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

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

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

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

The motion reads as follows:

That:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's all I wanted to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I absolutely do. It is a good suggestion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.