Bill C-19 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response)

This enactment adds a new Part to the Canada Elections Act that provides for temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The new Part, among other things,
(a) extends the Chief Electoral Officer’s power to adapt the provisions of that Act to ensure the health or safety of electors or election officers;
(b) authorizes a returning officer to constitute polling divisions that consist of a single institution where seniors or persons with a disability reside, or a part of such an institution, and to set the days and hours that a polling station established there will be open;
(c) provides for a polling period of three consecutive days consisting of a Saturday, Sunday and Monday;
(d) provides for the hours of voting during the polling period;
(e) provides for the opening and closing measures at polling stations;
(f) sets the days for voting at advance polling stations;
(g) authorizes the Chief Electoral Officer to modify the day on which certain things are authorized or required to be done before the polling period by moving that day backward or forward by up to two days or the starting date or ending date of a period in which certain things are authorized or required to be done by up to two days;
(h) provides that an elector may submit an application for registration and special ballot under Division 4 of Part 11 in writing or in electronic form;
(i) provides that an elector whose application for registration and special ballot was accepted by the returning officer in their electoral district may deposit the outer envelope containing their special ballot in a secure reception box or ballot box for the deposit of outer envelopes; and
(j) prohibits installing a secure reception box for the deposit of outer envelopes unless by or under the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer or a returning officer and prohibits destroying, taking, opening or otherwise interfering with a secure reception box installed by a returning officer.
The enactment also provides for the repeal of the new Part six months after the publication of a notice confirming that the temporary rules in that Part are no longer required to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Canada Elections Act

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

moved that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to begin the debate at second reading of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, COVID-19 response.

Across Canada, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to change the way we live and interact to protect the health and safety of our fellow Canadians. Elections have been no exception.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, Canada has experienced two federal by-elections, four provincial general elections and seven local elections. These elections were delivered in a way that aligned with public health guidelines and sought to provide electors, particularly those who are most at risk of infection, with a variety of ways to safely exercise their right to vote.

With lessons learned from other jurisdictions and building on the recommendations of Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, we have an opportunity to take action to ensure that, should an election be required, a federal election held during the current pandemic can be even more safe and more secure. This is why, on December 10, 2020, the government introduced Bill C-19, which, if passed, would temporarily supplement provisions of the Canada Elections Act in support of a safe, secure and accessible election during the pandemic, again, should one be required.

Bill C-19 would reassure voters, election workers and all other participants that the federal electoral process remains safe, secure and accessible, despite the pandemic. To that end, the bill would give voters unprecedented opportunities to vote during the pandemic, whether it be in person or from the comfort and safety of their home.

This bill is based on the October 2020 recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer regarding holding an election in the context of a pandemic and the work of our colleagues, who carried out a study on the same topic.

Bill C-19 contains four elements that I will explain in greater detail: a three-day polling period, the safe administration of the vote to residents of long-term care facilities, increased adaptation powers for the Chief Electoral Officer, and the strengthening of measures related to mail-in voting.

To ensure that electors who make the choice to go to vote in person are as safe as possible, the legislation proposes spreading the polling period, in other words the voting day, effectively over three days. Instead of one 12-hour voting day, Bill C-19 would establish a three-day polling period, with eight hours of voting on both Saturday and Sunday and the traditional 12 hours of voting on Monday.

Extending the voting period over three days will prevent overcrowding at polls and support electors and poll workers in maintaining physical distancing protocols. Maintaining the Monday would also ensure access to some individuals who may not be able to vote on a Saturday or Sunday. For instance, it recognizes that electors and candidates alike might have religious obligations that inhibit them from voting or campaigning over a weekend.

In addition, maintaining the Monday recognizes that public transit may offer reduced schedules over the weekend and child care options may also be less over the weekend.

With Bill C-19, we are working to reduce barriers for electors with disabilities and electors with young children who may be facing particular challenges during the pandemic.

As the Chief Electoral Officer indicated in his recent report, a pandemic election could complicate efforts to find polling places and recruit election workers. In light of this, a three-day polling period would provide Elections Canada with more opportunities to identify polling places. As the Chief Electoral Officer has stated, Elections Canada may also seek out non-traditional polling places such as arenas or hotels.

In advance of every general election, Elections Canada recruits more than 230,000 Canadians to work at polls across the country. However, as the Chief Electoral Officer highlighted in his recommendations report, recruiting that many election workers during an ongoing pandemic could possibly provide some challenge.

During the 2019 general election, close to half of those workers were 60 years of age or older. Given that this age cohort is at an elevated risk if they contract COVID-19, these people may be less inclined to work the polls during a pandemic election.

Importantly, at least one legislative change made through the 2018 Elections Modernization Act may help mitigate potential recruitment issues. As colleagues will remember, that bill allowed Elections Canada to hire 16 and 17 year olds as election workers, opening up an entirely new contingent that may be open to working at the polls.

Finally, a variety of other in-person voting opportunities will be maintained under these proposed changes. This includes four days of advance polling, with 12 hours offered on all four days as well. To account for the three-day polling period, advance polls would then be shifted to the Thursday through Sunday in advance of the first day of the polling period.

As we all know too well, long-term care facilities have borne the brunt of COVID-19. Many deaths associated with the pandemic have been linked to long-term care facilities and many facilities, sadly, continue to endure outbreaks. In an effort to curb infections, many facilities limited access to outside visitors. This has been hard on families and friends because they have been unable to visit a loved one in person. Lockdowns at these facilities and differing public health orders in effect across the country make it necessary for us to ensure these residents can still cast a ballot should an election be held during a pandemic.

Accordingly, Bill C-19 takes a number of steps that would ensure these electors could safely exercise their right to vote.

First, the legislation proposes a 13-day period prior to the beginning of the three-day polling period that would better facilitate the administration of votes in these facilities. Rather than administer the vote in these facilities exclusively on election day, which is now how residents would have been able to vote in past federal elections, the legislation proposes establishing a lengthier period which the vote could be delivered, for example, by mobile polls. As COVID-19 conditions vary across provinces and territories and from region to region, this period would enable Elections Canada to better plan according to the unique context of each long-term care facility.

Bill C-19 would also allow returning officers to establish a polling division composed of a single long-term care facility or of a particular part of a long-term care facility. This amendment recognizes the existence of dedicated quarantine zones in some long-term care facilities and ensures a positive COVID-19 test will not impede a resident of these facilities from being able to vote.

Taken together, these amendments aim to ensure that senior citizens and those living with disabilities in long-term care facilities, citizens who are among the most vulnerable populations in this pandemic, have safe and reliable opportunities to exercise their right to vote.

At present, subsection 17(1) of the Canada Elections Act authorizes the Chief Electoral Officer to adapt provisions of that act, “if an emergency, an unusual or unforeseen circumstance or an error makes it necessary...for the sole purpose of enabling electors to exercise their right to vote or enabling the counting of votes”.

In the last election, this is one of the powers the Chief Electoral Officer exercised in order to allow workers temporarily residing outside their electoral districts to vote.

However, the ongoing uncertainty generated by the current pandemic justifies broadening the grounds for adapting this legislation.

Under Bill C-19, therefore, the Chief Electoral Officer would have the power to adapt the provisions of the act to ensure the health or safety of electors or election officers.

This amendment is particularly important to protect not only voters but also the election workers and volunteers who dedicate themselves to the democratic process. As I said earlier, Canadian election workers are older on average. If older individuals decide to work once again during a general election—and of course we hope they will—we must do our best to ensure that they can do this important work safely.

Over the last year and during the pandemic, jurisdictions in Canada and abroad that held elections witnessed a significant increase in the use of mail-in ballots: for example, British Columbia and its October 2020 election, the United States' November 2020 presidential election and, most recently, Newfoundland and Labrador's election. In response, Bill C-19 includes measures designed to improve access to mail-in voting. Mail-in voting, which is safe and secure, has been instrumental in providing opportunities to older electors, electors with disabilities, immunocompromised electors and those who are unable to vote in person because of the pandemic.

While electors in Canada have long been able to vote by mail and Elections Canada has significant experience safely administering the federal vote-by-mail system, Bill C-19 proposes specific amendments in anticipation of a sharp increase in mail-in voting. First, Bill C-19 would allow electors to apply to register to vote by mail online rather than through the mail or in person, as is currently the case. Providing this option would not inhibit registering to vote by mail or in person for those without access to the Internet. By allowing online registration, we are simply giving Canadians one more option to register to vote by mail.

Finally, in an effort to further simplify the registration process, Bill C-19 would provide electors with the ability to use an identification number, such as a driver's licence, to establish their identity and residence when registering to vote by mail. Presently, electors are required to provide a copy of their ID when registering to vote by mail, which may inhibit voting by individuals without access to printers, scanners or photocopiers at home. More precisely, it would allow Elections Canada to use information already in its possession to confirm an elector's identity and residence.

In recognition of potential privacy implications, electors would need to explicitly consent to Elections Canada using this identification number to facilitate their vote-by-mail registration. Some electors may choose to register to vote by mail, but with circumstances changing regularly across the country, they may not be able to return their ballot kits by mail in time. In anticipation of this, Bill C-19 proposes the installation of secure mail reception boxes at every polling station across the country.

Bill C-19 would also allow electors who initially chose to vote by mail to change their minds and vote in person. However, to do so, electors would need to either return the mail-in vote kits they received from Elections Canada when they went to vote in person or sign a declaration that they had not yet voted. Elections Canada has a robust series of measures to deter electoral fraud. Returning the mail-in vote kits or attesting in writing that electors had not yet voted would act as a deterrent to any malicious actors and would support the integrity of the vote. These measures would also help create an appropriate paper trail for auditing and enforcement processes.

It is important to remember that we are not proposing permanent changes to Canada's electoral law. All of the proposed legislative amendments that we have outlined are temporary. They would only apply to an election that is called 90 days after this legislation receives royal assent or earlier if the Chief Electoral Officer has indicated that all the necessary preparations have been completed.

Moreover, these legislative changes would cease to be in effect six months after a general election was administered during the pandemic or earlier, as determined by the Chief Electoral Officer after consultation with Canada's chief public health officer.

With Bill C-19, we are maximizing electors' opportunities to exercise their right to vote. If the bill is passed, electors will get four days of advance polling, three days of regular polling and better access to mail-in voting. Bill C-19 would also give Elections Canada greater legislative flexibility and authority to safely administer an election.

In closing, I invite our colleagues to examine Bill C-19 so it can be studied by a committee and amended if necessary. We want to work with all parliamentarians to ensure that elections will be safe and accessible for all Canadians.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, through you, I want to say how good it is to see the minister looking as robust as he does. It is a real pleasure to have him back in full fighting form. Parliament as a whole, and the government, can certainly use his services as I believe he is the longest-serving parliamentarian in cabinet.

I want to ask a question on the issue of non-traditional voting locations and accessible voting requirements. Long-term care facilities frequently have the best accessibility. In some small villages these are the only accessible locations. The Human Rights Commission has required that certain accessibility criteria be met in order to allow voting to take place.

Would it be possible to have slightly less accessible locations in some cases for voting under this legislation? If so, would the government contemplate allowing such a thing to make sure it is possible for people to vote, especially in smaller locations?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I have served on a number of committees together as well as in the House of Commons. On a personal level, I very much appreciate his kind remarks and thank him for that.

Our colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston has a lot of experience regarding Canada's Elections Act. He has been a steady and effective voice on these issues for a long time. I served on the procedure and House affairs committee with him in that context.

Obviously, the government would not seek to reduce accessibility with respect to polling stations, but rather would have faith in Elections Canada by increasing its authority and ability to adapt to an election in a pandemic. We have every confidence it would find the right way for people to vote without limiting accessibility for Canadians living with disabilities.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with regard to mail-in ballots, but I am concerned about people being able to change their minds and go vote in person by simply signing a declaration.

I expect people to be honest. However, some people who mail in their ballots could then vote in person by signing a declaration that they did not use their kit.

I am having trouble seeing how we will be able to prevent this.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Beauport—Limoilou, for her question.

That is an example of the kind of adaptation we would like to put forward. I am sure we all want to eliminate the possibility of electoral fraud. Nobody in the House wants to enable people to cheat.

We believe that signing a declaration should deter people with dishonest intentions. It will be pretty easy for Elections Canada to find out if that person voted, and anyone doing so would be subject to rather serious quasi-criminal prosecution.

However, if the bill goes to committee and my Bloc Québécois colleagues want to amend or adjust that part of the bill, we will certainly work with them. My colleague from Beauport—Limoilou and I are very much on the same page.

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

Madam Speaker, my thanks to the minister for bringing this legislation forward. I think it is an important issue we need to address. I am wondering about his openness to considering amendments at committee. I think there are some important extant issues. Some of these may need to be addressed in legislation, while others may not.

I hope the idea here is to collaborate, so that all parties in the House can agree on the ground rules for a possible pandemic election. If so, there are some things that I wonder if he might consider. In particular, we have seen a lot of online applications for some things throughout the pandemic. We know these are a barrier to many people who do not have the technology or know how to use it.

Is the minister open to having in-person registration for special ballots occur at Canada Post outlets, and maintaining the campus vote program in a pandemic election as well?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona has offered very constructive suggestions in the past with respect to the elections act. It is obviously the government's intention to work with all parties and all colleagues in the House to find the appropriate temporary amendments to the Elections Act that would make an election more accessible and safer for Canadians should one be required.

Are we open to amendments and working with other parliamentarians? The answer is obviously yes.

Voting on campus is certainly a priority for us. We think it is important. I know my colleague has spoken publicly about that. We would welcome an opportunity to work with him to ensure that it is reflected in the legislation.

I very much like his suggestion of allowing people to register at post offices to be able to vote in person. It is something that would make it more accessible in small communities, such as mine in my riding. The post office is a site where people could safely do this, and I would welcome that kind of suggestion.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada will remember that in Guelph we had robocalls a few elections back where Conservatives were calling people in my community saying that election locations had changed. They also went on campus to try to take one of the polling boxes from our campus.

Having consistent polling election locations for the pre-votes and the day of the vote would be important, as are the changes made in Bill C-76 to modernize the Canada Elections Act and have the Elections Canada commissioner be able to communicate to Canadians the best way to vote in their communities, the locations of polling stations, and having some means to promote the vote.

Could the president comment, first of all, on how we can maintain consistency of polling locations, if that is possible, and also how Elections Canada can communicate those to our communities?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, when Frank Valeriote was the member of Parliament for Guelph, I remember that there was some controversy surrounding robocalls and some attempt to suppress the vote in that election.

Obviously I share our colleague's view that having consistency in polling locations increases voter reliability and accessibility.

We would support any enhancements that would allow Elections Canada to properly communicate polling locations to voters. It is precisely why we think it would be helpful if this legislation could be sent to the procedures committee. There, colleagues could offer constructive amendments and suggestions that would improve the bill, while also hearing from electors and Canadians about their experiences to ensure that the legislation reflects the security and safety of elections and that an election would be accessible, should one be required, in the context of a pandemic.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to join other friends in saying how very pleased and grateful we all are to see the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada back among us so well.

I am pleased to see Bill C-19, but disappointed that there is nothing in the bill that addresses an issue of concern to many of us in politics who have endured lies being spread that have been approved by official agents for other parties. These are things that are completely untrue that would not pass in the marketplace for consumer products, for instance.

My colleague will remember that the Green Party and I have pressed for the notion of truth in advertising legislation, such that there are always going to be opinions that are unpleasant. There are going to be attack ads that are unpleasant. Those are freedom of speech issues but—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I did ask for a brief question. There are only 20 seconds left for the minister to respond.

The hon. President of the Queen's Privy Council has time for a brief answer, please.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her kindness and generosity towards me personally. We have discussed this in the past, and I share her concerns about the increase of disinformation, and about attempts to hack elections and election processes.

The Prime Minister has asked me to work with colleagues in Parliament on the issue of disinformation in the electoral context to ensure, as the member said, freedom of speech. It is obviously an important value in an election context, but there is a point where disinformation and malicious actors can attempt to influence the outcome.

I would welcome an opportunity to work with the member and other colleagues on the appropriate way to address those issues as well.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we resume debate, I would like to let members know there is a lot of interest for participation during questions and comments. I would ask them to make sure they go directly to their question or comment, or get there as quickly as possible within the minute mark. If members cannot get to their question quickly, I will unfortunately have to cut them off to allow as many members who want to participate to participate.

We will now resume debate. The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin my comments on this important piece of legislation by sharing some anecdotes from recent federal elections. The names of the two people I am about to talk about are not their real names, but the people they represent are familiar to anyone involved in past elections.

My mind goes first to Sue. She is a loving grandmother who has spent her years tending to her family and household, volunteering for charitable causes in her community and enrolling as a poll worker when general elections were called. Her knowledge of the community and its members is derived from decades of friendship and service.

Her institutional knowledge of the electoral process is the kind that is acquired from working multiple elections at all levels over a lifetime. She is the kind of person that poll workers, scrutineers and volunteers flock to with their questions in search of answers and insight. Without people like Sue, elections in Canada would be a shamble. Her dedication is a credit to our country and is essential to the functioning of our democracy.

Also coming to mind is someone like like Gurpreet. He is a new Canadian, having arrived in his new homeland from abroad about a decade ago. As a poll clerk in his first Canadian election of any kind, he is proud of his role in promoting democracy, standing up for democracy, and ensuring a fair and transparent process of ballot counting and voting.

This is an exciting new experience for Gurpreet, which gives him an inside view of how the Canadian election system works. He has the added benefit of serving as a poll clerk alongside Sue, the seasoned DRO and loving grandmother, whose intimate knowledge of Canadian elections puts him at ease. It allows him to participate and work within the electoral process with comfort, confidence and pride.

Colleagues, these anecdotes are not exceptional. This type of interconnectedness, of community members coming together from disparate backgrounds and various life experiences, such as students, seniors, new Canadians and stay-at-home moms, to serve the rest of us by upholding the integrity in our democratic process is what happens in every federal election in polling places nationwide.

This coming together of the community is important for fostering trust in Canadian elections. The adage that all politics are local is especially salient here. People are more likely to trust their neighbours and friends. That trust is especially important when it comes to counting our ballots and having faith in the outcome of that count.

However, let me be clear: Canadians do not want an election during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the actions taken by opportunistic incumbent provincial governments over the last year, 80% of those surveyed are against forcing Canadians to polling stations at this time. Despite this, we are here debating government Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, COVID-19 response.

Bill C-19 was introduced in December 2020. This was, I might add, before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs issued its recommendation after studying the matter in depth. Putting aside the misplaced hubris of the Liberal-knows-best approach, there are changes in this proposed legislation that do meet the threshold of common sense, but sadly this does not extend to all of them. There are a number of issues in Bill C-19 that have been overlooked.

If an election is held in a pandemic, the protection of poll workers, voters and our tried and true Canadian democratic process is essential. My first point is that, from the outset, I am especially concerned about the provision, or lack thereof, for voting in long-term care facilities and other institutions home to immune-compromised Canadians. These are the places where we have seen the worst COVID-19 outbreaks in this country.

We do not need the grave mistakes of this past year repeated by increasing the time our vulnerable citizens are exposed to the avoidable risk of external transmission. Everyone must be given the opportunity to vote, and clarifications are needed to ensure that those in long-term care facilities have the ability to vote safely. In these instances, polling stations should be open for the minimum amount of time it take for residents to vote, although at multiple periods of time during the 13-day provision mentioned by the president of the Privy Council.

My second point is the glaring issue of the absence of a built-in sunset clause to remove what must remain temporary changes. Instead, we have the following in the bill:

The enactment also provides for the repeal of the new Part six months after the publication of a notice confirming that the temporary rules in that Part are no longer required to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We have been told to self-isolate for weeks upon weeks by the federal government and other governments in this country. We are not falling for that again. The addition of a sunset clause containing a fixed date that these provisions cease to be enforced is required.

My third point is that we need clarity when it comes to proposed powers for the CEO to withdraw the writs of election. It must be made clear to us now, while we debate this bill, how any decision to withdraw the writs would be made. Ending an election midway through is a decision with major ramifications that cannot be made arbitrarily.

Common sense can foresee that any decision to end the election before voters have had their say would sow chaos, confusion, and distrust that would last for generations. With great power comes the great responsibility to explain its use. If we cannot explain to Canadians why the CEO would pull the plug on an election, perhaps we should do likewise and pull the plug on this clause of the bill.

Another significant area of concern is the mail-in ballot provisions proposed by the legislation. Bill C-19, as it is presently written, states that an elector who requests a special ballot:

...shall ensure that the special ballot is sent before the close of polling stations on the last day of the polling period and is received by the special voting rules administrator in the National Capital Region no later than 6:00 p.?m. on the Tuesday following the last day of the polling period.

This would mean that Elections Canada would count a hypothetical vote received as much as 23 hours after the general election polls had closed.

I have heard of ballots being disbursed and cast prior to a general election having been called. This scenario was central to the case of Mitchell v. Jackman, which made its way to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. The main argument in that case was whether it was constitutional for special ballots to be issued to voters in Newfoundland and Labrador prior to a provincial election. It was decided in 2017 that such a rule was an infringement of voters’ Charter rights under section 3, the democratic rights clause.

On the other hand, I am at a loss when it comes to finding an example of an election in Canada where ballots were accepted after the close of general election polls, notwithstanding the present electoral calamity that has befallen Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who are mired in an election that should have wrapped up almost a month ago. Counting ballots after polls have closed is one thing. It is very normal, and it happens in every election. Accepting ballots after the general election polls have closed is another thing. It is abnormal because it does not happen.

If this bill passes in its present form, who knows how long the tallying process will take for millions of mail-in ballots received by Ottawa and, under the current bill, counted in Ottawa. Valid ballots accepted for the count should be received prior to the close of voting. That is why we have an election day. Even in British Columbia, whose recent provincial election garnered notoriety for the 13-day lag time between the close of the polls and the counting of mail-in ballots, it was only those votes received by the close of the polls that were counted.

I agree with the provision for the Chief Electoral Officer to increase the number of elections officers. Arguably, this is something that should have been done in previous elections. It is going to take a coordinated, collaborative civic effort to ensure the proper execution of an election during a pandemic. This is especially true when it comes to special ballots. Once the writs are issued, there should be a large and well-advertised window of opportunity for voters to request a special ballot online within the context of this new extended writ period.

To streamline the process from the beginning when applying for special ballots electronically, voters should be required to provide evidence that they are Canadian citizens over the age of 18 and it must be verified that they are indeed living. There are those on the other side of this place who vilify my party for expecting voters to provide identification. I do not understand this. We must strive to provide as many options for voting as possible. We cannot infringe on the sacred right of citizens to vote, but, quite simply, voters do have to be verified citizens. Elections Canada's current ID verification options are many, so I will not belabour that point.

It is a safe assumption that demand for mail-in ballots will be high in the next federal election, likely the highest ever seen. There is a clear precedent in Canada for giving people a window of opportunity, contained within the writ period, to vote by special ballot.

We all want the next federal election to be conducted with the utmost integrity, as we do for every election, but allowing the receipt and counting of ballots after an election day opens our process up to the speculation of electoral fraud and uncertainty. Special ballots should be postmarked one week before the election period commences in order to be counted on election day. Otherwise, if mail is not an option because of time, special ballots should be accepted at returning offices and polling places in a designated drop-box up to the close of polls on election day, as previously discussed.

Moreover, people trust their friends and neighbours. For folks like Sue and Gurpreet, who I mentioned earlier, sending special ballots to riding offices to be counted by local officials will enhance Canadians' trust in election outcomes, especially when we are anticipating that the next federal election will see an astronomical number of votes by mail. We cannot have an extended period of uncertainty between the close of polls and the ballot count during the pandemic and in a minority Parliament situation especially.

Now is not the time to fundamentally change the way we do elections in Canada. During these unsure times, our institutions must perform at the highest standards. Again, as we saw in British Columbia's election, mail-in ballots will comprise a significant portion of the total vote count, as over 30% of all votes cast in B.C. were by special mail-in ballots.

Virtually all votes cast in the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial election that is currently under way will be by special mail-in ballot. On the federal scale, this could mean 10 million ballots in the mail and possibly more. Banking on sending millions of special ballots directly to Ottawa for processing is a recipe for disaster and delay. Mail-in ballots, although they may be sent from anywhere, should be received and counted in the ridings in which they are meant to be cast. If Elections Canada feels it needs more personnel on the ground in constituencies, it can send more staff as needed, or better yet, it can train the local staff to perform these tasks, as it has always done.

It is an honour and a privilege to stand in the House. Having run in two federal elections, I fully grasp the importance of having local returning officers as administrators and arbiters. In my riding, our returning officer has the ability to bring candidates from across the political spectrum together so that everyone is on the same page when it comes to the rules of the electoral game. I think of myself and all of the candidates in my riding in the last election. We felt more assured when our returning officer brought all the candidates together to sit at a table and hash it out so we were all on the same page. That needs to happen and that is a good thing.

I have the utmost confidence in my local returning officer, and I would place a friendly bet that most of my colleagues here feel the same way in their ridings. I trust my local returning officer to oversee the election in my riding. I have faith that they can also oversee the counting of special ballots cast by the voters I represent. If more special ballots are anticipated than ballots from voters on advance or regular polling days, why not have Elections Canada and its returning officer redeploy staff to handle the special ballot count in each riding?

Local elections must remain local. We do not elect Ottawa representatives for our communities. We elect community representatives to fight for our interests in Ottawa.

The importance of Elections Canada workers and scrutineers from the community cannot be overstated. This ensures trust in the local electoral process, and their involvement in it nurtures the Canadian values of inclusion and diversity. I believe local elections and the participation of Canadians within their own communities build confidence in our institution.

Scrutineers have been a fixture of Canadian elections since our earliest days. They cast a watchful eye on the proceedings of election day, the counting of the votes and on the behaviour of other scrutineers. They report this information back to the candidates they represent. Outsourcing the counting of special ballots to Ottawa is wrong and sets a dangerous precedent. For starters, local scrutineers, who are my scrutineers and my opponents' scrutineers, would not be able to observe the counting of special ballots that will impact the outcome of the election in any given riding.

While national leaders secure much of the spotlight, we must remember that in our Westminister parliamentary tradition, we do not elect a prime minister and a deputy prime minister as is done in republics with the president and vice-present. We elect members of Parliament from unique constituencies across the nation. Every member of the House is accountable to the electorate. We have 338 members. This raises the question of how transparent and accountable the vote counting would be in my riding when we are anticipating that a significant chunk of the votes in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon would be cast by mail and counted by unfamiliar strangers situated several thousand kilometres away in the national capital region.

As my speech comes to a close, I readily acknowledge that the changes to the Canada Elections Act, as proposed by the government, are not meant to be malicious and were made with good intentions. However, we all know where that road leads. The implications of the changes in Bill C-19 are great and wide-reaching. These changes, if adopted, will change the way Canadian voters conduct elections.

If the Liberal government proceeds to make these changes unilaterally, then it will be undermining Canadian democracy. I am assured to hear from the previous speaker that this will not be the case. I do not say these words hyperbolically or inflammatorily. Amending the rules that govern elections in Canada requires buy-in from all parties in the House.

We on this side are open to amendments to the Canada Elections Act to account for the realities of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our system works, but it requires updating from time to time. This is one of those times. I hope the government realizes that and engages all members in a better and more constructive way to get this right. After all, it is from the voters, represented by all members in the House, that the current government and any government derive their consent to govern.

All we have to do is look to our neighbours to realize that Canada's electoral system works best for Canadians. Our system is trusted. As I mentioned in the beginning, it is a system in which folks like Sue and Gurpreet contribute to the integrity of the electoral process and the final results. People trust their friends and neighbours. This is why we need mail-in ballot counting to be done at the local level: in the ridings, at the returning offices in the communities where electors—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry to interrupt. There seems to be an issue with interpretation.

The member for Beauport—Limoilou on a point of order.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, the interpretation cut out for a moment there.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is working now.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me just conclude by saying that if all politics are local, then so too should be the counting of ballots, including those received in the mail.

I look forward to a constructive debate on Bill C-19 and to getting this bill right for Canadians, because it is Canadians who ultimately make the decisions we are discussing today and Canadians should feel they have the utmost confidence in our system.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that Elections Canada, as an institution, is recognized around the world and within Canada as second to no other when it comes to ensuring that people have democratic rights and the ability to vote. That is worth saying.

I have a couple of very quick points. First, ballots would be counted in the riding if sent from the riding. This is a very important point to note. I will also remind my friend that there is a sunset clause to the changes we would be putting in place, which keeps in mind the reason we are bringing in the legislation.

The member makes reference to the withdrawal of writs. This is what my question will address. He has a great deal of concern regarding the withdrawal of a writ and how Elections Canada could do it. Elections Canada will, in fact, be appearing before PROC once the bill goes to committee, and that concern and many others could be accommodated.

When would the member like to see this legislation go to the committee so we can have Elections Canada and others answer the many questions he has?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind members to keep their questions to one minute.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, first off, I do not get to determine when a bill is brought forward to a committee. I think the member has more power over that decision than I would any day.

Second, it is incumbent for me to mention again, after reading Bill C-19 and giving my first speech, that it would give extensive temporary powers to the Chief Electoral Officer. We need to have very clear and transparent schedules available to everyone in this country so they know why a decision would be made and under what context such a decision would be made.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, during the pandemic, there have been some horror stories about CERB and online fraud, with people impersonating other individuals. I am worried that something similar could happen with online voting.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. Does he have ideas for ways to prevent horror stories like those that happened with the CERB?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, one question I was trying to have addressed earlier in this debate was how often voters lists would be updated at various polling stations across any riding. There are a lot of provisions in the bill that need a ton of clarification to ensure there is no fraud and that people are not trying to vote twice.

Elections Canada has the responsibility to always prepare for the worst-case scenario. What we are seeing in Bill C-19 right now is that certain provisions need a lot of clarification in order to provide us assurances that the system will be robust in preventing double voting and electoral fraud.

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

Madam Speaker, I took from the member's speech that a major preoccupation of his is where special ballots are counted. As a member of the procedure and House affairs committee, I can offer a reassurance, given the study we have undertaken for some time now. We heard from both Elections Canada and Canada Post that the intention is to have special ballots counted locally within the riding, so I think that is already foreseen. I take from his comments that he has not had a chance to consult members of his party who sit on the committee, but we heard some pretty clear testimony to that effect. I offer that by way of reassurance.

The member also talked a lot about the receipt date of special ballots and the issue of people being able to vote in person even if they applied for a ballot. We know there may be delays in people getting their special ballot. For people who have applied in good faith for a special ballot but, through no fault of their own, do not receive one in time to be able to submit it in a timely way, it seems important to offer the option to vote in person. I wonder what he thinks of that principle.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question by the member for Elmwood—Transcona. I do not think our positions differ too much on this.

If people apply for a special ballot online and receive that ballot, Bill C-19 would allow them to drop it off in a special ballot box at a polling station. That is a good provision.

From my first reading of Bill C-19 when I was working on my speech, it seemed that all of the special ballots would be counted in Ottawa. I know there is a precedent for that.

I am glad that the member provided me some reassurances from the committee report. However, I want to make sure from this debate that local elections do in fact remain local, because Canadians like having scrutineers of their local elections. They like knowing that their neighbours in the polling station are overseeing the counting of ballots. That is what makes our system strong and what we need to uphold during COVID-19.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could talk of the risks we would be taking by having an election during the pandemic.

I know that here in B.C., we saw a huge spike in cases following the election. Could he speak to those kinds of risks we are putting Canadians to by holding an election during a pandemic?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, my biggest fear about holding an election during the pandemic is what would happen in long-term care facilities, or to someone like my 93-year-old Oma, who lives on her own but receives lots of support from nurses and care practitioners. We need to make sure that any changes to the Elections Act, whether temporary or not, account for the outbreaks we have seen in long-term care facilities in my riding and ridings across this country.

I am very concerned about holding an election during a pandemic and seeing a spike in the number of cases afterwards. I do not know if it has been verified or not, but in B.C., two weeks after the provincial election, we had a big spike in the number of COVID cases in our province.

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

Madam Speaker, I guess we should not be surprised that the Conservatives are trying to sow the seeds of doubt when it comes to mail-in ballots.

The reality is that they did it in committee throughout the entire summer. I was on the committee. I listened to them. The words “fraud” and “mail-in ballots” came up repeatedly from the Conservatives, and also a couple of times from the Bloc Québécois. Equally, I am not surprised to see their doing the same thing.

I can assure the member that we heard from the chief electoral officers from B.C. and from a couple of different provinces on the east coast, and we have heard from experts. I asked the question repeatedly, “Have you ever had any concern about voter fraud with respect to mail-in ballots?” The answer was unanimously “No”. Not a single individual indicated there was a concern with fraud as it relates to mail-in ballots.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sowing any doubt or deceit about our electoral process.

My whole speech focused on the fact that I trust the institution and I trust Sue and Gurpreet and all of the other Canadians who work in our local elections to make sure that our democracy is upheld.

I think our Elections Act is one of the best acts we have. It provides confidence for Canadians. For new Canadians, it is one of the first times they really feel they are a part of this country, that they are a part of something greater than themselves, that the words “strong and free” come true when they see the people come to vote.

We are so proud of the Canada Elections Act. We are so proud to get it right during this debate. We love our country. We want to give Canadians the best opportunity to vote safely.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have time for a very brief question.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I support this bill, but one of the things that I find is missing from it is what we have been asking for a long time, and that is electoral reform.

The Green Party got almost 1.2 million votes in the last election, just short of what the Bloc Québécois got, but they then got 10 times more MPs than us. The Conservatives got five times as many votes as us, but 40 times as many seats.

I am wondering if the hon. member thinks this is a fair representation of what voters in Canada were asking for.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to lie: I am fan of first past the post. It has its problems, but I love my country and I love our democratic system.

I love the way we conduct elections. I love the fact that Canadians have confidence in our electoral process, and I do not want to see that change. I want to see ballots counted locally, by members of my community to ensure that Canadians continue to have the confidence in our electoral system that makes our country so great.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech on Bill C-19, I want to take a moment on this March 8 to commend my colleagues from all parties and thank them for their commitment to advancing equality, equity and parity.

The Bloc Québécois supports the bill in principle. We cannot be against apple pie and against adjusting the provisions in the bill in order to comply with the public health guidelines of Quebec and the provinces in the event that an election is held during the pandemic. In our opinion, the provisions in the bill should be changed, including when it comes to voting in seniors' residences, the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots and the provisions on a three-day voting period.

Let me provide some context for those who are watching us. The bill deals specifically with the right to vote and vote counting. We could have gone much further than this to adjust the Canada Elections Act during a pandemic. Among other things, we could have talked about political party financing. I would remind hon. members that the government's attempt to reform the voting system failed.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley testified before a committee. He said that, in the interests of fairness, we must reinstate the per-vote subsidy as soon as possible. If the voting system is not being reviewed, then we should at least ensure that the vote is not totally lost.

In our electoral system, some people vote for a more marginal party that may have no chance of getting a member elected. Those people should at least be able to contribute through their vote. Through their vote, they would contribute to the fact that a sum of money is tied to the vote they put in the ballot box. An election is a debate of ideas, a democratic debate.

From the very beginning of the election period, there need to be fair provisions that allow for the exchange of ideas. Every party must be able to put its ideas forward. It was no surprise that fundraising has been a little more difficult during this pandemic, in light of social distancing rules. Some political parties dipped their hands into the cookie jar and decided to grant themselves the wage subsidy that was intended for companies. Meanwhile, some sugar shacks in Quebec were denied access to the wage subsidy and are struggling to get by.

It is really something for the government to want to make some minor changes, only to then engage in unseemly behaviour. As of this moment, I do not think that the parties that promised to pay back the money have done so. We need to amend the Canada Elections Act. I think that reinstating the per-vote subsidy would have been the perfect way to ensure that no voter felt that their vote had been wasted under certain circumstances.

That said, we support the principle of the bill, which would make some amendments. The bill provides for a polling period of three days, consisting of eight hours of voting on Saturday and Sunday and 12 hours of voting on Monday. I mention this because if the bill is adopted as is, a lot of information will have to be circulated to voters.

The bill also provides for a 13-day period before polling begins to facilitate the administration of the vote in long-term care facilities and seniors' residences where people with disabilities live. These 13 days plus the three-day polling period add up to a total of 16 days.

Another amendment in the bill would give the Chief Electoral Officer more power to adapt the rules for pandemic-related reasons in order to ensure the health and safety of voters and election workers.

Finally, the bill provides for the implementation of a number of measures to facilitate mail-in voting, including setting up reception boxes at all polling stations and giving voters the option of registering for mail-in ballots online.

That is an overview of what is proposed. The government can hardly wait to call an election, and it was in such a rush that it introduced its bill before the committee that was working on those amendments could even propose measures. The committee report includes a supplementary opinion by the Bloc Québécois, which I would like to make members and others who may not have read the report aware of. By doing a quick survey on the ground and talking to different people, we realized that there could be problems administering the election if the bill is left as is.

The Canada Elections Act is the tool that governs our solemn concurrence in what I call the social contract, which is the right to vote. If a decision is made to amend the act, that fragile balance between the fundamental right to vote and the integrity of the vote must be protected. The right to vote comes with an obligation to prove one's eligibility as a voter. Casting a vote is a solemn act that must be totally free of constraint and undue influence. That is why we have a designated day, a single day on which voters exercise the right to vote.

For some years now, voters have been able to exercise the right to vote pretty much throughout the entire election campaign. This bill provides for four advance polling days, three voting days, 13 days of voting at certain institutions where seniors reside, and the option to vote every day up to 34 days before voting day in the case of a 36-day calendar. That means a lot of opportunities to vote. We must ensure that none of those opportunities results in irregularities. I am not talking about deliberate fraud, but certain problems could arise.

Mail-in ballots are currently offered to people who are outside their electoral district. The current wording of the act provides that these people can vote up until 6 p.m. on polling day, but the bill would allow mail-in ballots to come in until the day after polling day. I think this could cause some problems. We have to consider this carefully. We have to ask ourselves why, during a pandemic, we are talking about three days of voting, when people can vote at any time during the campaign or on the four advance polling days.

There is also the matter of voting on weekdays. Why choose Monday when, during a pandemic, we absolutely need locations and logistics that allow for social distancing during voting, because a lot of people are going to travel to vote?

The choice of Saturday and Sunday was welcomed and requested by the Chief Electoral Officer, who, by the way, has the expertise and understands these logistical problems. Every election, he is the one who has to find election workers, as well secure voting sites that make suitable polling places.

Speaking from experience, I can say that in Quebec, holding the vote on a Monday in addition to Saturday and Sunday means the polling location would have to be changed, unless the same location can be used all three days. School gymnasiums are typically used as polling places, and it would be easy to use them. However, Quebec school boards do not rent out their facilities on Mondays, either during pandemics or under normal circumstances. We would therefore end up in a situation where we would not have enough polling locations to hold a safe election. As I understand it, the purpose of Bill C-19 is first and foremost to make elections as safe as possible.

It will also be important to clarify what will happen during the 13 days leading up to the three polling days in certain residences. Our seniors must be given enough time to vote, period.

Looking back at 2019, in some seniors' residences—and I am not necessarily talking about long-term care homes—advance voting took place, and there was only one polling day. All those individuals had ample time to go to the polls without any problem. I have no problem with adding two days, but how can we ensure a secure presence for 13 advance voting days and three polling days? Why should other people be encouraged to go into seniors' residences?

Having spoken with some seniors, I can say that they are not very keen on the idea at the moment. I think the returning officer might have some serious logistical problems organizing that. Obviously, returning officers would be the ones to decide, since they are being given the power to do so.

The other problem is the number of mail-in ballots there will be. A person might request a mail-in ballot because they can vote any day. Voters can currently vote any day at the returning officer's office. If I want to vote on the fifth day of the campaign without leaving home, I think that I would request a mail-in ballot. This would eliminate the problem of having too many people in one place. I imagine that the votes would be counted, that a list would be kept up to date and that the person would not be able to go to the advance poll.

There are also the people who would want to vote in person and those living outside the riding. Where will the votes be counted? The counting should obviously be done within each riding.

However, what happens when a person has requested a mail-in ballot but, for whatever reason, has forgotten about it? Once a person requests a mail-in ballot, they are removed from the voter list. They cannot go to an advance poll or vote during the three days currently provided for. If, for whatever reason, the person goes to the polling station and says that they did not mail in their ballot, will they be stopped from voting?

If they make a declaration and are allowed to vote when they have already cast their ballot, we have a problem. Furthermore, this vote cannot be subtracted from the tally. The ballot is secret, so there is no way to know who they voted for. With regard to mail-in ballots, we must at least be able to ensure that the vote will remain confidential.

We could have discussions about that. I hope we will be able to reach a consensus. However, I do not think it is necessary to extend the mail-in voting deadline to Tuesday in order to count the votes after the fact.

There is a better way to avoid the situation I am talking about. Since people will have been able to vote in advance one week before, those voting by mail could have up until the Friday prior to the polling period to submit their mail-in ballots. This would make it easier to tell someone that their mail-in ballot has been received and that they cannot vote again. The different parties could verify this. It would therefore be impossible to vote in person and by mail. Furthermore, even if the voter were punished, what would happen with that vote? It would already be in the system. Why even allow for this kind of anomaly? Even if there is minimal risk, one fraudulent vote is one too many, especially since this can be avoided.

We must, in general, be cautious. Let us send this bill to committee, look things over and, most importantly, follow the advice from the Chief Electoral Officer, because we will need election workers. It is quite common these days for election workers to be over the age of 60, but there could be some resistance during this pandemic.

Sure, vaccination will do its thing, but this all depends on when the election is called. We must therefore make separate plans unrelated to the vaccination efforts. We need to find the best plan for the election workers.

The Chief Electoral Officer pointed out that people who normally work on Mondays would be available to staff the polls if the election were held on a Saturday or Sunday. We must take these technical and logistical considerations into account if we wish to succeed.

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

Madam Speaker, the member raised a number of interesting points.

First, I do not think there is a rush on this legislation. We have been in a minority government for a year now. An election can theoretically be called at any time and we need to prepare and be ready. Hopefully, we will not have to use the tool that has been developed, but I think Canadians would expect us to be ready for that.

To his issue about Saturday and Sunday versus Monday, having been on the committee, we heard from a number of witnesses. There was concern for people who would have to get child care on weekends so they could vote. There were concerns from people in the disability community, who said they had better options for getting around and accessing polls on Monday. There were also concerns for a whole host of reasons. I think that is why the minister has proposed the three days, including the Monday.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure my colleague asked a question, but it is 100% clear that any person who might have trouble getting to the polling station will have the opportunity to vote during the four advance polling days, which also happen on weekdays. Also, anyone who expects to encounter any difficulty can vote any day. I think all the bases have been covered to ensure a prudent approach and to give returning officers all the tools they need to ensure secure balloting at their polling stations.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could reflect on the risks of calling an election when the circumstances of the pandemic could change quite dramatically in the middle of it. We saw a situation in Newfoundland when there was some shifting in the middle of the election.

Of course, we are dealing with the possibility of new variants. The public health orders that may be required under certain kinds of circumstances with respect to number of cases and so forth may need to be tightened under other circumstances. To me, this really speaks to how irresponsible the government is in its push, it seems, to have a spring election. I wonder if the member could comment on that as well.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, anyone who gets out there and talks to people or meets with them on Zoom knows that nobody wants an election because people have other things on their minds. Still, it is up to the government to make that call.

Actually, I do not understand why the voting process and counting the votes are the only issues dealt with here. Why was the issue of allowing candidates to collect electronic signatures for their nomination not addressed? For the same reason my colleague mentioned, it is clear that Bill C-19 would have to be amended to cover that if a snap election were to be called during the pandemic before we have herd immunity and enough people have been vaccinated.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, beyond the safety and security problems that might arise from a snap election, I wondering about the fact that the legislative measures would be temporary and would apply only to an election called 90 days after the bill received royal assent. Often, however, temporary measures brought in by governments become permanent ones. Is it possible that this could happen here?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, it would be hard to ascribe motive at this point.

I think we should start by voting for the principle of the bill to adapt to the context of the pandemic and then clarify the intentions of the bill and improve it clause by clause in committee.

If it is indicated in the bill that these provisions are temporary, then they will obviously disappear from the Canada Elections Act with no problem. In contrast, it would take another bill to make the provisions in Bill C-19 permanent, if that was what was called for.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Montcalm for his speech.

A person could request a mail-in ballot but not receive it on time. It could happen. I think that allowing a person to retain the right to vote in person if they do not receive their ballot is important.

I know that the hon. member expressed concerns about the provisions of the bill on this. What does he think of the principle of allowing a person who does not receive their mail-in ballot to keep the right to vote in person and not lose the right to vote?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

That is a very good question, Madam Speaker. That is the main reason why I think that the committee members should review the rules and ensure that the cut-off for mail-in ballots is the day before the three-day polling period, or the Friday.

The person cannot go and vote as soon as they request a mail-in ballot. If it is clear that the vote was not received by the Friday, then the person would have two days, or maybe three, to go vote in person, and there will not be any problems.

That is why I think that the cut-off for mail-in ballots should be the night before the polling period begins.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things this bill does not address that I think should be addressed is with respect to the confidentiality of people's votes.

I hear more and more from Canadians who are concerned that in some way, the way they have voted will be known to the general public. What is not specifically addressed here, particularly as we go to more and different ways of voting, is how the confidentiality of one's vote would be secured and maintained.

I wonder if my colleague has any thoughts on that.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is what I was alluding to when I said that we need to make it easier for people to exercise the right to vote while maintaining the integrity of the vote.

However, I take comfort in knowing that these measures are valid only during the pandemic. I do not believe that mail-in ballots should become a permanent measure. The vote is secret and we need to continue to preserve the solemnity of exercising the right to vote so that people are not subject to intimidation or undue influence.

We do not know anything about what happens from the time the ballot arrives at people's houses and the time they put their ballot in the mail. We also do not know what happens when they are voting. This approach is only acceptable because we are in the midst of a pandemic. It would be worse if people were unable to vote at all. However, this is not a measure that should be used at any time other than during a pandemic. What is more, it is up to the government to decide whether it wants to call an election during a pandemic.

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

Madam Speaker, before I jump into my remarks on Bill C-19, I want to take this opportunity on the floor of the House to recognize that it is International Women's Day. I also note that today we are debating two different bills. We are debating Bill C-19 right now, which is about pandemic elections, and the government plans to call Bill C-24 in the afternoon, which is about dealing with the economic consequences of the pandemic.

Of course, we know that the pandemic has had a disproportionate influence on women in Canada, particularly in its economic impact, because those in the caring economy and those working in low-wage jobs have seen a disproportionate impact on their finances. I think it is important not only to recognize the general importance of International Women's Day but also to recognize its importance in the context of the debates we are having today in the House.

On Bill C-19, I am very glad that it has finally made it to the floor of the House of Commons. As far back as last June, I had reached out as the NDP's democratic reform critic to the other parties to try to get a conversation started on this issue. Unfortunately, that did not happen over last summer, but it did begin finally in the fall, in the procedure and House affairs committee.

For Canadians who are interested in this issue, both reports by the procedure and House affairs committee and the testimony that is on the record there would be a benefit in trying to get a better handle on some of the issues that are at play and some of the very real challenges that Canadians and the country would face in the event of a pandemic election. That is why the NDP has worked hard in this Parliament to make Parliament work and to try to find and broker compromises that would allow us to respond to the needs of people here in Canada to get us through the pandemic and to make sure that partisan politics are not distracting us from that very important task.

When it comes to the bill itself, I will say that the procedure and House affairs committee has heard consistently that there needs to be more flexibility than our current system allows, and in a few different ways, in order to make sure of how things will progress if we have a pandemic election. Of course, we have heard from many sides of the House today that the best way to protect both public health and our democracy during this pandemic is to avoid having an election.

We know that it takes effort on all sides of the House, but principally we need a government that is willing to work in good faith with the other parties in order to define its path forward and to define its pandemic response. We have seen the government do this at various times during the pandemic so far. We have been able to find that path forward, and I think that as long as that spirit of collaboration persists on the government benches, we will be able to continue to find that path forward until it is rightly and properly safe to have an election and let Canadians decide what they liked, what they did not, whose interventions they appreciated and whose they did not, and what they want in terms of a government as we get out of the pandemic and get on with the recovery in earnest.

What are some of the things that Bill C-19 would do?

Bill C-19 would grant an additional adaptation power to the Chief Electoral Officer, which we think is a good thing. There is clearly going to be a need to adapt some things on the fly, as it were, in response to emerging conditions. We think it makes sense, because the Chief Electoral Officer already has power to adapt the act, that we would add public health explicitly as a consideration that the Chief Electoral Officer could take into account when exercising that power to adapt.

There are some moves in the right direction in terms of long-term care and trying to clear some of the legislative roadblocks to conducting a vote safely in long-term care facilities. I am not sure that the bill addresses all of the issues there, but certainly being able to have one polling station per institution, which the legislation currently does not allow for, is an important change. This would provide flexibility for Elections Canada in order to make sure that legislative requirements would not cause Elections Canada either to require the same people to move from institution to institution—which clearly is not a good idea during the pandemic, and in many cases not consistent with local public health orders—or, just as bad or worse from the point of view of democracy, to cancel a polling station in a long-term care facility because of an inability to do it at one facility only.

One of the important themes to bear in mind for members as we debate this legislation and for Canadians as they consider this larger point about a pandemic election is that our job is twofold: It is not only to protect public health, although it is obviously also that, and very importantly that, but to protect democracy as well.

If we have an election during the pandemic that succeeds in protecting public health at the expense of people not voting, either because their perceptions and fears about personal health cause them to choose not to participate or else because people who would choose to participate face insurmountable barriers in doing so, then we would have failed. It is not enough to simply protect public health; we also have to protect our democracy. That is a difficult thing to do, and that is one of the reasons that it is better if we do it in a preventive way by working well at the job we were elected to do, which is to defend the interests of Canadians, and prevent the triggering of an election in any event.

Of course, the NDP has asked many times in this House for the Prime Minister to commit to not unilaterally calling an election, which is now consistent with the recommendation in the final report of the procedure and House affairs committee. We have not had that commitment yet. I think that would go a long way to reassuring Canadians that we are not going to find ourselves in the unfortunate situation of a pandemic election.

There are some other things that the bill would do. I know my time is even more limited today than usual, given some of the proceedings of the House earlier today, but I do want to speak to some of things that have yet to be addressed in the legislation. By way of challenge, I would note something that the minister also noted in his lead speech on the bill, which is that these provisions are only set to come into force 90 days after this bill receives royal assent—in other words, after it passes through the House and the Senate and then gets the final nod from the Governor General.

That is an important point to bear in mind when we are addressing the general theme of a pandemic election: Even if the legislation were to pass and receive royal assent today, which of course is not going to happen, we would still have to wait another 90 days before an election could be held under these new rules, as opposed to the existing ones. That is important to mention. Although I appreciate that it will take time for Elections Canada to bring these new measures into force, I think it is important to the general point of getting better reassurances from the Prime Minister and the government about whether we will have an election or not. As much as some people in the House will like certain things about this bill, even if we were to pass it today, it would not be in effect for some time, so there is clearly a need to be working in collaboration for some time to come so as to avoid an election on the existing set of rules, which I think are not adequate to the circumstances.

I also know that there has been a lot of talk about whether we should accept ballots postmarked by election day, whether the cut-off should be election day for mail-in ballots and whether the cut-off should be the Tuesday after the election day, as this legislation foresees. There is something I want to put on the record about this point, because I think there is more than one way to solve this problem. I think the best way will be the one on which we can find as much agreement as possible. I beseech members in all parties to keep an open mind about this, because it is a very difficult circumstance.

I do think that having a hard cut-off point for when ballots are accepted that corresponds to election day really does put us in a risky situation. Some people may have applied in good faith for a ballot and did not get it in a timely manner and did as much as they could to ensure that it would get to Elections Canada.

This is recognizing, of course, that doing as much as they could will be different for different people. It matters whether someone has their own vehicle and whether the person is able to drive or not. It matters whether or not they have someone in their support network who can get them to a designated drop box outside a returning office. It matters how easy it is for them to get to the local mailbox, which can vary depending on the weather. There are all sorts of things that come into play. It is not like a normal election.

I want us to ensure that people who apply for a special ballot but do not get it in time, or who are not able to get it in the mail or the drop box in time for other reasons, are not deprived of their right to vote. This is because I think we have a double duty here both to public health and to democracy.

It would be tragic if a number of Canadians were not able to exercise their right to vote because of administrative complications and deadlines beyond their control. I do think it would be harder to meet the normal deadlines of an election we are used to if we have a pandemic election.

I call for some open-mindedness on that, as we go forward. I am sure it will be the subject of some debate at committee when the bill finally gets there, as I am confident it will. The discussion is not over, and I think it is important that we perhaps at least agree on some of the guiding principles for that conversation before partisan lines get drawn too starkly in the sand.

I do think there are a number of things that are not addressed in the bill that ought to be addressed. For instance, there is the question of how to collect nomination signatures. Everyone in this House knows that 100 signatures from people who live in the riding are needed in order to be officially nominated as a candidate with Elections Canada. Usually that is done by going door to door with sheets of paper and pens. That is not going to make a lot of sense in the context of a pandemic election, so we need another way that is appropriate and safe to do that.

This bill does allow for people to apply for a special ballot online. While I think that is a great thing, a great tool, and that it will be wonderful for the people who are able to avail themselves of that because they have the technological literacy and the equipment in their own home, I am very mindful that there are a lot of people for whom that technology is not accessible. Those people are going to need to apply in person without having to print the documents at home.

We in the NDP recognize that we have an incredibly valuable resource at our fingertips, which is Canada Post. It has a number of postal outlets in every community across the country with people who already check ID for other reasons. I think it is well equipped to be a space for those who need it to go and apply for a special ballot in person.

We encourage the government and Elections Canada to look very seriously at leveraging that network to ensure that people can access their right to vote, if the time comes when they will be required to do so. Whether that is best done in the legislation or not is a question we are open to discussing, but seeing a commitment to that is important in recognizing all the people for whom online is simply not the best tool.

We have talked a little bit about the campus vote program. There are obviously some different opinions about whether that ought to continue, but we heard from student representatives at committee. Students very clearly continue to live and work on campuses, and we can increase access to the vote if we maintain that important program. It ought to be done.

I think one of the other things that we need to see, which I am sure Elections Canada will be addressing in its own way, is that we should know if there is anything legislatively required in order to do this in the best way before we approve the bill. There is the question of scrutineering in long-term care facilities. As much as we have talked a bit about how to staff those, there is still the question of having scrutineers come in.

Those are my initial thoughts. I can see the Speaker is anxious to get on with the orders of the day. Thank you very much for your grace in allowing me to conclude.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona for cutting short his speech. He will have another six minutes when we return to continue, and finish, his argument.

The House resumed from March 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona has six minutes left for his speech.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the House again to complete my remarks on Bill C-19. The last day we were debating the bill, I spoke to some of the content of the legislation with respect to what it proposed and some of the areas for improvement that I hoped could be addressed at committee.

I expressed then, and I will express it again now, my desire to see the bill proceed quickly to committee. While it is important for a number of reasons, it is no secret to anybody in the House that this is a minority Parliament, and things can sometimes move quickly in minority Parliaments. We could end up with an election and it is important we be ready for that should it come.

However, I also emphasized, and I want to emphasize again, the extent to which it really is incumbent upon all members of Parliament at this time to work to avoid an election. As a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, who participated in the study on what a pandemic election might look like, we heard very clearly that there were a lot of risks, and they are not just public health risks.

There is a real risk of disenfranchising people and having Canadians who want to vote either decide that they should not because it is too much of a risk to their personal health or they might face other barriers that do not have anything to do with an immediate risk to their personal health but present barriers nevertheless. That might be around transportation options to get to polling stations and other kinds of challenges that people have faced as a result of the pandemic.

What is important to bear in mind is that when all of us were elected in the 2019, the pandemic was not on our minds. Nobody saw this coming. However, we were each elected with a responsibility to be leaders in our community and to speak for our community. For as much as there have been disagreements on many things, and rightly so, and I think that is what people would expect in Parliament, there has been, and ought to continue to be, an overriding sense of responsibility to work together.

There is obviously a really important leadership role for government in that, to continue to have an open posture to consult opposition parties. I, frankly, think it did a better job of that during the early days of the pandemic and it issued in better policy. As the government apparently gets more interested in an election, we see some signs of that here and there in the things the Liberals say, both about Parliament and in the way they have behaved in Parliament, as well as some opposition parties.

We also see it in what the Prime Minister has been saying to his national executive and even in some of the speculation about the date announced for the budget, which is later than many people expected. It happens to coincide nicely with the timing of a pre-summer election should the Prime Minister desire it. There are a lot coincidences happening, and that is the most charitable way to put it.

It would be a mistake for the country to have an election at this time. Different COVID variants are popping up different in parts of the country. We just saw the experience in Newfoundland and Labrador where an election took much longer to complete than anybody expected because the nature of the pandemic changed mid-election and the date was pushed back many times

It is disconcerting that the Prime Minister continually refuses to say that he will not unilaterally call an election. He can make that commitment. If we end up in an election, at least let it be because things actually fell apart in the House of Commons. However, the Prime Minister continues to retain his ability and will not pledge not to use it to go to the Governor General and cause an election.

Parliament has already demonstrated that spirit of collaboration. The fact is that we are having a budget in April 2021, but did not have one for the entire year of 2020. The estimates, which are owed to the House under the Standing Orders, were significantly delayed. This is a sign that Parliament has been willing to accommodate the government and recognize the extraordinary nature of the times we are in.

Parliament has shown a lot of flexibility. It has not always been easy and it has not always been a fun process getting there. It has had its fair share of criticisms from people on all sides, which is fair enough. It is a Parliament and that will happen. The point is this. If we look at the outcomes, we have been able to get enough good outcomes for people to ensure that financial distress and bankruptcy was not the overriding narrative of the pandemic for most Canadians. There are other things we can and should be doing and the place to have that debate is in Parliament.

We were all elected to bring those views to the table and to do our best work to advance solutions on behalf of Canadians. I do not see a reason why that work needs to end. I would be reassured greatly if the Prime Minister were willing to say that much himself and refuse to call an election unilaterally. I will believe it when I see it. In the meantime—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up. I am sure he will be able to add to that during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary ultimately responsible for reaching out and trying to pass this legislation through, I want to extend my hand to anyone who has input and would like me to take any form of action in support of passing the legislation. I have been committed to doing this for quite a while now.

I agree with the member for Elmwood—Transcona that in a minority situation we need to be ready and should be ready. Where I disagree is with the member's assessment of today's Parliament. All we need to do is look at the destructive force we witnessed yesterday from the opposition parties in trying to force standing committees to do certain things.

My question for the member is this. Would he also acknowledge that Elections Canada does have a mandate to be ready, and it will be ready? Hopefully, this Parliament will be able to help facilitate a healthier, safer election, whenever that might be.

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

Madam Speaker, on the first point about what happened yesterday, if we examine the list of Liberal private members' bills and motions, what we often see is a long list of mandated studies for committees. This is not a new thing and it has been a frustration to many. I invite the parliamentary secretary to look at the Private Members' Business of many of his own members. What he will see are instructions to committees from the House. I find it weird that he would have a principled objection to that. Perhaps the Liberals should have a discussion in their House leader's office or at their caucus more appropriately about the nature of Private Members' Business their members ought to put forward.

On the second point about Elections Canada being ready, we certainly heard at committee during the study on pandemic elections that Elections Canada would do everything it can to run its—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I know there may be two questions, but there is only one minute for a response.

Questions and comments, the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his work on the procedures committee, which studied the recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer. I wonder if he could comment briefly on what he thinks of the government tabling this legislation before that committee has had time to make its recommendations.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a bit of a different take on that one. In my my, it was important that the government table legislation before Christmas. I thought it was important that the bill proceed in a spirit of collaboration and that MPs from different parties needed to know what was in the mind of the government with respect to its initial proposal. Otherwise, it would have tabled it at the last minute and the criticism would have been that it had sat on these changes and nobody had time to give input. It was better that it put its best foot forward earlier so there was some time over the break to think about what it had proposed.

It is unfortunate it took so long to get to the debate on Bill C-19. There are a lot of reasons for that. I acknowledge that it was not just because of the government that this happened. It was been better to have a longer conversation with more information rather than less and that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The bill provides for a three-day polling period. However, the Bloc Québécois thinks that two days, Saturday and Sunday, would have been sufficient. As for mail-in voting, that will occur over a very long period, and under the bill, ballots can even be received until the day after polling day, which would delay the announcement of the results and could create uncertainty. All of these things create a risk of electoral abuse, and so I would like to know what the member thinks about that.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the biggest risk of uncertainty regarding the election results comes from politicians who say that people should be uncertain about them.

In many countries, the official election results are not known until one or even two weeks after the election, and that is not the end of the world.

We could take the necessary measures to ensure the security of the ballots while they are being counted, which would give a bit more time after voting day. However, that is something that would have to be more thoroughly debated in committee, which is why I want this bill to be sent to committee as quickly as possible.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, what concerns does the member have around this legislation being passed in a timely manner so if the Liberals do call an early election, it is a fair one?

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things that Canadians need to know about this bill is that there is a clause that says its provisions will not come into effect until 90 days after the bill passes through Parliament, which includes the other place not just the House of Commons.

If anybody is thinking about having an election before the summer, it may well be too late already under these rules. I do think the proposed legislation, and particularly after some improvement in committee, will make for a much better election, both from the point of view of public health but also from the point of view of ensuring that people who want to cast their ballots have their voices heard, that their votes count and that they get them in the ballot box.

It is really important that these modifications are made in case we have an election. It is already probably too late for an election that would occur before the summer. I would like to hear the Prime Minister commit to not calling an election before the summer.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, is a real warrior on interesting issues such as the convention for moving from a House to an election.

I really want to ask him about one of the missing pieces, which I was surprised was missing, and that is the physicality and the COVID risk of collecting the signatures. Usually our volunteers go out to collect those signatures, as we have to have 100 signatures on paper. I know from provincial colleagues that this was a problem in the pandemic. Could the member comment on that?

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

Madam Speaker, this is a really critical issue. The committee should be taking this up as one of its priorities for the legislation.

People in the House will know that I am not a wallflower when it comes to criticizing the government. However, if we look back to Bill C-76, it was a very combative way to change the Elections Act. The approach so far seems to be different, and that is important. It creates the space for the committee to do good work on this and other issues to get some changes on which we can all agree, and then proceed on that basis.

I remain optimistic in respect to this legislation that we should be able to find a path forward and get good rules in place to protect both public health and democracy in the case that we do have an election. The best option is to not have an election right now. It is not a good time.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think it is very clear that the government desperately wants a pandemic election, because it is focused on its own political interest.

Part of the argument the government is making is about Parliament not working. What we have seen is the opposition working very collaboratively to get key spending bills passed, especially in the early phase of the pandemic.

Also, we do see cases where opposition parties are working together to get things done that the government does not like. We saw it with the creation of the Canada-China committee, the Uighur genocide. We have a motion at the foreign affairs committee on COVAX which the government is filibustering.

Does the member have a comment on the fact that if anyone is hurting the work of Parliament, it has often been the government that has been trying to delay things on which opposition parties are actually working together?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that, when someone has the floor, it is a bit rude to be going back and forth across the aisles to make a debate.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona has just a little under a minute to respond.

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

Madam Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which is currently undergoing a filibuster by Liberal members who do not want to have a vote on a particular motion that has to do with the WE Charity scandal, I am certainly attuned to the ways in which the government is also causing dysfunction when it suits its political purposes.

That is why I reiterate that we all have a responsibility, as MPs, to try to rise above that kind of stuff, do our jobs and keep the focus on people. That includes trying to avoid an election right now, because there are serious risks to both public health and to our democracy. We do not need a political crisis on top of an economic and public health crisis, and the best way to avoid that is to not have an election. We need to think differently about the way we might have approached our jobs in the last Parliament and in the early days of this one.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kings—Hants.

I am happy today to discuss Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response), tabled last December. This is an important piece of legislation that would create more accessible voting options for all Canadians. More precisely, I will outline the ways in which this bill seeks to temporarily enhance mail-in voting for electors should a general election be required during the pandemic.

We have seen during this pandemic how important accessibility is. We have even taken accessibility measures in the House, through the use of Zoom video conferencing and voting by app. Mail-in voting is a safe and accessible option for all Canadians. According to research conducted by Elections Canada, it is expected that up to five million electors would choose to vote by mail for an election during the pandemic. In comparison, approximately 50,000 electors opted for this during the 2019 federal election. This is only 1% of the turnout that could be expected during a pandemic.

Jurisdictions inside and outside of Canada that have had elections during the pandemic have witnessed a steep increase in the use of mail-in ballots. Many electors, particularly those who are most vulnerable, choose to vote in this manner because it is safe and secure. The existing federal mail-in vote system is no different, and nothing in Bill C-19 would change that.

At the same time, we need to be prepared for an expected surge in mail-in ballots, which is why Bill C-19 includes new mail-in vote measures. These measures would strengthen the current mail-in vote system by facilitating the use of this voting method for all Canadians, thereby ensuring the health and safety of electors who feel more comfortable voting from home.

In my riding of Richmond Hill, we have a large population of seniors who would greatly benefit from an expansion of mail-in voting measures. I facilitated a community council in Richmond Hill that specifically targeted advocating for seniors. One of the major concerns I have constantly heard regards engagement. The pandemic has isolated our seniors from their communities, their social circles and the government. Expanding mail-in balloting and making the process simple would ensure that our seniors do not become more disenfranchised.

Bill C-19 would temporarily establish four new mail-in vote measures: First, electors would be able to register online; second, mail-in ballot boxes would be installed at polling stations; third, electors would be able to use an identification number in lieu of a copy of their ID when registering; and fourth, electors would still have the option of voting in person even after registering for mail-in voting.

The first measure would enable electors to apply online to register to vote by mail, thereby allowing them to avoid in-person voting. This would be a critical option for those electors with significant health concerns. In addition, while online registration would provide electors with the opportunity to participate in the election process from their homes, individuals without access to the Internet would still be able to register to vote by mail. For those who are not comfortable registering online, the option to register by mail would still be available. In this way, we would not be limiting options for electors, but expanding them with an option to register for mail-in voting.

Bill C-19 would also see mail reception boxes installed at all polling stations. This measure would recognize that some electors who register to vote by mail may be too busy to return their ballot kits by mail. To support limited in-person contact, we would be providing electors with a secure and convenient means to deposit their ballots.

The third measure would provide electors with the opportunity to use an identification number instead of their ID to establish proof of identity and residence when registering to vote by mail. This measure would make it easier for electors to register to vote by mail-in ballot, especially our most vulnerable who face significant health risks.

I would note that this, like all elements of Bill C-19, is a temporary measure in which electors must consent to the use of this data when registering with an identification number. To protect against voter fraud, Elections Canada is required to hold relevant data on electors.

Lastly, with Bill C-19, electors would still have the option of voting in person even if they had already registered to vote by mail. Electors who chose to do so would have to return their mail-in ballot kits after registration or sign a declaration stating that they had not already voted by mail-in ballot. We want to help ensure the integrity of the vote this way.

Canada's federal voting system is robust, with measures already in place to safeguard electoral integrity against fraud. Elections Canada has a long history of experience administering the mail-in voting system, with extensive integrity measures and safeguards. There is no evidence to suggest that the current system enables widespread voter fraud or poses concerns for ballot security.

It is responsible to assume that an expected increase in mail-in voting may trigger the need for the chief electoral officer to adapt provisions of the Canada Elections Act during the pandemic. As such, the proposed increased section 17 authorities would allow the CEO to respond accordingly should new challenges or circumstances arise. Taken together, these measures seek to address our unprecedented times by providing extensive opportunities for Canadians to vote. We are building on a mail-in voting system that is expected to see a surge in use.

I would encourage hon. members to support this legislation and send it to committee, as mail-in voting will experience an unprecedented surge that we need to proactively address. The sooner this bill goes to committee, the sooner we will be able to do a substantive review of it, send it to the other place for approval and implement these measures before any election may be called during the pandemic.

The measures outlined in this legislation aim to do so with strength and efficiency and will support electors voting from the comfort of their homes. These measures are imperative in assuring that we do not put vulnerable Canadians at risk while also limiting large election crowds in public spaces such as schools, community centres and religious spaces, where voting booths are usually located.

In closing, in such challenging times, Bill C-19 provides ways to ensure that citizens can safely and widely participate in the electoral process.

I thank all members and urge them to support this bill and send it to committee.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to a point that was raised just before the member's speech. It was from the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who talked about the act being implemented 90 days after receiving royal assent. There is a provision that would allow the chief electoral officer to do so sooner, at their discretion, through the Canada Gazette, which takes me to my point and my question.

This bill is obviously coming forward because of the advice and some recommendations from the chief electoral officer, who is asking Parliament to make some changes if an election were to happen.

How important does the member opposite think it is that we make sure these measures the CEO is asking for are implemented in due course?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important for us to look at the bill in a substantive way. I believe that Elections Canada has already received input and done extensive consultation, and it is well on its way to making sure that procedures are put in place to ensure that we have an open, democratic and safe election.

There is a legislative piece that we are following, but there is also a preparation piece. With the committee recommendations, and Elections Canada itself doing a lot of consultation, it would be in a position to parallel the process and make sure that if an election was called during the pandemic, we would be able to hold a democratic and safe election.

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud to be a member of the procedures and House affairs committee, which actually tabled a report just a month and a half ago regarding elections in Canada during the pandemic. I was very concerned when I saw this piece of legislation come out prior to the report. The report provided excellent information, including a recommendation not to have an election during a pandemic, yet we know that Liberal campaign offices are already set up in the GTA.

Can I ask this member of Parliament for his thoughts on when he thinks the election will be called by his government?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the most important thing is that our government's focus has remained, from the beginning, on making sure that we are keeping Canadians safe and that we are making sure they have the supports they need.

Our focus remains on making sure that we do that. As we look forward to the budget on April 19, our focus remains on Canadians' safety and on making sure that they have the support they need.

On the other hand, we all have to be ready for an election. That is the nature of a minority Parliament. We are doing our part. As the government, we are making sure that our focus remains on people, on Canadians, on their safety, and on making sure that they have support.

As elected members in a minority Parliament, our job is to be ready. The government is ready, and we have to be ready. Being ready is good.

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

Madam Speaker, we heard several recommendations in committee, including one to hold the election over several days.

Holding the election on the weekend would make it easier to recruit election workers, especially young people, because the older people who usually work the polls may have more concerns about doing so.

What does the member think about the idea of holding the election on weekend days rather than on Mondays?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, all the work that was done at the committee is not lost. The sooner we get this bill to the committee, the sooner we can take all of that into account.

Second, the reason we are proposing to extend it over three days is safety. We want to make sure that Canadians have an opportunity to effectively participate in a democratic process while we keep them safe. That is all it is.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I continue, I just want to remind members that whether someone is participating virtually or in the House, when that member has the floor, he or she should have the respect of their other colleagues in the House. Colleagues should make sure that there is no other debate going on in the House. If members wish to debate the issue at hand even if it is not their turn, I would ask them to wait, stand and try to be recognized, or if they want to have side conversations, that they step out of the chamber to do that, out of respect for all members of Parliament.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to speak to Bill C-19, which is an important initiative that would authorize Elections Canada to organize a safe election should one be called during this pandemic.

As we all know, COVID-19 has affected nearly every aspect of our lives. Canadians from coast to coast to coast have made and continue to make big sacrifices to protect one another. We have had to rethink things we once took for granted, things as simple as getting together with family for dinner.

Around the world, events have had to be cancelled or postponed. Nobody is happy about that, but these measures are essential to limiting the spread of the virus and, of course, saving lives. However, we also have to see to the health of our democratic institutions. We have to make sure that, if a general election were to take place during the pandemic, the whole process would be safe for voters, volunteers and, of course, election officials.

A number of countries held general elections as planned, despite the pandemic, while others chose to postpone them instead. Several of the countries that proceeded with their elections implemented strict public health measures, such as mandatory masks, physical distancing, and the distribution of hand sanitizer and disposable gloves to voters.

Consider the example of South Korea, which was one of the first countries that held elections during the pandemic. This example proves that elections can be held safely during the pandemic, since there were no new infections linked to the election. Still, we must not bury our heads in the sand. Holding an election during a pandemic like the one we are currently experiencing will not be without challenges.

We are fortunate to have a world-class election administration agency here in Canada. For 100 years, Elections Canada has done an outstanding job of providing Canadians with the best possible service so they can choose who will have the honour of representing them in the House. I am confident that, if necessary, Elections Canada would conduct a safe election despite the pandemic. That being said, we have an opportunity to give it additional tools to better ensure the safety and health of voters and election workers.

Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with regard to COVID-19 response, would accomplish exactly that temporarily and would be applicable only during this pandemic. It would allow Canadians to exercise their right to vote safely while maintaining the integrity of our electoral system.

Firstly, we have to think about the most vulnerable among us, those who live in residences and in many of the long-term care facilities across the country who have been especially hard hit by COVID-19. The bill provides for a 13-day period before voting begins during which time returning officers can work with the facility directors to ensure that the people who live there can vote safely.

Secondly, the bill would grant an additional adaptation power to the Chief Electoral Officer to allow him to respond effectively to unforeseen circumstances caused by the pandemic. Currently, section 17 of the Canada Elections Act allows the Chief Electoral Officer to adapt provisions of this legislation to allow voters to vote or to allow the votes to be counted.

The proposed temporary measure would broaden the scope of section 17, allowing the Chief Electoral Officer to adapt the provisions of the legislation in order to ensure the health and safety of the voters and the election workers.

Third, to promote physical distancing and avoid overly long lines at the polls, Bill C-19 would create a three-day polling period consisting of a Saturday, Sunday and Monday. These two weekend days would add a total of 16 hours of voting to the 12 hours on Monday, which would allow voters to choose the most convenient time for them to vote. In addition to ensuring the safety of our voters, this measure would maximize opportunities for people to vote.

Last of all, given the success of mail-in voting here and elsewhere, the bill will empower the Chief Electoral Officer to improve access to this manner of voting in several ways.

Elections Canada estimates that up to five million voters could choose mail-in voting if elections were to take place during the pandemic. To meet this demand, the bill provides for the installation of secure reception boxes at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer and authorizes every polling station to receive online applications for mail-in ballots. The identification numbers will be accepted as proof of identity for these applications.

Furthermore, it would allow voters who have requested a mail-in ballot to change their minds and subsequently vote in person. Certain conditions are attached to this measure to protect the integrity of the electoral system.

In conclusion, this bill will give Elections Canada the useful tools required to safely administer an election during the pandemic. I invite my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that we have Liberal members speaking to this bill, because from what I understand, the minister responsible for this legislation has actually sent a letter to the Conservatives saying that they really want this debate to collapse in only an hour.

We feel it is legitimate to have some debate on this issue in Parliament, but there seems to be a dissonance between what the minister responsible wants and what individual Liberal members are doing, since most of the time for debate today is being taken up by Liberal members giving speeches.

How does the member explain his decision to give a speech today at the same time that his government is telling everybody else not to speak because they want this debate to collapse?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is quite evident that Liberal members do not want this debate to collapse. We are here to have discussions and the necessary debate that is required, and of course to move this legislation as quickly as possible to committee. The reason is clear: It is that we want to make sure we have a framework in place in the possibility of an election.

This government does not want an election, but as everybody in the House and all Canadians know, we are faced with a minority government. If an election happens, then we will deal with it, but we will have the framework to make it happen.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal members keep saying they do not want to call an election in the middle of a pandemic, and of course the Prime Minister has that right. He can actually not call an election if he does not want to do so.

The truth of the matter is that in the middle of a pandemic, we should not be having an election. Will the member support that no election would be called unless there is a crisis situation, such as a budget not passing, for example, and that only on a confidence vote failing would an election be called?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleague knows well that this government, since March 13 of last year, has been fully focused on this pandemic, this crisis at hand. We have focused on individuals, families and the business community. We have focused on Canadians, all Canadians. As she knows, we brought forward the CERB for individual Canadians, the wage subsidy to support not just businesses but also individuals working in those businesses, the business account and the Canada recovery benefit. We have supported various industries that are struggling harder in this pandemic than others.

This has been our focus, and we will continue to support Canadians, as we have done since we formed government.

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

Madam Speaker, the existing legislation states that mail-in ballots must be received by voting day, but the proposed amendment indicates that the ballots could be received afterwards. Does the member think that this could create uncertainty in the results? In addition, does this provision show a lack of confidence in Canada Post, in some way a rejection?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

We need to set the process up for success. I think that the option to spread the vote over three days could be a solution. We have learned a lot from this pandemic. We have identified the problems and figured out where to make improvements.

Elections Canada estimates that this measure could apply to five million votes, but it is highly likely that all votes will be submitted and counted on election day. At the very least, everyone will have the opportunity to have their say, and that is exactly what our government wants. We want to ensure that Canadians can vote and give them as many opportunities to do so as possible.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-19, the election in a pandemic bill.

What I would say at the outset is that Canadians do not want an election in a pandemic. The only people who want an election in a pandemic are the Liberals, because they are putting their partisan interests over the health and safety of Canadians.

The polls reflect what I am saying. The polls on whether Canadians want an election, and when they want that election, show that 47% of Canadians want it in the fall of 2023, as it is scheduled, and 10% would want it in 2022. A full 70% of Liberal supporters want it in 2023.

The Prime Minister needs to listen to Canadians. We have seen the disastrous things that have happened in the country when B.C. and Saskatchewan had their elections. There were huge spikes in COVID thereafter. I know some people believe that is only related to the Thanksgiving weekend, but the timing of the elections was very suspicious as well. We see what happened in Newfoundland and the fact that the COVID situation can change. We have seen that across the country. Regions can have spikes, and all of a sudden, they are in a difficult situation.

It is incumbent upon us as leaders to listen to Canadians, and to put their health and well-being first. First and foremost, I would say we need to do everything we can to not have an election in the middle of a pandemic. It is ridiculous to think that people cannot travel, but we could have a federal election, or that we would have areas on lockdown, but think it is okay to have a federal election. I cannot make the point too strongly that we must not, as leaders in this country, put people in jeopardy.

In terms of the proposed changes, I thought I would speak to those one at a time. The first change I want to talk about is extending the number of voting days to have voting periods on Saturday, Sunday and Monday. The whole purpose of this legislation is to try to protect the people who are working the election and the voters. Every measure we could put in place that would allow more time and more spacing between people would be very helpful.

There was some discussion about whether there would be bus transportation on those weekend days in some areas. However, the fact that the traditional Monday is retained would address that concern.

There were also some concerns expressed about the fact that churches are operating, some on Saturday and some on Sunday, and that this might have an impact on polling locations. I think it would be incumbent on the government to consider changing the time the voting stations would be open on the Saturday and Sunday in order to not eliminate those locations that would have quite a bit of space and would be conducive to COVID protocols and that kind of separation.

The next change would be the granting of additional powers to the Chief Electoral Officer to do a number of things, such as extend vote times up to midnight, increase the number of election officers at a polling station, determine what is satisfactory proof of identity and residence, adjust the timeline of election tasks other than polling days, and do whatever is needed to address health and safety.

I understand that we need some flexibility because the COVID situation is dynamic, but there needs to be some kind of oversight in order to protect a tried and true democratic process. Canadians have confidence in our process, and I think potentially having the oversight of a member representative, for example, one from each party that is represented here in the House, might be a good way to get a balance between giving the electoral officer the ability to be flexible to react to COVID situations and making sure that any changes that are put in place are felt to be fair by all.

In terms of the voting hours being extended to midnight, the only concern I have there is that in some ridings, such as my own, many people working the polling stations are seniors. If they had to be up multiple nights until midnight, that could be taxing on them, especially in this difficult period. That is something to think about.

The changes would go into effect 90 days after royal assent, but the Chief Electoral Officer could accelerate that. In speaking to some of the returning officers across the country, they have already been trained on these changes, even before we have talked about it here in Parliament, which I do not think is acceptable. Certainly a conversation should be held with the Chief Electoral Officer as to how much time they need in order to make sure they would be prepared. That is something the committee could consider when the bill goes back there.

The writ period being slightly longer due to the additional days is not necessarily a bad thing because, with all of the mail-in ballots we expect to see, perhaps an increase from the current 50,000 to five million or even 10 million, we need to make sure there is enough time to get those ballots out to people who request them, and for them to mail them back.

We know with the volumes we see around Christmas that sometimes there are delays with Canada Post, so that is a consideration. I would strongly recommend that we go to the longer electoral writ period. I certainly think that was the testimony of the Chief Electoral Officer and many of the stakeholders that were heard at PROC.

Another change would be that the location of polls could be changed as long as it is published on the chief electoral web page. We need to be very careful with that one to make sure that people do not get confused about where they need to go to vote.

Having reception boxes installed at each of the polling stations to receive mail-in ballots is a very good idea. This is going to make sure that people who have left it too late or are concerned that the ballot may not arrive in time through Canada Post because of the volume, can go to the nearby polling station and deposit those mail-in ballots. This is something that was tried in the B.C. election and was very successful. I really think it is a great idea.

In terms of allowing mail-in ballots to be counted after the election if the Monday is a holiday, I would say that we have a tried and true election process. Canadians have confidence in it. We do not have the same issues they have in other places, and we have to be very careful not to make any changes that are not needed in order to protect people from the COVID-19 pandemic. With the measures such as ballot boxes at the different polling stations for late mail-in ballots and things like that, this is really not something that is needed.

Allowing an electronic application for the mail-in ballot is something that people will want. The only thing that needs to be considered is the fact that many people, some of whom are seniors, will not necessarily have a printer with which they can photocopy their ID when they have to mail back their package. Some consideration of how that is going to be addressed from the point of view of capacity would be good as well.

As to long-term care institutions, we heard testimony at PROC that they were looking for the minimum amount of time and the minimum amount of interaction to minimize the risk from COVID. The legislation says that there will be 13 days for voting in long-term care, but not to exceed 28 hours. That is really much longer than what the long-term care folks wanted. They had envisioned people from Elections Canada coming in to potentially administer the vote from room to room to room for those who did not choose a mail-in ballot.

In addition, some of the folks I have spoken to have said that, should there be an election in a pandemic, they would want to make sure that the people working the election could have priority access to getting vaccinated, if they so choose, before the actual voting days. That is another consideration.

Rapid tests was another topic discussed. The use of rapid tests to ensure confidence that those going into the long-term care facilities did not add risk would be something to consider as well.

In terms of things that were not considered in this legislation that should be fixed or added, the sunset clause is in the summary, but it is not in the bill. There should be some statement that says whether we want these changes to be permanent, or whether we want these changes to fade after the pandemic is over, or some kind of provision like that.

I appreciated the point made about collection of signatures by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, with candidates being required to have those 100 signatures and that in a pandemic that it is probably not the best idea. It is going to be more difficult to do.

We should be looking at all the procedures related to candidates. Scrutineering would be another one. It is not clear in the legislation how we are going to do that, but one of the things that gives people confidence in the process is that there are scrutineers. If they have to stand six feet away from people, logistically, will they be able to see the ballots? How will we address that?

Concerning these mail-in ballots, I understand there was an error in the legislation and that the English version says something different from the French version, and that the Speaker clarified that the French version was correct. The local returning office is going to be where those mail-in ballots go. Depending on the volume there, how many people will be needed to scrutineer? Those details are not in the legislation, and so certainly that is a consideration to keep in mind to maintain the high confidence Canadians have in the electoral process.

We want to make sure that the mechanism to prevent double voting is in place. With the local returning offices being involved, they will then have a very easy way to take the voter's list and, once people have requested a mail-in ballot, to make sure that unless the mail-in ballot is returned, they would not be able to vote at the polling stations as well, and that sort of thing. That would be very important.

The main thing about this bill is that we want to protect the workers and the voters, and we want to do that in a way that continues to uphold the confidence that Canadians have in the electoral process in Canada.

I am a little disappointed that the Liberals introduced this legislation without waiting for the report from the PROC committee. That committee heard testimony from a lot of different kinds of people, from the disabled to our first nations people, on a lot of the specific considerations that would be needed to fine-tune this process and make sure it is suitable for every Canadian to have equal access to vote. To make sure that the process is well understood, one of the considerations when it comes to implementing a change is that the changes have to be well understood, or there will be confusion and people may not want to vote.

Let me just summarize again that Canadians do not want an election during the pandemic. They have been clear about that. We need to do everything that we can. I see committees being filibustered and some of the antics that are going on, which slow down the work that committees are trying to do. That is not helpful. We need to work together, as Parliament, and get through this pandemic. That has to be the priority and it behooves us to make that the case.

The additional thing I wanted to talk about was the changes for health and wellness. I do not think we have enough definition around that and the additional powers with the electoral officer. That will need some consideration when this goes to committee.

It is worth hearing from some of the stakeholders again to better define things like the long-term care facilities and how we are going to do that, especially with those on lockdown. What are we going to do in that scenario? There is more conversation to be held, but I see my time is up.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have just a little over six minutes to continue her speech the next time this matter is before the House.

The House resumed from March 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up debate on the motion, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton had six minutes remaining in her time for comments. There will be time for questions and comments after that.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here and to recap the brilliant first 13 minutes of my speech in the last six minutes that I have.

First of all, with respect to an election in a pandemic, the most important point is that Canadians do not want an election in a pandemic. The most recent Ipsos poll on April 21 said that Canadians, in the majority, thought that it would be unsafe and unfair. It is important to take their views into account.

The Prime Minister clearly wants an election, and this is why the Liberals are spending so much effort ramming these bills through, and talking about the stalling and the delaying. At the end of the day, we want to put the health and safety of Canadians over that partisan interest.

Ontario is in lockdown, and some of the other provinces are similarly struggling with COVID-19. We have hotel quarantines. It is not safe to fly. Certainly with all of those messages out there, it would be hypocritical to try to hold an election in a pandemic.

In terms of the bill and the changes that are proposed, let me just give a little tour through the things I like and the things that I do not like. We have a tried-and-true democratic process in Canada. Canadians have had confidence in this process. I think we should minimize the changes that are proposed. If we need to do something to protect the health and safety of voters and workers, those are good changes. If the change does not support that, I am not sure we want to tamper with a process we all have confidence in.

The three-day election period is a very good idea. This would give more time for people to get to the polls and allow for COVID spacing protocols.

I like the idea of the ballot boxes for mail-in ballots at the polling stations. This was tried in the B.C. election and was very well received. With the expectation that there would be huge numbers of mail-in ballots, this would help address the capacity. If people leave it late, and they are worried that Canada Post would not deliver their ballot on time, they could drop it off at the polling station.

I like the electronic request for mail-in ballots; that is a great, progressive thing. As I understand it, the methodology is going to be that if people request a mail-in ballot, they would then not be eligible to show up and vote at the polling station. They would be taken off the polling station lists. That is a good way to prevent double voting. That is not specifically in the legislation and is something that should be detailed. That is the right protocol. I have spoken to many returning officers, and they have already been trained on these changes and that is their current understanding.

There are things I do not like in this bill. There are additional powers for the Chief Electoral Officer to make changes. I do not take issue with some of the specific ones that are cited. However, there is an overarching sense that he could basically do whatever he wants for health and safety; that is a bit broad. I would like to see some oversight from each of the parties that are participating in the election. That would be a great way to make sure that changes that are warranted are approved by the oversight, and that would keep us on track.

I have difficulty with counting ballots after election day. We have always counted everything right up to election day. I think people have confidence in that. We do not want to do anything to open the door to even perceived influence in our elections. The interesting thing is that in the bill, it says it would only be done if the Monday of the election was a holiday. However, that is not the understanding of the many returning officers I have spoken to. They think they will count them if they show up by Tuesday. That is a clarification that needs to be made, both in the legislation and in the training.

The other thing, obviously, is to correct the English-French discrepancy. In the French it said that the ballots were going to be counted in the national capital, and in the English it said it would be done at the local returning office. My understanding is it is going to be done at the local returning office. I think that is the right place for it in order for them to be sure they have controlled who is requesting a mail-in ballot. They are sending out the kits, and they will then know who is not eligible to vote at the polling station. That is the way to go.

What is missing in the bill? There is a sunset clause in the preamble, but it did not make it into the bill. The government says these are temporary measures. How temporary? There is no description of what we are going to do about scrutineers and making sure that scrutineers are able to observe the process, especially with the COVID distancing.

The returning officers have been asked to prioritize vaccinations for the elderly or election workers. That is something that should be considered. It does not necessarily have to go in the bill.

A recommendation to change the hours of voting on Sunday will really limit the number of locations. We want those polling locations to have a lot of space so that they can do the COVID protocols, but if they start at 9 a.m. on Sunday, many churches will not participate. Putting that timing from 2 p.m. until 9 p.m. might allow more location flexibility.

There was a proposal for electronic voters lists so that at every polling station, somewhat like they do provincially, we would be able to see who is off the list. That would be good. What to do if what happened in Newfoundland occurs here? We definitely need to see that contingency plan and I did not see that in the bill.

It looks like that is the end of my whirlwind tour.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Conservatives are engaged in making it easier and safer to vote as we go through uncharted territory. I am very concerned about the idea of political parties having direct oversight minute by minute during an election, although it begins to explain why the Conservative were so nervous when the Reform Party was created.

I keep hearing Atlanta Republicans talking every time Conservatives start talking about the election. On that point, the member opposite raised the concern that we would have an election right now. Could she explain why her party is so worried about having an election right now? Conservatives have yet to vote confidence in the government in one single opportunity. In fact, they are the ones triggering the election every time they vote no in a confidence motion. I do not mind the debate disagreeing with the Liberals, that is their job, but if they are afraid of an election, I would think they would not vote to have one every time they put their hand up in the House of Commons.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that we are not at all afraid of having an election, in fact, we look forward to the opportunity to get a strong Conservative majority in this country. However, Canadians need to be listened to and they have been clear that they do not want an election. The government tabled this bill in the House before the committee was even finished consideration of this, so it is clear Liberals are in a hurry and we all know why.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for her speech. I would like to know what she thinks about election day.

One of the recommendations that was made was to extend the polling period to three days, by holding the election not just on Monday but on the previous Saturday and Sunday as well. That would make it easier to find people to work at the polls, particularly young people, who would not be in school. It would also make it easier to access more potential polling locations. In order to facilitate social distancing, we might need more polling stations.

Would it have been useful to incorporate that recommendation into the bill?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

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

I think it is a good idea to have more polling stations. Since churches hold services on Sunday mornings, we might have to add some morning time slots, around 9 a.m., or afternoon time slots, around 2 p.m. Those are all things we need to think about in order to have a lot of choices regarding polling locations.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indigenous communities face historical and structural barriers to voting. The pandemic has aggravated these challenges and obviously poses new ones. Does my colleague believe that Elections Canada should conduct special consultations with indigenous communities to ensure that voting is safe and accessible for them?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I sat on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and listened to testimony from some of our indigenous folks who did raise these concerns and do need to be consulted. That would be a great idea. We know that especially rural and remote places and places where we have had extreme outbreaks have specific concerns and those concerns need to be heard and addressed so that they have the ability to vote.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-19 is giving the Chief Electoral Officer full rein to make any changes to the way the election is conducted as he sees fit to support the health and safety of Canadian voters.

Would the Chief Electoral Officer be able to incorporate the changes that do not pass in the House of Commons that we do not like, if he has full reins? What other types of things can he make decisions on, given there would be no oversight?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concern. Because it is not defined what exactly the electoral officer could do, for health and safety reasons, theoretically they could have the power to do anything at all. That is not good because, definitely as has been pointed out, there are some changes that would need oversight, so I would like to see something happen on that.

The other thing that would be difficult is that if they changed polling stations at the last minute and there was not enough communication, people could be confused about where to go to vote. It is important to make sure that does not happen.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for really great insight into where she sees absences in the bill. I note, as she does, that most Canadians do not want an election in a pandemic, and that was the recommendation as well from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, PROC.

Elections Canada has focused on what it is like on voting day, but I do not think it has paid adequate attention to what it is like in a campaign, particularly for candidates collecting their 100 signatures on their nomination papers, which, we all know, have to be very carefully vetted. My colleague, the leader of the Green Party of Saskatchewan, had a terrible time with her volunteers and how to collect what are basically paper forms when they are keeping six-foot distances and are masked. Has my hon. colleague given any attention to that part of the elections process?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was one of the things that was written down on my paper that I did not quite get to. This is very important.

The signatures are supposed to indicate that there are enough people in the riding who want the person to present themselves as a candidate. That could be done electronically. Certainly these are the kinds of progressive moves that we would like to see to move into a digital age. I look forward to seeing that addressed, as well, when we take this to committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member had made reference to voting past Mondays. I just want to make sure that we are clear. From the government's perspective, ballots would only be counted on Tuesdays if it is after a long weekend.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the clarification that is needed. However, my worry is that in discussion with several returning officers, who had already been trained on this legislation even before it had been discussed in the House or amended at committee, they are under the impression that they will be able to count any ballots that come in on Tuesday. Therefore, that retraining or clarification needs to go to them as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that we all recognize the importance of scrutineers and, like the member mentioned. there is nothing in this about scrutineers. What would the member's suggestions be on how we should perhaps amend it, or what we should be doing to ensure that we have those additional volunteers available?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly when it comes to scrutineering and we think about trying to keep six feet of distance, one of the difficulties would be to be able to see the ballot. Are we going to have to do something in terms of hooking up cameras on the process and having viewing screens? That is one possible solution. If they are going to have multiple scrutineers in the same spot, that makes it even more complicated. I do not have all the answers, but it is definitely something that is worth thinking about, because we want to make sure that people continue to have confidence in our tried-and-true democratic process.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that student federations have fought hard to have polling stations on campus, and this has increased voter turnout of students by 10% since 2010. Does the member support maintaining polling stations at campuses to provide students with safe and accessible voting?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having those polling stations at colleges and universities improved student turnout. However, I was a bit alarmed when I talked to my own returning officer and heard that they had taken a decision that they were not going to do that in this election. I wonder whether that is common across the country or is just specific to my riding. That is an excellent question.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation.

I did not hear her speak about voting in seniors' residences. I would like her to comment on that.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

The committee heard witnesses speak on long-term care homes. They indicated they would like a shorter voting period, which Bill C-19 does not provide for. I therefore believe that we should make an amendment to provide for as short a voting period as possible in long-term care homes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would like to congratulate the members in this last round for having kept strictly to their speaking time.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, the government's legislation designed to make changes to the Canada Elections Act in the case of a potential pandemic election.

Over the past year, Canadians have changed much about what they are doing every day. They have changed how they do grocery shopping, how they do their work and how they socially interact with one another. In the same way, we have to start thinking about how we might change how we hold federal elections to reflect the realities of the pandemic. This is especially important in a minority Parliament, where things are not quite as stable as a majority and elections are a little more frequent.

Before I get into the government's legislation, it is important to note right off the bat that the government should not unnecessarily jeopardize the health of Canadians through an election. This pandemic continues to put a strain on all Canadians, and the last thing they need is the government putting their health on the line because the Liberals think it is good for them politically. Canadians are doing their best to keep their families safe and healthy, despite the challenges of COVID-19. Unfortunately, the government has already, on multiple occasions, threatened to send Canadians to the polls, risking their health and safety, instead of answering questions about the failed elements of its pandemic response or its ethical scandals. I was happy that, when this was discussed at the procedure and House affairs committee, the Liberal members actually agreed with this and included it in our final report.

Sadly, it seems as though the Liberal members of that committee do not hold much sway with the PMO. I only say this because, even though the government knew that PROC was working on a report that would help inform its legislation, the minister bypassed all the work of the committee and introduced Bill C-19 without taking any of the expert testimony into account. Some members of the procedure and House affairs committee are now talking about a prestudy of Bill C-19 that would rehash a lot of the same ground covered in the initial study. This suggestion could only make sense because all of the evidence was ignored the first time around.

However, with that discussion out of the way, I am happy to get into the meat of Bill C-19 and discuss the positives and negatives of it. I always try to look at things fairly, and I can honestly say that in my time as an MP I have not shied away from saying there are things in a bill that are not okay. Even if I do not like the whole thing, I like to try to find good in legislation from all sides. Members could even see that last night with the budget, and there are some good things here in Bill C-19.

For example, I am happy to see the inclusion of multiple voting days, which would be called a “polling period”. Having more than one voting day would help ensure that Canadians can come out to vote in as normal a fashion as possible, while still spacing out timing and physical distancing. Another flexible option we know already exists in Canada is the opportunity for mail-in ballots. However, in previous elections this method has not been used to the extent that we expect would happen in a pandemic election. The Chief Electoral Officer has said that we could see five million mail-in ballots if the government calls a pandemic election. We need to make sure we are prepared to receive and process these. We have spoken to Canada Post and it has assured us it is ready; we need to make sure we are ready as well.

The Chief Electoral Officer is responsible for making sure Canadians know that mail-in ballots are an option. However, Bill C-19 would offer a helpful way for Canadians to be able to apply for their mail-in ballot online. To be clear, Canadians would not be able to vote online, only to apply for their hard-copy mail-in ballot. As I am sure Canadians agree, a pandemic is certainly not the time to consider massive new sweeping changes to the electoral system, such as online voting. However, allowing Canadians to apply online for their special ballot would be a positive change to help enhance flexibility.

Another positive addition of Bill C-19 would be the installation of reception boxes—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will interrupt the hon. member for a moment.

I see the hon. member for Niagara Falls on a point of order.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the interruption, but I believe my colleague was going to indicate that she would be splitting her time with the member for Calgary Skyview.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Skyview.

As I was saying, the boxes that would be at these stations would help folks like our seniors who may not feel safe going inside a polling station on election day but may be okay to go for a quick drive to drop off their ballot. This would also be a great thing for people who, like me, have last-minute things. If the ballot has not been mailed, they could still ensure that it gets counted in the election by just dropping it in that box.

The Chief Electoral Officer is working hard to make sure that Canadians remain safe in an election. However, I have some concerns about the suggested expansion of his powers in Bill C-19. While some of these suggestions are definitely reasonable, some of the more major shifts lack robust accountability. Unfortunately, some of the mechanisms in Bill C-19 would give the Chief Electoral Officer too much latitude to make significant changes without being accountable to Parliament.

Of course, during an election, Parliament is dissolved, so how can we make sure the Chief Electoral Officer remains accountable? At committee, we made the suggestion that the CEO should take certain actions only with the agreement of the Advisory Committee of Political Parties, which is struck under the Canada Elections Act. This is certainly not a perfect solution, and I would be happy to hear other solutions. There are definitely other ways in which the CEO could be more accountable instead of making certain decisions unilaterally, and this is just one.

Although I think very highly of Mr. Perrault and I trust that he will do his best in a very difficult situation, I am also sure that he shares my desire to ensure that there is absolutely no doubt when it comes to election results. In fact, there are a few parts of Bill C-19 that I feel would unnecessarily cause stress for Canadians regarding the outcome of an election.

The aspect of Bill C-19 that I have the most concern with is the willingness of the government to accept mail-in ballots after the polling stations are closed. This delay opens up a window of time when Canadians could feel uncertain of the results as mail-in ballots are counted. As we have seen in other elections around the world and even at home, confusion around election results is almost never helpful. These kinds of delays would cause Canadians anxiety and stress, and they would bring a sense of frustration around our democratic process.

We know that our election processes and procedures can never be absolutely perfect, but Canada's system is extremely reliable. However, we must do everything we can to ensure that Canadians have faith that the system is working well. If we introduce new delays that disrupt the system, I fear that it would create unnecessary frustration instead of promoting faith in our institutions. In my opinion, it would be better to ensure that all ballots are received and counted on the final day of polling. That way, Canadians can have an election night that feels normal, for the most part, one where the results are announced right away and Canadians can process that information, instead of waiting around for votes to be counted over a number of days.

Some of my colleagues will certainly say that allowing an extra day for mail-in ballots to be counted is necessary to make sure that we capture as many as possible. I agree with this idea in principle. However, we know that, unfortunately, there will always be late ballots, no matter how late we push the deadline, just like in a normal election there are always people who arrive at the polling station just a little too late. I have faith that the vast majority of Canadians are capable of completing their ballots and submitting them on time, to be counted by the end of the last polling day.

I also have a lot of questions for the government about how it created its plan for long-term care homes, and hopefully we will have more discussion on this. Bill C-19 would allow polling stations to be opened in long-term care homes 13 days prior to polling days, and these polling stations would be allowed to be open for a total of 12 hours in that 13-day period. This seems a bit of a strange solution to me.

Instead of expanding the level of access that Elections Canada workers have to long-term care homes, I believe that it is more important to make sure that Elections Canada workers are vaccinated and tested for COVID-19 and are actively limiting any potential transmission to long-term care residents. This likely means having fewer Elections Canada workers entering these homes. The government needs to make sure that these workers pose as small a risk as possible to our long-term care residents. To that end, the government must consult with long-term care experts to do right by our seniors at this time.

I will conclude, as I often do, by using the concrete example of my parents. My mom and dad are young at heart, especially my dad, but like many elderly Canadians, they need to take steps to make sure they stay healthy these days. I am happy that Bill C-19 offers people like my parents flexibility around voting through multiple voting days, mail-in options and other flexibilities.

In these uncertain times, it is more important than ever that people like mom and dad have clarity around these measures and have the confidence that they will be safe if they go to vote. It is our job as parliamentarians to make sure that Canadians can feel safe voting and that their vote counts. Some of the changes of Bill C-19 help that goal, and others hurt that goal. I hope we can really look into this bill at committee to make sure we can get it right. I look forward to this important work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to hear the Conservatives talk about this government bringing on an election. We are in a minority Parliament right now. The government does not control the agenda. As a matter of fact, the Conservatives have routinely been voting against confidence motions when it comes to the budget and other items. They are the ones who are dangling an election over Canadians' heads right now.

The member is on the PROC committee, and I was on that committee with her for quite a while. That is great. She knows the value of digging into the details of this at PROC and looking for solutions when talking to various stakeholders. Does she think that we are going to be able to get this to the PROC committee any time soon? Is she looking forward to a vote on this? Can she guess when that will be?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting because our critic just had her first opportunity to speak on this bill this morning. As a member of the PROC committee, I am just getting my turn as well. Let us not tell people out there that we are working on this bill when this is the first time we have gotten to speak on it. Let us change the direction there.

Let us go back to the fall of 2020. I am sorry, but twice the government put forward opportunities for votes of confidence. People like me are being asked to vote against something that I clearly cannot support, such as supporting an overwhelming $1.4-trillion debt to Canadians, to my family members and to my grandchildren. I cannot pass that legislation, so maybe, in turn, the government can put forward something that is worthy and perhaps work with all parties to ensure that we have good, healthy legislation that is good for all Canadians.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. She always has a positive attitude and a smile on her face.

I would like her thoughts on this. At present, the Canada Elections Act prohibits the transmission of surveys or any form of advertising on polling day. Given that this bill proposes a three-day polling period, does my colleague agree with our interpretation that the Canada Elections Act will have to be amended to reflect that?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting with the three days of polling. I wonder if that is turning into the advertising. I am not sure which way the member is going on this, if this is the three days of polling when we close down advertising to ensure that people would not be advertising on election day. We know that fines were put out, just yesterday, even to the parliamentary secretary, who deals with Elections Canada. I am not sure if that is what the member is referring to, closing down advertising at the polling.

I am not sure specifically, but I think we should ensure that we are always going by Elections Canada's acts and rules, and if advertising is not allowed during that period of voting, we should not be going there.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues in my riding when it comes to elections is the mobile polls. This is particularly important for seniors and people with disabilities, who are less able to move around. Especially in the face of a pandemic, this becomes even more critical. I know that there could be reliance on the mail-in ballot, but for some that could be difficult as well. Language could become a barrier for them.

From that perspective, I wonder if the member has any comments about mobile polls. Should we strive to ensure that mobile polls are available for seniors and people with disabilities?

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

Mr. Speaker, these are the types of discussions that we must have. Even in my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, we have the St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital and we have the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. There are a variety of places that need to have mobile polls. Although seniors homes are mobile polls, somewhat, we need to look into how we can ensure that we get as many people voting as possible. That is what is really important, so we need to ensure that we have the safety. I believe it is important that if we are looking at mobile polls, the safety and security of our voters, as well as the people who will be working at those polling stations, are always taken into account.

I will make sure that is a question I ask at committee.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the government's proposed legislation, Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the COVID-19 response.

I am disappointed that the government is so out of touch with Canadians that it wants to amend the Canada Elections Act so it can call an election during a pandemic. Canadians do not want an election, especially during this vicious third wave of the pandemic. While the members opposite claimed to also not want one, it was the Liberals who introduced this legislation in the middle of a pandemic.

Just the other day the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was blaming the Conservatives for blocking the bill. However, as my colleague, the opposition House Leader, rightly pointed out, the Liberal government only has itself to blame for the slow pace of the bill.

The government sets the agenda, and it has only allowed the bill to be debated for three hours since its initial introduction almost five months ago. Now there seems to be a sense of great urgency by the Liberal government. While Canadians are suffering from the current COVID lockdowns and still being unable to return to work, the Liberal government is trying to push this legislation through, resulting in many Canadians wondering if the government cares more about its political fortunes rather than working for Canadians, prioritizing getting Canadians back to work and rebuilding our economy.

The mere idea that the government, a government that states it will be driven by science and facts to make decisions, wants to push this legislation through so quickly means it is completely ignoring the facts. Not only do Canadians not want an election, but in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, where general elections were held, they saw a spike in the number of COVID-19 cases, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador, where just days before the election, a whole section of the province saw such a spike in cases that the Chief Electoral Officer had to pause the election until the outbreak got under control. People's lives are more important than an election.

While the Liberal government's intention to ram this bill through Parliament are definitely questionable at best, the Conservatives have many concerns with the bill. For starters, it has not escaped us that this is a minority Parliament. We all know that minority parliaments are very volatile and do not necessary last the full four years. This is why, at the beginning of this pandemic, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs conducted a study on how Elections Canada could safely conduct an election during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Something as fundamental as how Canadians elect their members of Parliament must have participation from all members of the House, which is exactly what PROC was doing. However, the government decided that it did not want to wait for the all-party committee report. Instead, it decided to completely ignore any potential recommendations from the committee, including the committee's majority report recommendations that the government not call a federal election during the pandemic unless it was defeated on a motion of non-confidence. Instead, the Liberal government expressed its contempt for Parliament and tabled this bill. Complaining that it has not moved fast enough has clearly indicated to Canadians its desire to recklessly send Canadians to the polls at whatever time it deems to be the most advantageous for the Prime Minister.

Just the other day, members opposite were accusing the Conservatives of not having a consistent message throughout this pandemic, however, we have been consistent. We have consistently said no to an election during this pandemic. It has been the members opposite who have been inconsistent in their messaging in their refusal to commit to not calling an election during this pandemic unless defeated in a non-confidence motion.

I was quite pleased with my colleagues on PROC for their hard work in standing up for Canadians and ensuring that if an election were to be called, they made some great recommendations on how to safely conduct a general election.

Some of the recommendations we made included: that Elections Canada develop a task force responsible for extensively consulting with long-term care homes to determine a safe and mutually agreeable way to conduct a vote in long-term care homes; that these consultations include both national and regional stakeholders and that these consultations include consideration of how rapid testing of Elections Canada employees may increase the safety of residents of long-term care homes; that the government commit to making rapid tests available to Elections Canada for the purpose of conducting an election during the COVID-19 pandemic; that Elections Canada provide a list of expected situations where it would require an expansion to the Chief Electoral Officer's adaptation power as well as a list of actions that would remain prohibited under the expanded adaptation power and that these lists be tabled before Parliament for review and approval; that any unanticipated adaptations require the approval of the advisory committee of political parties struck under section 21.1 (1) of the Canada Elections Act; that Elections Canada ensure all voting locations are accessible for those living with disabilities and that alternative methods of voting such as mail-in ballots are adequately accessible for all voters who do not wish to leave their homes; that Elections Canada stick with the tried and true mail-in ballot process, which sets a deadline for ballots to be mailed and does not count any after election day; that Elections Canada outline a plan to reconcile the number of special ballots received during the course of the election with the number of special ballots distributed and that up-to-date information on who has received mail-in ballots be made available to candidates and registered political parties throughout the election; and that the federal government commit to not calling a federal election during the pandemic unless it is defeated on a motion of non-confidence and that the government ensure the majority of Canadians at an elevated risk from the pandemic will have received the vaccine prior to calling an election.

All these recommendations are designed to protect Canadians and to put them first. It is disappointing to see a Canadian government more interested in getting itself re-elected and using a health crisis, a pandemic, as cover instead of pouring all its resources into getting Canadians back to normal.

I want my constituents to know that under a Conservative government we would be focused on securing mass shipments of vaccines to get Canadians vaccinated, but we would also be focused on getting Canadians back to work and securing stable, well-paying jobs and ensuring we start actually addressing mental health.

Under a Conservative government, we would take immediate action to help the hardest hit sectors, including helping women and young Canadians who have suffered the most. We would assist small businesses and provide incentives to invest in, build and start new businesses.

We would also focus on mental health. COVID-19 has certainly highlighted the shortcomings in our health care sector when it comes to mental health. We would increase the funding to the provinces for mental health care and provide incentives to employers to provide mental health coverage to employees as well as create a nationwide three-digit suicide prevention hotline.

While the Liberals continue to look toward advancing their own agenda and padding the pockets of their friends, Canadians can take solace in that Canada's Conservatives will have their backs and stand up for them, their pocketbooks, their health and their jobs.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for raising the issue of mental health, which is a critical issue, but she referenced the danger of holding elections, cited some provincial elections and identified Newfoundland and Labrador as a particular case study.

Is the member aware that the number of active COVID cases registered yesterday in Newfoundland and Labrador was six? In two provinces, say Alberta and Ontario, Alberta had 2,211 cases without an election, which have been going up, and in Ontario it was 3,424 cases, which have also been going up. Perhaps holding an election might actually change those results in those two provinces if Newfoundland and Labrador is the case study she wishes to look at.

That is a party that changed election law in its last term of government, had an MP convicted of cheating and lost at the Supreme Court. That is a party that, quite frankly, used Pierre Poutine, a bigoted name, to cheat in London. It is outlandish.

The Republicans in Florida could take lessons from you lot. I mean, pick a lane, are you Giuliani or are you Trump, because you sound like both of them?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary is getting a little too carried away with the “you” references. I would remind him to direct his comments to the Chair in that respect.

The hon. member for Calgary Skyview.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there was a question or if it was more of an attack on myself—

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Giuliani or Trump? Pick a lane.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Are you going to speak or are you going to let me speak?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. For debate in the House, we only have one member recognized at the time. I will remind hon. members to not activate their microphones to speak over top of a member who has been recognized.

We will go back to the hon. member for Calgary Skyview for the rest of her response. I ask all other hon. members to let her finish her remarks.

The hon. member for Calgary Skyview.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the member opposite suggested that holding an election would reduce the numbers. He seems to be suggesting that holding an election did not cause the spread or contribute to those numbers.

Less than two days ago we had an emergency debate on how the numbers in Alberta were going up. The member is suggesting that by holding an election in Newfoundland and Labrador and using that as an example, the numbers could go down. I am not sure if the he had a point to make, but he seems to suggest the opposite of what the facts and science say right now.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP believes there should not be an election during a pandemic, like the other parties, but should it happen, all parties should be in agreement on the process to go forward.

The member talked about people with disabilities. Does she not agree that Elections Canada should consult with the Canadian disability organizations to come up with a list of accommodations for people who live with disabilities so we know they are involved and will show us the best methods to use going forward?

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we should be having wide consultations and ensuring that if an election is called and we go to the polls, that all Canadians are safe. It is important to conduct consultations and it is even more important to follow those recommendations. That is where the government is lacking with respect to not following the recommendations brought forward by the PROC committee, for example, and by bringing the bill forward before that report was even tabled.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is of concern is the assertion on the part of the government that somehow the Conservatives are delaying this.

Could the member comment on that?

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her hard work on this bill. We have to understand the pulse of the country, and Canadians are saying there should be no election right now. I fail to understand what the urgency is to bring in this bill when the report from PROC committee has not even been tabled in Parliament. The focus needs to be on the safety of Canadians, not on calling an election just because the numbers look good for the Liberal government.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, leadership often requires making difficult decisions. A good leader makes decisions in the best interests of the people. A bad leader makes decisions in the best interests of him or herself, often to the detriment of the people.

Since the beginning of this pandemic, the government has used the phrase “unprecedented times” to justify many ludicrous actions, such as when it tried to get away with giving itself unlimited taxing and spending powers until 2022, or when it replaced Parliament with a special committee where only certain questions were permitted, or when Parliament was prorogued in order to cover up the Prime Minister's scandal: the unethical conduct he engaged in with the WE Charity Foundation. All of these actions were taken in the name of “unprecedented times”.

Canadians are watching and are catching on. They are beginning to see a pattern wherein the government is exploiting the pandemic in order to engineer scenarios that benefit it politically. This bill is another example of exactly that. While no one would suggest that we do not want to be prepared for an eventual election with a minority Parliament, we also need to be aware that the COVID-19 crisis continues to worsen. Canadians are losing their businesses. We have the highest unemployment rate in the G7 and we have a runaway deficit with zero plan for economic recovery.

Any reasonable person would understand that other priorities need to take precedence over calling an election. In fact, every single party has said it does not want an election, speaking on behalf of what they are hearing from Canadians. What are the Liberals thinking about? They are thinking about sending Canadians to the polls in the middle of a pandemic.

We have learned from the Prime Minister that talk is cheap. He has said his government cares about protecting Canadians, but when it comes down to it, all he seems to care about is protecting his own job. Why else would this bill be rushed through the House of Commons before receiving a report that is supposed to come forward from the Procedure and House Affairs Committee? This committee conducted a study specifically on having an election during the COVID-19 pandemic. Why is there a rush? Why act so quickly? Could it be that the Prime Minister is in fact trying to time things just right so that he can go to the polls when it is most politically advantageous for him to do so? Again, a good leader would govern in the interests of the people.

Many components of this bill are cause for serious concern. They grant the Chief Electoral Officer unprecedented powers to extend the vote time, to allow mail-in ballots to be counted past the deadline, to determine what is satisfactory proof of identity and residence and to accelerate the timeline for these changes to go into effect. I do not believe I need to inform the House of what happens when a large portion of the public questions the validity of election results. Let us just say that chaos ensues.

For democracy to work, it is imperative that the public have confidence in the electoral process. Given that there are so many uncertainties at this time, the government should ensure that the rules are definitive and clear. Instead, we see the opposite in this legislation. This bill gives significant discretionary powers to the Chief Electoral Officer and creates a ton of uncertainty for voters.

While I can appreciate that adjustments need to be made to accommodate safety precautions and various health measures, I believe we should come with concrete rules, not arbitrary guidelines that can be modified on the whim of an individual. This is a recipe for disaster.

What is needed? Any additional powers given to the Chief Electoral Officer should be subject to approval by each party represented in the House of Commons. After election day, no mail-in ballots should be counted. Straying from this norm could create an opportunity for all sorts of problems, and we see this in other countries. Perhaps most importantly, this bill, which will amend the Canada Elections Act in response to COVID-19, must have a sunset clause. We have seen the Liberals attempt to entrench pandemic policies post-pandemic. That cannot be the case with the amendments being made to this legislation. This bill must stop being in effect after the pandemic has subsided. It is so important that this bill have a sunset clause.

Another change to the Canada Elections Act the Liberals are proposing with this piece of legislation is to allow polling stations at long-term care homes to commence 13 days before the end of the election. This one makes zero sense. Sadly, the pandemic has illuminated very tragic realities in senior care homes across this country. Based on the statistics, the elderly are most vulnerable when it comes to suffering from COVID-19 and the loss of life. Instead of minimizing potential exposure, the government now thinks it would be a good idea to have polling stations open even longer, therefore maximizing the opportunity for exposure to COVID-19.

In what world does that make sense? There is zero evidence for this change to the act. It is putting our most vulnerable at risk, and it must not go through. It is ludicrous. It is silly. It is incomprehensible. Clearly the Liberals are in a hurry to hold an election in the middle of a pandemic, and they are putting their partisan interests above the health and well-being of people, the elderly and those with disabilities in particular.

Canadians do not want an election in the middle of a pandemic. We saw the spikes in COVID cases after the B.C. election and the Saskatchewan election. Just imagine what that would look like on a federal level. By not considering the testimony of the health officials appearing during the committee study, the Prime Minister has wasted the valuable time of public health officials and the valuable advice they have offered.

The Liberals have continued to scheme to push through this legislation as quickly as possible, when they should have been prioritizing Canadians and our economic recovery as well as our health. There are legitimate concerns about this new legislation's effect on the safety of seniors, those in long-term care and those with disabilities. I dare say there are concerns for all Canadians.

Canadians deserve clarity around their electoral process and any changes to it, especially if they are forced to go to the polls in the potentially high-risk environment of a worsening pandemic. This bill brings uncertainty and puts vulnerable Canadians at risk at a time when so many Canadians are just trying to keep their heads above water.

It would be nice to see the leader of this country divert some attention from himself and his political career toward the Canadian public and what is in their best interests. The pandemic has exposed the true colours of the Liberal government and where its focus lies. The crafting of this legislation, and the speed at which it is being pushed forward, are prime examples. It is undeniable that this bill was unilaterally constructed on behalf of the Liberals and for the benefit of the Liberal Party of Canada, not the Canadian people.

Our focus as parliamentarians should be on Canadians: on their health, safety, welfare and future. We need to see an economic recovery plan, not a Liberal election plan, as was provided in the 2021 budget. Democracy in Canada has taken some significant hits from the government currently in power. It would be my hope that for the remainder of the House, those on the side of opposition would band together and take a stand on behalf of the Canadian people, insisting on good legislation as we move forward.

It would be my hope, then, that we do not continue the trend of a declining democracy and that we vote against this legislation as it stands today.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Lethbridge will have 11 minutes remaining in her time when the House next gets back to debate on the motion.

Bill C-19--Notice of time allocation motion

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Minister of Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, COVID-19 response.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Bill C-19—Time Allocation Motion

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response), not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1) there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or to use the raise hand function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, what a sad day for parliamentary democracy. A time allocation motion is unpleasant at any time, even if sometimes it is a necessary evil, but a time allocation motion on a bill dealing with Canadians' right to vote is rubbing salt in the wound.

What we are debating today is the way Canadians will vote in the next election if it is held during the current pandemic, which could very well be the case. In moving this time allocation motion to restrict parliamentarians' right to speak, the government is launching a direct attack on the heart of democracy. That is completely unacceptable.

We are hearing the government say that the opposition parties are doing everything they can to delay the work of Parliament, but that is completely false. The best way to delay the work of Parliament is to prorogue Parliament, like the Liberals did last August. Why is the government not assuming its responsibilities? Why is it not allowing proper and thorough debate on a bill that directly relates to Canadian democracy?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his intervention and his question.

I understand that he is fully playing his role of leader of the official opposition in the House. However, when I was in the opposition and his party was in power during the Harper years, his government did not hesitate to use time allocation motions regularly, even daily on some occasions. I understand that my colleague has a role to play by expressing a certain degree of indignation, which I freely accept.

However, on the substance of the issue, we believe the time has come for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study Bill C-19 and make amendments if necessary. For the hours of debate that have been held so far, the members of the opposition have already made several suggestions for improving this bill, which, let us be clear, will only be in effect for the next election. I think therefore it is time for the House to refer the bill to the committee to be studied.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague must be joking when he says it is time to send the bill to committee.

This act demands consensus. This is about the Canada Elections Act and the right to vote, as my colleague astutely pointed out earlier. There has to be consensus. Over four months of debate, only one Bloc Québécois member has spoken to this bill.

The Liberals introduced Bill C-19 on December 10, 2020, while the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was already looking into the issue. Instead of waiting for the committee to finish its work, the Liberals decided to introduce a bill, utterly disregarding democratic institutions, such as the committee. Now they are forcing closure with help from the NDP, their usual accomplice for this kind of tactic. They say there has been enough debate and this bill must go to committee. I am not making this up.

The Liberals have trouble managing a legislative calendar. They are a bunch of amateurs. Here is my question. Are they not ashamed to invoke closure on a bill that requires consensus?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from La Prairie.

No, we are not at all ashamed to give Parliament the opportunity to pass a bill that will temporarily amend the Canada Elections Act for the next election only in response to an official request submitted to the House by the Chief Electoral Officer.

My hon. colleague from La Prairie spends his time expressing his lack of confidence in the government by voting against it. It is therefore clear that he wants an election because, otherwise, why would he spend his time doing that?

We think it is a good idea to give Elections Canada a lot more flexibility to protect residents of Quebec's long-term care facilities, for example. The proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act were introduced in Parliament a few months ago. I would invite my colleague to recognize that, last Friday, when Bill C-19 was debated in the House of Commons, the four Conservative members who spoke about it once again insisted on delaying the vote to send this bill to committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to start by recognizing what a frustrating situation we find ourselves in as a Parliament. The election in Newfoundland and Labrador showed very clearly that even if an election during the pandemic did not precipitate a public health crisis on its own, it could have really damaging effects for democracy and for the outcomes of an election.

The government has proposed some temporary changes to the Elections Act. It has not called the bill very often, which has been a point of frustration for New Democrats, but when it has, the official opposition has often found ways to delay and stall.

We have an important bill that really needs to be passed, given that the Prime Minister repeatedly refuses to put everybody at ease and say that he will not unilaterally call an election during the pandemic. Our view is that the responsible response to that is to try to get rules in place exactly because we do not trust the Prime Minister to do the right thing.

Perhaps the government today could allay those concerns and let us know when the Prime Minister intends to commit that he will not call an election during the pandemic. When is that announcement coming?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, for his constructive conversation with respect to this legislation. We have taken note, obviously, of his comments in the House during the debate at second reading.

The New Democratic Party has constructively and thoughtfully suggested, for example, some improvements around ensuring that campus voting can take place and potentially using Canada Post locations in small rural communities like those in my riding. The Canada Post office may offer an additional place where people, for example, could apply to receive a special ballot.

Those are precisely the kinds of discussions that we are hoping the procedure and House affairs committee can have around Bill C-19.

We would welcome working with all colleagues around amendments that would improve the legislation. However, we think the time has come for Parliament to take its responsibilities, study the bill in committee and offer Elections Canada the tools necessary should there be an election during the pandemic, and to do so safely and prudently in the interest of protecting everybody who works in elections.

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

Madam Speaker, I have heard some comments today from members of the official opposition and the Bloc that seem to suggest that they are not too familiar with the bill or the parliamentary process.

First, the leader in the House for the official opposition said that this would change the way Canadians would vote in the next election, which is not true. It would only change if an election happened during a pandemic; there are sunset clauses on this. Could the minister confirm that these are only temporary measures during the pandemic?

Second, the Bloc suggests that this is a done deal after today, but there is still a lot of parliamentary work to go on from this point. Indeed, the bill would go to committee for rounds of discussion there and then it would come back to the House for another debate.

Could the minister comment on those two points?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague friend, the member for Kingston and the Islands, is absolutely right. He is an experienced parliamentarian and understands the parliamentary process.

A vote today would simply allow the procedure and House affairs committee to study the legislation and to look at it clause-by-clause. We would hope that the committee would want to hear from important witnesses, such as the Chief Electoral Officer. At the root of this conversation is a report sent to the House of Commons in October of last year from the Chief Electoral Officer, asking Parliament to make, as my hon. colleague noted, temporary changes to the Elections Act that would apply only to the next general election and would sunset once the pandemic circumstance was over.

We think it is time for Parliament to have a look at this legislation in committee and ensure that the people who work delivering safe and fair elections for all Canadians, and there are hundreds of thousands of these people, can do so safely.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister is probably one of the smoothest speakers I have ever heard in Parliament. Let us be honest. We have been speaking about the bill for about four and a half hours. On Friday, yes, there were Conservative speakers, because at 12:06 p.m., we found out that no Liberals would be speaking.

I recognize all these things. However, we talk about a sunset clause, but it is mentioned only the preamble of the bill. Therefore, a lot of work needs to be done.

Most of all, why did the minister put forward legislation before he got the excellent report that came out of the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs? Why did he go forward with this legislation before taking any of the information that we had provided to him?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I suppose I should thank my hon. colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London for what was surely intended as a compliment.

I share her view that the procedure and House affairs committee did excellent work in studying the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. We obviously followed the work of the committee very closely. I would note that the legislation largely follows the recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer. We just disagreed and thought we should have more potential voting days than simply those on the weekend before what had traditionally been a polling day on Monday.

We introduced this legislation before Christmas because we thought it was important for Parliament to have a chance to consider it over the Christmas break. I talked to a number of colleagues in the House of Commons during that period. When it came back, we called it for debate.

My hon. colleague said that last Friday at 12:06 p.m. she found out there would be no Liberals speaking. That was precisely because we wanted the debate to conclude so Parliament could vote and the committee could begin studying the bill. The Conservatives obviously used that as a chance to filibuster it.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to reassure our colleagues opposite. The Bloc Québécois carefully examined the bill and we are starting to become very familiar with parliamentary procedure, so there is no need to worry. We have experience. However, that is not the issue here. What we are talking about here is respect for the work of parliamentarians.

There has been very little debate on this very important issue, and many things are still up in the air, including the number of days. As the previous speaker mentioned, the government wants to ram through this legislation without any respect for the work of committees.

My question is critically important. Why will the government not give us the time to hold a proper debate? Is it because the government members are worried that the window of time in which they think they can win a majority is closing too quickly and they want to ram this through so they can be ready just in case?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his comment and, especially, for his belief that if there were an election right away, the government would win a majority of seats in the House of Commons. I never doubted it myself, but I am really pleased to hear my colleague share this belief.

However, as he knows very well, we are not trying to call an election. It is not the Liberal Party that has a lack of confidence in the government. On the other hand, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives cannot deny they have never had confidence in the government. I acknowledge my colleague, but he should know very well from the parliamentary experience he cited that a vote of non-confidence in the government increases the likelihood of an election.

We believe it would be appropriate for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study the bill in detail to amend and improve it. We want to work with our parliamentary colleagues, especially in committee. That is why we are pleased to hold a vote today to send the bill to committee.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed to find that we are having time allocation on a bill as essential as this one. Clearly, all parties in this place have said publicly that they do not want a federal election in a pandemic, but we want the best possible legislation in case that happens by accident. Pushing this through with such limited time for debate does not meet the standards that I expect of the government. As the hon. member and the hon. minister said, back in the day we saw practically daily use of time allocation by the Harper administration. We are seeing it far too often under this administration.

I ask the hon. President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada to please reconsider and give us adequate time for debate.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I salute my friend, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for her work in Canada's Parliament.

I do not think we disagree in the sense that amendments to the Canada Elections Act properly require parliamentary scrutiny, as they would with any piece of legislation. However, these are modest amendments that would apply only, as my friend from Kingston and the Islands noted, to the next general election.

We are in a minority Parliament, so the idea that the government, on its own, is in a position to ram legislation through is simply not the case. When the legislation gets to the procedure and House affairs committee, and we hope it gets there soon, members from all parties will have an opportunity to debate and discuss it, and amend it as they see fit. Then, we look forward to another discussion at third reading and report stage in the House of Commons.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the speech given by my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona. He raised some important points. We need Bill C-19, there is no doubt about it. We are in the midst of a pandemic, and there is always the possibility of an election.

Last Friday, the NDP offered all parties a way to discuss Bill C-19 every night this week. Unfortunately, the other opposition parties rejected our proposal. Once again, as the only helpful party in the House of Commons, the NDP is proposing a solution to break this impasse and put the debate where it belongs, which is in committee.

Meanwhile, the government has not been responsible. The Prime Minister and the Liberals seem like they are on a pre-election tour, bragging about having an election before the third wave came to Canada.

My question is simple. Can the Liberals say clearly here today that they will not call an early election?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I salute and thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby, the NDP House leader. I had the privilege of working with him in previous Parliaments, and I appreciate his constructive contributions to these debates very much.

I agree with him that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is where all our colleagues from every party would be able to discuss Bill C-19 and improve it. I presume they could hear from witnesses as important as the Chief Electoral Officer.

As far as an early election is concerned, I can assure my hon. colleague that the government is focusing on providing Canadians with the essential help they need during a pandemic.

There is an important budget implementation bill before Parliament. We understand the importance of these measures for Canadians, and we will remain focused on this issue. I can assure my colleague of that.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, this bill has only been up for debate three times and has only been debated for about three hours and 45 minutes. The minister saying the government is looking forward to getting it to committee does not leave the opposition with a lot of hope, because quite a few bills have gone to committee and come back worse. I think about Bill C-10 and the MAID bill. There are a few bills like this, and we do not have confidence that after they go to committee, they will be better bills. That is why we are in favour of having more debate on the floor for this piece of legislation, so that we can get our comments on the record and ensure that it moves forward.

The minister says the government does not want a pandemic election, so what is the big desire to rush this bill through now and call for a concurrence motion?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, if my colleague from Regina—Lewvan is worried about people rushing an election, he should ask himself the same question, as he and the Conservatives constantly stand in the House of Commons and vote no confidence in the government over and over again.

I remember the estimates votes some weeks ago. In one evening, the Conservatives voted no confidence in the government eight times. If anybody is rushing to an election, it would certainly appear the Conservatives are willing to play chicken, all the time hoping somebody else swerves. We do not think that is a very responsible way to proceed.

My colleague is worried about the bill coming back from committee in worse shape, but I certainly do not share his view. It is a rather pessimistic view of democracy. In a minority Parliament, the government needs to achieve consensus at committees for legislation to come out. We look forward to working with all members, including members of the Conservative Party, to make sure the legislation is not worse but better.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are times in parliamentary life when we are offended.

Personally, I take offence at this closure motion to limit important debates for democracy. It is the ultimate exercise in democracy for our constituents.

Today we are being asked to shorten essential debates in the House to just three and a half hours.

You cite the need to go the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, but it had already started to discuss the matter with the Chief Electoral Officer. You decided to rush things and introduce a bill that did not take into account—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Need I remind the member that I personally made no decision?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is true and I apologize. I am supposed to address the Chair. You remind me quite often, and yet I still have difficulty with that.

Why not give the House the time it needs? Why use time allocation yet again?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am reassured that you were not the one who decided to expedite the bill before Christmas. I am pleased that our colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville clearly explained that.

I have had the privilege of sitting in the House of Commons for 20 years, and I can state that the members of the Bloc Québécois are experts at taking offence. We are not surprised that our colleague is taking offence this morning at closure. The members of the opposition and the Bloc Québécois are always opposed to government bills and never want to move them forward.

However, this bill was introduced in December, following the tabling of a report by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the measures required to protect Canadians who vote in a possible election held during a pandemic. We must realize that the average age of the people who work for Elections Canada during a general election is 65-plus. We believe it would be helpful to provide temporary tools to the Chief Electoral Officer to keep those people safe.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a total surprise and unbelievable that after four hours of debate the government would be rushing this legislation, which is about our tried and true democratic process. We have heard others say that the Liberals tabled the legislation before waiting for their own recommendations from the PROC committee, and now, after four hours, they are shutting down debate so they can get the bill to committee, the same committee that has been filibustered by the Liberals for 40 hours or more to hide the fact that the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament to cover up his involvement in the WE Charity scandal. It is unbelievable that they are doing this.

I wonder if the minister could explain why they are in such a rush when Canadians have been clear that they do not want an election in a pandemic.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would hardly call this a rush. The Chief Electoral Officer presented a report to Parliament on October 5. The government thought it would be important for parliamentarians to consider the legislation over the Christmas recess. That is why we introduced Bill C-19. We have called it for debate, and once again, as is always the case, the Conservatives show no desire to allow the debate to conclude, allow a vote to happen and allow the committee to begin its work on studying the bill.

Our colleague from Sarnia—Lambton seems to think that there is a rush to an election. Once again, it is her party that continually votes no confidence in the House of Commons. I think the Conservatives are the ones rushing to an election.

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe that the member for Regina—Lewvan actually said in the House that he does not want the bill to go to committee because he is afraid of the result. Unfortunately for him, the democratic process is not decided based on the preferences the opposition has before a bill goes to committee or when it comes back. Democracy does not work like that.

More importantly, it does not seem to matter how long this bill has been on the table. The member for Elgin—Middlesex—London apparently has not even read the bill, even though it has been on the table since December. The sunset clause is not just in the preamble. It is also mentioned in the coming-into-force clause.

Can the minister confirm that the sunset clause is in the bill?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, my friend from Kingston and the Islands is absolutely right. In fact, it is in clause 11 of the legislation.

I too was surprised at the pessimism of our Conservative colleague from Regina—Lewvan, who imagines that committees make legislation worse. We have more faith in the work of committees of the House. That is why we are very anxious to work with the committee to ensure that the legislation reflects the will of Parliament before it comes back for a third reading debate.

We think it is time for the House of Commons to take up its responsibilities and look at what temporary measures can be put in place, should an election happen during the pandemic, to ensure the safety of all Canadians who participate.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is extremely disappointing that a government could mismanage the parliamentary calendar so poorly. Of course, everybody has their role in this and I certainly do not put it past the hon. opposition to acknowledge the role it is also playing.

The New Democrats believe that, while all this gamesmanship is difficult at best, ultimately the Prime Minister is the only one responsible or able to call an election at any time. That role and responsibility sits with him.

I do not understand. I would like the hon. minister to explain, because despite the many questions he has not explained yet, why the Prime Minister and his government refuse to take that responsibility and say outright that they will not call an election during a pandemic.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank our colleague from London—Fanshawe. The government and I share her view that Canadians expect the government, and I would argue all parliamentarians, at a time of a pandemic when there is a difficult third wave wreaking very difficult consequences on a number of regions of our country, to remain solely focused on what we as a parliament and certainly what we as a government can do to protect Canadians and support them during COVID. That has been the focus of our government.

As I said earlier, we do not vote no confidence in our own government. I appreciate there is a double negative there, but I think Parliament can understand. Some NDP members voted no confidence when they supported a Bloc subamendment on a budget vote. I think there has to be some consequential thinking and Parliament needs to accept its responsibility to improve the election—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

One last question, the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the clever wordplay by my colleagues from the Liberal Party. What I said was this. When bills go to committee, sometimes, like with Bill C-10, they come back in worse shape because of terrible amendments put forward by the government. I would hate for that to happen to something as critical as this democratic bill, Bill C-19. When I say we should have more debate in the House of Commons, that means this bill deserves more than three hours and 45 minutes of debate.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hypocrisy of the Conservatives objecting to time allocation. I sat in the House of Commons many times and watch them vote the exact opposite of what they are now claiming.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #109

Canada Elections Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed from May 7, 2021 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lethbridge has one minute remaining in her debate time.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Thornhill.

As I was saying during my last opportunity to speak to this bill, the pandemic has really exposed the true colours of the current government and where its focus lies. What I am talking about, of course, is the crafting of this legislation, Bill C-19. The Liberals have done this at a rapid pace and have done it without clear consultation, or I should say attention given to consultation.

It is undeniable that this bill was unilaterally constructed on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and that it is being pushed forward to the Liberals' benefit and not at all to the benefit of Canadians, which is very concerning to me. Our focus as parliamentarians should be on the Canadian people, on their health, their safety and their well-being. This bill does not take those things into account.

We need to see an economic recovery plan, not a Liberal election plan, which again is exactly what—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, what we are really debating here is a piece of legislation that will be used in the event that an election happens during this global pandemic. Despite the fact that all parties have said that they are not interested in having an election happen any time soon, we have to respect the fact that this is a minority Parliament and one could happen at any time.

I am very perplexed when trying to understand why the Conservatives do not just want to be prepared. Can the member comment on what she has against being prepared in the event that an election might happen?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have no problem with our being prepared. To be prepared for an election during the pandemic would mean that the Liberals put a sunset clause in place. After all, if this legislation is truly just for the time being during a pandemic, then there is no reason why that should not be the case, and that this actually would expire once the pandemic is over. That seems like a reasonable amendment, does it not?

The other thing is that at the end of the day this legislation should take into account what experts have said. Experts are certainly not encouraging that we would go into long-term care facilities and run the election for 13 days.

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

Madam Speaker, it is good to enter the discussion on this important subject. We are seeing a debacle of epic proportions on Bill C-10, a bill that the minister obviously does not even understand. There are a lot of questions that Canadians have around Bill C-19 and its effect on what is one of the key things that the House is required to do, and that is to be the custodian of Canada's democracy.

Are there any parallels between the debacle that is currently unfolding with Bill C-10 and what is possible with Bill C-19, especially if the bill goes to committee, and now that the Liberals have limited debate and discussion on Bill C-19?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member points out something really important, and that is, first, that we need to acknowledge the fact that the Liberals just moved time allocation, which means they are trying to rush this legislation through without fulsome debate. That is very problematic because it is chipping away at democracy.

The second point the member raises is with regard to Bill C-10, which has to do with government censorship of the information that we post on our social media platforms. This is a huge overreach on behalf of the government and something that is not properly researched.

Interestingly enough, Bill C-19 is one and the same, where, again, I believe it goes too far and ignores the voices of witnesses and those who have expertise in this area. It is shameful.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge my colleague from Lethbridge's comments a few minutes ago. She thought that it would be a good amendment at committee to have a sunset clause. The good news is that we do not need to amend it at committee to include a sunset clause, because I would draw her attention to clause 11, which provides exactly what she was suggesting the committee look at.

I am wondering if the member for Lethbridge could tell us how many times in the last two months she has stood in her place and voted no confidence in the government, obviously seeking an election during the pandemic. How many times did she stand and vote no confidence looking for an election?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I fail to see the relevance.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question is for my Conservative colleague.

We just started debating Bill C-19, and the government has allocated just three hours and 38 minutes for debate. We can only assume that the government's poor management of its legislative agenda is at fault here.

What does my colleague think is the true reason we are debating time allocation on Bill C-19 today, with the connivance of the NDP?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I do not know that I fully understand the member's question.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to finally have the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-19, if in the shadow of time allocation. I will get to aspects of the bill that I consider worthy and a number of provisions that I believe should be amended in committee, in a moment, but first I will address a number of the underlying issues that have affected the way this bill was mismanaged in its creation, as so many other pieces of legislation have been similarly in this Parliament.

The crux of the problem is not the COVID pandemic. The crux of the problem is the arrogance of the current government to approach virtually every practice and procedure as though it won a majority in 2019. The Liberals refuse to recognize the range of realities, most importantly the pragmatic humility a minority government must practise to govern effectively. The current Liberal government, as in the last Parliament, has ignored committee studies, reports and recommendations in the creation of legislation dealing with critically important issues, such as privacy, foreign affairs, the digital charter, regulating the Internet, medical assistance in dying, and now Bill C-19, an amendment to the Canada Elections Act, provisionally, for a possible general election in this pandemic, a pandemic that will last much longer because of the government's inability to properly procure vaccines and to accept Conservative advice when the pandemic first struck and at every stage since.

The Liberals, with selfish impatience, introduced Bill C-19 last December, not waiting for the completion of a long and thorough study on essential amendments to the Canada Elections Act to protect public health and democracy during a possible pandemic election. An interim report by the committee was, at the time, within days of being presented to the government. That report was pre-empted by Bill C-19, ignoring the suggestions of the exhaustive study and disrespecting not only opposition members on the committee and the many expert witnesses who testified during the study, but the Liberal chair and Liberal committee members, who had worked collegially with the opposition to develop comprehensive recommendations for such an important study.

The Liberals clearly intended then to rush the legislation through Parliament, as they have done with so many other flawed pieces of legislation from the beginning of the pandemic, but in this case the rush was not to help Canadians still in the grips of the pandemic, and it was not to prepare a plan for economic recovery to get Canadians back to work; it was in the political self-interest of preparing for the snap election they were thinking they might get away with. In doing so, they not only disregarded the work of parliamentarians, but wasted the valuable time of health officials and elections experts who appeared during the thorough procedure and House affairs committee study.

In doing so, they ignored the reality that an overwhelming majority of Canadians did not want then, and do not want now, a general election in a deepening pandemic crisis. If the Liberals had any doubts, that was surely driven home in the subsequent cycle of spiking infections and death across the country and the provincial elections conducted under pandemic conditions, most notably the profoundly disrupted Newfoundland and Labrador election.

The interim report of the committee contained extensive, reasoned advice based on the testimony of expert witnesses that would have improved Bill C-19 before it was tabled, but the final report of our committee, submitted to the government in February of this year, provided even more important advice. Most important, the committee advised the government and recommended unanimously, every Liberal member on the committee as well, that the federal government commit to not calling a federal election during the pandemic, unless defeated on a vote of confidence.

Further, Conservative members of the committee wrote a supplementary report, which reiterated the recommendation against holding a pandemic election and elaborated, noting that Bill C-19 was uninformed by the extensive content of the committee report and stating very clearly that the government has a moral obligation to refrain from triggering an election or orchestrating its own downfall, as the Prime Minister has already tried to do a number of times.

Because of the government's inability to manage its own legislative agenda, the bill before us has had precious few hours of debate.

A key element of Bill C-19 involves the change of the usual designation of an election day to be an election period of Saturday, Sunday and Monday, rather than just Monday, to provide more time for voting, social distancing and the precautions necessary to provide safe voting places. The bill also provides for the extension of voting hours of polls, if necessary to midnight, on any polling day, but not to exceed 28 hours for the three-day election period.

The bill also changes the maximum writ period to 53 days because of the many challenges anticipated for in-person voting or involving mail-in ballots. With regard to mail-in ballots, the bill allows electronic applications to be made with proper security protocols, of course, for mail-in ballots. They are very detailed provisions, which I believe would secure the safety of those ballots. There are also provisions for the safe casting of votes in institutions, in facilities where seniors and persons with disabilities reside.

I will support all of those provisions in the bill, on the condition that they expire automatically, completely and absolutely six months after the pandemic period is considered to have ended.

However, there are a number of elements in this legislation that I strongly oppose and believe should be amended. I believe they must be amended at committee, our procedure and House affairs committee, which was so ignored and so disrespected by the original tabling of this legislation in December.

First and foremost, there is a provision for counting mail-in ballots after the end of the official three-day election period. Given the new powers granted the Chief Electoral Officer for early mail-in ballots and extended poll hours, there is absolutely no reason, no excuse, for any ballots received after polls close on election day to be counted. Election day must be decision day.

As well, while I accept the extension of pandemic powers to the Chief Electoral Officer, I oppose the provision that would expand his determination of “satisfactory proof of the elector's identity and residence”. Pandemic protocols should not enable greater voter fraud than already exists in non-pandemic elections.

In conclusion, I want to remind all members of this House of the unanimous recommendation of the procedure and House affairs committee, each and every Liberal member included, that the federal government must commit to not calling a federal election during this continuing pandemic, unless it is defeated on a vote of confidence.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not think it would matter if this had been tabled three years ago. The reality is that the Conservatives do not even appear to have read the bill. The member for Lethbridge was just talking about wishing that there would be a sunset clause in this, which is mentioned in the preamble, and then again later in clause 11 of the bill. The member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, who is a member of the PROC committee, did not even know that there was a sunset clause in this bill, and this bill falls under the committee that she sits on. I do not think this narrative of “We haven't had enough time” is warranted. We have had the bill for six months and clearly they have not even read it.

This member is also a member of the PROC committee, which I have a ton of respect for. I thank him for mentioning the fact that there is a sunset clause in the bill, acknowledging that and, to his credit, advocating so vehemently to make sure that this sunset clause is honoured.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his somewhat disingenuous questions. I would like to address the matter of timing.

The bill was rushed to introduction in December, again, pre-empting the interim report of the PROC committee. This committee has been filibustered by the Liberal minority on the committee for more than two months, because the Liberals do not want to recognize the will of all the opposition parties to call a relevant witness to appear for one meeting. For the last month, the Liberals have filibustered their own amendment.

I am wondering if the rush now, as the bill is eventually forwarded to the PROC committee, is to allow—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

Madam Speaker, on top of all the partisan speeches, the government members are showing disrespect towards the opposition members by repeatedly asking whether they have read the bill. It would be nice if they stopped doing that. Members have a duty to do their jobs well, and they have read the bill. I would appreciate some real answers on the actual substance.

My colleague raised some very interesting points in his speech. He—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, ironically enough, the people I am talking about right now are not listening.

My colleague raised some very interesting points in his speech. He spoke about voter identification and the lengthy writ period for seniors' homes. We are all very concerned about safety.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the provision for a particularly lengthy writ period is tremendously important both for the safe conduct of polling residents in long-term care and seniors residences, but also to prepare Elections Canada officials and the polling stations for those Canadians who choose to vote in place. I attended and observed the two by-elections last year, and it is very complicated and difficult, and safety must prevail.

It will also take that period of time to distribute the mail-in ballots and to get them—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Time for one last question, the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands has said, somewhat disingenuously, that there is a sunset clause in the bill, in section 11.

What section 11(2) actually says is that when the Chief Electoral Officer consults with the Chief Public Health Officer, currently Dr. Tam, and the Chief Electoral Officer as a result “Is of the opinion that the temporary rules in Part 22 of the Canada Elections Act are no longer required to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.” At that point, six months after that, the bill expires. That is not a sunset clause. In my opinion, that is a way of transferring the responsibility for going back to a series of bureaucrats.

Does the hon. member agree with me?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saint-Laurent.

It is an absolute honour for me to rise today on behalf of my residents of the riding of Davenport to speak in favour of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, COVID-19 response. It would provide a temporary new part to the Canada Elections Act that would ensure the safe administration of an election should one happen during the COVID-19 pandemic. It would also provide for the repeal of this temporary new part, the six months, as was just mentioned, as determined by the Chief Electoral Officer once it is indicated the measures are no longer necessary in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The notice would be issued only following consultation with the Chief Public Health Officer.

As my colleagues know, in a minority Parliament, an election could actually happen at any time. We have seen elections at the provincial level take place during the COVID pandemic. We have also seen elections take place in other countries, including the United States. We have seen the major challenges that these types of elections bring.

In the United States we saw that huge numbers of voters chose to send in a mail-in ballot, which made counting ballots slower in a number of states.

In British Columbia and in Newfoundland and Labrador, we saw historic numbers of voters going to advance polls or using mail-in ballots. We also saw, in these provinces, historic low voter turnout. It was probably because many people decided it was much safer to stay at home and were not quite sure about whether it was safe enough to go out and vote. We could expect that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I will interrupt the member to ask her to slightly move the microphone toward her mouth.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, we could expect if we were to hold a federal election in Canada, especially without passing Bill C-19, voters would face many of the similar challenges we have seen across our country over the last year and a bit since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some Canadians would probably choose not to vote rather than go to a public place to cast their ballot.

During this devastating third wave, the last thing our government wants is an election. I, for one, always say that the only election date I want to talk about is the one in October 2023, which is four years after the last one. I know many would see an election during a COVID pandemic as a public health risk and would limit Canadians' access to their democratic right to cast a vote. As such, in my opinion, it is really important for us to advance this bill swiftly so that in the unlikely event of an election, we can improve the conditions and opportunities for Canadians to safely vote as well as protect our democratic process.

Why have we introduced the legislation? Elections Canada realized there could be an election during this pandemic, as we did as the national government, and after much consultation has proposed some temporary rules in the unlikely event an election should occur.

Elections Canada has been following the provincial elections in our country and the various different elections that have taken place around the world. It has monitored contingency planning that has been developed both by international and various electoral management bodies. It has engaged with Canadian public officials, heard about best practices from various bodies and learned from recent elections held during COVID. Elections Canada has also established an internal working group to determine how it can be as prepared as possible for an election held during COVID-19.

Out of this work, on October 5, the Chief Electoral Officer suggested the study and adoption of a new temporary law.

Some of the key changes the Chief Electoral Officer proposed was making Saturday and Sunday voting days, increasing voting hours from 12 hours on one day to 16 hours over two days; granting authorization for the Chief Electoral Officer to determine how and when voting could occur in long-term care facilities and other similar settings; and adding more flexibility to adapt the act to emergency situations to make it easier to respond to the pandemic. Bill C-19 builds on these recommendations and adds other special measures to ensure Canadians can vote safely.

What are some of the additional measures we have proposed in the bill?

First, we would give the Chief Electoral Officer more flexibility to adapt the act to ensure the safety of election officers and voters. It would also give the Chief Electoral Officer the power to set days and hours for polling divisions established in long-term care homes.

Our government recognizes that vulnerable populations like seniors have very specific needs in this pandemic. We also know we need to protect their right to participate in the Canadian democracy and ensure Elections Canada has a way to safely collect votes from them. This bill would provide a 13-day window to safely deliver the vote to long-term care facilities and similar institutions. This period would give election staff enough time to engage with those facilities and to determine a safe time for them to deliver the vote.

Bill C-19 would also extend voting hours, giving Canadians more opportunity to vote in a safe way that works for them. It would create a three-day polling period which, to me, is awesome. People could vote Saturday, Sunday or Monday. It would help spread the voters out, reducing crowds in voting places, and would give people who might not be able to vote on the weekend, maybe because of a religious observance on Saturday or Sunday, the option to vote on Monday. It would also add more advanced polling days, four days of 12 hours each, for voting since we would anticipate more Canadians to vote early in a pandemic election.

Bill C-19 would grant the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to respond to emergency situations like local unexpected outbreaks of COVID-19. It would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to modify the day on which certain things would be authorized or required to be done before the polling period. The Chief Electoral Officer would also be able to move a deadline a day backward or a day forward by up to two days, or the Chief Electoral Officer could also move the starting date or the ending date of a period in which certain things would be authorized or required to be done by up to two days.

Finally, the bill would make mail-in voting even more accessible. If Canadians did go to the polls in the pandemic, we anticipate that many more would want to vote by mail. Of course, we know that this would be a whole new way of voting in Canada, other than in the provinces that have already seen such elections. We know this is an option that many Canadians would want to see.

With Bill C-19 passed, Canadians will also be able to apply online to register to vote by mail and cast a ballot from the comfort and safety of their home. It will also allow for secure drop boxes at polling stations so that those who do not have time to send their ballots through the mail can instead drop them off. It makes voting more accessible by allowing voters to register to vote by mail using an ID number, like a driver's licence number, rather than a full copy of their identification. Finally, it gives voters the flexibility to choose to vote in person instead if they have already registered to vote by mail. If they do, they would have to return their mail-in kit or sign a declaration at the in-person voting location that they have not yet voted.

There is a clear need for the bill as indicated by the Chief Electoral Officer, but it is important to note that there are some limitations of the bill. The primary one is the need for a preparation period for Elections Canada. This means that Parliament needs to move swiftly to get the bill to committee. I have heard a number of amendments and recommendations that my colleagues would like to propose, and they should be genuinely considered. Then it still needs to come back to the House for a third reading. Elections Canada then needs 90 days to implement the bill after royal assent. The longer we wait, the greater the risk of a possible election during a pandemic with no safety measures for Canadians.

I want to reiterate that the special legislative measures that are being proposed would cease to be in effect six months, or at an earlier date determined by the CEO, after a notice is given by the Chief Electoral Officer that indicates the measures are no longer necessary in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This notice would only be issued following the consultation with the Chief Public Health Officer.

With such a limited scope, I see no reason for disagreement or delay on the bill. All parties should be able to unite to quickly get these common-sense protections for voters into place.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to the importance of Bill C-19 and why it should be passed quickly.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, certainly we want to do everything we can to protect workers and voters in this election should it occur during a pandemic.

One thing we know is that we would likely see more mail-in ballots, and the members correctly have pointed out there are some provisions in the bill. Having ballot boxes at the polling stations to collect mail-in ballots will be a very good thing in case the capacity is higher. One thing I have heard concerns about is that if the Monday is a holiday, they would consider counting ballots after election day. We have never done that federally, and I think Canadians have confidence in our tried and true process.

Would the member agree that with the provision to allow mail-in ballots to be dropped off at polling stations if they were left too late that we really do not need that other provision?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure I understood the question. I believe the member is saying that the provision of us being able to count the ballots after the election date and that the bill would allow for that to happen is not necessarily needed.

I really trust that the Chief Electoral Officer has done some consultations and that he has talked to a number of groups, both nationally and internationally, about some of the best practices and provisions that should be contained in this bill. I have a lot of confidence in the recommendations that have been made and are now included in Bill C-19.

This is why I am anxious to get this bill to committee. If there are some things that we might want to modify, they should be considered at committee. I know I would be open to any provisions that might make this bill clearer and ensure the safety of any—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that my colleague supports this bill as written and is in a hurry. I am not saying anyone is dismissing the safety issues that we all agree on, but it feels like haste is becoming the norm. We cannot help but wonder why she seems so keen for the government to use time allocation.

I have a question for my colleague. Bill C-19 is your government's initiative. It did not come about because of the findings in a committee report or the Chief Electoral Officer's initial recommendations. How do you plan to deal with the committee members' opinion?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the hon. member that I am not part of this discussion, so I will pass the question on to the hon. member for Davenport.

The hon. member for Davenport.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will respond this way. There is a lot of very important business that Parliament needs to consider between now and when we rise for the summer, at the end of June. It is absolutely important for us to pass legislation that has had some careful consideration by the Chief Electoral Officer and our government. I have a lot of confidence in the bill and in the measures we have in place. It would be responsible for us to move the bill as quickly as possible to committee to ensure that if there is anything we need to add to it, we do so there. If not, we should pass this bill as swiftly as possible.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate working with my colleague for Davenport on the finance committee. We certainly agree that there are provisions that absolutely need to be put in place given the pandemic we are all living through. She made some good points in her speech, but she left out the key part that has made this bill much more controversial than it normally would be. That is the fact that when the Liberals brought the bill forward, they also started their pre-election campaign. The Prime Minister and Liberals were campaigning openly. The third wave has pushed that back, but Liberals have not come clean with the Canadian public.

Can my colleague for Davenport now say very clearly, in a way that all Canadians will understand, that the Prime Minister will not call an election during this pandemic?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will say what I said during my speech. The only election date that is in my mind is an election date four years after the last election, which is October 2023. Canadians want us to govern and that is what we are trying to do. This bill is the responsible thing to do in the unlikely event that an election is called during a pandemic.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me the time this afternoon to speak to Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, COVID-19 response.

For obvious reasons, I think this is an important bill that should be taken very seriously for the health and safety of Canadians. For over a year now, we have been dealing with a pandemic, and despite how long we have lived with it, we still do not know enough about this virus.

We are making progress in Quebec, where the numbers are down. The lockdown could be lifted soon, perhaps in the summer. If Quebeckers are lucky, they could return to a more or less normal life like last summer. However, in other provinces, like Ontario, the situation is less positive. There are variants circulating that make COVID more contagious. Fortunately, more and more people are getting vaccinated. That is great, but the truth is, we do not know how long the immunity will last.

That is why we must implement measures to protect Canadians. If possible, we must find ways to avoid endangering the public. For these reasons, I am happy to speak to Bill C-19, as it is an important initiative that will help Elections Canada hold an election safely if necessary during the current pandemic.

Worldwide, it has been more than a year now that events have been cancelled, a necessary measure to keep the public safe. Since we do not know how long this situation will last, we must find ways to ensure the health of our democratic institutions. If a general election were to be held, it would have to happen in a way that is safe for everyone, including electors, volunteers and election officials.

While the need for physical distancing and other public health measures resulted in the postponement of elections at the provincial and municipal levels in some provinces last year, we have realized that, because so little is known about how long we will be in this situation of living with the pandemic, we must find solutions rather than postpone. In a democracy such as Canada, it is important to give the population the right to choose its government and representatives when the time comes to do so.

We can no longer indefinitely postpone elections. Instead, we must make the necessary changes and adapt to our current reality so as to protect Canadians and also the health of our democratic institutions. Some elections have been held worldwide since the start of the pandemic, and efforts have been made to put strict public health measures in place, such as requiring people to wear masks and practice physical distancing, or providing hand sanitizer or disposable gloves to voters.

Bill C-19 would add a new part to the Canada Elections Act that would further protect Canadians in the context of an election. This new part would include extending the Chief Electoral Officer's power to adapt the provisions of the act to ensure the health and safety of electors and election officers; authorizing a returning officer to constitute polling divisions that consist of a single institution where seniors or persons with disabilities reside, or a part of such an institution, and to set the days and hours a polling station would be open; providing for a polling period of three consecutive days, consisting of a Saturday, Sunday and Monday; providing for the hours of voting during the polling period; providing for the opening and closing measures at polling stations; setting the days for voting at advance polling stations; authorizing the Chief Electoral Officer to modify the day on which certain things are authorized, or required to be done, before the polling period by moving that day backward or forward by up to two days, or the starting date or ending date of a period in which certain things are authorized, or required to be done, by up to two days; providing that an elector may submit an application for registration and special ballot under division 4 of part 11 in written or electronic form; and providing that an elector whose application for registration and special ballot were accepted by the returning officer in their electoral district may deposit the outer envelope containing their special ballot in a secure reception box.

This would allow some flexibility to the Chief Electoral Officer to make changes, as he or she sees fit, that would better protect Canadians. It would make voting more accessible to seniors and people living with disabilities, who would have more of an opportunity to have polling stations within the buildings where they reside. Furthermore, more Canadians would have access to mailing in their ballots. This may be a great option for many vulnerable Canadians who are at higher risk of getting sick, or even for Canadians who are afraid of going to polling stations and would prefer not to do so.

Elections Canada estimates that up to five million electors could choose to vote by mail if the election had to be held during the pandemic. To meet this demand, Bill C-19 provides for the installation of secure reception boxes to receive online applications for mail-in ballots and would allow identification numbers to be accepted as proof of identity for these applications.

Furthermore, it would allow electors who have requested a mail-in ballot to change their minds and subsequently vote in person. Certain conditions are attached to this measure to protect the integrity of the electoral system.

We have to understand that in the context of the current pandemic many Canadians will prefer to vote using the mail-in options. The mail-in vote measures outlined in the bill are designed to strengthen a mail-in vote system that is expected to see a significant surge in electors opting to vote in this manner. The overall goal is to facilitate the use of this voting method for Canadians who may not feel safe to show up at the polling station in person. Electors would have the option of using an identification number rather than a copy of their ID to establish their identity and residence when registering to vote by mail.

Furthermore, extending the voting period from one day to three days would allow Canadians more flexibility as to when to go vote, which would allow for less gathering to take place at a given polling station. After having lived with physical distancing for over a year now, I am sure we can all see the reason behind extending the voting period.

With regard to long-term care considerations, the federal government recognizes that our most vulnerable Canadians should be able to exercise their right to vote in a safe way that does not endanger their health in any way. Bill C-19 proposes specific measures to ensure we protect the right to participate in the democratic process while allowing them to do so in a healthy and safe environment.

Specifically, it would provide a 13-day period during which election workers can safely deliver the vote to residents of these facilities. The period would provide election staff with enough time to determine, along with employees of these facilities, specific dates during which the vote can be safely delivered. Furthermore, it would allow election workers to create polling stations even on certain floors within a given building in recognition of hot spots or quarantine areas that have been established across these many facilities.

In short, this bill would make elections safer for Canadians. It is important to remember that elections can occur at any time when there is a minority government. We must take precautions to protect Canadians in the event that an election is called.

As I mentioned earlier, we do not know when this pandemic will be over. If it lasts longer and there is a fourth or fifth wave after this one, we will not have a choice about holding an election during the pandemic. Let us do the right thing and make elections safer for Canadians.

Let us vote in favour of this bill to ensure if there are elections held during this pandemic, even though all of us do not want it to be case, we can do so in a safe way. Hopefully we will be over this pandemic soon enough and before the next election.

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion today about the idea of a sunset clause. I know certain members of the Liberal Party have taken shots at the Conservatives, saying it is clear that it is in section 11 of the bill. I read the bill quite extensively and followed some of the experts who examined it, and the problem is that it lacks clarity and democracy, among many other things.

Specifically, this place being the custodian of Canada's democratic infrastructure, clarity is such a vital part of ensuring elections are held with certainty for Canadians. Could the member opposite maybe add some clarity to what supposedly is the sunset clause? I certainly do not see it being that in section 11 of the bill.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that clarity is extremely important when discussing these bills and putting them into law. It is absolutely important the members on the committee take these comments into consideration. It is being sent to committee, so hopefully members of all parties can discuss and try to improve the bill even further before we vote on it.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will read a quote from the member for Winnipeg North. In 2014, after closure was imposed on debate of the Canada Elections Act, he stated:

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide comment on the fact that the Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act are fundamental to our democracy, and changes to them must be achieved by a broad consensus and backed by solid evidence.

Could the member comment on that?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

As members know, we are in the middle of a pandemic. Parliament has done all kinds of things that have never been done before. For example, we used new special powers to help all Canadians. It is very important that we take this reality into consideration.

These are not normal times. While more time should have been allocated for studying the bill, as is the case for most of the bills we have introduced this year, the fact remains that these are extraordinary times.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate on Bill C-19, I have heard countless Liberals say that they do not want an election and no one in the House wants one. The Liberals have continuously said that throughout this debate. If no one wants the election, why are they pushing this bill through so fast? Why did the Liberals bring in time allocation? Why are they pushing if they do not see an election on the horizon? If the Liberals do not want an election and no one else in the House wants one, we should take time to examine this bill and ensure we get it right for our democracy and for the sake of all Canadians.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important that during a minority Parliament, we are ready for this type of thing at any moment, because we never know when the government could fall. I think everybody in the House agrees with that. If we were a majority, we would not need to be looking at this as quickly as we are. However, because we are a minority Parliament and can fall at any moment, it is important that we take these things into consideration and do so quickly just in case.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we do not have a pandemic election. I was hoping we would see some other changes to the Canada Elections Act, given the promise in 2015 that it would be the last first past the post election.

Does the hon. member think it is fair that a party that received 1.3 million votes got three seats, while a party that got five times as many votes, the Liberal Party, got 50 times more seats? Each Liberal represents about 37,000 constituents or voters and each Green Party member represents 380,000 voters. Does the member think that is a fair representation of democracy and should we have a fair vote system—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Saint-Laurent.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is fair and I do not think the system is perfect. I definitely think that different changes could be made and that it should be studied further to ensure we move forward in the right way and in the best way for Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate.

The member for La Prairie has four minutes remaining.

The hon. member for La Prairie.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, shutting down debate on Bill C-19 hinders our democratic institutions in two ways.

There should be consensus in this place for any changes that affect our democracy and the right to vote. The government is using time allocation to shove Bill C-19 down our throats. That is shameful. If I were in government, I would be ashamed—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is no English translation and I would like to hear what the member is saying.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is the interpretation working? It is working in the House.

It seems to be working now.

The hon. member for La Prairie.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our institutions are being undermined first by the closure motion and second by the fact that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs worked on this issue as of October 22 and presented a report entitled “Final Report: Protecting Public Health and Democracy during a Possible Pandemic Election”.

Committee members worked for 24 hours, heard from at least a dozen witnesses and rushed to table a preliminary report to enlighten the government, which needs all the help it can get because it is short-sighted. Committee members submitted their report as soon as possible, in other words on December 11, 2020, but this bunch of Liberals introduced its bill on December 10, 2020. It is an affront to the institutions. I would be embarrassed if I were them. I would make like an ostrich and bury my head in the sand.

The Liberals did not wait for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to be done before introducing their bill on December 11, 2020. They did not bring it up again in the House until March 8. Why not wait for the results of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, since the committee members had called professional witnesses, studied the issue, taken the time to do the work and were only too happy to advise the government?

The pandemic is being used as an excuse. It seems to be making the members opposite do all sorts of foolish things. They claim that since we are in a pandemic, they can play with democratic rights. No, that is not how it works.

Here is a clear example of the lack of ethics in this government. Everything this government does is the opposite of what Midas did. Everything Midas touched turned to gold, but the Liberals are Sadim. Midas spelled backwards is Sadim. Everything this government touches turns to dirt.

The Liberals tried to close the borders, but they never managed to. The third wave is their fault. That is a fact. When the rail crisis happened, the government sat on its hands. It took the Liberals 30 days to wake up. While travelling abroad for a week and a half, the Prime Minister said it was the responsibility of the provinces and Quebec. When he returned home after 10 days, he finally got it and said that the Bloc Québécois's idea was a good solution.

This same government, which is incapable of making a decision, is shutting down democracy, thanks in part to the NDP's help. How can I possibly describe what the NDP is doing and still be polite?

The NDP is happy to gag itself. NDP members are stuffing rags in their mouths and saying nothing. They are propping up a government that is trampling on voters' basic rights.

Voters have the right to vote intelligently, and members of Parliament have the right to govern the right to vote through discussion and consensus-building. The Liberals are violating democracy, and they are proud of it. What a government.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 7:04 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, pursuant to an order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 11, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.