some of the opposition's criticisms of the government. Criticism is fair game. The Conservatives are in opposition, and I wish them many years in opposition. They are entitled to be critical of the government and the things we are doing. However, it is another one of those OMG moments. They need to get real. They need to understand what Canadians want us to be focused on.

To my friends in the Bloc, they should seriously think about what their leader has been saying and the posture the Bloc has taken for the last number of months. When I saw this particular motion appear on the Order Paper, I had to give my head shake and ask myself if it was really coming from the Bloc. The Bloc has been the clearest of all in terms of wanting an election now.

I do not believe this. It might be what the Bloc has been thinking in the last 72 hours, but who knows what their thoughts are going to be 24 hours from now. That is the reason we brought in Bill C-19.

If there are concerns for Canadians regarding a potential election, given the behaviour we have seen from the opposition, one responsible thing to do would be to actually pass Bill C-19. Let us get it through committee. I think about how much time have we allocated toward Bill C-19. I was prepared to speak to it on a couple of occasions. One day, maybe back in January or February, I was primed and ready to go. It was going to be called up and, lo and behold, the Conservative Party brought in a concurrence motion. That was not the first time.

Ironically, once time allocation was put on Bill C-19, Conservative members did it again. They brought in another concurrence motion that prevented people from being able to speak on the legislation, even though it was going to committee. It just does not make sense. We have the vote on it. Conservatives were trying to frustrate the government in terms of not allowing the bill to proceed, so one would think that they were going to oppose it, but that was not the case. Of the entire Conservative caucus, those who voted, voted in favour of it.

Now Bill C-19 sits in limbo, although the Liberals would like to see it actually being talked about. There are some good ideas there. The minister has been very clear that he is open to ideas. The member for Elmwood—Transcona has talked about a number of possible amendments.

I think that we have been fairly clear in terms of getting the legislation before the committee. It is there. The committee can deal with it at any time now. Is the opposition being sincere about being concerned with the pandemic and what takes place in an election? We know that, no matter what, Elections Canada, while being recognized around the world as a first-class independent agency with the ability to conduct an election, would benefit from this legislation if we can get it passed. I think it is the responsible thing to do. Just look at the number of non-confidence votes we have had: 14 or 15. This would be a responsible thing for us to do.

Why not allow that discussion at committee? If we take a look at the principles to be looked at, they are just temporary measures. We do not know how long the pandemic could potentially carry on with variants and so forth. We are very optimistic today, but there are long-term care considerations. Bill C-19 talks about extending the number of polling days and mail-in ballot enhancements.

We have seen other governments in three or four provinces that have actually conducted provincial elections. We saw a huge election just south of the border. We saw by-elections conducted by Elections Canada. I would like to see PROC deal with the bill, and the sooner the better.

I encourage members to recognize two facts. First and foremost, since day one this Prime Minister and this government have been focused on the pandemic and being there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Second, when it comes to talking about an election, it is the opposition that does a lot more talking about it than the Government of Canada or the Prime Minister.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very interesting question.

I am glad she asked me a question about the legislative agenda because it gives me the opportunity to address a few things.

The discussions surrounding Bill C-19 started on October 5, 2020. On October 22, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs initiated a study. On December 8, it tabled a preliminary report. On December 10, the government hastily introduced a bill. That was a blatant show of disrespect for the committee and its elected members because they had not yet finished their work. It also demonstrated a serious lack of respect for the many witnesses who spent hours preparing their testimony. Witnesses made a conscientious effort because they thought they were contributing to something important. That is what the government did.

The government introduced this bill on December 10. Since then, the bill has barely been debated in the House. Barely four hours have been spent on debate. It is now May 13.

Why is the bill so important to the Liberals? It is because they want to hold an election in order to become a majority government.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I hope that the problem my colleagues were having has been fixed.

I'll continue with a number of quotes in English that I feel would be of interest to the committee.

As the Clerk of the Privy Council observed in the “Twelfth Annual Report to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada”—that was some time ago, in the early 2000s, I think—“we cannot build systems based on distrust.”

This is just going to this whole accountability and what we're trying to have as our rules. It continues:

We cannot go backwards, building layers of hierarchy and rules governing each transaction. And we cannot treat all errors in the same way. Errors made in good faith are inevitable, especially in an organization that values innovation and creativity. Accountability requires that we report honestly and accurately, including the errors, and demonstrate that we have learned from the mistakes and have made the necessary adjustments. But accountability cannot become mere blaming.

I'm pleased to be reading this quote for you because, as we have seen over the past few months, parliamentarians do indeed have the right to ask questions. We want them to ask questions and to demand explanations.

The government, which is the executive authority, is accountable. It's important to ask whether the government is acting in good faith and whether it has our confidence. Allow me to repeat the fact that parliamentarians can indicate whether or not they have confidence in the government. Since the start of the pandemic, there have been several confidence votes. As my colleague mentioned earlier, not all parliamentarians voted to keep the Liberal party in power, although some thought it was a good idea. It makes sense to believe that those who voted against the government wanted an election to be triggered. So what's the current priority? I believe that it is to adopt Bill C‑19 in order to implement measures that would allow us to hold an entirely safe election, if it were to prove necessary.

I would now like to return to the concept of ministerial solidarity, which is an important, unique and essential factor. All members of cabinet swore an oath and accepted the responsibility not only to maintain confidentiality, but also to express the will of the government and present its policies.

It states:

Collective ministerial responsibility [of cabinet] refers to the convention requiring coherence and discipline of the ministry in deciding policy, managing government operations, and speaking to Parliament with a single voice.

Cabinet members must be able to speak in Parliament with only one voice. We see this in question period. While the questions are often for the prime minister, the prime minister is not necessarily the person who will answer the question. In accordance with this long-standing convention, another minister, who may have more information about the question or who has a higher level of responsibility for dealing with it, may answer. It can also be someone completely different. The cabinet members decide which ministers will answer the questions during question period and these answers are treated as if they came from the prime minister.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I'll be happy now to continue with my comments.

I'm not a permanent member of this committee. I heard the comments from members of the opposition. We just ruled on an amendment and a motion. If these had been adopted, we would have been able to end the debate and begin studying Bill C‑19, which is extremely important. However, the opposition members voted against the amendment and the motion.

I must say that I did some research, because it's a subject I'm interested in. I'd like to continue to talk about the principle of ministerial accountability and our roles in the parliamentary system, in accordance with Westminster traditions.

I will be citing in English for clarity from the Treasury Board of Canada report of 2005. I was speaking before about the roles of minister:

[W]hat is clear from this overview of responsible government are the distinct and finely balanced roles of each of the system’s different players. Ministers exercise executive authority on the basis of the political support that they receive from Parliament; they therefore have political accountability to Parliament. Parliament, in turn, does not exercise executive authority, but it ensures that executive power is properly exercised. Its mechanisms for doing so are political and partisan.

I like the idea of in-depth debate on the whys and hows of our presence here.

It may not be linked directly to the matter at hand, but the issue in the report was the role of ministers and public servants. In many of our discussions, we talked about the accountabilities of officials and ministers, and attempted to determine who should appear before the committees.

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

Yes. That's perfect.

Back to the email, with all due respect, I do recognize that the Bloc today has a motion put forward as well. I totally appreciate where the minister's coming from, but I do believe it's the members of this committee who ultimately need to make the decision here. This decision has been delayed for over two and a half months.

I recognize that it's easy to throw the onus on the people who have not spoken for the last two and a half months while filibustering, but I think we've all said that we recognize we need to get to Bill C-19 and that it is important. We know there have been a lot of concerns of going into a federal election. I've heard Dr. Duncan speak of that and I've heard us all speak of that, concerned about the safety. I don't think that's neither here nor there. I think part of the thing is that we know that it's one of the most important things to get to. But we've known since February that this bill was coming forward. For the last two and a half months we've been wasting time. That is exactly what we've done. We've wasted two and a half months instead of getting to the work that we need to do.

I do know, as I've heard from all other opposition parties, that there still seems to be one thing that's outlying. I've heard Ms. Shanahan refer to part one, being the Prime Minister, of our original motion. I think these are just really big concerns. Bill C-19 can get to be studied if we actually find a final decision here. I think that's what we're waiting on, a decision on this motion. It's going on three months and we're still waiting for a decision.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Certainly I believe everybody on this committee wants to get to the consideration of Bill C-19, and we are reminded often by Minister Leblanc, other ministers and the Prime Minister that committees are the masters of their agenda and of their decisions.

If I can offer to Mr. Turnbull's earlier remarks and Ms. Shanahan's remarks, I believe in the Westminster system of government any efficient and effective minority government needs to govern with a certain pragmatic humility. We have seen, for the past two and a half months, Liberal members filibustering, filibustering still today, refusing to accept the will of the committee.

We could quite easily move on to Bill C-19 and the estimates with a vote and the committee accepting the will of the majority of our members to call a certain witness to complete our study on prorogation. I think that's really where we are right now, and Minister Leblanc's urging notwithstanding, it's time for a bit of that pragmatic humility and for Liberal members to accept the will of the majority of the membership of this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting back to order. There are a couple of things before I give the floor back to Ms. Shanahan.

At around 12 o'clock today, I got an email from Minister Leblanc's office. They have reached out to appear before the committee on the urgent matter of studying Bill C-19.

They stated:

As you know, the Opposition has voted 14 times for an election in recent weeks, and it is the responsibility of all parties to make sure that the necessary protections are in place if the Opposition send Canadians to the polls.

That is what they wrote. I'm just reading what they wrote. I just want to let you know that. It's up to the committee, really, at the end of the day who they want to see as witnesses and whether we move to that study. However, I just want you to all be aware that I did receive that email. I forwarded it to the clerk as well.

Also, our window is narrowing on the main estimates. We still have those witnesses on the sidelines waiting if you want to call them.

Considering what Mr. Blaikie said earlier and the reason I'm stating it, maybe it gives parties the time to have some space before they move on to whether they're having a vote on this issue or moving on to another study. It might make some space to do something else in the meantime, but it's really up to the committee again.

Last time, on Tuesday, I felt there was no desire to even undertake the main estimates. I'm not sure if those were the thoughts of everybody. Nobody really verbalized it. I just got a lot of no responses to the question, so my guess was that there was not that much interest in doing the main estimates. However, I don't want to mistake that by you just not wanting to start them this week versus, after the constituency week, maybe there is interest in taking up the main estimates. Just let me know if you are interested, once again, because we have those witnesses on standby.

Those are the two announcements: the email I received and the main estimates.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by informing you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak to a motion that states the obvious, which is that holding an election during the pandemic is not a good idea.

People in Elmwood—Transcona and across Manitoba are experiencing a serious tightening in pandemic restrictions. Store capacities are being severely restricted, our schools are closing, visiting outside on the property of family and friends has just been prohibited. The last thing on the minds of people, just as my Conservative colleague said was true for his riding is true as well in Elmwood—Transcona, is having an election.

Even if constituents are not necessarily impressed with the response of the government to everything in the pandemic, I think they recognize that it is better that Parliament continue to work and put pressure on the government to get things right rather than suspend Parliament, allowing the government to govern with a free hand during an election. We also do not what the outcome of that election will be both in terms of who might form a government afterward and whether we will be able to elect a full House of MPs. We have the example of Newfoundland and Labrador, which was unable to complete its election as foreseen, and a lot of disputes about the legitimacy of political outcomes arose from that. What Canada cannot afford right now is to add a political crisis on top of a health and economic crisis, which is why this motion is so important.

As I said, restrictions are getting more serious in Manitoba. In some cases, that just means we are implementing things that have already been the case for some time now in the third wave in other provinces. There are some provinces where restrictions are still looser. However, the point is that even though we have seen some provincial elections take place during certain times of the pandemic, the challenge of pulling that off from coast to coast to coast, across 10 provinces and three territories, is far more than pulling it off at the provincial level. We have seen, even at that level, it can fail.

The logistics of a federal election are orders of magnitude more complex than a provincial election. That is why it is all the more important that we avoid, if we can, a federal election.

What does that take? It takes some good faith and good will by all players in the House, but particularly the government, which has to find a way forward. It does not mean that the government needs to always have a consensus among all the parties, but it at least has to have a meaningful partner on each of the initiatives it moves forward with, It also has to recognize that when it cannot find a meaningful partner, it does not have the mandate to move forward on a particular issue.

How does that fall apart? The only way it should fall apart is if the other parties all end up voting against the government at the same time. This is the only real proof that the government cannot find a consensus on an important or key part of its mandate. That is the real test. It is not how the Prime Minister feels when he wakes up in the morning. or whether he is upset because certain members of the opposition have criticized him too much on something or whether they are speaking more than he might like to certain things. If he can find another partner, certain things can be expedited, and we have seen that. It came up earlier. The NDP recently worked with the government to try to get Bill C-19 to committee, because we think it is important the bill passes. I will have to more say on that in a bit.

However, for the time being, I would like to know if the Bloc, in putting this motion forward, and not for the first time, does not think an election should occur in the pandemic and if it is committed to not cause an election during the pandemic. The Conservative Party has been on record for a long time now, at least back to February when the leader of the Conservative Party said very clearly in the Toronto Star that he would not trigger an election. Yes, the Conservatives voted against the budget and against other things, but they have done that knowing another responsible party would pick up the slack, do their job and ensure that there would not be an election. We all have strong feelings about what the government does, but we are very mindful of the consequences of our actions in the New Democratic caucus and we are willing to be the adult in the room.

We have said it for a long time, going back to June 2020 when I wrote to my colleagues on the democratic reform file, saying that we needed to talk about what would happen if the situation in Parliament lead to an election. We did not hear back for the summer, but we did eventually get a study at the procedure and House affairs committee. The outcome of that study was an all-party recommendation, no one dissented, which is in black and white in the final report of the procedure and House affairs committee. It says that there should not be an election in the pandemic unless the government loses a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, which it has not yet done.

It does not matter if some parties vote against the government. What matters is whether the government can find a partner to get its vital business through the House. So far, it has been able to do that, and our opinion is that it should continue to try to do that. As long as it is willing to make reasonable compromises, it can do that until we get out of the pandemic.

If the Conservatives, the Bloc members and the New Democrats are saying they do not want an election in the pandemic, how could it possibly happen except if the Prime Minister unilaterally decides to exercise the powers of his office and call an election even though the opposition parties do not think we should have one. After repeated calls for him to commit to not taking that road, putting Canadians who are worried that we might end up having a political crisis on top of a health and economic crisis at ease, the Prime Minister refuses to make that commitment, which is a point of serious frustration.

This leads me to the point about Bill C-19 which came up earlier. Yes, the NDP worked with the government because we saw a consensus around the principle of the bill. That is the same consensus that I witnessed around the table at PROC from an all-party point of view, which members can read about in the final report by the affairs committee. Under the current rules for an election, if we try to run an election just as if it is any other election and the pandemic did not happen, it will lead to failure, if not failure on the health side, then on the democratic side. We need to try to have some accommodation. Why is that a matter of urgency? It is urgent because the Prime Minister refuses to commit to not call one.

To some extent, I am surprised at the level of trust my Conservative and Bloc colleagues seem to have in the Prime Minister to put the public good ahead of his private political interests. The New Democrats do not share that faith. We are willing to negotiate with a government, which we often disagree with, to get things done and to make Parliament work. However, that in no way leads to any kind of naive faith on the part of our party about the Prime Minister, a Prime Minister whose right-hand man, Bill Morneau, through a large part of the pandemic, was just found to have committed ethical violations in respect of the WE Charity scandal; a Prime Minister who, himself on many occasions on a number of issues, whether it was billionaire island or other things, has been found to be in breach of the Code of Ethics for members of Parliament and for government. That has not happened with a lot of Prime Ministers, so this is not the guy to put our faith in when it comes to making decisions to put the public good ahead of his private interests.

We are not naive about that, and it is why we think it is important that Bill C-19 continue to make progress. Whether opposition parties and Canadians want it, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that he will defend his right to call an election whenever it suits his purposes. If he were not committed to that view, he would already have come out and said, “I' m not going to call an election unless I lose a confidence vote in the House of Commons”, but he will not say that. We are all good at reading between the lines on Parliament Hill. We know exactly what that means.

I never heard in the debate we had either at PROC on a pandemic election or in the several hours of debate we had in the House on Bill C-19 anyone disagree that the rules need to be changed. The point is to get those changes right. That work should happen at committee. The bill can be there now, once the Liberals stop filibustering at that committee, and then we can get on with that work. We need to get on with the work because we know the Prime Minister cannot be trusted to put the public interests of Canadians ahead of his private political gain.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with what my colleague just said. I too look forward to seeing how the Liberals vote. I also look forward to seeing how the New Democrats vote.

What we have here is democracy denied, not once, but twice. The Liberals shut down debate with the NDP's help and introduced Bill C-19.

What does my colleague think about this situation where democracy was twice denied?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague Mr. Blaikie. As always, he's very insightful and obviously very learned about parliamentary rules and procedure.

I don't share some of the perspectives, I'm sorry to say, but I'd like to just make a bit of a plea here.

Mr. Blaikie, you've sort of said that it really is about almost the subjective mind of the Prime Minister that you're interested in questioning or somehow holding accountable. I get that. I get the preoccupation with the Prime Minister's state of mind. That's fine. I understand that's Mr. Blaikie's perspective and perhaps that's shared by some others on this committee.

I just want to be clear though that from my perspective—and this is my understanding—no government in history, no prime minister in the history of Canada who's used the prerogative to prorogue Parliament, which we know is quite a regular practice, has had to table a report that gives a rationale. Not only did our Prime Minister and the government in the last Parliament change the Standing Orders to require this but the Prime Minister and the government followed through with tabling a report. At no time have I really felt as though opposition parties have entertained the merits of that report.

I really believe that we have been very forthcoming, rational and transparent about the reasons why prorogation made sense and why the timing made sense. All of the themes and the data that was available and the consultations that took place all showed up in the throne speech and really demonstrated that the work of our government ultimately can lead back to what was gathered during that time. We lost one sitting day.

I will also say that, just from the perspective of being on this committee, we did not try to block in any way doing a study on this. We fully supported the original motion to do this study, so we did a study. We submitted witnesses, and again opposition parties all had the opportunity to submit their witness list. We undertook multiple meetings. We heard from the government House leader. We heard from other key officials, academics, procedural experts, historians, and the list goes on.

We did look at and hear from witnesses, and at this point it just really feels as though we're stuck, but we're stuck, in my view, not because the government hasn't been transparent and willing to be held accountable or entertain the thoughts, opinions, narratives and perspectives that are as diverse as members on this committee, but really, it seems, this is an attempt to push an agenda that the opposition parties have. It's not rational. It's not supported by the evidence or information. I've been arguing this for quite some time and I've done my absolute best to bring forward evidence, arguments and statistics, all that show that direct line and relationship between the timing, prorogation, resetting of the agenda and what was then worked on as a result of that, which shifted and changed as a result of reflecting, re-evaluating and resetting the agenda.

I just feel as though opposition parties have never once entertained that this might actually be the reason for prorogation, which is a very legitimate reason, and we heard that from academics and procedural experts. We heard it loud and clear. That is one of the main reasons that prime ministers and governments prorogue Parliament. It's completely legitimate.

At the moment in time that we're in, we know, having spent many months reflecting on the past, that we are in the middle of a global pandemic, the third wave of this pandemic. We know that opposition parties are pushing dangerously close to triggering an election, although they keep saying that we want an election. We're going to keep focusing on the health and safety of Canadians. I'm thinking that it feels like we're playing roulette or they're playing roulette with people's health and safety.

I think we really need to move on with the work of Bill C-19 to make sure.... We can come back to Ms. Vecchio's motion—fine. If the opposition parties want to continue on that, fine, but let's not hold up progress on immediately pressing legislation that impacts the health and safety of Canadians.

This is important work. If an election is triggered and our Chief Electoral Officer does not have those adaptation powers.... We know that with the ways of a pandemic, with different variants and with all kinds of factors that are related to this, people's health and safety are on the line. We really owe it to Canadians to protect our democratic institutions and to protect that process.

I move that the debate be now adjourned.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, misinformation is continually being spread, particularly by the Conservatives and Bloc Québécois, as it relates to Bill C-19. The member did it when she said this piece of legislation intends to significantly change the way that people vote in Canada. That is not what this legislation would do. The Chief Electoral Officer said back in the fall that he needed a plan in case there was an election during a pandemic, and asked the government to ensure that he had one. This bill is a response to that.

However, more importantly, both the preamble and clause 11 address the fact that these are only temporary measures to deal with an election being called during a pandemic. Will the member at least admit that this is the case and that the bill calls for the measures to only be temporary?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

In case everyone's wondering, we are voting on the motion to move to Bill C-19. Bill C-19 has already been referred to our committee. An email was circulated to all members. I want to verify that you got that email and all of the information that was contained within it. There were a lot of links on the bill and material for all of you.

At this point, we would be voting to leave Ms. Vecchio's motion as is. It would still remain there. We'd be moving to a discussion on Bill C-19.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We're back on Ms. Vecchio's motion.

We have a speakers list at this point. I have Mr. Blaikie, Mr. Turnbull and Ms. Shanahan.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

What we are debating today is a motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois. The House of Commons is calling upon the government to ensure we do not have an election. This is the motion we are debating today.

For those who are watching who maybe do not follow Parliament all the time, it is important for people to understand we are in a minority Parliament situation right now. What that means is no party has an absolute majority of seats in the House of Commons, so in theory, because we are in a minority Parliament, the government has to work with other political parties to get support for its legislation.

The Liberal Party had a majority from 2015 through 2019 and then lost that majority in the 2019 election. During that four-year period when Liberals were in government and had a majority, they were very used to just ramming things through the House of Commons, not really working with any opposition party and also having control of parliamentary committees.

For those who may not know what parliamentary committees are, they are groups of members of Parliament that have specific mandates to review legislation and different topics. They are very important to the functioning of Parliament. Again, to explain the finer points of how Parliament works, it is every member of Parliament's responsibility to hold the government to account. What I mean by government is of course the executive branch, the cabinet, made up of members of Parliament who hold positions in the executive.

If one does not hold a government appointment, one's job is to question the government and ask if something is in the best interest of the Canadian people, if we could be doing something better, if we are taking the best path forward and why things are being done. That is the job of Parliament.

That type of dialogue leads to good public policy, but under the Liberal government, we do not see that happening. Liberals became accustomed, under their majority years, to whipping their backbench, to not having any sort of debate and moving forward.

I have now been in opposition for several years and I fully take my responsibility to hold the government to account very seriously. I vigorously question the government about its policies. I review legislation to see whether it is in the best interest of my constituents. I use parliamentary committees to get answers, I use parliamentary procedure to do that, which is what every parliamentarian should be doing.

Back to this motion today, the Liberal minister responsible for it just gave about a 30-minute speech with a bunch of almost Orwellian language. If what he was talking about came to pass, Parliament really would not function at all. Let us talk about the first talking points the Liberals are using today.

Liberals are saying everybody wants an election because opposition parties might vote against legislation and that it is confidence. If the government is putting forward bad legislation or there are parts of the legislation the opposition does not agree with, this goes back to what our roles are as parliamentarians to not support it. The government has to earn my vote and it should have to earn the vote of every member of its backbench and not just expect it through a whip or the threat of a party nomination. That talking point is so egregiously bad. For somebody who is the former government House leader to put that forward is shameful, so let us not expect that.

Let us talk again about this minority situation. The government does have to work with opposition right now. It has to earn the support on confidence matters of another party so legislation can pass. Liberals do not want to do this. Of course they do not want to do this. They do not want to have to negotiate with the Bloc Québécois, the NDPs, the Conservatives or the Greens. They do not want to do that.

What do Liberals want to do? They want to go back to the polls in order to get a majority government. Any time anybody hears speculation about an election during a pandemic, it is because that is what the government wants to do. The Liberal minister in charge of this file was just asked point-blank by a colleague in the Bloc Québécois if he could confirm that the government does not want an election. In typical Liberal form, he danced around the question and did not answer.

I think it was fair of the Bloc Québécois member to point that out today. For those who are watching, the Liberals have put forward a bill called Bill C-19. It significantly changes the Election Act. They used something called “time allocation”. That means that they limited debate on this bill, because they want to push it through prior to the summer. A lot of pundits are saying that this is because the Prime Minister wants to trigger an election.

This has nothing to do with a confidence vote in the House of Commons. A lot of speculation has been made in the media and by pundits that it would not be about a confidence vote in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister would ordinarily go to the governor general to call an election, but he kind of messed that one up too. That is really what is at stake here, so when we hear Liberals using talking points today about this, it is complete bunk.

Let us talk about an election in the pandemic. Right now, people in my constituency want hope and a way forward. I have been very pleased to be the opposition health critic since September. I am very proud of the fact that I have used every tool at my disposal to force the government to get answers on vaccine procurement and rapid test procurement. I will never forget the moment at the health committee when Pfizer said that the government had not negotiated delivery of our vaccine until the end of February. It only went back to Pfizer in November to renegotiate a contract to get a few doses in December. Why is this? It is because Parliament put political pressure on the government to ensure that vaccines were available for Canadians. I think the sponsor of this motion today is my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, who sits on the health committee with me.

This is how our Parliament works. When the government is not doing what it needs to do, other members of Parliament use procedure to force the government to do the right thing or to consider a different option. That may not be convenient for the Liberal government. I understand that, but that is how our democracy works. We can see the things that the government has done, such as prorogation, when it actually shut down Parliament.

The other talking point today that Liberals are using is that the opposition needs to work collaboratively with committees. Whenever we hear the Liberals say “work collaboratively”, it means we should not ask questions: just shut up and vote the way they want us to. Unfortunately for the Liberal government, that is not how Parliament works. However, it is fortunate for the Canadian public.

Lastly, regarding committees, if a Liberal gets up today to say that committees are not functioning, it has been Liberal Party members who have filibustered committees every time. I sat through many filibusters at the health committee during the pandemic on motions that provided information for the Canadian public, brought ministers to committee and generated news stories, so that Canadians could actually see that maybe this was not going well and maybe they deserved better. In turn, that political pressure forces the government to act.

To be clear, we are talking about an election right now with only 3% of Canadians being fully vaccinated. We see the United Kingdom opening up. Yesterday, I saw that the Governor of California, a very Democratic state, would be lifting the state's mask restrictions in the middle of June because of their forward progress on vaccination. Canada is not anywhere near there.

The federal government has not even provided any benchmarks for what vaccinated persons can do in this country. A lot of people are watching this today and saying, “Enough is enough. I demand safety. I demand health. I demand the right to work. I demand the right to see my family. I demand the right and the freedom of movement. It has been for well over a year now that my freedoms and my safety have been questioned, and the federal government has not delivered on any of these things.”

That is why the Liberal government wants an election. It wants an election because it does not want those voices to punch through and to demand better. I can say on behalf of every opposition person here, whether from the Bloc Québécois, NDP or Greens, that even though we may disagree across party lines on items of policy, we can all agree that the government needs to do better on the pandemic. That is what it needs to be focusing on.

I do not think any of us are going to apologize for the work that we do to get answers for Canadians. I sure am not. That is why my constituents pay my salary: to fight, to ask the tough questions and to be a champion for these things.

If Justin Trudeau wants to go to our non-existent governor general and trigger an election, he will have to answer for that, but for now, what we are going to continue to focus on is getting a way forward through the pandemic.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is rather fascinating to hear my colleague talk about hypocrisy when everything the Liberals are doing indicates that the government wants an election now. The government imposed a gag order on Bill C-19, which makes no sense.

It is as though the government has nothing better to do, as though it is looking for work and as though it is saying that 18 months have gone by so it is now time to have an election because that is the way things have been done in the past.

However, there is plenty of work to do. We are in politics to help people. Right now, with the pandemic, there are no health care transfers, there is no help for seniors and there is no solution to the current housing crisis in Quebec. If the Liberal government is looking for work, we have a laundry list of things it could do to help people during this pandemic. What does my colleague think about that?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I don't take offence, Madam Chair. I don't take offence because I would never mislead anyone intentionally or even unintentionally. Obviously, I'm not perfect, but I'm really reporting what the media is reporting, which is that the Prime Minister has been cleared of any conflict of interest, which is what I just read.

If you want me to refer you to the article in the media, I'm sure you could look it up yourself, Ms. Vecchio. I'm just reporting to the committee what I've just heard. This is breaking news, and it's good news. It also, I think, speaks to the heart of what we've been debating for quite some time: that opposition parties have been really adamant about sticking to wanting to hear from the Prime Minister on prorogation. Really, from my perspective anyway, it seems like that really centres on an argument that somehow prorogation was used to cover up something nefarious, so I think this is relevant.

What I've been trying to say all along is that we've tabled a report for the first time ever that gives a rationale for prorogation, and this is a decent rationale. It really makes sense. It's supported by evidence. The timing was right. We could quibble about whether the timing could have been better, but I really feel that the timing was right. It did give the government an opportunity to reset, to re-evaluate and to essentially move forward in a way that was more relevant to the changing context within a global pandemic. That, to me, seems very rational.

We've been staring in the rear-view mirror, looking at prorogation and studying that, talking about that for quite some time. I really feel at this point—and many of the members on our side have said this in the past—that we really have important business before us. We just had Bill C-19 referred to us from the House. I know this was voted on. I think it wasn't quite a unanimous vote, but it was very close to it. I think there was only one member who voted nay on that bill.

I think we have important work to do that really, to me, is pressing, given the fact that opposition parties have numerous times over the last month or two voted that they don't have confidence in our government, and this could trigger an election.

I think that the health and safety of Canadians within a general election should be our highest priority right now. I really think that Bill C-19 deserves our attention. It is within our mandate as a committee to look at anything to do with the election of members of Parliament. I really think that it would serve the interests of Canadians. I really feel that leadership in government should always be focused on the interests of Canadians, especially during a global pandemic when opposition parties seem to be trying to take down the government or at least are threatening to do so from time to time. To me, this could very well put our democratic process at risk. Canadians' ability to participate in a fair and democratic process could be jeopardized to some degree. By that, I mean if the Chief Electoral Officer doesn't have the powers that are within Bill C-19, which are adaptation powers. There are several, I think, around long-term care. We've all expressed concerns, and we did some great work on studying this. However, I think we need to move on from this particular debate and get into the work on Bill C-19.

Of course, this doesn't mean that we would.... Ms. Vecchio's motion would still be on the table to return to.

Given all this rationale that I think is quite substantial in my view, I move that the committee proceed to study Bill C-19.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for giving me an opportunity to speak to Bill C-19, because after four hours of debate, the government shut down the debate on it so it could get the bill to committee. However, the Liberals on the committee are filibustering, so the committee cannot get to that legislation. They are filibustering because the government is trying to cover up the Prime Minister's involvement in the WE charity scandal and will not allow any of the witnesses to come forward.

Will the minister intervene to get the Prime Minister to come to committee, so we can stop the filibuster and get to talking about Bill C-19?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's really great to be back on PROC today. Welcome, everybody. It's good to see you.

I know our last meeting was certainly a bit frustrating for people. I sensed that among many of the members. I'm hoping today we can have a very productive meeting that's focused on how we move forward.

I know, for me, I have quite a few desires and concerns about Bill C-19. I've been thinking about the importance of that. We've been engaged in an extended debate for quite some time, which really focuses on an issue that happened many months ago. From my perspective, it would be great if we could move on from that.

I know the opposition parties, despite some of the differences of opinion, were looking to propose something today. We had asked for that in writing. I know those conversations were likely being had between the last meeting and this meeting. Maybe we'll hear from them today as to what they would propose. I don't know if they're ready to do that today, but I certainly was hoping and optimistic and really looking forward to having an open discussion, with the hopes of moving beyond this moment, where I think we have a little bit of a deadlock in our conversation.

I just wanted to say that I'm really looking forward to, hopefully, hearing from opposition parties, if they're prepared for that, and would welcome any of those comments from my colleagues.

Thank you.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am here today to discuss the motion presented by my hon. friend from La Prairie on the possibility of a pandemic election.

Let me begin by saying our focus as a government, since the beginning of the pandemic, has been on delivering for Canadians. Canadians expect their Parliament to work to deliver for them through the pandemic and, indeed, over the past many months, the government has done just that.

The government has no interest in an election. We have repeatedly said that. The Prime Minister has said that. However, as the House is well aware, an election could happen at any time in a minority Parliament. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to be prepared for such a scenario, which is why the government introduced, following a report from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Bill C-19, which would allow for temporary amendments to the Canada Elections Act in the context of a pandemic.

We agree with the opposition that holding an election during a pandemic would be unfortunate without first implementing these provisions that would ensure that Canadians are able to vote in a way that is safe and secure. The opposition has demonstrated a reckless disregard for the health and safety of Canadians in recent weeks. It has voted no confidence in the government 14 times, which is 14 times in favour of an immediate election. If the opposition feels strongly about not taking Canadians to the polls, perhaps it should stop voting for an immediate election.

The government wants the House of Commons to work constructively, as it has over the past number of months. Part of that includes a timely study of Bill C-19 to ensure that if an election were held, the obvious desire of many opposition members, it would be safe and secure, and accessible to as many electors as possible.

We are ready to work with all parliamentarians to ensure that these temporary changes to the Canada Elections Act address our collective goals, but that requires the opposition to also work constructively at parliamentary committees. The current tactics by the opposition to paralyze the work in the House and in committees can sometimes be nothing short of dysfunctional.

Allow me to quote the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, who said, “It's the nature of the opposition to oppose the government but at the same time I hope we can concentrate our efforts on real issues, issues of public policy.”

Every responsible prime minister has to make a decision on the effective functioning of Parliament. I would encourage our colleagues in opposition to focus, as the government has, on delivering real results for Canadians. From investing in PPE to increasing capacity for testing and tracing and delivering more than 20 million vaccine doses for Canada, we have spared no effort in fighting the pandemic and providing support to those most affected by it.

A team Canada approach is clearly the best way of beating COVID-19 and keeping Canadians safe and healthy. I would urge my colleagues in the House to continue to work productively in our shared work to protect and support Canadians.

I would like to touch briefly, as the motion compels us to, on the situation in Quebec over the last year. The COVID-19 pandemic has had widespread and unprecedented effects on Canadians, including, of course, Quebeckers. That is why our government has provided significant support to all the provinces and territories, including Quebec.

Under the safe restart agreement, Quebec will receive over $3 billion for necessary measures like rapid testing, contact tracing, help for municipalities and public transportation, as well as child care services for parents returning to work.

In addition, through the safe return to class fund, Quebec will receive over $432 million, and Quebec's funding allocation under the new COVID-19 resilience stream, which is part of the infrastructure program, is also over $432 million.

Finally, over two million Quebeckers applied for the CERB.

I believe our support for Canadians throughout this pandemic has been clear, and we are grateful to the opposition parties that have helped us put forward these programs that have benefited so many Canadians.

This motion also presents an opportunity to discuss the measures in Bill C-19, which would help ensure that if Canadians go to the polls while Canada is in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, they could do so with the full confidence in their safety and security and the integrity of the election. I am optimistic we can find similar support from the opposition for many of these common-sense measures. I note that all opposition parties voted in favour of the bill at second reading.

From the earliest days of the pandemic last year, electoral administrators across the country began to consider how to hold elections that would be safe for both electoral workers and volunteers and that would maintain the high stands of integrity that Canadians expect. Since March 2020, general elections have been held in four provinces and one territory. COVID-19 may have restricted many aspects of life in Canada, but elections carried on, albeit modified, and with the safety interests of everyone in mind. Additionally, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada oversaw the administration of two federal by-elections in Toronto in October, 2020.

Bill C-19 is based on the October 2020 recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer regarding holding an election in the context of a pandemic and the essential work of our colleagues, who carried out a study on the same topic.

Bill C-19 contains four measures that I will explain in greater detail: a three-day polling period, the safe administration of the vote to residents of long-term care facilities, increased adaptation powers for the Chief Electoral Officer, and the strengthening of measures related to mail-in voting.

Before I move onto these measures, I would like to highlight the unique nature of the legislative changes outlined in Bill C-19. I will reiterate that none of these proposed amendments would be permanent amendments to the Canada Elections Act, and that the bill does include a sunset clause. These measures are written so that they will cease to be in effect six months after the Chief Electoral Officer, following consultation with the Chief Public Health Officer, determines these measures are no longer necessary.

As we have seen throughout the country, this pandemic has not stopped Canadians from expressing their democratic rights. It is our role as elected representatives to ensure that if the time came for Canadians to go back to the polls, they would be able to do so in a manner of their preference and be assured of their safety and the health of their communities.

In every modern general election and by-election, the Chief Electoral Officer has been provided with adaptation powers that can be applied to the Canada Elections Act to ensure that electors can exercise their right to vote. These adaptation powers can assist in running elections in the event of an emergency or other unforeseen circumstances.

The Chief Electoral Officer exercised this power in the last election, for one to allow workers temporarily residing outside their electoral districts to vote. However, the ongoing uncertainty generated by the current pandemic justifies broadening the grounds for adapting the act. This bill would strengthen the Chief Electoral Officer's power to adapt provisions of the Canada Elections Act to ensure the health and safety of electors and election officials, including volunteers.

This would enable them to put in place protective measures in polling places to minimize the spread of COVID-19. These measures are particularly important when considering that Canada's election workforce largely skews toward an older cohort that we know are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19.

These adaptation measures will help support another key measure outlined in Bill C-19, which is the extension of the polling period from a single Monday to three days.

To facilitate physical distancing at polling stations, this bill provides for two additional polling days consisting of the Saturday and Sunday before the traditional voting day on Monday. This measure would reduce the number of people in a polling station at any given time. It will be particularly useful in ridings where public health authorities have established strict limits on the number of people allowed in public places.

We have heard from some colleagues that the three-day voting period is too much time or that the election should be held either only on the Monday or only on the weekend. From work and family obligations to religious observance to the need to access adequate child care or public transportation, there are a number of reasons somebody may have difficulty reaching the polls. The three-day polling period would provide the Chief Electoral Officer and local election officials greater freedom in identifying adequate and accessible polling places.

During an election period, Elections Canada becomes Canada's single-largest employer. Over 250,000 workers were hired for the 2019 election. While Bill C-19 does not address the challenge of electoral worker recruitment, I would like to emphasize a change that was made through the Elections Modernization Act in 2018 that would allow Elections Canada to hire 16 and 17 year olds as election workers.

I would now like to turn to another key part of the bill, which I know interests all colleagues, and it is the way to protect some of Canada's most vulnerable people to exercise their democratic right to vote. Across Canada, long-term care facilities have been hit hard by COVID-19. Even with rising vaccination rates, these facilities must still be protected against the threat of the virus.

Bill C-19 would make it easier for residents of long-term care homes, who are particularly vulnerable and have borne the brunt of the pandemic, to exercise their right to vote safely. Bill C-19 provides for a 13-day period prior to polling day that would facilitate the administration of votes in these facilities. This period would enable Elections Canada to coordinate with long-term care home staff to ensure residents could vote safely.

As it currently stands, election workers travel from one facility to the next administering the vote only on election day. The safety implications of this practice are obvious in the context of COVID-19, and were highlighted also by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada as a challenge in his special report last October.

The flexibility of this 13-day period would allow Elections Canada to work closely with individual facilities to find dates and times that would be most convenient and safe for residents to vote. These facilities are essential to the safety of Canadians and these flexibilities will also assist vulnerable persons.

If there were to be a general election during the pandemic, the Chief Electoral Officer expects we would see an increase in the number of mail-in ballots, possibly as high as five million ballots. Indeed, we saw a significant rise in mail-in ballots in British Columbia's October 2020 general election and in the United States presidential election last November.

Mail-in voting is safe and secure for Canadians to exercise their democratic rights. The electors in Canada have long had the ability to vote by mail, but in recognition of its clear importance during a pandemic, Bill C-19 introduces measures to ensure that the mail-in ballot system in Canada is as simple and as accessible as possible.

Currently, registration to vote by mail can only be done through the mail or in person. Bill C-19 would allow electors to register online for the first time. I should note that providing this option would not inhibit those without access to the Internet to register to vote by mail or in person. By allowing online registration, we would simply be giving Canadians one more option to register to vote.

The bill proposes the installation of secure reception boxes at all polling stations and returning officers' offices. This way, people who are not able to mail in their ballots will have a way to submit them securely. These measures will ensure that, should an election be required during a pandemic, it will be more safe and secure and will give electors as many options as possible to exercise their democratic right.

My final comment on mail-in ballots is for colleagues who have expressed a concern whether the expected influx of special ballots could lead to delays in the counting or the announcing of the election results. I can assure the House that we have heard from the Chief Electoral Officer and he does not expect any delays in the results of a general election based on the increase of mail-in ballots.

The pandemic has affected every aspect of the lives of Canadians. No one has been spared the incredible difficulties of the past year, yet we have also seen the remarkable resilience of Canadians. We have seen that Canadians have not been stopped from exercising their democratic rights in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon, and even in my home province of New Brunswick. Our role in the House should be to ensure that, if required, Canadians are able to carry out their democratic rights in a way that ensures their personal safety and the public health of their communities as well.

If the opposition members are going to continue to vote non-confidence in the government, it is irresponsible for them not to work with the government to ensure these measures are in place to protect Canadians. The current hyper-partisanship of the opposition risks paralyzing the agenda of the government and the supports we urgently need to put in place to help Canadians. While we have no desire to go to the polls, the Prime Minister, as any responsible Prime Minister in a minority Parliament, needs to understand when he has and when he does not have the confidence of the House and be able to act accordingly.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this opposition day about Bill C-19 and the government's firm desire to have it passed under a gag order, without the agreement of any of the parties. At least, that is its desire at the moment, but it was not the case a few weeks or months ago.

Personally, I would call this move selfish, irresponsible and even arrogant, and I would like to explain why. Obviously, there are several reasons. My colleague from La Prairie mentioned some earlier, and I agree with what he said, but I would like to build on his remarks.

The first thing is the issue of democracy. I am having flashbacks to the prorogation of Parliament last summer. The same explanation was offered, that it was a matter of principle. The government is doing this on the pretext of exercising its democratic duty to ensure that Canadians can vote if necessary.

The absurd thing is that, ironically, what they are doing actually goes against democracy. They are imposing a gag order for a bill about holding elections during a pandemic, a bill that concerns all Quebeckers and Canadians. The government says that it wants people to be able to exercise their democratic rights, yet when it comes time to represent the people and reach an agreement with all of the members of the House of Commons and all parties, that is another story.

I think the government is being totally inconsistent. I am not necessarily surprised, because there has been a lot of inconsistency to date. In this case, however, the inconsistency is so blatant that it raises valid questions about why the government is eager to pass a bill so quickly this spring, when the bill was not even on its legislative agenda. It was forgotten for months and now, all of a sudden, it is urgent.

I think this is only a pretext. If a majority of members currently support the bill, they are supporting it despite themselves. We saw that with the gag order. My colleagues in the NDP previously said that they were not in favour of an election and that they did not want one.

We can work on a bill, because that is why we are here, but no one wants an election. If the Liberals want to pass a bill, let them do it properly and hear what all the parties have to say. Earlier, my colleague mentioned that they did not even take into account the work done by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Once again, the government is refusing to do the job properly because it wants to pass this bill quickly.

We are not quarrelling or refusing to collaborate. On the contrary, we are talking about consensus and working together to come up with a solution that represents everyone. I think that that is a responsible and transparent way of doing things that leaves out any disgraceful partisan considerations.

Yesterday, the leader of the Bloc Québécois proposed a solution for Bill C-19 that would avoid the imposition of a gag order. His idea is very simple. He proposed that the Prime Minister meet with, for example, the leaders of the different parties behind closed doors. They could then talk it over and arrive at a consensus. Of course, there would be compromises, because that is what a consensus is. All parties must take something away from the process. Then the members of the House would continue to work to pass the bill. That would be the only right way of doing it.

We did not hear the Prime Minister agree to the proposal. However, when the rules of democracy are changed, they are changed for everyone. It is not up to a single party to make these rules. While I am at it, I should add that Quebec is leading the way in this area, since that is how it operates. When Quebec changes the Election Act, it does so with the participation of everyone, because it wants to represent all Quebeckers. It is a transparent process.

I will say it again: there is no emergency. I know that the government is saying two different things at once. On the one hand, it is proposing this bill to trigger an election, but on the other, it is saying that it does not want an election and that it is the opposition that is pushing it in that direction.

As my colleague from La Prairie so eloquently put it, when we vote against a bill, it is because it is a bad bill. I think that the opposition still has the right to vote against bad bills.

Next, I would like to talk about the government's ivory tower and the reasons it wants to call an election. Due to the pandemic, it has spent money all over the place. The government looks so generous. It gave money to everyone, and it seems like it was doing something extraordinary. I would like to point out that even though help is needed, the money it is throwing around belongs to the taxpayers. Some of my colleagues will agree with me. The government also has a responsibility. It is important to remember that it is the taxpayers who are giving themselves money during the pandemic.

The government is trying to make itself look generous by stamping its flag on the cheques. If it is being generous, it is only towards itself, so it can propose a bill like this one and trigger an election, hoping that the numbers are good enough to give it a majority government. I think that demonstrates that it is incapable of governing, because if it were, it could govern in a minority situation, or at least I hope it could. The problem is its lack of collaboration. That is why quarrels break out.

I would like to talk about my own situation. Yes, we are the middle of a pandemic, but we also have a job to do. I must be present in the House to represent my constituents on the North Shore and all Quebeckers. I must continue to work, and we should be working twice as hard.

As it showed when it prorogued Parliament, the government would rather disappear in the middle of a pandemic. It would rather call an election and prorogue the House than do its job, by which I mean not only what it needs to do during a pandemic, but its regular work as well.

I would like to give some real-life examples of what is happening in my riding right now. A person from Baie-Comeau called my office because they needed help. This person's application for the Canada recovery benefit, or CRB, was rejected simply because they had mistakenly applied for employment insurance. They are now forced to seek help from an organization that works with homeless people because they cannot pay the rent and buy food. The government should be working on glaring problems like this one, especially during a pandemic, instead of taking a break.

There is also a CEGEP student who was scammed and was asked to give back what she received. She is from outside my region. She cannot buy food. We are talking about essential needs as defined in Maslow's hierarchy. She needs to eat, and her life plan and study plan are in jeopardy. That is what is happening right now, and the Minister of National Revenue is not doing anything about it. Our region has not been spared by the pandemic, either. These are real cases.

I could tell you about Cap-aux-Meules, where some fishers no longer have a wharf, which is putting their safety and their lives at risk. The government is not really working on that either, and it wants to call an election. The fishers do not even know if they will be able to fish next year. They did not even know if they would be able to this year. It makes no sense. There are other things to do than impose gag orders and say that there will most probably be an election. Seriously, if they did not want to call an election in August, they could take the time to work on the bill rather than impose a gag order.

There is a lot I could talk about. I could talk about the forest back home on the North Shore that is dying. We could work on that.

If the government really wanted to work for Canadians, it could have done two things in the last budget without having to wait for an election. I said two, but there are many. First of all, we need to look at health transfers. It did not mention them and is not talking about them. Second, there is Bill C-19. Third, there is the issue of seniors. The government is creating two classes of seniors: those 65 and over and those 75 and over. Not all of them are entitled to the same things. That is discrimination.

I fail to understand where the government is going, but it is certainly not working for Quebeckers or people on the North Shore. It is simply working for itself. What the Liberals want is to call an election and be totally irresponsible. I cannot think of a more accurate word than “irresponsible” to qualify the government.

I would simply remind the people I represent, the people of the North Shore, as well as all Quebeckers, that I would like to stay in the House during the pandemic and work twice or even three times harder than necessary to help them, and not work for partisan interests like the government.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to apologize to the hon. member. I am truly sorry. I have indeed used someone’s name a few times. When I was in the Quebec National Assembly, members never referred to anyone by name. Here we do in some cases, for example during committee meetings. I will try not to do it again.

The Prime Minister keeps saying that he does not want to hold an election during the pandemic. He said on television that the government did not want to call an election, that that is clear and that he can be trusted. It is not clear at all.

Then, the Liberals held a convention, where everyone was celebrating. What were they talking about? All they talked about was an election. At some point, the leader of the government, who says that it is the opposition that keeps talking about an election, did a feature on Radio-Canada. All he could say was “election”. As he spoke about the election, he was as excited as a kid on Christmas morning. He says that we are talking about an election, but I think he is projecting.

Although he says he does not want to call an election, we think he does—maybe a little less now, because the polls are not looking as good.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs worked on an election report during the pandemic. We met with dozens of witnesses, in particular public health officials, professors and people from various backgrounds. They explained that we should not hold an election during a pandemic but if we were going to, they had a few recommendations. Everyone said they did not want to trigger an election.

According to Professor Blais, there should not be an election during a pandemic, and the minority government should not call an election during the pandemic. He also said that a minority government should only call an election every four years. I found that interesting, but I am not saying that I agree. I am merely giving him a nod.

The leaders agree that we should not hold an election. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs looked at the possibility, and its members voted unanimously that they did not want an election. The Liberal members on the committee said that they did not want an election. If that is true, why do they not tell their leader? I have my doubts. The government’s good will is as short-lived as a balloon at a porcupine party.

The government says that it does not want to call an election, but that it will introduce a bill. If it does not want to call an election, why is it introducing a bill? I do not understand. We were told that it was just in case. Then, the government brought the NDP on side. When the Liberals asked the NDP members what they thought, they said it was reasonable. They do not want to call an election, but they are introducing a bill to prepare for an election during a pandemic. That is what they said.

The members on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs were very upset. We worked very hard to issue a report. We wanted to release it quickly to provide clarity. We wanted our work to have a positive impact. However, the government introduced Bill C-19 before we could table our report. What does that mean? It means that we worked hard, but they did not care. They introduced their bill. We were upset and wondered why we were working so hard. Such is life.

I would now like to lend my voice to a few political analysts in order to show my colleagues that this does not come from the member for La Prairie or the Bloc Québécois party member, but rather from analysts commenting on the possibility of holding an election during a pandemic. Political analyst Emmanuelle Latraverse said that the government waited until December 10 to introduce a bill. When was the bill debated for the first time? In March.

They rushed to introduce a bill in December, but the bill was not examined until March. We wondered why they did not wait until March to introduce the bill. That way, we could have started working immediately, and we could have tabled our report. That appears to be too complicated, however.

They said that the bill was introduced on December 10 and never explained why.

Even if this is as important as they claim it is, they did nothing about it until March 8. In the past 51 days there have been only three hours of debate.

All of a sudden the government wakes up, realizes this has become a national emergency and imposes time allocation. Our constituents must be wondering what the motive is here. Why did the government not negotiate and find a compromise?

This type of mismanagement of the parliamentary calendar is what poisons relations between the parties. We are in this position because of prorogation, because of WE Charity. When the government prorogued Parliament, every bill on the order paper died. We had to redo the work and we lost a lot of days. We had to go back to square one because the government decided to prorogue Parliament. Suddenly the government hits the panic button and imposes time allocation.

This is a government of legislative chaos. The Liberals are scrambling. They do not know where they are going. There is not much on the calendar because the government does not know how to manage it. The fundamental problem is that the Liberals are increasingly using closure because they find it hard to manage their bills.

I like what Pierre Nantel had to say once. He said that to pass a certain bill, it seemed that the Liberal members were following a script written by a drama teacher.

Then, Pierre Nantel named the Prime Minister and said that the Liberals' handling of the bill suggested that their sole purpose was to show the Conservatives as always being opposed to everything.

I could go on and on, but, in closing, I would like to say that tinkering with the election law, especially during a pandemic, requires a consensus. We would have needed it, but we are dealing with a government of cowboys that likes to run roughshod over the House, unfortunately.

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to order made on January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-19.

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

I'd like to be clear on something, Madam Chair.

The government is willing to jeopardize trying to move forward on this for the right to continue to filibuster on their amendment, as opposed to the right to filibuster on the main motion, which from a practical point of view has no difference that I can identify. I'd be very happy if someone from the Liberal government could provide a compelling explanation as to why, from the point of view of not hearing more about WE Charity and not hearing from the Prime Minister at committee—it is very clear that's not something they want—it matters whether they filibuster on the amendment or whether they filibuster on the main motion.

What's being asked for is what I think is a small act of good faith to dispense with the amendment, to clear the way towards some other possible solution. They're not willing to do that, so there has to be a reason why it matters that they filibuster on the amendment as opposed to the main motion. I can't think of one. I don't see it. We're not asking them to give up any kind of material advantage. We're asking for a symbol of openness towards a proposal that isn't the amendment that we've been debating now for, I couldn't tell you how many hours. It's a lot. It's more than I've debated just about any other motion in my parliamentary life so far. It's a lot.

I don't what rides on that, except for me I know what rides on that. I know that's an important symbol of the government's actual openness to consider a new way forward, so presumably there's a good reason why they're not willing to offer that up.

Mr. Lauzon likes to say it's a negotiation. Yes, it is. What we're saying is that as an act of good faith we're willing to convene a meeting between three different political parties to try to come up with a written proposal by Thursday that the government may find pleasing or may not. In exchange we're asking that they be willing to filibuster on the main motion instead of the amendment. If they're not prepared to do something even that insignificant from a practical point of view as a sign of good faith, then the good faith is not there, because the increment that you would need to measure that minuscule amount of good faith is one that is beyond my capacity. I don't have a tool to measure things that small.

That is what's at issue. I just want everybody to understand that before we leave here today. If there isn't a written proposal for Thursday while the amendment stands on the committee table, I want everybody who might be listening to understand why. It's because we couldn't get a basic minimum act of good faith from the government side, who apparently are more interested in filibustering on an amendment than getting towards a solution, in particular when we have important items coming up.

I'm particularly concerned about Bill C-19. There are lots of things we could talk about. We have over the last 30 or 40 hours talked about many things that we might talk about if we weren't talking about this, but Bill C-19 clearly is very important. I voted with other New Democrats to expedite its passage to committee. I've heard government members say they think it's very important that it be considered at committee. We're trying to clear a path. There is no path without dispensing with this amendment.

Whether it's that this amendment passes, and Monsieur Lauzon himself has said there's no question even in his mind whether it would pass or not.... If this amendment isn't going to pass, then it has to be some other kind of amendment, right? If this isn't the amendment, it has to be another one, or something else, like voting down the motion, having another proposal, whatever. But if this ain't gonna be it—and Monsieur Lauzon just said as much, that he knows it's not going to pass, which is why he's avoiding the vote—then in order to move forward we have to get on to something else. We can only do that once we clear the table of the unsuccessful proposal that's there.

That's not a knock on Mr. Turnbull. It wasn't for him to come up with the solution ex nihilo out of his own mind and slap something down on the table that was going to suddenly wow everybody. That's not what we're doing here. That's why the three opposition parties are going to meet. I bet the first idea that gets uttered in tomorrow's meeting, if it happens, isn't going to be the one that gets accepted because that's not the way things work.

What I can't fathom is why the Liberals on this committee won't allow us to move on into a space where people can propose other solutions. That's what is happening here and I just want that to be crystal clear on the record before whatever's going to happen next happens.

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

I understand, Mr. Blaikie, but it goes both ways. That's what they call negotiation, and that's what we're doing right now. It is important for us to go forward with Bill C-19.

Today, you are proposing that we agree on a solution, and that's what we've always wanted. We are asking you to present something in writing on Thursday, and that would perhaps enable you to find an acceptable solution. Perhaps we will be able to simply vote on it and introduce a new motion so that we can end this study.

We need to be honest in all this. Right now, we have a pandemic, Bill C‑19, and all the other issues under consideration. We do indeed need to think about the post-pandemic period, even though the pandemic is not over. Everybody knows this. We all know that prorogation is no longer an issue, and Mr. Blakie knows it too. We believe that it's time to put it behind us.

No, it's not dead in the water. We absolutely want to move forward, like the other members of the committee. We want to move on to something else.

What's important is that there were negotiations and progress today. As Ms. Duncan said, we had some good discussions. We are not being reluctant and we don't want to be in a worse position than we were at the outset. We made progress today, whether you wanted us to or not, because we began to discuss solutions. Collective negotiations between a party and a government can go on for years. We are trying to negotiate quickly with respect to an amendment on Ms. Vecchio's original motion, but we can't agree on it. That's what negotiations are. Like it or not, when people can't agree on a point, they continue to negotiate and debate.

We are simply exercising our right to debate an amendment that we know you oppose. It's not fair to say that in order to know the outcome, a vote is required, because we already know the outcome. We want to demonstrate why the Prime Minister should not appear before this committee to discuss his decision to prorogue Parliament. The primary goal of this request is not to discuss prorogation, but to establish links between the Prime Minister and the WE Charity. This question has been addressed by other committees and we're not going to change our minds.

By asking you to present something in writing for Thursday, I believe we are showing that we are perfectly willing to collaborate, contrary to what you're saying.

We're in good faith, and we want to get work done, so let's do it together like a team.

Thank you.

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

I want to add something to Dr. Duncan's comments.

I'm speaking to the whole committee, but more specifically Mr. Blaikie. I didn't get into politics to do what we are doing now.

It's also a waste of time on my side, because we have more to do.

You know, Mr. Blaikie, in politics, we often do our best. What's happening today is how committees have sometimes always operated. It's been done by your party, the Conservative Party and others.

In politics, we don't always accomplish what we would like. I understand you, I understand your frustration, and your desire to do more more. Bill C‑19 is before us, and it's extremely important for us, for you and for others. As Ms. Duncan said, despite all the frustrations and everything that happens in committee, we can feel the pressure building hour after hour. We have an opportunity to step back and focus our energies on Bill C‑19.

I consider Bill C‑19 to be an opportunity to set aside what we are experiencing right now. I know that we won't reach consensus. You've already stated your point of view, Mr. Blaikie, and have said that you would no longer join the opposition if we were to ask for something in writing by Thursday.

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

I think the issue here is this. We're trying to conduce toward some kind of solution. We clearly don't agree on everything. I mean, if you look at the position of the Conservative Party and the Bloc on the time allocation vote, for instance, on Bill C‑19 yesterday, it was different from the NDP vote. We've been willing to work with the government to try to get it to committee, because that's something that we think is really important to get under way.

The government has casually asked three different political parties with three different views, including on some of the business that either is before or will be coming before this committee.... That's a fair bit of work. There's no guarantee of success. It's something that we're prepared to do if the government is open to new solutions. But they make that request and then they come back to the table and say their preferred solution is their solution: It's the one on the table.

Monsieur Lauzon disputes the idea that this proposal is dead in the water. That's fine. There's a way to decide that. There's a way to figure that out. It's to have a vote. That's how you figure out what has majority support or not. If the idea is to find some kind of consensus on a path forward, I can tell you that it ain't a consensus. It's going to get decided on a majority basis. The only way to know if it has majority support or not is to have a vote.

In terms of what we're asking for, we've signalled a willingness to reassess and look at things, and to do that in a way that crosses party lines, which is not always an easy thing to navigate, particularly when there may be differences of opinion on Bill C‑19 when it comes to committee. There are different political agendas at play in respect of that bill and the wider question, but that's not worth doing if the government isn't open to another solution. What you're signalling, by insisting on the amendment that we've been debating for months, is that you're not really open to it—unless it's something you like behind closed doors. What you want is a written statement jointly by three different political parties with very different interests to be considered behind closed doors. Then you'll decide whether you like it or not. It may never grace the committee floor.

I'm sorry, but that's not coming at a negotiation as equals. It is not going to succeed. I think it's a waste of my time to try to work with two other political parties to come up with a proposal that might satisfy a third, and not even have the space at the committee table to deal with it, because we can't get a vote to resolve a question that's been open for months. If the government isn't prepared to offer a vote on its own amendment as a sign of good faith towards getting toward some kind of compromise, it ain't worth doing the work on our side. It's not worth the time. It's not worth the time. If the government wants to show us on the opposition side that it's worth our time to do the hard work that we'll have to do amongst ourselves to hammer out some kind of common proposal forward, then they need to show that they're willing to move on from this amendment one way or another.

Monsieur Lauzon says maybe it's not dead in the water. I say let's find out. The way to do that is to have the vote. If the government would at least allow the committee to decide the question, then we would know that it's worth doing the work to find another alternative. What we're hearing right now after all of this, after the conversation earlier this morning, after the five-minute recess, is that the government's preference is to continue to talk this out for as long as they possibly can, without giving an inch, unless the three opposition parties together pitch something behind closed doors that they happen to like.

Well, I'm sorry, but that's not a real negotiation. That's not a sign of good faith. I'm not somebody's puppet who's going to play along like a moron. Unless I actually get a sign from the other side that it's worth my time, I have other things to work on, frankly. I have people I'm trying to get back to in my constituency. I have meetings that I would like to hold. I'm trying to fit that all in while I sit on three different committees, some of which are going quite a bit better than this one, I might add.

I'm not going to invest the time to try to get the government out of its own problem if they can't even allow us just to have a vote on the very proposal they put forward. It's not like we haven't given it a lot of time. How much more time do they think it will take, in the context of today's conversation, before anyone on the opposition side decides it would be a good idea to back this motion?

I think we're ready for the vote, Madam Chair. As a sign, a minimal sign, of good faith, let's have that vote. Then we can be solutions-oriented. As long as the government is going to try to have its cake and eat it too on this committee, that is not going to be a way forward. I guarantee it.

So what are we doing here? Are we working on a path forward or are we digging in? I can dig in with the best of them. I'm pretty tempted right now. Are we going to let this moment pass us by, or are we going to get dug in?

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

What I'm looking for is perhaps you guys can give us an agenda or a plan on what you see us doing.

Tomorrow we will be meeting because we all are on board to meet. Every single member of the opposition wants to get this over with as well. We will be having a meeting. We will be providing some intel.

Now what happens? We've provided you intel and what is the Liberal government going to do now in committee? That is my greatest concern. We are working in good faith as well and, absolutely, I have said three times now that Bill C-19 will be at our doorstep as of Monday. You and I both know how long it takes to get legislation through. It will come here. Then it will go back to the House, and then it will go to the Senate.

Let's not kid ourselves. We will probably be going to the polls in October 2021. We have five full sitting weeks after next week. That means our piece of legislation needs to get done in committee with the witnesses. Then it will need to go back to the House, and then it will need to go to the Senate.

The more this is delayed, the more we won't have our legislation in case of a pandemic election in place, and I would actually say it has a lot to do with the continuation of the filibuster. We would probably be able to get to a bill if we had good faith also in the Liberal members knowing that we could get both things done. Right now, we have an either-or situation. We can either get the report done or we can get Bill C-19 done.

We need to get both done, so we need to find a way of doing that. Those are some of my concerns. Perhaps it's just because I really believe in saying, what is our target? Our target is that we have legislation passed and ready. I do not want to see a single voter have a problem when they go to the polls during a pandemic election if one gets called. We need to ensure that voters are safe, just as Dr. Duncan illustrated in her comments, throughout that period of time.

The option is to get the work done to ensure that Canadians are able to vote. Let's ensure that the committee is actually doing its job. Stop the filibustering and let's get our work done. For me, it's where I'd like to see all of us work together to get these things done. We know that we have a deadline. How are we going to get both the report done with the witnesses as requested, and how are we going to get Bill C-19 back to the House of Commons for third reading?

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

On the same point of order, thank you very much, Christine, for noting.

Thank you very much, Daniel. I really do appreciate it.

Also, Stéphane, I really do appreciate your words. I do know that you've been in and out of committee, but you have done this as well.

I think we are all getting to the point where we are wondering where our timeline is. This morning the reason this conversation started was that we know that we have an important piece of legislation that was rushed through Parliament just the other day, to be honest. It was rushed through Parliament, and it will be on our doorstep tomorrow because we'll be voting on it today. I look at the fact that we know this is coming, so today what is the plan? What are we going to be doing? As of Thursday, we will have another piece that is being added to our agenda, that we need to start looking forward on.

Are we going to continue with Bill C-19? Are we going to do our estimates? What are we going to be doing? I just see that the last 40 hours has truly been spent on that and, honestly, I can tell you my intention was to try to open up a pathway so that we could look at Bill C-19. I know there is a lot of pressure to look at Bill C-19, so I'm asking for the government to come up with a way for us to look at Bill C-19. All that's happened today is that all of the good-faith bargaining that was done this morning is going to be lost, because when we come back on Thursday, we're going to be told, “Here is your written amendment.” Then will we be told that it's not good enough and we're going to continue?

Maybe those are some of the things, because we don't know. If our amendment is not good enough, that means we're going to continue with Ryan's or we'll accept this amendment but we'll continue to filibuster.

There are so many unknowns here, and I think logically we need to look at what the priorities of this committee are. We need to get to Bill C-19. If we have the opportunity to look at estimates, we should be looking at estimates, but ultimately we're listening to these speeches on this amendment just to waste time.

I really appreciate Stéphane and his comments, but when the majority of committee members have said outright that they will not be supporting it, we are beating a dead horse, and every person in this committee today knows that. This is a dead horse, and it's extremely unfortunate.

Let's get back to doing some work. Daniel has already indicated that we are working on this, and we really are. We really are working on this. I would really like to see some movement from the Liberal members rather than their just reading prorogation speeches into the record on Tuesdays and Thursdays every week as they have been doing for the last three months.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Ms. Vecchio, for your very apt comments. Our decisions are indeed made as a multipartite committee, but we have responsibilities as the government.

There's nothing unusual in the course of negotiations to request a written statement so that there is something concrete on the table. Of course, in a five-minute meeting, we would not be able to thoroughly debate the matter raised by Mr. Blaikie. However, we were able to agree that we needed to continue to debate the amendment put forward by Mr. Turnbull. Through this amendment, we've put a little water in our wine by agreeing that the Deputy Prime Minister could come and represent the government.

We know that there's a disparity between what you are requesting and what we proposed. That's why we would like to continue to debate it..

As I was saying a few weeks ago, we sincerely believe that the presence of the Prime Minister is not justified in the context of the prorogation for all of the reasons we mentioned in our comments. There is no need to repeat them.

That in fact is what Ms. Duncan is trying to do, by clearly demonstrating why we have enough work in hand to move forward on things like Bill C‑19 and other extremely important issues. That's why we are insisting on having something in writing so that we can compare your requirements to ours. That's why we're going to continue to debate Mr. Turnbull's amendment, for as long as is required. We believe that it's extremely appropriate to continue.

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

If I might comment just on process, I wonder if we could agree on this much, Madam Chair.

If it seems like we're not going to develop a solution today on the floor—which is fine, it's sometimes hard to do—perhaps we could agree that at the end of this meeting we'll have a vote on the amendment, so that the floor is clear for the beginning of the next meeting. We'll still be on the motion, so nothing will have been decided ultimately, but we can dispense with the amendment one way or the other at the end of this meeting. That would allow the parties some time to speak in the lead-up to Thursday's meeting, knowing that there is an open floor for amendments to this motion if that comes out of those conversations. It may not, but it would allow us at least to do something novel for the first time in a few months by making a decision and clearing the way, as it were, for something on Thursday.

That would allow members, who I know have more to say on the amendment, to do that today. We just heard some arguments in the House yesterday about the importance of debate, but also the importance of deciding things in respect of Bill C-19. I think some of those arguments also apply here. Perhaps we could at least do that in respect of the amendment. Then we can see where we can get to in time for Thursday's meeting, whether we can find a more fulsomely productive way forward by the end of the week.

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

Thank you very much. I'm not going to take up very much time this morning. I know it's really important that we have lots of things coming to us. There's Bill C-19 of course. I'm going to speak a little bit about the mandate, but I think it's really important that we figure out where we're going in these next few steps. I know that right now there will be Bill C-19, and we do want to look at that here in this committee. It's very, very important that we look at this bill. We do have a hurdle and we need to get over that hurdle today, and that is the amendment brought forward by Ryan Turnbull.

I'm just bringing this forward because—let's not kid ourselves. Let's call it what it is. It's a filibuster and it's been a filibuster since February 23, so let's just get over that and see how we can get to a decision on where we want to go. I'm going to put it right out there, and I think we've always said so. Speaking to all opposition parties, I know that with our prorogation study we are focusing on hearing from the Prime Minister, who ultimately would have had the opportunity and who ultimately is the person who called for the prorogation. At that time, in our initial motion, we also looked at the chief of staff, Katie Telford. I'm unsure whether anyone will want her to go to any committees right now. Honestly, I know that it's a hot thing, so it would be a very hot topic to invite her to this, so I don't necessarily want to go there. The Prime Minister is ultimately who we want to hear from.

There are lots of different asks here. There have been discussions about trying to bring in WE Charity. Well, perhaps we can negotiate. That's what I'm saying. I am letting you know that if you're looking at the entire motion, whether it's the original motion or the amended motion, ultimately, there is one person everybody wants to see. That is why I would be voting against Mr. Turnbull's amendment, because it does not include the Prime Minister or even representation from the PMO, including documents. That's why I would not be able to support that, truly, just on the fact that the one key person everybody wants to see on this matter is the Prime Minister, and his name does not appear in that amendment. Therefore, I cannot support it.

When we look at the original amendment, we can also recognize that some people from my original motion are in this amended motion, and that's fine. I'm not saying let's drop it all. I'm saying when the only thing we want is for the Prime Minister to come to this committee and we're asking—originally, I was asking for three hours. Perhaps Mr. Blaikie will join in this conversation to talk about some of those discussions, but I've heard Mr. Blaikie say, “Listen, I want him for an hour.” I don't know if that's a perfect quote, but that's a Daniel Blaikie quote for you. Daniel would like to see him as well. I've heard the same thing from Alain Therrien. I don't know if he'll want me to do it in French today, but I will make sure I will do it in time for him.

Ultimately, we want to see the Prime Minister. I don't know if you've heard any of us talk about the Kielburgers in the last two and a half or three months. There hasn't been much discussion coming from this side. Let's call it what it is. We want the Prime Minister at this committee. This amendment does not include the Prime Minister. The original motion doesn't include the Prime Minister. Hopefully we can get through, knowing that all opposition parties are asking for one thing and one thing clearly, being the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, to come here to committee to explain to us about the prorogation and his decisions.

We have not set out a time frame. I'm looking at my guys. I'm looking at John, Peter and Tom. I'm looking at you guys and saying, “Sorry. I'm really going out there, but we just want the Prime Minister. That's what we want.”

Daniel has offered one hour. We've said three. Let's get down to real negotiations. Let's get this filibuster done and say, at the end of the day, that this is what we want. We're not asking to see the budget. We're not asking to talk about, necessarily, what the Speech from the Throne said, because I know a lot of times people are referencing that. We are asking for that date. If we can go back to August 2020, what were the thoughts and the decisions that led up to this? You can indicate it was the throne speech. That's great, and perhaps we can just hear the Prime Minister say that. That would be wonderful as well.

Let's be honest. Do I think we're going to get answers from the Prime Minister? We're probably not. We don't see that in question period. We don't see that anywhere. Let's just call it what it is. Let us at least ask these questions, and I think that's the one thing. We are being told that we'll not be allowed to ask the Prime Minister of Canada these questions Yes, he is the Prime Minister, but he is also a member of Parliament who chose to prorogue the Parliament of Canada during the biggest pandemic that our generation has ever seen.

Yes, of course, it was at a very difficult time, but rather than having every Liberal member of Parliament speak on his behalf, perhaps the Prime Minister could speak for himself and share that with parliamentarians.

Thank you very much.

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

Madam Chair, we do know that Bill C-19 is going to be voted on after question period today. Could we find out the order of precedence? Could the clerk share this with us? I do know that many of the members, even members from my team.... What takes precedence? What is the order they need to go in? We've been on a filibuster since February 23. Does that stall it out? How does this go?

I'm looking for some procedural guidance. I would like to be able to have a follow-up question if needed after hearing from the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting back to order. This is a resumption of meeting 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which started on April 13, 2021. Today's date is May 11, 2021.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Members are therefore attending remotely at this time. No one is attending in the room, but members are free to do so. The proceedings will be made available on the House of Commons website. Please be aware that the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

I would like to remind everyone not to take screenshots or photos of your screen. Also, please unmute your mike when you have a point of order or wish to speak, and remember to put your mike on mute when you're not speaking.

I have a speakers list from the last meeting. We are still on Mr. Turnbull's amendment. As I have done before, I want to mention a few things at the outset.

The main estimates are due to be returned to the House at the end of this month. We do need to give fair warning to the officials if we want them to have a meeting here. Ideally, I'd like to know today. If you'd like me to schedule a meeting for the main estimates, I would need to get going on that.

We did hear from the Speaker on the question of privilege that was before the House. The Speaker ruled that he didn't find it to be a prima facie question of privilege, so we won't have that coming to our committee.

We have Bill C-19 in the House. My understanding is that will be voted on later today, so that will be referred to this committee.

I want everyone to be aware of the different expectations for our committee right now. Those are a few of the things on my radar at this point. As always, I will let you know when we have various different motions on notice as well.

Does anybody have anything they'd like to say on these issues, as to the main estimates or Bill C-19, before we return to Mr. Turnbull's amendment?

Ms. Vecchio.

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to attempt to begin my speech a third time. I acknowledge my colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View, and I am pleased that he is interested in hearing this speech, especially since he is a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, which I appreciate. He is always there to stand up for the people of his riding, as is the member for Windsor West, who is present and who I hope will be able to give a speech soon.

We are not debating Bill C-19 right now. We are debating the Investment Canada Act. As I was saying, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who was co-chairing the industry committee with me at the time, moved this motion so that we could study the Investment Canada Act. In the context of COVID-19, we had very legitimate concerns about the devaluation of Canadian and Quebec businesses, which could be at risk of being acquired by foreigners at bargain basement prices. We had the real and legitimate concern that head offices could be moved out of Quebec or Canada, benefiting foreign investors.

China is obviously one potential aspect, but there were many other issues, such as Air Transat and Air Canada. These airlines were seeing a significant increase in liabilities coupled with a significant decrease in passenger numbers. They were becoming vulnerable, which was why the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology met and invited witnesses so that we could protect these companies.

Based on the report summary, “The Investment Canada Act (ICA) allows the federal government to review foreign investments. The ICA provides two distinct processes: a net benefit review and a national security review.” There are two key words.

For me, the net benefit for Canada must always be demonstrated. We expect some transparency from the government in this regard, particularly from the Minister of Industry, who will be able to place conditions on a sale.

Obviously, I am thinking of the acquisition of Rona by Lowe's, which happened in our own backyard. We never found out whether the federal government had laid down any conditions. It obviously must have, to allow the acquisition of Rona by Lowe's. The problem is that since these conditions were never made public, it was easy for Lowe's to back out of its commitments a few years later. Quebeckers are no longer attached to Rona. We saw brick-and-mortar businesses in cities across Quebec close their doors. The key issue is supply. A company like Rona would buy goods from Quebec and Canadian suppliers. Now that it is owned by an American company, it will favour the suppliers that can offer the lowest possible price. For an American company, that lowest possible price will be in the United States.

I just want to provide some background and say that, in its report, the committee recommended a more cautious, responsive, and transparent approach to regulating foreign investments.

I submitted a supplementary opinion on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. Although the report contained enough to make it positive, relevant and constructive, we believed that it was missing some important information, mainly surrounding the issue of reviews. I would like to read to my colleagues the Bloc Québécois's supplementary opinion, which is simply entitled “Better Protecting Our Companies” because that is what this is all about.

Can we trade in our neo-liberal economy for an economy where we protect our domestic market, for a Quebec economy and a Canadian economy where we can be independent, do business with local suppliers and keep our economy going in an independent manner?

It is important to remember that, in the context of COVID-19, we were dependent on other countries, whether it was for personal protective equipment or any other health-related issues, such as vaccine production. We lost eight months because of that.

I want to remind members of the context in which our study was conducted. I think it is absolutely fundamental. It is more important than ever. We need to come back to the principle of a strong domestic economy where we protect our national interests and where we buy from Quebec and Canada.

Here is the Bloc Québécois's supplementary opinion, which is entitled “Better Protecting Our Companies”.

The industry committee's report is an important and welcome change in terms of foreign investment control. The Bloc Québécois welcomes this shift after a decade of inaction, but we would have liked the committee to go even further.

In our opinion, the report should have suggested that the government bring the review threshold for foreign investments down to a reasonable level so that it can determine which investments are truly beneficial. Hence this supplementary opinion.

The federal government's foreign investment policy these past years can be summarized in two words: deregulation and permissiveness. The policy provides for increased scrutiny when national security is at stake, and ongoing oversight when investors are foreign countries. The fear of China is real.

However, the floodgates are open for all other foreign investments, which are approved automatically and without review. Statutory review mechanisms, which the government readily insists on protecting in every trade agreement that it signs, are essentially rendered ineffective for foreign investments.

In 2013, the Conservatives set the tone by announcing that they would raise the review threshold used by the federal government to determine whether foreign investments are truly beneficial.

From 2015 on, the Liberals have been doubling down on this change. Between 2015 and 2020, the threshold applicable to “private sector trade agreement investments” increased from $369 million to $1.613 billion. The result is striking: the share of reviewed foreign investments fell from 10% in 2009 to 1% in 2019. You read that right: under the current rules, 99% of foreign investments are now approved automatically and without review.

This lack of oversight comes at a bad time. Over the past 30 years, the nature of foreign investment in OECD countries has changed. New investments are down, while investments in the form of mergers and acquisitions of existing companies are up. I would add that this trend has only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Between 2010 and 2015, only 54% of foreign investments in Canada went toward new entities, while the remaining 46% went toward mergers and acquisitions, where foreign investors took over a number of our companies, either in part or in full.

Canada is doing significantly worse than other industrialized countries in this regard. New entities receive 72% of foreign investment in the U.S. and 78% in France, compared to only 54% in Canada. And the trend continues to this day: from 2018 to 2020, mergers and acquisitions accounted for $90 billion of the $244 billion in foreign investments in Canada.

Simply put, over the past three years, foreign companies have invested $90 billion to take over a number of Canadian companies in part or in full. This $90 billion in takeovers has led to the downfall of head offices and turned them into regional offices with little power.

Quebec has gained significant economic and financial leverage since the Quiet Revolution, enabling it to pursue a policy of economic nationalism—the intensity of which varies from one government to the next—that gives Quebeckers greater control over their economy.

Our economic nationalism has two components. On the one hand, we are open to foreign investment as a driver of growth and development. On the other hand, we invest in Quebec companies to keep them intact and fuel their growth. And we protect our head offices because we know how important they are as decision makers.

Quebec does not, however, want to shut the door to foreign investment. Our economy is and will always be open to the world, and openness toward foreign investment is essential for enabling Quebec to access major trade networks, which is crucial for guaranteeing the prosperity of our relatively small-scale economy.

As Jacques Parizeau wrote in 2001, even before China joined the World Trade Organization, “we do not condemn the rising tide; we build levees to protect ourselves.” Unfortunately, weakening the Investment Canada Act has caused those levees to break.

One striking realisation is that the federal foreign investment legislation was being gutted at a time when Quebec was becoming concerned about foreign takeovers and the collapse of our companies' head offices.

In 2013, the same year that Ottawa announced that it would raise the threshold for reviews under the Investment Canada Act, Quebec went in the opposite direction and established the Task Force on the Protection of Québec Businesses.

The task force was established by a Parti Québécois government, co-chaired by a former Liberal finance minister and composed mostly of businesspeople. It reflected Quebec's consensus for protecting our businesses.

The task force began by noting that Quebec's 578 head offices provide 50,000 jobs that pay twice the average salary in Quebec, in addition to 20,000 jobs for specialized service (accounting, legal, financial and IT) providers. That is huge.

In addition, Quebec companies tend to favour Quebec suppliers, while foreign companies with a foothold here rely more on global supply chains, which has an obvious impact on our SMEs, particularly in rural Quebec. As we have seen during the pandemic, global supply chains are fragile and make us entirely dependent on foreign entities.

Furthermore, head offices are essential for Montreal’s financial sector, which is in turn essential for SMEs across Quebec, since it gives them the financial tools needed to spur their development. Quebec’s financial sector is responsible for 150,000 jobs and generates $20 billion, or 6.3%, of its GDP. A large part, close to 100,000, of these jobs are in Montreal, which ranks 13th among the world’s financial centres according to the Global Financial Centres Index.

Lastly, companies tend to concentrate their strategic planning, scientific research and technological development where their head office is. In other words, a subsidiary economy is a less innovative one.

The task force’s recommendations were mainly addressed to the Quebec government: make more equity investments in companies, facilitate the distribution of employee shares and better equip boards of directors against hostile takeovers.

However, the power to legally regulate foreign takeovers to ensure that they are beneficial for the economy and society is in Ottawa’s hands. And at a time when Quebec was concerned about foreign takeovers of its key economic assets, the federal government chose to relinquish its power to keep foreign investments in check.

Quebec and Canada are two contrasting economies.

While Quebec upholds economic nationalism, Canada focuses on deregulation. That is because our economies are different.

Quebec’s economic nationalism encourages Quebec companies to grow. However, Canada’s economy is largely based on major foreign companies’ subsidiaries. Whether in the automobile industry, with Ford Canada, GM Canada and so on, or in the oil industry, with Shell Canada and Imperial Oil, Canada has had a subsidiary economy for a long time.

As for Canada’s large companies, they operate in industries that are protected against foreign takeovers by federal law, such as finance, rail and telecommunications. Canada, unlike Quebec, cares very little about protecting head offices because it does not believe that doing so is in its national interest. Nevertheless, Canada’s stance is informed by policy difference, not contempt for Quebec’s interests.

It is a welcome albeit incomplete shift.

A new wave of major investments from companies linked to the Chinese government has been a game changer. Canada is starting to realize that it needs to better control foreign investments and make sure that they are in fact beneficial before green-lighting them.

The Bloc Québécois is pleased that this issue has finally surfaced in the context of a study and in the report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

The report suggests that the government should tighten restrictions on investments from foreign governments and investments that could impact national security; better protect strategic sectors of the economy; better protect intellectual property to ensure that China cannot access our technology; and increase the transparency of the government’s net benefit review process. The Bloc Québécois fully supports all of these proposals.

However, the committee did not take the next step needed to protect our economy, businesses and head offices, namely, lowering the review threshold. Hence this supplementary opinion, in which the Bloc Québécois speaks on behalf of a broad consensus of Quebeckers.

Even if the committee did not adopt our proposal, we hope that it will provide the government with some food for thought. After all, the pandemic has shown us that global supply chains are fragile and that it is unwise to be completely dependent on foreign decision-makers. All the more reason to protect our companies here at home.

I will add a few more points to this presentation of our supplementary opinion, beginning with the importance of ensuring that we can protect our intellectual property. I would like to highlight a few recommendations. One of our proposals in the report reads as follows:

That the Government of Canada protect strategic sectors, including, but not limited to: health, the pharmaceutical industry, agri-food, manufacturing, natural resources, and intangibles related to innovation, intellectual property, data and expertise.

I believe the report forgot to mention the aerospace sector, because I am positive we voted for it.

When the committee discussed it, it was important, and I want to recognize the interventions of Jim Balsillie, whom I just had to name in the House. We know him well for his leadership in the Canadian and Quebec economies. He has appeared numerous times as a witness before the committee, most notably on the importance of being able to protect innovations, intellectual property, data and expertise. That is absolutely essential in a knowledge-based economy.

One of the Bloc Québécois's recommendations is that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry justify their decision whether or not a transaction is to Canada's net advantage. We want more transparency, an explanation of the factors leading to this decision and that the minister make public the conditions imposed for the acquisition by foreign investors to ensure that there is follow-up. When the information remains secret, a company can easily ignore the conditions because it is not accountable to the people. The foundation of a democracy is accountability to the people.

For me, the debates we had at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology about the recommendations to be made centred around the recommendation that the Government of Canada lower the review threshold to 2015 levels, or $300 million in 2000 dollars. Unfortunately, this is not what happened.

I recognize that when the Conservatives amended the Investment Canada Act they were trying to protect Quebec and Canadian businesses from Chinese investments. At the request of the Conservatives, the Liberals sought to make no changes to the Investment Canada Act. It seems that that thinking has not changed much since 2000.

The recommendation that I made concerning the threshold of $300 million in 2000 dollars was not accepted. This threshold would be revised every year, which is surprising. However this provision recognizes that the mechanism, which I wanted to strengthen, already exists. The threshold will be adjusted annually using formulas based on nominal GDP set out in the act and calculated in accordance with the principles set out in sections 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5 of the regulations.

Another part of our argument focused on thresholds, but other parties did not want to protect our businesses unless there was a national security risk. The goal is to protect our economy by displaying strong economic nationalism that enables us to make choices for our economy without opening ourselves up to takeovers by foreign investors.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the member for Winnipeg North wants to talk about Bill C-19 more than the concurrence motion we are talking about right now. I find it so ironic on a day that he wants to talk about new election laws that he was found breaking old election laws. I am not going to use the word hypocritical. I will use the word inconsistent that he stands there as a martyr asking for help to pass government legislation and then he breaks election laws in the 2019 election.

Is that not a bit too much for us to bear today by listening to the member preach about the respect he has for democracy when he was found to break election laws?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I respect about the former leader of the Green Party is that she does her homework and often will provide comment on a wide variety of bills. As much as possible, we have tried to accommodate her words of wisdom on numerous pieces of legislation. I would have looked forward to hearing what she had to say about Bill C-19, given my role with respect to the bill. I guess we will have to wait until committee stage. It is unfortunate because we could have had at least another three hours of debate earlier today.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the parliamentary secretary's speech, whenever he said the Conservatives were playing politics, I was reminded of Claude Rains in Casablanca with the great line, “I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.” As he complains about his lack of speaking opportunity, I reflect sadly on the day I have had, waiting to speak on Bill C-19 at second reading, before the Liberals imposed time allocation, only to be deprived the opportunity to speak because the Conservatives decided to pull the concurrence motion.

It is more of a comment than a question. As somebody in this place who respects the place, loves our traditions and loves real democracy, today did not feel like any of that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I was indicating, the official opposition members had an option and they chose not to use it.

For example, with respect to foreign investment, certain areas are of great national interest. I could talk about food and medical supply lines. There are some very good examples that I could cite today. We can think about PPE and how much was being manufactured in Canada prior to the pandemic and contrast that to what is happening today.

Let us take a look at the importance of our natural resources and recognize the issue of ownership and how important it is that we ensure the national interest is served. We could talk about media and culture. There are many other areas where there is a national interest. Therefore, foreign investment matters.

I would have welcomed a debate on that issue, but, as I indicated prior, the Conservatives' focus does not facilitate that sort of a debate per se. Rather, they would enter into a debate of that nature by a concurrence motion, which then prevents the government from ensuring more hours of debate on important legislation or they will often use their days to look at ministers or staff of ministers through what I have always referred to as character assassination. We see that played out in the House a lot more than we need to.

There is no doubt about the fact that there are important issues in these concurrence motions. However, I do not see members in the Conservative Party saying that maybe we should have concurrence in report on an opposition day. As I indicated, on the opposition days, those matters before the House are actually voted on. The net-zero bill was supposed to be debated longer than it was, but because of this report, it was not. It was the same with Bill C-19 earlier today. The Conservatives do that because they are more interested in the partisan politics than they are in seeing a chamber that can be productive and supportive of Canadians through some very challenging times.

Yes, we are in a minority government and the government is very much aware of that. I would remind some within the opposition that in a minority government, opposition parties also have a responsibility to live up to, and I am afraid not all are doing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, my apologies for the interruption to my friend from the Bloc.

There is no doubt that foreign direct investment does play an absolutely critical role to Canada as a developing nation, as we want to encourage ongoing economic activities, and in many ways it is because of foreign investment that we get to see them realized.

I want to provide a number of thoughts on the concurrence report. First, I would like to be able to pick up where I left off prior to the adjournment, which is kind of a fitting place, with the member from the Bloc who has just finished speaking prior to us going back into this report.

My friend and colleague from Kingston and the Islands did a fabulous job of explaining the process and what we are being asked to concur in. It is very interesting. The member for Kingston and the Islands pointed out, for example, on the issue of Bill C-19, what the debate was supposed to be about. There are a lot of similarities between what the member for Kingston and the Islands said and what I said on this report back on April 27.

Back on April 27, I expressed my disappointment. I talked about how the Conservative opposition party was playing that destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. That was much like earlier today: When I got the chance to speak or when the member for Kingston and the Islands spoke, we talked about that destructive force in terms of process and what we are ultimately being asked to vote on.

The last speaker provided comments about how shameful it is that we are trying to limit debate on Bill C-19 and bringing in time allocation. In the back of our minds, I want members of the House to reflect on those comments, because that is in essence what took place back on April 27, when a concurrence report was brought in because the Conservative Party wanted to debate an issue, as opposed to debating what the government needed to see debated.

It is important to recognize this, because if we were to do a concurrence motion on all the different reports coming in, we would not have government days. We would not even have opposition days to the degree we have them today. There are many reports out there. It is easy to pick a report and move concurrence, and there go three hours of debate on the floor of the House.

We could argue that it is an important issue. Let us look at the issue of this particular concurrence debate. It is about those valuable resources that we have. We could talk about natural resources or our health sector, and I will get more into that. There is no doubt that is important.

However, what we were supposed to be debating on that particular day was the net zero legislation, important legislation that Canadians want and expect their government to act upon. For whatever reasons, the Conservatives moved a motion to ultimately say that we want to debate foreign direct investment as opposed to the net zero legislation. One could say that happened once or maybe twice, but it has happened more than that.

The Bloc member just criticized us in the Liberal Party, and to a certain degree even my friends the New Democrats, by asking how we can limit debate on Bill C-19. The member for Kingston and the Islands pointed out that because of the concurrence motion, much like this concurrence motion, instead of debating Bill C-19, we were actually debating another issue, one we just finished having an emergency debate on last Thursday.

Members should look at April 27, when the Conservatives were playing political games in the chamber. Because of their dislike for allowing the government to pass legislation, they brought in another motion to prevent debate on yet another piece of legislation so that we can be criticized again for not allowing enough debate, just as the Bloc member criticized us for not allowing enough debate on Bill C-19.

What I did not reference was the fact that we had attempted to bring n Bill C-19 before today, and the Conservatives introduced another concurrence motion back then, just like today.

Is there any reason the Conservatives are behaving in such a pattern? They adjourn debates. They want to take time off. They bring in concurrence. They look for ways to attempt to frustrate the government when it is trying to do the things it needs to do as government. It is not as though it only happens two or three times; this destructive force has been playing its games for quite a while now. There is a substantial cost to it.

I would suggest this to my friends in the Bloc: Maybe they should look at some of the comments that came from my New Democratic friends and maybe not be as quick to take the side of the Conservative Party. Many would suggest to us that either the Conservatives are conning the Bloc into supporting their legislative abuse or that the Bloc does not know any better. Maybe it is that the Bloc wants to participate in this destructive force as much as the Conservative Party wants to play its political games.

Is it any wonder, when we see the things that are happening inside the chamber, that the Prime Minister and Liberal members of Parliament are consistently saying some of the same things, such as that we will continue to remain focused on the priority of all Canadians, which is the pandemic? From the very beginning we have been saying that, led by the Prime Minister of Canada.

The Conservative official opposition, throughout this last number of months, with what I would suggest is its irresponsible behaviour, has been focused on the two things I referenced earlier today. It has moved another concurrence motion to try to kill the time allotted for government legislation. The first agenda for the Conservative Party is the character assassination of government members, and it will go out of its way to do that.

The second thing Conservative members do is cause as much detailed frustration as they can on the floor of the House of Commons so that, as we just heard before we got into this report, the opposition members can say something to the effect that the Liberal government is not being respectful of democracy because of time allocation.

Maybe we could have an indication of co-operation, at least to a certain degree. I am not saying that the Conservative Party has to agree with everything we are saying, but there is some onus, especially in a minority government, to be a little more responsible in terms of the legislative agenda.

Unlike opposition members, the government does not have timing processed on government bills. For example, the Conservatives had a choice and could have concurred in this report, and no doubt many others. They could say that foreign direct investment is so vitally important to our nation that they were going to bring the topic in on an opposition day, when they can highlight what they believe.

After all, if we take a look at the report, I believe we would see that there was a dissenting report that came from the Liberals. However, the Conservatives, as opposed to bringing in a motion to concur in a report, could have highlighted some of their concerns in the form of an opposition day motion and then asked for support from the Bloc and NDP. They could have just as easily have done that, just as they could have done for the report on Line 5 earlier today.

Unlike government legislation, at the end of the day—

Canada Elections Act

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, shutting down debate on Bill C-19 hinders our democratic institutions in two ways.

There should be consensus in this place for any changes that affect our democracy and the right to vote. The government is using time allocation to shove Bill C-19 down our throats. That is shameful. If I were in government, I would be ashamed—

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate on Bill C-19, I have heard countless Liberals say that they do not want an election and no one in the House wants one. The Liberals have continuously said that throughout this debate. If no one wants the election, why are they pushing this bill through so fast? Why did the Liberals bring in time allocation? Why are they pushing if they do not see an election on the horizon? If the Liberals do not want an election and no one else in the House wants one, we should take time to examine this bill and ensure we get it right for our democracy and for the sake of all Canadians.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me the time this afternoon to speak to Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, COVID-19 response.

For obvious reasons, I think this is an important bill that should be taken very seriously for the health and safety of Canadians. For over a year now, we have been dealing with a pandemic, and despite how long we have lived with it, we still do not know enough about this virus.

We are making progress in Quebec, where the numbers are down. The lockdown could be lifted soon, perhaps in the summer. If Quebeckers are lucky, they could return to a more or less normal life like last summer. However, in other provinces, like Ontario, the situation is less positive. There are variants circulating that make COVID more contagious. Fortunately, more and more people are getting vaccinated. That is great, but the truth is, we do not know how long the immunity will last.

That is why we must implement measures to protect Canadians. If possible, we must find ways to avoid endangering the public. For these reasons, I am happy to speak to Bill C-19, as it is an important initiative that will help Elections Canada hold an election safely if necessary during the current pandemic.

Worldwide, it has been more than a year now that events have been cancelled, a necessary measure to keep the public safe. Since we do not know how long this situation will last, we must find ways to ensure the health of our democratic institutions. If a general election were to be held, it would have to happen in a way that is safe for everyone, including electors, volunteers and election officials.

While the need for physical distancing and other public health measures resulted in the postponement of elections at the provincial and municipal levels in some provinces last year, we have realized that, because so little is known about how long we will be in this situation of living with the pandemic, we must find solutions rather than postpone. In a democracy such as Canada, it is important to give the population the right to choose its government and representatives when the time comes to do so.

We can no longer indefinitely postpone elections. Instead, we must make the necessary changes and adapt to our current reality so as to protect Canadians and also the health of our democratic institutions. Some elections have been held worldwide since the start of the pandemic, and efforts have been made to put strict public health measures in place, such as requiring people to wear masks and practice physical distancing, or providing hand sanitizer or disposable gloves to voters.

Bill C-19 would add a new part to the Canada Elections Act that would further protect Canadians in the context of an election. This new part would include extending the Chief Electoral Officer's power to adapt the provisions of the act to ensure the health and safety of electors and election officers; authorizing a returning officer to constitute polling divisions that consist of a single institution where seniors or persons with disabilities reside, or a part of such an institution, and to set the days and hours a polling station would be open; providing for a polling period of three consecutive days, consisting of a Saturday, Sunday and Monday; providing for the hours of voting during the polling period; providing for the opening and closing measures at polling stations; setting the days for voting at advance polling stations; authorizing 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; providing that an elector may submit an application for registration and special ballot under division 4 of part 11 in written or electronic form; and providing that an elector whose application for registration and special ballot were accepted by the returning officer in their electoral district may deposit the outer envelope containing their special ballot in a secure reception box.

This would allow some flexibility to the Chief Electoral Officer to make changes, as he or she sees fit, that would better protect Canadians. It would make voting more accessible to seniors and people living with disabilities, who would have more of an opportunity to have polling stations within the buildings where they reside. Furthermore, more Canadians would have access to mailing in their ballots. This may be a great option for many vulnerable Canadians who are at higher risk of getting sick, or even for Canadians who are afraid of going to polling stations and would prefer not to do so.

Elections Canada estimates that up to five million electors could choose to vote by mail if the election had to be held during the pandemic. To meet this demand, Bill C-19 provides for the installation of secure reception boxes to receive online applications for mail-in ballots and would allow identification numbers to be accepted as proof of identity for these applications.

Furthermore, it would allow electors who have requested a mail-in ballot to change their minds and subsequently vote in person. Certain conditions are attached to this measure to protect the integrity of the electoral system.

We have to understand that in the context of the current pandemic many Canadians will prefer to vote using the mail-in options. The mail-in vote measures outlined in the bill are designed to strengthen a mail-in vote system that is expected to see a significant surge in electors opting to vote in this manner. The overall goal is to facilitate the use of this voting method for Canadians who may not feel safe to show up at the polling station in person. Electors would have the option of using an identification number rather than a copy of their ID to establish their identity and residence when registering to vote by mail.

Furthermore, extending the voting period from one day to three days would allow Canadians more flexibility as to when to go vote, which would allow for less gathering to take place at a given polling station. After having lived with physical distancing for over a year now, I am sure we can all see the reason behind extending the voting period.

With regard to long-term care considerations, the federal government recognizes that our most vulnerable Canadians should be able to exercise their right to vote in a safe way that does not endanger their health in any way. Bill C-19 proposes specific measures to ensure we protect the right to participate in the democratic process while allowing them to do so in a healthy and safe environment.

Specifically, it would provide a 13-day period during which election workers can safely deliver the vote to residents of these facilities. The period would provide election staff with enough time to determine, along with employees of these facilities, specific dates during which the vote can be safely delivered. Furthermore, it would allow election workers to create polling stations even on certain floors within a given building in recognition of hot spots or quarantine areas that have been established across these many facilities.

In short, this bill would make elections safer for Canadians. It is important to remember that elections can occur at any time when there is a minority government. We must take precautions to protect Canadians in the event that an election is called.

As I mentioned earlier, we do not know when this pandemic will be over. If it lasts longer and there is a fourth or fifth wave after this one, we will not have a choice about holding an election during the pandemic. Let us do the right thing and make elections safer for Canadians.

Let us vote in favour of this bill to ensure if there are elections held during this pandemic, even though all of us do not want it to be case, we can do so in a safe way. Hopefully we will be over this pandemic soon enough and before the next election.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather fascinating to see that my colleague from Kingston and the Islands is so desperate to talk about Bill C-19 when, today, we were forced to vote on limiting debate on this bill.

Bill C-19 has been around for four months. We could have talked about it, but there was complete radio silence for four months and now, today, the government imposed a gag order.

If the Liberals were so eager to debate Bill C-19, why did they wait until today to say that it was urgent?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will agree with one thing the member for Kingston and the Islands said: He is afraid that he has disappointed us. I am sure he has disappointed more than us in his life, because when it comes to political grandstanding, no one in the House does it better. He did not talk about the concurrence motion. He wants to talk about Bill C-19 because the Liberals want to have an election during a pandemic because they think they can get a majority. That is the only thing the Liberals care about. They are great at campaigning, but they are terrible at government because they are out of touch with the people of Canada.

We have brought forward a topic that affects hundreds of thousands of people's jobs and the economy of Canada, and for him to push it off to the side of the desk by saying that it is all political grandstanding is disrespectful to people across the country. He should have stood and said he listened to the Minister of Natural Resources in question period. The fact is, they think they can jump in at the last second and save this pipeline—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree. I find it absolutely perplexing and hypocritical for the Conservatives to stand here and say how dare we even threaten them with an election. They are the ones who keep voting for it at almost every opportunity they get. Maybe they are doing some political calculations on how the other parties will be voting and are thinking their bet is a safe one, but this is a minority government. All they need is for the NDP and the Bloc to agree with them and we will have an election. All I am saying is for us to be prepared for that by making sure that Bill C-19, which would protect Canadians during an election, is put in place.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Sure, I did put it out there, because I am often left wondering that. I find it incredibly amazing how the member finds that offensive, but not half the stuff that comes from that side of the House during question period.

The reality here is that I think I have hit a nerve, because I am getting a lot of heckling right now. I have successfully pointed out some of the realities of the situation.

When I stand here and I look back on the way that this day has unfolded, I cannot help but think that Conservatives have absolutely no interest in helping Canadians. There are many scenarios in which this House could go into an election tomorrow. The Conservatives, for example, routinely vote against confidence in this House, whenever a budget bill or something like that comes up. They are always voting against the government. All Conservatives need is for the other two political parties in here, the Bloc and the NDP, to agree with them just one time, and then we would be into an election.

All we are trying to say is that we should have a discussion and talk about Bill C-19, but instead the Conservatives used this tactic today to bring in this concurrence motion to burn time. They all know that is exactly what they did. Conservatives are burning time on this motion so that we do not talk about Bill C-19. Then they are going to say that they had only four hours in total to debate the bill, and so on and so forth, and that the government had all this time.

However, the Conservatives do not even understand the bill, as we saw. That is probably actually why, now that I think about it. I cannot believe I did not think of this earlier. That is probably why they insisted on this concurrence motion. We saw the massive misunderstanding from members like the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London and the member for Lethbridge. We heard what they had to say about this during the 30-minute questions and comments with the minister. They had no idea what Bill C-19 is really about. They missed huge parts of the bill that were in there. They did not even realize they were in there.

As I come a conclusion, it makes so much more sense now as to why Conservatives are insisting on talking about this, why they are insisting on heckling me to try to shut me down from bringing forward the truth to this floor. Nonetheless, Conservatives will do what they do. They do it every single time, and at the end of the day, we will have 19 minutes to discuss Bill C-19 before it is put to a vote in the House.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know they do not want to hear it, because what I am saying is clearly getting under their skin. They do not like the truth, and the truth hurts sometimes.

Conservative members have now been told not once but twice by the Speaker that what I am saying is in order. If they are not going to listen to me, perhaps they will at least respect the Speaker's ruling, which has been given not once but twice.

In any event, I find it perplexing that we are having this discussion instead of talking about Bill C-19. However, I am not surprised that the Conservatives would rather talk about pipelines than about proper measures to bring into place during an election. I mean, that is par for the course, and it is indeed exactly right up their alley.

This committee, as we debated a few nights ago, brought in this issue that centres on the fact that there is such a close and strong relationship between the United States and Canada. We have the largest trading partnership in the world, with billions of dollars moving back and forth. We have infrastructure that moves from one country to the other and back, moving along the supply chain when it comes to end products.

This particular issue, as I mentioned a few nights ago, is so important not just to Canada but indeed to our neighbours to the south, in particular those northern states affected by this issue. I have full confidence, despite the fact the committee made seven recommendations, that most of the committee's recommendations are already being undertaken by the government.

Of course we heard from members like the member for Chilliwack—Hope say they want to know exactly what the government is doing and want it all to be public. As we know, and as I am sure the Conservatives would know from way, way back when they were in government, from time to time we have to allow those processes to take place and recognize that not all these discussions happen in public. Quite often they happen in individual phone calls and behind the scenes. We heard the Minister of Natural Resources say on a number of occasions that he has been engaged with all stakeholders and his counterparts. This issue has been brought up with the President of the United States directly. People are talking about this situation to try to come to some resolution.

I have confidence that a meaningful resolution will come, if out of nothing else than from the fact that there are so many people on both sides of the border who are affected. This is indeed a reciprocal issue that is going to affect a lot of people on both sides of the border.

Yes, Enbridge is being forced to deal with some of the issues pointed out by members in the debate today. It is being forced to deal with some of the issues it has had, and rightly so, especially when it comes to impacts on our environment.

However, I do not believe there will not be a solution that will be in our best interest, especially when it means so much economically speaking and from a stability perspective to make sure that this product continues to move back and forth. I have no doubt that there will be a successful outcome to this. I have no doubt, and I have great faith that when the Minister of Natural Resources says to us that this is a top priority, that he is engaging at every level and making sure these discussions are moving along at every level, that it is actually happening.

If we look at these seven recommendations from the committee, we see that the first one is basically that the Government of Canada encourage Enbridge and the State of Michigan to resolve their dispute. I think it is safe to say just about all of us would agree we want them to resolve their dispute, so I appreciate the committee putting it into a full-fledged recommendation.

The next recommendation is that the Government of Canada continue to engage with the relevant stakeholders on both sides of the border. This is something, as I indicated, that the Minister of Natural Resources said he is doing. He is continuing to have those discussions in order to find a resolution that will be to the benefit of both the State of Michigan and to the ability to continue to deliver this product back and forth to the various locations on both sides of the border.

The recommendations continue to go on basically in the same vein. I am not going to read all seven of them. They are basically in the same vein of continuing those discussions. I find that the recommendations, although they would have set a perfect template for what the Conservatives could have come in here and discussed, have served absolutely no purpose to the Conservatives, because all they have done in here is berate the government for the work they perceive the government has not done. The Conservatives have no way of knowing what has actually been accomplished, other than taking the word of the Minister of Natural Resources, which they apparently refuse to do.

What we do have is Conservatives coming in here and not referencing any of these recommendations, not talking about ways to make this better. We have them coming in here and just going on and on about where they perceive the problems to be but not offering any constructive solutions, not trying to compromise and not coming forward with a substantive plan. Whenever they were asked in the emergency debate a few days ago “What would you do differently? Tell us what your plan would be to resolve this,” the Conservatives did not have an answer. They are not interested in an answer, because it does not serve their political objective.

I hate to say this because I do not think any member in this House would actually not like to see a good resolution come out of this, but quite often, from time to time, I am left wondering if the Conservatives really even want us to resolve this.

It is similar to the vaccine issue. Quite often I sit here and wonder if the Conservatives even really want us to be successful in dealing with this pandemic. Part of me thinks that maybe they do not, because the Conservatives are more interested in the politics that come out of this than in actually taking care of Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do have the recommendations here with me. I would wager a guess that the Conservative members who are participating today do not even know how many recommendations there are in here, let alone what they say.

I will get back to what I was saying. Here is the interesting thing about the scenario we are in right now in concurring in this report. I do not know if the Conservatives just did not plan this out properly in moving concurrence in this report. I think this is extremely germane, especially to those who are watching this and might not quite understand how we got to this point. During our routine proceedings, there is an opportunity for members to move a concurrence in a report. We can do only one of those per sitting, and it will take up to three hours of debate. Quite often, what the Conservatives do, and they have done it a number of times in this session, is move to concur in a report because it burns three hours of the day, usually on stuff they do not want to talk about.

However, I do not know if those who were deciding that filibuster strategy had really thought out exactly what they were doing, because the time allocation motion that came in this morning said the debate on Bill C-19 will adjourn after one more day, so they are not filibustering anything, because they are not preventing that legislation from actually being voted on tomorrow. All they are doing is literally replacing discussion on BIll C-19 with this motion to concur in an issue that I would remind members we spoke about in an emergency debate only two or three days ago.

Yes, it is extremely germane to this discussion. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen's Privy Council indicated earlier, this is just a tactic by the Conservatives, but the irony is that we are still going to be voting on the bill tomorrow. If we do the math and factor in that they will burn through the whole 15 minutes of petitions when we finally get to that part of orders of the day, we will literally talk about Bill C-19 for about 20 minutes, and then we will be forced to vote on it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to enter into debate on this concurrence motion.

However, before I go any further, I want to recognize the fact that this is National Nurses Week throughout our country, and we have so much to be grateful for, for the nurses out there on the front lines right now, particularly over the last 15 months or so. The incredible work they do is truly remarkable. We have asked so much of them during regular times, and more recently the demands that are being put on nurses throughout the country are truly remarkable, but they rise to the challenge and they are there to take care of Canadians.

This morning I got my first shot of the AstraZeneca vaccine at a clinic not too far from here, which was so well run. I walked in, went through the check-in and got to a gentleman by the name of Renault, who was administering the shot. He told me that he had worked at that clinic for 30 years and came out of retirement in order to help with administering vaccine shots. Nothing, in my opinion, is more patriotic than somebody who rises to the call of that profession once in retirement in order to come back and take care of Canadians. Indeed, I want to extend a huge thanks to all the nurses and frontline workers out there who are taking care of us and keeping us safe.

We are here today to talk about this concurrence motion. I find it very interesting that we are having this discussion in light of the fact that the Conservatives knew that what we wanted to talk about today was Bill C-19, which is proposed legislation on how we would deal with an election during a pandemic. It is a piece of legislation that was crafted in response to the Chief Electoral Officer, who pointed out that, as we are in a minority Parliament, there is always a chance of an election coming up at any moment and maybe it is a good idea to have some plans in place in the event that it does happen. Despite the fact that nobody might want an election, we do know that in minority governments elections can happen, and it is really not controlled by any one particular party, because there is no majority.

One of the fascinating things about what the Conservatives have done today is that they have taken a really interesting route in bringing forward this concurrence motion. We had an emergency debate on this issue last week. We stayed here until midnight debating the issue. The Conservatives did not offer anything, did not offer any solutions and did not talk about the recommendations that came from the committee, which I will talk about. All they did was sit on the other side of the House and criticize the government.

The role of the opposition, believe it or not, is not just to criticize, but to actually try to improve upon policy and push the government to do better. Now, I do not know how much experience Conservative members have in trying to encourage people to do things, but I can tell members that there are different approaches that one might take. For example, when I want my four-year-old to do something for me and to work with me on something, if he takes the approach of yelling and screaming at me and telling me how horrible of a parent I am, it might not be the best approach if he is genuinely trying to get something out of me. Likewise, I can say that the opposition members, if their strategy to encourage the government to do better is just to yell and scream at it all day long, they are certainly delivering on their—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is on point about the realities of the economic and environmental perspectives of this particular project, but I cannot help but be slightly cynical to think that the reason we are having this discussion right now is because the Conservatives are adamant about not talking about Bill C-19.

Can the member comment on how important he thinks it would be to have a discussion about a piece of legislation that is required to be in place in the event there is an election during a pandemic?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak to relevance. The member has been going off on a tangent that is nowhere near the concurrence report we are debating. He is talking about Bill C-3, Bill C-14, Bill C-19, all except the matter before the House right now. This is a concurrence report. We are supposed to be debating about Line 5. This is important.

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

Madam Speaker, to say whether I am surprised or disappointed, the short answer would be no. I am not surprised that the Conservatives would move a motion of concurrence on a particular report. They have demonstrated in the recent months that they have really lost focus on the pandemic. I am trying to be nice in my criticism here, but I do believe at times that I need to be bold and to say what I believe the Conservatives are actually doing, which is not focusing at all or giving the attention that should be there from the official opposition in dealing with what is a very important issue to all Canadians.

The Conservatives continue to want to play partisan politics, and that is why I am not surprised, because they have been doing this for a while now. I am disappointed. I am disappointed again, and ongoing, because as the Conservatives insist on playing games on the floor of the House of Commons, they are filibustering whenever they can in an attempt to encourage a dysfunctional House of Commons and discourage important legislation from being debated so they can ultimately say that the government cannot even get its legislation through. If we look at the behaviour of the Conservative Party, it does not take a genius in a group of 12 to cause a lot of frustration on the floor of the House of Commons, and we get the official opposition choosing to do that.

Today is an excellent example. Earlier today, I was on a Zoom call with the Prime Minister, my Manitoba colleagues and a hundred nurses in the province of Manitoba. We were listening to what nurses in Manitoba had to say. That is the priority, and has been the priority, of this government from day one. I contrast that to what we have witnessed day in and day out over the last number of months coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. They should be ashamed of themselves.

The member for Chilliwack—Hope tries to give the impression that I do not care about Line 5 or the jobs and the other indirect and direct things related to Line 5 and that is why I do not support having us debate this motion we are debating today, the concurrence on the report. That is balderdash. It is just not true. Like all Liberals in the House of Commons, I am very much concerned about Line 5 and the impact it is having, not only on Canada, but also on the U.S. We understand and appreciate the importance of the issue. The Minister of Natural Resources, whether in question period or other debates, including the emergency debate, has been very clear on the issue.

The Conservative Party, surely to goodness, would recognize that we just had an emergency debate on the issue, just last Thursday. Members should listen and read in terms of what was actually said then. It started off with Conservatives just bashing Ottawa and saying how bad we are in regard to Alberta, to try to perpetuate more misinformation, as if this Prime Minister and this government do not care about the province of Alberta. Members can look and see what kind of ideas came from the Conservative Party in the emergency debate. There was not one Liberal who said “no” to having an emergency debate.

I had a chance to speak during that debate, and I am going to share some of the comments I made on Thursday night, but even with the emergency debate that took place, the Conservatives came up with this concurrence motion on a report that has absolutely nothing to do with Line 5 or a relationship between Canada and the U.S. For those who are listening or participating, or who care about what is taking place in the House, that is not the real motivation here. The Conservatives can say whatever they want and try to come across as meaningful as they want, but at the end of the day, it has more to do with frustrating the government's legislative agenda, the things we want to accomplish in the House of Commons.

They continue to push, saying that the House of Commons is dysfunctional. The Conservatives try to do two things. The first is character assassinations, and I understand I was one of them earlier today in an S.O. 31. The second is the ongoing filibustering taking place in the House of Commons so that important legislation cannot get through.

We should look at some of the debates and frustrations that have been sensed on the floor of the House of Commons because of the irresponsible official opposition. Those who might be sympathetic to their terrible behaviour should look at Bill C-3, as an example, and the hours and hours of debate on the education and training of judges in the future on sexual assault and so forth. It was a Conservative bill. It passed everything and is coming back. We introduced it as a government bill so we could put it in place. Everyone agreed to it, even in the Senate. It got royal assent very recently. The Conservatives debated that for hours and hours on the floor of the House of Commons. Was that really necessary? No.

What about Bill C-14? The economic statement was released in November, and the legislation was brought forward in December. No matter when we called it up, the Conservatives attempted to filibuster that through concurrence motions, too. In that legislation, there were important things to subsidize and support Canadians, individuals, families and small businesses. One would think the Conservative Party would have cared, but it had no problem filibustering that one, too.

We just had to bring in time allocation on Bill C-19. It is a minority government. We have to ensure, as much as possible, that Elections Canada is best prepared, enabling it to do a little more on a temporary basis. However, the political spinners within the Conservative Party do not want to go that way. They say they want to remain focused. Being focused to them is to push for a dysfunctional chamber and character assassination. That is what they are all about. It is—

Health

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that the government is imposing a gag order to amend election rules in the middle of a pandemic.

The government introduced Bill C-19 four months ago. We have had four months to debate it, but the bill has suddenly become important today. The government is waking up. All of a sudden, there is no time to debate or even reflect. The government quite simply wants to use a gag order so that it can impose its election rules.

This bill sat around for four months, so why is it suddenly so urgent to use a gag order now? Is it because the government wants to call an election in the middle of a pandemic?

Canada Elections Act

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure I understood the question. I believe the member is saying that the provision of us being able to count the ballots after the election date and that the bill would allow for that to happen is not necessarily needed.

I really trust that the Chief Electoral Officer has done some consultations and that he has talked to a number of groups, both nationally and internationally, about some of the best practices and provisions that should be contained in this bill. I have a lot of confidence in the recommendations that have been made and are now included in Bill C-19.

This is why I am anxious to get this bill to committee. If there are some things that we might want to modify, they should be considered at committee. I know I would be open to any provisions that might make this bill clearer and ensure the safety of any—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, we could expect if we were to hold a federal election in Canada, especially without passing Bill C-19, voters would face many of the similar challenges we have seen across our country over the last year and a bit since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some Canadians would probably choose not to vote rather than go to a public place to cast their ballot.

During this devastating third wave, the last thing our government wants is an election. I, for one, always say that the only election date I want to talk about is the one in October 2023, which is four years after the last one. I know many would see an election during a COVID pandemic as a public health risk and would limit Canadians' access to their democratic right to cast a vote. As such, in my opinion, it is really important for us to advance this bill swiftly so that in the unlikely event of an election, we can improve the conditions and opportunities for Canadians to safely vote as well as protect our democratic process.

Why have we introduced the legislation? Elections Canada realized there could be an election during this pandemic, as we did as the national government, and after much consultation has proposed some temporary rules in the unlikely event an election should occur.

Elections Canada has been following the provincial elections in our country and the various different elections that have taken place around the world. It has monitored contingency planning that has been developed both by international and various electoral management bodies. It has engaged with Canadian public officials, heard about best practices from various bodies and learned from recent elections held during COVID. Elections Canada has also established an internal working group to determine how it can be as prepared as possible for an election held during COVID-19.

Out of this work, on October 5, the Chief Electoral Officer suggested the study and adoption of a new temporary law.

Some of the key changes the Chief Electoral Officer proposed was making Saturday and Sunday voting days, increasing voting hours from 12 hours on one day to 16 hours over two days; granting authorization for the Chief Electoral Officer to determine how and when voting could occur in long-term care facilities and other similar settings; and adding more flexibility to adapt the act to emergency situations to make it easier to respond to the pandemic. Bill C-19 builds on these recommendations and adds other special measures to ensure Canadians can vote safely.

What are some of the additional measures we have proposed in the bill?

First, we would give the Chief Electoral Officer more flexibility to adapt the act to ensure the safety of election officers and voters. It would also give the Chief Electoral Officer the power to set days and hours for polling divisions established in long-term care homes.

Our government recognizes that vulnerable populations like seniors have very specific needs in this pandemic. We also know we need to protect their right to participate in the Canadian democracy and ensure Elections Canada has a way to safely collect votes from them. This bill would provide a 13-day window to safely deliver the vote to long-term care facilities and similar institutions. This period would give election staff enough time to engage with those facilities and to determine a safe time for them to deliver the vote.

Bill C-19 would also extend voting hours, giving Canadians more opportunity to vote in a safe way that works for them. It would create a three-day polling period which, to me, is awesome. People could vote Saturday, Sunday or Monday. It would help spread the voters out, reducing crowds in voting places, and would give people who might not be able to vote on the weekend, maybe because of a religious observance on Saturday or Sunday, the option to vote on Monday. It would also add more advanced polling days, four days of 12 hours each, for voting since we would anticipate more Canadians to vote early in a pandemic election.

Bill C-19 would grant the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to respond to emergency situations like local unexpected outbreaks of COVID-19. It would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to modify the day on which certain things would be authorized or required to be done before the polling period. The Chief Electoral Officer would also be able to move a deadline a day backward or a day forward by up to two days, or the Chief Electoral Officer could also move the starting date or the ending date of a period in which certain things would be authorized or required to be done by up to two days.

Finally, the bill would make mail-in voting even more accessible. If Canadians did go to the polls in the pandemic, we anticipate that many more would want to vote by mail. Of course, we know that this would be a whole new way of voting in Canada, other than in the provinces that have already seen such elections. We know this is an option that many Canadians would want to see.

With Bill C-19 passed, Canadians will also be able to apply online to register to vote by mail and cast a ballot from the comfort and safety of their home. It will also allow for secure drop boxes at polling stations so that those who do not have time to send their ballots through the mail can instead drop them off. It makes voting more accessible by allowing voters to register to vote by mail using an ID number, like a driver's licence number, rather than a full copy of their identification. Finally, it gives voters the flexibility to choose to vote in person instead if they have already registered to vote by mail. If they do, they would have to return their mail-in kit or sign a declaration at the in-person voting location that they have not yet voted.

There is a clear need for the bill as indicated by the Chief Electoral Officer, but it is important to note that there are some limitations of the bill. The primary one is the need for a preparation period for Elections Canada. This means that Parliament needs to move swiftly to get the bill to committee. I have heard a number of amendments and recommendations that my colleagues would like to propose, and they should be genuinely considered. Then it still needs to come back to the House for a third reading. Elections Canada then needs 90 days to implement the bill after royal assent. The longer we wait, the greater the risk of a possible election during a pandemic with no safety measures for Canadians.

I want to reiterate that the special legislative measures that are being proposed would cease to be in effect six months, or at an earlier date determined by the CEO, after a notice is given by the Chief Electoral Officer that indicates the measures are no longer necessary in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This notice would only be issued following the consultation with the Chief Public Health Officer.

With such a limited scope, I see no reason for disagreement or delay on the bill. All parties should be able to unite to quickly get these common-sense protections for voters into place.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to the importance of Bill C-19 and why it should be passed quickly.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saint-Laurent.

It is an absolute honour for me to rise today on behalf of my residents of the riding of Davenport to speak in favour of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, COVID-19 response. It would provide a temporary new part to the Canada Elections Act that would ensure the safe administration of an election should one happen during the COVID-19 pandemic. It would also provide for the repeal of this temporary new part, the six months, as was just mentioned, as determined by the Chief Electoral Officer once it is indicated the measures are no longer necessary in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The notice would be issued only following consultation with the Chief Public Health Officer.

As my colleagues know, in a minority Parliament, an election could actually happen at any time. We have seen elections at the provincial level take place during the COVID pandemic. We have also seen elections take place in other countries, including the United States. We have seen the major challenges that these types of elections bring.

In the United States we saw that huge numbers of voters chose to send in a mail-in ballot, which made counting ballots slower in a number of states.

In British Columbia and in Newfoundland and Labrador, we saw historic numbers of voters going to advance polls or using mail-in ballots. We also saw, in these provinces, historic low voter turnout. It was probably because many people decided it was much safer to stay at home and were not quite sure about whether it was safe enough to go out and vote. We could expect that—

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to finally have the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-19, if in the shadow of time allocation. I will get to aspects of the bill that I consider worthy and a number of provisions that I believe should be amended in committee, in a moment, but first I will address a number of the underlying issues that have affected the way this bill was mismanaged in its creation, as so many other pieces of legislation have been similarly in this Parliament.

The crux of the problem is not the COVID pandemic. The crux of the problem is the arrogance of the current government to approach virtually every practice and procedure as though it won a majority in 2019. The Liberals refuse to recognize the range of realities, most importantly the pragmatic humility a minority government must practise to govern effectively. The current Liberal government, as in the last Parliament, has ignored committee studies, reports and recommendations in the creation of legislation dealing with critically important issues, such as privacy, foreign affairs, the digital charter, regulating the Internet, medical assistance in dying, and now Bill C-19, an amendment to the Canada Elections Act, provisionally, for a possible general election in this pandemic, a pandemic that will last much longer because of the government's inability to properly procure vaccines and to accept Conservative advice when the pandemic first struck and at every stage since.

The Liberals, with selfish impatience, introduced Bill C-19 last December, not waiting for the completion of a long and thorough study on essential amendments to the Canada Elections Act to protect public health and democracy during a possible pandemic election. An interim report by the committee was, at the time, within days of being presented to the government. That report was pre-empted by Bill C-19, ignoring the suggestions of the exhaustive study and disrespecting not only opposition members on the committee and the many expert witnesses who testified during the study, but the Liberal chair and Liberal committee members, who had worked collegially with the opposition to develop comprehensive recommendations for such an important study.

The Liberals clearly intended then to rush the legislation through Parliament, as they have done with so many other flawed pieces of legislation from the beginning of the pandemic, but in this case the rush was not to help Canadians still in the grips of the pandemic, and it was not to prepare a plan for economic recovery to get Canadians back to work; it was in the political self-interest of preparing for the snap election they were thinking they might get away with. In doing so, they not only disregarded the work of parliamentarians, but wasted the valuable time of health officials and elections experts who appeared during the thorough procedure and House affairs committee study.

In doing so, they ignored the reality that an overwhelming majority of Canadians did not want then, and do not want now, a general election in a deepening pandemic crisis. If the Liberals had any doubts, that was surely driven home in the subsequent cycle of spiking infections and death across the country and the provincial elections conducted under pandemic conditions, most notably the profoundly disrupted Newfoundland and Labrador election.

The interim report of the committee contained extensive, reasoned advice based on the testimony of expert witnesses that would have improved Bill C-19 before it was tabled, but the final report of our committee, submitted to the government in February of this year, provided even more important advice. Most important, the committee advised the government and recommended unanimously, every Liberal member on the committee as well, that the federal government commit to not calling a federal election during the pandemic, unless defeated on a vote of confidence.

Further, Conservative members of the committee wrote a supplementary report, which reiterated the recommendation against holding a pandemic election and elaborated, noting that Bill C-19 was uninformed by the extensive content of the committee report and stating very clearly that the government has a moral obligation to refrain from triggering an election or orchestrating its own downfall, as the Prime Minister has already tried to do a number of times.

Because of the government's inability to manage its own legislative agenda, the bill before us has had precious few hours of debate.

A key element of Bill C-19 involves the change of the usual designation of an election day to be an election period of Saturday, Sunday and Monday, rather than just Monday, to provide more time for voting, social distancing and the precautions necessary to provide safe voting places. The bill also provides for the extension of voting hours of polls, if necessary to midnight, on any polling day, but not to exceed 28 hours for the three-day election period.

The bill also changes the maximum writ period to 53 days because of the many challenges anticipated for in-person voting or involving mail-in ballots. With regard to mail-in ballots, the bill allows electronic applications to be made with proper security protocols, of course, for mail-in ballots. They are very detailed provisions, which I believe would secure the safety of those ballots. There are also provisions for the safe casting of votes in institutions, in facilities where seniors and persons with disabilities reside.

I will support all of those provisions in the bill, on the condition that they expire automatically, completely and absolutely six months after the pandemic period is considered to have ended.

However, there are a number of elements in this legislation that I strongly oppose and believe should be amended. I believe they must be amended at committee, our procedure and House affairs committee, which was so ignored and so disrespected by the original tabling of this legislation in December.

First and foremost, there is a provision for counting mail-in ballots after the end of the official three-day election period. Given the new powers granted the Chief Electoral Officer for early mail-in ballots and extended poll hours, there is absolutely no reason, no excuse, for any ballots received after polls close on election day to be counted. Election day must be decision day.

As well, while I accept the extension of pandemic powers to the Chief Electoral Officer, I oppose the provision that would expand his determination of “satisfactory proof of the elector's identity and residence”. Pandemic protocols should not enable greater voter fraud than already exists in non-pandemic elections.

In conclusion, I want to remind all members of this House of the unanimous recommendation of the procedure and House affairs committee, each and every Liberal member included, that the federal government must commit to not calling a federal election during this continuing pandemic, unless it is defeated on a vote of confidence.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question is for my Conservative colleague.

We just started debating Bill C-19, and the government has allocated just three hours and 38 minutes for debate. We can only assume that the government's poor management of its legislative agenda is at fault here.

What does my colleague think is the true reason we are debating time allocation on Bill C-19 today, with the connivance of the NDP?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member points out something really important, and that is, first, that we need to acknowledge the fact that the Liberals just moved time allocation, which means they are trying to rush this legislation through without fulsome debate. That is very problematic because it is chipping away at democracy.

The second point the member raises is with regard to Bill C-10, which has to do with government censorship of the information that we post on our social media platforms. This is a huge overreach on behalf of the government and something that is not properly researched.

Interestingly enough, Bill C-19 is one and the same, where, again, I believe it goes too far and ignores the voices of witnesses and those who have expertise in this area. It is shameful.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is good to enter the discussion on this important subject. We are seeing a debacle of epic proportions on Bill C-10, a bill that the minister obviously does not even understand. There are a lot of questions that Canadians have around Bill C-19 and its effect on what is one of the key things that the House is required to do, and that is to be the custodian of Canada's democracy.

Are there any parallels between the debacle that is currently unfolding with Bill C-10 and what is possible with Bill C-19, especially if the bill goes to committee, and now that the Liberals have limited debate and discussion on Bill C-19?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Thornhill.

As I was saying during my last opportunity to speak to this bill, the pandemic has really exposed the true colours of the current government and where its focus lies. What I am talking about, of course, is the crafting of this legislation, Bill C-19. The Liberals have done this at a rapid pace and have done it without clear consultation, or I should say attention given to consultation.

It is undeniable that this bill was unilaterally constructed on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and that it is being pushed forward to the Liberals' benefit and not at all to the benefit of Canadians, which is very concerning to me. Our focus as parliamentarians should be on the Canadian people, on their health, their safety and their well-being. This bill does not take those things into account.

We need to see an economic recovery plan, not a Liberal election plan, which again is exactly what—

The House resumed from May 7, 2021 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-19—Time Allocation Motion

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the clever wordplay by my colleagues from the Liberal Party. What I said was this. When bills go to committee, sometimes, like with Bill C-10, they come back in worse shape because of terrible amendments put forward by the government. I would hate for that to happen to something as critical as this democratic bill, Bill C-19. When I say we should have more debate in the House of Commons, that means this bill deserves more than three hours and 45 minutes of debate.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would hardly call this a rush. The Chief Electoral Officer presented a report to Parliament on October 5. The government thought it would be important for parliamentarians to consider the legislation over the Christmas recess. That is why we introduced Bill C-19. We have called it for debate, and once again, as is always the case, the Conservatives show no desire to allow the debate to conclude, allow a vote to happen and allow the committee to begin its work on studying the bill.

Our colleague from Sarnia—Lambton seems to think that there is a rush to an election. Once again, it is her party that continually votes no confidence in the House of Commons. I think the Conservatives are the ones rushing to an election.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, for his constructive conversation with respect to this legislation. We have taken note, obviously, of his comments in the House during the debate at second reading.

The New Democratic Party has constructively and thoughtfully suggested, for example, some improvements around ensuring that campus voting can take place and potentially using Canada Post locations in small rural communities like those in my riding. The Canada Post office may offer an additional place where people, for example, could apply to receive a special ballot.

Those are precisely the kinds of discussions that we are hoping the procedure and House affairs committee can have around Bill C-19.

We would welcome working with all colleagues around amendments that would improve the legislation. However, we think the time has come for Parliament to take its responsibilities, study the bill in committee and offer Elections Canada the tools necessary should there be an election during the pandemic, and to do so safely and prudently in the interest of protecting everybody who works in elections.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his intervention and his question.

I understand that he is fully playing his role of leader of the official opposition in the House. However, when I was in the opposition and his party was in power during the Harper years, his government did not hesitate to use time allocation motions regularly, even daily on some occasions. I understand that my colleague has a role to play by expressing a certain degree of indignation, which I freely accept.

However, on the substance of the issue, we believe the time has come for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study Bill C-19 and make amendments if necessary. For the hours of debate that have been held so far, the members of the opposition have already made several suggestions for improving this bill, which, let us be clear, will only be in effect for the next election. I think therefore it is time for the House to refer the bill to the committee to be studied.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response), not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-19--Notice of time allocation motion

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Minister of Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, COVID-19 response.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Canada Elections Act

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the government's proposed legislation, Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the COVID-19 response.

I am disappointed that the government is so out of touch with Canadians that it wants to amend the Canada Elections Act so it can call an election during a pandemic. Canadians do not want an election, especially during this vicious third wave of the pandemic. While the members opposite claimed to also not want one, it was the Liberals who introduced this legislation in the middle of a pandemic.

Just the other day the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was blaming the Conservatives for blocking the bill. However, as my colleague, the opposition House Leader, rightly pointed out, the Liberal government only has itself to blame for the slow pace of the bill.

The government sets the agenda, and it has only allowed the bill to be debated for three hours since its initial introduction almost five months ago. Now there seems to be a sense of great urgency by the Liberal government. While Canadians are suffering from the current COVID lockdowns and still being unable to return to work, the Liberal government is trying to push this legislation through, resulting in many Canadians wondering if the government cares more about its political fortunes rather than working for Canadians, prioritizing getting Canadians back to work and rebuilding our economy.

The mere idea that the government, a government that states it will be driven by science and facts to make decisions, wants to push this legislation through so quickly means it is completely ignoring the facts. Not only do Canadians not want an election, but in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, where general elections were held, they saw a spike in the number of COVID-19 cases, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador, where just days before the election, a whole section of the province saw such a spike in cases that the Chief Electoral Officer had to pause the election until the outbreak got under control. People's lives are more important than an election.

While the Liberal government's intention to ram this bill through Parliament are definitely questionable at best, the Conservatives have many concerns with the bill. For starters, it has not escaped us that this is a minority Parliament. We all know that minority parliaments are very volatile and do not necessary last the full four years. This is why, at the beginning of this pandemic, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs conducted a study on how Elections Canada could safely conduct an election during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Something as fundamental as how Canadians elect their members of Parliament must have participation from all members of the House, which is exactly what PROC was doing. However, the government decided that it did not want to wait for the all-party committee report. Instead, it decided to completely ignore any potential recommendations from the committee, including the committee's majority report recommendations that the government not call a federal election during the pandemic unless it was defeated on a motion of non-confidence. Instead, the Liberal government expressed its contempt for Parliament and tabled this bill. Complaining that it has not moved fast enough has clearly indicated to Canadians its desire to recklessly send Canadians to the polls at whatever time it deems to be the most advantageous for the Prime Minister.

Just the other day, members opposite were accusing the Conservatives of not having a consistent message throughout this pandemic, however, we have been consistent. We have consistently said no to an election during this pandemic. It has been the members opposite who have been inconsistent in their messaging in their refusal to commit to not calling an election during this pandemic unless defeated in a non-confidence motion.

I was quite pleased with my colleagues on PROC for their hard work in standing up for Canadians and ensuring that if an election were to be called, they made some great recommendations on how to safely conduct a general election.

Some of the recommendations we made included: that Elections Canada develop a task force responsible for extensively consulting with long-term care homes to determine a safe and mutually agreeable way to conduct a vote in long-term care homes; that these consultations include both national and regional stakeholders and that these consultations include consideration of how rapid testing of Elections Canada employees may increase the safety of residents of long-term care homes; that the government commit to making rapid tests available to Elections Canada for the purpose of conducting an election during the COVID-19 pandemic; that Elections Canada provide a list of expected situations where it would require an expansion to the Chief Electoral Officer's adaptation power as well as a list of actions that would remain prohibited under the expanded adaptation power and that these lists be tabled before Parliament for review and approval; that any unanticipated adaptations require the approval of the advisory committee of political parties struck under section 21.1 (1) of the Canada Elections Act; that Elections Canada ensure all voting locations are accessible for those living with disabilities and that alternative methods of voting such as mail-in ballots are adequately accessible for all voters who do not wish to leave their homes; that Elections Canada stick with the tried and true mail-in ballot process, which sets a deadline for ballots to be mailed and does not count any after election day; that Elections Canada outline a plan to reconcile the number of special ballots received during the course of the election with the number of special ballots distributed and that up-to-date information on who has received mail-in ballots be made available to candidates and registered political parties throughout the election; and that the federal government commit to not calling a federal election during the pandemic unless it is defeated on a motion of non-confidence and that the government ensure the majority of Canadians at an elevated risk from the pandemic will have received the vaccine prior to calling an election.

All these recommendations are designed to protect Canadians and to put them first. It is disappointing to see a Canadian government more interested in getting itself re-elected and using a health crisis, a pandemic, as cover instead of pouring all its resources into getting Canadians back to normal.

I want my constituents to know that under a Conservative government we would be focused on securing mass shipments of vaccines to get Canadians vaccinated, but we would also be focused on getting Canadians back to work and securing stable, well-paying jobs and ensuring we start actually addressing mental health.

Under a Conservative government, we would take immediate action to help the hardest hit sectors, including helping women and young Canadians who have suffered the most. We would assist small businesses and provide incentives to invest in, build and start new businesses.

We would also focus on mental health. COVID-19 has certainly highlighted the shortcomings in our health care sector when it comes to mental health. We would increase the funding to the provinces for mental health care and provide incentives to employers to provide mental health coverage to employees as well as create a nationwide three-digit suicide prevention hotline.

While the Liberals continue to look toward advancing their own agenda and padding the pockets of their friends, Canadians can take solace in that Canada's Conservatives will have their backs and stand up for them, their pocketbooks, their health and their jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Skyview.

As I was saying, the boxes that would be at these stations would help folks like our seniors who may not feel safe going inside a polling station on election day but may be okay to go for a quick drive to drop off their ballot. This would also be a great thing for people who, like me, have last-minute things. If the ballot has not been mailed, they could still ensure that it gets counted in the election by just dropping it in that box.

The Chief Electoral Officer is working hard to make sure that Canadians remain safe in an election. However, I have some concerns about the suggested expansion of his powers in Bill C-19. While some of these suggestions are definitely reasonable, some of the more major shifts lack robust accountability. Unfortunately, some of the mechanisms in Bill C-19 would give the Chief Electoral Officer too much latitude to make significant changes without being accountable to Parliament.

Of course, during an election, Parliament is dissolved, so how can we make sure the Chief Electoral Officer remains accountable? At committee, we made the suggestion that the CEO should take certain actions only with the agreement of the Advisory Committee of Political Parties, which is struck under the Canada Elections Act. This is certainly not a perfect solution, and I would be happy to hear other solutions. There are definitely other ways in which the CEO could be more accountable instead of making certain decisions unilaterally, and this is just one.

Although I think very highly of Mr. Perrault and I trust that he will do his best in a very difficult situation, I am also sure that he shares my desire to ensure that there is absolutely no doubt when it comes to election results. In fact, there are a few parts of Bill C-19 that I feel would unnecessarily cause stress for Canadians regarding the outcome of an election.

The aspect of Bill C-19 that I have the most concern with is the willingness of the government to accept mail-in ballots after the polling stations are closed. This delay opens up a window of time when Canadians could feel uncertain of the results as mail-in ballots are counted. As we have seen in other elections around the world and even at home, confusion around election results is almost never helpful. These kinds of delays would cause Canadians anxiety and stress, and they would bring a sense of frustration around our democratic process.

We know that our election processes and procedures can never be absolutely perfect, but Canada's system is extremely reliable. However, we must do everything we can to ensure that Canadians have faith that the system is working well. If we introduce new delays that disrupt the system, I fear that it would create unnecessary frustration instead of promoting faith in our institutions. In my opinion, it would be better to ensure that all ballots are received and counted on the final day of polling. That way, Canadians can have an election night that feels normal, for the most part, one where the results are announced right away and Canadians can process that information, instead of waiting around for votes to be counted over a number of days.

Some of my colleagues will certainly say that allowing an extra day for mail-in ballots to be counted is necessary to make sure that we capture as many as possible. I agree with this idea in principle. However, we know that, unfortunately, there will always be late ballots, no matter how late we push the deadline, just like in a normal election there are always people who arrive at the polling station just a little too late. I have faith that the vast majority of Canadians are capable of completing their ballots and submitting them on time, to be counted by the end of the last polling day.

I also have a lot of questions for the government about how it created its plan for long-term care homes, and hopefully we will have more discussion on this. Bill C-19 would allow polling stations to be opened in long-term care homes 13 days prior to polling days, and these polling stations would be allowed to be open for a total of 12 hours in that 13-day period. This seems a bit of a strange solution to me.

Instead of expanding the level of access that Elections Canada workers have to long-term care homes, I believe that it is more important to make sure that Elections Canada workers are vaccinated and tested for COVID-19 and are actively limiting any potential transmission to long-term care residents. This likely means having fewer Elections Canada workers entering these homes. The government needs to make sure that these workers pose as small a risk as possible to our long-term care residents. To that end, the government must consult with long-term care experts to do right by our seniors at this time.

I will conclude, as I often do, by using the concrete example of my parents. My mom and dad are young at heart, especially my dad, but like many elderly Canadians, they need to take steps to make sure they stay healthy these days. I am happy that Bill C-19 offers people like my parents flexibility around voting through multiple voting days, mail-in options and other flexibilities.

In these uncertain times, it is more important than ever that people like mom and dad have clarity around these measures and have the confidence that they will be safe if they go to vote. It is our job as parliamentarians to make sure that Canadians can feel safe voting and that their vote counts. Some of the changes of Bill C-19 help that goal, and others hurt that goal. I hope we can really look into this bill at committee to make sure we can get it right. I look forward to this important work.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, the government's legislation designed to make changes to the Canada Elections Act in the case of a potential pandemic election.

Over the past year, Canadians have changed much about what they are doing every day. They have changed how they do grocery shopping, how they do their work and how they socially interact with one another. In the same way, we have to start thinking about how we might change how we hold federal elections to reflect the realities of the pandemic. This is especially important in a minority Parliament, where things are not quite as stable as a majority and elections are a little more frequent.

Before I get into the government's legislation, it is important to note right off the bat that the government should not unnecessarily jeopardize the health of Canadians through an election. This pandemic continues to put a strain on all Canadians, and the last thing they need is the government putting their health on the line because the Liberals think it is good for them politically. Canadians are doing their best to keep their families safe and healthy, despite the challenges of COVID-19. Unfortunately, the government has already, on multiple occasions, threatened to send Canadians to the polls, risking their health and safety, instead of answering questions about the failed elements of its pandemic response or its ethical scandals. I was happy that, when this was discussed at the procedure and House affairs committee, the Liberal members actually agreed with this and included it in our final report.

Sadly, it seems as though the Liberal members of that committee do not hold much sway with the PMO. I only say this because, even though the government knew that PROC was working on a report that would help inform its legislation, the minister bypassed all the work of the committee and introduced Bill C-19 without taking any of the expert testimony into account. Some members of the procedure and House affairs committee are now talking about a prestudy of Bill C-19 that would rehash a lot of the same ground covered in the initial study. This suggestion could only make sense because all of the evidence was ignored the first time around.

However, with that discussion out of the way, I am happy to get into the meat of Bill C-19 and discuss the positives and negatives of it. I always try to look at things fairly, and I can honestly say that in my time as an MP I have not shied away from saying there are things in a bill that are not okay. Even if I do not like the whole thing, I like to try to find good in legislation from all sides. Members could even see that last night with the budget, and there are some good things here in Bill C-19.

For example, I am happy to see the inclusion of multiple voting days, which would be called a “polling period”. Having more than one voting day would help ensure that Canadians can come out to vote in as normal a fashion as possible, while still spacing out timing and physical distancing. Another flexible option we know already exists in Canada is the opportunity for mail-in ballots. However, in previous elections this method has not been used to the extent that we expect would happen in a pandemic election. The Chief Electoral Officer has said that we could see five million mail-in ballots if the government calls a pandemic election. We need to make sure we are prepared to receive and process these. We have spoken to Canada Post and it has assured us it is ready; we need to make sure we are ready as well.

The Chief Electoral Officer is responsible for making sure Canadians know that mail-in ballots are an option. However, Bill C-19 would offer a helpful way for Canadians to be able to apply for their mail-in ballot online. To be clear, Canadians would not be able to vote online, only to apply for their hard-copy mail-in ballot. As I am sure Canadians agree, a pandemic is certainly not the time to consider massive new sweeping changes to the electoral system, such as online voting. However, allowing Canadians to apply online for their special ballot would be a positive change to help enhance flexibility.

Another positive addition of Bill C-19 would be the installation of reception boxes—

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

The committee heard witnesses speak on long-term care homes. They indicated they would like a shorter voting period, which Bill C-19 does not provide for. I therefore believe that we should make an amendment to provide for as short a voting period as possible in long-term care homes.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-19 is giving the Chief Electoral Officer full rein to make any changes to the way the election is conducted as he sees fit to support the health and safety of Canadian voters.

Would the Chief Electoral Officer be able to incorporate the changes that do not pass in the House of Commons that we do not like, if he has full reins? What other types of things can he make decisions on, given there would be no oversight?

The House resumed from March 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend.

This gives me an opportunity to share with the House what we have planned for the coming days.

This afternoon, we will continue debate on Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.

On Friday morning, we will begin by debating Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, COVID-19 response, and then resume debate on the budget bill.

On Monday of next week, we will continue second reading debate of Bill C‑19. In the evening, we will resume the concurrence debate on the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

On Tuesday, we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-30, the budget legislation.

On Wednesday, we will deal with report stage and third reading of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Finally, next Thursday shall be an opposition day.

I thank my colleague for his question.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, thanks for those opening remarks and helpful reminders. Last time there were a few interruptions to different speakers on the basis of repetition, and I appreciate the clarifications you've made. I certainly feel that repeating some points within an argument for emphasis' sake is one of my stylistic preferences. It is not in any way meant to waste time or to be overly repetitive, but is simply to drive home very specific points that I think are key within an argument.

There is one that I would repeat again, which I've made over and over and which, I again hope, opposition members will take to heart and maybe reflect on. This is the heart of the argument I've been making and what I've been expounding on in many different ways, and that is if a global pandemic is not a good enough reason for proroguing Parliament, then I would say nothing is.

I've been continuing to make the argument that the economic impact of this global pandemic—and I understand that it is first and foremost a public health crisis, so we really should be focusing at all times on public health, because you can't have a livelihood without a life. We've seen the tragic loss of human life. We must never lose sight of the fact that every life matters. I say that for all of the people and families and communities that have been so deeply impacted. The grief is almost unthinkable for those families.

One thing we've become slightly desensitized to is seeing numbers and statistics and focusing on public health data and graphs. We have to realize that these hundreds and hundreds of deaths and individuals who are in ICUs and who are on ventilators are all individual human beings with networks and relationships. They have made massive contributions to their communities and their families. They're loved and they have this fulsome life that is being taken away by a virus.

It's no one's fault. We need to get away from the blame game. At the same time, we need to really cherish those lives and honour those lives in everything we do. When we're doing this work and this study in this committee, we tend to be focused on the rear-view mirror and on how the prorogation happened. It's almost a distant memory at this point. I have tons of information on the reasons for proroguing, but it's faded in my memory just because there are so many more pressing things for us to be paying attention to that are immediately in front of us.

It is very disheartening that we're continuing with this. I've continually tried to be appeasing and flexible and adaptable to the perspectives of my honourable colleagues from the opposition parties. With that intention, I proposed an amendment to Ms. Vecchio's motion, that maybe we can do a little bit more study on prorogation but quickly move on.

We see that the opposition parties are not interested in negotiating or being flexible or really working with us on the things that I think are even more pressing. That's really unfortunate, and I really feel there's quite a bit of work to be done that is more immediately pressing.

The main estimates, which you mentioned, Madam Chair, are a pretty important responsibility for our committee. I think that would take one meeting. Perhaps that's an opportunity for us to fulfill some of our other duties.

Division 37 of Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, is an area that I've certainly been affected by and concerned about for some time. That's the prevalence of disinformation within election periods and just how much that can have an impact on our democratic institutions and some of the fundamental rights that we hold dear here in Canada. I really feel it's important for us to do the work on the pieces of the budget implementation act, Bill C-30, that are really required of us, if I were to be really honest about it. The Standing Orders define the parameters of PROC. This fits clearly within our mandate. I don't see how the finance committee will do that work, and the other pieces of their work that have to be hived off and given to other committees, if we don't do our part.

That's enough said on that, at the moment. I really feel strongly about that and Bill C-19. It's important for opposition members to realize that the adaptation powers for the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada come into effect upon royal assent of Bill C-19. Those adaptation powers would protect the health and safety of Canadians should opposition parties trigger an election, which they've been coming dangerously close to doing with some of the votes in the House. We're playing roulette at this point, or opposition parties are playing roulette, with people's health and safety, in my view, and I really think that's irresponsible.

I'll get back to the main argument that I've been making here. I have a lot more to say about the hardest-hit industries and sectors and some of the structural barriers to their recovery. They're no fault of any industry, or any industry players or businesses. Really, it's by virtue of the fact of how those business models are. I'll talk about restaurants or the food service industry. I spoke last time more about the airline industry. I covered a little bit about tourism, transportation, warehousing, public transit, commercial real estate and the retail trade. I left off talking about our local chambers of commerce and some of the work that was done around the digital main street initiatives, which I really felt helped some of the retail businesses pivot within the pandemic.

Again, I want to make it clear, just for the sake of relevance, that I believe in making an argument that's relevant at all times. This is relevant because what I've been claiming and substantiating with facts and evidence is quite clearly that the economic impact of COVID-19 is, at the very least, 10 times greater than the recession in 2008-09. Again, the heart of this argument is to say that this global pandemic, because of the economic impact being so much greater, if we were to say that an economic crisis or recession were a reason to prorogue Parliament and to reassess and re-evaluate and reset the agenda, and that's been a valid reason to prorogue Parliament in history....

I think this provides evidence as to why our Prime Minister chose to prorogue, and to use the prerogative that he had, between the first and second waves of COVID-19. I've been speaking to how this is rational. It makes sense. The process was substantive during that time. It really got to gather evidence and qualitative feedback from many stakeholders, which then fed into a throne speech that reflected that.

What I want to focus on today in my argument is just the depth of the impact on some of the hardest-hit industries, and then some of the things that were extended and even added, with some of the programs and supports that our government offered and that were redesigned coming out of that re-evaluation period during the time when Parliament was prorogued.

Again, I have to say this, because I feel that opposition members have implied many times over that the government sort of took a break at that time and essentially prorogued to just sit around and twiddle their thumbs. They have also claimed that the Speech from the Throne had nothing new in it. This is so false. It's factually false. If you look at the throne speech, it reflects the data, evidence and consultation work that was done during that time.

If you look at how much consultation work was done, as I've said before, I went to at least 15 different sessions. In my community, I did hundreds of surveys and consultation sessions—just me, and I'm just one member of Parliament. I know that my colleagues did the same. When I step back from this, even when I am trying to be charitable to my opposition colleagues, I still cannot find any evidence of how the overall narrative and story that we have provided, which are based in reason and evidence, are somehow deficient.

There seems to be no effort to assess the merit of the reasons that were given. I don't know how we got to this place. In my view, our government has done everything it can to be there for Canadians every step of the way.

I'm not saying we're perfect. I absolutely would not say that. I'm not perfect; none of my colleagues is. I think we all have things we can....

I know, Mr. Amos, you might be the exception, my friend, but for me, I can certainly admit various flaws.

We need to assess the merits of the report that was tabled and look at it on face value and ask what is deficient about the rationale. I can't find anything that doesn't make sense to me.

Okay. I'm in the governing party and I'm a Liberal. I get that. But I try to step outside of my perspective and critically evaluate and ask if there is any charitable or generous way that I can interpret the merits and the truth of the perspective of those who oppose my perspective. That has to be a part of our democracy and our debates at all times, because if we can't get outside of our own biases and perspectives, then we truly have lost our way.

However, when I do that, I still cannot find anything that doesn't make sense based on what I've seen and the data I have at my fingertips. I don't know where opposition members are really coming from when they are pushing the narrative that somehow prorogation was done for some ulterior motives that they seem to want to push. It seems just like a partisan political agenda that has no basis in reality.

I'm sorry to say that but, honestly, that is how I feel. I don't see any argument the opposition has made that really holds any water. I will continue to provide more data and evidence and to back up the claims that I am making, because I think they are the closest approximation of the truth. Until opposition members can actually engage in a fruitful debate on that, I think we're at an impasse.

You have your narrative and preferred interpretation, which are not based in facts and reality, and I have mine, or our members have ours. The difference is that we are providing evidence, data and reasons that make sense. The process makes sense. The themes in the throne speech make sense. The timing makes sense. The report is consistent with that. The testimony given by the government House leader was consistent with that. So what is this really about, when it comes down to it? What is it really about? I would say to you it's not about Canadians.

We're here to serve Canadians. I want to do things that are valuable to my constituents and not waste precious time that we as leaders in our communities have. We have been afforded the privilege and honour of representing the people of our constituencies, and I take that responsibility seriously and with great pride and honour.

At this moment in time we have a third wave that is.... We had the emergency debate last night in the House. Madam Chair, you were there on House duty with me, and I'm sure some of my other colleagues were as well. At least in that debate, things that were being said were starting to get beyond—or at least there were moments when we started to see just a glimmer of hope of getting beyond the partisan politics and focusing on what Albertans need right now to get through this third wave. I would say that at those brief moments in which we seemed to almost transcend the partisan swordsmanship and jousting, I thought okay, let's just go a bit further, one step further, and collectively come together and do our job for Canadians. That gave me just a glimmer of hope, but it was gone so quickly, and here we are back in committee basically ensnared in the same political jousting that to me is just unfortunate. It's more than unfortunate. It actually makes me feel sad. It really does. It's disturbing that this is what we're up to.

Anyway, I'll get back to my argument. Let me say a little bit about the retail industry. By June 2020, the retail activity had surpassed pre-COVID levels while payroll was 15% lower. This is kind of interesting just in terms of, again, understanding the impact on our economy and how unequal it is across industry. The retail industry in June 2020 was coming back. It rebounded very strongly. Retail activity surpassed pre-COVID levels, for a brief time, of course, because when we then had the full-out second wave, obviously that all changed again. Payroll was still lower, so in a way you would anticipate that in fact many retailers were more profitable in that time because their payroll was down but their sales activity was up, which is interesting.

Anyway, the point is that between February and May, sales had fallen by 18%, but e-commerce sales had doubled during the same period, which is interesting as well. I would say to you that many of the non-essential retailers were able to pivot to e-commerce, and I would link this back to our government's support. In my community, I know for a fact that the Digital Main Street initiative and the efforts made by our business improvement area in both our downtowns—because we're fortunate enough to have two in Whitby, in my riding—along with the work that the chamber of commerce did to help in the region of Durham, including my riding and others adjacent to mine.... They did incredible work to help local retailers move to online sales.

This didn't allow them to fully recover. It didn't insulate them fully from the impacts of COVID-19, of course, during the first and eventually second wave, but it did help.

It was interesting to note as well that many of the essential retailers, the retail stores that were deemed essential, continued to operate and actually increased sales dramatically. Again, just think about the equity issues here within the economic impact of COVID-19 and how important it is for our government to target support by taking the time to understand these dynamics and really listen to the industry associations that quite vocally were giving feedback.

Again, it was to inform our approach. Have we lived through this before? I haven't lived through a global pandemic. Has anybody here? Anybody here who has, please raise your hand. I see hands raised. Please give me a signal if you've lived through a global pandemic before. No. Nobody has.

Some of us may have studied global pandemics, but I would say that this one is not the same. It may have some characteristics that are clearly similar, which I'm sure Dr. Duncan can speak to, but I think that the state of our economy, the point in time, the moment in history, how this happened and the specific nature of the virus and how it's affected us are really things that none of us could have anticipated. I think it has had a unique impact in a way that we couldn't have comprehended before it happened.

It's interesting to think about it in terms of reflection and how important it is to learn from this, but also to realize that not every virus, not every pandemic and not every communicable disease is going to impact us in the same way. That's something else that we need to take from this. Being prepared for public health emergencies and other climate-related emergencies is going to take real adaptability and an ability to predict the various different ways in which things could unfold, based on different types of threats and risks, etc. I really welcome those conversations in the future to learn all we can from this experience.

Just to go back to my point here, we couldn't really have predicted that some businesses were going to stay open. In many respects, some of those decisions clearly were not within federal jurisdiction. We had provincial governments doing different things and doing them in a way that we couldn't. We weren't making those decisions. Sure, to some degree, we were providing some guidance and advice, but not always. Many of those decisions were made by provincial and territorial governments.

What I've heard in my community is that those really had impacts. The way that public health restrictions were rolled out and then rolled back, and how they were targeted to different industries and sectors, really had an impact on the different industries and sectors. Businesses were struggling with different scenarios. Again, how were we, as a federal government, supposed to understand that if we didn't take the time to prorogue, re-evaluate and listen to those stakeholders?

I find it hard to share in the perspective of some of my colleagues who seem to think that prorogation was not an appropriate or good use of time or was even for some other nefarious purpose. It just makes sense to me that you have to take time to re-evaluate. It's a lot of work to reflect and re-evaluate too. It's not easy. To learn and re-evaluate is not a holiday. It takes great commitment to ensure a good responsive government that is working for the people. It has to re-evaluate all the time. I would actually suggest that we probably need to re-evaluate constantly. I think we are, but perhaps there are ways to do that even better, too.

I'll get back to my argument here, which is that I've gathered some facts and figures from the hotel industry, as well, that I think are pretty important. These were collected in quarter three of 2020. The hotel industry or accommodations industry identified situational factors that I think we're all aware of that were really impacting them. Ongoing travel restrictions, obviously, were a big one that they identified. They also identified rising case counts, economic uncertainty, the Canada-U.S. border closure to non-essential travel, the reinstatement of gathering rules, the reopening rollbacks, the support program extensions. These were all situational factors. These were things they identified that were in the context they were dealing with.

I used to do strategic planning for organizations before getting into politics. With any organization, any large business, you would do a situational analysis—sometimes it was referred to as an environmental scan—before you developed a strategy. We did this work collectively, but I also did it with individual organizations. I think it's better to do it collectively, but it's more complex when you do it collectively because there are many different situational factors that are affecting different stakeholders within a system.

When you think about the complexity of doing this at a national scale with different levels of government, with many industries, with industry associations, with members of the public, with non-profit organizations, and the list goes on and on and on, just think about the complexity of how this virus has had ripple effects through our entire society. Just think about the challenges of different people, depending where you sit and stand in that system, and how what's relevant to you looks different depending on where you are. Again with those situational factors and that situational analysis, situational leadership depends upon that intelligence. Those are things that prorogation helped our government do. It helped it to stay attuned to those things, those factors and the differences of perspective out there. That, to me, is part of a responsible, responsive government.

You can't have good governance without being responsive. You can't. I mean, what does it even mean? What does good governance even mean if we're not listening to the various voices and stakeholders from across the country, especially in a 100-year public health crisis?

Again, we listened to the hotel industry. It had situational factors that it identified. The year-over-year change to occupancy for the accommodations industry in quarter one was down 10 points. In quarter two, it was down 49 points. That was when the pandemic hit. In July and August, it was still down 37 to 42 points. In quarter two, their revenues were down 82%. Basically, it started to get a bit better in July and August, but you can imagine that there was not a free-for-all. The pent-up demand—everybody wants to take a vacation, travel somewhere and stay in a hotel and—hadn't happened yet. In July and August 2020, we saw a moderate return of some revenues to the hotel industry, but they were very minor compared to what we saw in the retail industry.

Again, what I'm pointing to is the inequity of the impacts of the pandemic and the economic impact being greater—at least 10 times greater—than those of the previous recession in 2008-09.

Linking all this back for the sake of relevance, for my colleague Ms. Vecchio and others, these are all good reasons to have the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance testify before this committee and give us some testimony as to how she understood all of these various impacts at the time and how prorogation gave us the opportunity to re-evaluate some of our programs and eventually, I think, target more support for these industries. Some of that work is still ongoing, but lots of work has been done.

In particular, going back to the hotel industry....

Again, Madam Chair, I'm sorry for taking up so much time. I tend to be a bit verbose. Hopefully, as my political career continues, I may get more concise in the future. I struggle with this at times. I'll work on that.

Look, Madam Chair—

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

Thanks, everyone, for your kind words also.

As I was telling you, to get up to speed, I had to reread all the reports and all the questions you had put to the witnesses during the committee's meetings. The questions were already about WE Charity at the time.

I'm well acquainted with political games because I've been involved in politics to varying degrees for some 30 years. Today, however, as I told you, the watchword is a simple one, and I'm prepared to debate the issue as long as necessary. Whether we like it or not, a government in power, even a minority government, is one that has chosen to make decisions. Whether we like it or not, the people chose the Liberals. I understand that the other parties are playing political games, but since we're in the midst of the COVID‑19 pandemic, I think that, as parliamentarians, we should set aside partisanship and simply work on the extremely important issues we need to address.

When I came back, I took stock of the situation and asked the chair how many motions had been introduced. I had lost count and thought there had been six or seven, including that of Mr. Therrien, who wants to withdraw one. However, 10 motions have been introduced and we're still discussing Mr. Turnbull's amendment. At first, unlike Ms. Petitpas Taylor and Mr. Turnbull, I wasn't in favour of that motion of Ms. Vecchio's. We should simply have dropped it and moved on. However, every good member can give some ground, and after analyzing the matter and speaking with my colleagues, I decided to accept Mr. Turnbull's amendment.

We put many questions to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Mr. Rodriguez, and we're still saying that we want to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and that this question can be debated again today. That's unfortunate because, as parliamentarians, we should especially focus on the pandemic. Ms. Petitpas Taylor described the situation earlier as she explained the reasons why the pandemic is directly related to what we're doing.

It's late. The pandemic began 15 months ago and case numbers are still rising in my riding. We're in the red zone and many restaurants and businesses there have shut down as a result of COVID‑19 because the hospitals are still full. The statistics on our seniors are improving, but we know the variants attack younger people. This week in my riding, all teaching staff will receive their first doses of vaccine. However, as Ms. Petitpas Taylor explained, you must not let your guard down even if you get a dose of vaccine because your entire system is vulnerable. We must make our decisions and move forward based on that fact.

Under the amendment that Mr. Turnbull introduced following discussions with the chair of this committee and that of the Standing Committee on Finance, this motion may address the COVID‑19 pandemic. It would be entirely appropriate for us to take a break, analyze the situation and take another look at Mr. Turnbull's amendment. However, I understand the political games being played around this issue.

I want to discuss the fact that we're still in the midst of the pandemic. People tend to forget that because the temperature is rising. The nice weather makes people want to get together. In reality, Canadians rightly focus on much more important issues than those we're discussing right now.

I want to make a direct connection with the calls I make to people in my riding. Personally, I'm a fan of phone calls and telephones. I call the people in my constituency, and a team of volunteers is there to help me. Calling my fellow citizens helps me take the public's pulse.

I've made thousands of calls since last August. No one has spoken to me about the importance of proroguing Parliament for six weeks last August or told me that the Prime Minister should appear before the committee to talk about the prorogation. The opposition parties have formed their own idea of the reasons for the prorogation. Having made thousands of calls, all I can say is that no citizen is concerned about the situation we're in today. There's no better way to survey public opinion of the situation.

Canadians want to hear us discuss much more important matters, such as the measures we put in place to combat the pandemic. Canadians are focused on the millions of doses of vaccine and want to know when they'll get their second dose.

In Quebec, people want to book through a website. People call us to ask when their age group will be allowed to be vaccinated. That's what people talk to us about; they don't talk to us about the prorogation, amendments or the WE Charity issue. Canadians are focusing on the doses of vaccine that were administered this week. They want to know how many cases there are in the hospitals, how many deaths and what we're going to do to support industries. We're all affected by that.

There are businesses associated with the tourism industry, for example, in every one of our ridings. The riding I represent is quite rural and thus depends on tourism. The tourism season's nearly here. There are a lot of festivals in my riding. Festivals are an industry in themselves. Culture, music, entertainment and the outdoors are part of the culture of Argenteuil—La Petite Nation, but everything's on hold right now.

One of the concerns is whether day camps will open this summer. That's the question on people's minds. Can we send our kids to day camp this summer? Will summer jobs be available at the day camps? No one was wondering whether Ryan Turnbull's amendment was relevant to the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That's not the case.

Everything I'm saying is part of my introduction. I want to share a number of things with my colleagues. For the people in my riding, it's important that we discuss real business, things that affect Canadians. People today want us to discuss the economic recovery.

They want to talk about what the government can do to stimulate the local economy and the economies of every one of our ridings and provinces.

It's important to join forces to work toward economic recovery so we can have a strong Canada and create jobs. We have to work directly with people to help them get back on their feet after this crisis.

We aren't out of the crisis yet. It's dragged on for 15 months, and, as I speak to you, there's no indication that we'll be able to gather for the Christmas holidays or that life will be as it was. Things will change. Business models will be altered.

Governments must support people. As members of Parliament, we must devote all our energy to finding solutions to revive the new economy. These are words we aren't used to hearing because we only use them after pandemics, wars and disasters.

As Canadians, we must bounce back from this pandemic and move on to something else. We must get over it by accepting Mr. Turnbull's amendment. It's directly related to the prorogation and the Speech from the Throne.

Let's be clear. Ms. Vecchio, you have all my respect, but this motion is a democratic shell game, an attempt to keep the WE Charity scandal alive. Even after detailed examination by other committees of the documents and testimony on the subject, this is the latest attempt to corner the Prime Minister, who at the time was in a vulnerable position, one that's even being taken out of context today.

There's absolutely no evidence or proof that anything inappropriate occurred. I understand that angers the opposition parties. I know it's hard for the opposition parties to grasp that they've found nothing. I understand that they were trying to find something. There has been little or no publicity about this, and they'd like to test the waters in an attempt to revive the scandal. But it's not working. That's a shock to the opposition parties, and I understand that. However, this game has to stop at some point.

Instead of focusing on problems that actually affect Canadians, since the list of issues the committee could address includes some important matters, Mr. Blaikie said earlier that the new motion should appear on the initial list. My answer would be no, because politics evolves.

For example, who would have thought that the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance would have had an important item on the agenda, one that would have an influence on Elections Canada if an election were to be called? We don't have a crystal ball. We're engaged in politics and we evolve from day to day.

The purpose of the motion that Mr. Turnbull introduced today is to do our government a favour. However, we aren't doing our government or the public any favours today by allowing the Standing Committee on Finance to make a decision that could have been debated here in our committee. That decision might have been relevant in a completely different way before it was sent back to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Today we have before us a motion and an amendment the result of which is that all these issues prevent us from moving forward. As regards the prorogation and Mr. Turnbull's amendment, I'll come back later with a list of issues that should be dropped, decided or voted on so we can move on to matters we care about.

The actual situation is that the opposition members are finding it hard to accept that all the time and energy they've spent since last fall have led virtually nowhere. I can understand that's hard for the opposition. We can sense it here in the committee, but that's not the case among the population, where this isn't the reality. The fact that we're debating an amendment requiring that the Prime Minister testify before the committee on matters that have been addressed in many committees and have led nowhere hasn't drawn a lot of attention from citizens in our ridings.

We can definitely sense the frustration now that all the witnesses have said the same thing in every committee. We would only be repeating ourselves, and that would ultimately be just an opportunity to add to the record a question that could be used to demonstrate an attempt to hurt the government. That's pure politicking in the context of COVID‑19. Things might be different if the context weren't extraordinary. However, an election is coming and we have to make extremely important procedural decisions. Consider not only Bill C‑19, but also all the rules we have to put in place for the House of Commons and Elections Canada. We must consider that as soon as possible, and that's what we need to discuss.

I understand that it would have been extremely important to debate the motion that Mr. Turnbull introduced today over two or three meetings perhaps. That would have been a small step toward a discussion of Elections Canada, but I'm convinced that we would have come up with more questions than answers after two or three days of deliberating. Addressing that issue would pave the way to a consideration of how to conduct the next election safely and in accordance with the rules prescribed by the government respecting Elections Canada so that Canadians can vote with complete confidence and show that they have a right to promote democracy safely and in their own way.

Officials and politicians have worked hard for 15 months. That's my analysis. Countless hours of work were devoted to the issue to ensure that programs were available to assist Canadians who were in difficulty and still are today. Nothing is perfect. We've made our comments in the course of many meetings and have listened to every pandemic-related question in the House.

We obviously made some adjustments as we went along. Our primary aim was to help as many Canadians as possible. Since nothing is perfect, mistakes were made, and the Prime Minister was the first to admit it.

It's important to debate the amendment so we can then debate some real issues. I was particularly struck by one of the errors that was made. One morning, I was bombarded by emails stating that a traveller voluntarily returning from the south would be entitled to compensation of $1,000 upon returning. All the parties dropped the ball, not just the Liberals. That was debated in the House. I remember the motion, which contained three elements. One of them was that. We didn't realize that non-essential travellers would be entitled to that amount.

Officials were behind that measure, but I don't blame them. We're trying to reinvent the system. By discussing this motion and voting for the amendment moved by Mr. Turnbull, we would be able to get back to our business and get things done. We have to work together. For example, we have to find a way to conduct the next election safely.

Personally, as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Seniors, I will obviously defend seniors. In the next election, some seniors from my riding will have to travel 200 kilometers to vote. Some Canadian seniors live in remote regions. They aren't allowed to be driven by car; some don't have a driver's licence. We're currently in the red zone, but people don't always practise social distancing. Even if people wear their masks in their cars, they aren't two metres apart.

I have many questions I'd like to ask. I'd like to work with the committee to establish the best standards for Elections Canada.

It's fine to say we're going to move the polling stations closer and set them up in a school or community centre; those institutions aren't accessible in rural communities. Sending out a worker to build a makeshift access ramp doesn't make the school or community centre accessible. That's false. When you're on the ground, you see that the actual situation is different. Even if you install an outdoor ramp, there are still steps inside the building. You haven't solved the problem.

We have to come up with solutions that can help people. To do that, we have to be innovative and a committee has to examine the matter. It bothers me, but we've been debating the motion and Mr. Turnbull's amendment for 40 hours now. Why? Because, as you said, there's no way out, no other way apart from having the Prime Minister here in the committee. For that reason, we're going to be debating for a long time instead of making progress. We can't get things done that we don't want to get done.

I want to talk about the officials again.

I don't want to improvise because I might repeat myself. I tip my hat to the officials who worked during the prorogation and prepared the Speech from the Throne together with the Prime Minister's Office.

They've also been proactive throughout the pandemic. They've innovated and worked on the programs they designed using systems that were unsuited to such extraordinary measures. Simply changing the tax system and extending the deadline by one month are extremely complicated undertakings in the machinery of government. Imagine all the decisions that were made concerning all the programs that were introduced.

Earlier I mentioned the mistakes that had been made. They were collective mistakes that we made together in our attempts to respond to the COVID‑19 crisis. Sometimes you try to move a little too quickly and make mistakes. However, I want to emphasize that I'm absolutely not criticizing our officials. I am so grateful to the officials who have done a remarkable job during this health crisis.

They have proven that we politicians would be nothing without our officials. At any event, career public servants who have been working for 30 or 35 years have seen a lot of politicians. For them, we're just passing through. As we do so, we try to meet the needs of Canadians as best we can while asking our officials to do the impossible, to adapt to the situation. Ultimately, we try, year after year, to improve the system based on the prevailing situation.

Today we have an excellent opportunity to improve the electoral system, for example. Mr. Turnbull's amendment concludes the motion by inviting an incredible person who has been here from the start. Ms. Petitpas Taylor accurately described Ms. Freeland, who is absolutely capable of answering all our questions, all the more so since she is the Minister of Finance.

I'm prepared to give Mr. Turnbull and Ms. Petitpas Taylor my support. Initially I didn't quite agree that the Deputy Prime Minister should appear before the committee given all that was said in the other committees. However, now I agree that we should have the Deputy Prime Minister so we can ask her the real questions, the hard questions. The Deputy Prime Minister is prepared to answer them and to testify before the committee.

Has she accepted the invitation? First and foremost, the members of the committee must adopt Mr. Turnbull's amendment for the Deputy Prime Minister to agree to appear before the committee. Since we're debating that amendment, she has no interest in replying to our invitation today. I can't speak on her behalf, but I propose that we first adopt a resolution, a motion. Let's vote in favour of Mr. Turnbull's amendment. Then we'll get an answer to our invitation from the Deputy Prime Minister. Then we'll be able to go ahead, address the tens of pending motions, analyze them one after another, debate them and move ahead on the issues I consider important.

I remember the first wave of the pandemic. We were very concerned at the time. We were already working at a frantic pace in many committees, the House and our ridings.

When the pandemic hit us, we wondered whether what we were experiencing was real and whether it would continue for a month or two. We could see what was happening in other countries. We could see the number of deaths.

The question on people's minds in other countries wasn't how many people would be saved but rather which of them would be saved. We wondered whether we would get to that same point in our country. Those questions were already on our minds.

Fifteen months later, we're still at the mercy of the pandemic and have just spent 40 hours advancing our files because we still don't want to invite the Deputy Prime Minister—the highest ranking government after the Prime Minister—who is also the Minister of Finance. I'm astonished.

Late last fall, following testimony from countless witnesses, the examination of thousands of pages of documents and the questions you asked during all the testimony before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I also went to see what was going on in the other committees. The questions were more or less the same, the witnesses the same and the accusations against WE Charity as well. The immediate question was whether the WE Charity scandal could once again be made the key issue. That's the way it was at the time.

However, that's no longer the case. Fifteen months later, it's something completely different. What's important today is to look ahead. We know that an election will be called. We know that an extremely important economic recovery is taking place in our ridings and that we're very much affected by it. We know that the green shift has to occur and that we'll be experiencing many significant changes in our society in the next few years.

Just imagine how lucky we are. Every single one of us is one of the 336 Canadian decision-makers who are able to take concrete action. How do we go about improving the situation?

I may not have the political experience that many of you have, but I can give you one piece of advice. The best advice I can give you to help get things done is to work, as my father always told me, and, in order to start working, we must adopt this amendment.

You can look me in the eye right now if you want to, but we'll never let the Prime Minister come to this meeting.

It's inconceivable. I can never let it happen. Have the Deputy Prime Minister appear if you wish; that's already a lot. I'm telling you that we will debate this as long as necessary. The best way to move forward is to work together.

I talked about the difference between what we're experiencing today and what we experienced during the first wave of the pandemic. The scenario is completely different today in both my riding and yours. Now we're facing an economy that has to recover.

We're experiencing all kinds of things: rising lumber prices, exponentially increasing house prices and extremely low interest rates, in particular. We're also seeing people take on more debt and families in difficulty managing to emerge from poverty thanks to government programs.

However, we could be facing a global economic crisis as a result of the pandemic.

We're immune to nothing. We have to prepare, we have to work hard, and we have to keep Canada strong so we can actually get through this crisis together.

After examining the testimony of thousands of witnesses before other committees and ours, the opposition has clearly understood that it overplayed its hand because questions went unanswered. The questions that were asked in this committee and others concerned a scandal that drew no response. The other committees quickly moved on to something else.

That's where we stand today. It isn't out of our own free will that we're discussing Mr. Turnbull's amendment, which clearly involves WE Charity. That has nothing to do with the prorogation.

During the discussions and testimony, we clearly showed that, even though they said that the purpose of the prorogation was to conceal the WE Charity scandal, the witnesses ultimately admitted that prorogation nevertheless had its place. The purpose of the prorogation was to reset the government's agenda and put it on a sound footing. We didn't know at the time that we would be spending 15 months in a pandemic, that we would still be vaccinating, that people would only have received one dose of vaccine and that we would be in the midst of a third wave.

I don't understand how the witnesses could have said at the time, even before the pandemic, that the prorogation didn't follow from the pandemic. If the pandemic wasn't sufficient reason to prorogue Parliament, what was the purpose of the prorogation?

It's so obvious. I want to choose my words here because everything is being recorded, but it was almost amusing. It was truly strange to hear questions directly related to WE Charity without being able to debate them, without being able to express opinions. The questions were plainly related to WE Charity.

As we heard from various witnesses during the committee meetings, under our constitutional conventions, the Prime Minister alone had authority to advise the Governor General on prorogation.

So that's the way it is. The Prime Minister may, as he wishes, request prorogation in an extreme situation. He's virtually the only prime minister who has ever decided to do so in such a way as to be able to prepare a report after the fact explaining why he did so. That could simply have put an end to the discussion and closed the loop. It would have meant that the Prime Minister was explaining to the public, to Canadians, why Parliament had been prorogued.

Now, I understand that the Prime Minister gave his testimony and also prepared his report. I understand that Pablo Rodriguez came and spoke on behalf of the government. However, that's never enough.

It's a form of political gamesmanship I really understand.

Prorogation was a new phenomenon I was unfamiliar with. There were some in the Harper era, but I wasn't there at the time. What I've learned is that the Prime Minister doesn't even need a reason to prorogue Parliament and doesn't have to appear before the committee to justify it. Constitutional conventions do not require the Prime Minister to justify a prorogation. And yet the Prime Minister did so out of concern for transparency.

Today, it's being suggested that he be invited to have him justify the prorogation. But that's not the main reason for the invitation. It's really to unearth scandals that other committees failed to find. It's the umpteenth attempt to test the system. It's an attempt to break the political system to find some bug that doesn't exist.

My understanding is that, historically, prorogation has been used in Canada to wipe the slate clean. As was explained, the purpose of prorogation is to end Parliament's work so that it can then start over from scratch. The period between dissolution and the new throne speech has varied over time. The August 2020 prorogation lasted six weeks but only prevented the House from sitting for two days.

It was important for public servants and politicians to work together to try to restart the economy and find ways to address the shortcomings. Today again, I learned about the closing of a restaurant in my riding. I am extremely disappointed that La Barque, a small village restaurant, is closing down because we've been unable to deal with the pandemic. Do we really need to know that a small restaurant in the village is shutting down? We need to find ways to work together. We need to find a way to adopt this amendment so that we, as MPs, can say that we can make a difference for Canadians. That's the main reason why we were elected.

I mentioned the period between the dissolution of Parliament and the throne speech. I find it interesting to see the opposition argue on the basis of this period that the prorogation was related to the WE Charity. The same questions were asked at the Standing Committee on Finance. I read over the evidence. Some witnesses said that we had acted too late, and that we should have cleared the snow before it had even fallen. We should have prorogued as soon as we knew that the coronavirus was spreading in other countries. Some people told us that we waited too long. According to the opposition, we always wait too long.

We have been working with our experts and with the Public Health Agency of Canada. The COVID‑19 pandemic didn't come with an instruction manual.

I'm going to talk about how we might be able to work more effectively, and about how important it is for us to consider the post COVID‑19 period so that we can be prepared to deal with any future disasters. As members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, it's important for us, in principle, to take the 10 motions on notice, along with various pending matters and some good ideas you may have had even before I got here, and to work on what I believe is the most important motion, which is how we can do better in any catastrophe, without having to mention the expression "COVID‑19". We need to address this because it's important for Canadians. How can we as members of this committee make ourselves useful?

We could then say that we had made a difference, because we worked on a model, a guide. Canadians are relying on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to show them what it plans to do after studying ways of dealing more effectively with a pandemic.

It means looking at what we got right and what was unsuccessful. Feel free to look at what we got wrong, which means asking real questions of the proper witnesses—those who were affected by the pandemic.

One such witness is a ferryboat operator in my riding. He was never able to benefit from any of the programs for one reason and one reason only. The calculation for compensation was based on revenues for the year preceding the pandemic. Unfortunately, there were floods that year. This meant much lower revenue than usual in July and August. The following year, in July and August, he was not eligible for the programs because his revenue had dropped dramatically the previous year. He was therefore never entitled to any compensation. Can't we do better than that?

I had to explain to this citizen in my riding that he had fallen through one of the cracks in the system.

I don't receive benefits because I'm a Liberal MP. Canadians are Canadians, no matter where they come from. The day after an election, we turn the page and serve all Canadians equally. I am a Liberal because of my convictions. The day after an election, I can turn the page and serve everyone, whether from Petite-Nation or Calgary. A Canadian is a Canadian.

Now, how can we improve the system? The best solution would be to move on to something else.

I understand political gamesmanship, but I'm not going to take the rap for it. As an MP and a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs—duties I take pride in—I would not say that I'm to blame if we fail today move forward and still find ourselves here after 40 hours of debate.

It would be unreasonable for me to say to a government that was elected by the people that I agreed with the idea of the Prime Minister coming here to testify before this committee after several attempts by other committees to do just that.

I digressed to address the economy, on which I would like to see some action. These procedures are very important to me.

What I just said made me think of something I'm going to tell you about. This proves that my speech was not written ahead of time. I'm going to describe what I experienced in order to explain why we should adopt Mr. Turnbull's amendment.

Some municipalities in my riding experienced some flooding. As the Canadian government, we sent the armed forces to help out. We helicoptered people from their houses. They left behind their vulnerable animals, including horses, cows, dogs and cats. We were able to save the people, but not the animals.

These decisions were extremely difficult for us, as MPs. We worked with the armed forces to save Canadians. How can we do better?

The first thing these small municipalities did, even though they didn't add much staff, was to work with the RCMs to establish procedures. In 2017, we worked together to decide on the best ways of taking action if we were to have other floods. We wanted to be proactive. We wanted to look at the chronology of events to determine whether it would have been possible to get the farm animals out or to take specific steps to care for them. For some of the farms, it was not even possible to feed the animals because they couldn't be reached. Dairy farms had to dump milk into the river because the trucks couldn't come to pick it up. We therefore had to look at what had happened to see if we would be able to do things better and make better decisions if the situation were ever to recur.

And these small municipalities were in fact able, with the RCMs, to put together documents specifying procedures to follow in the event of a disaster. I worked with the small municipalities to find basic solutions, like sandbags and ways of dealing with the animals. This shows just how important it is…

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

That's a great question. I have not heard anything from them to date. This is the whole point of the amendment that I put forward: to focus our time on something reasonable that adds a little more testimony, if that's the wish of the committee, but that doesn't extend too far into the witch hunt that I think the opposition parties are looking for, the “fishing expedition”, as my colleague Ms. Shanahan called it, which is how I would characterize it, too.

Thank you for the question, Mr. Kent. I definitely appreciate it.

I just want to continue with my remarks here.

The list is long. The committee did a study—I think some exceptional work was done—on preparing for the possibility of a pandemic election. Now, we know that's only going to happen if opposition parties thrust it upon the government, because there's no way we want an election during a global pandemic.

Bill C-19, however, has been tabled in the House. I understand it's still being debated, but I think we could be doing a prestudy of that bill, which would help expedite its passage through second reading. I think that would be a much better use of our time.

Another priority, which my honourable colleague Dr. Duncan has raised, is evaluating the effectiveness of infection, prevention and control measures on Parliament Hill and a bunch of other factors related to looking at how we responded during the pandemic. That's useful for helping us prepare for future waves or future pandemics, and I think it's a really important one.

I understand that my colleague Ms. Petitpas Taylor also put a motion on notice which I think has lots of relevance. I too have put a motion on notice which focuses on another topic that I think would be much more relevant for us to focus on. It's the one that focuses on the Ontario Superior Court decision to strike down changes to the Canada Elections Act that help protect Canadians against misinformation during elections.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue the debate on the budget presented on Monday by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

Tomorrow, we will debate Bill C-21, the firearms act, at second reading.

When we return on Monday, we will have the fourth and final day of debate on the budget.

On Tuesday, we will resume the second reading debate of Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.

On Wednesday of next week, we will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response).

On Thursday, we will have the first of eight opposition days in the current supply cycle.

Finally, on Friday morning, we will start with a debate on Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, followed in the afternoon by a debate on Bill S-3, an act to amend the Offshore Health and Safety Act.

That is all.

COVID-19 Emergency Response

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to recognize that we are, in fact, in a minority Parliament. No one knows what that means in terms of what can happen. The Chief Electoral Officer says we need to be ready if an election happens and Elections Canada, which is recognized around the world as an authority on independent elections, I am sure will ensure that Canada will be ready.

With respect to Bill C-19, we will continue to move forward in the best way we can.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Independent, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think I speak for the vast majority of Canadians when I say that we do not want an election during the third wave of this pandemic, particularly one clearly motivated by partisan opportunism. That said, an election unfortunately still remains a possibility, so I will ask a very specific question.

Can the minister please advise whether the government has any intention of seeing Bill C-19 become law, whether the Chief Electoral Officer has indicated he is COVID prepared and how quickly after royal assent he would be able to give notice that the temporary changes are in force?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That's wonderful, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. That is indeed quite helpful. I think in approaching this, there is a lot of validity in terms of just being able to talk as to why prorogation was in fact important and to go through the different lines of the throne speech.

For now, I will continue to focus my attention on the need to ensure that the procedure and House affairs committee is able to remain focused on the pandemic. Bill C-19 is one piece of legislation that allows for procedure and House affairs to remain focused on the pandemic because of the changes to the Canada Elections Act.

I guess where I was going with this was to point out that earlier today, inside the House of Commons, we had a bit of frustration that was starting to get there dealing with concurrence reports. From what I was hearing, a concurrence report was coming, or the idea of calling for concurrence was coming, from the New Democratic Party. My advice was going to be that the New Democratic Party consider Bill C-19 as an area of debate being more important for the floor of the House of Commons than the concurrence report that was being suggested, from what I understand, by my New Democratic friends.

The reason I make that suggestion is that if you go through the report, this is something that PROC did a fantastic job on. Later on tonight, I hope to be able to go into a lot of the details of that particular report. It ensures that if there were to be an election during a pandemic, Canadians could feel that much more comfortable because of the work that PROC has done and the debate and discussions that would follow out of Bill C-19. That is the reason I would say that, if we are going to encourage additional debate on the floor of the House as opposed to having that concurrence report, the member for Elmwood—Transcona could consider having and encouraging a debate on Bill C-19.

Madam Chair, we talk about prorogation and the calling of witnesses and the responsibility of standing committees. I had the opportunity as recently as yesterday to talk about the calling of ministers to committee. I can tell you that it started off with a member from the Conservative Party saying they wanted more than just ministers to appear. I went through what was taking place in the finance committee. I used that as an example.

Maybe I can repeat some of what I said yesterday, because I do believe it's relevant. When we talk about the importance of ministers and the ministers' roles at committee, it is really important that we recognize some of the things that have occurred in the past.

I go to Mr. Barrett who has played a leading role for the Conservative Party inside the House and in certain standing committees. He has indicated a litany of individuals who he would like to see called before committees. I indicated to him about accountabilities and ministerial roles and how, even in Stephen Harper's era, the minister played the critical role.

I gave one specific quote. I'd like to repeat that because I do believe it's important here. It came from the honourable Jay Hill. For those members who aren't familiar with Mr. Hill, he was actually the leader of the government in the House of Commons 10 years ago or so. In fact, if I look at it, it was on May 25, 2010, when Mr. Hill stated:

In our system of government, the powers of the Crown are exercised by ministers who are, in turn, answerable to Parliament. Ministers are individually and collectively responsible to the House of Commons for the policies, programs and activities of the government. They are supported in the exercise of their responsibilities by the public servants and by members of their office staffs.

Further on he said:

Accordingly, responsibility for providing information to Parliament and its committees rests with ministers.

As we look at witnesses and the calling of witnesses, I think some of the more important witnesses in terms of government actions will be found through ministers. The government has made ministers accessible and available for committees on a wide variety of issues.

I think cabinet ministers are accountable to the House of Commons for decisions of the government and of political staff. This is actually a very long-standing tradition of ministerial responsibility. In fact, there have been multiple House committees that have studied, for example, the student service grant. That's what I was making reference to, but one could easily reference other committees at the same time.

If you look at the finance committee in particular, it really amplifies what a committee was able to do in terms of ensuring ministerial accountability. Some incredible individuals appeared before that committee at that political level. There was the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, the Minister of Inclusion and Youth—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Chair, I believe Ms. Vecchio was concerned about me misrepresenting the truth. I can assure the committee member and all committee members that everything that I have said is a hundred per cent accurate and can be demonstrated to be so by just looking at the record.

For example, on one occasion in which Bill C-19 was called, a motion for concurrence was moved. The debate wasn't allowed to continue.

For me, in regard to the comments about the relevancy, Madam Chair, relevancy is important in all discussions that we have. When we talk about what has been happening in the procedure and House affairs committee and having witnesses come forward, I would suggest to you that for the procedure and House affairs committee, in dealing with the pandemic, in dealing with witnesses and subject matter that it is completely responsible for, Bill C-19 is one such piece of legislation.

I don't know if you want to give me the green light to continue on, Madam Chair, because of the point of order.

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

It's Karen Vecchio.

I'm just wondering if there's any information when it comes to misleading, because he's talking about Bill C-19, and he's fully misleading everybody. It has been scheduled twice for an hour and once for two hours. He's totally misleading any Canadians who are watching right now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You're right. I did have my hand up. I was hoping to at least get on the record the last time we met a couple of weeks ago. Fortunately for me, I'll be able to get on the record now.

It's such a pleasure, it really and truly is, to be back on PROC and to be afforded the opportunity to speak. It's been a number of years. I've always thought of PROC as one of those standing committees that is held in fairly high esteem, Madam Chair, as you and other members are no doubt aware. Often other committees will look at what's happening in PROC and things that take place in PROC will often disseminate to other committees.

For many years I served in PROC, in particular while I was in opposition. Since being in government, some members may have preferred that I not attend PROC because I was a parliamentary secretary and maybe too strongly linked to it. Nowadays, given what's taken place....

The deputy House leader had it right on. I don't think anyone could have said it any better. The way in which she often speaks I always find very inspiring. She speaks at a level that embodies what I think all politicians strive for. That's to have emotional passion and connection with real people, demonstrating so well how we need to care for people. In that, I think she is second to no other inside the House of Commons in her ability to empathize and sympathize with the public as a whole and as individuals. That's why I appreciate some of the words that she was starting to say concerning what the priority of this government really is.

I've been afforded many opportunities to address a wide variety of issues inside the House of Commons. I've never taken it for granted, nor have I ever taken for granted what takes place in this particular committee. This committee, I believe, needs to be able to demonstrate leadership—leadership that says that in a pandemic, we can get the job done, the job that's necessary; that we're able to get it done.

I must say I am somewhat disappointed. I'm disappointed because I believe in part there's a certain faction rooted within the Conservative House leadership team but which goes beyond it, which is starting to play as a very destructive force. I've made reference to the destructive force inside the House of Commons. The opposition is using partisan politics at a time when we want Canadians and others, including parliamentarians of all political stripes at all different levels, to work closer together.

I have had the opportunity to watch over what's been taking place in PROC. I've witnessed the official opposition leading the charge in ensuring that PROC is not doing some of the things it could and should be doing. The official opposition is more interested in doing what it can to cause filibustering, as some refer to it. I refer to it as more an opportunity for government members, in this particular situation, to try to focus members of the standing committee on what Canadians are so passionate about today.

There is so much more that the PROC committee could be doing. I want to get into some of that, but not until I get rid of a few frustrations that I have.

There is a good example from earlier today. I was going into the chamber anticipating that the member for Elmwood—Transcona would be moving a concurrence motion. I must say I was getting a little agitated. I was thinking about why they would want to move another concurrence motion, especially with respect to PROC, because the member for Elmwood—Transcona would be very much aware of Bill C-19. I'm sure that members of PROC are concerned about an election. After all, in a minority situation no one knows when the election is going to occur.

We continue to do whatever we can to stay focused on the pandemic, and minimizing the negative impacts of the pandemic. However, a part of that is that we need to be ready. As I say, the role that PROC plays is absolutely critical.

As I was going into the House this morning, I received a text. I'm not too sure exactly where it came from, but it implied that the NDP were going to be moving a motion for concurrence in an election report. I know the member for Elmwood—Transcona is listening. I suspect that was his intent this morning. I'm not trying to impute motive—I don't want to go against Beauchesne's here—but I would ask if that was the intent. The only reason it didn't happen is that the Conservatives moved another motion for concurrence. Right away, I'm starting to think, “Well, here we go again. The opposition is trying to frustrate the government.”

We are trying to deal with substantial pieces of legislation, and the opposition wants to play games. In one sense, I was expecting the member for Elmwood—Transcona to bring forward his concurrence motion, and then I was hearing that they were going to ask for leave to have the debate occur later in the day, after the House adjourned. I suspect at some point in time the member for Elmwood—Transcona will provide some clarification if that was the plan.

Here's why it's so important to this particular committee. When we talk about the agenda, when we talk about what it is that we should or could be talking about, staying focused on what the deputy House leader was talking about, and that is the pandemic, Bill C-19 is completely relevant and would be a wonderful thing for PROC to be dealing with.

I was hoping that I would get the opportunity in that concurrence debate to go into details about the PROC report. In fact, the first thing I did was call it up on my computer in anticipation that we were going to see a concurrence motion.

Now, that would not have been my first choice, because, as the government has said day in and day out, there is a legislative agenda that the government is trying to get through the House of Commons. At the same time, the government's focus is on the pandemic. I would have preferred, if we were going to be debating something this morning, that it wasn't going to be.... I believe that Bill C-22 is being debated right now, for the very first time. It's an important piece of legislation.

I would have preferred that as opposed to debating the concurrence report, we would be debating Bill C-19. Bill C-19 should have been a major discussion, a topic area for debate inside the House, weeks ago. It has been sitting there for a long time. We've actually attempted—

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was part of a wonderful Zoom discussion. It was a great recognition of the importance of some health care workers, while at the same time a celebration of Canada's diversity. We also had some special guests.

On the call we had our Prime Minister, health care professionals from coast to coast, and a number of other special guests, all there to recognize a couple of things. The first was the fabulous work that our health care providers are providing Canadians in all regions of our country, day in and day out. We also recognized something important to the people who were participating in that call, and in fact to many Canadians, and that is the celebration of Vaisakhi.

It was really quite nice to be a part of that discussion, where we recognized our diversity and, at the same time, the Prime Minister listened to first-hand experiences of what is taking place at the ground level of our health institutions dealing with the coronavirus.

Having said that, it is important to recognize that from day one this Liberal government has been listening to Canadians. It has not been making political discussions as much as it has been listening to what health experts have had to say and following that advice, so Canadians would in fact be protected. From day one, the Prime Minister has been there to assure Canadians that, as a government, we will have their backs. We have done that in so many tangible ways.

Nothing has changed. We continue day in and day out to look at ways to support Canadians, the people and their businesses, get through this pandemic. We have seen a lot of highs and lot of lows. We could talk about the wonderful people who have made life that much easier for us during this pandemic and the difficulties we have had to overcome, which at times can be very hard on a person, whether mentally or physically. Through this pandemic, we have seen life and death.

It is so encouraging that we could finally see, in the not-too-distant future, things coming back to a new normal. I suspect I speak on behalf of all members of Parliament when I say that we want things back to that new normal as soon as possible.

I want to provide some thoughts, and some of them are a little critical of my Conservative friends. I have been listening to what they have had to say today. I must say that I am not surprised. I am a little disappointed, but not necessarily surprised.

I gave a little tease when I asked a member about the deficit. The Conservatives are once again becoming preoccupied with Canada's deficit at a time when Canadians in parts of the country are in lockdown situations and are looking for the government to demonstrate ongoing leadership. What we have clearly demonstrated is that we are working day in, day out with Canadians. From a national perspective, we are there for Canadians in tangible ways.

However, before I get into that, I want to hold the Conservative opposition to task for some of the things they have said, this whole preoccupation of theirs. On the one hand, Conservatives say they like the CERB program, the rent subsidy program and the wage subsidy program, which account for billions and billions of dollars in spending. That is, in good part, borrowed money. They are telling us that this is good stuff and we need it. Then, on the other hand, they are talking about the debt and saying there is too much spending from the government.

I can envision two or three years from now, the Conservatives will forget about the pandemic, even the fact that it occurred, and focus 100% of their attention on the deficit. I would like to suggest to my Conservative friends that, had we listened to the Conservative Party of Canada and its leadership within the House of Commons, Canada would not be doing anywhere near as well as it is today in its position to recover from the pandemic. I genuinely believe that to be the case.

If we asked people to reflect on what has taken place over the last number of months, I believe we would find a fairly even consensus among Canadians about their fear for the manner in which the Conservative Party would have managed us through this process. This is based on the types of questions Conservatives have been asking and the type of support they have been providing to legislation. I argue that in the last seven months, they have been more of a destructive force inside the House of Commons, rather than providing a proactive, constructive critique of the government and the policies we were making.

The member for Kildonan—St. Paul made reference to the Liberal Party and the Liberal government doing a terrible job pre-pandemic on the deficit and that we had a sluggish economy. If one wants to get a sense of the Conservative spin out there, all one needs to do is read the member's speech and listen to some of the other points that have been made. In many ways, nothing could be further from the truth.

In the first four years of our mandate, going into the fifth year, we had record highs in employment rates. We very much had a manageable deficit situation. We had created well over a million jobs. It took Stephen Harper, the former prime minister, nine years to accomplish what we were able to accomplish in four and a half years. We did a much better job on the financing of Canada than Stephen Harper did.

The programs, initiatives and impact we were having by working with our partners, whether they were Canadians, businesses or members at the provincial level, were having a profoundly positive impact on our economy. The numbers clearly demonstrated that.

Prior to the pandemic, Canada was doing exceptionally well. Then when we were hit by the pandemic, we took specific actions to protect Canadians. As we have gone through the pandemic, we have brought in important pieces of legislation, including Bill C-14. I find it truly amazing that Bill C-14 still has not passed the House of Commons, whether it is because of the Conservatives and their filibustering tactics or even other opposition parties that are at times preventing this legislation from ultimately being able to receive royal assent.

The economic statement was presented by the minister of finance back in November of last year. The bill was introduced in December so that members would be able to go over the bill during the late December-early January break. There was plenty of time for Conservative members to have discussions and raise it with ministers or whomever they chose to have a dialogue with. They come up with so many ways to prevent the legislation from even getting to a vote. They did not even want it to get out of second reading. They had to be shamed into doing it.

I remember the day the Conservatives put forward a concurrence motion that I believe was on human trafficking, something that could have passed by a unanimous vote. Who in the chamber did not support it? There are so many reports, but they used that report and that issue to filibuster, preventing Bill C-14 from passing. Here we are, in mid-April, still debating a bill that was based on the Deputy Prime Minister's speech back at the end of November. It is not because we have not attempted to put it on the agenda. We do not have the same sort of luxury as opposition parties in terms of opposition days where, at the end of the day, there is a vote because there is a process that enables a vote to occur.

In a minority situation, we have to give a lot more attention to what the opposition is doing, and it only takes one opposition party to prevent something from passing. I remember well how the Conservatives resisted the bill passing. Today, as I listen to my Conservative friends speak, they say they do not like the debt and so forth. Is that going to be their excuse for not wanting to pass it today or tomorrow? Are they going to say it is a whole lot of money and they want hours and hours of debate?

Do members remember Bill C-3, a non-controversial piece of legislation? It was actually a Conservative bill. There were hours and hours of debate on that bill and we debated it for a number of days, when we could have been debating other legislation. It would have freed up more time, so that when Bill C-14 came up for debate, there could have been more time to debate it. How about the MAID legislation? My colleague from Ontario asked for leave on several occasions to extend the debate in the evening so we could, in essence, free up more time for other government legislation that had to get debated. The MAID legislation was life-and-death legislation. It was a Superior Court decision that had to be dealt with.

The government has a number of pieces of legislation that have to be dealt with, yet the opposition continues to want to play games. Conservatives tell Canadians they are being a responsible opposition because, after all, it is worth billions of dollars. They are right that it is worth billions of dollars, but they are not recognizing the urgency. We have provided opportunities to get this bill through much earlier, and the Conservatives find one way or another not to, to the point that here we are debating it on April 12.

This legislation was brought in months ago, and the bill is finally in a position where it could pass. It has taken a long time to get this far, and I encourage Conservatives to pass it, as I did at second reading. It was not until the Conservatives started to feel embarrassed that they allowed the bill to pass. I think they need to be shamed into passing it at third reading or they will not do it. If they are not told to wise up and recognize that this bill is going to have a positive impact on the lives of Canadians during this pandemic, they are not going to pass it. They need to be held accountable for not recognizing how important this legislation is to Canadians.

We have indicated that our government will do whatever it takes. We are going to invest wherever it is necessary. We want to be helpful, and we will support Canadian families and businesses. This is very important legislation, and it would do all of that.

For example, this legislation introduces a temporary and immediate support for low- and middle-income families that are entitled to the Canada child benefit, over $1,000 in 2021 for each child under the age of six. It would ease the financial burden of student debt. It would provide for over half a billion dollars as part of a new strategy to deal with safe long-term care, funding to support long-term care facilities, including funding to prevent the spread of COVID-19 infection, outbreaks and deaths in supportive care facilities. The vaccines have really helped, but these are the types of measures.

There is no reason this House could not have passed this bill back in February. It is not that the government did not want it passed, but every time the government would bring it up, the Conservatives would give some indication that it was not going to pass and would continue to be debated.

There is other legislation as well. I am the parliamentary secretary who is ultimately there to support the passage of Bill C-19, which is on the Canada Elections Act and the impact of the pandemic on elections, to ensure Canadians would be healthy. This is a minority government, and we never know when there is going to be an election. Bill C-19 is the responsible thing to do, but it is incredibly difficult to get legislation passed with the official opposition taking the approach it has during the pandemic, and it is unfortunate.

We understand and appreciate how difficult it has been for Canadians from coast to coast to coast over the last 12 months. The federal government, by working with Canadians and health care experts and listening to what is taking place, has done what is necessary in order to ensure that Canadians can have hope.

Contrary to the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, who was trying to marginalize it in terms of the number of doses earlier in her speech, we should listen to what the Minister of Public Services and Procurement stated earlier today in question period: “Canada now stands eighth in the G20 in terms of doses administered per 100 people. We have received 10.5 million doses in this country to date. We are on track to receive 44 million doses by the end of June”. We are a country of 37.5 million people.

The Conservatives love to twist the facts and give misinformation to Canadians. However, we have been consistent. Members can go back to December, when we were saying that we have targets and a portfolio to ensure that we will get the vaccinations. We have compensated as much as possible for not having that immediate manufacturing capability here in Canada. We understand the importance of the issue, and we will continue to have Canadians' backs throughout this process.

Canada Elections Act

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-19, the election in a pandemic bill.

What I would say at the outset is that Canadians do not want an election in a pandemic. The only people who want an election in a pandemic are the Liberals, because they are putting their partisan interests over the health and safety of Canadians.

The polls reflect what I am saying. The polls on whether Canadians want an election, and when they want that election, show that 47% of Canadians want it in the fall of 2023, as it is scheduled, and 10% would want it in 2022. A full 70% of Liberal supporters want it in 2023.

The Prime Minister needs to listen to Canadians. We have seen the disastrous things that have happened in the country when B.C. and Saskatchewan had their elections. There were huge spikes in COVID thereafter. I know some people believe that is only related to the Thanksgiving weekend, but the timing of the elections was very suspicious as well. We see what happened in Newfoundland and the fact that the COVID situation can change. We have seen that across the country. Regions can have spikes, and all of a sudden, they are in a difficult situation.

It is incumbent upon us as leaders to listen to Canadians, and to put their health and well-being first. First and foremost, I would say we need to do everything we can to not have an election in the middle of a pandemic. It is ridiculous to think that people cannot travel, but we could have a federal election, or that we would have areas on lockdown, but think it is okay to have a federal election. I cannot make the point too strongly that we must not, as leaders in this country, put people in jeopardy.

In terms of the proposed changes, I thought I would speak to those one at a time. The first change I want to talk about is extending the number of voting days to have voting periods on Saturday, Sunday and Monday. The whole purpose of this legislation is to try to protect the people who are working the election and the voters. Every measure we could put in place that would allow more time and more spacing between people would be very helpful.

There was some discussion about whether there would be bus transportation on those weekend days in some areas. However, the fact that the traditional Monday is retained would address that concern.

There were also some concerns expressed about the fact that churches are operating, some on Saturday and some on Sunday, and that this might have an impact on polling locations. I think it would be incumbent on the government to consider changing the time the voting stations would be open on the Saturday and Sunday in order to not eliminate those locations that would have quite a bit of space and would be conducive to COVID protocols and that kind of separation.

The next change would be the granting of additional powers to the Chief Electoral Officer to do a number of things, such as extend vote times up to midnight, increase the number of election officers at a polling station, determine what is satisfactory proof of identity and residence, adjust the timeline of election tasks other than polling days, and do whatever is needed to address health and safety.

I understand that we need some flexibility because the COVID situation is dynamic, but there needs to be some kind of oversight in order to protect a tried and true democratic process. Canadians have confidence in our process, and I think potentially having the oversight of a member representative, for example, one from each party that is represented here in the House, might be a good way to get a balance between giving the electoral officer the ability to be flexible to react to COVID situations and making sure that any changes that are put in place are felt to be fair by all.

In terms of the voting hours being extended to midnight, the only concern I have there is that in some ridings, such as my own, many people working the polling stations are seniors. If they had to be up multiple nights until midnight, that could be taxing on them, especially in this difficult period. That is something to think about.

The changes would go into effect 90 days after royal assent, but the Chief Electoral Officer could accelerate that. In speaking to some of the returning officers across the country, they have already been trained on these changes, even before we have talked about it here in Parliament, which I do not think is acceptable. Certainly a conversation should be held with the Chief Electoral Officer as to how much time they need in order to make sure they would be prepared. That is something the committee could consider when the bill goes back there.

The writ period being slightly longer due to the additional days is not necessarily a bad thing because, with all of the mail-in ballots we expect to see, perhaps an increase from the current 50,000 to five million or even 10 million, we need to make sure there is enough time to get those ballots out to people who request them, and for them to mail them back.

We know with the volumes we see around Christmas that sometimes there are delays with Canada Post, so that is a consideration. I would strongly recommend that we go to the longer electoral writ period. I certainly think that was the testimony of the Chief Electoral Officer and many of the stakeholders that were heard at PROC.

Another change would be that the location of polls could be changed as long as it is published on the chief electoral web page. We need to be very careful with that one to make sure that people do not get confused about where they need to go to vote.

Having reception boxes installed at each of the polling stations to receive mail-in ballots is a very good idea. This is going to make sure that people who have left it too late or are concerned that the ballot may not arrive in time through Canada Post because of the volume, can go to the nearby polling station and deposit those mail-in ballots. This is something that was tried in the B.C. election and was very successful. I really think it is a great idea.

In terms of allowing mail-in ballots to be counted after the election if the Monday is a holiday, I would say that we have a tried and true election process. Canadians have confidence in it. We do not have the same issues they have in other places, and we have to be very careful not to make any changes that are not needed in order to protect people from the COVID-19 pandemic. With the measures such as ballot boxes at the different polling stations for late mail-in ballots and things like that, this is really not something that is needed.

Allowing an electronic application for the mail-in ballot is something that people will want. The only thing that needs to be considered is the fact that many people, some of whom are seniors, will not necessarily have a printer with which they can photocopy their ID when they have to mail back their package. Some consideration of how that is going to be addressed from the point of view of capacity would be good as well.

As to long-term care institutions, we heard testimony at PROC that they were looking for the minimum amount of time and the minimum amount of interaction to minimize the risk from COVID. The legislation says that there will be 13 days for voting in long-term care, but not to exceed 28 hours. That is really much longer than what the long-term care folks wanted. They had envisioned people from Elections Canada coming in to potentially administer the vote from room to room to room for those who did not choose a mail-in ballot.

In addition, some of the folks I have spoken to have said that, should there be an election in a pandemic, they would want to make sure that the people working the election could have priority access to getting vaccinated, if they so choose, before the actual voting days. That is another consideration.

Rapid tests was another topic discussed. The use of rapid tests to ensure confidence that those going into the long-term care facilities did not add risk would be something to consider as well.

In terms of things that were not considered in this legislation that should be fixed or added, the sunset clause is in the summary, but it is not in the bill. There should be some statement that says whether we want these changes to be permanent, or whether we want these changes to fade after the pandemic is over, or some kind of provision like that.

I appreciated the point made about collection of signatures by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, with candidates being required to have those 100 signatures and that in a pandemic that it is probably not the best idea. It is going to be more difficult to do.

We should be looking at all the procedures related to candidates. Scrutineering would be another one. It is not clear in the legislation how we are going to do that, but one of the things that gives people confidence in the process is that there are scrutineers. If they have to stand six feet away from people, logistically, will they be able to see the ballots? How will we address that?

Concerning these mail-in ballots, I understand there was an error in the legislation and that the English version says something different from the French version, and that the Speaker clarified that the French version was correct. The local returning office is going to be where those mail-in ballots go. Depending on the volume there, how many people will be needed to scrutineer? Those details are not in the legislation, and so certainly that is a consideration to keep in mind to maintain the high confidence Canadians have in the electoral process.

We want to make sure that the mechanism to prevent double voting is in place. With the local returning offices being involved, they will then have a very easy way to take the voter's list and, once people have requested a mail-in ballot, to make sure that unless the mail-in ballot is returned, they would not be able to vote at the polling stations as well, and that sort of thing. That would be very important.

The main thing about this bill is that we want to protect the workers and the voters, and we want to do that in a way that continues to uphold the confidence that Canadians have in the electoral process in Canada.

I am a little disappointed that the Liberals introduced this legislation without waiting for the report from the PROC committee. That committee heard testimony from a lot of different kinds of people, from the disabled to our first nations people, on a lot of the specific considerations that would be needed to fine-tune this process and make sure it is suitable for every Canadian to have equal access to vote. To make sure that the process is well understood, one of the considerations when it comes to implementing a change is that the changes have to be well understood, or there will be confusion and people may not want to vote.

Let me just summarize again that Canadians do not want an election during the pandemic. They have been clear about that. We need to do everything that we can. I see committees being filibustered and some of the antics that are going on, which slow down the work that committees are trying to do. That is not helpful. We need to work together, as Parliament, and get through this pandemic. That has to be the priority and it behooves us to make that the case.

The additional thing I wanted to talk about was the changes for health and wellness. I do not think we have enough definition around that and the additional powers with the electoral officer. That will need some consideration when this goes to committee.

It is worth hearing from some of the stakeholders again to better define things like the long-term care facilities and how we are going to do that, especially with those on lockdown. What are we going to do in that scenario? There is more conversation to be held, but I see my time is up.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to speak to Bill C-19, which is an important initiative that would authorize Elections Canada to organize a safe election should one be called during this pandemic.

As we all know, COVID-19 has affected nearly every aspect of our lives. Canadians from coast to coast to coast have made and continue to make big sacrifices to protect one another. We have had to rethink things we once took for granted, things as simple as getting together with family for dinner.

Around the world, events have had to be cancelled or postponed. Nobody is happy about that, but these measures are essential to limiting the spread of the virus and, of course, saving lives. However, we also have to see to the health of our democratic institutions. We have to make sure that, if a general election were to take place during the pandemic, the whole process would be safe for voters, volunteers and, of course, election officials.

A number of countries held general elections as planned, despite the pandemic, while others chose to postpone them instead. Several of the countries that proceeded with their elections implemented strict public health measures, such as mandatory masks, physical distancing, and the distribution of hand sanitizer and disposable gloves to voters.

Consider the example of South Korea, which was one of the first countries that held elections during the pandemic. This example proves that elections can be held safely during the pandemic, since there were no new infections linked to the election. Still, we must not bury our heads in the sand. Holding an election during a pandemic like the one we are currently experiencing will not be without challenges.

We are fortunate to have a world-class election administration agency here in Canada. For 100 years, Elections Canada has done an outstanding job of providing Canadians with the best possible service so they can choose who will have the honour of representing them in the House. I am confident that, if necessary, Elections Canada would conduct a safe election despite the pandemic. That being said, we have an opportunity to give it additional tools to better ensure the safety and health of voters and election workers.

Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with regard to COVID-19 response, would accomplish exactly that temporarily and would be applicable only during this pandemic. It would allow Canadians to exercise their right to vote safely while maintaining the integrity of our electoral system.

Firstly, we have to think about the most vulnerable among us, those who live in residences and in many of the long-term care facilities across the country who have been especially hard hit by COVID-19. The bill provides for a 13-day period before voting begins during which time returning officers can work with the facility directors to ensure that the people who live there can vote safely.

Secondly, the bill would grant an additional adaptation power to the Chief Electoral Officer to allow him to respond effectively to unforeseen circumstances caused by the pandemic. Currently, section 17 of the Canada Elections Act allows the Chief Electoral Officer to adapt provisions of this legislation to allow voters to vote or to allow the votes to be counted.

The proposed temporary measure would broaden the scope of section 17, allowing the Chief Electoral Officer to adapt the provisions of the legislation in order to ensure the health and safety of the voters and the election workers.

Third, to promote physical distancing and avoid overly long lines at the polls, Bill C-19 would create a three-day polling period consisting of a Saturday, Sunday and Monday. These two weekend days would add a total of 16 hours of voting to the 12 hours on Monday, which would allow voters to choose the most convenient time for them to vote. In addition to ensuring the safety of our voters, this measure would maximize opportunities for people to vote.

Last of all, given the success of mail-in voting here and elsewhere, the bill will empower the Chief Electoral Officer to improve access to this manner of voting in several ways.

Elections Canada estimates that up to five million voters could choose mail-in voting if elections were to take place during the pandemic. To meet this demand, the bill provides for the installation of secure reception boxes at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer and authorizes every polling station to receive online applications for mail-in ballots. The identification numbers will be accepted as proof of identity for these applications.

Furthermore, it would allow voters who have requested a mail-in ballot to change their minds and subsequently vote in person. Certain conditions are attached to this measure to protect the integrity of the electoral system.

In conclusion, this bill will give Elections Canada the useful tools required to safely administer an election during the pandemic. I invite my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kings—Hants.

I am happy today to discuss Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response), tabled last December. This is an important piece of legislation that would create more accessible voting options for all Canadians. More precisely, I will outline the ways in which this bill seeks to temporarily enhance mail-in voting for electors should a general election be required during the pandemic.

We have seen during this pandemic how important accessibility is. We have even taken accessibility measures in the House, through the use of Zoom video conferencing and voting by app. Mail-in voting is a safe and accessible option for all Canadians. According to research conducted by Elections Canada, it is expected that up to five million electors would choose to vote by mail for an election during the pandemic. In comparison, approximately 50,000 electors opted for this during the 2019 federal election. This is only 1% of the turnout that could be expected during a pandemic.

Jurisdictions inside and outside of Canada that have had elections during the pandemic have witnessed a steep increase in the use of mail-in ballots. Many electors, particularly those who are most vulnerable, choose to vote in this manner because it is safe and secure. The existing federal mail-in vote system is no different, and nothing in Bill C-19 would change that.

At the same time, we need to be prepared for an expected surge in mail-in ballots, which is why Bill C-19 includes new mail-in vote measures. These measures would strengthen the current mail-in vote system by facilitating the use of this voting method for all Canadians, thereby ensuring the health and safety of electors who feel more comfortable voting from home.

In my riding of Richmond Hill, we have a large population of seniors who would greatly benefit from an expansion of mail-in voting measures. I facilitated a community council in Richmond Hill that specifically targeted advocating for seniors. One of the major concerns I have constantly heard regards engagement. The pandemic has isolated our seniors from their communities, their social circles and the government. Expanding mail-in balloting and making the process simple would ensure that our seniors do not become more disenfranchised.

Bill C-19 would temporarily establish four new mail-in vote measures: First, electors would be able to register online; second, mail-in ballot boxes would be installed at polling stations; third, electors would be able to use an identification number in lieu of a copy of their ID when registering; and fourth, electors would still have the option of voting in person even after registering for mail-in voting.

The first measure would enable electors to apply online to register to vote by mail, thereby allowing them to avoid in-person voting. This would be a critical option for those electors with significant health concerns. In addition, while online registration would provide electors with the opportunity to participate in the election process from their homes, individuals without access to the Internet would still be able to register to vote by mail. For those who are not comfortable registering online, the option to register by mail would still be available. In this way, we would not be limiting options for electors, but expanding them with an option to register for mail-in voting.

Bill C-19 would also see mail reception boxes installed at all polling stations. This measure would recognize that some electors who register to vote by mail may be too busy to return their ballot kits by mail. To support limited in-person contact, we would be providing electors with a secure and convenient means to deposit their ballots.

The third measure would provide electors with the opportunity to use an identification number instead of their ID to establish proof of identity and residence when registering to vote by mail. This measure would make it easier for electors to register to vote by mail-in ballot, especially our most vulnerable who face significant health risks.

I would note that this, like all elements of Bill C-19, is a temporary measure in which electors must consent to the use of this data when registering with an identification number. To protect against voter fraud, Elections Canada is required to hold relevant data on electors.

Lastly, with Bill C-19, electors would still have the option of voting in person even if they had already registered to vote by mail. Electors who chose to do so would have to return their mail-in ballot kits after registration or sign a declaration stating that they had not already voted by mail-in ballot. We want to help ensure the integrity of the vote this way.

Canada's federal voting system is robust, with measures already in place to safeguard electoral integrity against fraud. Elections Canada has a long history of experience administering the mail-in voting system, with extensive integrity measures and safeguards. There is no evidence to suggest that the current system enables widespread voter fraud or poses concerns for ballot security.

It is responsible to assume that an expected increase in mail-in voting may trigger the need for the chief electoral officer to adapt provisions of the Canada Elections Act during the pandemic. As such, the proposed increased section 17 authorities would allow the CEO to respond accordingly should new challenges or circumstances arise. Taken together, these measures seek to address our unprecedented times by providing extensive opportunities for Canadians to vote. We are building on a mail-in voting system that is expected to see a surge in use.

I would encourage hon. members to support this legislation and send it to committee, as mail-in voting will experience an unprecedented surge that we need to proactively address. The sooner this bill goes to committee, the sooner we will be able to do a substantive review of it, send it to the other place for approval and implement these measures before any election may be called during the pandemic.

The measures outlined in this legislation aim to do so with strength and efficiency and will support electors voting from the comfort of their homes. These measures are imperative in assuring that we do not put vulnerable Canadians at risk while also limiting large election crowds in public spaces such as schools, community centres and religious spaces, where voting booths are usually located.

In closing, in such challenging times, Bill C-19 provides ways to ensure that citizens can safely and widely participate in the electoral process.

I thank all members and urge them to support this bill and send it to committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a bit of a different take on that one. In my my, it was important that the government table legislation before Christmas. I thought it was important that the bill proceed in a spirit of collaboration and that MPs from different parties needed to know what was in the mind of the government with respect to its initial proposal. Otherwise, it would have tabled it at the last minute and the criticism would have been that it had sat on these changes and nobody had time to give input. It was better that it put its best foot forward earlier so there was some time over the break to think about what it had proposed.

It is unfortunate it took so long to get to the debate on Bill C-19. There are a lot of reasons for that. I acknowledge that it was not just because of the government that this happened. It was been better to have a longer conversation with more information rather than less and that—

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the House again to complete my remarks on Bill C-19. The last day we were debating the bill, I spoke to some of the content of the legislation with respect to what it proposed and some of the areas for improvement that I hoped could be addressed at committee.

I expressed then, and I will express it again now, my desire to see the bill proceed quickly to committee. While it is important for a number of reasons, it is no secret to anybody in the House that this is a minority Parliament, and things can sometimes move quickly in minority Parliaments. We could end up with an election and it is important we be ready for that should it come.

However, I also emphasized, and I want to emphasize again, the extent to which it really is incumbent upon all members of Parliament at this time to work to avoid an election. As a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, who participated in the study on what a pandemic election might look like, we heard very clearly that there were a lot of risks, and they are not just public health risks.

There is a real risk of disenfranchising people and having Canadians who want to vote either decide that they should not because it is too much of a risk to their personal health or they might face other barriers that do not have anything to do with an immediate risk to their personal health but present barriers nevertheless. That might be around transportation options to get to polling stations and other kinds of challenges that people have faced as a result of the pandemic.

What is important to bear in mind is that when all of us were elected in the 2019, the pandemic was not on our minds. Nobody saw this coming. However, we were each elected with a responsibility to be leaders in our community and to speak for our community. For as much as there have been disagreements on many things, and rightly so, and I think that is what people would expect in Parliament, there has been, and ought to continue to be, an overriding sense of responsibility to work together.

There is obviously a really important leadership role for government in that, to continue to have an open posture to consult opposition parties. I, frankly, think it did a better job of that during the early days of the pandemic and it issued in better policy. As the government apparently gets more interested in an election, we see some signs of that here and there in the things the Liberals say, both about Parliament and in the way they have behaved in Parliament, as well as some opposition parties.

We also see it in what the Prime Minister has been saying to his national executive and even in some of the speculation about the date announced for the budget, which is later than many people expected. It happens to coincide nicely with the timing of a pre-summer election should the Prime Minister desire it. There are a lot coincidences happening, and that is the most charitable way to put it.

It would be a mistake for the country to have an election at this time. Different COVID variants are popping up different in parts of the country. We just saw the experience in Newfoundland and Labrador where an election took much longer to complete than anybody expected because the nature of the pandemic changed mid-election and the date was pushed back many times

It is disconcerting that the Prime Minister continually refuses to say that he will not unilaterally call an election. He can make that commitment. If we end up in an election, at least let it be because things actually fell apart in the House of Commons. However, the Prime Minister continues to retain his ability and will not pledge not to use it to go to the Governor General and cause an election.

Parliament has already demonstrated that spirit of collaboration. The fact is that we are having a budget in April 2021, but did not have one for the entire year of 2020. The estimates, which are owed to the House under the Standing Orders, were significantly delayed. This is a sign that Parliament has been willing to accommodate the government and recognize the extraordinary nature of the times we are in.

Parliament has shown a lot of flexibility. It has not always been easy and it has not always been a fun process getting there. It has had its fair share of criticisms from people on all sides, which is fair enough. It is a Parliament and that will happen. The point is this. If we look at the outcomes, we have been able to get enough good outcomes for people to ensure that financial distress and bankruptcy was not the overriding narrative of the pandemic for most Canadians. There are other things we can and should be doing and the place to have that debate is in Parliament.

We were all elected to bring those views to the table and to do our best work to advance solutions on behalf of Canadians. I do not see a reason why that work needs to end. I would be reassured greatly if the Prime Minister were willing to say that much himself and refuse to call an election unilaterally. I will believe it when I see it. In the meantime—

The House resumed from March 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his question.

This afternoon, we will obviously continue the debate on the opposition motion. We will proceed to the supply votes a little later this evening.

Tomorrow morning, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, COVID-19 response, and then in the afternoon, we will study Bill C-11, an act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

I would also like to wish all hon. colleagues a productive and safe two weeks working in their constituencies.

Obviously, members have a lot of work to do in their ridings, but I hope they will take some time for themselves and spend some time with their families. That is important.

Elections Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on March 10, 2021, by the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon concerning a discrepancy between the English and French version of Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response).

In his intervention, the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon informed the House of the discrepancy between the two versions of a section of the bill. Indeed, at the end of subsection 239(2) on page 12 of the English version, the bill stipulates that ballots should be sent to the “special voting rules administrator in the National Capital Region no later than 6:00 p.‍m. on the Tuesday”.

The French version, conversely, indicates that the ballot

“parvienne au bureau du directeur du scrutin au plus tard à 18 heures le mardi”.

According to the member, the two texts have very different meanings, which created confusion during the debate at second reading. This discrepancy, he added, suggests that the bill is incomplete. The member cited an extract of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, at page 734 to the effect that when such situations occurred in the past, the order for second reading was discharged. He thus asked the Chair to review the matter and rule on the admissibility of Bill C-19 in its current form.

The member for Saint-Jean also stressed the importance of participating effectively in the deliberations of the House, while the member for Elmwood—Transcona enjoined the parties to find a solution so as not to unduly delay the study of the bill.

In response, the member for Kingston and the Islands clarified that the French wording of subsection 239(2) is, in fact, the right one. He explained that the government intended to correct the inconsistency during clause-by-clause consideration at committee. While an error did occur during the drafting, the member stressed that that in no way means that Bill C-19 is incomplete and that it was indeed in its definitive form when it was tabled in the House. Referring to a Speaker's ruling of January 1987, he added that the error did not make the bill inadmissible because it did not contain blank passages or reach the threshold required to render it incomplete set out in Standing Order 68(3).

In order to clarify the issue of a bill's form, it is important to review the existing precedents. A careful reading of the Speaker's rulings reveals that when the order for second reading of a bill was discharged, it was either because it did not comply with an order of the House or because the drafting of the bill was not done or not completed. The following passage must be added to the extract cited by the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon at page 734 of Bosc Gagnon: “A bill in blank or in imperfect shape is a bill which has only a title, or the drafting of which has not been completed.”

In my opinion, that is not the case with Bill C-19 as submitted to the House. Furthermore, the debate at the second reading concerns the principle of the bill and not its specific provisions. In the words of Speaker Fraser in a ruling rendered on January 26, 1987, at page 2,667 of debates, I feel that this difference “did not affect 'the essence, the principles, the objects, the purpose or the conditions' of the bill.”

In this instance, the error can be corrected by the committee studying the bill. Although it does not happen often, such corrections are sometimes made during the detailed study in committee to ensure that the English and French versions of a bill say the same thing. In the meantime, the government has clarified its intent, and the debate can thus continue on the motion for second reading.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for his vigilance. Let me also also take this opportunity to reiterate the importance of paying particular attention to both versions of bills, so that members have the same understanding of proposed texts, so they can participate fully in parliamentary business and can perform their duties as legislators.

Thank you for your attention.

Elections Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised by the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon respecting an error in Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response).

While it is unfortunate that the English language in subclause 239(2) contained an error, the French language in subclause 239(2) is indeed the correct version. The government intends to address this inconsistency at committee.

In his intervention, the member refers to Standing Order 68(3) respecting blank or imperfect bills. This Standing Order, which dates back to Confederation, was added to the rules of the House to address extreme situations where a blank or imperfect form is in possession of the House. I can assure the House that while there is an error in subclause 239(2) in the English version, the bill was in its final form when it was introduced and read a first time.

I would like to draw to the attention of members a Speaker's ruling respecting imperfect bills. In January 1987, during a point of order, it was alleged that there were two imperfections in a government bill, specifically that a blank occurred where a sessional paper number should have appeared and that a memorandum of understanding was not contained in the bill. The Speaker ruled that these anomalies did not render the bill imperfect with respect to Standing Order 68(3).

I suggest to the member that anyone would be hard pressed to name one government that could claim to have an immaculate legislative agenda that did not contain any errors. In fact, the House has a process to correct these errors in statutes. The miscellaneous statute law amendment program, which was established by the Department of Justice in 1975, is a periodic legislative exercise administered by the legislation section of the Department of Justice. It is used to correct anomalies, inconsistencies, outdated terminology and errors in federal statutes. The reason this program was established is that mistakes happen.

In the case before the House, this error was identified during the second reading stage, and as a result, it can be fixed during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill at committee. That is what the government intends to do.

The proper course of action in these situations is to report an error of this nature to the minister responsible or to the parliamentary secretary responsible. Unfortunately, that did not occur. The member making a comment to a government member during the debate does not suffice.

In conclusion, I submit that Bill C-19 is in proper form and that the government will address the inconsistency during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill at committee.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I think the member for Winnipeg North will want to know that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was referring to long COVID, a new medical condition that is emerging in the COVID crisis. I do not believe she was referring to long-haul truckers, although there may be some long-haul truckers who also have long COVID.

I want to address the point of order raised on Wednesday with respect to Bill C-19, on behalf of the NDP, to note that it is unfortunate that there appears to be a discrepancy between the two translations and that the mistake was made.

As the Speaker prepares a ruling on the matter, I would just signal that New Democrats are prepared and would like to see some kind of solution that does not see the bill set back at all. It is an important bill, particularly in light of the Prime Minister's refusal to commit to not calling an election unilaterally.

It is important that this legislation progress. We would like to see a resolution to this matter and a ruling that enables the possibility of parties working together to not set the progress of the legislation back at all, so that we can continue to move it along and have the conversations we need to have among the parties to ensure that we can agree on a fair set of rules for a pandemic election, should one come to pass.

Employment Insurance Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, part of it is because games are being played by the opposition, in particular the Conservatives. For example, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-19 the other day, but a concurrence motion was moved, which prevented us from being able to debate that bill.

There are only so many days in the House in which the government has the opportunity to bring forward legislation. At the first opportunity we get to bring forward legislation, we attempt to do it. There is other legislation we have to try to get passed. Do members remember the days and hours the Conservatives held up Bill C-14? That prevented us from being able to look at other pieces of legislation. It is a finite amount of time. That is the reason why I spent as much time as I did at the beginning—

Canada Elections Act

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

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, March 10, the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon pointed out that the French version of Bill C-19 at subclause 239(2) does not have the same meaning as the same subclause in the English version.

We agree that, on reading the bill, we see a significant difference between the two versions, because the receipt and counting of the special ballots do not appear to be done by the same body depending on the language in which one reads the bill. In one, it is the office of the returning officer in the riding, and in the other, it is in the national capital region. That is an anomaly and a significant flaw in the bill, and it has hindered debate in the House because, depending on which version an MP reads, French or English, they will have a different understanding of the special ballot voting process.

The problem is that, at this point, members have no way of knowing the government's actual intention with respect to the administration of mail-in ballots.

As a side note, I would add that this is further evidence of the complexity and challenge of conducting parliamentary proceedings in both official languages. It also demonstrates the importance of paying close attention to this issue so that members can participate effectively and properly in parliamentary proceedings. The ultimate goal is to ensure that all of our constituents, whether francophone or anglophone, are properly represented regardless of the language in which their MP works.

As Bosc and Gagnon point out at page 734 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the Speaker can issue a ruling on this point, even going as far as directing that the order for second reading be discharged if a bill is in incomplete form.

This raises some important questions. Is the legislator's intent expressed in French or in English? Does the legislator think in French or in English? Finally, which version—French or English—should take precedence over the other?

I would ask you, Madam Speaker, to rule on this issue to ensure, at the very least, that the government will recalibrate and that members of the House are all on the same page as we continue to debate Bill C-19.

Employment Insurance Act

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Oshawa. Indeed, I will be splitting my time with my colleague.

As I said, if we were playing baseball, the umpire would have called the government “out” by now. That is not all. Even CERB, EI, had multiple changes, which is the main part of this bill after all. Canadians have been relying on those programs over the course of the pandemic. It is no surprise that the Liberals did not have them down pat. One would think that by now they would get it, or at least after three or four tries, but it seems we are still dealing with the same dilemma.

We know how the government loves to put things off to the last minute, and it has become what I call a “piecemeal” government. We see this again, with these new suggestions for implementation. Am I shocked? Of course, not. The mentality of the government to leave everything to the last minute, even its agenda, is well and good during normal years. We experienced that in the 42nd Parliament, and we see the same thing happening right now.

However, now we are dealing with a pandemic. Everything is an emergency and is taken with a different approach. We must be aware that we cannot do things the regular way. This is a time when governments need to be more proactive and determine how to get the best results from the best plans. The only words that come to my mind with what the government has come up with now is “not good enough”.

While obviously I do not agree with my Liberal colleagues on most things, I would have thought that we would agree that Canadians needed us to get this right the first time. This is the bottom line. We need to get it right the first time, not the second, third or fourth time. I have no idea why this is happening.

Now we have the highest unemployment rate in the G7. It is not acceptable for the government to get those programs wrong again and again. The government has to stop to think about what is going on and why we are facing these experiences again and again every time it comes near a new law or legislation.

As of January 2021, 213,000 Canadians lost their jobs due to the pandemic. That number is huge. Those 213,000 people are relying on us to get this bill right and get proper legislation passed that will serve them and help them carry on with their lives. Canadians do not expect us to keep screwing it up, not the first time, the second time or the third time, nor leave it to the very last minute by not planning properly.

The failures add up. For example, high school students cannot have money now for university. University students cannot find jobs after they graduate or pay for their tuition. Young Canadians who are looking to start their careers are facing barriers as tall as the CN Tower. New Canadians, who only arrived in our country last year or this year, are also struggling to find jobs and starting their lives here.

What has the Liberal government been doing all this time? It has not been getting support programs right the first time; it has not been getting it right the second time; and the money, of course, was delayed getting out the door. After all, it takes four months just to send Bill C-14 to the finance committee and now we find out that we do not have a budget this March either. It has been two years without a budget. This has broken the record as far as how we do finance in the country.

We have seen everything come in at the last minute. Last minute does not come without mistakes. Last minute does not come with proper results.

We know what the government has been doing. It has been sitting back, twiddling its thumbs and introducing bills that, honestly, Canadians never asked for and certainly do not want at this time, such as Bill C-22 and Bill C-19. Instead of debating bills on which Canadians are relying, ones that would fix programs that Canadians have been counting on getting fixed, the government has been debating, for example, a bill that would prepare the government to call an election during a pandemic and a bill that would lessen the penalties for violent offender rather than the bills that can support Canadians to get jobs, to get their lives in order and, of course, to get the economy back in order.

It is a very dark picture. It is very sad that Canadians do not get the support they need, but criminals, for example, face lesser penalties. The PMO is clearly lives in some sort of bizarre world to think that this is the way to go.

That is just begging the umpire to point to the government and say, “You are out”. I seriously cannot reiterate enough just how much of a disappointment this has been. The government does not have a plan for economic recovery. The support programs that the Liberals created have been without economic recovery. The programs have to be amended time and time again and that delay causes Canadians to suffer because it takes longer now to get needed support out to them. The list goes on and on.

Canadians cannot afford to wait around for the Liberals to finally get the programs in working order. They cannot afford to wait for vaccines to trickle in slower than a snail. They cannot afford to wait for the government to finally present us with a plan so our country and our fellow Canadians can start to recover from the effects of this pandemic. Canadians simply cannot wait.

When the government waffles and delays for months then suddenly introduces the bill, trying to rush it along, it is simply not right. It means we get poorly created programs that need to be taken back to the drawing board. It means there is a lack of transparency and accountability that we would normally afford a bill. It means that Canadians get stuck with an even longer—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

To round out that point, it's very hard and rich specifically for the Conservative party to be saying that our government lacks transparency around this when the pandemic presents at least 10 times the impact....

We amended the Standing Orders previously. We complied with that standing order and produced a report. We've had the government House leader come and speak to us. We've done a study. We've entertained this in terms of understanding the rationale for prorogation and still they persist in wasting this committee's time.

I do believe it's a waste of time. I'm sitting here and I'm preparing for hours and hours to speak to this motion, which I fundamentally disagree with. I will not stop arguing for it to be defeated. I will not stop, because it is a waste of our time.

We're here to serve Canadians. We're here to do work that matters to Canadians. I would like to be talking about misinformation within the elections process and what we can do about combatting misinformation. I think there are so many other things we could be doing.

The safe passage of the bill that was put forward, I think it's Bill C-19—sometimes I get the numbers mixed up, because so many things are happening. It's the bill we worked on. We did some great work in this committee, some really fantastic, non-partisan work to move us forward as a country, understanding that if an election is called.... I know we all don't want an election. We looked at what we need to do if it's called to ensure that Canadians are safe, they can exercise their democratic rights and they can vote within a safe electoral process.

That work is so impactful and important. Here we are debating this instead of moving that. We could be doing a prestudy on that bill to make sure the bill itself passes more quickly when it does come to our committee. There are so many better things we could focus our attention on right now that are more relevant to Canadians.

This is just the start of my remarks today. I have a lot more to say. I will try to be brief, but I do have a lot to say. I've been reading extensively and preparing for this conversation.

I know that, as a new member of Parliament, it's my job to speak and advocate for the things I believe in and that I think my constituents would want me to be saying and doing. I'm very conscious of that, and I take that very seriously. Like Mr. Lauzon, Ms. Petitpas Taylor and all my colleagues, we're working hard for Canadians.

I also want to point to something else that is a key piece of evidence, that if I were a witness on this committee I would introduce.

Experts say this pandemic has been approximately 10 times worse than the recession in 2008 and 2009. They are almost incomparable. When we look at the statistics, the recession in 2008 and 2009 is a blip compared with the economic impacts of this public health crisis that we're all living through and trying to manage our country through.

I want to refer to a specific article in BNN Bloomberg on April 27, 2020. The title of it is “COVID-19 to spur depression '10 times worse' than 2008”. I have a whole host of other articles, but I'm just referring to that one so it's on the record. It's not just me saying this. I'm not making this stuff up. I'm reading expert opinions and advice and bringing that to the committee.

I would also add that one can't even say that we can use what we learned from 2008-09 and apply it to the current health crisis and the induced economic crisis based on our public health crisis. They're so different in attributes and characteristics. I started to say this last time, and I'm prepared to talk more about this in the future. I think there's a very big difference between a supply-side recession and a demand-side recession. Economists have done a lot of analysis to look at the differences between 2008-09 and the 2020-21 economic crisis.

I would just say maybe “to be continued”, but it's not just 10 times worse. It's completely different. We can't even necessarily apply some of the learning from that past crisis to this one, because it doesn't really apply. There may be some aspects of it that do, but I think it's pretty important to point out that they're qualitatively different, and this one is much more complex and deeper.

Getting back to my original argument, I referred to the report from Statistics Canada. I've read it pretty much cover to back numerous times. I've made notes about it. I think it's important. The reason I think it's important is that the key message in the throne speech that I found opposition parties would contest and trivialize and call a “buzz term” or a “catchphrase” is this message of “build back better”, which I know some people may perceive as a buzz phrase, a catchphrase, a talking point or something.

It certainly may sound like that to you, but to me, and based on all the evidence I see from Statistics Canada, I believe this message that we need to build a sustainable, resilient, inclusive and equitable economy moving forward resonates with the majority of Canadians—and now is the time.

Just as we always say that COVID-19 is an unprecedented crisis and that we haven't seen this in 100 years, we also have an opportunity, coming out of this, to really address the deep inequities in our society and our economy and to ensure we have an economy that works for everyone, that builds pathways to social and economic inclusion and that, more than anything else—we have to make sure—protects our planet.

To me, if you believe in social justice and environmental sustainability, our Speech from the Throne really would speak to you. That message of “build back better” isn't just a buzz phrase or catchphrase. It's something that we believe in and that stakeholders across this country have been echoing. They've been echoing it because it resonates with them, not because it's a talking point or a.... I don't trivialize that. It encapsulates what people want to see in the future of this country.

What I want to do is bring it back to the statistics and the information that we have, and specifically the information that was available at the time of prorogation, which is relevant. The economic crisis and the social impacts of COVID-19 have gone through a second wave and, now, as Ms. Petitpas Taylor rightly pointed out, we're in a third wave. We're going to experience that, I guess exponentially, in that third wave.

I want to get down to making my argument. That was a bit of a preamble, but I wanted to outline the overall architecture of the argument I'm making. I really think it's important for you as members of this committee to know where I'm going with all of this. Now I'm going to provide you with evidence, research and information that I think substantiates it.

First of all, on the economic impacts in general, there's a whole bunch of categories to the economic impact in general. There was an unprecedented decline in outputs. Again, this is based on August 2020, and it's five times greater than 2008, with the worst impact on the economy in the service-based industries. Real GDP fell by 2.9% in 2009. Real GDP fell by 12% in 2020, and that was only after the first wave. Already, you can see that the impact was greater and that was only during the first wave.

I want to quote from this report by the chief statistician of Canada. I'm not sure whether this should be attributed to the person who wrote the report, because there's probably a whole team that worked on it, but I will just quote it:

The road to recovery will involve major adaptations for businesses and households, which poses challenges for an equitable and resilient recovery.

It's interesting that those phrases should be used at a fairly early point in that report, but I certainly think this is relevant to where I'm going with this argument.

Another point that I think is important to keep in mind is that historic declines in all economic activities were experienced. Those include imports, exports, business investment, household spending and real GDP at market prices. Those are five categories. Not only did real GDP fall, but all of these other economic activities also experienced historic declines.

In Q2 2020, household spending had decreased by 13%. Employment earnings fell by 9%. Our government's emergency relief measures ensured that Canadian families got direct payments through the CERB and other income supports. Those led to disposable income and household savings actually increasing eventually. They went from 8% to 28%. That was based on a reduced cost of living, and this will also ensure that people spend—

Elections Act

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the second reading of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response) and its debate, I found an error in the text of the bill. At the top of page 12 concerning section 4 of the Elections Act, entitled, “Receipt of special ballot — application made in electoral district” in English, clause 239(2) states that it contains provisions for the receipt of ballots “in the National Capital Region no later than 6:00 p.?m. on the Tuesday”.

In the French version, clause 239(2) reads: “parvienne au bureau du directeur du scrutin au plus tard à 18 h le mardi qui suit”.

The same clause of the bill has two very different meanings. In one language, special ballots are to be received in the National Capital Region, and in the other language they go to the local returning officer. This is a significant discrepancy.

On pages 726 and 727 of Bosc and Gagnon, it states:

Bills are drafted simultaneously in both official languages. Once drafted, they must be approved by Cabinet, after which the Government House Leader customarily reviews them and recommends in favour of or against their introduction in Parliament. Generally, the Government House Leader asks Cabinet to delegate the latter responsibility to him or her.

Page 734 of Bosc and Gagnon talks about the introduction of bills that are in an imperfect shape and that are clearly contrary to the Standing Orders. It goes on to say:

Although this provision exists mainly in contemplation of errors identified when a bill is introduced, Members have brought such defects or anomalies to the attention of the Chair at various stages in the legislative process. In the past, the Speaker has directed that the order for second reading of certain bills be discharged, when it was discovered that they were not in their final form and were therefore not ready to be introduced.

The government was clearly not ready to introduce this bill. The discrepancy between English and French versions shows two very separate, distinct and consequential meanings for elections that are held in Canada, or could be held if this bill were to pass.

I must bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that the clause in question was a source of confusion during Monday's House debate, specifically during an exchange between me and the member for Elmwood—Transcona and also with the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

The discrepancy I have highlighted is not some minor clause. Now I am fearful that the member for Elmwood—Transcona was misinformed, and he and I clearly had a different understanding of the legislation stemming from the incongruity between the French and English texts. He stated in the House that during committee:

We heard from both Elections Canada and Canada Post that the intention is to have special ballots counted locally within the riding, so I think that is already foreseen.

He was likely reading from the French version of the text during second reading.

The parliamentary secretary, the member for Winnipeg North, stated:

[B]allots would be counted in the riding if sent from the riding. This is a very important point to note.

Again, the member was reading from a different version of the bill than I, likely the French version. Whether that was the impression given in committee or the intention of government, that is not what the English text of the bill says. It is clear that the wording of the bill misled members of the House and we may well need to restart debate entirely. I will note that practically half of my comments in debate centred on clause 239 and the impact it would have on local elections.

I raised this immediately with the clerks on Monday and with the member for Kingston and the Islands, but it was not addressed.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you review this matter and rule on whether this bill can stand in its current form or if it needs to be discharged from the House of Commons and resubmitted. Again, clause 239 in the bill, if enacted, could impact millions of Canadians voting in an election during a pandemic. This is not a minor clause, and whether we read the French version or the English version would have grave consequences for how an election would be conducted in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Chair, if I may, to get a little more background. Prior to 2015, I sat on PROC for a number of years. Maybe I can bring a bit of a different light to this or different experience from when I was in opposition. The member was asking about how important this committee is. In fact, she's right. Often other committees will look at what's taking place in PROC. PROC is held in fairly high esteem. That's why in the eyes of many, including to a certain degree me, there's a certain level of disappointment in what the official opposition is doing in PROC. They have the right to do that. There's no doubt about that. As they have the right to do what they're doing, members of all caucuses have the right to participate.

Even in the era between 2010 and 2015 when I sat in opposition, we would often have filibusters in PROC too. One of the great filibusterers was David Christopherson. Members here will reflect on David Christopherson. We would often get members or people who wanted to participate who are not members.

In fact, Madam Chair, one only needs to look at the former leader of the Green Party, and other parties that didn't get recognition or independence. I can recall having members come to speak on bills and other issues. All were very important to him or her. They felt they needed to be able to contribute. They didn't have to be a member of PROC.

I have nothing but the deepest respect for members of PROC, and the fine work you do. I had the opportunity to take a look at some of the things coming up. I, for one, am hoping to be able to contribute to a very important piece of legislation dealing with the coronavirus, Bill C-19 on elections. When I was in opposition back then, we had to deal with legislation such as that.

Anyway, I'm getting a little off track. I just wanted to assure my friend that what I have heard and witnessed taking place at PROC today is no different from in the past, and I could cite endless examples. I would encourage members to continue to allow others members to be able to say what they believe is so important on this issue. Take a look at the broader issue: What's being debated in the chamber causes a great deal of concern today. I hope to address that a little later, but not now.

This is just to assure my friend that things in PROC, from what I can tell, are going perfectly naturally, the way they should be going, and no games are being played. This is serious. I hope negotiations are taking place in the background so that we can get on to do some of the fine work that has to be done at this committee.

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

We have an amendment. Now he's talking about a different bill. I really think it's important that we get back to the motion. I recognize that we're giving lots of people leniency on this, but now we're talking about Bill C-19, and we're talking about the election. Perhaps we could get back to the prorogation. Even if it has an impact on your community, Bill C-19 does not currently have an impact. It has nothing to do with prorogation.

Thank you.

Employment Insurance Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party today is more of a destructive force within the House of Commons than I have ever seen, both in Ottawa and in my years as a parliamentarian in the Province of Manitoba. The Conservatives do that by trying to frustrate the government in getting anything passed, anything at all.

The member referred to extending hours. It was for the MAID legislation, after all. It was literally a life and death piece of legislation and the Conservatives said no, that they did not want to sit extra hours because it might mean the bill would pass and they wanted to continue to filibuster. I was supposed to debate Bill C-19 on either Thursday or Friday of the last sitting week and the Conservatives brought forward a concurrence motion so the bill would not be debated. That bill would ensure Canadians would be safe during an election.

There are all sorts of things one could cite with respect to what the Conservative Party is doing today to frustrate the House of Commons being able to get the important work done. I hope the leadership of the Conservative Party will review the question that was just posed, maybe entertain some thoughts I have expressed during my speech and change its ways.

Canada Elections Act

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

Madam Speaker, before I jump into my remarks on Bill C-19, I want to take this opportunity on the floor of the House to recognize that it is International Women's Day. I also note that today we are debating two different bills. We are debating Bill C-19 right now, which is about pandemic elections, and the government plans to call Bill C-24 in the afternoon, which is about dealing with the economic consequences of the pandemic.

Of course, we know that the pandemic has had a disproportionate influence on women in Canada, particularly in its economic impact, because those in the caring economy and those working in low-wage jobs have seen a disproportionate impact on their finances. I think it is important not only to recognize the general importance of International Women's Day but also to recognize its importance in the context of the debates we are having today in the House.

On Bill C-19, I am very glad that it has finally made it to the floor of the House of Commons. As far back as last June, I had reached out as the NDP's democratic reform critic to the other parties to try to get a conversation started on this issue. Unfortunately, that did not happen over last summer, but it did begin finally in the fall, in the procedure and House affairs committee.

For Canadians who are interested in this issue, both reports by the procedure and House affairs committee and the testimony that is on the record there would be a benefit in trying to get a better handle on some of the issues that are at play and some of the very real challenges that Canadians and the country would face in the event of a pandemic election. That is why the NDP has worked hard in this Parliament to make Parliament work and to try to find and broker compromises that would allow us to respond to the needs of people here in Canada to get us through the pandemic and to make sure that partisan politics are not distracting us from that very important task.

When it comes to the bill itself, I will say that the procedure and House affairs committee has heard consistently that there needs to be more flexibility than our current system allows, and in a few different ways, in order to make sure of how things will progress if we have a pandemic election. Of course, we have heard from many sides of the House today that the best way to protect both public health and our democracy during this pandemic is to avoid having an election.

We know that it takes effort on all sides of the House, but principally we need a government that is willing to work in good faith with the other parties in order to define its path forward and to define its pandemic response. We have seen the government do this at various times during the pandemic so far. We have been able to find that path forward, and I think that as long as that spirit of collaboration persists on the government benches, we will be able to continue to find that path forward until it is rightly and properly safe to have an election and let Canadians decide what they liked, what they did not, whose interventions they appreciated and whose they did not, and what they want in terms of a government as we get out of the pandemic and get on with the recovery in earnest.

What are some of the things that Bill C-19 would do?

Bill C-19 would grant an additional adaptation power to the Chief Electoral Officer, which we think is a good thing. There is clearly going to be a need to adapt some things on the fly, as it were, in response to emerging conditions. We think it makes sense, because the Chief Electoral Officer already has power to adapt the act, that we would add public health explicitly as a consideration that the Chief Electoral Officer could take into account when exercising that power to adapt.

There are some moves in the right direction in terms of long-term care and trying to clear some of the legislative roadblocks to conducting a vote safely in long-term care facilities. I am not sure that the bill addresses all of the issues there, but certainly being able to have one polling station per institution, which the legislation currently does not allow for, is an important change. This would provide flexibility for Elections Canada in order to make sure that legislative requirements would not cause Elections Canada either to require the same people to move from institution to institution—which clearly is not a good idea during the pandemic, and in many cases not consistent with local public health orders—or, just as bad or worse from the point of view of democracy, to cancel a polling station in a long-term care facility because of an inability to do it at one facility only.

One of the important themes to bear in mind for members as we debate this legislation and for Canadians as they consider this larger point about a pandemic election is that our job is twofold: It is not only to protect public health, although it is obviously also that, and very importantly that, but to protect democracy as well.

If we have an election during the pandemic that succeeds in protecting public health at the expense of people not voting, either because their perceptions and fears about personal health cause them to choose not to participate or else because people who would choose to participate face insurmountable barriers in doing so, then we would have failed. It is not enough to simply protect public health; we also have to protect our democracy. That is a difficult thing to do, and that is one of the reasons that it is better if we do it in a preventive way by working well at the job we were elected to do, which is to defend the interests of Canadians, and prevent the triggering of an election in any event.

Of course, the NDP has asked many times in this House for the Prime Minister to commit to not unilaterally calling an election, which is now consistent with the recommendation in the final report of the procedure and House affairs committee. We have not had that commitment yet. I think that would go a long way to reassuring Canadians that we are not going to find ourselves in the unfortunate situation of a pandemic election.

There are some other things that the bill would do. I know my time is even more limited today than usual, given some of the proceedings of the House earlier today, but I do want to speak to some of things that have yet to be addressed in the legislation. By way of challenge, I would note something that the minister also noted in his lead speech on the bill, which is that these provisions are only set to come into force 90 days after this bill receives royal assent—in other words, after it passes through the House and the Senate and then gets the final nod from the Governor General.

That is an important point to bear in mind when we are addressing the general theme of a pandemic election: Even if the legislation were to pass and receive royal assent today, which of course is not going to happen, we would still have to wait another 90 days before an election could be held under these new rules, as opposed to the existing ones. That is important to mention. Although I appreciate that it will take time for Elections Canada to bring these new measures into force, I think it is important to the general point of getting better reassurances from the Prime Minister and the government about whether we will have an election or not. As much as some people in the House will like certain things about this bill, even if we were to pass it today, it would not be in effect for some time, so there is clearly a need to be working in collaboration for some time to come so as to avoid an election on the existing set of rules, which I think are not adequate to the circumstances.

I also know that there has been a lot of talk about whether we should accept ballots postmarked by election day, whether the cut-off should be election day for mail-in ballots and whether the cut-off should be the Tuesday after the election day, as this legislation foresees. There is something I want to put on the record about this point, because I think there is more than one way to solve this problem. I think the best way will be the one on which we can find as much agreement as possible. I beseech members in all parties to keep an open mind about this, because it is a very difficult circumstance.

I do think that having a hard cut-off point for when ballots are accepted that corresponds to election day really does put us in a risky situation. Some people may have applied in good faith for a ballot and did not get it in a timely manner and did as much as they could to ensure that it would get to Elections Canada.

This is recognizing, of course, that doing as much as they could will be different for different people. It matters whether someone has their own vehicle and whether the person is able to drive or not. It matters whether or not they have someone in their support network who can get them to a designated drop box outside a returning office. It matters how easy it is for them to get to the local mailbox, which can vary depending on the weather. There are all sorts of things that come into play. It is not like a normal election.

I want us to ensure that people who apply for a special ballot but do not get it in time, or who are not able to get it in the mail or the drop box in time for other reasons, are not deprived of their right to vote. This is because I think we have a double duty here both to public health and to democracy.

It would be tragic if a number of Canadians were not able to exercise their right to vote because of administrative complications and deadlines beyond their control. I do think it would be harder to meet the normal deadlines of an election we are used to if we have a pandemic election.

I call for some open-mindedness on that, as we go forward. I am sure it will be the subject of some debate at committee when the bill finally gets there, as I am confident it will. The discussion is not over, and I think it is important that we perhaps at least agree on some of the guiding principles for that conversation before partisan lines get drawn too starkly in the sand.

I do think there are a number of things that are not addressed in the bill that ought to be addressed. For instance, there is the question of how to collect nomination signatures. Everyone in this House knows that 100 signatures from people who live in the riding are needed in order to be officially nominated as a candidate with Elections Canada. Usually that is done by going door to door with sheets of paper and pens. That is not going to make a lot of sense in the context of a pandemic election, so we need another way that is appropriate and safe to do that.

This bill does allow for people to apply for a special ballot online. While I think that is a great thing, a great tool, and that it will be wonderful for the people who are able to avail themselves of that because they have the technological literacy and the equipment in their own home, I am very mindful that there are a lot of people for whom that technology is not accessible. Those people are going to need to apply in person without having to print the documents at home.

We in the NDP recognize that we have an incredibly valuable resource at our fingertips, which is Canada Post. It has a number of postal outlets in every community across the country with people who already check ID for other reasons. I think it is well equipped to be a space for those who need it to go and apply for a special ballot in person.

We encourage the government and Elections Canada to look very seriously at leveraging that network to ensure that people can access their right to vote, if the time comes when they will be required to do so. Whether that is best done in the legislation or not is a question we are open to discussing, but seeing a commitment to that is important in recognizing all the people for whom online is simply not the best tool.

We have talked a little bit about the campus vote program. There are obviously some different opinions about whether that ought to continue, but we heard from student representatives at committee. Students very clearly continue to live and work on campuses, and we can increase access to the vote if we maintain that important program. It ought to be done.

I think one of the other things that we need to see, which I am sure Elections Canada will be addressing in its own way, is that we should know if there is anything legislatively required in order to do this in the best way before we approve the bill. There is the question of scrutineering in long-term care facilities. As much as we have talked a bit about how to staff those, there is still the question of having scrutineers come in.

Those are my initial thoughts. I can see the Speaker is anxious to get on with the orders of the day. Thank you very much for your grace in allowing me to conclude.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech on Bill C-19, I want to take a moment on this March 8 to commend my colleagues from all parties and thank them for their commitment to advancing equality, equity and parity.

The Bloc Québécois supports the bill in principle. We cannot be against apple pie and against adjusting the provisions in the bill in order to comply with the public health guidelines of Quebec and the provinces in the event that an election is held during the pandemic. In our opinion, the provisions in the bill should be changed, including when it comes to voting in seniors' residences, the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots and the provisions on a three-day voting period.

Let me provide some context for those who are watching us. The bill deals specifically with the right to vote and vote counting. We could have gone much further than this to adjust the Canada Elections Act during a pandemic. Among other things, we could have talked about political party financing. I would remind hon. members that the government's attempt to reform the voting system failed.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley testified before a committee. He said that, in the interests of fairness, we must reinstate the per-vote subsidy as soon as possible. If the voting system is not being reviewed, then we should at least ensure that the vote is not totally lost.

In our electoral system, some people vote for a more marginal party that may have no chance of getting a member elected. Those people should at least be able to contribute through their vote. Through their vote, they would contribute to the fact that a sum of money is tied to the vote they put in the ballot box. An election is a debate of ideas, a democratic debate.

From the very beginning of the election period, there need to be fair provisions that allow for the exchange of ideas. Every party must be able to put its ideas forward. It was no surprise that fundraising has been a little more difficult during this pandemic, in light of social distancing rules. Some political parties dipped their hands into the cookie jar and decided to grant themselves the wage subsidy that was intended for companies. Meanwhile, some sugar shacks in Quebec were denied access to the wage subsidy and are struggling to get by.

It is really something for the government to want to make some minor changes, only to then engage in unseemly behaviour. As of this moment, I do not think that the parties that promised to pay back the money have done so. We need to amend the Canada Elections Act. I think that reinstating the per-vote subsidy would have been the perfect way to ensure that no voter felt that their vote had been wasted under certain circumstances.

That said, we support the principle of the bill, which would make some amendments. The bill provides for a polling period of three days, consisting of eight hours of voting on Saturday and Sunday and 12 hours of voting on Monday. I mention this because if the bill is adopted as is, a lot of information will have to be circulated to voters.

The bill also provides for a 13-day period before polling begins to facilitate the administration of the vote in long-term care facilities and seniors' residences where people with disabilities live. These 13 days plus the three-day polling period add up to a total of 16 days.

Another amendment in the bill would give the Chief Electoral Officer more power to adapt the rules for pandemic-related reasons in order to ensure the health and safety of voters and election workers.

Finally, the bill provides for the implementation of a number of measures to facilitate mail-in voting, including setting up reception boxes at all polling stations and giving voters the option of registering for mail-in ballots online.

That is an overview of what is proposed. The government can hardly wait to call an election, and it was in such a rush that it introduced its bill before the committee that was working on those amendments could even propose measures. The committee report includes a supplementary opinion by the Bloc Québécois, which I would like to make members and others who may not have read the report aware of. By doing a quick survey on the ground and talking to different people, we realized that there could be problems administering the election if the bill is left as is.

The Canada Elections Act is the tool that governs our solemn concurrence in what I call the social contract, which is the right to vote. If a decision is made to amend the act, that fragile balance between the fundamental right to vote and the integrity of the vote must be protected. The right to vote comes with an obligation to prove one's eligibility as a voter. Casting a vote is a solemn act that must be totally free of constraint and undue influence. That is why we have a designated day, a single day on which voters exercise the right to vote.

For some years now, voters have been able to exercise the right to vote pretty much throughout the entire election campaign. This bill provides for four advance polling days, three voting days, 13 days of voting at certain institutions where seniors reside, and the option to vote every day up to 34 days before voting day in the case of a 36-day calendar. That means a lot of opportunities to vote. We must ensure that none of those opportunities results in irregularities. I am not talking about deliberate fraud, but certain problems could arise.

Mail-in ballots are currently offered to people who are outside their electoral district. The current wording of the act provides that these people can vote up until 6 p.m. on polling day, but the bill would allow mail-in ballots to come in until the day after polling day. I think this could cause some problems. We have to consider this carefully. We have to ask ourselves why, during a pandemic, we are talking about three days of voting, when people can vote at any time during the campaign or on the four advance polling days.

There is also the matter of voting on weekdays. Why choose Monday when, during a pandemic, we absolutely need locations and logistics that allow for social distancing during voting, because a lot of people are going to travel to vote?

The choice of Saturday and Sunday was welcomed and requested by the Chief Electoral Officer, who, by the way, has the expertise and understands these logistical problems. Every election, he is the one who has to find election workers, as well secure voting sites that make suitable polling places.

Speaking from experience, I can say that in Quebec, holding the vote on a Monday in addition to Saturday and Sunday means the polling location would have to be changed, unless the same location can be used all three days. School gymnasiums are typically used as polling places, and it would be easy to use them. However, Quebec school boards do not rent out their facilities on Mondays, either during pandemics or under normal circumstances. We would therefore end up in a situation where we would not have enough polling locations to hold a safe election. As I understand it, the purpose of Bill C-19 is first and foremost to make elections as safe as possible.

It will also be important to clarify what will happen during the 13 days leading up to the three polling days in certain residences. Our seniors must be given enough time to vote, period.

Looking back at 2019, in some seniors' residences—and I am not necessarily talking about long-term care homes—advance voting took place, and there was only one polling day. All those individuals had ample time to go to the polls without any problem. I have no problem with adding two days, but how can we ensure a secure presence for 13 advance voting days and three polling days? Why should other people be encouraged to go into seniors' residences?

Having spoken with some seniors, I can say that they are not very keen on the idea at the moment. I think the returning officer might have some serious logistical problems organizing that. Obviously, returning officers would be the ones to decide, since they are being given the power to do so.

The other problem is the number of mail-in ballots there will be. A person might request a mail-in ballot because they can vote any day. Voters can currently vote any day at the returning officer's office. If I want to vote on the fifth day of the campaign without leaving home, I think that I would request a mail-in ballot. This would eliminate the problem of having too many people in one place. I imagine that the votes would be counted, that a list would be kept up to date and that the person would not be able to go to the advance poll.

There are also the people who would want to vote in person and those living outside the riding. Where will the votes be counted? The counting should obviously be done within each riding.

However, what happens when a person has requested a mail-in ballot but, for whatever reason, has forgotten about it? Once a person requests a mail-in ballot, they are removed from the voter list. They cannot go to an advance poll or vote during the three days currently provided for. If, for whatever reason, the person goes to the polling station and says that they did not mail in their ballot, will they be stopped from voting?

If they make a declaration and are allowed to vote when they have already cast their ballot, we have a problem. Furthermore, this vote cannot be subtracted from the tally. The ballot is secret, so there is no way to know who they voted for. With regard to mail-in ballots, we must at least be able to ensure that the vote will remain confidential.

We could have discussions about that. I hope we will be able to reach a consensus. However, I do not think it is necessary to extend the mail-in voting deadline to Tuesday in order to count the votes after the fact.

There is a better way to avoid the situation I am talking about. Since people will have been able to vote in advance one week before, those voting by mail could have up until the Friday prior to the polling period to submit their mail-in ballots. This would make it easier to tell someone that their mail-in ballot has been received and that they cannot vote again. The different parties could verify this. It would therefore be impossible to vote in person and by mail. Furthermore, even if the voter were punished, what would happen with that vote? It would already be in the system. Why even allow for this kind of anomaly? Even if there is minimal risk, one fraudulent vote is one too many, especially since this can be avoided.

We must, in general, be cautious. Let us send this bill to committee, look things over and, most importantly, follow the advice from the Chief Electoral Officer, because we will need election workers. It is quite common these days for election workers to be over the age of 60, but there could be some resistance during this pandemic.

Sure, vaccination will do its thing, but this all depends on when the election is called. We must therefore make separate plans unrelated to the vaccination efforts. We need to find the best plan for the election workers.

The Chief Electoral Officer pointed out that people who normally work on Mondays would be available to staff the polls if the election were held on a Saturday or Sunday. We must take these technical and logistical considerations into account if we wish to succeed.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question by the member for Elmwood—Transcona. I do not think our positions differ too much on this.

If people apply for a special ballot online and receive that ballot, Bill C-19 would allow them to drop it off in a special ballot box at a polling station. That is a good provision.

From my first reading of Bill C-19 when I was working on my speech, it seemed that all of the special ballots would be counted in Ottawa. I know there is a precedent for that.

I am glad that the member provided me some reassurances from the committee report. However, I want to make sure from this debate that local elections do in fact remain local, because Canadians like having scrutineers of their local elections. They like knowing that their neighbours in the polling station are overseeing the counting of ballots. That is what makes our system strong and what we need to uphold during COVID-19.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, one question I was trying to have addressed earlier in this debate was how often voters lists would be updated at various polling stations across any riding. There are a lot of provisions in the bill that need a ton of clarification to ensure there is no fraud and that people are not trying to vote twice.

Elections Canada has the responsibility to always prepare for the worst-case scenario. What we are seeing in Bill C-19 right now is that certain provisions need a lot of clarification in order to provide us assurances that the system will be robust in preventing double voting and electoral fraud.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, first off, I do not get to determine when a bill is brought forward to a committee. I think the member has more power over that decision than I would any day.

Second, it is incumbent for me to mention again, after reading Bill C-19 and giving my first speech, that it would give extensive temporary powers to the Chief Electoral Officer. We need to have very clear and transparent schedules available to everyone in this country so they know why a decision would be made and under what context such a decision would be made.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me just conclude by saying that if all politics are local, then so too should be the counting of ballots, including those received in the mail.

I look forward to a constructive debate on Bill C-19 and to getting this bill right for Canadians, because it is Canadians who ultimately make the decisions we are discussing today and Canadians should feel they have the utmost confidence in our system.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin my comments on this important piece of legislation by sharing some anecdotes from recent federal elections. The names of the two people I am about to talk about are not their real names, but the people they represent are familiar to anyone involved in past elections.

My mind goes first to Sue. She is a loving grandmother who has spent her years tending to her family and household, volunteering for charitable causes in her community and enrolling as a poll worker when general elections were called. Her knowledge of the community and its members is derived from decades of friendship and service.

Her institutional knowledge of the electoral process is the kind that is acquired from working multiple elections at all levels over a lifetime. She is the kind of person that poll workers, scrutineers and volunteers flock to with their questions in search of answers and insight. Without people like Sue, elections in Canada would be a shamble. Her dedication is a credit to our country and is essential to the functioning of our democracy.

Also coming to mind is someone like like Gurpreet. He is a new Canadian, having arrived in his new homeland from abroad about a decade ago. As a poll clerk in his first Canadian election of any kind, he is proud of his role in promoting democracy, standing up for democracy, and ensuring a fair and transparent process of ballot counting and voting.

This is an exciting new experience for Gurpreet, which gives him an inside view of how the Canadian election system works. He has the added benefit of serving as a poll clerk alongside Sue, the seasoned DRO and loving grandmother, whose intimate knowledge of Canadian elections puts him at ease. It allows him to participate and work within the electoral process with comfort, confidence and pride.

Colleagues, these anecdotes are not exceptional. This type of interconnectedness, of community members coming together from disparate backgrounds and various life experiences, such as students, seniors, new Canadians and stay-at-home moms, to serve the rest of us by upholding the integrity in our democratic process is what happens in every federal election in polling places nationwide.

This coming together of the community is important for fostering trust in Canadian elections. The adage that all politics are local is especially salient here. People are more likely to trust their neighbours and friends. That trust is especially important when it comes to counting our ballots and having faith in the outcome of that count.

However, let me be clear: Canadians do not want an election during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the actions taken by opportunistic incumbent provincial governments over the last year, 80% of those surveyed are against forcing Canadians to polling stations at this time. Despite this, we are here debating government Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, COVID-19 response.

Bill C-19 was introduced in December 2020. This was, I might add, before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs issued its recommendation after studying the matter in depth. Putting aside the misplaced hubris of the Liberal-knows-best approach, there are changes in this proposed legislation that do meet the threshold of common sense, but sadly this does not extend to all of them. There are a number of issues in Bill C-19 that have been overlooked.

If an election is held in a pandemic, the protection of poll workers, voters and our tried and true Canadian democratic process is essential. My first point is that, from the outset, I am especially concerned about the provision, or lack thereof, for voting in long-term care facilities and other institutions home to immune-compromised Canadians. These are the places where we have seen the worst COVID-19 outbreaks in this country.

We do not need the grave mistakes of this past year repeated by increasing the time our vulnerable citizens are exposed to the avoidable risk of external transmission. Everyone must be given the opportunity to vote, and clarifications are needed to ensure that those in long-term care facilities have the ability to vote safely. In these instances, polling stations should be open for the minimum amount of time it take for residents to vote, although at multiple periods of time during the 13-day provision mentioned by the president of the Privy Council.

My second point is the glaring issue of the absence of a built-in sunset clause to remove what must remain temporary changes. Instead, we have the following in the bill:

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.

We have been told to self-isolate for weeks upon weeks by the federal government and other governments in this country. We are not falling for that again. The addition of a sunset clause containing a fixed date that these provisions cease to be enforced is required.

My third point is that we need clarity when it comes to proposed powers for the CEO to withdraw the writs of election. It must be made clear to us now, while we debate this bill, how any decision to withdraw the writs would be made. Ending an election midway through is a decision with major ramifications that cannot be made arbitrarily.

Common sense can foresee that any decision to end the election before voters have had their say would sow chaos, confusion, and distrust that would last for generations. With great power comes the great responsibility to explain its use. If we cannot explain to Canadians why the CEO would pull the plug on an election, perhaps we should do likewise and pull the plug on this clause of the bill.

Another significant area of concern is the mail-in ballot provisions proposed by the legislation. Bill C-19, as it is presently written, states that an elector who requests a special ballot:

...shall ensure that the special ballot is sent before the close of polling stations on the last day of the polling period and is received by the special voting rules administrator in the National Capital Region no later than 6:00 p.?m. on the Tuesday following the last day of the polling period.

This would mean that Elections Canada would count a hypothetical vote received as much as 23 hours after the general election polls had closed.

I have heard of ballots being disbursed and cast prior to a general election having been called. This scenario was central to the case of Mitchell v. Jackman, which made its way to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. The main argument in that case was whether it was constitutional for special ballots to be issued to voters in Newfoundland and Labrador prior to a provincial election. It was decided in 2017 that such a rule was an infringement of voters’ Charter rights under section 3, the democratic rights clause.

On the other hand, I am at a loss when it comes to finding an example of an election in Canada where ballots were accepted after the close of general election polls, notwithstanding the present electoral calamity that has befallen Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who are mired in an election that should have wrapped up almost a month ago. Counting ballots after polls have closed is one thing. It is very normal, and it happens in every election. Accepting ballots after the general election polls have closed is another thing. It is abnormal because it does not happen.

If this bill passes in its present form, who knows how long the tallying process will take for millions of mail-in ballots received by Ottawa and, under the current bill, counted in Ottawa. Valid ballots accepted for the count should be received prior to the close of voting. That is why we have an election day. Even in British Columbia, whose recent provincial election garnered notoriety for the 13-day lag time between the close of the polls and the counting of mail-in ballots, it was only those votes received by the close of the polls that were counted.

I agree with the provision for the Chief Electoral Officer to increase the number of elections officers. Arguably, this is something that should have been done in previous elections. It is going to take a coordinated, collaborative civic effort to ensure the proper execution of an election during a pandemic. This is especially true when it comes to special ballots. Once the writs are issued, there should be a large and well-advertised window of opportunity for voters to request a special ballot online within the context of this new extended writ period.

To streamline the process from the beginning when applying for special ballots electronically, voters should be required to provide evidence that they are Canadian citizens over the age of 18 and it must be verified that they are indeed living. There are those on the other side of this place who vilify my party for expecting voters to provide identification. I do not understand this. We must strive to provide as many options for voting as possible. We cannot infringe on the sacred right of citizens to vote, but, quite simply, voters do have to be verified citizens. Elections Canada's current ID verification options are many, so I will not belabour that point.

It is a safe assumption that demand for mail-in ballots will be high in the next federal election, likely the highest ever seen. There is a clear precedent in Canada for giving people a window of opportunity, contained within the writ period, to vote by special ballot.

We all want the next federal election to be conducted with the utmost integrity, as we do for every election, but allowing the receipt and counting of ballots after an election day opens our process up to the speculation of electoral fraud and uncertainty. Special ballots should be postmarked one week before the election period commences in order to be counted on election day. Otherwise, if mail is not an option because of time, special ballots should be accepted at returning offices and polling places in a designated drop-box up to the close of polls on election day, as previously discussed.

Moreover, people trust their friends and neighbours. For folks like Sue and Gurpreet, who I mentioned earlier, sending special ballots to riding offices to be counted by local officials will enhance Canadians' trust in election outcomes, especially when we are anticipating that the next federal election will see an astronomical number of votes by mail. We cannot have an extended period of uncertainty between the close of polls and the ballot count during the pandemic and in a minority Parliament situation especially.

Now is not the time to fundamentally change the way we do elections in Canada. During these unsure times, our institutions must perform at the highest standards. Again, as we saw in British Columbia's election, mail-in ballots will comprise a significant portion of the total vote count, as over 30% of all votes cast in B.C. were by special mail-in ballots.

Virtually all votes cast in the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial election that is currently under way will be by special mail-in ballot. On the federal scale, this could mean 10 million ballots in the mail and possibly more. Banking on sending millions of special ballots directly to Ottawa for processing is a recipe for disaster and delay. Mail-in ballots, although they may be sent from anywhere, should be received and counted in the ridings in which they are meant to be cast. If Elections Canada feels it needs more personnel on the ground in constituencies, it can send more staff as needed, or better yet, it can train the local staff to perform these tasks, as it has always done.

It is an honour and a privilege to stand in the House. Having run in two federal elections, I fully grasp the importance of having local returning officers as administrators and arbiters. In my riding, our returning officer has the ability to bring candidates from across the political spectrum together so that everyone is on the same page when it comes to the rules of the electoral game. I think of myself and all of the candidates in my riding in the last election. We felt more assured when our returning officer brought all the candidates together to sit at a table and hash it out so we were all on the same page. That needs to happen and that is a good thing.

I have the utmost confidence in my local returning officer, and I would place a friendly bet that most of my colleagues here feel the same way in their ridings. I trust my local returning officer to oversee the election in my riding. I have faith that they can also oversee the counting of special ballots cast by the voters I represent. If more special ballots are anticipated than ballots from voters on advance or regular polling days, why not have Elections Canada and its returning officer redeploy staff to handle the special ballot count in each riding?

Local elections must remain local. We do not elect Ottawa representatives for our communities. We elect community representatives to fight for our interests in Ottawa.

The importance of Elections Canada workers and scrutineers from the community cannot be overstated. This ensures trust in the local electoral process, and their involvement in it nurtures the Canadian values of inclusion and diversity. I believe local elections and the participation of Canadians within their own communities build confidence in our institution.

Scrutineers have been a fixture of Canadian elections since our earliest days. They cast a watchful eye on the proceedings of election day, the counting of the votes and on the behaviour of other scrutineers. They report this information back to the candidates they represent. Outsourcing the counting of special ballots to Ottawa is wrong and sets a dangerous precedent. For starters, local scrutineers, who are my scrutineers and my opponents' scrutineers, would not be able to observe the counting of special ballots that will impact the outcome of the election in any given riding.

While national leaders secure much of the spotlight, we must remember that in our Westminister parliamentary tradition, we do not elect a prime minister and a deputy prime minister as is done in republics with the president and vice-present. We elect members of Parliament from unique constituencies across the nation. Every member of the House is accountable to the electorate. We have 338 members. This raises the question of how transparent and accountable the vote counting would be in my riding when we are anticipating that a significant chunk of the votes in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon would be cast by mail and counted by unfamiliar strangers situated several thousand kilometres away in the national capital region.

As my speech comes to a close, I readily acknowledge that the changes to the Canada Elections Act, as proposed by the government, are not meant to be malicious and were made with good intentions. However, we all know where that road leads. The implications of the changes in Bill C-19 are great and wide-reaching. These changes, if adopted, will change the way Canadian voters conduct elections.

If the Liberal government proceeds to make these changes unilaterally, then it will be undermining Canadian democracy. I am assured to hear from the previous speaker that this will not be the case. I do not say these words hyperbolically or inflammatorily. Amending the rules that govern elections in Canada requires buy-in from all parties in the House.

We on this side are open to amendments to the Canada Elections Act to account for the realities of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our system works, but it requires updating from time to time. This is one of those times. I hope the government realizes that and engages all members in a better and more constructive way to get this right. After all, it is from the voters, represented by all members in the House, that the current government and any government derive their consent to govern.

All we have to do is look to our neighbours to realize that Canada's electoral system works best for Canadians. Our system is trusted. As I mentioned in the beginning, it is a system in which folks like Sue and Gurpreet contribute to the integrity of the electoral process and the final results. People trust their friends and neighbours. This is why we need mail-in ballot counting to be done at the local level: in the ridings, at the returning offices in the communities where electors—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to join other friends in saying how very pleased and grateful we all are to see the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada back among us so well.

I am pleased to see Bill C-19, but disappointed that there is nothing in the bill that addresses an issue of concern to many of us in politics who have endured lies being spread that have been approved by official agents for other parties. These are things that are completely untrue that would not pass in the marketplace for consumer products, for instance.

My colleague will remember that the Green Party and I have pressed for the notion of truth in advertising legislation, such that there are always going to be opinions that are unpleasant. There are going to be attack ads that are unpleasant. Those are freedom of speech issues but—

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

moved that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to begin the debate at second reading of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, COVID-19 response.

Across Canada, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to change the way we live and interact to protect the health and safety of our fellow Canadians. Elections have been no exception.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, Canada has experienced two federal by-elections, four provincial general elections and seven local elections. These elections were delivered in a way that aligned with public health guidelines and sought to provide electors, particularly those who are most at risk of infection, with a variety of ways to safely exercise their right to vote.

With lessons learned from other jurisdictions and building on the recommendations of Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, we have an opportunity to take action to ensure that, should an election be required, a federal election held during the current pandemic can be even more safe and more secure. This is why, on December 10, 2020, the government introduced Bill C-19, which, if passed, would temporarily supplement provisions of the Canada Elections Act in support of a safe, secure and accessible election during the pandemic, again, should one be required.

Bill C-19 would reassure voters, election workers and all other participants that the federal electoral process remains safe, secure and accessible, despite the pandemic. To that end, the bill would give voters unprecedented opportunities to vote during the pandemic, whether it be in person or from the comfort and safety of their home.

This bill is based on the October 2020 recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer regarding holding an election in the context of a pandemic and the work of our colleagues, who carried out a study on the same topic.

Bill C-19 contains four elements that I will explain in greater detail: a three-day polling period, the safe administration of the vote to residents of long-term care facilities, increased adaptation powers for the Chief Electoral Officer, and the strengthening of measures related to mail-in voting.

To ensure that electors who make the choice to go to vote in person are as safe as possible, the legislation proposes spreading the polling period, in other words the voting day, effectively over three days. Instead of one 12-hour voting day, Bill C-19 would establish a three-day polling period, with eight hours of voting on both Saturday and Sunday and the traditional 12 hours of voting on Monday.

Extending the voting period over three days will prevent overcrowding at polls and support electors and poll workers in maintaining physical distancing protocols. Maintaining the Monday would also ensure access to some individuals who may not be able to vote on a Saturday or Sunday. For instance, it recognizes that electors and candidates alike might have religious obligations that inhibit them from voting or campaigning over a weekend.

In addition, maintaining the Monday recognizes that public transit may offer reduced schedules over the weekend and child care options may also be less over the weekend.

With Bill C-19, we are working to reduce barriers for electors with disabilities and electors with young children who may be facing particular challenges during the pandemic.

As the Chief Electoral Officer indicated in his recent report, a pandemic election could complicate efforts to find polling places and recruit election workers. In light of this, a three-day polling period would provide Elections Canada with more opportunities to identify polling places. As the Chief Electoral Officer has stated, Elections Canada may also seek out non-traditional polling places such as arenas or hotels.

In advance of every general election, Elections Canada recruits more than 230,000 Canadians to work at polls across the country. However, as the Chief Electoral Officer highlighted in his recommendations report, recruiting that many election workers during an ongoing pandemic could possibly provide some challenge.

During the 2019 general election, close to half of those workers were 60 years of age or older. Given that this age cohort is at an elevated risk if they contract COVID-19, these people may be less inclined to work the polls during a pandemic election.

Importantly, at least one legislative change made through the 2018 Elections Modernization Act may help mitigate potential recruitment issues. As colleagues will remember, that bill allowed Elections Canada to hire 16 and 17 year olds as election workers, opening up an entirely new contingent that may be open to working at the polls.

Finally, a variety of other in-person voting opportunities will be maintained under these proposed changes. This includes four days of advance polling, with 12 hours offered on all four days as well. To account for the three-day polling period, advance polls would then be shifted to the Thursday through Sunday in advance of the first day of the polling period.

As we all know too well, long-term care facilities have borne the brunt of COVID-19. Many deaths associated with the pandemic have been linked to long-term care facilities and many facilities, sadly, continue to endure outbreaks. In an effort to curb infections, many facilities limited access to outside visitors. This has been hard on families and friends because they have been unable to visit a loved one in person. Lockdowns at these facilities and differing public health orders in effect across the country make it necessary for us to ensure these residents can still cast a ballot should an election be held during a pandemic.

Accordingly, Bill C-19 takes a number of steps that would ensure these electors could safely exercise their right to vote.

First, the legislation proposes a 13-day period prior to the beginning of the three-day polling period that would better facilitate the administration of votes in these facilities. Rather than administer the vote in these facilities exclusively on election day, which is now how residents would have been able to vote in past federal elections, the legislation proposes establishing a lengthier period which the vote could be delivered, for example, by mobile polls. As COVID-19 conditions vary across provinces and territories and from region to region, this period would enable Elections Canada to better plan according to the unique context of each long-term care facility.

Bill C-19 would also allow returning officers to establish a polling division composed of a single long-term care facility or of a particular part of a long-term care facility. This amendment recognizes the existence of dedicated quarantine zones in some long-term care facilities and ensures a positive COVID-19 test will not impede a resident of these facilities from being able to vote.

Taken together, these amendments aim to ensure that senior citizens and those living with disabilities in long-term care facilities, citizens who are among the most vulnerable populations in this pandemic, have safe and reliable opportunities to exercise their right to vote.

At present, subsection 17(1) of the Canada Elections Act authorizes the Chief Electoral Officer to adapt provisions of that act, “if an emergency, an unusual or unforeseen circumstance or an error makes it necessary...for the sole purpose of enabling electors to exercise their right to vote or enabling the counting of votes”.

In the last election, this is one of the powers the Chief Electoral Officer exercised in order to allow workers temporarily residing outside their electoral districts to vote.

However, the ongoing uncertainty generated by the current pandemic justifies broadening the grounds for adapting this legislation.

Under Bill C-19, therefore, the Chief Electoral Officer would have the power to adapt the provisions of the act to ensure the health or safety of electors or election officers.

This amendment is particularly important to protect not only voters but also the election workers and volunteers who dedicate themselves to the democratic process. As I said earlier, Canadian election workers are older on average. If older individuals decide to work once again during a general election—and of course we hope they will—we must do our best to ensure that they can do this important work safely.

Over the last year and during the pandemic, jurisdictions in Canada and abroad that held elections witnessed a significant increase in the use of mail-in ballots: for example, British Columbia and its October 2020 election, the United States' November 2020 presidential election and, most recently, Newfoundland and Labrador's election. In response, Bill C-19 includes measures designed to improve access to mail-in voting. Mail-in voting, which is safe and secure, has been instrumental in providing opportunities to older electors, electors with disabilities, immunocompromised electors and those who are unable to vote in person because of the pandemic.

While electors in Canada have long been able to vote by mail and Elections Canada has significant experience safely administering the federal vote-by-mail system, Bill C-19 proposes specific amendments in anticipation of a sharp increase in mail-in voting. First, Bill C-19 would allow electors to apply to register to vote by mail online rather than through the mail or in person, as is currently the case. Providing this option would not inhibit registering to vote by mail or in person for those without access to the Internet. By allowing online registration, we are simply giving Canadians one more option to register to vote by mail.

Finally, in an effort to further simplify the registration process, Bill C-19 would provide electors with the ability to use an identification number, such as a driver's licence, to establish their identity and residence when registering to vote by mail. Presently, electors are required to provide a copy of their ID when registering to vote by mail, which may inhibit voting by individuals without access to printers, scanners or photocopiers at home. More precisely, it would allow Elections Canada to use information already in its possession to confirm an elector's identity and residence.

In recognition of potential privacy implications, electors would need to explicitly consent to Elections Canada using this identification number to facilitate their vote-by-mail registration. Some electors may choose to register to vote by mail, but with circumstances changing regularly across the country, they may not be able to return their ballot kits by mail in time. In anticipation of this, Bill C-19 proposes the installation of secure mail reception boxes at every polling station across the country.

Bill C-19 would also allow electors who initially chose to vote by mail to change their minds and vote in person. However, to do so, electors would need to either return the mail-in vote kits they received from Elections Canada when they went to vote in person or sign a declaration that they had not yet voted. Elections Canada has a robust series of measures to deter electoral fraud. Returning the mail-in vote kits or attesting in writing that electors had not yet voted would act as a deterrent to any malicious actors and would support the integrity of the vote. These measures would also help create an appropriate paper trail for auditing and enforcement processes.

It is important to remember that we are not proposing permanent changes to Canada's electoral law. All of the proposed legislative amendments that we have outlined are 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.

Moreover, these legislative changes 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.

With Bill C-19, we are maximizing electors' opportunities to exercise their right to vote. If the bill is passed, electors will get four days of advance polling, three days of regular polling and better access to mail-in voting. Bill C-19 would also give Elections Canada greater legislative flexibility and authority to safely administer an election.

In closing, I invite our colleagues to examine Bill C-19 so it can be studied by a committee and amended if necessary. We want to work with all parliamentarians to ensure that elections will be safe and accessible for all Canadians.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I haven't been a member of another minority parliament, but what I have been told by others who have been members of minority parliaments is that things can occur, especially when we get to a point where there is a lot of disagreement, where legislation is essentially no longer able to move through the House and you have a log jam basically. No work is getting done. Canadians have sent us here to do work, to pass important legislation, for committees to work.

Oftentimes we hear this ideal notion that minority parliaments are wonderful because there is so much co-operation and consensus building. I'm hoping that we can build some consensus at this committee today and work together to make sure that the House has time to do the important work that is needed for Canadians. If we don't go down that path of working together and we have that log jam, it is possible we could end up having an election. It's possible that we could end up getting to a place where no one is willing to work together. I would hate to see that happen, but I would really hate to see that happen before Bill C-19 passes.

Without having election legislation passed, and without it getting past second reading, getting to its committee so that the committee can do important work on that legislation and bring forward amendments and then send it back to the House to go through the third reading stage, we won't be able to give the elections commissioner the important powers that are needed to make sure that an election would be run in the safest way possible for Canadians.

I feel it is our responsibility to make sure that we are doing the right thing for Canadians at the end of the day. That is very important.

We have in the House as well Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. I think that's a very important piece of legislation as well, and I'm hoping that the NDP and the Green Party are going to be very supportive of that legislation, and who knows, maybe the Conservatives will be as well. You just never know.

I'm eager to see all of that work get done in the House so I can see for myself what ends up happening, but right now what's happening is nothing, absolutely nothing. That is why I come back to why it's important for us to revisit this motion and to understand the repercussions it would have in the House if we were to pass it as is. I think that would be a complete failure of this committee to do its work.

That was some of the language I wanted changed in the original motion. I don't think that the government's work in procuring vaccines for Canadians can be described as it is. I sincerely believe—and I know Canadians do too, and I know at the very least that my colleagues will back me on this—that we are currently seeing vaccines come into our country, and we're going to continue to see vaccines flow into Canada even more quickly than what might be doable by the provinces to roll them out, but I'm very optimistic. I think Canadians are too. I'm starting to hear a lot of relief on that end from my constituents. I know they are very concerned. Their number one concern is getting vaccines to our seniors, to immunocompromised people, to those who work at the front line.

When we come back to Covax, in terms of the amount of vaccine that Canada would be receiving through Covax, I believe it would be somewhere in the area of 1.9 million doses by the end of June. The majority of doses that we are currently receiving are through Moderna. We are receiving doses through AstraZeneca. We're receiving Pfizer doses, of course. Pfizer is the largest number that we're receiving.

I know there might be some delays in the Covax shipments to developed countries, but I was happy to hear that—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

I appreciate the comments that all my colleagues have made. I do take some exception to Ms. McPherson trying to get me back on track. I think I'm completely on track. I think it's important that I'm speaking to my amendment. My amendment is to remove the last sentence. Part of my amendment is to remove the last sentence of the NDP motion, and I think it is important, if we do get to a vote on my amendment or essentially the motion unamended or amended, that we need to understand what the impacts are.

I want to make it very clear so that we all have a good understanding before we vote on these things. Also, I even want to, perhaps through the discussion that we're going to have on this, fully understand where the NDP or other parties that wish to support the original amendment were going with this and what the intention really is. Is the intention for us to better understand the Covax initiative? Is it to better understand how Canada can play a better role in providing vaccines not only to Canadians but also in supporting other countries? Is that essentially what we're trying to achieve or are we trying to achieve something else?

I would argue that at the end of the day, that last sentence is really there to try to achieve something else. That's happening not just in this committee. It's happening in many committees. We're seeing many things being done so that all of the House time is blocked up with opposition motions and concurrence motions. We're even seeing—we just saw here on Tuesday.... Actually, I won't mention that part, but we are seeing in other committees as well attempts to bring whatever issue it is, reports and such, to the House as quickly as possible so that they can be concurred in, so that there can be debate on those issues in the House. I want us to fully understand what's at stake here.

I know, to Ms. McPherson and to her party, that Bill C-15 is incredibly important. Bill C-15 is an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. UNDRIP is something that one of her esteemed colleagues from the NDP has worked very hard on to make sure that the government would move on this piece of legislation so that we could recognize those rights within our own country. It's very important to me, but seeing how things are evolving, I really hope that we get this work done in this Parliament.

If we continue to send all the work that we're supposed to do in committees to the House, then we're not going to get anywhere with legislation at all. Why are we trying to get rid of work that we should rightfully be doing in this committee as members? We should be doing our job. We should be bringing, perhaps, the minister in to try to figure out how this program of Covax was put together, what it was intended for. We could be bringing in other witnesses if those proposals are on the table. But all I'm seeing in this original motion is an attempt to make some value judgements and to send this to the House so it can block up legislation. That's what I'm seeing.

That's why I'm trying to get to a point where maybe we can come up with a solution that would better serve the sentiments behind—or at least what I hope are the true sentiments behind—this motion, the original motion, to make sure that we're doing our role as a leader.

Some of the language I haven't even attempted to amend, really, because I was trying to do the least possible amount of amendment to the original motion so that I wouldn't offend the original motion's intent. There's definitely language beyond that, with which I'm not happy, but I let it go. I'm trying to do the bare minimum so that we can still move on and do some important work and look into the whole Covax initiative.

That's why I haven't removed the fact that Covax was an initiative that was intended to provide vaccines to high-risk individuals in low- and middle-income countries.

With regard to the intent of Covax's program and the initiative, I think there's a failure to completely understand what the intent of that program is. It is to provide equitable access. That doesn't say it's to deny any developed country access to Covax. It is to ensure that all countries that are investing in and supplementing this program could also benefit from this program. It is an equal opportunity program. I'm really proud that Canada is a leader in the investments that it's made into Covax.

Another issue which I think is important is.... God forbid, I don't want this to happen, and I don't think most members that sit on my other committee really would like this to happen, but when I was interrupted before, I was about to say that we have Bill C-19 also in the House. That is election legislation. It is something that the elections commissioner has asked us to pass so that they can prepare if there were to be an election in this pandemic. The government doesn't control that necessarily. Things can happen. Oftentimes, you know, I'm getting to the point that—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Right. Thank you, Mr. Genuis. I'm glad I didn't go into detail with this. Thanks for the heads-up. I will try my best to be more careful. I don't want to let the cat out of the bag about the report.

Going back to the amendment to Mr. Harris's motion, the amendment that I proposed was basically a rewording of the first sentence so that the motion would read, “That the committee recognizes that, due to global circumstances, the government has faced delays in the supply of vaccines for Canadians through national manufacturing and international procurement”. The rest of it goes on as is and then I have removed the final sentence of the motion.

If everyone has the motion in front of them, hopefully they have the amendment as well. The last sentence, which is removed, is, “Finally, that the committee report this motion to the House.”

Maybe I'll start with “Finally, that the committee report this motion to the House”. The reason I proposed these changes to Mr. Harris's motion is that I'm really opposed to our reporting every comment or feedback we get to the House in this way without having done some thorough study or investigation of it. The committee's work is to actually do some work on a matter and then report that to the House, as we have been doing in the study that we currently have before us. It's not to make a statement and then just send it to the House.

A lot of work needs to be done on this issue. I said last time that I appreciate the NDP's sentiments on this, but what I don't appreciate is our just blocking up House time, without doing the work that this committee should be doing. That is essentially what we're seeing. In many committees, we're seeing motions just being sent to the House so that they can be concurred in and so that we can spend four hours of House time and delay a lot of important legislation.

I want to make sure that all the members in this committee are basically aware of what the consequences of continuing to go down this road could be. The consequences we're currently going through right now are that Bill C-14 has not been given the due time it needs to move forward. Bill C-14 is the fall economic statement. It is important for Canadians. It's important in the context of this pandemic.

Just as the sentiment of this motion about vaccines going to poor or middle-income countries...I absolutely agree that this pandemic should be first and foremost on our minds as a government, and it is. Our delaying support to Canadians and delaying legislation in the House, however, is not what is going to help Canadians or developing countries.

Another piece of legislation that's in the House, which I think is important for the safety of Canadians, is Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. That piece of legislation, I think, has not had any time in the House—

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank my colleague Ryan for his passion. We can't miss anything but we're here.

Thanks to everyone.

Once again, we're here to talk about the role and relevance of prorogation. My colleague frequently alluded to the throne speech and I'm also going to link it to the economic statement, which is also important. The Speech from the Throne was delivered in September, but the economic statement was in November, and the work done during prorogation is what enabled us to greatly improve things.

I'd like to return to something extremely important that was raised by my colleague Mr. Turnbull, and that affected me directly. These were the decisions we made during this difficult period with respect to seniors. My colleague spoke to us about long-term care, but there's one thing in particular I'd like to address. I'd like to speak to my colleague's comments by saying that although these matters were discussed on other committees, we, the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, also have something to say about the seniors file.

This is demonstrated by the fact that Bill C-19 includes extremely important long-term care provisions that are matters of procedure. These were part of the discussions we had with all levels of government. We worked with the provinces and territories. The government is aware of needs specific to vulnerable populations during this pandemic. We know that the vulnerable population is seniors. The government is proposing specific measures to protect the health and safety of Canadians living in long-term care centres by protecting their right to participate in the democratic process.

What seniors went through during the lockdown was unheard of. They were kept away from their families and anyone else. Today, we need to talk about their ability to exercise their democratic rights, because if there is an election, they need to be part of the process.

And if the bill were adopted, it would also give Elections Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer and electoral staff the latitude needed to make it possible for voters in long-term care centres to vote safely. This affects us directly. The committee is therefore involved in this file.

Mr. Turnbull prepared things very well, but before discussing the actions our government took during this pandemic and during the prorogation, I would like to speak about seniors, because I'm the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors. I also would like to apologize for not having been here for the first hour. If I am repeating anything that my colleagues may have already mentioned, then I'm sorry. I was in the House doing my duty and defending seniors, as it happens, in connection with a debate on a Bloc Québécois motion.

For seniors, we are also planning a 13-day period during which all electoral staff could help long-term care centre residents vote safely, in compliance with public health standards. We had to discuss these standards not only with Health Canada, but several other departments as well. We are working with Elections Canada, with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and with the entire House of Commons system.

This 13-day period would give electoral staff time to organize, contact the centres, make sure that no one is forgotten, specify the precise dates for safe voting and, of course, conduct the voting process itself.

The bill would also enable electoral staff to install polling stations on a number of floors or areas in the facilities, making sure that they are accessible and comply with the standards, and the needs of these vulnerable people.

It's important to pay attention to the coming waves. We've been told that we're in the second wave at the moment, but there could be a third. Some zones are “hotter” than others. Each province has introduced a classification system for the pandemic's level of severity. Many people might find themselves in a red zone as we're discussing it. It's therefore important to adjust and to take procedural steps to help our seniors in residential and long-term care facilities.

Madam Chair, I don't know if you can hear my dog barking. I'm going to have to let him out. Can you give me 10 seconds to do that? If I don't he's going to keep barking.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks.

I appreciate the perspective of my colleagues here. In terms of the comments being made, I think this study is really designed to continue to reflect on what's already happened. We've gathered a diversity of perspectives and opinions on that from witnesses who were, I would suggest, mostly proposed by opposition parties. We've heard from them. They've had their opinions. They've presented to us. They've shared those thoughts with us.

Mr. Blaikie, I might have to disagree with you on the point you made about context, because I think in this particular case, context is everything. We're in a worldwide global pandemic. I believe we're staring down the barrel of a likely third wave of COVID-19 with the variants of concern that are percolating and starting to rear their heads. We're seeing the impact of that in Newfoundland, for example, where the election is being affected by these new variants.

I have this concern that's forward-facing, that's looking at the work that this committee needs to do—for example, to prepare to pass Bill C-19 and perhaps maybe even look at a prestudy on that. We've seen some delays with that with some concurrence motions. I feel that we need to be able to equip Elections Canada with the possibility that an election could be called at any time. They need to have the tools to do so, yet here we are looking back, debating how many more witnesses. How many more meetings do we really need to have? I think we have a diversity of perspectives. You're going to formulate your theory and rationale with the evidence that you've heard, and we're all going to debate that and see, to my mind, how that plays out in terms of the recommendations we'd like to make in a report moving forward.

To me, that process seems pretty substantive when you contrast it with the past, when there was no study on prorogation and there were many examples of prorogation in more controversial situations than the one we're seeing here, which, when we look at it, there was a really good rationale for. We were in a global pandemic. There was a first and second wave in between, and there was naturally an opportunity to reflect on where we're going as a country and to renew our agenda. To me, that just is plainly obvious to most Canadians out there. I think it's intuitive. It makes sense.

I don't know why we need to have more and more witnesses come forward when it really seems like we've done the job of entertaining the different theories and speculative perspectives on why prorogation happened. We've heard directly from.... Government tabled a report. It's substantive. It's never happened before. I would say that's a positive step in the right direction. I think we can all agree.

We heard from the government House leader directly. Who better to give us that testimony than the government House Leader? I think that's the most appropriate person to provide us that perspective. We have that. I'm sorry if it's not what the opposition parties are looking to prove here, but from my perspective, we have that perspective already in two forms, in a written report and in the testimony from the House leader. What more do we really need?

What are you going to get out of having more and more witnesses come forward to basically tell you the same thing? If it's not what you want to hear, I understand, but are you really going to get anything different? It's all consistent. It's a very consistent rationale for why our government took those steps and why the Prime Minister exercised that right.

Thank you.

Industry, Science and Technology

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I cited a very clear example when I said that the Prime Minister met with the folk arts council. That is just one of apparently thousands of meetings that would have been taking place, no doubt, set up through the Prime Minister's Office. To try to give a false impression as if the government is not working and concerned about the tourism industry is just wrong.

In regard to Bill C-19, it is an important piece of legislation. The Government of Canada has never been focused on an election. Our focus is on Canadians first and foremost and has been since day one. That will continue to be the case. Elections Canada is recognized around the world as an independent organization and we have full confidence in it, but Bill C-19 will go a long way—

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the topic the previous speakers spoke about. We were supposed to be debating Bill C-19. With regard to an election in a pandemic, I was going to bring about 30 minutes of thoughtful comment. The only people who are a hurry to have an election are the Liberals. The majority of Canadians have said they do not want an election during a pandemic. The Liberals were in such a hurry that they introduced this legislation even before the committee that was considering the Chief Electoral Officer's report was finished. Colleagues can comfort themselves with that.

The reason they have to have debates like this is that the government is not listening to the travel and tourism industry. I have sat in the House and heard calls for help for the airline industry and calls to get plans in place so that the economy can reopen and restaurants can come back.

What specifically is the government going to do to enable this industry to quickly get back on its feet?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the debate, because I was hoping to be able to speak to Bill C-19, which was introduced in December and helps prepare for the potential election in the context of a pandemic. It is legislation that the Chief Electoral Officer had asked the House to consider. I listened intently to members who spoke and to the parliamentary secretary, and he began not only talking about the importance of the tourism sector, something that we all share with our colleagues from the Conservative party, but also offered some insight as to why the Conservative party may seek this procedural dilatory tactic to prevent the House from considering important legislation that would protect Canadians in a pandemic.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary might expand and share with us his views on why the opposition would seek to, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has so properly said, delay the proper business of the House in considering legislation that would protect Canadians in the context of a pandemic.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am hearing a lot about Bill C-14 and Bill C-19. I am just wondering if the Speaker could remind the member of the matter of relevance?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, and somewhat frustrating and a little disappointing, to watch the Conservatives play their political games on the floor of the House of Commons. It is becoming more and more apparent that the Conservative Party of Canada is completely out of touch with what Canadians want their political leaders to be talking about and actually doing.

I do not say that lightly. I genuinely believe that the direction the current leadership of the Conservative party and its House leadership team are taking, as well as the discussions and debates on the floor, do a disservice to Canadians.

I will expand on why it is we have a report on travel and tourism. I listened very carefully to the former speaker and the member for Edmonton Centre, who brought forward the motion on this concurrence to talk about travel and tourism in Canada. There was nothing said by either member, nothing at all, that could not have been said during debate on Bill C-14, for example.

There was nothing implying the urgency of having that debate today. When the member for Edmonton Centre presented his arguments to debate this, he expressed concerns in regard to all the restrictions. However, I asked him point-blank whether he supports the current restrictions that have been put in place by the government. His response was that yes, he does support them.

Where is the need to actually bring forward this report at this time? If the members were saying that this is such an important industry, and we should be talking about it, I would agree. It is an important industry. It is a very important industry for all Canadians, whether they are directly employed by it, indirectly employed by it or not even employed by it. Our tourism industry is of critical importance to our economy and to our society, in terms of how we ultimately evolve. However, if it were that important, they could have dealt with it when we were debating Bill C-14 earlier today.

They have opposition day motions, and they could do it at that time also. They could single out an industry and say that they are concerned about that industry and that they want to debate it all day, and ultimately it would come to a vote.

Members of the Conservative party have been filibustering and doing whatever they can to play a destructive force in regard to Bill C-14, where there has been a great deal of talk about tourism and the tourism industry. There has been a great deal of discussion about that. My colleague from Kingston and the Islands pointed out the number of days we have been sitting for Bill C-14 versus what we would actually spend on a budget debate. As well, the Conservatives have given absolutely no indication. I asked earlier today when the Conservatives would see fit to pass Bill C-14, and there is no indication.

Now, we get this report that is so urgent that the House of Commons needs to have hours of debate on it. The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and members of Parliament from the Conservative caucus believe that it is so very important.

For those who might be following the debate, I do not believe that it has anything to do with the industry, nothing at all. I think the Conservatives have factored in and brought in this report because they want to continue to filibuster and prevent debates from taking place. Interestingly enough, they will then criticize the government for not having debate. They will ask why we are not debating Bill C-14 more and why we are not bring forward Bill C-19. This is not the first day on which we have tried to bring forward Bill C-19, which is a Canada Elections Act bill.

We look forward to getting that high sense of co-operation coming from all opposition members. They talk about the issue of vaccines in reference to this particular report, but vaccines apply to every aspect of our society, including issues being debated in many different forums.

What should we be debating today? We could have been debating this. Not necessarily the report, but why did members of the Conservative Party not talk about this more during the budget debate, or the mini budget debate, however one might want to refer to Bill C-14?

It has come to the extreme where the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, had to write a letter to the Conservative leader and say that Conservatives are dragging their feet on important legislation. That legislation will have a positive impact for our tourism industry. As members talk about the—

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question correctly, my colleague wants to know what the legislative agenda will be for the next few days.

Tomorrow morning, we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-14, which would implement certain provisions of the economic statement. In the afternoon, we will begin debate on Bill C-19, which would provide for temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Then, Monday and Wednesday of next week, we will continue the debate on Bill C-19. On Tuesday, we will consider Senate amendments to Bill C-7, the medical assistance in dying law. I would also like to inform the House that Thursday, February 25 will be an allotted day. On Friday that same week, we will begin second reading of Bill C-21, the firearms act.

I thank my colleague for his question.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I am pleased to have the Thursday question. It allows me to talk to him, which is increasingly rare these days.

To answer his question directly, tomorrow we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

When we return from our constituency week on February 16, we will resume consideration of Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement. It is absolutely vital that we pass it quickly.

Wednesday, we will begin second reading of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is also referred to as UNDRIP.

Thursday, February 18 shall be an allotted day.

On Friday, we will start second reading debate of Bill C-13 concerning single event sport betting, as well as Bill C-19, which would provide for temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

I hope all our colleagues have an excellent week working in their ridings.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I also want to thank all the parliamentary leaders for their collaboration in developing a hybrid Parliament that can operate safely. I also want to thank everyone, the Speaker and his team, and everyone else who makes it possible for us to get together and debate.

As for my colleague's question, this afternoon and tomorrow we will continue debate on Bill C-18, an act to implement the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, at second reading.

On Monday, we will have a day of debate on the Standing Orders, pursuant to Standing Order 51. This debate must take place between the 60th and 90th sitting days of a Parliament. We are in that period now, and the debate will take place on Monday.

On Tuesday, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures.

On Wednesday, we will start second reading debate of Bill C-19, which provides temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of COVID-19.

Finally, next Thursday, February 4, shall be an allotted day.

Canada Elections Act

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)