Debates of May 13th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Elections During a Pandemic

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

The Liberals often claim that the Bloc Québécois always votes non-confidence in the government, which can trigger an election. That is what the government does. We vote in favour of bills that will be good for Quebec. When the Liberals introduce bills that are less than good, we vote against them.

The Liberals like to threaten us, saying that a vote against will trigger an election. The government uses confidence votes to push through its bills, which are not good bills. If I could give them a tip, it would be to draft good bills. This way, we would not have to vote against and they would not need to make them confidence votes.

Furthermore, if the Prime Minister stops playing the villain in a bad ethics movie, maybe we will leave him alone at some point.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have to say from the outset that I agree with the motion moved by our friends in the Bloc Québécois.

However, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about how some people are saying that the Bloc Québécois would not want an election because they are polling lower than they were in 2019 and Bloc members fear they would lose their seats to the Liberals. What does the member have to say about that?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

There are times when partisanship has no place. In a pandemic, it is important to think of the well-being of our constituents. We must rise above the fray. Using Parliament for electioneering and partisan purposes is unacceptable.

We in the Bloc Québécois do not do that. We are proud and happy to represent Quebeckers, and we will continue our work in that regard. That is our sole focus.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Bloc for bringing forward this motion; I think it is vitally important. My colleague from La Prairie talked just now about the emergency debate we had in the House of Commons regarding the COVID-19 situation in Alberta. It is very scary and very dire here right now. It would be completely irresponsible to have an election right now, and we in the NDP would not support an election.

I have a question that I think I know the answer to but I would like his comments. Does the member believe that it should be an urgent priority to adapt election rules to the pandemic, or do they trust that the Prime Minister will put the public good ahead of his own partisan interests?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, if the government wants to change the rules in case an election is called, it should not be done under a gag order. It should be done by consensus.

The tradition here has been that election laws and the foundations of democracy cannot be changed by forcing a government decision down our throats. It is important to work together to build a consensus, but that is not at all what is happening in this case.

The government has teamed up with the NDP to impose legislation that does not at all reflect what we want. This legislation needs work, but doing so requires a consensus from the outset. Unfortunately, the government is not taking that approach.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this opposition day about Bill C-19 and the government's firm desire to have it passed under a gag order, without the agreement of any of the parties. At least, that is its desire at the moment, but it was not the case a few weeks or months ago.

Personally, I would call this move selfish, irresponsible and even arrogant, and I would like to explain why. Obviously, there are several reasons. My colleague from La Prairie mentioned some earlier, and I agree with what he said, but I would like to build on his remarks.

The first thing is the issue of democracy. I am having flashbacks to the prorogation of Parliament last summer. The same explanation was offered, that it was a matter of principle. The government is doing this on the pretext of exercising its democratic duty to ensure that Canadians can vote if necessary.

The absurd thing is that, ironically, what they are doing actually goes against democracy. They are imposing a gag order for a bill about holding elections during a pandemic, a bill that concerns all Quebeckers and Canadians. The government says that it wants people to be able to exercise their democratic rights, yet when it comes time to represent the people and reach an agreement with all of the members of the House of Commons and all parties, that is another story.

I think the government is being totally inconsistent. I am not necessarily surprised, because there has been a lot of inconsistency to date. In this case, however, the inconsistency is so blatant that it raises valid questions about why the government is eager to pass a bill so quickly this spring, when the bill was not even on its legislative agenda. It was forgotten for months and now, all of a sudden, it is urgent.

I think this is only a pretext. If a majority of members currently support the bill, they are supporting it despite themselves. We saw that with the gag order. My colleagues in the NDP previously said that they were not in favour of an election and that they did not want one.

We can work on a bill, because that is why we are here, but no one wants an election. If the Liberals want to pass a bill, let them do it properly and hear what all the parties have to say. Earlier, my colleague mentioned that they did not even take into account the work done by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Once again, the government is refusing to do the job properly because it wants to pass this bill quickly.

We are not quarrelling or refusing to collaborate. On the contrary, we are talking about consensus and working together to come up with a solution that represents everyone. I think that that is a responsible and transparent way of doing things that leaves out any disgraceful partisan considerations.

Yesterday, the leader of the Bloc Québécois proposed a solution for Bill C-19 that would avoid the imposition of a gag order. His idea is very simple. He proposed that the Prime Minister meet with, for example, the leaders of the different parties behind closed doors. They could then talk it over and arrive at a consensus. Of course, there would be compromises, because that is what a consensus is. All parties must take something away from the process. Then the members of the House would continue to work to pass the bill. That would be the only right way of doing it.

We did not hear the Prime Minister agree to the proposal. However, when the rules of democracy are changed, they are changed for everyone. It is not up to a single party to make these rules. While I am at it, I should add that Quebec is leading the way in this area, since that is how it operates. When Quebec changes the Election Act, it does so with the participation of everyone, because it wants to represent all Quebeckers. It is a transparent process.

I will say it again: there is no emergency. I know that the government is saying two different things at once. On the one hand, it is proposing this bill to trigger an election, but on the other, it is saying that it does not want an election and that it is the opposition that is pushing it in that direction.

As my colleague from La Prairie so eloquently put it, when we vote against a bill, it is because it is a bad bill. I think that the opposition still has the right to vote against bad bills.

Next, I would like to talk about the government's ivory tower and the reasons it wants to call an election. Due to the pandemic, it has spent money all over the place. The government looks so generous. It gave money to everyone, and it seems like it was doing something extraordinary. I would like to point out that even though help is needed, the money it is throwing around belongs to the taxpayers. Some of my colleagues will agree with me. The government also has a responsibility. It is important to remember that it is the taxpayers who are giving themselves money during the pandemic.

The government is trying to make itself look generous by stamping its flag on the cheques. If it is being generous, it is only towards itself, so it can propose a bill like this one and trigger an election, hoping that the numbers are good enough to give it a majority government. I think that demonstrates that it is incapable of governing, because if it were, it could govern in a minority situation, or at least I hope it could. The problem is its lack of collaboration. That is why quarrels break out.

I would like to talk about my own situation. Yes, we are the middle of a pandemic, but we also have a job to do. I must be present in the House to represent my constituents on the North Shore and all Quebeckers. I must continue to work, and we should be working twice as hard.

As it showed when it prorogued Parliament, the government would rather disappear in the middle of a pandemic. It would rather call an election and prorogue the House than do its job, by which I mean not only what it needs to do during a pandemic, but its regular work as well.

I would like to give some real-life examples of what is happening in my riding right now. A person from Baie-Comeau called my office because they needed help. This person's application for the Canada recovery benefit, or CRB, was rejected simply because they had mistakenly applied for employment insurance. They are now forced to seek help from an organization that works with homeless people because they cannot pay the rent and buy food. The government should be working on glaring problems like this one, especially during a pandemic, instead of taking a break.

There is also a CEGEP student who was scammed and was asked to give back what she received. She is from outside my region. She cannot buy food. We are talking about essential needs as defined in Maslow's hierarchy. She needs to eat, and her life plan and study plan are in jeopardy. That is what is happening right now, and the Minister of National Revenue is not doing anything about it. Our region has not been spared by the pandemic, either. These are real cases.

I could tell you about Cap-aux-Meules, where some fishers no longer have a wharf, which is putting their safety and their lives at risk. The government is not really working on that either, and it wants to call an election. The fishers do not even know if they will be able to fish next year. They did not even know if they would be able to this year. It makes no sense. There are other things to do than impose gag orders and say that there will most probably be an election. Seriously, if they did not want to call an election in August, they could take the time to work on the bill rather than impose a gag order.

There is a lot I could talk about. I could talk about the forest back home on the North Shore that is dying. We could work on that.

If the government really wanted to work for Canadians, it could have done two things in the last budget without having to wait for an election. I said two, but there are many. First of all, we need to look at health transfers. It did not mention them and is not talking about them. Second, there is Bill C-19. Third, there is the issue of seniors. The government is creating two classes of seniors: those 65 and over and those 75 and over. Not all of them are entitled to the same things. That is discrimination.

I fail to understand where the government is going, but it is certainly not working for Quebeckers or people on the North Shore. It is simply working for itself. What the Liberals want is to call an election and be totally irresponsible. I cannot think of a more accurate word than “irresponsible” to qualify the government.

I would simply remind the people I represent, the people of the North Shore, as well as all Quebeckers, that I would like to stay in the House during the pandemic and work twice or even three times harder than necessary to help them, and not work for partisan interests like the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Bloc Québécois for bringing forward this very important motion. It is a great opportunity to set the record straight on how the different political parties feel and the actions they have taken to date regarding their positions on elections.

In that spirit, I ask the member the following question: If the Bloc Québécois is so against an election, why on Tuesday, in response to an answer given by the Prime Minister, did the member for Beloeil—Chambly, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, say, “I am not afraid of an election; bring it on”?

Why would he say to bring it on if he does not want an election? It is as though he is teasing and tempting the government, asking it to bring on an election.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I did not know that simply teasing the government, which is something we do every day, could trigger an election.

That said, concerning the fact that the leader of the Bloc Québécois said “bring it on”, I think that every political party and every leader is always ready for an election. I have been an MP since 2015, and I feel like I have been campaigning ever since I was elected. I am in this all the way. All the leader of the Bloc Québécois was saying was that he is here to defend his constituents and that he will always be ready, and that is what we should ask of every member in the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her speech.

I think there many signs that the Liberal government is in a hurry to hold an election during the pandemic.

Does my colleague agree?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.

Earlier the member for La Prairie mentioned the calendar.

A bill is proposed, it gets passed, and then it gets shelved, along with all the other bills the Liberal government forgot about. Come May, it is suddenly a matter of urgency. Summer is coming, so we need to have a bill.

As I was saying earlier, why do we need this bill now if an election is not being called and the public does not want one? There is something fishy going on.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, of course we totally agree that, if an election were to be called now, that would be irresponsible and unsafe. We have all been elected with a mandate, and New Democrats are dedicated to making Parliament work, which has resulted in a far superior pandemic response than a Liberal majority would have delivered.

We saw what happened in Newfoundland and Labrador when an election was called for February 13. Ultimately it was not finished until March 25, after 90% of the election workers refused to work on election day because of fear of the pandemic outbreak taking place. I guess that was a precursor to the third wave happening across the country now with the new variants.

Why would the Bloc member not want to ensure that, if the Prime Minister was irresponsible enough to call an election for his own political purposes, it would be a safe election?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I would answer my colleague's question with a question. I am all in favour of safety, but the solution for ensuring public safety is to simply not have an election. We are not ready, and we see that with this bill.

If public safety is so important to the NDP, then my question is: Why did the NDP vote in favour of time allocation to pass a botched bill that will result in an election?

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

Madam Speaker, I am here today to discuss the motion presented by my hon. friend from La Prairie on the possibility of a pandemic election.

Let me begin by saying our focus as a government, since the beginning of the pandemic, has been on delivering for Canadians. Canadians expect their Parliament to work to deliver for them through the pandemic and, indeed, over the past many months, the government has done just that.

The government has no interest in an election. We have repeatedly said that. The Prime Minister has said that. However, as the House is well aware, an election could happen at any time in a minority Parliament. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to be prepared for such a scenario, which is why the government introduced, following a report from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Bill C-19, which would allow for temporary amendments to the Canada Elections Act in the context of a pandemic.

We agree with the opposition that holding an election during a pandemic would be unfortunate without first implementing these provisions that would ensure that Canadians are able to vote in a way that is safe and secure. The opposition has demonstrated a reckless disregard for the health and safety of Canadians in recent weeks. It has voted no confidence in the government 14 times, which is 14 times in favour of an immediate election. If the opposition feels strongly about not taking Canadians to the polls, perhaps it should stop voting for an immediate election.

The government wants the House of Commons to work constructively, as it has over the past number of months. Part of that includes a timely study of Bill C-19 to ensure that if an election were held, the obvious desire of many opposition members, it would be safe and secure, and accessible to as many electors as possible.

We are ready to work with all parliamentarians to ensure that these temporary changes to the Canada Elections Act address our collective goals, but that requires the opposition to also work constructively at parliamentary committees. The current tactics by the opposition to paralyze the work in the House and in committees can sometimes be nothing short of dysfunctional.

Allow me to quote the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, who said, “It's the nature of the opposition to oppose the government but at the same time I hope we can concentrate our efforts on real issues, issues of public policy.”

Every responsible prime minister has to make a decision on the effective functioning of Parliament. I would encourage our colleagues in opposition to focus, as the government has, on delivering real results for Canadians. From investing in PPE to increasing capacity for testing and tracing and delivering more than 20 million vaccine doses for Canada, we have spared no effort in fighting the pandemic and providing support to those most affected by it.

A team Canada approach is clearly the best way of beating COVID-19 and keeping Canadians safe and healthy. I would urge my colleagues in the House to continue to work productively in our shared work to protect and support Canadians.

I would like to touch briefly, as the motion compels us to, on the situation in Quebec over the last year. The COVID-19 pandemic has had widespread and unprecedented effects on Canadians, including, of course, Quebeckers. That is why our government has provided significant support to all the provinces and territories, including Quebec.

Under the safe restart agreement, Quebec will receive over $3 billion for necessary measures like rapid testing, contact tracing, help for municipalities and public transportation, as well as child care services for parents returning to work.

In addition, through the safe return to class fund, Quebec will receive over $432 million, and Quebec's funding allocation under the new COVID-19 resilience stream, which is part of the infrastructure program, is also over $432 million.

Finally, over two million Quebeckers applied for the CERB.

I believe our support for Canadians throughout this pandemic has been clear, and we are grateful to the opposition parties that have helped us put forward these programs that have benefited so many Canadians.

This motion also presents an opportunity to discuss the measures in Bill C-19, which would help ensure that if Canadians go to the polls while Canada is in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, they could do so with the full confidence in their safety and security and the integrity of the election. I am optimistic we can find similar support from the opposition for many of these common-sense measures. I note that all opposition parties voted in favour of the bill at second reading.

From the earliest days of the pandemic last year, electoral administrators across the country began to consider how to hold elections that would be safe for both electoral workers and volunteers and that would maintain the high stands of integrity that Canadians expect. Since March 2020, general elections have been held in four provinces and one territory. COVID-19 may have restricted many aspects of life in Canada, but elections carried on, albeit modified, and with the safety interests of everyone in mind. Additionally, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada oversaw the administration of two federal by-elections in Toronto in October, 2020.

Bill C-19 is based on the October 2020 recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer regarding holding an election in the context of a pandemic and the essential work of our colleagues, who carried out a study on the same topic.

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

Before I move onto these measures, I would like to highlight the unique nature of the legislative changes outlined in Bill C-19. I will reiterate that none of these proposed amendments would be permanent amendments to the Canada Elections Act, and that the bill does include a sunset clause. These measures are written so that they will cease to be in effect six months after the Chief Electoral Officer, following consultation with the Chief Public Health Officer, determines these measures are no longer necessary.

As we have seen throughout the country, this pandemic has not stopped Canadians from expressing their democratic rights. It is our role as elected representatives to ensure that if the time came for Canadians to go back to the polls, they would be able to do so in a manner of their preference and be assured of their safety and the health of their communities.

In every modern general election and by-election, the Chief Electoral Officer has been provided with adaptation powers that can be applied to the Canada Elections Act to ensure that electors can exercise their right to vote. These adaptation powers can assist in running elections in the event of an emergency or other unforeseen circumstances.

The Chief Electoral Officer exercised this power in the last election, for one to allow workers temporarily residing outside their electoral districts to vote. However, the ongoing uncertainty generated by the current pandemic justifies broadening the grounds for adapting the act. This bill would strengthen the Chief Electoral Officer's power to adapt provisions of the Canada Elections Act to ensure the health and safety of electors and election officials, including volunteers.

This would enable them to put in place protective measures in polling places to minimize the spread of COVID-19. These measures are particularly important when considering that Canada's election workforce largely skews toward an older cohort that we know are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19.

These adaptation measures will help support another key measure outlined in Bill C-19, which is the extension of the polling period from a single Monday to three days.

To facilitate physical distancing at polling stations, this bill provides for two additional polling days consisting of the Saturday and Sunday before the traditional voting day on Monday. This measure would reduce the number of people in a polling station at any given time. It will be particularly useful in ridings where public health authorities have established strict limits on the number of people allowed in public places.

We have heard from some colleagues that the three-day voting period is too much time or that the election should be held either only on the Monday or only on the weekend. From work and family obligations to religious observance to the need to access adequate child care or public transportation, there are a number of reasons somebody may have difficulty reaching the polls. The three-day polling period would provide the Chief Electoral Officer and local election officials greater freedom in identifying adequate and accessible polling places.

During an election period, Elections Canada becomes Canada's single-largest employer. Over 250,000 workers were hired for the 2019 election. While Bill C-19 does not address the challenge of electoral worker recruitment, I would like to emphasize a change that was made through the Elections Modernization Act in 2018 that would allow Elections Canada to hire 16 and 17 year olds as election workers.

I would now like to turn to another key part of the bill, which I know interests all colleagues, and it is the way to protect some of Canada's most vulnerable people to exercise their democratic right to vote. Across Canada, long-term care facilities have been hit hard by COVID-19. Even with rising vaccination rates, these facilities must still be protected against the threat of the virus.

Bill C-19 would make it easier for residents of long-term care homes, who are particularly vulnerable and have borne the brunt of the pandemic, to exercise their right to vote safely. Bill C-19 provides for a 13-day period prior to polling day that would facilitate the administration of votes in these facilities. This period would enable Elections Canada to coordinate with long-term care home staff to ensure residents could vote safely.

As it currently stands, election workers travel from one facility to the next administering the vote only on election day. The safety implications of this practice are obvious in the context of COVID-19, and were highlighted also by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada as a challenge in his special report last October.

The flexibility of this 13-day period would allow Elections Canada to work closely with individual facilities to find dates and times that would be most convenient and safe for residents to vote. These facilities are essential to the safety of Canadians and these flexibilities will also assist vulnerable persons.

If there were to be a general election during the pandemic, the Chief Electoral Officer expects we would see an increase in the number of mail-in ballots, possibly as high as five million ballots. Indeed, we saw a significant rise in mail-in ballots in British Columbia's October 2020 general election and in the United States presidential election last November.

Mail-in voting is safe and secure for Canadians to exercise their democratic rights. The electors in Canada have long had the ability to vote by mail, but in recognition of its clear importance during a pandemic, Bill C-19 introduces measures to ensure that the mail-in ballot system in Canada is as simple and as accessible as possible.

Currently, registration to vote by mail can only be done through the mail or in person. Bill C-19 would allow electors to register online for the first time. I should note that providing this option would not inhibit those without access to the Internet to register to vote by mail or in person. By allowing online registration, we would simply be giving Canadians one more option to register to vote.

The bill proposes the installation of secure reception boxes at all polling stations and returning officers' offices. This way, people who are not able to mail in their ballots will have a way to submit them securely. These measures will ensure that, should an election be required during a pandemic, it will be more safe and secure and will give electors as many options as possible to exercise their democratic right.

My final comment on mail-in ballots is for colleagues who have expressed a concern whether the expected influx of special ballots could lead to delays in the counting or the announcing of the election results. I can assure the House that we have heard from the Chief Electoral Officer and he does not expect any delays in the results of a general election based on the increase of mail-in ballots.

The pandemic has affected every aspect of the lives of Canadians. No one has been spared the incredible difficulties of the past year, yet we have also seen the remarkable resilience of Canadians. We have seen that Canadians have not been stopped from exercising their democratic rights in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon, and even in my home province of New Brunswick. Our role in the House should be to ensure that, if required, Canadians are able to carry out their democratic rights in a way that ensures their personal safety and the public health of their communities as well.

If the opposition members are going to continue to vote non-confidence in the government, it is irresponsible for them not to work with the government to ensure these measures are in place to protect Canadians. The current hyper-partisanship of the opposition risks paralyzing the agenda of the government and the supports we urgently need to put in place to help Canadians. While we have no desire to go to the polls, the Prime Minister, as any responsible Prime Minister in a minority Parliament, needs to understand when he has and when he does not have the confidence of the House and be able to act accordingly.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for explaining everything in the bill.

However, he concluded by talking about hyper-partisanship. I want to point out that the House did not resume debate until March 8. Parliament was prorogued for a month, and two days of the debate on this bill were on a Friday, when debate in the House is already limited. Nonetheless, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is talking about filibustering and hyper-partisanship.

Is the minister not embarrassed to say such things? His government is responsible for setting the legislative agenda and has been incapable of managing it.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Repentigny.

As a responsible government, we managed the legislative agenda in such a way as to protect Canadians during the pandemic. With the help of the opposition parties, we adopted measures to protect Canadians during the pandemic, and we are very proud of those measures.

However, the government cannot help but notice that the opposition parties, including the Bloc Québécois, regularly refuse to put their confidence in the government during votes, which could trigger an immediate election. I therefore find the Bloc Québécois's motion today to be a bit hypocritical.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for giving me an opportunity to speak to Bill C-19, because after four hours of debate, the government shut down the debate on it so it could get the bill to committee. However, the Liberals on the committee are filibustering, so the committee cannot get to that legislation. They are filibustering because the government is trying to cover up the Prime Minister's involvement in the WE charity scandal and will not allow any of the witnesses to come forward.

Will the minister intervene to get the Prime Minister to come to committee, so we can stop the filibuster and get to talking about Bill C-19?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, when my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton talks about prorogation, she is confusing the actions of Mr. Harper who prorogued the House of Commons to avoid confidence votes and added weeks and weeks of additional time to the parliamentary recess.

I am interested perhaps in my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton telling us in the House of Commons how many times she has voted no confidence and in favour of an immediate election since the pandemic began. Was it (a) one to four times; (b) five to nine times; (c) 10 to 14 times; or (d) more than 15 times? I suspect my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton has voted in favour of an immediate election more than 15 times since the pandemic began.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke a lot about being there for Canadians, particularly vulnerable Canadians. I disagree with that and I will give an example. In Winnipeg Centre, trench fever is a disease of extreme poverty not seen for 100 years. They have tried to work with the health minister on this health crisis. There was no response. It is an example of how the government is not here for the most vulnerable Canadians.

The Liberals continue to filibuster at committee while the NDP and certainly my colleagues are fighting hard to keep people alive during the pandemic. They continue to play political games.

Now we see another game around calling a potential election. I am wondering if my colleague can confirm that his government will not call an election. Nobody needs an election right now. Lives are on the line.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I obviously share the member's view that the government needs to continue to work with all parliamentarians in the interests of protecting Canadians including the most vulnerable Canadians. I know her city of Winnipeg well. I know the riding of Winnipeg Centre. My colleague from Winnipeg North often discusses with us the challenges that people in that great city face. That is why our government, including the Minister of Health, is constantly looking at ways that we can improve the protection and the safety and security of Canadians.

My colleague spoke of political games. Once again, I would draw to her attention that in a vote on the budget on the Bloc Québécois subamendment, which was a vote of confidence, a number of NDP members stood and voted no confidence in the government. Had that subamendment passed with some of the NDP members voting in favour of it, we would be in an immediate election today. I do not think my colleague would find that helpful for the people of Winnipeg Centre as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to go back to the multiple choice question that the minister was asking of the member for Sarnia—Lambton. I believe it should be on the record that the answer to that question is, in fact, (d). More importantly, there seems to be some confusion in the House as to why we might want to perhaps be prepared for an election and then during question period on Tuesday, the leader of the Bloc Québécois said, “I'm not afraid of an election; bring it on.”

Does the minister not agree that when rhetorical statements like that are being made in the House, threatening an election, that perhaps it is in the best interests of the government to be prepared to protect Canadians should that actually happen?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kingston and the Islands for drawing attention to some of the hypocrisy we have seen in the House of Commons.

I remember the leader of the Bloc last summer saying that he was going to defeat the government. He wanted the Prime Minister to resign or he was going to defeat the government. Obviously, neither has happened. The Bloc Québécois has, as have the Conservatives, since the beginning of this conversation about a pandemic election, endeavoured to be both the pyromaniac and the fire chief.

I do not think Canadians are fooled by that kind of hypocrisy. They want government to focus on what is important for Canadians and that is exactly what our government has tried to do. I thank my colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his exceptional work in that regard as well.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is rather fascinating to hear my colleague talk about hypocrisy when everything the Liberals are doing indicates that the government wants an election now. The government imposed a gag order on Bill C-19, which makes no sense.

It is as though the government has nothing better to do, as though it is looking for work and as though it is saying that 18 months have gone by so it is now time to have an election because that is the way things have been done in the past.

However, there is plenty of work to do. We are in politics to help people. Right now, with the pandemic, there are no health care transfers, there is no help for seniors and there is no solution to the current housing crisis in Quebec. If the Liberal government is looking for work, we have a laundry list of things it could do to help people during this pandemic. What does my colleague think about that?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague claims he does not want an election. Perhaps he has not spoken with his leader.

I will ask in French the same question I asked in English. How many times has my colleague voted no confidence and in favour of an immediate election since the pandemic began 15 months ago? Was it (a) one to four times; (b) five to nine times; (c) 10 to 14 times; or (d) more than 15 times?

I suspect my colleague from the Bloc has voted in favour of an immediate election more than 15 times since the pandemic began. The Bloc's hypocrisy on the issue is obvious.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a small clarification, because I do not like insults nor untruths. Our leader said he was ready for an election, but specified that he would not want one during a pandemic. There is a difference between what is quoted, “bring it on”, and the truth.

That said, will the mail-in ballots be counted in Ottawa or in the ridings? Will it happen the night of or the day after the elections? How will the necessary verifications be carried out?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Beauport—Limoilou said that her leader just wants to be ready for an election, but does not really want one. Perhaps she could explain to him how dangerous it is to constantly vote against the government on confidence votes, which is basically a vote in favour of an immediate election. If what she says is true, the Bloc Québécois and its leader are on the wrong track. It is obvious that Bloc members want an election, which is why today's motion is a bit hypocritical.