Debates of Sept. 28th, 2020

Bill C-4—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I was expecting the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie to have a point of order, which indeed it may well be once we hear what he has to say. It sounds like he has a couple of pages at least to talk about.

We will come back to him and pick up where he left off on this, so that we can finish on questions and comments to the speaker who just gave her remarks to the House. We can then go back to the hon. member on his point of order. For the purposes of continuity, we will make that interruption at this time.

We are going to take questions and comments to the hon. member for Davenport and then we will come back to the member for Banff—Airdrie.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would think that I should get to finish the point before the responses.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Yes, I will get to that. We will come back to the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie to finish his point of order because I see it is potentially several minutes.

We also have points of order coming from the hon. government House leader and, I believe, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on another response to another issue that is before the House, as well.

We will do those in order.

However, before we do any of those, I would like to get to questions and comments to the hon. member for Davenport. Let us finish those up and then we will get back to the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Proceedings on the Bill Entitled an Act Relating to Certain Measures in Response to COVID-19

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

Mr. Speaker, regarding the member for Davenport's speech, I, like most Canadians, saw her on the finance committee in the grand defence of the Prime Minister as it related to the WE scandal.

Earlier today, we heard the member for Windsor—Tecumseh say that there will be a transition gap of some three to five days for those recipients of the new programs that are being announced in this piece of legislation. When they backdate that, the potential exists that two weeks could elapse for people from the time they make that application for these new benefits until the time they actually receive the benefits. Of course, proroguing Parliament, as the hon. member supported, really causes problems in that regard.

Why was the member so interested in protecting the Prime Minister and not interested in protecting those Canadians who are going to fall through this gap?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question. The beginning part of his question, I think, will be a question I will hear in my office.

In terms of the time period between the changeover from a CERB for people who are moving on to the new Canada recovery benefit, my understanding is that we are trying to align the Canada recovery benefit very closely to the existing EI system, as much as possible. For CERB, people actually put in an application every two weeks or they are supposed to reaffirm that they still need it so it is actually forward-looking two weeks, whereas the EI is backward-looking by two weeks so people have to say that in the last two weeks they looked for a job and could not find anything.

Nothing falls perfectly. We tried our very best to make sure there were no gaps, so that people who need it will continue to get the support and help they need and that is what we are doing right now.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her presentation and I am trying to understand something.

As my colleague the member for Lac-Saint-Jean said earlier, we had proposed a benefit with a work incentive. We can assume that the CERB was relevant when it was introduced, while we were in lockdown and everything was shut down. Then summer came, and I am sure that just about all 338 members here had problems in their riding related to the labour market.

Why is the government now proposing a benefit with a work incentive? It is a very good thing and better late than never. However, where is the logic in offering this benefit when we are once again preparing to put people in lockdown and shut things down?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at every moment in time, we are trying to do our very best to present a number of programs that are going to support as many Canadians as possible.

Earlier, in the House, a member wondered why the Liberal government was taking the ideas of other parties. We heard ideas from right across the country, from every party, from every political stripe, and we basically took the very best ideas. Our objective is not only to continue to keep Canadians healthy and safe, but to do everything we can to introduce whatever program and use whatever means, in as flexible a manner as possible, to continue to support Canadian workers, continue to support those who are struggling through this unprecedented pandemic and continue to support our small, medium and large businesses. We must do everything we can to create that foundation, so that as we get out of this—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for a very short question and response.

The hon. member for Victoria.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about supporting workers who are sick and who are getting tested. It was only after the NDP pushed and pushed to get the government to agree to invest in sick leave that we got that commitment. Then the government tried to limit this to a few thousand Canadians.

The New Democrats pushed and fought again to expand the eligibility, and I am proud that we were able to push the government to expand it to millions of Canadians. However, there are still Canadians who will not be able to access sick leave, and this benefit is temporary.

Does the member think that Canadians do not deserve to have 10 days of paid sick leave, permanently and accessible to all?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding, which came from our Prime Minister, is that the idea for the sick benefits actually came from the Premier of British Columbia. In any case, it is an idea that all of us can support. We work much better together when we share our best ideas.

I am very proud that we have the sickness benefits in our legislation. I agree that it will protect millions of Canadians.

I will also say that there are 70 other programs that have been introduced. This is over $200 billion in supports. While maybe some Canadians will not be able to access the sickness benefits, there are lots of other programs out there for support.

We will not stop. We will do everything we can to continue to have the backs of Canadians, Canadian workers and Canadian businesses moving forward.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will now go back to the chief opposition whip to resume his earlier point of order.

The hon. chief opposition whip.

Bill C-4—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for your guidance. Would you like me to restate the case already made, or can I continue from where I left off?

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Quite honestly, I think the chief opposition whip can pick up where he left off. Certainly the words he already has on the record are there for the consideration of other hon. members. I appreciate his patience with this. I know it is slightly unorthodox to split this up, but it just so happens that in this particular case, for the continuity of the House, we should just carry on and pick up where he left off with his point of order.

The hon. chief opposition whip.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to restate the first part, it is my argument that part 3 of Bill C-4, clauses 10 to 14 in the schedule, is sufficiently different from the remainder of the bill so as to warrant the question at second reading being divided for a separate decision. Again, that is under Standing Order 69.1. While it is true that the state of the whole bill's content is associated with the response to COVID-19, that alone does not qualify as a common element for the purposes of the standing order.

The National Assembly of Quebec has similar procedures regarding omnibus bills, which are instructive. I refer the Chair to Parliamentary Procedure in Québec, third edition, which says at page 400, “The principle or principles contained in a bill must not be confused with the field it concerns. To frame the concept of principle in that way would prevent the division of most bills, because they each apply to a specific field.”

This statement of the National Assembly's practice was endorsed by your immediate predecessor, the hon. member for Halifax West, when he ruled on March 1, 2018, at page 17574 of the Debates:

While their procedure for dividing bills is quite different from ours, the idea of distinguishing the principles of a bill from its field has stayed with me. While each bill is different and so too each case, I believe that Standing Order 69.1 can indeed be applied to a bill where all of the initiatives relate to a specific policy area, if those initiatives are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate decision of the House.

The importance of distinguishing between principles and a field was articulated by former National Assembly vice-president Fatima Houda-Pepin, on December 11, 2007, at page 2513 of the Journal des débats:

In this case, the bill contains more than one principle. Although the bill deals with road safety, the Chair cannot consider that to be the principle of Bill 42. The principle or principles of a bill should not be confused with the topic to which it pertains. Coming up with a different concept of the notion of principle would disqualify most bills from being subject to a division motion because they deal with a specific topic. In this case, the various means of ensuring road safety included in this bill could constitute distinct principles.

The 2018 ruling in our own House concerned the former Bill C-69, which was an omnibus bill with disastrous consequences for the natural resources sector in Canada. The government had argued that all of its provisions hung together on the principle of environmental protection, but the Chair ruled that the argument was not good enough to avoid dividing the question. In that case, he found there were sufficient distinctions to warrant separate votes.

A similar argument was put forward by the government for the former Bill C-59. It claimed that everything was unified by the principle of national security. As the deputy speaker ruled on June 18, 2018, at page 21196 of the Debates, “while the Chair has no trouble agreeing that all of the measures contained in Bill C- 59 relate to national security, it is the Chair's view that there are distinct initiatives that are sufficiently unrelated as to warrant dividing the question.”

Turning to Bill C-4, parts 1 and 2 concern the establishment of assorted pandemic income replacement benefits for Canadians impacted by COVID-19, together with associated labour law amendments. Part 3, meanwhile, is the government's request to spend over $17 billion on a wide array of measures, bypassing the normal estimates and appropriations procedures of Parliament. One of the considerations the Chair employed in 2018 was to look at how integrated the different provisions of the impugned bill were. In the case of Bill C-69, for example, two parts that were extensively linked with many cross-references were held to have a sufficiently common element between them. However, another part was, despite the presence of some cross-references, found to be not so deeply intertwined as to make a division impossible.

In the present case, part 3 of Bill C-4 appears to have absolutely no cross-references or drafting links to the remainder of the bill. It was simply grafted on. The various components of the bill that are part of the response to COVID-19 are really about the only thing which could even link them together. In fact, I would argue that the long title of the bill itself gives away the fact that the link is tenuous: “An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19”. If there were any stronger connection among these assorted provisions, a more descriptive long title would have been possible.

Before concluding, I will offer a couple of comments of the circumstances particular to the present case.

First, I recognize that time is of the essence in reaching a ruling, because the House is currently seized with government Motion No. 1, which would ram Bill C-4 through the House with barely any debate at all. In fact, it is possible that members are on track to be called upon to vote on the bill late tomorrow night. As noted by the Speaker's immediate predecessor's ruling of November 7, 2017, at page 15116 of the Debates, points of order calling for the exercise of Standing Order 69.1 must be raised promptly. I am rising on this matter on the same afternoon the bill was introduced. To do so earlier would, frankly, have been impossible.

Second, should the House adopt government Motion No. 1, there is nothing in the motion that, in my view, would change the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-4. The wording of paragraph (b) of the motion refers to voting on “all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill”. This language certainly contemplates multiple votes at the second reading stage and, of course, would be undisturbed by the amendment proposed by the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition. Moreover, the chapeau of the motion does not make any provision for it to operate notwithstanding any standing order, let alone that it would operate notwithstanding Standing Order 69.1.

In conclusion, it is my respectful submission that Bill C-4 is an omnibus bill and that under the provisions of the standing order, its part 3 should be separated out for a separate vote at the second reading stage.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. chief opposition whip for his point of order. I will take it under advisement and get back to the House in due course.

Notice of Closure Motion

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 1 I wish to give notice that at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.

Provision of Documents to the Standing Committee on Finance

[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]

Mr. Speaker, I will be responding to two matters of privilege that have been raised and provide comments.

In particular, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes on Thursday, September 24, respecting the production of documents ordered by the Standing Committee on Finance in the previous session.

The member argues that the government did not respect the finance committee's motion, while at the same time acknowledges that the government provided the requested documents to the clerk of the committee on August 8, 2020. It was the opposition parties who wanted the law clerk to review these documents for the purposes of additional redactions. Liberal members on the committee agreed to the motion. I want to be clear: The government respected the finance committee's motion and provided the documents on time. The government also provided exactly the information that the committee requested in its motion. The only things excluded were matters of cabinet confidence and national security, which the committee spelled out in the motion.

In preparing the documents in response to the committee motion, public servants respected their statutory obligations under law. The government provided the documents, which were 5,600 pages, on the date requested by the committee. Due to the time needed for the law clerk to do his work, Parliament was prorogued before they were properly given to the committee. As a result, not only did the finance committee cease to exist with prorogation, but the committee did not fully have these documents. It is therefore difficult for the opposition to argue that the government did not comply with the committee's motion when they were not in a position to take such a determination since they did not have the formal law clerk-approved documents.

The second issue was that there was no report from the finance committee to the House. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes correctly cites the relevant section from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2017, which states, “If such an order is ignored, the committee has no means to enforce the order on its own. It may report the matter to the House and recommend that appropriate action be taken. It is then a decision of the House whether or not to issue an order for the production of papers.” There has been no report from the finance committee and the hon. member knows that committee business does not carry over from one session to the next.

My hon. colleague also states that the Speaker needs to take extraordinary steps to intervene now to prevent actions “to keep our committees from considering substantive business until November”. I would like to draw the attention of my hon. colleague to a motion that the House adopted immediately upon the opening of the House, a full day before he gave and made his intervention. In addition to allowing the House to meet in a hybrid format and to vote remotely to ensure the safety of members and their staff, the motion also stated that the Standing Committee on Finance must hold an organizational meeting as early as October 8 but no later than October 9. The hon. member knows that the opposition holds a majority on the committees and that the finance committee will decide its agenda at that time.

Furthermore, the motion enabled all committees to meet either virtually or in a hybrid format, which means that it can meet to transact any business it wants as of next week. It is therefore incorrect to state that the government can use procedural tactics to delay the finance committee from considering substantive business until November.

The member argues that there was no ability for the finance committee to report the matter in the question to the House. I would refer the hon. member to the motion adopted by the House on March 24, 2020. I quote the section (i) of that motion where it states:

(i) starting the week of March 30, 2020, the Minister of Finance or his delegate shall provide the Standing Committee on Finance with a bi-weekly report on all actions undertaken pursuant to parts 3, 8 and 19 of the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act and shall appear before the committee to discuss the report, provided that, until April 20, 2020, or any date to which the adjournment period is extended pursuant to paragraph f), if committee is not satisfied with how the government is exercising its powers under the Act, it may adopt a motion during a meeting by videoconference or teleconference to report this to the House by depositing a report with the Clerk of the House which shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House on that day.

Since this matter was not before the House and the documents were not formally before the House or the committee, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Speaker to make a determination on whether the committee's motion was respected. While the government asserts that this issue does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege, I want to make it clear that when the finance committee restarts on October 8 or 9, if it readopts the motion and is not satisfied with the way the government has provided documents to the committee, the government is prepared to work in good faith with the committee to address any concerns that it may have.

This matter has raised a number of unique circumstances. I will note that the procedure and House affairs committee has undertaken two studies on how our House should operate in a pandemic. It therefore makes good sense to ask this committee to undertake a study of the Standing Orders and practices, and once complete, report its findings to the House.

Response by Parliamentary Secretary to Order Paper Question

[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]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the second question of privilege raised on September 24 by the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

In his intervention, the member made a serious claim in accusing the Minister of Public Services and Procurement of misleading the House in response to Order Paper Question No. 443. I submit that the matter raised by my colleague amounts to a dispute as to facts and does not meet the high threshold for finding a prima facie question of privilege.

There are two key matters to support this view. First, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the member misread and miscalculated the amounts in the access to information request. Second, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the member's Order Paper question cover different periods.

In his remarks, my counterpart referenced access to information request no. 2020-00025, which was provided to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. The ATIP in question requested a generic actuals report of the cost of renovations, improvements, construction and maintenance of the Prime Minister's official residence at Harrington Lake between January 1, 2020, and April 22, 2020. It seems that the member across the way read the table in the same way as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I suspect that both the member and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation added all of the amounts listed in the response to the access to information request together rather than viewing them as spending from a total budget. Put simply, the member and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation misread and miscalculated the numbers in the response to the access to information request.

I will refer to Order Paper Question No. 443, raised by the same member. This question reads as follows:

With regard to construction and renovations at the Prime Minister’s country residence and surrounding property at Harrington Lake: (a) what are the details of each new building or other structure constructed, or in the process of being constructed, at the property since November 4, 2015, including (i) date construction began, (ii) projected or actual completion date, (iii) square footage, (iv) physical description of the structure, (v) purpose of the structure, (vi) estimated cost; and (b) what are the details of all renovations which began at the property since November 4, 2015, including (i) start date, (ii) projected or actual completion date, (iii) structure, (iv) project description, (v) estimated cost?

First, I note that in question (a) at point (vi) and in question (b) at point (v), the hon. member clearly requested the estimated cost and not the generic actuals report, as requested by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Second, the date of the actuals requested from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is from January 1, 2020, to April 22, 2020, in comparison with the hon. member requesting the work and estimates from November 4, 2015.

I am happy to refer my hon. colleague to the National Capital Commission's website for Harrington Lake, which clearly states that the estimated budget of repairs for Harrington Lake is $8.6 million. This is still the budget for the renovations and was the amount provided to my hon. colleague in his response to Question No. 443.

To provide perfect clarity, approximately $850,000 of the cost to which the member alludes is for contracts that serve all six official residences in the NCC portfolio. Furthermore, some of the actual expenses incurred by the NCC, released as part of an ATIP, fall outside the estimated budget of $8.6 million. At no point was the House misled in this manner.

This is a matter of debate as to facts and does not meet the high threshold for finding a question of privilege. It is a long-standing tradition that the House takes members at their word, and as I mentioned in an intervention in March of this year, there are other avenues to resolve such disputes before raising questions of privilege. There are alternatives and other ways of seeking clarification on such matters.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for the additional information on the questions of privilege. We will compile this additional information with the other information as we continue to deliberate on them.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Proceedings on the Bill Entitled an Act Relating to Certain Measures in Response to COVID-19

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this House on C-2. I also want to begin by letting the Speaker know I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Midnapore.

As the parliamentary secretary just mentioned, the Prime Minister shut down Parliament for six weeks. He did so because pressure was starting to mount from the WE scandal. Every day new details started to emerge on the Prime Minister's intimate involvement with that $900-million scandal. Canadians, no matter where they are, want to know more details about that scandal. We say that because the Prime Minister has already been found guilty in accepting a paid vacation to a luxury island. He was also found guilty in his involvement of the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

Now, as the parliamentary secretary said a few moments ago, it was the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament. He just did not shut down debate in this chamber, which was limited to begin with, he shut down the important work of several committees, including our ability to study the COVID-19 recovery.

Just a few weeks ago, the new leader of the official opposition raised that need to quickly restart the committees. That was done on a call to the Prime Minister, but unfortunately, those calls for the committees to be reinstated were rejected. The Standing Committee on Health could be studying the Liberals' ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Its members should be talking about the need for more rapid testing and why other countries, including many of our G7 partners, have rapid testing available to their constituents.

The Standing Committee on Finance could be preparing a report on the COVID-19 recovery. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities could be looking at legislation that transitions Canadians from the CERB to the new employment insurance programs.

We all know a fully functioning Parliament is necessary for Canadian democracy, especially during a crisis like the pandemic, and the Conservative Party of Canada was the only party in this House consistently calling for the full recall of Parliament during that pandemic.

We heard in the parliamentary secretary's remarks that Liberals claim to have the backs of Canadians. Conservatives are the ones consistently calling for Liberals to improve their slew of programs. It was us, as the official opposition, who consistently called for the recall of the House of Commons, not the fake Parliament the Liberals agreed to, which gave opposition members very little time to critique the programs that were being laid out. We all know there was a whole slew of problems with some of those programs, including with the wage subsidy, which started at 10% while countries like Germany were upwards of 70%. It was calls by the opposition that helped move the government to where it was able to better help those small businesses needing help because they were told to shut down and people all across this country were told to stay home.

We have a lot of serious work to do, and I will quickly touch on child care because it falls under my portfolio as the critic. The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development just last week talked about the Liberals' desire to create accessible and inclusive child care spaces right across this country. For anyone in this House, or anyone watching on CPAC or any program, I do not think too many Canadians would put the two together, that the government is very accessible or flexible, for that matter. We all know a large number of Canadians who do not have access to these child care spaces, and in my community there is a waiting list, but there are a lot of people who do not want access and want flexibility in the programs.

This is where the Conservatives' plan comes in. We are talking about giving Canadians more money in their pockets to help lower the cost of those child care spaces or, if a family so chooses, they could then move their child to maybe a parent or grandparent. Maybe someone has set up a small business in their neighbourhood, following all provincial rules and guidelines to make it a safe space for those children to go. This is what we are talking about. We are talking about flexibility.

The government rarely has flexibility in anything it offers. We also know child care is in provincial jurisdiction and we want the provinces, if they so choose to move in that direction, to include flexibility in their programs.

We want to ensure competition within the provinces so that if one province is doing something extremely well, another province that is having trouble could probably take best practices from those jurisdictions and implement them within their own system, which I think allows better quality of care all around, rather than the federal government implementing its own system or imposing rules and regulations on the provinces and territories in exchange for those tax dollars to come back, which takes time too. Coming to these agreements with the provinces takes time. There are people who need the flexibility now to help them. We talked about shift workers. A lot of shift workers are excluded from government child care because the flexibility is not there. However, if they had more money in their pockets and were able to make choices in their lives with a wide variety of options, they might be able to help their case and get back into the workforce quicker.

It seems when we talk about economic recovery, no matter how many restrictions the government imposes on an industry, the solution is always another government program. Let us take the oil and gas industry as an example. It has been unfairly punished by the government, with rules and regulations one after another. One piece of legislation, Bill C-69, the tanker ban bill, comes to mind. Then, in order to make up for its careless decisions, it decided to purchase a pipeline to ensure that project was completed, and a number of other pipelines were scrapped because of the Liberal decisions, including northern gateway, energy east and many others.

We could talk about the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport in downtown Toronto, where an expansion of runway would allow business people the ability to get to their destination a lot quicker, rather than going from downtown to Mississauga, the neighbouring community, to access a plane for a short trip. When the Liberals decided to scrap that plan, Billy Bishop airport was not able to expand. Therefore, Porter Airlines was not able to buy a number of C Series jets, which then caused Bombardier to come into financial hardship. What did the government do? It brought in another government program and decided to bail out Bombardier, yet the dollars that were available for this expansion and the decision to buy these planes came from private dollars. Therefore, we have more government intervention in the marketplace.

We will go back to child care here for a quick second. Spaces are needed now and we talk about what the government had in 1993. It talked about the Red Book and that it was going to come up with a national day care program. That took well over a decade to negotiate. The deal was signed in 2005-06, so people who had a child nearing 1993 had already passed the care age needed. In many cases, depending on where the child was born, he or she might be finished high school. Therefore, the parents who need help immediately have to wait until the government figures out its plan. That is one thing it always asks for, more time and more money. Whether it works or not, whether it wants it or not, it does not really matter, it just needs more time and money. When those plans fail, it comes up with another plan.

When we talk about Parliament being shut down over the pandemic, despite calls from the Conservative Party to reinstate Parliament, we are here dealing with Bill C-2, an act we all know needed to be dealt with immediately. Parliament did not need to be prorogued. We all know why that happened. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, it was because the WE documents were coming out. The Prime Minister was going to be implicated in this scandal worth $900 million.

Let us go on to what Bill C-2 is talking about. I know I am running out of time.

Let us talk about a person from my riding, Katherine. She previously ran a home day care as a small business owner. A year ago her family decided to start planning for one more child, and she signed up—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, there is no more time. However, the member will have time to add to his comments during questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, the pandemic has put a great deal of pressure on in many different ways.

Earlier this year, the government, in co-operation, particularly, with the New Democratic Party, recognized the value in the House of Commons sitting in the summer, and justifiably so, something it has not done, at least not that I can recall, in the last 30 years. I suspect it might be even longer than that, since the House actually sat in the summer months.

I was here both in July and August, sitting inside this chamber, listening to hundreds of questions. That does not even come close to the types of transparency and accountability that I saw when I was on the opposition benches. Government was available for questioning.

Where was all the interest, which the Conservatives have today, during the summer, when they were not necessarily posing the types of questions they are looking for answers to today?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague across the way, but I would respectfully disagree with him. As I mentioned in my speech many times, the Conservative Party was calling for the recall of Parliament, almost immediately, after we had a handle on the problems the pandemic was causing in our communities. We wanted Parliament called back right away to deal with that.

What the government gave us was a fake Parliament. We were not able to debate legislation. We had a few questions, but it was every other week, and the Prime Minister decided to prorogue Parliament, shutting down the last week of that debate.

The Conservative Party wanted to debate all throughout April, May, June, July, August, September and onwards. The fact that we were not given that opportunity is a real shame for Canadians, because we know there are a lot of problems with the programs that the government announced. We wanted to work with the government to ensure those fixes were in place.