:
I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 31 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The first hour will be public with the Chief Electoral Officer, appearing on Bill . For the second hour, the committee will move in camera to continue consideration of its draft report on its prorogation study.
The public portion of the meeting will be webcast on the House of Commons website. Today's meeting is taking place in hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members can attend in person or virtually.
All the members today are attending virtually, so please be mindful that the meeting is taking place over the Zoom application, and that you are not permitted to take any screenshots or photos of your screen.
I will remind all of you to make sure you have your interpretation on the language you are going to be speaking. It is okay to choose the floor language, if you're going to actually....
Do we not have a floor choice anymore? What's happened to that?
:
It is not showing up on my application today, so that is very weird. It usually does, and that just threw me off. I will figure that out later.
You have the choice of English, French or floor; I just don't today. With the latest Zoom version, you shouldn't have to switch back and forth. If anyone has a point of order, just unmute your microphone and state that you have a point of order. We have a list of questioners today, so we will have our regular rounds for questions.
Before us today, we have our Chief Electoral Officer. Long time no see and welcome back to our committee, Monsieur Perrault.
With him is Michel Roussel, the deputy chief electoral officer; and Anne Lawson, the deputy chief electoral officer for regulatory affairs.
Welcome back to committee. It's been a long time since we've seen all of you, and we're very happy to have you with us again.
I believe there are opening statements for about 10 minutes.
Mr. Perrault, I'll let you begin.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak with the committee today about Bill .
Given where we are in the parliamentary calendar, I want to start by saying a few words about our electoral readiness before addressing certain aspects of the bill.
Over the last year or so, we have undertaken extensive readiness activities, not only to prepare for the next election, but also to adjust to the circumstances of the pandemic and ensure that voting can take place safely.
We continue to engage a range of stakeholder groups across the country, as well as with a network of federal, provincial, territorial and indigenous health authorities. We have adjusted voting operations and procured a full range of protective equipment to ensure the safety of electors and workers at polling stations.
We have also prepared a range of service options to deliver the vote in seniors' homes and long‑term care facilities, based on local needs and circumstances. It is these institutions that will choose the options.
Since last fall, we have dramatically increased our capacity to process mail‑in ballots, and we have developed, tested and implemented an online vote‑by‑mail application system. Finally, we have planned for the deployment of drop boxes inside all polling places to help ensure that postal ballots can be returned in time.
I note that all of these measures are possible under the current regime, without Bill , with some adaptations that I am empowered to make.
With this, Elections Canada is in a relatively good position to administer an election under the current regime, despite the challenges inherent to the pandemic, which is not fully behind us.
[English]
In early October I recommended a limited number of amendments to the Canada Elections Act to facilitate election delivery in a pandemic and improve services to electors. Among them was the replacement of the traditional polling day, which of course is Monday, with a two-day weekend voting period.
Bill proposes, instead, to retain Monday voting and add Saturday and Sunday. I certainly understand the intention behind having more voting days. As I indicated when I appeared before you last fall, this was, in fact, my initial instinct, but after careful review, I recommended against it. This remains my recommendation today. Let me explain.
Three polling days over a weekend and a Monday will increase the risk of labour shortage and limit the number of polling places available for the full voting period, in part because in a pandemic, schools will generally not be available on the Monday and places of worship on the weekend, or at least part of the weekend.
This will result in increasing the number of voters per poll and will not facilitate distancing. Fewer polling places will also result in electors having to travel farther than usual to cast their votes, especially in rural areas where they may have to vote outside of their town or in places that may not meet accessibility standards.
I invite members of the committee to amend Bill to provide for a two-day weekend voting period or else to simply stay with the traditional Monday. Either solution would, in my opinion, result in better services to electors.
Before concluding my remarks, I would like to draw your attention to one item that is not currently contained in the bill, and it relates to the collection of signatures for candidate nominations. This matter was raised during the Toronto by-elections and discussed, I should say, several times, at the advisory committee of political parties after I had made my recommendations.
The act requires that signatures be collected by candidates from 100 electors, each in the presence of a witness. This will be more challenging, of course, during a pandemic. Currently signatures can be collected electronically but not without difficulty, given the legal requirement to have a witness. A more user-friendly electronic solution is possible, but that would require an amendment to the act to remove the witness requirement, as is the case in some provinces. It would also, however, involve developing new systems and business processes. Given the time this will require and the investments, this is something that should be considered more in the long term and not as a quick and temporary solution, certainly not for the next few months.
As a temporary solution, the committee may wish to consider reducing the number of signatures required for a candidate nomination so as to limit in-person contact. I note that most provinces and territories require significantly fewer signatures. For example, Ontario only requires 25. Some have as few as five signatures.
Thank you for inviting me today. I welcome your questions on these matters, and of course, any other matter addressed in the bill.
Madam Chair, when we spoke last week, you suggested that I bring potential written amendments to the bill to support the work of the committee, which is somewhat unusual. I do have amendments and I'd be happy to share them through the clerk, if that is the wish of the committee. I'm in your hands in that regard.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much to all of the team that has come from Elections Canada.
Mr. Perrault, I really appreciate your coming and speaking on this bill, and thank you very much for bringing that additional information to this committee.
I'm actually just going to start off with some more simple questions, because I think there has been a lot of discussion on what we're looking at in terms of the length of a writ. That has been a discussion on whether there should be a shorter or longer writ. I know there really hasn't been something specifically determined here.
At the end of the day, who is the entity that decides whether it is a 35-day, 47-day or 50-day writ? Would that be the Governor General, the Chief Electoral Officer or perhaps somebody coming from public health, or would that be the Prime Minister?
:
We've developed various options, assisted and unassisted, for in‑person voting, but we won't have mobile voting. We don't want poll workers going from one seniors' residence to another or from one care home to another. There are over 7,000 care homes or seniors' residences in Canada, and every one of them has been contacted. Discussions were held with each of them to determine, on a preliminary basis, what their preferences would be. The result of these discussions will be repeated during an election period to see, depending on the evolution of the circumstances, what would be the best solution for them.
When I appeared before the committee in the fall, I said, and I repeated it earlier, that I could do this through adaptations to the legislation. It's unusual to plan adaptations to the law. They are normally due to things that happen along the way that we have to react to. In this context, given the magnitude of the adaptations and the fact that I was planning them in advance, I indicated this in my report and asked to have a parliamentary mandate to at least see if there was a negative reaction. I didn't see any. That's why I'm saying that if the bill passes, I'll have a clear mandate for that flexibility.
However, if the bill does not pass, due to time constraints, for example, and an election were to be called, the legislation still provides me with the tools to give me the flexibility to serve the residences in the manner they deem most appropriate to their circumstances.
:
I would like to come back to an issue that is important to me.
You said previously, in another appearance, that there was an opportunity to have voting over three days, in other words, a weekend and the Monday. I understand that it's evolving and that you've done your work, but I don't understand the statistic that more people would be present on two days than on three days.
Logically, it seems to me, if we have a pool of Canadians voting over three days, the distribution of votes is certainly over three days. So there would be fewer people and less risk.
Could you explain in a little more detail your logic when you say that there would be fewer people at one time over two days and that it would be safer?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to extend my greetings to Mr. Perrault, Mr. Roussel and Ms. Lawson. I'm very happy that they're here today.
Mr. Perrault, you tabled a report on October 5. You came to see us and explained why we should have a two‑day voting period on Saturday and Sunday. This would give us more space, provide a greater selection of locations and make the schools an option over the weekend. I'll let you address that.
The Bloc Québécois lobbied hard [Technical difficulty—Editor]. We did so because you, the election expert, motivated us.
When we bring people of your calibre to the committee to discuss a topic that you know and know well, I think that we must listen to you. I lobbied hard for the vote to be held on Saturday and Sunday. You're going even further and saying that, if it can't be done on Saturday and Sunday, we should just do it on Monday. I completely understand your argument. At the time, I didn't understand it in that way, but now I understand it more and more. If you want a place that's available on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, the choice becomes more and more difficult and increasingly limited. As a result, this will keep people away from the polls. Is that right?
I understood that schools were more available over the weekends. However, you added that looking for availability on Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays will make the supply scarce and keep people away from the polls. That's what I understood. Is that right?
:
I think I'll have to repeat a little bit.
[Translation]
To put this in context, I said that the electronic signature process was possible, but that it required a witness. This makes the process much more complicated.
If we want an electronic system—and I think that we should be looking at this over the longer term—we should first consider removing the witness requirement. Some provinces or territories don't have this requirement.
We should also develop business processes and an electronic system that works well. I would say that, with all the other things involved in elections, including the work with seniors and the system changes related to date changes—about 40 systems are used in elections—it may seem simple, but it isn't. I don't recommend doing this on a short‑term basis, because there's way too much involved.
I'm saying that, if we want to reduce the burden and contact associated with signatures over the short term, we can cut back on the number of signatures. Most provinces and territories in Canada require far fewer signatures. Nova Scotia requires five, Saskatchewan requires four, Ontario requires 25 and Quebec requires 100. There's a whole range.
At the federal level, the requirement is also 100 signatures, but we could lower that number to [Technical difficulty—Editor] for example, or 25. This would ensure that the process is maintained, but without as many contact requirements at the start of the election.
In my view, the easiest way to minimize contact is to reduce the number of signatures.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
One of the issues that I think we've discussed before is the question of how many more people are likely to use special or mail-in ballots in the context of a pandemic election. Under the current process, if I understand correctly, people have to produce a copy of their identification for Elections Canada, which is as it should be. In the context of a pandemic election, there's concern that people who don't have access to a photocopier or a scanner or to the Internet may struggle in order to be able to get Elections Canada not only their application but also the accompanying supporting documents that prove their identity.
I'm wondering what plans you have for that. There has been discussion at committee before about the idea of authorizing staff at Canada Post outlets to essentially do the ID verification process on behalf of Elections Canada, so that they could certify the identity of the person who then puts the application in the mail at the Canada Post outlet and that part is done. Then the person doesn't have to interact with Elections Canada by Internet or have access to a photocopier. Their ID would have been established at the point of mailing in their application.
I'm just wondering what thinking has gone on by you and your office in terms of how to square the circle for voters who either don't have a reliable Internet connection or aren't able to access a photocopier or scanner, and how they would access mail-in voting in a pandemic context.
:
It's actually a very interesting proposition. As you know, electors do have to produce a document form of an address even if that is only a letter of attestation, for example, for seniors living in long-term care facilities. It may not require a photocopy, but in some cases it will pose a bit of a barrier.
There is no legal impediment that I'm aware of—certainly not in our legislation—to having Canada Post employees validate the identity and address of a person in-person, viewing their documents and then certifying that in a process that we could establish with Canada Post. In fact, there have been some discussions with Canada Post to that effect.
I cannot speak for Canada Post and to what extent they would be prepared to go there or what time they would require to do that. It's something that's being looked at, but I certainly cannot commit or say anything on behalf of Canada Post.
What I can say, however, is that the same kind of interaction is possible at the office of the returning officer, or there are sometimes in large districts additional offices for assistant returning officers. Though not as many certainly as postal outlets, there are places where people can go to and, in person, obtain a special ballot.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Perrault and our guests from Elections Canada.
I have to apologize. There is a kindergarten class going on in the other room, and it sounds like they're singing a Father's Day song. I'll try to tune that out so that I'm still surprised on Sunday.
Thank you, again, to our witnesses. This has been a fascinating conversation.
I want to start out by saying a word of appreciation to you, Mr. Perrault, and to Elections Canada for the work that you've already undertaken leading up to a potential election by taking into account different mitigation measures if there is a snap election at some point. That kind of leads into my first question.
Obviously, this committee is actually moving heaven and earth, I would say, to get through prior to the House rising in a week's time. I just want to gauge your comfort level. Obviously, there are risks with this pandemic. There's never not going to be a risk when we're dealing with a global pandemic, but I just want to gauge your comfort level right now—if there was an election over the summer months or early into the fall without C-19 having received royal assent—with running an election under the current rules, taking into account, obviously, the adaptation measures that you've already noted.
:
Thank you for that. I appreciate that and I think that is a vote of confidence in your agency and something that we as parliamentarians, and as politicians [
[Technical difficulty—Editor] inform our public about the confidence we have in your agency.
If I have time, I will come back to some of the recruitment challenges, but I want to go back to something that's been talked about a few times already. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I think it is an important issue. That's the two-day versus three-day versus one-day writ period. Obviously, your recommendation was a Saturday and Sunday. In , the government has gone in a different direction with the Saturday, Sunday and Monday.
In your opening comments, you did note you would prefer either a traditional Monday or a Saturday and Sunday and not the combination of the two. I just wanted to clarify that, if given the choice, you would rather have a single one-day voting period on a Monday versus the Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Is that your position?
:
Yes. I appreciate that.
That kind of leads in logically to my next question. Obviously, there are four days of advance polls plus however many days of polling we will have under Bill , whether we stick with the three days or move to a single day or a single weekend. It goes back to the staffing challenges. I have heard anecdotally that, with the census, there has been a bit of a challenge in terms of recruiting people to fill these positions.
Looking at an election context, especially within a pandemic, I don't want to stereotype [Technical difficulty—Editor] volunteer or to work as elections officials tend to be slightly older than me, in that age cohort. I want to know what efforts the agency is making currently in terms of ensuring that there are appropriate staffing levels for four days of advance polling before an election day, regardless of how many and what challenges you're seeing. What might need to be done, legislatively or otherwise, to address that staffing challenge?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Monsieur Perrault, you've said more than once here today that you're confident, even under the current rules, that you could run an election that is safe from a public health point of view, but there's another important question that I want to put to you.
Strictly speaking, I mean, you can have an election [Technical difficulty—Editor] at 110% that was perfectly safe from a public health point of view. Safety from a public health point of view is one thing—it's very important—but the other thing that the committee was at pains to show, in both the main body of its report on the matter and in the very title, is that there are two things that have to be taken into consideration. The other is the likely turnout and people's comfort with voting, even if voting is safe.
There's a question about whether logistically it will be easier for people to vote under Bill in a pandemic context, and whether having measures like some of the measures in Bill would put people at ease and make them feel more comfortable about showing up to vote, either in person or voting by mail.
I want you to answer that other fundamental question, as I see it, in respect to Bill . Do you think that Bill promises a salutatory effect on turnout and will help Canada have at least the kind of turnout that we've normally seen in elections?
Also, do you think there's a threat of a lower turnout [Technical difficulty—Editor] a non-Bill context to a Bill context?
:
There are many factors that affect turnout, and we don't control a number of them. Motivation and whether there are circumstances that light a fire for voters are things that we don't have control of. What we are responsible for is limiting barriers to voting and making sure that there's a range of options for electors who face a range of lifestyles and life circumstances.
For elders, people in remote communities, vulnerable populations, students...for all of these, I can say that we have a range of service options. People who want to vote, whatever their circumstances, should be able to vote in the next election.
Now, Bill , in some ways, gives me a clear mandate to do things that I'm already planning—as I said, the services for seniors in long-term care facilities. If the bill does not have time to pass, I will use the adaptation power.
I think there was a very good idea in this bill, which is the use of drop-boxes in polling places. It's something we can do and we plan to do. It does not require a change to the legislation to do that, but it's certainly something that emerged from the bill. As we looked at it, we decided that this is something we should be doing so that voters, if they receive a postal ballot and it is late in the campaign, do not need to worry about their ability to cast their ballot. There's a range of things we are doing that are very much mirrored both in the report of your committee last February and, in some cases, in Bill and that will assist in ensuring that voters can cast their ballots.
As I said, I think we are in a good position. It doesn't mean that there won't be challenges. I want to be clear that any election is a bit of a challenge and that in a pandemic it's even more of a challenge, but we have a range of tools to assist voters in these circumstances.
:
Thanks very much. I wasn't sure about this.
Mr. Perrault, thank you very much for being here today, because I think you've brought in so much commentary on what this could look like and what we should be looking at.
Of course, this is the first time we've had a chance to really discuss Bill . The facts you brought out about a three-day writ versus a one-day writ and all of these different issues you're talking about are things that we need to really reflect on. At this time, I recognize that there are opportunities for questions, but I want to move a motion because, specifically after hearing you, Mr. Perrault, it gives us a good reason to make sure there are opportunities for other witnesses.
I had put this motion on notice on Friday. I would like to move the following motion:
That, in relation to its consideration of Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response), the Committee
(a) invite the following to appear as witnesses at their earliest opportunities and prior to clause-by-clause consideration:
(i) the Chief Electoral Officer—
Thank you, Mr. Perrault, for being here today. It's been useful.
ç
—(ii) a panel consisting of the Chief Electoral Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Chief Medical Officer of Health of Newfoundland and Labrador—
Ms. Sahota, I believe this motion should be on the notice already. It's there if anyone wants to refer to it, but I will start from the top.
I move:
That, in relation to its consideration of Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response), the Committee
(a) invite the following to appear as witnesses at their earliest opportunities and prior to clause-by-clause consideration:
(i) the Chief Electoral Officer,
(ii) a panel consisting of the Chief Electoral Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Chief Medical Officer of Health of Newfoundland and Labrador,
(iii) a panel consisting of representatives of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador,
(iv) a panel consisting of the Chief Electoral Officer of Yukon and the Chief Electoral Officer of New Brunswick,
(v) a panel of four federal returning officers, with one nominated by each recognized party—
As an aside, as you indicated, everything is going to have to be looked at. Although Mr. Perrault has been out there working with his people, it's really important that we also recognize some of those challenges.
It continues:
(vi) representatives of the Canadian Association of Long Term Care, and
(vii) a panel of professors Peter Russell, William Cross, Ken Carty, and Kelly Bildook; and
(b) invite appropriate technical officials from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, in addition to the usual officials from the Privy Council Office, to appear during clause-by-clause consideration.
Madam Chair, I believe everybody has this. There does not need to be a lengthy debate on [Technical difficulty—Editor]. What I'm indicating is that we have just heard from our first witness today and, even from this, he is bringing forward some amendments because there are some issues he is noting. I think that's really important.
We know this legislation was tabled prior to our even setting down our report. We know that we have not had efficient or effective time to actually look at these things. When we hear from somebody like Mr. Perrault, who is saying this is something he is looking at, I think it is really critical that we don't just ram this through and say that it's not going to be a safe election. We've heard from Mr. Perrault that he is able to make it a safe election. I totally understand where Daniel was going with that there. We have to make sure it is democratic, but at this time I think it is essential that we listen to some witnesses.
Ruby, I'll turn it back over to you and perhaps we can have the opportunity to discuss this and take it to a vote.
Thank you very much.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I have just a very few remarks. I'll start by saying I very much appreciate the sentiment of the motion and I think in an ideal circumstance it would behoove the committee to hear from the people that Ms. Vecchio has identified as potential witnesses.
I do think it's important that the bill be reported back to the House as soon as possible for the reasons I was mentioning earlier, that we've heard for a long time now from Mr. Perrault that he's confident Elections Canada can deliver an election that is safe from a public health point of view, but what remains is the question of whether or not enough Canadians are going to feel comfortable enough to vote. What C-19 offers for me, and one of the reasons it's always been very important in light of the CEO maintaining consistently throughout the entire pandemic that they could run an election that's safe from a public health point of view, is that I have tended to see and the virtue of legislative amendment as being more about ensuring that we actually get people comfortable with voting and that they can do that in ways that not only are safe but also feel safe to them and don't become a barrier to voting.
I know also in the example of Newfoundland it wasn't necessarily that Newfoundland couldn't deliver an election that was safe from a public health point of view. It was the perception of poll workers and voters that caused people to feel that they shouldn't be going out to the polls. What that would mean for the result of the election caused there to be a delay in the election day, in fact many delays, because people recognized that it's not enough to have an election that's safe from a public health point of view. You also have to have enough participation to make the results legitimate, or it wasn't worth having an election in the first place.
I see that as being the virtue of and that's why it's imperative that we deal with it and report it back to the House quickly. I would have preferred that we not have a months-long filibuster at the committee. It would have created a lot more time for us to consider C-19 properly, but I can't change the past. What I can do is play the hand dealt and to work at what I think the priority should be, which in this case is reporting the bill back to the House.
While I regret that we were tied up for a long time and we weren't able to do this important work in more depth, that's the situation in which we find ourselves. I also just don't have the same faith in that perhaps my colleagues in the Conservative Party seem to have that he won't put his own self-interest ahead of the interest of the nation. If I really felt we weren't going to have an election this summer and that the could be trusted to do the right thing, then we wouldn't be on the timeline that I believe we are on, which is trying to get this bill in place before the summer, because I think it's very unlikely that we're coming back in September.
I don't usually play pundit. It's not a role that I'm comfortable in. I like to work to change outcomes and to decide outcomes rather than to comment on what other people are thinking or doing, but in this case, there are so many signs of a summer election, including the take-note debate tonight for MPs who have announced they are not running again. I can't fathom why a government would agree to that unless they had an intention of calling an election. There are a lot of signs leading towards a summer election. That's why I think it's really important that we get this bill passed and back to the House.
While I would really like to hear from these witnesses, I don't think we're in a position to do that. I think our committee has burned up the time that we would need in order to do that. The important thing right now is to get the bill reported back to the House in order to put Canadians more at ease with the options that they'll have for voting, and to make sure that they feel they're doing that in a safe way and that the legitimacy of the result isn't compromised by low participation. That's why I do not intend to support this motion. Although I think, ultimately, it would have been very nice to hear from these folks, I don't think that a realistic timeline allows for that.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be brief.
First, I want to assure Mr. Blaikie that I, too, do not trust the . I, too, do not have faith in the Prime Minister, in terms of what he may or may not do over the summer months in terms of triggering a unilateral election during the summer months or early in the fall before the House of Commons returns. I just want to make sure that's on record, about my lack of trust or faith in Justin Trudeau. That was more of a side note.
Very briefly, in terms of this motion and the recommendations from my colleague Mrs. Vecchio, I think it's incumbent upon us as a committee tasked with reviewing a very important piece of legislation that we do our due diligence. We could have had these witnesses and we could have had this discussion weeks ago had there not been a filibuster. That's the unfortunate effect that the Liberals placed us in.
I don't think we should let Liberal partisan games get in the way of us doing our job. That job is very simple: that we review this piece of legislation and make recommendations and amendments to the very best of our abilities. To do that, I think we need to do our job and hear from witnesses. It's a relatively pared down [Technical difficulty—Editor]. It's not going to take weeks and weeks. I understand we're under the time crunch when the House of Commons will be adjourning for the summer.
Again, it behooves us to do our job and to hear from witnesses. We've heard from the Chief Electoral Officer and we've heard from ministers. We've heard the partisan spin from the minister, and we've now heard from the agency responsible. I think we need to hear from others as well.
I'm going to leave it there. I'm pretty good at counting, so it's pretty clear where this vote will go, but I do think it's important that we go forward with these witnesses. I will leave it there, and I will yield the floor.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to make a few points. First, I want to pick up on what my colleague, Mr. Blaikie, said. We need to move fairly quickly as a whole. We certainly don't want to filibuster. We want the work to proceed smoothly [Technical difficulty—Editor] months of filibustering in the committee. The work hasn't been very constructive. I still find it unfortunate that we're being asked to proceed very quickly after we took a fairly long break due to issues unrelated to the purpose of our work. That's the first point.
The second point concerns the motion moved by Ms. Vecchio. We're told that the government is giving several signs that it may want to call an election within a certain period. In my opinion, the fact that the government has certain electoral, political or partisan intentions shouldn't influence how we work in the committee. In my view, that isn't an argument for rejecting Ms. Vecchio's motion to hear from many more witnesses. It also isn't an argument for speeding up our work. Like Ms. Vecchio and other members, we would have appreciated hearing from other witnesses in the committee, including representatives of the Institut national de la santé publique du Québec.
We're ready to proceed with the clause‑by‑clause consideration because we want the report to be sent quickly. I also want to reiterate that neither the government's intentions with respect to the election nor the months spent failing to work as productively as possible on Bill should influence our decisions today.
Regarding the motion, I can't support it. However, perhaps we in the Bloc Québécois, [Inaudible—Editor] for other cases.