Debates of Sept. 29th, 2020

Proceedings on the bill entitled An Act relating to economic recovery in response to COVID-19

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have had the privilege of serving alongside the hon. member in government operations. I have known her to be a very caring and compassionate member of that committee.

In her speech, she outlined ways in which people, in the long term, continue to get left out of this particular bill. Would the hon. member not agree with extending supports to people who are currently left out? In the long term, not knowing the effects of COVID and the potential for long-term disabilities associated with it, does it not make sense to potentially look at deeper ways in which we can provide critical supports for people living with disabilities or disabled people?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

People with disabilities are, indeed, too often forgotten. We can help them, and temporary measures may not be enough. We will have to take time to think and dig into these questions so that we can meet these people's needs, instead of simply doing what we think is best.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke about entrepreneurs and how they were tired. We could really hear the passion in her speech about that.

A family farm, a local flatbed truck operator and a mechanic in my riding of Essex do not qualify for the CEBA because they operate their businesses through a personal bank account. However, these same businesses, using these same accounts, pay their taxes and collect HST.

Would the member agree that proroguing government for six weeks was perhaps even more detrimental for these small businesses of which she so graciously spoke?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Was it a bad idea to prorogue Parliament during a crisis like the one we are experiencing? Indeed, it was. It was a bad idea not only for our farmers, who need our support, but also for the public and for democracy as a whole.

We have the right and the duty to speak on behalf of our constituents, not for ourselves or our party, but for everyone.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's wonderful speech, in which she spoke about all kinds of important amendments that should be made to the bill. In my opinion, these are worthwhile amendments.

However, we barely have enough time to study the bill. The government wants to rush it through, which means that we will not have time to examine these very important issues. What does my colleague think about the fact that we do not have time to make these amendments?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Earlier, I was saying that the prorogation was a bad idea for democracy. Closure is also a bad idea for democracy.

This is not about going on and on about a bill for 25, 30 or 40 weeks. It is simply a matter of making proposals so that the government and the opposition parties can come to a consensus.

I have been here for two days and for two days I have been hearing the government say that we should work together. We want to do that, but the Liberals are imposing a gag order. That is not democratic, period.

[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, I would like to touch on a number of areas.

The first thing I will do is pick up on the last question and answer and on some of the comments made by the members, particularly the Conservatives, about prorogation. It is interesting that the last questioner said that we shut down the House for six weeks. On the surface, one might think that is a terrible thing to do. However, when we understand what really took place, most Canadians would support what the government has done.

When we talk about the prorogation, it meant that instead of coming back on the Monday, we came back on the Wednesday, so we lost those two days. We also lost one day in August. However, keep in mind that this is the first government in the last 30-plus years to have the House sit in July and August. We sat more days in July and August than we lost in the prorogation.

A member across the way has said that this is not true, but it is true.

Members have to stop listening to the Conservative spin and see the reality of what we face today. Instead of listening to their constituents, they are listening to the Conservative spin and that is a serious problem. It is one of the reasons we are doing what we are today.

I give credit to the NDP and the Green Party members, who can be pretty brutal with some of their comments on the floor of the House. They are not necessarily friendly in all matters toward the government of the day, but they recognize that this is important. They recognize what the motion is trying to accomplish. They understand it and they appreciate it. They might have some issues with it, but they are supporting it. Unlike the Conservatives and the Bloc, they believe it is in the best interest of all Canadians that we remain focused on their needs and ultimately see legislation pass. We should not look at it as a possible option; it is absolutely critical that it pass.

I take exception to many of the comments from members who are saying it is undemocratic. I was in opposition in the far corner for a number of years when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. If members want to talk about assaults on democracy, they just need to go back to the Harper era.

Let us look at what has taken place with the pandemic. Virtually from day one, the Prime Minister has been very clear. He wants the House to focus on the pandemic and do what we can to protect the interests, health and well-being of Canadians. From day one, that has been the issue with this government. In the last number of weeks, we have talked a great deal about the economy and restarting it.

When we talk about accountability, I challenge any one of the members of the Bloc or the Conservatives to stand in his or her place when it comes time to ask a question. I would like those members to tell me when was the last time they met on the floor of the chamber and were afforded the opportunity to ask not just hundreds, but probably thousands of questions of the government of the day.

Opposition members had a wonderful opportunity to convey their thoughts and ideas with respect to the pandemic, share their concerns with the government and press the government on those issues in the months of July and August, which, at least in my 30 years as a parliamentarian, I do not ever recall being provided to opposition members.

Going back to my days in opposition, we would get a question and might get a supplementary one. What was provided here for opposition members was they could go five minutes steady, have three quick questions, a long question, a preamble and then go back-and-forth and the minister was obligated to respond in that same time frame.

At the end of the day, opposition members were afforded the opportunity to hold the government accountable. I did not try to tell them that they should not ask questions about this or about that. We all know where they focused a lot of their attention. I do not think it was with respect to, at least not for the most part, the health and well-being of Canadians even though we were into a pandemic.

Now those members are upset, saying that they want more time to debate Bill C-4, which is why they oppose this. However, they had no reservations at all this morning to bring in a motion for concurrence on a report, which literally killed two hours of potential debate.

They have a great deal of experience and have no reservations at all in using what parliamentarians often refer to as a “filibuster”, and they are good at it. I give them full credit for that. In the last five years, I do not know how many times I have seen two members of the Conservative Party stand. After one speaks, the other one moves that another Conservative be heard to precipitate the bells to ring in order to waste more time. Another example is that they argue for debate and then move a motion to adjourn for the day.

It is not that they want to see more debate, the focus of the Conservatives is more on wanting to show Canadians that the House of Commons is dysfunctional and cannot work. It does not matter who sits in the prime minister's chair, unless it is a Conservative. The House of Commons cannot do its work. I have seen that time and time again over the last five years, with Conservatives as the official opposition.

There was a budget where one member consumed virtually 98% of the whole debate time allocated. I remember that well, and it was not me. It is not that I was jealous or anything of that nature, but having said that, again, those members have no reservations. When they stand now and say that they want more time to debate, based on what I have witnessed, that is just not true.

If the members had 10 hours, they would want 15 hours. If they had 15 hours, they would want 20 hours. They want to frustrate the government. The Conservatives consistently try to prevent the government from passing legislation or any other measures. I believe that is the reason, at least in part, why the NDP and the Green Party are having to support the type of motion we have before us. They realize that if we do not bring in motions of this nature, they would never pass. We cannot please the Conservatives.

It is not because Conservatives want more debate. I do not believe that for a moment. It seems that this is their sole purpose for existing, at least the Conservative leadership's. It is not meant as a reflection on any individual member of Parliament, but the Conservative driving force, the leadership team, if I can put it that way, its focus is not what is happening in terms of the pandemic. When I say “Conservatives”, I mean the Conservatives here in Ottawa. I believe their focus is to be as critical as they can about the Prime Minister and other ministers. They will zero in on any Liberal and point out every blemish they believe is there.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

There's a lot to point out.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind members who are virtual to make sure they keep their microphones off. Otherwise, we will have to look at other measures if they wish to continue heckling that way. It is not acceptable. I know it is an effort to do that, and it is being purposely done. I would ask that members refrain from doing that.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has a little over eight minutes and then there will be 10 minutes for questions and comments, so I would ask people to hold onto their thoughts.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would love the opportunity to see members from within that leadership change their attitudes, especially at the time in which we find ourselves today. People are experiencing, in all regions of our country, a wide variety of different types of hardships stemming from the pandemic. At a time in which communities throughout our country want us to be focusing on how we can improve the conditions, the Conservatives continue to be focused on their original objectives after losing the election back in 2015. They often suggest I should move on and maybe not even mention Stephen Harper. I would suggest that they need to move on. They need to realize that it is the Conservative Party, in part, that needs to change the channel and start getting on with what is taking place in our communities. Those hardships are very real.

One member across the way heckled that we caused it. I think it is a stretch to try to tell the world it was the Government of Canada that caused the pandemic. It kind of shows the silliness of the Conservative Party. We, from virtually nothing, created programs that literally put hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in the pockets of Canadians at a time when they needed it.

Members can imagine, through the pandemic, finding oneself unemployed as a direct result of having to stay safe, as companies had to shut down or close doors temporarily and in some cases, unfortunately, permanently. The CERB program has assisted well over eight million, and I believe it is close to nine million, Canadians. The wage subsidy program has saved tens of thousands of jobs in all regions of our country. These are programs that have had a huge positive impact on our communities. Without them, our communities and our society would have been damaged in a more significant fashion, which would have ultimately caused our economy and our way of life to suffer a whole lot more.

The government needed to step up, and not only did the government step up but so did other governments. We came up with the safe restart agreement with the different provinces. Manitoba is one of those provinces. Its premier, Brian Pallister, has written a letter providing thoughts in regard to the restart program. I would like to quote a couple of items from the letter, because I think it emphasizes the important role that Ottawa and our provinces play, and we need to work together.

This is a direct quote from the Premier of Manitoba, making reference to the safe restart agreement: “This federal funding will help support work already undertaken by the Government of Manitoba to increase daily testing capacity from a baseline of 1,000 tests to more than 3,000 tests per day.”

It goes on to say:

The Government of Canada will provide $700 million to support health care system capacity to respond to a potential future wave of COVID-19. A further $500 million will address immediate needs and gaps in the support and protection of people experiencing challenges related to mental health, substance use, or homelessness. This investment will help to keep Canadians safe and healthy with the health care supports they need.

Through the co-operation and the recognition of the seriousness of the pandemic, we have cities, provinces, our national government and so many others that have come to the table, recognizing how important it is that we collectively remain focused on this second wave. That is what the bill actually deals with: how we can carry forward the types of supports that are critical to Canadians. That is why a number of my colleagues got fairly upset today when the Conservatives tried unsuccessfully to change the debate this morning to something that had nothing to do with the second wave of COVID-19.

While the members across the way continue to talk about the process for dealing with the legislation to ultimately see it pass so that we can continue that support, I would encourage them to leave the Conservative spin to the side and focus on what they believe their constituents would want them to say in the House in terms of the programs that are absolutely critical in order to be able to get Canada as a nation through this second wave. We can accomplish so much more if we do what the Prime Minister is asking us to do, which is to work together at protecting the health and well-being of Canadians while, at the same time, supporting our economy where we can.

A lot more needs to be done. The message that I want to leave those who are following the debate or Canadians as a whole is that the Government of Canada will continue to be there for Canadians until we have permanently resolved the issue of this pandemic.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his lengthy speech. I recognize the member is very passionate about this, but so are we, and so are the NDP, the Green Party and the Bloc. We are all passionate, because we are all working for our constituents.

We all know that these programs that were announced needed to be announced, because September 30 was the deadline. When prorogation was set, the Liberals already knew there was going to be a problem.

I am wondering, and perhaps the member could share with me, whether prorogation was to cover the butts of the government, or did the government actually think it reset the agenda? If that was the case, I am confused as to why we are having to go through this debate today, pushing through this thing. If we had done this last week, we would have been in better care. I am also having to share with my constituents that with this time frame, they will already have to wait because the government prorogued.

I am wondering if the member thought that was a good idea or not. How were Canadians going to get their benefits if the government was not working?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it was important for the Government of Canada to prorogue the session, turn the page and put its sole focus on the recovery and the pandemic. That was an important thing to do.

The member asked if we were trying to cover something up. She is probably referencing WE, as an example. I am wondering how many times the premier of the province of Manitoba has been questioned, because the Manitoba government has contracts with WE, so I am wondering if there is some corruption over there. Is that what the member opposite might imply? I would suggest that the Government of Manitoba should continue to focus its attention, as it has been, on the recovery and the pandemic. Maybe at some point in time, and I could be wrong, the opposition in Manitoba might look at what took place in the province of Manitoba with respect to WE and the Progressive Conservative government.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. I listened to it carefully. He said that help for Canadians was vital, that it was important to pass bills and that we should have done more.

I want to tell him that we could have done all of this earlier, well before the prorogation.

At the end of April, and in May and June, when we had a token version of Parliament where we could not move motions or debate or pass bills, other places in the world and even not too far away, in Quebec, were holding parliamentary committees where members could move motions and vote on bills. We could not do that here.

I do not understand why the government is now blaming the Bloc Québécois by saying that our party does not want to help Canadians quickly, when that could have been done in the spring.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, a number of members of Parliament were hoping that we could have some sort of voting mechanism in place that would have enabled the House to participate by following health experts' advice and providing that physical distancing and so forth, but because we could not get the Conservatives to agree to having virtual votes, it limited what we could do. The Bloc and the Conservatives have a lot of things in common; that is not one of them.

Maybe the Bloc members should be talking to some of their friends in the Conservative Party, for example, and looking at ways we can improve upon this. We have already passed through the summer, and it would have been nice had the Conservatives agreed to some mechanism that would have enabled MPs to be more empowered, but it was the Conservatives who chose not to do that.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the NDP has been very clear about our desire to get 10 paid days of sick leave for Canadians from coast to coast to coast on a permanent basis. We believe that the federal government could show leadership by providing those 10 paid sick days to workers in the federal jurisdiction, by amending the Canada Labour Code. The provisions we are debating today do not include those, because the government is adamantly opposed to granting those 10 days of paid sick leave within the federal jurisdiction. Why is it that the government does not believe Canadians should be entitled to 10 paid sick days on a permanent basis?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would just recognize that it is encouraging to see that at least there are some political entities, such as the New Democrats and the Greens, that have actually seen the value of the legislation and are supporting us as we go through. Obviously, in a minority situation we need to have the support of more than just the government. Therefore, I do appreciate that and want to extend my thanks in particular to the leader of the New Democratic Party.

When we talk about those 10 paid days, it is in fact incorporated, in good part. Lobbying occurs. It is important to recognize that a lot of the changes that we see today come from efforts of individuals from all political parties. Many of my caucus colleagues have been lobbying in their constituencies and in Ottawa, lobbying with ministers, in particular on this file, to try to effect some changes. I am glad to say that we have seen many changes as a direct result of the fine work of members of Parliament sharing their concerns.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my first time putting a question forward in this format.

I would agree with the member for Malpeque, in earlier debate today, that this was not a prorogation of the kind that challenges our constitutionality and our Westminster traditions, but it did not need to be weeks long.

I have asked the parliamentary secretary if it is not the case that stopping the work of committees is the key question that has offended us in the opposition ranks. It is not that we lost days of debates in July and August, when, I agree with him, they were not typical, but we did have all the work on committees stopped. How does he justify that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the former leader of the Green Party seems to imply that she would have been okay with the prorogation if the committees had been able to continue. The tradition of the House of Commons is that when a prorogation takes place, committees stop. Maybe that is something that could be talked about going forward as we look at changing the rules.

At this point in time, I believe it was appropriate, given the nature of the pandemic, that we prorogue. It allowed us to bring in a new throne speech and to set a path for the next months, and possibly years. That was essential.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary raised a very interesting point a few minutes ago when he thanked the New Democratic Party for at least, in addressing him, asking an actual question of substance in respect to policy.

We have Bloc and Conservative members who, during what they are characterizing as extremely limited time to speak, are still continuing to talk about this apparent limited time that they have to speak. That is coupled with the fact that this morning a concurrence motion was brought in that had absolutely nothing to do with this agenda, let alone this session of Parliament. What are the parliamentary secretary's thoughts on the games that are being played within the House right now?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I was not surprised. I somewhat anticipated that the Conservatives might try something of that nature, primarily because I do not believe, at my core, that they are really arguing for additional debate. Their ultimate goal is to make Parliament, the House of Commons, and the debate look as dysfunctional as possible.

I believe that is their real objective, even at a time when Canadians need the Conservative Party to be more responsible and to co-operate, as other political parties are doing, in order to deal with this pandemic and protect our economy. However, it is never too late. Maybe we will see some more encouraging signs from the Conservatives in the coming weeks and months.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I very much enjoy the member for Winnipeg North's spin on how he thinks the proceedings in the House of Commons are going. He lives here quite often and does quite a lot of work. He carries a lot of water for the current Liberal government. I know he takes pride in that.

There are some things that I will probably take issue with, but I understand how much work the member does, and that he carries the water for the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office, all while taking on some of the slings and arrows that no one else on that side of the bench wants. I remember another Liberal from western Canada who did that. That Liberal had been elected for 25 years, and he was Mr. Ralph Goodale.

The member across said that he had been elected for 20 years. There is only so long someone can carry the water for Ottawa before going back out to western Canada and western Canadians asking, “When are you going to start being a voice for us again?” Mr. Goodale went through that in the 2019 election. I would like to give some advice to my learned colleague across the way: There is only so much water a person can carry before that bucket spills over, leaving their constituents to think that they are not being supported any more.

This process to go through $57 billion of spending over the last four and a half hours is very interesting. The member stated that we as the opposition always want to create chaos to make it appear that the House is not functioning properly. I say that there is nothing further from the truth. I think we are working as team Canada. We want to contribute.

We contributed with the CEWS, the emergency wage subsidy, when the government first brought it in. We talked to our constituents across the country. They told us it was not going to work for businesses. We also went to members of the opposition. I believe that is one of the reasons why the benefit increased from 10% to 75%.

Members on this side have helped with the team Canada approach and have added some constructive criticism. That in turn has helped Canadian businesses to keep employees longer. It has helped people get through the pandemic, but more often than not, when we put ideas forward, there is a feeling that we are left without teammates.

When it comes to us working as part of team Canada, the Liberal member suggests that we be constructive and bring forward ideas. We continue to do that. I remember asking questions of the minister responsible for economic development and employment in July.

The member has said there was a full Parliament, but there was not. It was a COVID-19 committee. Once again the spin and the rhetoric does not match the words coming out of the member for Winnipeg North's mouth because there was no full Parliament. We know that. When he is says that, the member is trying to mislead Canadians.

He has also said that this has been the most open and transparent government in history, which could not be further from the truth. I remember during the start of the pandemic, when we were having our COVID-19 committee meetings, the Prime Minister was in his cottage hiding under his bed because he did not want to make a decision for Canadians. He would pop out every day like a cuckoo clock when the media was there to give his two-minute statement, take three softball questions and then go back into Rideau cottage. I do not think that was showing leadership when Canadians needed it the most.

The member of Parliament for Winnipeg North sits there and says that there has been great leadership and the government has shown Canadians that it has been there every step of the way. I know that constituents in Regina—Lewvan do not feel that way.

I know the hon. member also said, “When standing in this House you should say and speak of what your constituents would want you to say”. I am sorry to say, Madam Speaker, that if I did that you would ask me to leave because sometimes my constituents use colourful language to describe how they feel the Liberal government has left them behind time and time again.

The member said that we are talking too much about prorogation. I think that over the 10 or 15 years he was on these benches, in the corner, he talked about former prime minister Harper and his government proroguing Parliament. The opposition at that time could not scream it loud enough from the rooftops, but this is a different situation. This is a Liberal government. This is just another case of “Do as we say, not as we do. It is respectful for us to prorogue Parliament because we are going to do a reset”.

The member keeps saying that we are going to turn the page, but he does not finish his sentence. What did the hon. member want to turn the page from? Why do we have to turn the page? The election was not very long ago. The government is only a year into its mandate. What does the page need to be turned from? There was a throne speech. Why did we have to have another one?

Both throne speeches are the same. The Liberals have the same recycled promises they will never follow through on. They have been promising child care and day care probably since I was in day care, so they have never really followed through on that one. The problem we see on this side is there will be 50 billion to 60 billion dollars' worth of spending, so forgive us if we do not think we should just write blank cheques to the Liberals.

I should have said this earlier, but this will be a shorter speech because I will be splitting my time with the member for Perth—Wellington.

Forgive us if we do not feel the Liberals deserve a blank cheque. I have another sports analogy about this and it concerns teammates. Lots of time on a sports team there are unforced errors. We feel it is the unforced errors of the Liberals that have caused the slow response to COVID-19. They all knew that on September 30 we were going to need new programming in place because CERB was ending.

However, we see unforced error after unforced error, including the WE scandal, the Prime Minister's chief of staff's husband getting a contract for $84 million, the Prime Minister's friends and family benefiting from the WE scandal, and Frank Baylis getting the contract for ventilators that were never certified. All these scandals backed up their agenda. They had to prorogue Parliament because, as the member for Winnipeg North said, we had to turn the page.

It is not the Conservatives' fault we are sitting here debating 50 billion to 60 billion dollars' worth of spending in four and a half hours because the Liberals did not have a plan for Canadians. They have continued to leave Canadians behind throughout the whole pandemic.

As the new shadow minister for economic development, I see the one thing missing from the throne speech, in which they said they are going to turn the page, is that the words “private enterprise” were only mentioned once, because the Liberals think private enterprise should help develop the COVID-19 app. There was no mention of releasing private enterprises' ability to spend money, to ensure they are able to hire more people and to help regain our economic advantage in the natural resources sector.

The member for Winnipeg should know that across western Canada there are 20 billion dollars' worth of private investment ready to go. The Liberals are building a pipeline that a private company was going to build. If the Liberals would have got out of the way, they would not have had to spend $4.5 billion on a pipeline and another $10 billion to help build it. The private sector would have done that, and we would not have had to waste public dollars.

The private sector gives money to help all these programs they want to run. When we have a throne speech that mentions private enterprise and private business once, that is not a plan for an economy of the future. That is not a plan for Canadians.

What Canadians wanted from the government in the throne speech during a pandemic was some hope and stability. They wanted to know, after COVID-19, what does Canada look like next? They did not want a bunch of ideologies. The problem right now with the Liberal government is there are no public servants on the front benches. There are a bunch of radical ideologues who want to change what Canada looks like to fit their picture of Canada.

That is not what Canadians want. Canadians want to go back to work. Canadians want to help their families get ahead. Canadians want to know that after we get through this COVID-19 pandemic together, there is a future for their children.

I have three young children. After I leave Ottawa and go home, they are going to ask me what I did at work. I want to say that we tried to make sure we had time to talk about our future, and that our future has hope and optimism for our children. I do not want our children to think that what they have seen over the last six months is what Canada is going to look like for the next six years. It is our job to ensure that the next generation has the same chance to succeed that we had.

As we go through this bill, we hear from the other side of the aisle that the Conservatives do not care, that Conservatives do not want to put forward ideas and that Conservatives do not want to make Canada better. It is all just untrue. It makes us feel pretty upset that the Liberals talk about wanting to have a team Canada approach, but our teammates continue to make unforced errors. They make sure they do not take advice from this side of the House that would make sure Canadians can get back to work and ensure we have success going forward.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, my question relates very much to only part of the member's speech. I have been listening all day to people on all sides of the House criticizing the government for taking time to prorogue Parliament to write an appropriate throne speech for a crisis that we are facing.

I was here in 2008 when Mr. Harper prorogued Parliament. It was prorogued for months and months, not to change, not to reset, not to do anything different, but simply to save his own butt. That is what he was doing. I would like to know what this member did during prorogation to add to that. We held meetings, we held round tables and we held town halls to contribute. What did the hon. member do during that very brief prorogation?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I was here too in 2008 during prorogation, as a staffer, and I know Prime Minister Harper actually spoke to the other leaders when he was talking about prorogation. I know finance minister Jim Flaherty talked to other members across the House to know what they would like to see in the budget to ensure they were going to work on behalf of Canadians. You guys should be half as good as those guys were in 2008.

When I was going around in my constituency talking to Canadians and my constituents, they said they wanted the private sector to get back to work. They wanted to know that there were jobs. They do not want a handout; they want a hand up. They want a government that would put Canadians first, instead of putting its friends, business people and wealthy lobbyists before everyone else across the country.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he is to address his questions and comments directly to the Speaker and not to individual members.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I picked up on his desire to explain to the government members that we are here to work constructively and that we want time to study bills. That is the reason we are here.

Yesterday evening, we voted on a Bloc Québécois motion calling for collaboration with the intent of helping everyone, a motion that was in keeping with the hon. opposition leader's statements. In front of the media, the opposition leader claims he wants to respect Quebec's jurisdiction and help people. Yesterday, we moved a motion calling for just that: respecting Quebec's jurisdiction, increasing health transfers because that is what the provinces and Quebec need, and helping seniors starting at age 65.

I must have missed something. Can you explain to me why the Conservative Party voted against that motion?