Debates of May 26th, 2020

Proceedings of the House and Committees

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a false dilemma. I said what I wanted to say. The government said what it wanted to say in its motion. We can talk about the different ways to make this happen, which is what the House is for.

As the saying goes, only a fool does not change his mind. We are able to change our minds, to come to an understand and to find a way. This not about being the opposition or a particular party. It is about knowing what our constituents want and what is best for them. I think that is what we proposed earlier.

I am prepared to find ways other than having this minority government force the format that it wants but that does not sit well with Quebeckers or, I would imagine, with Canadians.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time today with the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood. Both of us are here from Saskatchewan. We made the trip. It worked well and it is very good to be back in the House.

I have a tendency to think in visuals. As I have been thinking through this today, I have been trying to think of how I could communicate in a way that Canadians would understand what is happening in the House today. I think part of the reason the Liberals moved closure is that they realized Canadians are figuring this out.

I ask members to imagine a mother who goes into her son’s room, which had been well organized but now it is just chaos. She tells him that he needs to clean it up, that it is time to clean it up. In this case, the mother would be Canadians. They have been watching throughout this pandemic. The government is dealing with different dynamics, and we are working with the government, but it gets to a point when it is time to move on. It is time to clean this up.

The government we are facing today is that child with the room that has been cleaned up. He calls his mom back into the room and she says it is beautiful. There is nothing but beautiful space in the room. However, the books are not back where they are supposed to be. Where are they? The toys and clothes are not put back where they are supposed to be. Where is everything? It is all jammed into a closet where it is no longer seen.

We have a government that wants to run a committee going forward, even now, when this place is ready to reconvene as a proper Parliament. The Prime Minister and the government are trying to convince Canadians by telling us that we will have all these opportunities to ask questions and hear their answers, to present S.O. 31s and petitions, and that somehow things will be so much better.

I would argue that if anything, that says something even deeper. It says that the government has no desire to return to a position where it is being held accountable for the decisions it has been making. It has also stuffed things away into a closet that do not belong there.

During the first sitting of the Liberal government as a majority government, one of the first things Liberals tried to do was take away our parliamentary tools on the opposition side of the floor. Our House leader worked very hard on our behalf to make sure that did not happen. Now we have a circumstance where tools are being stripped away, and all we have is the opportunity to ask questions or present a statement. That is not our role as members of Parliament in the House. Our responsibilities are to represent our constituents, to bring accountability to the government and to further decisions that are in the best interests of Canadians when we feel they are not being met.

One example of what is not being met by a committee of the whole, which is not a true sitting of Parliament, is that there is no opportunity to present opposition motions. We know how important those are because the Conservative Party, along with the other opposition parties on this side of the House, won three opposition motions that put the government on notice.

One of them was the Canada-China committee that was struck because of all of the issues going on with China that are impacting Canada. We have two men who have been held there improperly for so long. I pray for these people regularly. I pray that they maintain their courage, that they stay healthy and that our government does what it needs to do to find a way to get them home.

There are issues around agriculture and what China has done to our exports. There are all kinds of issues on which the government has chosen to sit back on its heels, including dealing with China and this pandemic. There is no question that to a large degree the pandemic is what created the chaos in the room.

Canadians are saying that we are doing better, that we have done what we needed to do, but what about what the government did? Why did Liberals say that the virus could not be transmitted human to human? Why did they not immediately close down flights from China until we could figure this out? Why did they not play defensively instead of offensively? What was in their minds? Why did they say that we do not need to wear masks in the general public? Why are there not enough for our front-line workers? They threw it all away and did not have it replaced.

There are all kinds of dynamics here that need to be dealt with, and they need to be dealt with properly.

There was the China-Canada committee. Then there was the Parliamentary Budget Officer saying that he could not find where all of this infrastructure funding was. Where was it? We formed a committee with the support of all of the members on this side of the floor that forced this minority government to allow the search for where those funds are. Financial accountability is absolutely crucial for this government at the best of times, let alone when we find ourselves in a circumstance where money is being spent at such a huge rate. Yes, a lot of it needs to be done. I am not questioning that, but when we are spending to the point where we are printing money to the tune of $5 billion a week, accountability needs to be there.

Then there is the issue of the Parole Board. When this government came into power, it fired everyone on the Parole Board and put its own people into place. The person in charge of that Parole Board wrote a report that said it was a crisis waiting to happen. Sure enough, an individual who was released on day parole and was told that for his sexual gratification he could hire someone to meet his sexual needs. Then, he turned around and killed that woman. There is no question that there are issues around that Parole Board, and we have the opportunity, because of agreement on this side of the floor, to force the government to deal with those questions.

There are no opposition motions. On legislation, why are those members not concerned about any legislation, which we have no opportunity to truly debate? Our committees are slowly coming back, but I can tell members that I know of veterans affairs issues going on that need to be brought to our committee. We called for an emergency opportunity to meet with the ombudsman. His report was so important that he has released it even though he is no longer the ombudsman.

Once again, we have a circumstance where someone has a responsibility to reveal issues with the government, and any government ends up having those circumstances. The Auditor General has challenged our party when it was in government, too. However, that person somehow disappears when there is something that needs to be said to this government.

Of course, there is the question of private members' bills. This is something that is very important to us as individual members of Parliament. It is the only time in the House when we get an opportunity to present something that is really important to our constituents, to Canada and to ourselves that is not led or directed by our leadership. It is a very special privilege, and significant things have been done through that. Again, this is something we are missing the opportunity to do.

It is not just that. It is also the efforts at a power grab when we met for the first time in good faith to deal with the COVID crisis, the introduction of the wage subsidy and whatnot. There is also the use of an order in council to determine a significant ban on firearms with absolutely no debate, no discussion and no consultation with, quite honestly, anyone other than who the government wanted to look at, because it was its own ideology that was driving it. It is not good, solid legislation for Canadians.

There are many more things I could say, but the point here is that Canadians are saying it is time for us to get back to work here. Yes, we are all working very hard, and I have to give a shout-out to my staff. It is unbelievable the work they have been doing on behalf of our constituents. There have been times when they were in tears because of the circumstances that they were dealing with trying to help Canadians who need that help and are not finding it.

It is a real privilege to serve Canadians, to serve Yorkton—Melville and to serve alongside my staff. The reason I cannot support this motion is that Canadians are tired of a committee running this country. It is time for Parliament to get back to work.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental roles of parliamentarians in this place is to represent all of Canada. I am very lucky to live about 25 minutes away from here, which is why I have been able to come here three times in the past week. However, my colleagues in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, B.C. and northern Canada should also be here as much as possible. That is why we are debating this motion. We have to ensure fairness for all parliamentarians in this place.

One of the most important things we do here is vote. What would the member propose to make sure we are able to vote in this place and that all parliamentarians are able to exercise their fundamental right to vote on pieces of legislation?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, of course this is an important issue, but I want to first deal with the concern about members of Parliament getting here. I am here. We have had people from across this entire nation here, because we are the only party that has people in absolutely every province and territory.

The thing that confuses me about the approach the government has taken to date is that it has only had the people who get here be here for one day. Now we are saying “here for four days”. That makes far more sense, because if I am going to come here, I am going to come here and invest in the time that is given me over those four days.

The purpose of this should be that we continue to become the Parliament that we should be, and that we are in this House to deal with all of the issues we need to deal with.

I am sorry. I get a kick out of the government when it asks us what we would do. The government can sit down with all of us and discuss it properly. There are ways that we can vote as the House. We can work it out. We have ideas. Let us talk about it.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I would like her opinion on a question I have already asked. I would like to know what she thinks personally.

We have debated the idea of a hybrid Parliament to resume the overall role of Parliament. However, I sense a certain reluctance from the Conservatives, who would instead like us to be physically present in the House.

I would therefore like to know what is most important to my colleague. Is it the fact that the person answering her question is physically present in front of her or the fact that each member—who may, for example, have a health problem or is an age that puts him or her at risk by coming here, have young children at home or live very far away in an area that is currently poorly served by transportation systems—has access to his or her privileges as a parliamentarian through a hybrid Parliament?

What is most important?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, quite honestly, if any of us have trouble with transportation, we also have trouble with the Internet. It probably goes hand in hand.

However, the reality is that before the COVID pandemic we were here. All of us were here. What was preventing us? We still had our families. I have 10 grandchildren. Three of them live with us right now because of loss of employment. We all have other responsibilities. We have all had travel that we had to do in the past to get here.

In time, there is no reason why we should not come to the point when we can eventually move back to a full sitting. I understand that we have to take it gradually and be responsible, but all kinds of workplaces are in the process of doing that very thing. My constituents, and Canadians in general, are saying it is time for us to see this Parliament doing its parliamentary role of holding the government to account and having proper interactions with each other.

As time progresses, I look forward to the day when everyone is back sitting in this House. It is called hope. In the meantime, I know that Quebec and Ontario are facing far greater challenges than we are back home in Saskatchewan in regard to the COVID pandemic. However, we can continue to do the things that we need to do within our communities, fight this disease and grow to where we have this House sitting the way it was meant to be sitting.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones in the last number of weeks. Many of them never had the opportunity to go to the hospital. I have spent the last eight or nine weeks, since returning home on March 13, phoning my constituents.

I remember one conversation I had at the beginning of April. I was phoning houses and, when I identified myself with my name as the member of Parliament for Saskatoon—Grasswood, one lady told me she had lost her husband in late March. “A week ago”, she said when I talked to her in early April.

She went on to say that she and her husband had been married for 62 years and she did not have the opportunity to say goodbye to him. He left the house and spent a number of days at RUH, Royal University Hospital, in Saskatoon. It was 62 years and she never had the chance to say goodbye to her loved one.

Those are the stories that we are dealing with in this country. We have had, unfortunately, eight deaths in our province of Saskatchewan. That is eight too many. Our provincial government has done a very good job, in my estimation, of dealing with this pandemic.

This time has been very difficult for many. Sometimes, in our conversations about social distancing and flattening the curve and all the words that we have used since we left here on March 13, it is easy to forget about these stories. These are not numbers. They are people. When I look at the catastrophe that I have seen in this country with thousands dying from this pandemic, I just shake my head. I look at Ontario and Quebec and today, the long-term care home report. Wow, we have a lot of work to do in this country. We have let down the people who have built this country. This is the time that all of us in the House need to do heavy reflection on how we can correct this.

That being said, I have to move on with the matter at hand. Of course, we are going to talk about the permanent return to Parliament, not a committee of the whole but the return to Parliament and what that will look like.

Virtual sittings have worked a bit. It is going to be interesting, because the Liberals in committees always want to bring people in. When we get back to real business in the committees, I am going to watch the Liberals. They want to champion virtual sittings, and they had better not be bringing people into committees on airplanes every week. We are going to watch that.

We were advocates on this side, long before this pandemic, for virtual sittings in committees. We see people coming in by the droves for every committee. They get airplanes, hotels and meals, sit in a committee for a seven- or eight-minute conversation, and then leave. We are going to watch the Liberals and the government when we get back in the fall, to see how much they love virtual sittings, because a lot of virtual sittings have not worked.

On this side of the House, we have talked about opposition days, or motions, or legislation or statements in the House, but I want to talk about the private members' bills. When we all gather around for the selection, every four years, of private members' bills, it is a big moment in the House of Commons. I know of some MPs who, in 14 or 15 years, have never had a private member's bill. This year, Conservatives, Liberals, Bloc members, New Democrats and Greens gathered around, and guess what? The Conservatives got six out of the first 10 spots, nine out of the first 15 and 12 out of the first 20. Is there a conspiracy? I just shared the numbers: six of 10. I am number seven. My bill would give tremendous hope for tourism in this country: Bill C-218.

I do not know if I will ever get a chance to present it again. It had first reading in March, like many others, but I am not sure the bill will get to second reading.

The member for Calgary Confederation got his bill passed in the House of Commons, in the 42nd Parliament, on organ donation. The member for Calgary Confederation lost his wife a number of years ago and she had prayed with him to bring this bill to Parliament. It passed in the 42nd Parliament. Guess what happened? He got picked number one overall. There was somebody looking over the member for Calgary Confederation.

I bring this up because we lost Hugo Alvarado, an artist in my city, this week. He phoned me in February with a plea that Parliament start private members' business. Recall that the member for Calgary Confederation had a bill on organ donations. Hugo, at 71, needed a double lung transplant. He drove to Edmonton and waited, and during that time he phoned me in February with a plea that the House of Commons start the process on private members' bills.

I talked to him 10 days ago. Hugo asked again what we were doing in Ottawa. There are hundreds of people who need transplants, who are dying. Ten days later, Hugo Alvarado died because he did not get his transplant.

This is the sort of thing we are talking about in the House of Commons. It is important. Committees of the whole are great: we bring down certain numbers of MPs. However, as a member of Parliament, one of the biggest factors is presenting a private member's bill, one's own idea, in the House of Commons.

I bring this up because six out of the first 10 happen to be Conservative bills, and we are hoping we can debate them in the House of Commons. There are some very good private members' bills from all parties that need to be moved to the Senate, but we cannot do that now. We are locked down.

This is what Canadians should know: The committee of the whole is not Parliament. We are missing one of the most important features of a member of Parliament, the private member's bill, because it comes from the heart and 337 others have a say as to whether a private member's bill is accepted or not.

I do not know what we are going to do over the summer. I do not know if we are even going to talk about private members' bills. It was not even going to be brought up until I brought it up in a conversation. It means everything to a member of Parliament to get a chance to present an idea for legislation in the House of Commons, whether it passes or not. Now, because of the committee of the whole that the Liberals and NDP agreed to, we will probably not get the chance in 2020. We are going to miss a whole year because it takes some time to get passed in the House of Commons and the Senate.

I have one other story, and then I am going to move on. We have all talked about fraudulent cases. I got an email from a woman informing me that her 92-year-old mother received three CERB cheques worth $6,000. She is 92 years old and getting these cheques. I said, “Really?” She photocopied them and sent them to my office. This is why we need to come back to Parliament. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe even millions, per month are being handed out by the government.

I just gave one example. This woman is getting $6,000. She is 92 years old and has not worked in decades. Her daughter phoned me and asked what she was to do with them. I told her not to cash them.

Is this not a story? This is a story in Saskatoon, and it will be a story in every city in this country. That is why Parliament needs to come back. There has to be opposition to keep the government accountable.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech touching on many issues that we have been raising as the official opposition. His last comment raised an issue that has happened to some of my constituents as well. Families making well over $200,000 have all of a sudden gotten the child care benefit, which they never received before and which they feel they are not even eligible for.

They were actually quite upset, saying they did not want the money. They were asking for it to be taken back. It was on a direct deposit into their account. They asked for it to be removed and were told no: They had gotten it, and now it was theirs.

It just shows the issues that we are facing, not to say that they are fraudulent, but that mistakes are being made with handing out some significant dollars. I think it shows why the government needs to be held accountable, when some of these programs are going a bit awry.

I would just like my colleague to say how important it is, when it comes to fiscal responsibility and lack of a budget, that the government be held accountable with taxpayer dollars.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Foothills is exactly right. There are many people who needed the money right up front, and the government, to which I will give credit, did a pretty good job of getting the money out in the first couple of weeks. What has become apparent now is that they are not following up.

There are a number of files that they have already flagged. The government already knows they have been flagged, yet they keep sending the cheques out, so CRA made an announcement last week that it was going to do an audit on them next March. Now, some of the families that have spent this money may not have enough for CRA, and we all know when CRA knocks, we jump.

I think this is a big issue in the country right now. There is a $252-billion deficit, and most of it has gone to the right people, but a lot of it has not, and the government is going to have to work hard in the coming months to get some of that money back into its coffers.

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

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

I have a question that is bothering me about the position of the Conservative Party. They always say that they do not want the 338 members back here, but they want Parliament to work. At the same time, they do not want electronic voting.

How can we vote if we are not all here at the same time, and there is no electronic voting?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right, we do not need 338 members here.

Like I said before, my province of Saskatchewan, and Manitoba and New Brunswick, have done a pretty good job with COVID-19. However, if members go down east, they will see it. They will see Ontario and Quebec in a deadlock. There are things that we can work out. Whoever thought we would do these Zoom virtual meetings in the beginning? Some are working and some are not, because of Internet problems. These are things that we can come to the House and have a great debate on, but we cannot debate if it is a committee of the whole. We can if we are in here, like we should be.

Even Saskatchewan is going back June 15. They are going to be working. The NDP and the Sask Party have agreed to go back to the Saskatchewan legislature for 14 sitting days. We need to be here, and we need to be in Parliament, not in a committee of the whole.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the same question as my colleague.

A return to the House with full parliamentary and legislative powers means that there will be question period and accountability. Democracy will require that all members, all 338 elected members, have a voice. We cannot have 338 members in the House. We cannot have only half the members of the House present without our other colleagues being present, as well.

I do not understand their proposal. If we want to come back to the House, we must have a process that permits all members to do so. How do my colleagues see their solution?

Members from Quebec and Ontario are not in a tough spot. I heard the message. We can travel. However, all 338 members cannot travel. There are still some health issues to consider.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting because New Brunswick has MLAs in the gallery. Nobody has even suggested that here.

What sport is doing right now is going to Mosaic Stadium and Winnipeg. If the CFL comes back, one person's season ticket may be here but the next guy is over.

We can work together for this, but we cannot when it is a committee of the whole. My constituents in Saskatoon—Grasswood want us here, and this the first time I have returned since March 13. The member for Souris—Moose Mountain is coming next Sunday. He has not been here, so we are taking turns. It can be done and it has been done, at least on our side of the aisle.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago, I rose in the House to express the fact that I was extremely concerned about what was going on.

My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, with whom I am sharing my time, will certainly have the opportunity to express his own views on the matter, but I had the opportunity to say how uneasy I felt about what we are seeing right now.

What I find deeply disturbing is that, while claiming that co-operation between the parties has yielded extremely positive results so far, the government insists on ending negotiations, on ending this co-operation that, in its own words, has been so fruitful up to now.

As proof of that, earlier, a Liberal member asked a Conservative member what they were proposing. That is all they have been doing for the past two days, proposing things. This has been a fruitless discussion, because the government has decided that, no matter what we might say here in the House, that is how it is going to be.

Why has the government decided that this is how things would go? It is because it negotiated an agreement with the NDP behind closed doors. The government prefers to reach agreements in secret rather than reaching a compromise here, in front of everyone, where Canadians and Quebeckers can listen to us. I imagine that they have listened a little over the past few hours, and I imagine that they were a little disappointed to hear us having discussions without reaching any sort of compromise.

I do not believe that it would have been so difficult to find a compromise. I will explain. The government was really intent on having a hybrid Parliament based on the highly laudable principle that all 338 members of the House must be able to participate in its work. No matter their age, no matter where they live in Canada, they must be able to participate in this work.

I think we should applaud the government's desire to allow all parliamentarians to participate in the work of the House. The problem is that they decided to use the objective of having a virtual Parliament to change how the work is done. Not content with establishing a hybrid Parliament, they decided to mothball Parliament. That is what I find extremely troubling.

I believe my colleague from Manicouagan has very thoughtfully explained what we see as problematic. We are being told we will get more time to ask questions, which I am trying to reconcile with the fact that we will be getting 90 minutes a day for four days. When I compare that to five days of parliamentary work from 10 a.m. or 11 a.m. to 6 p.m., I simply cannot figure out how that works out to more time. I have never been good at math, but something tells me this works out to less time at the end of the day.

I am perplexed as to why there are parliamentarians in the House, whether Liberal or NDP, who think it is a good idea to muzzle parliamentarians during all this time when we could be not only asking questions but also passing legislation.

What is absolutely mind-boggling to see is that this government, which was elected with a very full agenda, now seems to no longer want to legislate. It is as though the Liberal Party has run out of ideas. Conversely, they may have decided that it is much too cumbersome to have to come before Parliament to pass legislation, when it is so easy, with the extraordinary powers they have given themselves, to just step outside the cottage and announce all sorts of measures that then become reality. Why go through this necessary evil of a Parliament when they can do everything directly from the Prime Minister’s residence? All they have to do is step outside every morning at 11 a.m. to make a little announcement. Everything has been decided behind closed doors, without consulting the provinces, as we saw, for example, in the purpose behind this secret—now no longer a secret—agreement between the government and the New Democrats. They reached a deal saying that it would be a good idea to give workers sick leave.

Of course it is a good idea. It is an idea that we welcome and support. The problem is that this is not the right Parliament to do that. Once again, our Liberal and NDP friends have decided to trample on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. They are always interfering in the affairs of Quebec and the provinces. After reaching a backroom deal with the New Democrats and without consulting the provinces, the Prime Minister came out one morning at 11 a.m. and announced a sick leave program for workers. He said in the same breath that because he lacks the constitutional jurisdiction over that, he needed to reach an agreement with the provinces first. That is putting the cart before the horse. It seems to me that they should have first talked to the provinces, agreed on the terms and then made the announcement.

Instead, the government exploited this very important and crucial issue of sick leave for workers in order to mothball Parliament. The government took advantage of this very important issue to muzzle members. I do not understand why opposition members agreed to do away with their speaking time in the House. Sure, we can ask more questions. That is great, but we will not be passing legislation. Our main duty as parliamentarians is to legislate. We have a duty to oversee government activities, sure, but we also have a legislative function. Is there anyone here who remembers that one of our functions is to legislate? We are no longer doing that. We are operating through orders in council. Cabinet meets, decides what could work, and then it is implemented.

It is simply disappointing to see that the government would rather negotiate behind closed doors than out in the open where everyone can see what is going on. The government is saying that we have not yet agreed on how members will be allowed to vote. We need to send that to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and have the committee think about how members could vote. It has been proven that necessity is the mother of invention. In the beginning, when we talked about a virtual Parliament, everyone was wondering how we would do it. When we spoke about a hybrid Parliament, everyone was wondering how we would do that. It did not take much to make those things happen. We made it work. I think that we could have just as easily come up with a mechanism that would allow members to vote. There was simply a lack of will to do so. The government preferred to muzzle Parliament. In my opinion, these are not exactly the glory days of Canada's parliamentary system.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague. I love listening to him speak. He does such a great job. He obviously has some experience under his belt.

I like the way he talked about an electronic vote. In his opinion, how could that have been implemented? There is certainly a lack of will from the government. If we already managed to do the impossible, which turned out to be not so impossible after all, we can certainly do more.

I would like to hear what the member has to say about that.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which I find most relevant.

Indeed, if we were able to deal with the technology to allow virtual sittings and a hybrid Parliament, we would also have been able to deal with the technology to vote electronically.

Therefore, it was not a technical problem that prevented us from reaching an agreement on how members vote. It is simply a false argument that we are being given today to explain the fact that we will be working in committee of the whole, rather than in a virtual or hybrid Parliament. That argument does not hold water. They just did not want to find a solution.

The best way not to find a solution is to send it to committee. The committee will consider the issue. No one asked the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to consider the issue of a virtual Parliament. No one asked the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to consider the issue of a hybrid Parliament. We racked our brains, hunkered down and found solutions.

There is a real rush to muzzle Parliament. Once again, I find this extremely disappointing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with interest. It is true; he is very eloquent.

I really appreciated two expressions. The first: necessity is the mother of virtue—sorry, of invention. Sometimes it could be virtue, depending on the person. If necessity is the mother of invention, I think it is good news for workers that we are aiming for a minimum of 10 paid sick days per year.

Then, we will ask the federal government, Quebec and the provinces to sit down together, take stock of these social and human necessities, and invent a solution.

That is our goal because we are humanists, we are progressives, and we want to help people who are struggling. We want to make sure that people have sick leave so they are not forced to go to work for fear of not being able to pay rent or buy groceries.

Why should everyone not have that right? Yes, let's get together and talk about it.

The second expression I really enjoyed was putting the cart before the horse. I agree with that as well. If we did not find a solution that would allow every member to be able to vote in a hybrid Parliament, then it makes sense to have a committee think about it and find a solution.

Maintaining a Parliament, whether it is hybrid or not, without remote or electronic voting, will not work. We need to consider this and not put the cart before the horse.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I will not spend too much time on the second part of the question. I believe I have answered that fully.

I think if we found solutions for the virtual Parliament and the hybrid Parliament, we could have also found solutions for electronic voting. There was no reason to defer that until later by referring it to a committee.

As far as the objectives are concerned, again, I completely agree: It is important to set objectives. I have to say that my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, like all my colleagues from the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, got the wrong Parliament. It is not up to this Parliament to set this type of objective.

I almost feel like saying to my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, and he will not like this, “Jean Chrétien, be gone!” Jean Chrétien once said that the best part of being at the federal level is that we are the ones who make the decisions but then it is provinces who have to enforce them. That is exactly the same reasoning underlying the intervention of my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

It is not for us to set these objectives. It is up to the provincial governments and the Government of Quebec to make these sorts of decisions. It is not up to the federal government to say what objectives the provinces must meet. It does not work like that. Actually, yes, it does work like that unfortunately.

It should not work like that in a real federation where there is a division of powers between the central government the government of the states that make up the federation.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you again live and in person.

Today, May 26, is a historic day for the people of Rouyn-Noranda because one year ago, we were the Memorial Cup champions. It is difficult to speak in the House without alluding to that. The good thing about this pandemic is that we will be able to say that we were the champions for two years. However, it is too bad for a great captain like Rafaël Harvey-Pinard, who will not have the chance to lift the cup two years in a row or on two different teams.

I am here to speak to the bill, of course, but also to analyze what we have experienced and what has happened in recent weeks, and to talk about our role as parliamentarians.

First of all, I must mention that the funding measures for businesses and organizations offered by the federal government have been as numerous as they have been disparate. Many businesses and organizations are still struggling to keep up, since the measures are changing every day. That said, it is a good thing that they were changed, because sometimes they were not at all adapted to the reality of businesses and organizations. This is an example of something we have not been able to debate and on which I did not have much opportunity to speak.

I also have the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. I want to acknowledge the chair of that committee. I have the privilege of sitting on this committee, which has resumed sitting and has the opportunity to work on sectors that are essential to the prosperity and survival of Canadians and Quebeckers. We have been able to address a number of issues that are particularly important to us.

As we reflect on a virtual Parliament and remote attendance, I want to point out that the chair is doing an exceptional job. There were some technological problems, especially in the beginning. High-speed Internet is not available in all regions. If there is one thing this pandemic has shown us, it is that we urgently need to invest a lot of money to reduce wait times and to ensure that all Quebeckers and Canadians have access to a good Internet connection. That is essential for carrying out our role as parliamentarians.

During this pandemic, people who have to telework are seeing their Internet and cellphone bills skyrocket. Their data is on a saturated network, and they are unable to get the same quality of service. That is not even counting those who have no Internet access whatsoever.

We have heard testimony on this subject from many citizens, professors and committed people from my riding and elsewhere in Canada. I hope we will study this issue. Many ministers have mentioned that, like the Bloc Québécois, they believe that high-speed Internet and the cell network are essential services.

During meetings of the industry committee, we had the opportunity to discuss several subjects, in particular assistance for farmers, which is clearly inadequate. We also discussed our concerns about data protection.

I would like to digress for a moment. If not for the fact that the committee I sit on resumed its work, I might not be so aware of this issue as a parliamentarian. Why does the House not ask itself the fundamental question of what will happen to our data? Google, Apple and other companies are considering data traceability, which worries me. There is an issue of professional ethics. If I were to contract COVID-19, would my medical records belong to me or to the government?

This is a fundamental ethical question that we are not talking about. Based on what we are hearing, the debate could start next week. However, we will not be able to do our jobs as parliamentarians because we do not have a place to do so.

When we are sick, who owns our data? Do they belong to the government, in order to protect society in the event of a pandemic? This is a fundamental question that could set an extraordinary precent. This worries me a lot.

At the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, we spoke about innovation. The idea of a green recovery, particularly in the supply chain, is one that is dear to my heart. Self-sufficiency, particularly food self-sufficiency, our sovereignty and the protection of our borders are important issues. We need a place to debate them. As I said, I am a privileged parliamentarian because I am part of an important committee. However, not everyone has the same power to defend their constituents. It is very frustrating to be an MP during this pandemic. We all experienced it when we had to defend inadequate programs, for example. We saw that the CERB was tax free in the beginning.

Businesses that offer essential services were calling us to say that their employees no longer wanted to work. That was fair, since they were worried about contracting COVID-19. That is understandable, but at the same time, these employees thought that they could make more money by staying home than by going to work. That was not so long ago. We understand that the programs were put together on the fly. It could not be helped. In two days, the benefit went from being tax free to taxable. As members, we act as intermediaries for our constituents. We need to answer for that. It is frustrating. We saw all kinds of flaws in the programs but were unable to express ourselves in the House and tell the government that some things were not working. I think it is important to mention that.

Take, for example, assistance for small businesses. For partnerships and business owners who pay themselves in dividends, it took a long time. They had to be supported and given a message of hope. I have always loved and hated the slogan “Everything will be all right” because it implies a somewhat naive view. At the same time, it is important to stay hopeful.

I will give some examples. For fixed costs, most economic measures are in the form of credit. This option does not help the recovery. Every business owner knows that it is risky for a small business to offset a loss of revenue with credit. It only increases debt and payments over the long term and hinders a successful recovery. The Bloc Québécois proposed that the government adopt a subsidy program that would cover a portion of the fixed costs of SMEs and organizations. Our objective was to prevent SMEs and organizations from making up for their lost revenue with credit when they resume operations, as it would only increase their debt load and the burden of their monthly payments. I would have liked to be able to debate that here.

Creating a tax credit that is 50% refundable on fixed costs would have been a more appropriate and effective solution. When we talk about negotiations amongst smaller committees, including with the leader, there is give and take, and common sense does not always prevail. That is something I learned during this crisis.

The commercial rent assistance is not effective. Many SMEs and organizations do not qualify. According to the latest survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, 51% of property owners are not using the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program because they have to assume 25% of the cost of the rent. Of course some property owners refuse to apply for the program. Once again, support for fixed costs would have been much more appropriate and more universally available to organizations and businesses.

In contrast, we have the regional relief and recovery fund, which was not debated in the House. That one is a good program because planning for recovery is more complex than getting a regular loan from a financial institution. The CFDCs' analyses of financial requests are key to an economic recovery that must succeed. That is the right approach. CFDCs are local. They are in touch with people and businesses. They have the right tools, and they can get money out the door fast, but they all say that the deadlines are too tight. Meeting with businesses, assessing their situation and making decisions by July 15 is a tall order. Where can I raise that issue?

Generally speaking, programs were announced hastily and rolled out much more slowly. People have to go all over the place to access the money, and deadlines are tight. None of this is conducive to a real and sustainable recovery.

I have lots of other concerns, such as programs not being a good fit for community and cultural organizations, many of which slipped through the cracks. The available funds do not always encourage organizations to innovate and adapt since project management makes our organizations more vulnerable than they already were because of their independent financing.

Many other issues required our attention. I am thinking of the situation of Air Canada, which I mentioned earlier, or that of Canada Post. Why does it cost less to ship a parcel from another country than to ship it from Canada? It is because of agreements. I do not understand it, but that is what is currently happening. That is not how we are going to help small businesses.

In conclusion, I would like to tip my hat to the people in my riding, who have shown a great deal of patience and have been able to readily adapt to all the economic and health measures put in place by governments. Our lives have been turned upside down by the crisis, both at work and at home. Many organizations are at risk. I would like to applaud the resiliency of my constituents.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we have the opportunity to resume parliamentary work in committee, to legislate, what would my colleague like to look at? As my hon. colleague from Montarville said earlier, we are first and foremost legislators.

For several weeks and even months now, all we have been talking about is COVID-19. That is only natural because public health is a priority. However, we need to look at other issues. The crisis is becoming an excuse for everything. I am thinking about the environmental policies that have been delayed for various reasons, about a number of policies that were supposed to be put in place and about the many bills whose introduction has been delayed.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

What bill would he like to work on?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

The most important issue right now obviously is health. That has already been made clear.

As an MP representing a region, I would like us to be able to ensure equity and the same dignity for all Canadians when it comes to accessing an essential service such as a cellular network and high-speed Internet. I think there are people in all 338 ridings in Canada who do not have access to these services.

As far as the programs are concerned, there is currently a long-term vision. The plan is to connect 95% of Canadians by 2030. However, I do not get the impression that there is a willingness to invest new money.

How can we deem a service essential and not want to invest new money into it? That makes no sense. Several ministers have acknowledged that it is an essential service. They need to be serious and table a budget bill, for example. We need assurance that the government is going to be accountable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I also want to congratulate his local hockey team, which won the championship for the second consecutive year. That is wonderful.

My colleague raised some important points. The government had to act fast. It made announcements quickly, but it was not able to keep its promises right away. It often changed the rules and the criteria along the way.

My team in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie noted that people were very confused for a long time. The Liberal government unfortunately chose one approach and did not consider the universal programs that the NDP was proposing. We ended up with a patchwork solution.

As for the arts and culture, the $500 million announced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage represents a 25% increase of all existing programs. I think that this situation calls for much more targeted measures. I spoke about that earlier, and I would like to hear what my colleague thinks.

For example, what is being done for people who take part in festivals all over the world? Festivals have been shut down, and no one can even fly anywhere. This includes festivals in Quebec. Every summer, there are tons of cultural activities in Montreal, and I am sure there are also some in my colleague's riding. What is being done for people who had planned on exhibiting their paintings or sculptures? Everything has been cancelled, and we have no idea when those activities will resume.

All those people who did not participate in programs in the past have been completely forgotten. I would like to hear what my colleague thinks the Liberal government could and should be doing.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his excellent question. Honestly, it is something I wonder about daily.

I regret not being able to welcome you to the food fair in Ville-Marie this year. We made plans to meet there when you were elected.

It is an example of a fantastic celebration. It is a food festival. It is a festival where people get together. Obviously there is a financial loss associated with not holding an event like that. The same thing is happening everywhere. How will we ensure the survival of these events in the long term? How will the tourism industry bounce back?

We have to consider that it takes people working year-round to put on an event in July, or any time. How will all that be supported when the event is not held and there is no revenue? It is going to take direct grants.

The tourism industry is currently looking into promoting inter-regional tourism. That is a very interesting model, but there is no answer for now, and the uncertainty felt by every Canadian, every business owner, is untenable.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to stand here and represent the amazing people in Elgin—Middlesex—London.

Like many other members, I would like to start by talking about my incredible staff who have helped so many people through this pandemic. I send a special thanks to Cathy, Jill, Jena, Charli, Kim and Scott who have really kept my feet to the ground in ensuring the people of Elgin—Middlesex—London are served during this pandemic. I would like to send them my absolute thanks, and thanks on behalf of all 116,000 constituents as well.

Today we have talked a lot about the role of a parliamentarian. I know, like others, some of us have come with a background of what a constituency office looks like. In the last two months, I have been a constituency assistant. I went back to a role I did for 11 years. I was a receptionist, I was whatever they needed me to do.

As a member of Parliament, we have two very distinct roles. One role is to serve our constituents and do what they need. We attend important events or have meetings with our mayors and stakeholders and we ensure their voices are heard in Parliament. Part of that role at the constituency office is also being the liaison with departments such as the Canada Revenue Agency, immigration or Service Canada. We have many roles.

My greatest role is to be the voice of Elgin—Middlesex—London in Parliament. That is why it is very important that Parliament resumes. Following this vote tonight, we know we will be back in our ridings doing work, but once again, limited to the work we can do.

I would also like to thank my husband. This morning Mike was installing proper protocol in my office so we can serve our constituents, starting June 1. I thank my husband for putting up Plexiglas, which is very important. Serving our constituents has to be safe.

Through this pandemic, I have listened to people talk about social versus capitalist, all of those ideas, whether one is NDP, Conservative, Liberal or Green.

I want to read a post from earlier today. This is from a friend of mine, Cindy Watters-Carroll. She is not part of the 1%. She is a single mom with two grown boys. Her son A.J. is a tattoo artist, and I would like to thank him for doing my tattoo on mental health. He is a wonderful man.

Both Cindy and A.J. are in businesses that cannot reopen. This is what she sent me earlier, “I fear for small business owners, even with the slow return to our businesses, how do we survive the economic massacre that will follow for years? Yes the government is helping albeit not enough, but what happens after they allow small businesses to reopen at only half capacity? they will not help financially then, we small business owners will struggle as the economy and everyone else struggles. Canada is in debt and not just a little debt, so as we move forward over the next year(s) the help for small businesses will be gone. The cost off PPE and extreme cleaning procedures is very expensive and adds to our overhead, all while we take in even less income from working at half capacity and take in less income from those that now choose only to shop on line.”

These are the kinds of challenges we are beginning to see.

Back at the beginning of January, my husband and many of his colleagues started businesses. He started a massage therapy business. Out of his graduating class, many of those people rented spaces and started their businesses. For two months, many of these graduates were up and running businesses.

This group, until just a couple weeks ago, was not able to get any support from the government. They had worked for two months. Very few had reached that line of $5,000, because they had been in school for 22 months. I took it upon myself, on behalf of the graduating class, to write a letter, saying that this was a missing group. What is really important is that I do not know if they spoke to any other members of Parliament, but they spoke to me and I wanted to ensure their voices were heard. I sent that letter here along with many other letters from constituents in which they expressed their concerns.

That is what Parliament is here for. It is not just about answering the questions. it is about what do we do to find solutions. I do not think the government recognizes that there are 338 parliamentarians, all with incredible backgrounds and skills. Whether they were lawyers, doctors, real estate agents or anything else, we all have something to offer, not just the people sitting at the cabinet table.

Those are concerns I have as we talk about why it is great that we are getting more opportunities to ask more questions. However, I am not just about questions. I also think I am part of the solution, and that is something that I am really hoping the government will understand.

Prior to this pandemic, we spoke to agricultural producers. We know there were issues in the dairy sector, beef and pork specifically if producers are trying to ship their goods to China, and in my area, grains and oilseeds, which is very large. People could be beekeepers or working in many of the other sectors that are a part of the agricultural sector that is one of the backbones of Elgin—Middlesex—London. They had all of these concerns going into the pandemic. They had issues with their grain being stopped at blockades. All of these things were happening and the government did not do a lot about them. As we moved forward, the pandemic hit. Not only did producers have the first barrier of not being able to get their goods to market, they also had the other barrier of COVID-19. Now they have two strikes against them.

We talk about small businesses. I have heard many people talk about the decades of hard work by Canadians to feed their families and to provide jobs for their employees. Today, we have talked a lot about access to the programs for these businesses. I am sure that all 338 of us in the House of Commons heard about some of the eligibility requirements that just truly took so many of these small businesses out of the loop.

There are issues with personal bank accounts versus business bank accounts. I probably had at least 20 to 25 different business owners contact me specifically about that.

Of course, there is the payroll issue. When people are operating a small business, they may not pay themselves out of the payroll. I was a small business owner, and I can promise that making sure my employees were paid first was my priority, as it is for many small business owners. Not only is it embarrassing when they cannot give their employees a cheque to cash, but they know that the business is not going to survive and they hope there will be a job for the employees to come back to.

We can also look now at the commercial rent program put out just yesterday. There have been questions in the House about it. Many of us have been working on this file, recognizing that there is a huge gap. Tenants have been calling me asking me to please call their landlords and explain this program to them. There are many landlords who do not want to get involved with it. The fact is there is a 25% loss to landlords as well, so getting them to buy in can be difficult. We recognize there are changes being made to this program, specifically to the mortgages, but at the end of the day we know who is going to be hurt. It is going to be small business owners, all of the employees in that area and the communities that risk losing these incredible assets, whether it is a business that works in tourism or shops or art galleries. All of these places right now are at risk. These issues are once again a huge concern. This is not about capitalists versus small businesses, or about making certain types of income. All people, whether old or young, rich or poor, are being impacted in a different way.

I just want to give a couple of thoughts specifically on the CERB program. We recognized in the HUMA committee that the government did not do a gender-based analysis of this. I wonder, too, if the Liberals did that with the wage subsidy program or with the business assistance program for the operating costs.

Finally, I want to finish on a couple of things. Why is Parliament really important? Just a few minutes ago, I read that we are looking at Huawei. If there are not people in this place to hold the government to account, will the Liberals be allowing businesses like Huawei to set up? If we are off in our ridings working, how are we going to be sure that the Prime Minister is not making backroom deals with Huawei? Those are things that are really important and that Canadians are concerned about.

This is about our critical infrastructure that needs to be updated, and we know that. We know that because we are talking here today on why we cannot connect Parliament with the rest of Canada. I talked about the fact that I could not even have a staff meeting. I know that my friend from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, whom I am sharing my time with, was dropped from our first call when we were doing this Parliament.

There is a lot of work to be done.

The COVID pandemic is occurring and we need to deal with it, but the world has not stopped. Human trafficking has not stopped. Businesses have not stopped. We have to realize that we have to work alongside this and take these proper precautions. I wish the government would change its mind and resume Parliament as necessary because there is a lot of work to be done, but, unfortunately, we will continue to be on hold.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really appreciative of the work by my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London. We share a boundary and work really well together. I hope that continues. It it is very valuable to me that we can work across party lines for the benefit of people in London. I am glad she addressed the issue of human trafficking.

Although we disagree on how Parliament should go forward, we are doing that work together right now to ensure that we are holding the government to account and that programs and funding to address human trafficking do go forward. If the member could talk specifically about the impact that money would have on our London Abused Women's Centre, on the fact that we are on the 401 and there is a huge increase in human trafficking in our area, I would appreciate her thoughts on that.