Debates of April 20th, 2020

Proceedings of the House and Committees

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately that is the case, but I am not surprised. We talked about this and made it a budget priority, but all we have gotten so far is radio silence. We have not heard anything.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by expressing our sadness as New Democrats and all Canadians. We are grieving today as a nation for the horrible loss suffered by those living in Nova Scotia. The senseless violence and loss of life is all that much more painful given the safety precautions and measures that need to be taken with COVID-19 and how these will limit loved ones from coming together to mourn in the usual way.

I want to remember RCMP Constable Constable Heidi Stevenson for her bravery and for showing courage to help and save others, and she lost her life doing so. Again, I want to send a message to people in Nova Scotia: They are not alone. We are grieving together as a nation. We are reeling from the pain of this loss.

Today, we are talking about a motion that touches on the work of Parliament. During a global pandemic, when there are so many Canadians deeply impacted by this crisis through the loss of work and the impact on business, we need to be focusing all our efforts on doing whatever we can to help Canadians.

I also want to mention that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

The focus of our work in Parliament must be on keeping families, workers and small businesses safe and on saving lives. People are still in desperate need of help. There are still far too many people falling through the cracks.

Our position remains very clear. First, we believe that instead of having complicated criteria and tests for people to apply to themselves, we should send direct financial assistance to all Canadians, both immediately and during the crisis as it goes on. Second, we should make the CERB universal. The Prime Minister should stand in Parliament and make it very clear that if any people in our country need help, they should apply for the CERB.

We also need to ensure that those who are putting themselves at risk, the essential front-line workers who are risking their lives and safety and potentially endangering their families, are acknowledged with the equipment to stay safe but also with a courage bonus to acknowledge the risk and danger they are going through. People who are working low-wage jobs need a top-up. They need additional financial support to acknowledge the risk they are putting themselves in for the benefit of all of us.

We are still hearing many examples of people who are falling through the cracks. Although we are proud of the work that we were able to do in the last emergency session, when we obtained guarantees to close the gap for so many Canadians who were not able to access the CERB, we are still hearing many stories of Canadians who are are falling through the cracks. One group in particular that has been missed by the programs offered, and one that has been ignored by the government, is students.

The reality is that the proposals the government is talking about regarding Canada summer jobs, or additional funding for summer jobs, are not going to be enough. Students no longer have an opportunity to work. There are no longer those jobs they were hoping to work at this summer. In this upcoming summer, those jobs will not be available.

To fix this problem and make sure students are not ignored and left behind, we can make some simple changes. One of those is to change the wording in the current legislation from those who have ceased working as a result of COVID-19 to those who are unable to work as a result of COVID-19. It would address the students who are falling through the cracks. Many students were hoping to work this summer, but those jobs are simply unavailable. That is why we need to make sure they are not forgotten.

I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister outlining this amendment, asking him to ensure that students are not forgotten and that we do not leave students behind. While we have not received an adequate response, we will not give up on students. We will continue to fight to make sure they receive the supports they need.

Another concern that has been raised is that people are worried about the cost of rent. While people have lost their income, they still have to pay rent, and many people are worried about losing their homes. Many families are also worried about paying their mortgages. Small businesses are also worried about paying commercial rents and mortgages. We maintain that the simplest solution is to use the powers we have at the federal level to put a pause on mortgages and then work with provincial governments for a pause on rents.

While we are encouraged that the government has said it will take some steps to help people or businesses with rents, these are just not enough. There are significant powers we have at the federal level. We need to use them.

We also need to help renters. The housing crisis was already making it hard for people to find a safe place to call home. Being in danger of losing one's home because one cannot pay the rent is even harder.

What we need to do is ensure there is more help for more people, and do it faster. Our proposal allows us to do exactly that. We are proposing having a regular, planned meeting here in Parliament in person to give us the chance to vote on legislation that needs to be changed to help more people.

Two days of virtual sessions would ensure that people who are in regions across the country are represented, and their members of Parliament could ask questions on behalf of those constituents. In Parliament, we are limited to a small number, and that is often the people who are close to Ottawa. By having a virtual session, we can ensure that those MPs who represent communities far from Ottawa still have a voice, that their voice is heard and the stories of their constituents are shared, including stories that we continue to hear about health care workers who do not have adequate personal protective equipment to stay safe.

Those who are running to danger, putting their lives at risk for our lives, do not have the equipment they need to stay healthy. In addition, we are hearing stories of health care workers who are forced to sleep in their cars because they do not want to go home and put their families at risk. This is not the way health care workers should be treated in our country. We need to do more than just thank them. We need to ensure that they have the right equipment and conditions to be safe.

Small businesses have raised concerns about waiting weeks for help and not knowing if they are going to be able to continue with their livelihoods, if they are going to be able to continue to pay their staff, or if their businesses will remain open. They are waiting for help.

We have heard stories about people worried about their parents in long-term care homes. They are going through, in some cases, deplorable conditions. It is heartbreaking to think of seniors who have worked their whole lives and sacrificed so much ending up in long-term care homes with substandard conditions. This is the result of years of neglect by Liberal and Conservative governments at both federal and provincial levels. In long-term care homes, we are witnessing the horrific consequences of this neglect.

We have heard from indigenous leaders who have shared stories about their fears and worries about keeping their communities safe. They are worried about being able to keep their communities safe with no access to basic human rights, such as clean drinking water and adequate housing.

In the last weeks, we have seen Canadians rise to a challenge that none of us imagined months ago. Again and again we have seen Canadians show how much they want to take care of one another and how much they want to make sure government holds this value of caring for one another above all else. That should be the test of what we do as government. Government should make its decisions based on whether they actually help take better care of people.

Let us not hope for things to return to normal. Instead, let us chart a course forward to a new normal, where we measure the decisions we make and the wealth of our nations by how well we take care of one another.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member has been a strong proponent of virtual sittings, and clearly three other parties have as well. As it stands, the procedure and House affairs committee has been charged with looking into the possibility of virtual sittings, and the Speaker has said that we are a minimum four weeks away. He said that last week.

The member for North Island—Powell River, who is a member of the PROC committee, expressed concerns at our first meeting the other day about security, rural broadband and connectivity. There are procedural issues, issues of privilege, constitutional issues, connectivity issues and many more that have to be looked at. I do not understand why the member would stand up and endorse virtual sittings when many of those issues have not yet been addressed. Right now, under our procedures, Standing Orders and rules, and I would argue constitutionally, there is only one mechanism for us to meet and meet effectively, where the privileges of members are not in a position to be breached, and that is the House of Commons.

In advance of the work of PROC, why would the member decide or agree that virtual is the way to go, when no report has been written yet recommending that and there has been no witness testimony, and there has been concern, even from his party, about some of the issues we will be facing?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would hope that during a pandemic we would be spending our time in Parliament talking about how to better help people, how we can provide help to front-line health care providers and how we can help people in long-term care homes. That is what we should be spending our time on in this Parliament, but the Conservatives would rather talk about procedures and how we sit in the House.

I want to make something very clear. We want to hear the stories of people from across this country, and having a limited number of parliamentarians in Ottawa will exclude their voices. People from my home province of B.C. will not have their voices heard.

I believe we need to use technology. We have seen other organizations use it successfully. As the Parliament of Canada, we can absolutely find a way to ensure that people in this country have their voices heard through a virtual sitting. We need to minimize the risk of exposure to illness. We should have one day to make changes to legislation and two days to ask questions and hear the stories and voices of people from across Canada.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I have a question about help for people who need it most. What are his thoughts on benefits for seniors? Should they be eligible at 65 or 75?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

That is exactly why we proposed a universal benefit and sending money directly to people. Too many people are slipping through the cracks. We think a universal benefit is the solution to this problem. If we provide a universal benefit, we can help seniors, students and everyone else who has slipped through the cracks.

This situation is totally unacceptable. Seniors do not have access to adequate resources to ensure a reasonable standard of living. That is exactly why we are fighting for everyone who needs help now, including seniors and students.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Burnaby South for his excellent speech.

I would like him to explain to us why the current situation provides us with an opportunity, despite all the tragedy and the fact that this crisis is unprecedented. Often, crises enable us to make fundamental changes. In these situations, getting back to normal is not realistic because “normal” is part of the problem.

How should we, as a society, seize this opportunity to change how we do things?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my deputy leader for his question.

That is exactly right. For weeks now, over the course of this crisis, we have witnessed acts of courage and compassion from Canadians. We have seen that people want to take care of each other, and it is very important to tap into this energy, this movement, to bring about positive change. We can create a new normal, where people take better care of each other. We can improve existing social programs and services. We can create—

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

Order.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, as all parliamentarians here in the House have done, I would like to dedicate the first part of my speech to the victims of the appalling shooting that took place in Nova Scotia today and to their families. We are already going through difficult times as a community and a society. I cannot begin to imagine how dreadful this must be right now for that Nova Scotia community. In particular, my thoughts go out to RCMP Constable Heidi Stevenson, who lost her life to this unthinkable tragedy. I believe we will all have to collectively reflect on many issues, be it mental health or access to firearms.

Similarly, speaking of condolences, I would like to highlight the work of the first care attendant in Quebec to die from COVID-19, namely Victoria Salvan, who worked at the Grace Dart CHSLD in Montreal. After 25 years of loyal service and constant dedication to her patients, generously giving them much of her time, she tragically passed away this weekend as a result of this horrible pandemic.

I want to acknowledge the tremendous work of some of her colleagues. They are anxious and scared. It is understandable. On the weekend, I heard one of her colleagues say that she has decided to isolate herself from her children and no longer see them for as long as she continues to work with seniors at this long-term care home. She is not the only one to make that sacrifice. I think it is a major sacrifice that needs to be acknowledged.

I again urge the government to take every necessary measure to provide them with the best medical protective equipment and ensure their health and safety. I also want to acknowledge the recent work of union representatives, the local union president Jonathan Deschamps and union representative Alexandre Prégent.

That being said, I want to say a few words on the motion before us here in Parliament. It is an interesting motion. As I was saying before, it is a reminder of how our democracy works, the role of a Parliament and the role of MPs and parliamentarians in general. Obviously, our role is to find solutions and make proposals, but is also to keep the government accountable. Sometimes the government makes bad decisions, or no decisions, or the decisions it makes need to be changed and improved. The role of the 338 people in this room, although we are not 338 today, is to push the government to make the best possible decisions for our society and our community.

These are extraordinary times we are living in. I find that the proposal on the table is entirely reasonable and in line with the public health guidelines that we are all being asked to heed. I think that as parliamentarians and elected members we must lead by example and tell our constituents that the situation is serious and we must do everything we can to try to minimize the repercussions, while tens of thousands of people are already infected and hundreds of people have sadly died of this virus.

Getting together several times a week, even in limited numbers, is not necessarily the best idea. We represent Canadians in 10 provinces, certain territories and remote regions. By coming here and forcing House of Commons staff to put themselves at risk, given that they have to provide services while we are here, we are increasing the possibility of contagion and infection in our own homes, in our ridings and in our communities when we go home. We need to strike a balance between adhering to public health guidelines and enabling MPs to represent their constituents and ask questions, because some things need to be improved promptly.

The Liberal government suggested holding one in-person sitting and one virtual sitting per week. The NDP felt that a single 90-minute virtual sitting would not be enough, because it would only allow enough time for 18 MPs, not including those who are in Ottawa, to question the government every week. That did not seem like much to us. We countered by proposing a second 90-minute virtual sitting, which would bring up to 36 the number of MPs who would get to question the ministers and Prime Minister each week without having to be in Ottawa. Our proposal was accepted by the Liberal Party, and I think the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party also agreed.

The Conservative Party says its chief concern is to ensure that MPs can do their job and ask questions at least three times a week. However, the motion before us would do just that. It allows us to hold one in-person sitting and two virtual sittings to ask questions. We know that four parliamentary committees are currently meeting. They are using technology to question witnesses by video conference. I think we could just move forward and strike that balance between the need to protect ourselves and our constituents and the need to hold the government accountable.

Since we are talking about accountability, I want to address some things that are going on right now and that we, including the NDP leader, have mentioned. Students have been largely forgotten, since those who did not earn $5,000 over the past 12 months are not eligible for the CERB. Thousands of people are living with a lot of anxiety and are not getting any help. We are putting pressure on the government to find a solution.

If the government had accepted the NDP's proposal to make the benefit universal from the get-go, students would have been covered, as would seniors. We must all ask this government questions and put pressure on it to find a solution.

People are writing to our offices because they are impatient, anxious and stressed. They do not know how they will manage to pay their rent and bills. I have two stories to share. The first is from a couple of students at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières. They told me that they had research contracts at the university that covered their rent, but these contracts had been suspended. Since they do not earn $5,000 a year, they told me that they were not eligible for the emergency assistance. They asked me if they could expect anything in the future.

I hope that asking questions of this government will eventually enable me to tell them that something is coming. That is our job as parliamentarians. I think we can all do our jobs virtually, by video conference or online.

The other example is a woman named Camille, a student in the psychoeducation program at the University of Montreal. She receives loans and bursaries for the school year, but she has not accumulated enough hours of work to qualify for EI. She had some animation contracts lined up outside of her academic activities, but they were all cancelled because of the pandemic. Since her income was under $5,000, considering her loans and bursaries, she is not getting anything. She planned to work as a day camp counsellor this summer, but she still does not know whether this will pan out. She also does not qualify for any social assistance because of her loans and bursaries. In her message, she said she was afraid of being told not to worry and that she would not be overlooked, when she is in fact being overlooked. She said she wants something concrete, that she is scared, sad and disappointed. She has always done everything she could to get by and ensure a brighter future, she said.

There are hundreds if not thousands of people like Camille who are knocking on our doors. They want us to take action and come up with real solutions. Yes, we need to pressure the government to help these people. That is our job as parliamentarians. However, we also need to set an example and not come together here in the House in large numbers several times per week.

I would now like to talk about another problem. The biggest food bank in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie cannot access the federal assistance program for food banks because it got a very modest donation from the United Way. There are some inconsistencies in the programs that have been implemented, and some improvements need to be made.

I understand that mistakes are being made because everyone is trying to work quickly. This is the type of situation where, as an opposition MP, I want to be able to ask questions, but I do not want to compromise the safety of my constituents by doing so.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I echo what the member across the way had to say, especially when it comes to groups of people and businesses that are falling through the cracks. We have all experienced that within our constituencies. This is one of the reasons why we need to be here in Parliament. Given that we are sitting today, the NDP seems to have agreed to one sitting day a week. However, that said, the New Democrats have also said they are open to two virtual sittings.

Despite the problems we have talked about on this side of the House regarding virtual sittings and access to broadband Internet in rural communities and access to security, given that PROC has not really started its meetings looking into this, can the New Democrats explain to Parliament when they expect these virtual sittings to begin?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In our discussions with the government, we talked about holding the first virtual sitting next week and then holding two virtual sittings per week, starting on the following week. I imagine that was for technical reasons, to give House of Commons staff the chance to get everything set up. Likely, it is also to give the employees in our riding offices the opportunity to set up all the necessary equipment, microphones, cameras, software and what have you, so that we can hold these very important virtual sittings.

I have all kinds of questions for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and I have no problem at all asking them via video conference.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

I heard a lot of concerns about rent.

Has the hon. member heard questions about the rent paid by SMEs?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the NDP leader for his question.

In Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, and in several other ridings, jobs are created mainly by SMEs. At this time they are experiencing very high levels of stress and anxiety. May 1 is around the corner and they do not know if they will be able to pay their rent. Between 50% and 60% of our small businesses could go bankrupt because they do not have the support they need just to pay the rent.

The wage subsidy is a good thing, but it is not enough to pay tens of thousands of dollars in rent for several months. The federal government must tell the banks, as we have asked, to suspend commercial rent payments to help our businesses. We must also apply pressure to help renters who may not be able to pay their rent at all.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too have many constituents who are bringing forward these concerns. They include small business operators who do not fit the parameters of these programs and students, seniors and other workers. I have employers in my riding who say that some people on the CERB do not want to go back to work because they do not want to earn more than $1,000 and lose out on the other $2,000. Therefore, we have a program that is meant for a bailout and that is not a bucket, but a sieve and needs a lot of work.

Would the hon. member not agree that we would be better off with a guaranteed livable income so that every Canadian would have a base level of income they could not fall below but would keep them at a stable living standard, covering their rent, paying for their food and dealing with this emergency in a way that nobody gets left behind?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague in the Green Party for his question.

I believe that the current crisis gives us pause. We must help people as quickly as possible. There are also questions about what kind of society we want, for example a society where no one is left behind or abandoned.

We thought our social safety net was fairly robust, but we are realizing that it has many holes and that EI does not meet all needs.

I believe this brings back to the forefront the concept of a guaranteed livable income. If we had an efficient tax system, all those who did not need it could just pay it back at the end of the year when they pay their taxes.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, like other members, I will begin by echoing the comments by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the leader of Her Majesty's official opposition, that our prayers and thoughts are with the victims of the shooting over the weekend. It reminds members how precious life is and how short time is on this earth of ours.

I have been tasked by my caucus to speak on their behalf during this period of questioning and to make sure that I reflect their thoughts and comments on what we are all hearing from our constituents back home, both on matters of policy involving the different subsidy programs that are meant to offset some of the costs related to the shutdowns and for our constituents who are hurting because they cannot work or be with their family members because they have been asked to self-isolate.

For many weeks I have been dealing with constituents who have been trying to be repatriated to Canada, especially from Peru. I want to make sure I thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his work on the file and making sure these many Canadians were repatriated. It was a difficult task to accomplish.

Before I move on to some of the caucus commentary I have heard over the last little while, I will mention virtual Parliaments. I need to address that, as the chairman of one of the larger caucuses in this chamber that includes our senators. I can tell the House what a virtual Parliament is going to look like and what the defects and deficiencies will be of trying to host a meeting with over 150 people in it, including the very few staff members who are permitted by our caucus to join us on these calls.

There is a seniors lodge in my riding that has been affected by the spread of COVID-19, the McKenzie Towne Continuing Care Centre. I want to make sure I give my thanks to the staff and tell the seniors in that facility that our thoughts are with them during this time.

Many seniors have passed away in that facility, but there is one I would like to mention, 93-year-old Keith Earl van Vliet, who tested positive for COVID-19. He recovered just today, so I want to make sure I mention him. I mention it too because he comes from a a long line of Loyalists who crossed the border many centuries ago into Canada. Van Vliet is not a typical Québécois name, but his family members were Loyalist Quebeckers for a very long time and then moved out west. They are very proud of their background. They are anglophone Loyalists who decided to speak French. He comes from a long line of them, so I wanted to make sure I mentioned them and the fact that the patriarch of that family has recovered.

At 3 p.m. every day, residents in my riding go to this home. While maintaining physical distancing, they cheer the residents on from outside the home just to bolster their morale. They held a monster truck rally on Friday outside the home and on Saturday some friendly dinosaurs showed up as well. I wanted to be sure I mentioned them. It is appreciated by the residents and the operator of the facility, and also by the staff members who have been affected.

It is said that being the chair of the Conservative caucus in this chamber is like wearing a crown of thorns. I will confirm that in fact it is; it is not an easy thing to do. It is unprecedented what this country is going through, this viral pandemic. There have been many in the past, and this Parliament has continued to meet through difficult times, including through world wars, great depressions, very severe recessions as well as pandemics.

In this chamber we are duty bound. We all ran for public office with the expectation that we would be required at times to make difficult decisions to be away from our families and to ask more of our staff members than sometimes they would like to give in the first place. I know I have depended on staff members in my office to make sure that our caucus can continue to meet virtually, but it is not the same thing as meeting in person. It is absolutely not the same thing.

Every single government program announced thus far has been amended at some point, either by press conference in the morning by the Prime Minister or during the technical briefings. We are always informed after the fact, whether it is regarding CEBA, CEWS or CERB, programs that many of our constituents across the country are taking advantage of.

A great deal of those those changes were brought forward by opposition parties, by both this caucus and others, and not to criticize but to improve and make it better, make it actually work for the people we are hearing from. I have double the volume of phone calls in my office on a regular basis. I have about triple the emails now on a regular basis. In many of these cases, if it was easy, they would simply call Service Canada if they could actually get through. If it was easy, they would go online and log on to their MyCRA account. However, every single case is either unique, falling through the cracks, or is a hardship case that is unusual. It is something Canadians expect their members of Parliament to resolve and bring up in the House, which has been called the “cathedral of democracy” by many current, outgoing and past members. Perhaps in this time, that description is more ephemeral and people may think about those as nice words, but democracy is an essential service and our democracy functions here.

I was looking at what other countries have been doing. Japan, Italy, France, Germany, Greece, Sweden, Finland and the European Union parliaments are meeting on a limited basis. We were accused on this side of wanting to have 338 members of Parliament here. We can see that that is absolutely not the case. We are sitting respectfully at a distance from each other. We have listened to the direction given to us by the public health agencies.

I was speaking with the speaker of the Alberta legislature, which is meeting three times a week. Of course, a reduced number of members are showing up in that chamber, but they still hold question period and still have a Q and A back and forth. In fact, the premier and the leader of Her Majesty’s opposition in Alberta had a one-hour back-and-forth debate between each other on what was going on in Alberta and how Alberta was dealing with it. There are many legislatures in our country that continue to meet, and so can we.

Our proposals were made in good faith. We were always going to return on this date. That was the original agreement. We have done it before. On March 13, when this chamber met, we agreed to return on April 20. We have returned twice already to pass important legislation that the government wanted to see passed. Now, members will excuse us in not being entirely trusting of the government's wishes when it tables legislation that is far in excess of what was discussed between House leaders and then shared with caucus members. We have a certain expectation that good faith negotiations will continue, and we did. Our intention all along was to do right by our constituents and on the issues we were hearing about.

I come from a western province, but there are many areas right across this country that we hear from in our caucus calls. There are issues for our farmers, ranchers, small business owners and golfing club owners. It is a very difficult time for all types of businesses, and now the government will get to discover how business owners organize themselves in order to make a living.

I was speaking with one of the small business owners in my riding, a franchisee of the OPA! of Greece restaurants. I think it is timely since it is the Orthodox holiday now. This gentleman, Raj Chahal, who is obviously not Greek, owns these restaurants. He lost 60% of his staff, and not solely related to COVID-19, but to the government's CERB program whose generosity means that his employees are choosing to stay home. Now, he has worked it out with some of them who wish to come to work so he can continue to serve people. There are other people who are delivering our food to our doors with Uber Eats, DoorDash and other options. I think everybody is taking advantage of this right now. They are essential, just like democracy is essential.

Before I continue, I would like to thank the interpreters in this chamber who are doing, no doubt, incredible work. I want to thank the clerks, security guards and the people who do IT security for us. Some of these people would be in this building regardless of whether or not we were sitting.

Turning to virtual parliaments, we host virtual caucus meetings every Wednesday, as usual, and more as needed. That is the tradition. Our caucus meetings have interpretation services.

Our caucus meetings have interpretation services. The members of my caucus wanted me to be their chair. We are a bilingual country, and I want to make sure that we can do our job in the House of Commons in both official languages.

However, I cannot do this alone; I depend on the House interpreters. Every Wednesday, I ask them to come to Parliament Hill. In fact, their director just informed me that interpreters are required to work on site, whether in the House or committee rooms. We have caucus meetings every Wednesday and we consequently have interpretation services. I ask my staff and computer services personnel to come to the Hill in order to help us do our job. We certainly follow social and physical distancing instructions, but certain House personnel will need to be here, whether we are sitting in the Chamber in person or virtually.

I chair a Conservative caucus of 150 people, including 121 members, over 20 senators and a few staffers who were authorized by our caucus to sit in during our calls. Holding these meetings is no easy task. Just look at how the virtual meetings of the Standing Committee on Health and the Standing Committee on Finance are unfolding; they have encountered some major problems.

It is not easy to raise a point of order in a virtual committee meeting. Aside from the issue of interpretation into English or French, there are multiple buttons that need to be clicked so that members can be heard by their colleagues. I am not just thinking of unilingual francophone MPs, but also unilingual anglophone MPs. I sometimes end up interpreting for my members, which slows down our meetings, meaning that a meeting that should take an hour or two can stretch out to four or five. No one wants to spend four or five hours on a call. I see the President of the Treasury Board nodding in agreement.

In a virtual Parliament consisting of 338 MPs located across the country, either at home or in their constituency offices, we will have problems with time zones and calls being dropped. Some MPs will not be able to connect, while others will not be able to understand what is being said. These problems are already cropping up during our own caucus meetings, even with MPs located in Canada's big cities, who sometimes struggle to hear their colleagues. There are so many things that can go wrong during a virtual meeting and cause a total breakdown, yet I still hear the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons saying that we are basically going to ignore the work done by the procedure and House affairs committee and move directly to a virtual Parliament.

Sometimes an MP wants to ask the clerk a question. How can we do this in a virtual Parliament without interrupting debate in the House? It took me almost four years to learn enough about all the House procedures to be able to defend my rights as an MP and the privileges of my constituents. How are members supposed to do that in a virtual Parliament?

In a virtual chamber, nothing stops government ministers or other members from having those around them give answers and help them. We expect a certain amount of preparation by every single minister in the House to bring us the answers to what we are asking. We are not trying to fulfill our personal curiosities. We are trying to get answers on behalf of our constituents. Constituents are asking us why certain government programs ignore their businesses. They ask, “If I am a sole proprietor, why am I ignored in this program?”

I had a call in my office, one I still intend to return, regarding RDSPs. There is nobody manning those phone banks right now. They are completely shut down, but people have to file. They have to call to make sure that all the transactions are done, but there is nobody picking up those phones right now.

We are not asking for the impossible. I thank the staff who are here making it possible for our democracy to work and for members of Parliament to be here. We are being responsible in how we do our work, and we are being responsible in how we address public health concerns. We could have negotiated, perhaps, a month-long stay for MPs so those who come to Ottawa can stay here and not travel back to their constituencies.

This is the important place where we get answers from the government, stuff that cannot be done on Twitter or Facebook, where different people are exchanging ideas. A lot of our political debates now happen there, but there are things that can only be done in this chamber and can only be done on behalf of our constituents when we rise in the House.

It is an honour and a privilege for us to be selected by the residents in our ridings to come here and do that work for them. That is their expectation. In fact, while sitting here I have received several text messages and emails from constituents in my riding saying they expected me to be here. I hear a member opposite saying no, but I have them. Their expectation was that I would come here and speak on their behalf. I am also conscious that I have to speak on behalf of the other members of my caucus who are not here to speak on behalf of their constituents and their issues with many government programs.

Many of us build relationships with ministers and try our hardest to make sure we bring individual cases to a minister's attention when a person has fallen through all the cracks. We have passed into legislation broad policy measures that the government has proposed. We have expedited them. In fact, the reason we are having this debate today is that we have expedited the motion. We said they did not need to give us a notice and that we would debate it right away and deal with the measures therein. We accept the fact that we find ourselves in an unusual situation, but our house leaders could not reach an agreed-upon consensus ahead of time.

Our caucus is very active. It wants to be heard. It wants an opportunity to test the knowledge and be able to challenge individual ministers to make sure they are not affected by groupthink.

In the United Kingdom, the Conservative government house leader, Jacob Rees-Mogg, mentioned that he welcomed that they continued sitting. Now they are going to have virtual Parliament sittings, which is something we might want to look at. They are bringing screens into the chamber. Physically, ministers and the Prime Minister will still be expected to be there.

I do not know how that would work in this chamber, and I do not know how that would work IT-wise or how many people would be required to make it happen, but Jacob Rees-Mogg mentioned that he wanted to avoid groupthink among his own ministers and within his own party. That is what we are trying to get at. We are trying to make sure that government decisions and policy mechanisms being used to address certain industrial sectors and all the job losses we are seeing are improved. This is about our constituents who are losing their jobs and being left behind by various government programs. This is about landlords, both residential and commercial, who are being left behind and have no have measures.

I am going to switch to French to ensure that everyone understands. We are a bilingual country. We are supposed to work in both official languages in the House and when we do all parliamentary and committee work.

I want the government and you, Mr. Speaker, to defend our rights and privileges, not just on our behalf but also for future members, so that we are able to work in both official languages, move motions and amendments, and conduct all parliamentary business in accordance with the wishes of our constituents. That is very important.

As I mentioned, I chair a virtual meeting of a caucus of almost 150 people every week. It is not easy to ensure that 150 people can follow the agenda, ask questions and make comments to contribute to the work of Parliament. I believe that it will be an enormous challenge. The government says that we are immediately moving to virtual sittings without giving the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs the opportunity to decide how this should work or if it should work in this way.

In conclusion, I want to point out that we are here to work on behalf of our constituents. This is not about advancing our political careers or doing polling. We are here to ensure that all government policies and programs truly help the people who need it most during this pandemic, during which the government has forced the majority of private sector businesses to shut down.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to address the House.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of Parliament from Quebec, and I would simply like to inform my colleague that the Quebec National Assembly has suspended until May 5.

I have a three-month-old grandson I have not seen in a month, because Quebeckers are remarkable in that they listen to the Government of Quebec's instructions so as to prevent tragedy and death and avoid infecting our seniors.

My colleague's comments today sound nothing like what I am hearing from my constituents. They are asking why some members of Parliament insist on coming here to sit more than one day during this crisis. Since my colleague is his party's caucus chair, I would like to inform him and ask him to listen to Quebeckers and Ontarians. These provinces have far more people infected with coronavirus than the others. Does he realize that asking us to cross regions that have restricted access means that we are endangering the health of Quebec and Canadian seniors?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Salaberry—Suroît for her question.

All members of our Conservative caucus, particularly those from Quebec, such as the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, stand up for the rights and health of Quebeckers. I can assure the member that the Quebec MPs in our caucus remind me every day of Quebec's challenges and concerns and of the need to have our meetings take place effectively in both official languages and with respect for the language of Molière.

There are procedures in place in the House to ensure that not all 338 members are required to be here at the same time. We have been accused of wanting everyone to be here at once, but that is clearly not the case. Members could be paired by the whips for voting and, that way, we could reduce the number of members required to hold a sitting of the Parliament of Canada.

I know that the Bloc's fondest wish is for the Parliament of Canada to be closed for the coming months, but we do not think that is a good idea. It is not a good idea for Quebeckers or for any of the constituents in our ridings who are asking us to do our job.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for having raised these concerns.

I am the heritage critic. Montreal is home to a vast number of artists and a truly vibrant cultural scene. However, that community is getting hit hard by the crisis we are all currently experiencing. There have been announcements, but no details. A number of people have told me they were planning on organizing festivals this summer and have already invested money on that. They are asking me whether they will be reimbursed if the festivals cannot be held. Furthermore, many artists are not eligible for the CERB.

I therefore have many questions for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. However, I do not want to endanger my constituents or family members by inappropriately travelling to a given place for a sitting. Is there a reason why I could not ask my questions to the minister by video conference? He could simply answer me in the time normally allotted to him.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his question.

With respect to any questions that he, as NDP critic, would like to ask the heritage minister, I am sure his experience is similar to mine, which is to say, government ministers do not really answer our questions; they just talk. Lots of words are exchanged on both sides, but we do not generally receive much in the way of answers to our questions. We can send emails to ministers, but that process is secret and lacks transparency. The government is not being accountable in public before all Canadians, and that is the big difference.

A virtual Parliament could work, and we are not saying no. However, we want the procedure and House affairs committee to do its job and explain to us how that would work and whether it is the best option. I would also remind my colleague that there are 121 Conservative members in the House and that we have had varying degrees of success with our virtual caucus meetings so far. Canada is a big country, and many of our colleagues are in far-flung regions, where they do not have Internet connections that enable them to work efficiently and participate in their caucus meetings.

It seems to me that many members, along with the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the NDP leader, have not given enough thought to how a virtual Parliament would work in practice. That is why we have a Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which can hear from witnesses. I believe the committee has not yet decided which witnesses to invite for its study of how all this would work for the House of Commons.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is very important to hold government to account and to be able to ask questions. Often in question period, I hear questions from opposition members that do not get fulsome answers. I think it is very often the case that opposition members find they do not get a response they are happy with.

We do have people in rural areas that have serious problems with Internet connection, and this COVID-19 crisis is actually exposing that. There are many people in this country who are like second-class citizens because of the Internet access in their communities. I used to be a satellite installer. We could be getting satellite connection for members of Parliament to make sure that they can connect in a virtual Parliament and make sure that those connections are strong.

Does the member not think that it is imperative that all members from all regions, from coast to coast to coast, have an opportunity to take part in the debate in this House and be able to ask questions, rather than just a select few?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to see you in the Chair.

To the hon. member, that is exactly the point I have been trying to make. I want every member to be heard and every member to be able to participate in a virtual Parliament. However, do members think that satellite installation is going to be instantaneous, right away, or that satellite installation will not require individuals to travel to make sure the infrastructure works? We had one meeting of our caucus, I remember, way before this, when I had to complain to the Speaker vociferously that our interpretation booth failed; physically, the hardware failed in the room.

How many technology and IT staff will be required to come to this building and other buildings in the precinct to make sure that we can actually host virtual meetings where every single member can participate? Participation is not just listening; it is having an opportunity to participate fully in whatever language members choose in this country. I think that is really important to remember.

The member over there was willing to let the House leaders of recognized parties decide when this Parliament should meet again. We have decided that today is the day we are going to sort out, through motions and an amendment, how this Parliament will function for the next few weeks. That is exactly what Canadians expect of us. It is exactly the expectation that they have. We are going to meet today. We are going to deal with issues expeditiously and make sure we hold the government to account.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, like my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, I have also worked in the telecommunications industry. In my experience, satellite technology will unequivocally fail and would not work for our constituents.

Could the member say unequivocally that our virtual meetings have worked seamlessly and without flaw for our weekly caucus meetings?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to confirm that it does not work seamlessly, but I do enjoy the ability to mute microphones at will, something that is impossible to do in person. I am sure you will share this pain with me, Madam Speaker, and there are opportunities for virtual Parliament to do this.

There is an expectation among Canadians that we can have a meeting of 20 people on Zoom, Skype or some other software and it works pretty well. However, once we get to the level where there are 338 people with video, we have to confirm their identities and have interpretation. There needs to be the ability for back and forth between members to change something on the agenda, and in the House, in this case, to move a point of order or to move changes. We see the struggle that the parliamentary committees are having, and that is just two committees a week, with what I have been told is 45 minutes to an hour of prep time in the lead-up. We have 30 committees in the House, and that does not include the shared committees with the Senate.

There is a lot more work that needs to be done by PROC to verify how this will actually work in a 338-member Parliament.