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.

Opposition Motion—Elections During a Pandemic

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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, 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.

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 realization 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, in such as 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.