MP Blaney, I thank you for that comment. My policy adviser texted me and said the same thing, so thank you to both you and my amazing policy adviser.
Thank you. I will slow down for the benefit of everyone. My sincere excusez-moi to the interpreters for going at a faster clip. I know they've been working terribly hard for hours on end. I thank them for all of their efforts, and MP Blaney for her gentle reminder.
Thank you so much. I'll continue:
By incentivizing and supporting youth to engage through a system of well-organized service opportunities, they will be empowered both to safely participate in service projects in an era of physical distancing, and to provide tangible benefits to addressing important social causes in their communities in collaboration with non-profits across Canada.
This bilingual digital service program seeks to:
Create meaningful service opportunities for approximately 20,000 youth between ages 16 and 29 years across Canada, bearing in mind COVID-19 physical distancing measures.
Offer turn-key service opportunities that are flexible and supportive of social impact efforts and designed in collaboration with non-profits across Canada.
Support Canada Service Corps national partners that may be in need of support to transform their traditional volunteer placements into digital service projects.
Ensure service initiatives are diverse and inclusive in nature for youth, provide skill-development...that benefit society, and include effective economic incentives to encourage participation.
This organization that put forward this idea and how it evolved to the CSSG goes to show me (a) how much they were involved in wanting to assist youth during this pandemic and (b) how genuinely forthright the information is out there for us to see. During the finance committee testimony, we heard from a number of individuals, from the Privy Council clerk to the Prime Minister to the Prime Minister's chief of staff. It's important for us to understand that the testimony was there for us to read and go over. For me, in my humble view, it answered many, many questions.
Now, I'm sure that the opposition—in their right, of course, in their job—want more questions answered. That's within their prerogative, and they need to keep doing that. I get that and I understand that.
I also would take a step back and ask what are the questions that we are trying to answer with this motion. What are we trying to get at with this motion? To me, again, the Prime Minister's mother was here at the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce. I'm sorry to repeat this, but for MP Blaney, who was not here when I said this, for her benefit, the Prime Minister's mother was here in the City of Vaughan. She participated in an event with the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce. She spoke about her life experience and her life story. There were approximately a good 1,000 people there, I would say. The majority of them—I'd say 800, probably 950—in the audience were women. You could hear a pin drop.
I would just be very saddened to know that this motion captures an event like that by an individual. It was a non-political event. They were invited by a non-political organization. It was attended, frankly, by a majority of people who were non-political, who run businesses and are women entrepreneurs who take risks every day, and are mothers—the whole gamut, spanning all different occupations, careers, experiences and communities—and here was the Prime Minister's mother coming to speak at that event.
This motion captures that. That concerns me. It concerns me especially when what's relevant has been disclosed and is on the public record. I think that is something that we all really need to dwell on. Now, on the ethics of the motion, being on the ethics committee, I'm not a philosopher. That's just not my shtick. I think I actually switched from philosophy class to an economics class. I went into economics instead, both at the undergraduate and the graduate levels, and that's my field. I love numbers, and that's why, when I read this document that's available about what the engagement honorariums were, what the associated expenses were.... It's all out there.
Why are we going back to 2008—I think it's 2008—when I believe there was another government in power at that time? How does what the Prime Minister's family were doing in 2008 pertain to today? I would argue that the intent of this motion is absolutely nothing other than a fishing expedition. That's all.
It is much to my dismay that we are down that path and that the opposition party has chosen to go down that path. I would hope that the other parties in the House and colleagues from all sides would look at that and say, “You know what? I think there are other avenues that we could proceed along. There are other ways of getting and having tough questions answered.”
I said this earlier on. I absolutely believe in asking tough questions and answering tough questions, no matter what aspect of my life I've been in, whether it's my private sector career for 20 years, growing up as a kid or now as a public servant, and I think it's important.
I'm just going back to the funding agreement because I think it's really important to again recognize that the aim of this agreement was not to benefit an organization, not to benefit individuals. The aim of this program was to benefit youth. That, to me, is the unfortunate aspect of how it evolved. Here, I agree with Mr. Simms, absolutely.
The principles of all the programs we entered into were to make sure our seniors were taken care of as they face higher costs, make sure that people who lost their jobs due to COVID-19 or were impacted were taken care of through the programs and to make sure there was continued attachment between employers and employees, which we did through the CEWS.
I argued vehemently that the original program of 10% needed to be 75%—I sent several emails—and I was very happy to see, when it went to 75%, that small business owners in all our ridings were assisted through the CEBA, and that, yes, students could be assisted through various channels like Canada summer jobs, which I know the opposition pointed out and we acted on, as well the Canada emergency student benefit. We all know those programs are put in place, but, again, going to this motion here that's been brought forth, what does this achieve? That's the one question I would love the opposition to answer. What does this motion achieve?
The information is out there. Questions were asked over the summertime. What does this achieve other than, in my view, going after someone's mother and their brother and the Prime Minister's wife? That, to me, and as I was quoted, is to me, fundamentally wrong. People may think otherwise.
I know it's within the opposition's right and purview to ask for such a motion. I get it. To me it's overreach, and I think that, as a committee, we have many other things to study. If a committee or some sort of an agreement is reached between all the House leaders or if anything is done to study programs to look at them, great. Let's do that. Let's learn what we can learn from the pandemic. Let's learn how to make Canada a better place. Let's learn, hopefully, not for next time, because this pandemic is taking its toll on a lot of folks. We know that from—I don't want to say this, but—people who are homeless and needing help and people who have drug addictions and stuff. You read the stories. We know the numbers and the resources we need to dedicate to those areas, which we are.
This motion, however, does not help any Canadian out there. It does not help anyone; it's pure political partisanship to the nth degree, and I really wish I weren't speaking on this thing at 10:16 at night. I wish I were home with my wife and my kids, who should be sleeping by now because they need to go to school tomorrow. For me, Chair—and I'll stop in a second—this is a non-starter.
I am going to yield the floor now. I will allow someone else to speak. I want to say it's nice to see everybody for the eighth hour now of this wonderful procedure.
Let me say to MP Barrett, I'd love to hear some of your comments. I greatly appreciate your work ethic and I respect you very much as an MP and as a friend, much like many of your colleagues. I understand we all have a job to do.
My job tonight is to say that this is what my feeling is about this on a personal basis. I just don't agree fundamentally with this motion, not even with its intent. Concerning the values of going after someone's mother and their family, again I say frankly, to me it's wrong—that's the way I look at it—especially when they're not political office holders.
Thank you.