Debates of Oct. 20th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Special committee on anti-corruption

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

My colleague said that Harper brought it in. Yes he did. He was wise. He knew that the Liberals would someday form government again and they could not help themselves, which is why we know about this. I thank Stephen Harper for that.

This was the beginning of the erosion of trust that Canadians have in the government. The Prime Minister broke the rules four times, but that alone was not enough.

Then we moved to the SNC-Lavalin affair, which is absolutely disturbing. I remember one of the low points in the last Parliament was the feeling of complete and utter disgust. The former attorney general, now an independent member of Parliament, an aboriginal woman with a good reputation who wanted to do the right thing, resisted at all measures and all counts the pressure she was put under by the public service doing the Prime Minister's bidding, by the Prime Minister himself, and by several in the Prime Minister's cabinet and their senior officials. This suggests that the Prime Minister was going to get his way, one way or another.

I guess that is pretty indicative of how this Prime Minister runs things, which is where we find ourselves today. He is going to get his way on this motion, one way or another. How someone does one thing is usually how they do all things, and we have seen this behaviour before. The Prime Minister has thrown down that gauntlet because he was going to get his way in SNC-Lavalin, and he is pretty sure he is going to get his way this time as well.

I am curious to see what the NDP will do when it comes time to vote. The New Democrats say that there are three options before the House, but the last time I checked we can vote yea or nay for a motion. Those are the only two options. I suppose they can abstain and run away, but we will see what the NDP does.

With the SNC-Lavalin affair, it was the first time in history that we had an eminently qualified woman of aboriginal descent, and she was absolutely treated like rubbish. She was cast out of not only her cabinet portfolio but also her caucus. Her reward was her voters in the last election, who sent a clear message, not only to the Liberal government but also to all parliamentarians, that the way we conduct ourselves and the way we comport ourselves matter. Ethics and integrity matter, which brings us to the present day and the WE scandal.

We know, because of the bits of information that we have been able to extract so far, that the government's message and narrative on this issue does not match the evidence we have. It does not match it at all. It is no coincidence whatsoever that the prorogation was timed immediately prior to the release of documents. By the way, the parliamentary law clerk was supposed to oversee the redaction according to the committee's request. However, because Parliament was prorogued, the government got to decide what was redacted in those documents. That is not a coincidence. That has cover-up written all over it. It is not the crime, but the cover-up that causes all the issues.

Instead of talking about the things that we ought to be talking about today, we, as the official opposition, find ourselves doing the work that is necessary to expose this corruption for Canadians, to get to the bottom of it and to send a message to Canadians that their tax dollars are going to be spent on the interests they have. Those dollars will not be spent on the interests of the Liberal Party, the Liberal Prime Minister or well-connected Liberal insiders, instead of being used to deal with other economic issues, health issues or first nations issues. There are all kinds of issues across this country. Many of them are manufactured, I would suggest, by the policies of the current government.

We should be talking about those issues, but there are 338 of us here in this House. There is not a problem at all with a dozen or so of us taking time out of our otherwise busy days and having one more committee to sit on to look into this corruption. Canadians deserve answers.

I am proud of our leader. I am proud of the team I am surrounded with here, and I am proud to stand up for all Canadians across this country to get to the bottom of this. I will be supporting this motion wholeheartedly.

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

Madam Speaker, I have listened to Conservatives speak on this motion, particularly the leader. The WE controversy is about a program. It is one of a multitude of programs that was proposed. In fact, the WE program does not exist. There was a recommendation by the public service for the government to accept the WE proposal. From what I understand and to the very best of my knowledge, I do not believe it continued at all, yet the Conservative Party wants to focus all the attention of the House on that issue.

I am wondering if the member can justify that. I know I would find it very difficult to justify the amount of energy and time that the official opposition is putting on this issue. I suggest it is about motives, and their motives have nothing to do—

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

The hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, it would be nice if somebody else on the Liberal bench would ask me a question once in a while after I give a speech, but that is okay. I appreciate the member's intervention, such as it was.

I remember a movie that Leslie Nielsen was in. It was called The Naked Gun. He was trying to do crowd control after an explosion at a fireworks factory and his words to the camera and everybody facing him were, “Please disperse. Nothing to see here.” Meanwhile, fireworks are going off everywhere in the background. This is exactly the problem we have with the Liberal government. If there is nothing to see here, what is there to fear from passing the motion?

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

Madam Speaker, from the outset, since we arrived here almost a year ago, my colleagues and I have been making proposals.

The proposed committee will examine the situations that have occurred since the beginning of the pandemic. We will be able to learn valuable lessons and find some good solutions for all parliamentarians and parties from that.

I would like my colleague to talk about the lessons that the Conservatives would learn from this committee that we all want for the good of Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I did not hear a question. It seems to me from the comments the leader of her party made that the Bloc Québécois will be supporting this motion because it is important. I know all parties in this House ought to be supporting this motion because we are parliamentarians. We are sent here to do this work. My job is to represent the people of central Alberta and her job is to represent the people in her riding in Quebec, but all Canadians pay taxes. All Canadians deserve answers as to where their tax dollars are being spent, and we deserve to be able to ask these questions.

However, more importantly, we deserve to have some answers. If the answers are not going to be found in the health committee, the finance committee or the ethics committee, then we need to strike our own committee. It will be a committee with a specific mandate to order documents, and it will have the powers and authorities necessary to do it so we can get to the bottom of this and actually find out if there is nothing to see here once and for all.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to clarify a few things. It is not the same thing to say that what happened under the Conservatives with Bev Oda was just a $16 orange juice. It was very clear that she lied, and the prime minister prorogued Parliament. That orange juice was a symbol of privilege that we see, whether it is of the Liberals or the Conservatives.

Why do the Conservatives believe that this committee needs to be chaired by an opposition member? The Liberals do not want a Conservative chair and the Conservatives do not want a Liberal chair. Could I propose that perhaps the member for Timmins—James Bay could chair the committee? We could actually get to work.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, when I asked the member for Timmins—James Bay whether he would even support this motion, he was equivocating on this. He was not even sure he would support the motion. It is pretty hard for me to stand here and say I am going to support the member for Timmins—James Bay to be the chair of the committee when he has not even committed to voting in favour of this motion.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

We see a debate take place today that necessitates some comments at the outset on the importance of democracy and the role of the official opposition within that democracy.

There is no democracy without a vibrant opposition. That much is true, particularly in the Westminster parliamentary tradition where the opposition, and especially the leader of the opposition, has an opportunity to engage directly with the government each day on matters of importance to the country. This is different from, for example, a presidential system where that direct engagement is less visible. It is one of the hallmarks of the parliamentary tradition that we have here in Canada and, of course, in Britain, where we borrowed the system from. I do not discount the importance of an official opposition. I do not discount the importance—

[An hon. member]

That is refreshing.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

It is refreshing, and if we were to canvass the opinion of colleagues on this side of the House, my hon. colleague across the way would find that all of us feel the same way.

The opposition plays a very important role, and within that, opposition day motions play a very important role. This is especially the case during times of crisis. It is an opportunity for the opposition to have an entire day to raise matters that are meaningful, and to put forward ideas that actually matter and that have an impact on the direction of the country.

We are seized now, as a country, with COVID-19. It is important for us to think about the way forward and to engage in debate on that very important issue. It is the challenge and crisis of our time. Indeed, it is, without question, the biggest crisis of our time, and certainly the most important one we have faced as Canadians since World War II.

Sacrifices have been made by Canadians throughout the country. I think about the first wave in the spring. We all saw our constituents, and we all had those conversations. There were constituents who stayed home, who kept their distance from loved ones, and it has had a tremendous impact. We will tell our children, grandchildren and future generations about it when we get past this crisis, and we will get past it.

The virus did overcome us, but it did not defeat us. The economy has suffered its largest contraction since the 1930s, and unemployment has increased to levels we have not seen in our lifetimes. Those are the facts that we see on paper and the points we see recited in the business press and newspapers, on television and online. However, it has to be said that the challenges that have been endured and the sacrifices that have been made have been those of real, everyday people.

For individuals and businesses, I cannot properly put into words what they have gone through for their country. I talk to those individuals and business owners every day, and they have had enduring questions as we have passed through the first wave and are now in the midst of a second wave. It is important that the government continue to seize itself with these matters and with this large issue.

However, I am heartened by the fact that at least there is a blueprint, a very important and concrete one, which was established during the first wave, and that is the set of programs that have held the country up, both individuals and businesses. I am thinking about the Canada emergency response benefit, CERB, in particular, which has now transitioned to the Canada recovery benefit, CRB. I am thinking about the Canada emergency business account, CEBA, and the wage subsidy that has helped so many businesses.

We heard my hon. colleague for Winnipeg Centre talk about the CERB today. There were close to nine million Canadians who benefited from that lifeline, and that is a term I do not use lightly, because it was a lifeline for so many Canadians. It ensured they could still put food on the table and take care of their bills and other expenses. Of course, the government had to act, and it did so with measures like the CERB.

I have talked to countless business owners in my community who have benefited from the Canada emergency business account and, of course, a portion of that is forgivable.

CEBA was extremely important and was an idea that came in part from the work done at committees, committees that have an important role. I will discuss the role and potential of committees in a moment. Serving on the Standing Committee on Finance, as I do, is a tremendous honour. In the spring we had an opportunity to raise ideas directly to the then finance minister, the Prime Minister and members of cabinet on what was needed. CEBA was an idea that came out of that engagement, at least in part. Certainly the bureaucracy played an important role and has advised on this and helped to design programs, and its role cannot be understated.

The wage subsidy is a very successful program. I was thrilled to see in throne speech that the government decided to continue it well into 2021. Of course we await more details on that. We could be debating such matters, but unfortunately the opposition is seized with other issues.

I mentioned the public service's extraordinary work, particularly on the CERB and getting it out to Canadians in record speed. That needs to be underlined, along with all the other work it has done. I would be remiss, and I know all members, regardless of party affiliation, would agree, if I did not mention the work done in constituency offices by our incredible office staff. In my case it is Ryan Gauss, Josh Chadwick, Asiya Barakzai and Zheger Hassan who helped me in ways I will never forget in the spring during the crisis and now in the second wave. I know we all value our staff very much engaging with constituents and picking up those phone calls. There are record number of cases coming through our offices. In fact, in my office we have seen about a 350% increase in email and call volumes. I know other MPs will have similar stories to tell this House. It is something we have all seen. We continue to rely on our staff, who have been truly tremendous in this experience.

Have mistakes been made during the COVID-19 experience? Has the federal government made mistakes? It has made mistakes. How can one not make mistakes as a government when one is in the midst of an unprecedented crisis and flying the plane and building it at the same time, so to speak? The programs the government has put in place have never been seen before, programs like the CERB and all the other programs I mentioned. As one is moving at record speed, one is certainly going to make a mistake.

Is the WE Charity issue one of those mistakes? It is. I put that on the record before at the finance committee; other Liberal members have as well. The government has done well, but can the government do better?

What we see today is an opposition day motion that completely ignores the issues of the day. The Conservatives have presented a motion intended to paralyze the government at this most critical time. They proposed a committee that would serve their partisan interests, not the interests of Canadians. There is nothing wrong with reviewing spending. The government has proposed an idea that would lead to the creation of a committee that would do just that. It would review all COVID-19 spending in a non-partisan way. That is necessary. We do need that.

However, what the Conservatives are pointing to is something quite different. They use the word “corruption”. I would caution my colleagues to be careful with the words they use. The word “corruption” implies something quite specific. It implies that members of the government are on the take and that there is some sort of agreement between members of the government and those who have been mentioned, whether it is with the WE Charity organizations and others, where payments are being received or something along those lines. Very nefarious actions are being pointed to that do not exist. Let us be careful with the words we use. I wonder if members would use the word “corruption” out of this chamber.

Of course the government is right to see this as a matter of confidence. We have seen the hypocrisy of the Conservatives when at the finance committee we could have looked at redacted documents and they turned down the idea of having public servants come to testify as to why documents were redacted. They did not want to hear from public servants.

It is time to return to the real work of Parliament. Let us have committees engage on matters of COVID-19, not some political theatre carried out by the Conservatives. We have so much work to do. We have legislation before this House on MAID, conversion therapy and sexual—

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

Order.

The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, it was an interesting avoidance of the issue altogether from that member. He talked about health care workers and small business owners, as if they should be used as political cover for Liberal corruption.

When we use the word, we know exactly what it means. It is not a mistake when they design a program where a charity that has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Prime Minister's family gets half a billion dollars from the Government of Canada. It is not a mistake when Frank Baylis leaves this chamber as a Liberal member of Parliament and gets a multi-million dollar contract for ventilators. It is not a mistake when all this happens. It is corruption, as the Prime Minister has been found on multiple occasions to have breached the Ethics Code.

Does the member really consider those to be honest mistakes? Does he consider it to be an honest mistake that the WE Charity was chosen to create a program out of thin air and it just happened to be an organization that pumps the Prime Minister's tires and gives cash to his family?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, I do not dismiss the observation that the WE Charity issue was not handled well by the government. I do not dismiss that, but let us be very clear. When the member and his colleagues use words like “corruption”, it implies something very nefarious indeed. It implies that there is a formal agreement or informal agreement between organizations and individuals and government members where government members are on the take, as I said, receiving payment in return for political favour. That has not been established, ever. I wonder if the hon. member and his colleagues would go out of this chamber and make that accusation. When they use words like “corruption”, they really have to consider what it is they are doing in this House. There is no substance to that accusation whatsoever. Yes, mistakes have been made. Corruption has not happened.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the member opposite.

He spoke about the importance of a responsible opposition. Would a responsible opposition have turned a blind eye to the sponsorship scandal? I do not think so and I think that history has proven us right.

By creating this committee, we are acting responsibly because we are making it possible for the other committees to do their work while the special committee sheds light on a scandal that involves the Prime Minister.

Does my colleague opposite agree that we are able to chew gum and walk at the same time, as they say?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course we can do many things at once. At the top of the list ought to be work for Canadians on matters that they genuinely care about. I know in my own community, emails and phone calls on WE were in very small number and they stopped in the summer.

What Canadians care about is help for their families. They care about help for businesses. They want to know more details about what the government will do with the Canada emergency business account. They want to know more details about the Canada emergency wage subsidy. They want to know more details about rent and how the federal government will assist with rent.

The games being played by the opposition, and in particular the Conservatives on this, are tremendously disappointing and confined to the Ottawa bubble. Canadians care about their everyday lives.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really have to say that I find this shameful, what the Liberals are trying to do to cover up such a mess and using COVID-19 as an excuse to make sure they do not get caught with their hands in the cookie jar or misusing funds.

The hon. member stated that the motion today does not deal with the issues of the day. The Liberals might feel that, but on this side of the House we feel it is an issue, just like many Canadians are wondering why they are not being paid and yet all this money is being bailed out to the WE scandal. Even the Prime Minister has said he was not going to try to stop this when he prorogued government. He said that if the committees want to start up the investigation after Parliament returned that would be up to them, so that is what we are doing.

Does the member believe that threatening to call an election over trying to hide financial reports to parliamentarians is justified?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I made it clear in my remarks earlier why I think the government is right to consider this a matter of confidence.

I would also add that the member's party, the Conservatives and the Bloc, at finance committee just a few days ago, stood in the way of Liberal members being in favour of having public servants come to the committee and explain why redactions on WE documents happened. They prevented that from going forward. We were open to learning more about redacted documents. We know that they are matter of confidence and—

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

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to follow my colleague's thoughtful remarks. I have had a certain amount of experience in this House, as members know. I have had the opportunity to observe opposition tactics over the years, some valid and some egregious. I would put this motion in the latter category.

I would describe this motion as a publicity stunt. What gave it away for me was the original title of the motion, which has since been changed in a kind of Conservative sleight of hand when they realized that maybe they had overstepped themselves a little. When I heard the title, it reminded me of how the Conservatives used to name bills in a previous Parliament. They would give bills sort of Orwellian names, intended to communicate for electoral purposes. I remember when the Conservatives brought in a bill that was really an exercise in voter suppression and called it the “Fair Elections Act.” We know that the Conservatives like to engage in sloganeering, in how they name their bills and motions.

This is supposed to be Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. What is implied in the title of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is the notion of constructive contribution and of constructive opposition, worthy of a Diefenbaker or a Stanfield or a Clark or, on our side, a John Turner, who recently passed.

This motion is profoundly disingenuous, because it really does not seek to scrutinize, broadly, the government policies and expenditures that have been implemented in response to the pandemic. Its intention is really to disrupt for some putative political gain, smack in the middle of the greatest crisis this country has faced since the Second World War. Canadians are not impressed.

Let us look at some of the basic facts about the WE controversy. My colleague just mentioned in his speech that there was no private financial interest in the agreement between the federal government and WE. There was merely a mutually shared goal of helping young people financially survive an unprecedented pandemic and build their careers through meaningful volunteerism.

What the opposition, which claims to be so transparent and noble, fails to tell Canadians is that the WE Charity is not permitted to turn a profit in its dealings with the government or with anyone else, and that is because it is a charity. To preserve its charity tax status, it has to operate as a non-profit organization.

The Conservatives, and, sadly, the NDP has done the same, have let people believe that this was a $900-million contract for an organization, when that in fact was not the case. The $900 million was to be distributed on the ground amongst other organizations. The WE Charity was to be paid for administrative costs, which amounted to 5% of that amount of $900 million, but saying it was to be 5% of $900 million would not make many headlines. We know that is what the opposition is after here, headlines.

The Conservatives conveniently leave out the fact that the recommendation to use WE came from the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy had its reasons for recommending a third party and they seemed pretty obvious, namely it had capacity issues during a pandemic, when the energy, time and attention of public servants were highly focused on the task of designing and rolling out a series of unprecedented support measures in an unprecedented period of time, in an unprecedented health, social and economic crisis. Again, not the party of Diefenbaker, Stanfield or Clark.

Another reason why the bureaucracy was not equipped to do this particular job is that it simply did not have the organizational and digital infrastructure to mobilize Canadian youth quickly.

We know that the Prime Minister preferred using an existing government program and bureaucracy, the Canada Service Corps. That being said, this was by no means the first time the government had used third parties with robust established national networks to deliver support for Canadians. The United Way is one example. The Red Cross is another example. Food Banks Canada is a third example. Besides, one would think that the Conservatives, for ideological reasons, would welcome using third parties, because their refrain is that governments cannot do everything.

The government has proposed a constructive alternative to this misguided Conservative motion. We have proposed that the House appoint a special committee with the mandate to conduct hearings to examine and review all aspects of the government's spending in response to the pandemic. The committee would mirror the balance in committees now, which reflects the relative distribution of seats that Canadians voted for a year ago. The Conservative motion would single-handedly change the standard makeup of committees in this Parliament. Rather than have six members out of 12 for the government, it would reduce the government's representation to one-third of the members of the committee.

How did the Conservatives come up with this number? It boggles the mind. Why not two? Why not one? Why not leave government members off the committee altogether?

The committee the government is proposing would conform to current party proportions, because that is how Canadians voted. The committee the government is proposing would have all the powers of standing committees and would free up all the other committees that the Conservatives are currently paralyzing in the midst of a pandemic. The government has also proactively suggested that the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and other ministers and senior officials would appear as witnesses from time to time, as the committee sees fit. The committee would also be given the mandate to take over responsibility for the issue of document redactions related to the July 7 motion currently before the finance committee. The committee would allow public servants the opportunity to explain their decisions, before trying to hold them in contempt.

A true fiscal Conservative would jump at the opportunity to create such a committee with such a wide-ranging mandate, but the Conservatives just want to let the opportunity go by and indulge in sloganeering, the lazy politician's pastime. Why are the Conservatives choosing this facile and empty road so often travelled by their party these days? It is because they do not have anything else to talk about. It is because the Conservatives do not have a credible climate plan that can serve, at the same time, to build a more resilient and sustainable economy. It is because the Conservatives do not have a child care plan to allow families, women in particular, to enter and stay in the workforce and contribute economically to this country. It is because the Conservatives do not have a plan for ensuring that our seniors are properly taken care of in long-term care facilities. It is because they do not have a housing plan. It is because they do not have a plan for the auto industry to transition to zero-emission vehicles.

The Conservatives just came out of yet another leadership contest. One would think they would have some ideas. What does one do as an empty policy shell? One plays a shell game. That is what we have here, unfortunately, but this is not the time for games or sleight of hand. People are suffering, businesses are hanging on and people are getting sick. The official opposition needs to start contributing something meaningful.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, once upon a time, a member introduced a private member's bill in 2014 called the transparency act, which, among other things, called government documents public property. The same member in 2015 wrote an open letter to all Canadians, which said, among other things, “you expect us to...be honest, open, and sincere in our efforts to serve the public interest.” The story in the The Globe and Mail was false. Who was this radical with these radical ideas of transparency? It was the member of Parliament for Papineau, the current Prime Minister and these gentlemen's leader.

How can they justify this embarrassing metamorphosis and the stunning hypocrisy of refusing to deliver documents and threatening an election, when their leader was so in favour of transparency a mere few years ago?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the whole point of the committee the government is proposing is not only to have a wider mandate to allow the opposition to look into more issues, if they want to do the work, but also to provide the opportunity to question public servants on how documents requested as a result of the motion of July 7 are delivered. It would be a prime opportunity, and I wish the hon. member would jump on it.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think a more rational attitude is in order, because I am hearing words like “tactics” and “partisanship”. Despite my colleague's indignant tone, I think that, as a lawmaker, he could help us shed light on this matter. All day, the Liberals have been telling us that we need to focus on dealing with the pandemic because that is what our constituents want. That is exactly the point of this motion: to let all the other standing committees ask the questions and do what needs to be done to deal with the crisis.

A special committee can most certainly examine the WE Charity scandal, so what is the problem? My colleague says that the term “anti-corruption” is insulting. Fine. This morning, the Conservatives suggested rewording it and creating a special committee on allegations of misuse of public funds.

Adjustments are already being made, and efforts are focused on collaborating with lawmakers first and foremost, not with supporters of the executive branch and the Prime Minister. In addition, the motion now specifies that this is not a vote of confidence, so it would not trigger an election if the government loses the vote. That would enable us to keep dealing with the pandemic, which is what all of our constituents want. What, then, is the problem?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by acknowledging that my hon. colleague is one of the least partisan members of the opposition. He and I served together on the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, and he has a habit of speaking out on matters of principle. I cannot accuse him of excessive partisanship.

At the same time, trying to convince Canadians that “tactics and partisanship” is not the motto of the opposition is a bit much. As everyone knows, that is how the parliamentary system works. I have been in opposition, and I know about the tactics and strategies.

There is nothing new about the Conservatives trying to test the boundaries. However, if they really have lost confidence, if Parliament really has lost confidence, if it does not believe this government is doing things right, if it does not believe in the solution that the government is proposing, namely an even bigger committee with a broader mandate, we do not know what else we can offer.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, at a time when we see the worst health and economic crisis, all Liberal actions have hit the heart of Canadians who are struggling, including those in my riding, where people are losing jobs and are even at risk of losing housing.

Why does the government continue to filibuster? Why does it not immediately stop withholding documents and release them so we can get on to the business of protecting Canadians?