House of Commons Hansard #37 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was questions.

Topics

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Mrs. Alexandra Mendès

Is there unanimous consent?

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Motion No. 7. The hon. House leader gave a very impassioned speech about how we all worked together when this crisis first hit. We worked together immediately so that we would have a safe situation here in Ottawa, whereby the House was suspended on March 13 and we all went back to our ridings and began the hard work of dealing with this pandemic.

However, when the House was suspended at that time, I do not think any of us thought that the government would use that opportunity to circumvent democracy and shut Parliament down for this long a period of time. That was never what Conservatives wanted.

Motion No. 7 would continue the shutdown of democracy. It would continue the shutdown of Parliament. It would continue the shutdown of all members of Parliament who do the work that Canadians elected us to do. What Motion No. 7 would do is re-establish the special committee. Although the special committee is one in which questions can be asked, we certainly are not seeing questions answered. There are many things that the opposition can do when Parliament is actually sitting in order to try to get answers and hold the government to account. That is not going to be happening if this motion passes.

I want to remind Canadians that there are a number of things that we can do as opposition members, including opposition days where we can have full days to debate issues that members of the opposition parties feel are important. Private members' business is allowed to come forward when Parliament is sitting. Under this motion, no private members' business would come forward until probably the end of September. There are questions on the Order Paper that can be posed, whereby very specific and detailed questions are answered, and we have seen so much information come out over the years from questions on the Order Paper. The opposition is not going to be allowed to do that. There are debates and discussions around important committee reports that happen when Parliament is sitting. That will not be happening under this special committee.

Let us be very clear. For all Canadians, for everyone in the House, Parliament would not be resuming. A committee would be resuming and it would be resuming in this place, face to face. This begs the question: If we can resume here four days a week as a committee, why in the world can we not resume as parliamentarians and as a full Parliament?

We had a study done just recently by the PROC committee. It was a good study, but it was probably too short. The committee probably will need more time, and I think it will be getting more time, to do some work that it is doing. There was some fantastic testimony given on why Parliament is essential. Some might suggest this is just about people getting media coverage. What an insult that is to what every single one of us does every single day when Parliament has been sitting and has sat for the last 150 years. We are here to do a job, whether it is in government or in opposition; whether it is the main opposition party, the second opposition party or even that third opposition party over there. Those members are here to do a job as well, and I do not think any of us are going to insult the third party there, even though its numbers are reduced, by saying that the members are here just to get attention.

Let me quote Marc Bosc, former acting clerk of the House. He articulated Parliament's place. Here is what he said:

In too many countries around the world, dominant executive branches of government eclipse parliament. This makes parliaments weaker and less relevant. That imbalance needs to be addressed, especially in a time of crisis.

That is what we are in, Madam Speaker. He continued:

The House of Commons [not committee] needs to be functioning and needs to be seen by Canadians as functioning. I want to be clear. Parliament, particularly the House of Commons [not committee] is an essential service to the country, and members of Parliament are also essential workers.

These views are not just academic concerns. Veteran observers of Canadian politics have made similar points. John Ibbitson, for example, wrote:

Everything that is being debated on Twitter and Facebook and in the news media needs to be debated on the floor of the House [of Commons] and in Question Period.

Again, that is not a committee. He is talking about being in Parliament in the House of Commons and on the floor of the House of Commons. He continued:

Canada is a parliamentary democracy, health emergency or no health emergency....The opposition parties have every right to raise these issues, and the governing party has every right to defend its record. The place to do that is in Parliament, not just once a day in front of a microphone.

Who has been doing that every day in front of a microphone, getting out in front of his cottage, answering a few questions, smiling, telling everybody how he feels and that is it? That is not Parliament. That is not the way our democracy works.

Manon Cornellier, a Quebec journalist, said in Le Devoir, “The Conservatives…are right to require the government to be more accountable. Constant speeches and press conferences cannot replace the duty of ministers and the Prime Minister to be accountable before elected representatives. In a British type of Parliament, the existence of the government depends on the trust of the House”: not a committee but the House, Parliament. “Ultimately, the government must answer for its actions and decisions...”

A lot of academics and media ask this, but more importantly every day my constituents ask me why Parliament is not sitting. They say we are in a middle of a crisis and they have elected me to sit in Parliament. I have had to tell them that the government, together with the help of some of the other parties, has tied our hands behind our backs. We have still been able to do a lot of good work here in opposition. We have seen the work we have done. The government House leader has even acknowledged that pretty well every one of the programs that the government introduced, we as opposition made better, because we did not allow anyone to shut our voice down and we used every tool available.

That is why we want Parliament to sit. We want to deliver better results for Canadians. We know that in a democracy when the government is challenged, when it has to defend what it is doing and maybe improve it, when it has to listen to us on our opposition days and take a position, it is better for Canadians. That is the whole reason Conservatives want Parliament to sit.

That, then, comes to the question of why the government would not want Parliament to sit. Why would the Liberal government prefer to stand up every day, as the Prime Minister does in front of his cottage, answer a few questions and announce some programs for people, but not come back to Parliament? For a long time, the government was saying it was concerned about the health and safety of people in the precinct and members of Parliament. That wears very thin because its own motion calls us all back here four days a week.

Four days a week we are going to be here in the committee, face to face, practising physical distancing and being very responsible, which is what Conservatives have advocated for. However, the Prime Minister does not want Parliament. Therefore, the whole argument of safety is actually pretty thin. I would say it is a thin excuse and not a real reason.

I would suggest the real reason Liberals do not want Parliament to sit is because they do not want the full accountability, the full scrutiny and the full responsibility that will come when Parliament does sit. Make no mistake: We will sit again. Conservatives will stand ready any time to come back as Parliament and hold the government to account for its response to this pandemic, for its lack of response, for its lack of dealing with things in a timely way, for its lack of supporting and providing protection for Canadians.

Make no mistake: The day of reckoning will come for the Prime Minister. He may think he is going to escape Parliament now, but the day will come. Conservatives will hold the government to account. We will do our job. Conservatives stand ready, willing and able to do the job for Canadians that it seems nobody else in this place wants to do.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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 been a parliamentarian for almost 30 years at the provincial and national levels. As the Prime Minister and government House leader have said, Liberals understand the importance of Parliament, and we understand the issue of accountability and transparency. This is one of the reasons we have been working so closely with the member opposite, opposition parties and government members. It is to ensure that there are opportunities to hold the executive branch of government accountable. All in all, I think we have been successful in doing that.

We are talking about the past three months with a pandemic that is truly unique. When we take all of this into consideration, and based upon my experience over the last 30 years, what we are seeing today is in fact a good, balanced approach. This motion would ensure that members of Parliament could hold government accountable and serve our constituents, which is so critically important given the circumstances and needs of our constituents.

Would the member agree that the needs of our constituents are that much greater today than they were even two months ago?

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Madam Speaker, yes, definitely, I agree. I think all of us are working in our constituencies dealing with people who are going through so much stress and loss. Small businesses are on the verge of closing, if they have not already closed. I know in my riding, farmers feel very abandoned by this government. However, I would say that the needs of our constituents have definitely grown, and we are all there responding to that.

I would say that if the government had put this motion forward six weeks ago, it probably would have gotten unanimous support, at least from us on this. As with everything, it is always about two months too late. What we need now is Parliament resumed. A few weeks ago, we would have been satisfied with this face-to-face committee meeting even three days a week. However, what we need now at this point in this pandemic, and with Parliament having been shut down for so long, is for Parliament to resume and not a continued committee.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Bloc

Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC

Madam Speaker, the $73-billion wage subsidy was negotiated about a month ago. I was surprised that the Conservatives were on board with that. Typically, when it comes to public finances, they are very careful and quite sanctimonious. However, they agreed to the $73-billion wage subsidy for workers.

My question is simple. Did the Conservative Party plan to use that program to pad its coffers?

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Madam Speaker, one of the problems that we have had, and in some cases it has been necessary, is dealing with government legislation in such a speedy and accelerated way that we have not been able to hear from witnesses. This is a huge gap, and it is lacking right now, because Parliament is not sitting.

Legislation is passed. After the fact, we are finding out about gaps in the legislation and where there are problems. Whether it is the wage subsidy, support for farmers, which I know is sorely lacking, or support for small businesses, there is always an after-the-fact gap. We have seen the government try to fix it, or in some cases again play catch-up. It is just another reason why we need full Parliament to sit and not just the special committee.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

That said, I am a little offended by her comments suggesting that we come back to the House as though it were business as usual. There have been some 4,000 deaths in Quebec.

Is it not the responsibility of elected officials, the representatives of the people, to lead by example, to listen to public health advice, to avoid bringing 300 or 330 MPs together in the House, and instead adapt our behaviour and our work to the current crisis? I do not understand the Conservative Party's position on this.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to clarify for that member.

We absolutely agree that we should not resume sitting business as usual. We should not have 338 of us here. We need to have a very much reduced setting. However, I think my colleague, who has been here for a while, understands the difference between the roles and powers of a committee and the roles and powers of Parliament.

We are calling for Parliament in a very reduced number to return in a responsible way. If the NDP members want to abdicate and sit on committee their whole careers, that is their choice, but we do not want to do that.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House of Commons today on behalf of my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country, as we debate an important motion, which will set the path of Parliament for the upcoming months and potentially years. I also want to take the time to thank my constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country for doing their part in helping to flatten the curve in Okanagan and British Columbia and, in fact, all Canadians for helping in their communities.

It was over 70 days ago when the House had its last regular meeting. It was on that day, Friday the 13, that our Canadian democracy was put to the test, and it is once again.

Since then, we have lost over 6,300 of our friends and relatives. Millions of Canadians have lost their jobs and livelihood and every one of us has had our lives affected in such a profound way that when we talk about getting back to normal, we are not really sure what that is or what it will look like. We do know it will not be exactly the same. We are seeing it already: Plexiglas everywhere and human touch discouraged.

The committees matter. Each and every committee in the House of Commons has a role to play in studying their area of mandate and how it has been effected. It is absolutely essential that all standing and special committees begin to meet virtually immediately and for all committees to have their normal powers restored.

As provinces and territories begin to open, Parliament has an important role to be present and sitting as this happens. The federal government also has a key role in ensuring the reopening goes effectively.

For example, I have been speaking with many business owners in my riding. In the sectors that are opening, they have raised concerns about not having enough PPE and cleaning supplies and not being able to safely reopen. These are important concerns.

This motion is misleading. What is being proposed is not Parliament. There are no opposition motions, no private members' bills and no emergency debates. It is not only about asking questions, although that is important. Let us be clear that what is being proposed today is not Parliament; it is a committee with limited functions.

Opposition day motions have value. The Liberals have 157 seats out of 338 and opposition parties can bring forth good ideas.

I have a list of some successful Conservative Party opposition motions we have had so far in this Parliament. First, we created a Canada-China committee. This was voted against by the Liberals. Second was auditing government infrastructure plans. This was also voted against by the Liberals. Third was a review of the Parole Board nomination process. Fourth was the tabling of economic downturn documents. Fifth was additional supply days, more opposition motions.

Why would the government not want Parliament to sit at this time and have regular opposition days? Is it because the Conservatives have good ideas and the Liberals feel we will upstage them? Is it because the Liberals feel a lack of control? All I know is that the opposition days are part of our democratic institution that the government has taken away for now and it will be at least four to six months before it will be returning based on what has been proposed.

In a time of crisis such as this, what we are facing now in the role of Parliament is fundamental and essential. Greg Tardi, a former lawyer for the House of Commons, told the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that if there was no Parliament, if there was no give and take, if there was no communication between the government and the people, essentially, in his view, democracy would break down.

I would also like to share a quote from my colleague, the member for Vancouver Quadra and Minister of Digital Government, which I feel effectively sums up the importance of having Parliament return. She said, “There is an economic crisis that needs us to band together and think about why we are here as members of Parliament. We are not here to spend government money. We are here to serve taxpayers and think about their well-being.”

Thinking about the well-being of our constituents during this pandemic is important, and I hear it every day. I have a few comments from my constituents on why they believe Parliament should return with full authority and functions.

Teresa from my riding emailed in saying, “I believe [the Prime Minister] has forgotten that a politician is there to serve the people of the country in a democratic way....I do not understand why the Conservatives are on their own as the other opposition parties are siding with the Liberals.”

Donna emailed me to inquire, “I would like to know why parliament is presently not in session and why PM...is making decisions without parliamentary input.”

Lloyd from my riding says, “The level of despair and frustration in my heart grows daily and I see no help on the horizon. Are there no checks and balances in our institutions? If there are, they are not apparent, at least not to me.”

Canada must be governed through Parliament, not from a podium in front of a cottage or in a committee. Questions are important, but they are not enough. Our institutions must have the tools and resources to scrutinize the decisions made during a time of crisis. This includes institutions such as the Office of the Auditor General. It concerns me greatly the lack of sufficient funding for that office, with outdated technology and insufficient staffing to effectively scrutinize government spending.

We are in a minority government. No political party, no caucus, has majority control of the House of Commons. Let us not forget the government called Parliament back in March to approve of its economic response plan. It added to the bill, at the last minute, the ability for itself to have the power to raise taxes, debt and spending without any parliamentary approval until January 1, 2022.

This is the same government that use an order in council to amend firearms legislation in the middle of a pandemic. One of the questions my constituents ask me often is what other orders in council the minority government is planning.

Crisis management 101 is identifying the crisis. The official opposition members were asking tough questions of the government in the House back in January. One has to put a plan together, and it has become evident the government did not put any kinds of plans together.

We were in a weakened economic position prior to the declaration of the pandemic. Our forestry and oil and gas sectors have been hit hard, mostly due to policies of the government; farmers are coming off a very financially challenging 2019; and we have had four years of deficits at a time when we should have been putting money away to weather uncertain times such as this.

Uncertainty causes a lot of stress for people, and yet the government has failed to address many of the concerns the Conservatives have raised. We have to create substantial plans to give business and our citizens certainty, and the official opposition has made very good recommendations. Are we simply wanting to get by or are we laying the foundation so in the coming months and years we can confidently say yes we will be getting ahead?

To quote a friend, “We need courage, strength and endurance to lead our country, Canada.” The decisions we make today will affect our future generations. This is important. While we follow safety protocols, we must allow all committees to sit fully and we must allow Parliament to sit with its full functions. Our democracy depends on it.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC

Madam Speaker, we agreed ahead of time that the $73-billion wage subsidy program would be for SMEs, to help their employees keep their jobs. That is the mandate we collectively gave ourselves, so that these SMEs, which are enduring unbelievable hardship, could survive the crisis without going bankrupt. However, it has now emerged that the richest party in Canada made use of this wage subsidy program.

Does my colleague have no qualms? She is a Conservative Party member who is applying for money from a program that was originally intended for business owners with financing problems that are facing bankruptcy.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC

Madam Speaker, we have been talking to small businesses across the country. The amount of correspondence I have been getting in my constituency office has been absolutely unprecedented. Therefore, as the official opposition, we were doing a lot of hard work behind the scenes, such as having a lot of meetings and virtual calls, to bring forth all those issues so we could make recommendations to the government on a whole number of programs. We continue to do that.

Our focus is on small businesses and on their livelihoods for which they have worked so hard, so they do not fall through the cracks and can still sustain as small businesses.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

May 25th, 2020 / 11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax, ON

Madam Speaker, I am a little confused by the argument from the member opposite. The problem is that the Conservatives have indicated in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that they are opposed to virtual voting. They are against the House of Commons being able to sit and vote virtually.

Is it the Conservatives' position, because we cannot fill the chamber with 338 people in the middle of a pandemic, that members are unable to vote in the House if we have a hybridized system? They are against virtual voting, so are they suggesting that members in different regions of the country, who cannot come here because of the pandemic, cannot vote and cannot represent their constituents?

Would it not make sense that in PROC, where we are having these discussions, to talk about what is the most expeditious way to get the House back and to be able to vote and work together? I am confused. What exactly is the Conservatives' model? Who and how would that voting work if Parliament were to come back in their conception?

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC

Madam Speaker, we have never said that we want to have 338 people back in this room. I want to be very clear about this. The member is twisting that information. Clearly, we have people in the House right now who are from coast to coast. I am from British Columbia. A fellow member here is from across the country. We are here responsibly right now.

The point is that what the government is proposing today is exactly what we see here. However, instead of it being Parliament, it is a committee. That is the issue. We are here anyway and we can debate. We can do all the functions of Parliament. We are physically here in a limited number and we can operate under that. It does not have to be under a committee; it can be as Parliament.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Green

Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the very passionate speech of the member opposite. My questions are in follow-up to the previous member's question. How is it decided which members are able to participate? How was it decided what members from her caucus would be here today?

I am very curious as to what the deliberations look like.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC

Madam Speaker, I think every caucus may be a little different, but we like to have representation from across the country. We want to ensure that we have representation from all provinces and that we have a good mix of people. We want to ensure we have good representation from across the country.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Madam Speaker, when I was a little boy, my father used to do something that impressed me immensely. He would take a chicken out of the chicken coop, tuck its head under its wing, and swing it back and forth. The chicken would go to sleep, he would put it back on its perch, and it would stay right where he put it. I have grown up a lot since then, and I am not so easy to impress. The Liberals may have a harder time hoodwinking me nowadays.

It seems to me that we are going to have to shift from a vigilant collaboration to a guarded collaboration. It is accurate to say that, over a certain number of weeks, there was a collaboration that turned out to be reasonably effective. The public knows very little about the role that the Bloc Québécois played in developing crucial programs. The wage subsidy program, which is clearly getting so much love from the Liberals and now from the Conservatives, was implemented by other countries before we suggested it. The Minister of Finance was not too keen on the idea, but the Liberals eventually adopted it, and it is a terrific idea.

There have been unforeseen knock-on effects, but now people are coming to realize that the government does not necessarily do what it tells Parliament it will do. Sure, it is never too late to do the right thing, but facts are facts, and the fact is that the Deputy Prime Minister and our leader's office agreed on a question and an answer whereby the government promised everyone in Canada and Quebec that it would give students and CERB beneficiaries an incentive to work. That is crucial to the necessary next steps of recovery and reopening. We need to connect workers and businesses, not widen the gap between them. The Liberals made that promise, but now they are no longer interested, so they are not doing it.

Similarly, the government voted in favour of a motion calling on it to help small businesses with fixed costs. If members talk to any chamber of commerce in Quebec, they will see that it is not working.

The parliamentary leader said this was a first step. I look forward to moving toward a sprint, in other words, taking several steps in very little time because we are in great need of that. Beyond all this dithering, there are businesses saying that they will not survive, that they will close. That seems quite serious to me.

We have to be ever more vigilant because, as is stands, instead of keeping the promises it makes in Parliament, which should be solemn, the government rigged an agreement to move forward without keeping its word.

The Bloc Québécois did not say that we would prevent the government from doing that. We said that we would not take part in the discussion because our priorities are seniors in Quebec, small businesses, CERB claimants who want to and must return to work, fishing and tourism businesses, and more.

Journalists are doing a great job, but what struck me at the press conference is that most of the questions were on the negotiations, on what is happening behind the scenes, what we thought and what was in the email. Unfortunately, that is time that is not being devoted to the good of Quebeckers and Canadians. That is what we want to focus on, but if every party agrees on one thing and the Bloc Québécois does not, we will not stand in the way.

We will share what we hear and call for what we believe that Quebec workers, seniors and businesses need whenever and wherever we can. That is our job, and we must always keep health concerns in mind when doing it, since it is beginning to seem like this situation could last for a long time. We cannot let anyone fall through the cracks. Every day and every week counts for businesses.

When I am not here, I participate in video conferences with commercial development groups, chambers of commerce and RCMs, among others. We are hearing things that are very worrisome from all of the regions of Quebec. I am talking about the regions in the broader sense because, just a few days ago, I met with people from Hochelaga in Montreal who have some serious concerns.

The government wants to hold consultations. That is very noble. However, this morning, I read in The Globe and Mail that the Prime Minister consulted six banks; indeed, just because a person does not speak a certain language as much does not mean that he does not read in that language. What a great idea. It was so wonderful to hear. I am ready to sit down with the Prime Minister any time. I will give him all kinds of ideas. He went and consulted with institutions that are richer by far than the Liberals and the Conservatives. These institutions are so rich that it is a major financial advantage to them to put their money in tax havens and to not pay their fair share of taxes in the country led by the Prime Minister, so that is convenient.

I do not know if it is necessary to consult the banks. Of course, there are expert economists working in banks, but I think that there are economists working for the federal government who are just as qualified. To me, it seems rather callous toward people in difficulty to consult with the banks.

The Bloc Québécois will continue to focus on the real issues for Quebeckers. In general, these issues are also good for Canadians, so we will keep the course. We get all kinds of messages from across Canada. Sure, some are not very polite, but many people tell us that we are not doing a bad job. To do a “not bad” job today, we need to point out a few facts. It is good that we have the time to address this, because the planned formats chip away at people's right to speak. I strongly believe that the people who are receiving the CERB or the CESB want to work. The proof is that they have to have lost income in order to be eligible. These are people who want to work.

We know that a lot of businesses need workers and are wondering where they are. The problem is that the recipients can get their $1,250, $1,750 or $2,000 cheque and still earn $1,000. With current wages, this is equivalent to 12 or 15 hours of work, but if recipients earn one dollar more, they lose their $2,000 in benefits. They may want to be good, engaged citizens, but they are not crazy. Clearly, this problem needs to be fixed.

We proposed that those who work more would always keep more of their money, and we ensured that this principle was accepted. That is an incentive to find employment. That is an incentive to work. The Deputy Prime Minister responded to this proposal by stating “certainly”, which I believe means “yes”. That is my opinion. They could and should have done so. The argument that it is too complicated does not hold water because that is what happens with employment insurance. This is a real and serious concern. Workers need to work and businesses need labour. We have to reconnect them.

Seniors need answers. One measure was announced in a strange way. Seniors found out that they would receive a cheque representing a temporary increase in their old age security pension. The government decided to send a separate cheque so that seniors would not get the impression that it is a permanent increase. This created a lot of confusion. Seniors wondered about the $300 amount compared to the $2,000 benefit.

Major communication fails like that aside, seniors may still have some questions. For example, they may wonder when the three-month period starts and ends. That amount is for three months. It seems like it should have started in mid-March like the other programs, which would mean that the first three-month period for which seniors receive $300—and potentially an additional $200—would end in mid-June, but we do not have a clear answer on that. Instead of answering, the government is cutting deals to make Parliament work without talking to the Bloc. Imagine that.

What happens after the three-month period? We were all really hoping the crisis would last three months, but it is going to last longer than that. No matter how long it goes on, we must not leave anyone behind. What are the consequences? A senior who gets the pension top-up and who also receives the guaranteed income supplement will have a higher income and could get bumped into the next tax bracket, which would mean losing part or all of the guaranteed income supplement.

Is that the case or not? We do not know. When will the cheques go out? This is a fairly basic question. I was originally told it would take up to eight weeks. It makes no sense to think that a crisis could last three months, to provide a measure two months after the crisis begins, and to have the cheque arrive two months after that. Obviously, that is just wrong.

When will they get their cheques? A few weeks have already passed since the measure was announced, and we still do not know when the cheques will arrive. This is a basic, straightforward question. We do not have any answers. This issue must be addressed.

We have also raised a number of questions about the tourism industry and seasonal industries. We need to address the arts, cultural and event sectors. The stakes are enormous in all those sectors, and, I repeat, we must not leave anyone behind.

The parliamentary cafeteria is closed, but we have little brown-bag lunches prepared for us. It occurred to me that maybe I should save my lunch and offer it to the Conservatives and the Liberals, since they seem to be having serious financial difficulties. They are having such serious financial problems that they have to dip into a program created to protect individuals and businesses from bankruptcy. They figure they might as well take advantage of it themselves. This is despicable and entirely unacceptable. Members here have replied on social media that these are Canadian workers who are entitled to the program. No, the program is there for workers who need it. The question then becomes: Who really needs it?

Does the Liberal Party, which took in $2 million in the first three months of the year, need to seek hundreds of thousands more? Does the Conservative Party, which took in $3.9 million in the first quarter, need to go looking for hundreds of thousands more? Come on. The Liberals are presenting a united front, but I know they have had time to prepare. First they create a program that they qualify for, and then they apply for money from the program that they themselves created. It is worth pointing out that this was the political party that pledged, on its leader's honour, to restore public funding for political parties. They are not restoring public funding for political parties, but when a program with public money comes along, they are right there with their hand out.

To top it off, the Liberals are applying for $200,000 from this program. That money is going into the Liberal Party's war chest. Come election time, they will have an extra $200,000. They will spend $200,000 more, and Elections Canada will reimburse half of the extra $200,000 that they got from the Canada emergency wage subsidy program. Could they be more shameless?

To be generous and fair, I do not want to leave out our Conservative friends. They must have meetings among themselves. They want a full Parliament because they do not want committees. I hope that they will have a small meeting among themselves because there are two candidates who are ahead of the others in the Conservative leadership race. That being said, I do not mean any disrespect to the other candidates.

Mr. MacKay said that he would never allow the Conservative Party to take money from the emergency wage subsidy program and Mr. O'Toole said the same thing. However, the Conservative Party leader—leader being a very flexible notion—is in favour of doing just that and so the Conservative Party is too. They will have to come to an agreement among themselves, which I am sure will be a very enjoyable way for them to spend a few hours.

That does not bother me because I am very clearly against that practice. However, I am not completely against the principle. On a good day, I would be willing to discuss the principle. However, in their case, they cut public funding for political parties. They go on and on about the merits of carefully controlling the public purse, but when they see a bag full of cash, they stick their hand in it. Enough is enough. They do not even discuss it among themselves before doing it, but that is something that must be done. I want to qualify my remarks a little because I do not have access to the Green Party's or the NDP's books. Perhaps they need that money.

Programs are designed for those who need it; conversely, programs are not designed for those who do not need it. It is possible that the NDP needs it; it is possible that the Green Party needs it; it is possible that others will need it in future. As for us, we will be getting more love from our donors because we do not need it. This year is similar to previous years. We believe that we will move forward. In fact, we never even considered the possibility of getting more money by applying to this program.

Before it is too late, I believe that the parties that do not need it but are using it should reconsider. In any case, it is likely that the next Conservative leader will want to return the money. At least that is what they have committed to doing. It is possible. It is not too late to say that we are right. It is not too late to acknowledge that they should not be using it because otherwise we will not stop calling them out on it. They will be right: We will not stop calling them out on it. They should perhaps reconsider while they still can. They should acknowledge that they will not take the wage subsidy and that those who need it will get it.

That dulls the shine. As everyone knows, the image gets a good shine. Every morning, at 11 o'clock, in front of a big house, the image gets polished. At some point people are going to wonder what is going on. In the history of the Liberal Party, there have been two or three cases, and I am not just talking about calling the banks in the morning. There have been a couple of situations involving the public purse. I would not draw attention to that if I were them because we are used to seeing that sort of thing and calling it out rather loudly.

The ultimate challenge in a crisis is trust. Is the government behaving in every way it can to earn the trust of Quebeckers and Canadians? I am not claiming that we are perfect, far from it. If I ever made such a claim there are a lot of people who would set me straight, but we are trying to be worthy of the trust of Quebeckers.

Is the government doing everything it can to be worthy of the trust of Quebeckers and Canadians? In a time of crisis when people need to feel reassured by the measures put in place, the government cannot afford to compromise, to chip away at the trust that people have in their institutions. This seems like a major issue here. I invite the government to do a number of things. I invite it to ensure that the formula it is negotiating with its friends from the other parties will guarantee the most accountability and openness on the maximum amount of topics.

I read the paper, and there is something there. We want to come back this summer. We would have liked to make up the days that the House did not sit, but this is a start. We would not be too unhappy if some things passed. That is not ideal. Ninety-five minutes a day is rather short. We already have such little time to speak in this chamber, designed for exactly that purpose. There are some parts that are not too bad, but let us move on.

Over here, we will perhaps use a few minutes of this debate to talk about issues, seniors, tourism, the fisheries, or small businesses that will shut down. We may use this time to discuss those topics, but we will make full use of our time to advocate for Quebec.

In the meantime, I call upon the two largest parties in this Parliament to do the moral and the ethical thing, to forgo money from a program they do not need and to call Parliament back to study the real issues.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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 appreciate many of the comments that leader of the Bloc has put on the record. There is no doubt that the goal of the government is to hit that 100% through all regions of our country. Like all parliamentarians, we care about what is taking place in our communities. We want to be there for our people and businesses. For those things that need the government to be there, we want to be there and get as close to that 100% as possible.

Having said that, in listening to the leader, the question that comes to my mind is this. Is the Bloc prepared to support the motion? In listening to what the leader had to say, it seems he is very sympathetic to it. He talks about some its benefits. Does he see his party voting in favour of the motion?

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Madam Speaker, as I said this morning, the government has found a way to get around having to seek the unanimous consent of the House. All it needs is a majority. To get one, it cozied up to the NDP. The Liberals no longer need the Bloc Québécois's vote to get their proposals adopted. In any case, we had said we would not oppose this proposal. We will see about other issues.

The hon. member raised another issue. The government says it wants to help everyone, 100% of people. I do not think any company or worker in Quebec or Canada is responsible for COVID-19. That being so, no company or worker should have to go bankrupt due to the pandemic. That is what 100% of people means. It means not leaving anyone behind, even if the pandemic continues for another six, eight or 10 months.

How many companies could be saved with the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the Liberals and Conservatives will be getting from the wage subsidy program?

How many fishers in eastern Quebec would be able to save their fisheries with some of that money?

How many stores on Ontario Street, in Hochelaga, could stay in business?

I think these are very important questions, and I hope the government will answer them.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

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

The hon. member for Saint-Hubert—sorry, for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

It is indeed the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent, Madam Speaker, named for the Prime Minister of Canada in the 1950s who balanced the budget after the Second World War, which is why he is such an important figure.

It is always interesting to listen to the leader of the Bloc Québécois, but it is a bit strange to hear him talk about morals when it comes to public funds and political party financing. Does the leader of the Bloc Québécois remember how the former director general of his party, Gilbert Gardner, was illegally paid using public funds from the House of Commons?

Does the leader of the Bloc Québécois remember how, when he was a member of the Parti Québécois, the Moisan report was extremely critical of how the Parti Québécois, particularly Ginette Boivin, acquired illegal funding for the political party? Obviously, people living in glass houses need to be prepared to be criticized about that. That being said, it just happened once.

We agree on the issue that brought us together in the House today, but we do not agree with the government's proposal. The Bloc Québécois also disagrees. It is a good thing that the Bloc Québécois is finally playing an opposition role again since it was showing a little too much enthusiasm for the current government.

I would remind members that the Bloc Québécois readily supported the throne speech even though it denied the seven requests made by the Government of Quebec. The Bloc Québécois voted with the Liberal government to prevent the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner from testifying before a parliamentary committee. That is no small thing.

If by chance, the government decides to review its position on the fact that a parliamentary committee will meet rather than the House, what issues would the member want to debate before the House rather than before a parliamentary committee?

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Madam Speaker, had I known how long the question was going to be, I would have brought my sleeping bag. I will answer it very quickly.

It is very appropriate for the member to refer to former Prime Minister St. Laurent, since his references to the Bloc Québécois also reach quite far into the past; meanwhile, people will not get their wage subsidy cheques until sometime in the future.

I understand that the member, whom I have always known to be extremely diligent, agrees with his party's decision to dip into the cookie jar and take out a little something. If he does not agree, I hope he will say so. I am quite curious as to whether there will be a discussion within the Conservative Party regarding that decision.

I already talked about what needs to be addressed, namely seniors and small and medium-sized businesses. The very fabric of SMEs, which are the hallmark of Quebec, is threatened by the weakening of businesses that could be vulnerable to corporate takeovers by larger, often foreign, companies. A lot is at stake. We will be happy to debate it with everyone once the behind-the-scenes negotiations are done.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pretty sure the member for Beloeil—Chambly must know the song by Dédé Fortin's band, the Colocs, that goes something like, “pass me the puck and I'll score some goals”. You can only score if you are on the ice. Anyone who sits on the bench and sulks is probably not going to score. That is what the Bloc Québécois has decided to do; it is sulking in the corner, refusing to negotiate.

We in the NDP prefer a constructive approach. We got the government to commit to paying 10 days of sick leave annually to all workers.

Why does the member for Beloeil—Chambly not want to be in the game?

Why is he sulking in the corner?

Why is he so mad at the government?

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pretty sure my esteemed colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie knows exactly what I look like when I am mad. It is a sight to see, for sure. Anyway, we could keep talking about the Colocs, but I am more interested in what happened when the main street McDonald's opened up and the street was immediately deserted. That is what I am afraid of. I am not in a bad mood. The member can even go wash the Liberals' cars if he wants. That is fine by me. I have no problem with that.

I want to talk about other things. I want to talk about what matters to people, including the people of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, in all likelihood. What is going to happen to all the small local shops that will have to close while backroom deals that are not in Quebeckers' interests are being struck?

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my esteemed colleague.

What does he have to say to business owners who pay themselves dividends, to partnerships, to very small businesses that are not yet eligible for emergency benefit programs and to farmers, especially those in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who do not have access to those benefits?

The support programs do not meet their needs, and one of the support programs even allows a certain political party to raise funds from a pot of money meant to help people who really need help.

What does my colleague have to say to those people when he sees what the Conservatives and the Liberals are getting up to?