Bill C-19 (Historical)

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

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

[Stéphane Perrault]

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

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

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

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

[Stéphane Perrault]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

[Stéphane Perrault, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, thank you for that.

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

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

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

Mr. Nater is up first.

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

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Procedure and House Affairs

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

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

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

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

Mr. Blaikie.

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

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

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

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

Thanks very much.

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

I hope that's helpful.