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.

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.