Debates of June 17th, 2020

Supplementary Estimates (A)

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Madam Chair, we have two types of expenditures we are discussing today.

The first type, called legislated expenditures, deal, for instance, with the Canada emergency response benefit, which has helped eight million Canadians in the last few weeks. We also have additional expenditures, called voted expenditures, to develop, for instance, vaccines, treatments and testing procedures, and also to support indigenous people and our Canadian Forces personnel. We are helping communities through important investments.

These are two types of essential expenditures that are helping both Canadians and communities.

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

Madam Chair, I appreciate the job and the work that the minister has been doing. Given the environment we face today, in all regions of our country there has been a great deal of concern in regard to making sure we do not leave people behind. It seems to be a very important priority for the government.

Could the minister provide his thoughts on how important it is that, as a government, we try to be there as best we can for our citizens as a whole?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Madam Chair, to be there together to help each other is absolutely essential in a crisis like this one. If we want to get through the crisis, we need to be there to support each other.

That is why we have the Canada emergency response benefit, emergency wage subsidies, and emergency loans for small businesses. That is why we have investments in personal protective equipment, in medical services, in fighting homelessness, in helping vulnerable Canadians such as seniors and helping students and families.

All of these investments not only make us stronger, but also more united as we go through the crisis.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Chair, the minister mentioned that the Treasury Board is seeking $9.3 million to continue the operations of the Canadian Digital Service. Could the minister expand on the role of the Canadian Digital Service in making the Government of Canada a leader in digital innovation?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Madam Chair, to be fair to that question, I would need a lot more time. However, let me be very brief.

We have seen how the Government of Canada and public servants can be extremely agile because of the speed and quality of services that they can deliver digitally. The Canadian Digital Service is an example of that, providing information to Canadians in a manner that is fair and useful, as well as helping to deliver those services and informing Canadians about the various benefits they are able to receive.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Chair, could the minister provide his thoughts on how important it is that the federal government work with its provincial counterparts and other stakeholders to ensure that Canadians are protected?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Madam Chair, it is team Canada. That is what we have been doing over the last few weeks.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Chair, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague and friend, the hon. member for Montarville.

Beyond that, I am a bit unclear about the rules, but I will trust your good judgment. I do not know how allocation of speaking time works, but I get the impression we are attending a Liberal Party caucus meeting. I did not want to bother the Liberals, so I decided to politely allow them to talk among themselves.

I was surprised that the NDP did not join them, but that's fine. Speaking of that, I will digress slightly at this moment of heightened tensions in the House, where the temperature indoors is higher than the temperature outdoors, which is already quite high.

Yesterday I had the great privilege of reading a statement by Ghislain Picard, Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador. That in itself is a rather clear indication of our position. Yesterday we also accepted the NDP's request to recall the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to address the issue of systemic racism. We agreed to that request, even though I believe there needs to be some distance between partisan politics and an extremely sensitive topic that is currently in the news.

The motion seemed to be dictating the findings of the committee that would ultimately be recalled. It did not make sense to us to support the tabling of the motion and it seemed more logical to allow the committee to do its work. If anyone is looking for the person who is largely responsible for rejecting this motion, it is me.

[Stéphane Bergeron]

Oh, you are the racist.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

That would be me, Madam Chair. However, I am deeply convinced that there is nothing here that cannot be easily resolved with a simple and sincere apology. Then we can move on to another debate, and that will be on the votes. Things may get heated again. In fact, I am convinced that the government House leader’s blood may suddenly come to a boil. It happens.

The votes seem to be a foregone conclusion, unless all the NDP members are expelled one by one. The votes seem to be a foregone conclusion, and the Liberals will essentially talk about programs that have already been funded by legislation, and so on, and for which spending is generally done or allocated. This makes the exercise almost a mere formality, but it is still relevant. It allows us to take some time to look back on government commitments and programs and evaluate their effectiveness.

As part of an exercise that should have taken place last week, we hope to be able to improve the programs. That is our job. We are parliamentarians. We were all elected the same way, and that is what we do. We simply want to do our job, but we were refused the opportunity. I am worried about the kind of message that sends.

Let us look at the list of requests, recommendations and proposals. In particular there is the issue of enhancing the Canada emergency response benefit to make it easier for Canadians to return and transition to work, an express request by the Quebec government. The Leader of the Opposition will probably tell us that Quebec is very happy with the CERB. I have my doubts. The answer was no. We also asked for increased health transfers. All the Liberals said was that they spoke every Thursday and their answer was no. We asked for a First Ministers’ conference on health transfers. The answer was no. We asked that political parties be excluded from the wage subsidy, because it is rather despicable for a political party to dip into its own program. The answer was no.

Before that, we had talked about a commitment on fixed costs. The government made a commitment through a motion addressing fixed costs for small businesses. It ended up changing its mind. Its answer was ultimately no. We proposed a tax credit for fixed costs for small businesses. The answer was no. We asked for adjustments to the CERB on several fronts, especially with regard to employment. The answer was no. This week, we made a few proposals. Once again, we talked about health transfers and, once again, the answer was no. We talked about paying compensation to supply-managed farmers now. The answer was no. We asked for a second cheque for seniors, because they will be receiving a cheque after the end of the first period for which they received a cheque without even knowing whether they will be receiving a cheque, even if the crisis persists for them. The answer was no. We asked that the bill be split and that we again consider giving assistance to people with disabilities. Without a shadow of a doubt, we support doing so. The answer was no. We asked that the bill dealing with delays in the justice system be brought back and split. It was a good idea, but the answer was no.

Instead, they said that they would invest $14 billion in personal protective equipment, child care, municipalities, sick leave, initiatives in long-term care facilities and so on. However, these are all areas under provincial jurisdiction.

There is a rather broad consensus in Quebec and the other provinces that this constitutes interference. They do not agree. There is something to be learned from that.

This morning, I brought this up. Around noon, the Prime Minister’s advisers wrote something for him to say. He rose to thank us for our extraordinary collaboration. We are always ready to accept thanks, but they did not always seem so sincere—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. member to say that he has exceeded the time allotted for his speech. It is now time for questions.

The hon. member has two and a half minutes for questions.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Chair, the Leader of the Government does not even want me to ask him a question.

What is happening then? Nothing?

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member must ask questions if he is to get answers from the government.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Chair, has the government said no to the request made repeatedly by Quebec, since 2017, to transfer some $1.5 billion for social housing, for which not a penny has yet been sent?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Madam Chair, as the member opposite noted, we have been with the provinces and territories from the very beginning, from the initial tranche of $500 million, to ensure they had the necessary supplies, equipment and personnel, and were ready to deal with any influx of cases and changes to their medical—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Chair, something tells me that someone strayed far from the question, but no matter. This has been on people's minds for a number of days, and many people have a lot to say.

Did the government say yes to artists when they requested that the CERB be adjusted to help them survive until 2021?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages]

Madam Chair, I would like to reassure my colleague that we have invested $2.5 billion in the cultural sector because we believe it is important to support our artists, who, of course, are affected by the closure of entertainment venues.

I know that my colleague, who used to work in the sector, is very aware of these issues. So, yes, we are there for them, for the next eight weeks—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Chair, someone is beginning to answer a question. Let's celebrate.

Can the minister tell me whether these measures will include a variation on the Canada emergency response benefit for artists and artisans in the arts community?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

Madam Chair, as the Prime Minister announced, we will be there for them, with the CERB, for the next eight weeks.

We know that artists have been calling for the CERB and that they are very pleased to know that they will have access to this money at a time when they need the social safety net—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly can ask one last question.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Chair, it will be the same question.

Did the government say yes to the agricultural community's request to adapt the Canada emergency benefit to facilitate the transition to employment for CERB recipients?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Madam Chair, we will not take away work incentives. It would have been easier had we decided to provide a benefit that covered two weeks next week, but of course, people would not have agreed to work.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Chair, I am very happy and honoured that the leader of the Bloc Québécois and hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly agreed to share his time with me. It is almost too great an honour, but, given that this is an opportunity to continue what I passionately started this afternoon, I will certainly not turn it down.

Like the leader of the Bloc Québécois, I pointed out yesterday that the government offered $14 billion to Quebec and the provinces to cover some of the expenses incurred as a result of the current pandemic. Beyond the obvious fact that this amount is hugely inadequate, there is also another issue: The $14 billion come with certain conditions.

Quebec and the provinces have rejected these conditions, and as a result, the money is not being paid. The funds were to be used to purchase masks, among other things. Meanwhile, the pandemic continues, and the masks have not been purchased because the federal government insists on imposing conditions. It does not manage any hospitals, long-term care facilities, child care networks or public transportation networks, but it claims to know all about them.

When we asked that the government provide money without strings attached, a genius across the aisle said we were asking for a blank cheque. It so happens that our friends across the aisle know all about blank cheques. Despite having a minority government, for weeks now the Liberals have been asking Parliament to give them blank cheques.

At first, realizing that we needed to help people, we decided to work in a spirit of collaboration to help our fellow citizens who have been sorely affected by the pandemic. We collaborated, because we believed that was our role, as parliamentarians.

Some people think that, because we are the opposition, we always have to oppose the government. Like my colleagues from Beloeil—Chambly and La Prairie, I once sat in an assembly where almost 80% of bills were passed unanimously. Contrary to what the government House leader says, the opposition is not only there to oppose and squabble. On the contrary, we have collaborated from the very beginning. However, when those with whom we have been collaborating do not keep their word and prefer to use the powers we gave them to do pretty much anything they want, regardless of the commitments they made to us, we are less inclined to keep on collaborating.

We did not close the door. Last week we proposed that we suspend the sitting so that the party leaders could agree on how to proceed with passing the bill to grant more money for people with disabilities. It was the Liberal Party that said no. The Liberals did not want to have to negotiate. They are acting as if they were a majority government that can demand blank cheques and they do not care about anyone else. If we do not give them a blank cheque, that is it. There is no negotiation.

In the end, all kinds of people, and especially people with disabilities, should have been getting more money, but they are not getting it. We ended up in this situation because the Liberal Party decided not to allow leaders to negotiate and because it shut down Parliament.

Since Parliament is not sitting, aside from the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic, we cannot pass legislation. The government cannot introduce a bill because Parliament has been shut down. That, right there, is the truth.

Today, the government is asking for yet another blank cheque. This time, the cheque is for the supplementary estimates, so that the government can continue its weeks-long spending spree. The way the process works is that we initially have to give the government permission to spend some funds before we finish considering the votes, so that government operations can continue.

Canada is not like the United States, where people get laid off for stretches of time until the budget is agreed upon.

That would be how the process works normally, but we are not proceeding normally. The debate on the supply bill, which we have to vote on, is happening under highly extraordinary circumstances.

As the Bloc Québécois leader said moments ago, the government seems to have once again negotiated support so that it can keep spending like it wants to and so the Prime Minister can keep putting on a show in front of his cottage every day without worrying about Parliament. He was given the power to spend, so he takes the money, talks it over with his ministers—