Debates of Dec. 10th, 2021

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-2

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting that the NDP does not seem to care about the effect on seniors of government-created inflation. Of course, inflation hurts savers the most.

Seniors, because of this incredibly high inflation, get rates of return on their savings that are inferior to the rise in the cost of living, which means that every single year they are becoming poorer. Meanwhile, the cash creation that the government has done floods financial markets. Just yesterday, the finance minister said that housing prices are up and food prices are more expensive, but not to worry as the stock market is rising. Of course it is rising. Having had $400 billion pumped into it, it has gone up.

The big corporations and their CEOs can use all that money for share buybacks, dividends and capital appreciation. Meanwhile, the inflated cost of living leaves our seniors poorer and poorer every single year.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague on the finance committee, who gives a great contribution and gave us an excellent indication today about what exactly is happening to our money supply here in Canada.

We were at the finance committee yesterday and one of the most senior members of the Department of Finance came to us. The member asked that senior member of the Department of Finance what Canada's debt is. The answer that came back to the member for Carleton was that they did not know. The member from Finance was asked the same question later in the meeting, and the answer was that they did not know.

Where are we going to get some finance officials who actually understand the metrics that are driving the economy of this country?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question I asked was, “How much debt do Canadians owe, publicly and privately?”, and the finance minister said she could not say. This is the person responsible for the finances of the nation, so I asked the top bureaucrat she had on the panel with her. He said he did not know either, so I went to Statistics Canada, which just by chance updated that number today. Therefore, I announce, on the floor of the House of Commons, that Canadians owe nine trillion dollars. That is “trillion” with a “t”. Our debt level is now 371% of our GDP, $3.71 of debt for every one dollar of output. That is nearly double the historic level, and it is a massive risk that could lead to detonation when interest rates return to normal.

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

Madam Speaker, given that the hon. member for Carleton has sprung a motion on us today, this is probably my last chance to speak before holidays, so I wish all in the House a wonderful holiday.

The hon. member will be surprised, I think, that I quite agree with him that we do not seem to have finance officials who know where the money comes from or where it is going. I specifically would ask for the support of the Conservative Party in pursuing the question of what a fossil fuel subsidy is. This question needs to be asked of Finance Canada, and speaking of sharp pencils when the member for Carleton raised the problem of where we go to make a pencil, they did not get their pencils out.

Actually, for the first time in the history of the country, when the Auditor General asked Finance Canada for its paperwork on what a fossil fuel subsidy is, since the government has committed to ending them, finance officials refused to answer the Auditor General. It is unprecedented, and I ask the hon. member for Carleton where we are going to find people who will answer questions. Canadians demand to have those answers in front of us.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, one example of a fossil fuel subsidy would be the taxpayer-funded plane ticket that the member receives to fly here on a petroleum-burning airplane in order to sit in the House of Commons, but speaking of corporate subsidies, she raises a good point in general. I believe we should let businesses keep more of what they actually earn instead of providing them with government handouts. That way, we would go to a free-market economy, instead of state capitalism.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, first, I am not an economist, but I do have a basic understanding on how an economy works. I have always found it somewhat interesting when my colleague from Carleton goes into a diatribe about all the theories out there. He does tend to have that heavy right slant.

When I go back to my days at university, I think of the economy when theorists would have the whole dog-eat-dog world type of thing. I guess I am closer to the Keynesian type of theorist in recognizing that there is time for a government to come forward and take tangible actions to support our communities.

The member made reference to the fact that I should take notes. I did take a couple of notes as the member was speaking, because I wanted to make reference to a few of the thoughts he was espousing. He talks about the money. I will elaborate on that point, maybe not from an ivory tower perspective, but rather from the perspective of how I believe my constituents would like to hear it, and that is as plain as possible, my basic understanding of it.

He talked about where the money came from. I hear those types of things from members opposite, and no one uses them more than the member for Carleton. It is important for the people, who might be following this debate, to understand that the member is the finance critic for the Conservative Party, meaning the Conservative Party takes its lead from its leader sometimes on finance issues and at other times from the member for Carleton.

I do not say that to scare people. I say it because people should recognize why the member for Carleton says things. There was a time when the Conservative Party did not exist. There used to be a Progressive Conservative Party and the Reform Party. The member for Carleton would fit in quite well with the Reformers.

It is interesting to see the contrast when the leader leader trying to say the Conservatives are moderates or somewhat moderates. After all, that is why the Conservatives flip-flopped on the carbon tax issue, and that upset a lot of the old Reform members. That is why members of the Conservative Party, members of the caucus in particular, have a certain appreciation and respect for the member for Carleton, because his job is to keep that party to the right. He does a pretty darned good job of doing keeping them on the extreme right. Some of them applaud and I do not blame them for that, if that is their basic principle.

The member for Carleton talks about government expenditures and how wasteful they are. I would argue that government expenditure is a good thing. That how we support real people and businesses. That is why governments brought in programs during a very difficult time, not just in Canada but around the world. It was a global pandemic. This government recognized that we did not need to take the approach to economics that the member for Carleton would take. We needed to think about government spending that would support Canadians, small businesses, to have the backs of Canadians. That has been a first priority of the Prime Minister, the cabinet and Liberal members of Parliament from day one.

That was one of the reasons we went into an election, and were given a renewed, stronger mandate. The plan that we provided to the House of Commons is, in fact, supported by a vast majority of Canadians. Only a good portion of the Reform element of the Conservative Party calls into serious question why the government has made these expenditures. We should think of the consequences had we not provided the support, had we not listened to what Canadians wanted, had we not done the consultation that was so critical or had we not worked with the different levels of government, the non-profit organizations and many stakeholders, including health care workers and so many others. What would have been the alternative?

What would have happened if we had focused our attention on the Conservative Party's ideas, in particular the finance critic's ideas? We would not have had programs like the CERB, which provided millions of Canadians financial support during the pandemic, financial support that put dollars in their pockets so they could pay their bills, whether it was their mortgage, rent, utility bills or to put the food on their tables.

The Conservatives, led by the member for Carleton, repeatedly talk about the deficit, that right-wing element of the Conservative Party. Yes, the CERB program did cost a considerable amount of money, but had we not invested in that program, imagine the suicides, the family breakups, the costs resulting from mental health and the impact it would have had on our economy. Those are the reasons the Prime Minister acted quickly in making the statement that we would have the backs of Canadians and we would be there for them.

Let us think of the business supports we provided over the last 18 months. In particular, let us focus on our arts community and small businesses. The wage subsidy program allowed employers the opportunity to keep employees working. It ensured that many thousands of jobs would still be there when we recovered. We have been proven to be correct with that program.

We can think of the rent subsidy program. How many small businesses would not be here today had the government not provided support in the form of rent subsidy. The bills continue to come in, the suppliers still want to be paid and landlords still want to be paid. That program provided tangible support for workers and sick pay. These things made a difference and helped Canadians.

When we went to the polls back in September, Canadians agreed with the Liberal plan. That is why we are on the government benches. They agreed with the progressive policies that we had put in place. That is why a majority of Canadians supported parties that understood how important it was for government to continue to play a role in supporting people, whether they were seniors, people with disabilities, other vulnerable Canadians, Canadians who were losing jobs or Canadians trying to keep their businesses afloat. These are the types of things that really matter, and progressive parties in the House did well as a result.

What is Bill C-2? It is an extension of the programs I just finished talking about in one form or another.

Around this time last year, I would have been standing in this place, saying that the Conservative Party was playing a destructive role in the chamber. I am not surprised that the member for Carleton and the Conservative Party has decided to bring forward this motion, which proposes to divide the Bill C-2. The bill went to committee on December 2.

However, by literally dividing the bill into two bills, this is another way the Conservatives feel they can slow down legislation, possibly preventing it from being passed. What is next if this motion passes? Are they going to suggest that we need to strike up more committees to meet on these issues? Is this yet another indication from the official opposition that it wants to frustrate the legislation? Do the Conservatives not realize the cost of this legislation not passing?

Back on October 21, the Prime Minister indicated that the government had targeted business support programs, that it wanted the Canada recovery hiring program; create the tourism and hospitality recovery program and hardest-hit business recovery program; and establish the Canada worker lockdown benefit. The Prime Minister wanted to see the House of Commons act on this quickly. That is why it was no coincidence that when we were back in the House, literally, Bill C-2 was the very first piece of legislation. A good way for the government to express its priority is by the first piece legislation it presents.

When we first were elected in 2015, the first legislation created the framework for the tax break for Canada's middle class. It was also the legislation that established the need for an additional tax on the wealthiest 1% in our society. Interestingly enough, the Conservatives voted against that legislation. At the time, that was our priority; it was our piece of legislation.

We can look at what is happening around our country today. If we go back to the press conference the Prime Minister held on October 21, what will we find? If members do want to believe me, they should consult their constituents. Every region of the country is concerned about COVID-19. Everyone in the country wants to see a higher sense of co-operation taking place on the floor of the House of Commons. How is dividing such a critical piece of legislation, which, in essence, encapsulates in good part what is on the minds of Canadians, going to help in getting it passed through the House?

The bill went to committee back on December 2, and the committee already has had six meetings, and I think today is its seventh meeting. What is the real purpose of this Conservative Party motion today? We were supposed to be debating the throne speech, which deals with another aspect. It is the plan on how we continue to move forward.

The content of the throne speech, which we are not debating now because of this silly motion, highlighted the fact that we are still dealing with COVID-19 and that we still need to do what we can to minimize its negative impacts. Canadians realize it and have stepped up to the plate. I believe 86% of Canadians over the age of 12 are now fully vaccinated.

We recognize the strong leadership role that each of us has to play, but let us also recognize the important role that our communities have played. An 86% fully vaccinated community is a healthy community. We can still do better. We can still get more people fully vaccinated, but until we have achieved that optimum level we need to continue to be there in very real ways.

Some of our communities could be significantly hit into the future because of coronavirus mutations. That is one of the reasons why there is an important lockdown measure. We want Canadians to know that in the House of Commons, at least among the New Democrats, Bloc, Greens and Liberals, people understand that we need to have progressive measures in place to support real people and ensure that our communities are healthy into the future.

By investing and by supporting communities, we will all benefit collectively in the long run. Had the government of the day followed the Conservative Party, in particular the Conservative finance critic who is worshipped by many within the Conservative caucus, the programs that we have today would be in question. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we would not have had the types of progressive programs that we have today.

As a result of those programs, we are in a far better position to recover, and we see that in the numbers. We actually have more people back and employed than we had pre-pandemic: far more on a per capita basis than the United States and other countries. The reason for this is because the government supported Canadians and businesses. Businesses were able to survive and people were able to overcome the biggest issue of the pandemic, specifically vaccination. Canada has led the world because there has been a team Canada, except for the Conservative Party, here on the Hill that has consistently talked about the importance of being fully vaccinated. As much as possible we have provided programs that would make a difference and would provide the disposable income that would save jobs and save businesses.

I would ask the Conservative Party to rethink its motion, and maybe put the member for Carleton's economic theories on hold for a while. Let us see if we can pass this legislation as it is out of committee.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a really easy question. Earlier in the member's intervention he mentioned he went to university and he thought a lot about economics. I am sure the Hansard will reflect that statement.

With regard to monetary policy, would the member agree that monetary policy is very important for the recovery of our country, or would he agree with the Prime Minister that monetary policy is not worth the conversation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can appreciate some very basic things within economics, such as money supply. However, what we need to recognize is that if the government had not borrowed much of the money that was borrowed, we would have had Canadians borrowing more money to pay bills and buy groceries. There would have been far more bankruptcies. The people who would have benefited the most would have likely been institutions such as banks. What impact would that have had on things such as interest rates?

I studied the economy, but I am not an economist. Having been a parliamentarian for 30 years and having listened to many budgets, I have a basic understanding of how an economy works. The government needed to get involved and we did that. Over my 30 years, I have seen even Progressive Conservative governments recognize that there are times when there is a need for the government to get involved.

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

Madam Speaker, I pretty much agree with my colleague from Winnipeg North. That does not happen very often, so I thought I would point it out.

My colleague raised an important question when he asked why the Conservatives want to split the bill in two and what the next steps would be. I would like him to hypothesize. Where are the Conservatives going with this request and why?

We want to pass this bill quickly. What do the Conservatives have up their sleeves?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could get another 20 minutes to properly answer that question. This is a tactical procedure that I believe the Conservative Party is using to stir the pot, cause some frustration and maybe try to embarrass the government. They are not only doing this to the government, but also to other opposition parties, I would suggest. If we recognize that the vast majority of Canadians support these progressive measures, we will see the value inside this legislation.

I am not trying to say the government is perfect. There are all sorts of ways opposition members can critique the government. I do not want to take anything away from that. The measure that we are seeing with this particular motion is more to try to stir the pot and cause frustration. Hopefully, members on all sides of the House will see the game that is being played here. We got a mandate as a minority. Let us see if we can work together on some of these projects. It does not mean that they cannot criticize government.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to keep the bill together because there are a number of different issues that have to be addressed. There is the issue of workers who are connected to an employer. There is also the issue of workers who are not going to be able to access money through the wage subsidy, either because their employer does not choose to exercise that mechanism or because they are self-employed.

I do not think it helps the debate to divide and conquer: to split off one piece and move ahead with it and not talk about the other. To pretend that this bill is going to do a lot of good for people is also a bit of a farce. One example is that the Canada worker lockdown benefit actually does not apply to any region in the country so far, even though the government talks about how great it is that it is retroactive.

Can the member name a region of the country where, between October 23 and now, the Canada worker lockdown benefit would apply?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as opposed to attempting to answer something I do not necessarily know offhand, I would like to point out that the member for Elmwood—Transcona is doing the responsible thing as a member of the opposition: He is recognizing the value of the legislation even though he is calling into question a number of its aspects. I respect that. I understand the New Democrats have concerns with respect to the legislation. I suspect if we were to go to the committee meetings, we would hear a number of concerns. I would probably disagree with a number of them, but they will no doubt raise them and continue to raise them inside the House. I respect that. What I disagree with is using a tactic of mere political and partisan gamesmanship. It is not in the best interests of legislation of this nature.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share the outrage of my colleague from Winnipeg North. From my perspective, we have the Christmas season coming and more people are going to be inside together in groups. We also have the omicron variant, and case numbers are climbing in other parts of the world. I think these supports are critical for Canadian workers and the businesses that have been hardest hit.

Could my colleague explain to us what he thinks the impacts of delaying this important piece of legislation would be on those businesses and workers?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. I think members need to reflect and show empathy as opposed to sympathy. Imagine if we had one of the businesses or were an individual waiting in need for this legislation. Anything that causes an unnecessary delay would cause some anxiety.

We should be promoting and talking about buying local. It may have even been a Conservative member who started this, but we have been talking about it for quite a while within our caucus. Now is a great time to support some of our local businesses. There is a wonderful plant store in Winnipeg North. There is also the Jeepney Restaurant and the Water Plant. There are so many local businesses in our communities, and Christmastime might be a nice time for us to promote our local small businesses.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am quite stunned by the hypocrisy of the members opposite. They talk about how important it is to get this bill passed immediately, after playing political games by proroguing Parliament and then calling an early election. If they had not called an early election, we would have been here in mid-September and could have passed this bill then. However, they interrupted Parliament with an election and then waited a full two months before recalling it.

If the bill is so important, as the Liberals claim, why did they not recall Parliament immediately after the election? It took the United Kingdom six days to bring back its Parliament. It took the Liberal government two months. Why did it take so long?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, back in October, the Prime Minister talked about why we needed to continue to support our communities. Supporting communities means healthier communities.

The Prime Minister talked about Bill C-2 back in October. In essence, it is the first real bill. We also have Bill C-1, although I do not know exactly what its contents are offhand. However, in my books, Bill C-2 is the most important bill. That is why it was listed as the first priority coming in, and opposition members have known about it for many weeks, going on months now.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to say right away that I will be sharing my time with my wonderful, passionate and fascinating colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé.

I will start by being a good sport because I always like to find the good in any motion, bill or supply day topic that is presented. I will start by saying what I like about it. However, unfortunately, the thing I liked the most today was the historical content in the member for Carleton's speech. Just between us, if one day he decides to create a podcast with stories or interesting facts from history, then I will be the first to listen to it while driving home on the 417. He always has very interesting things to say. I will give him that.

I am, however, going to put an end to the suspense here. My Conservative colleagues might be disappointed, but the Bloc Québécois does not intend to support the motion. We are sorry about that. I will explain why, even though I think they may already have some idea. We do not intend to support the request to split this bill because we think that the two parts of the bill that the Conservatives want to split go together.

It is as though we are being told that on the one hand, there is a pandemic affecting businesses, and on the other hand, there may be something that could possibly affect individual workers, so maybe one day, we could address this issue differently. In reality, it is still the same pandemic that is affecting both workers and businesses. Since the bill covers two aspects of the same problem stemming from a single pandemic, I do not understand the motivation for splitting it as proposed.

As my colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned, people are waiting. I feel like coming back to that, although the Conservatives mentioned it too. We lost time because of an unnecessary election. In the meantime, people have suffered and still need support.

I do not see the point of taking a bill that has already passed at second reading and been studied in committee, and bringing it back to split it and start the process over again. In the meantime, there are businesses that will suffer from the delay in the process. I think this part was understood and that is the one the Conservatives want to hold onto, but there are likely even more ordinary folks who could suffer as a result as well.

We lost too much time with the unnecessary election to make people wait and suffer even more, when they have already gone through enough, in our opinion.

As we said during the election campaign, the initial benefits that were created were not perfect. They quite likely contributed to the labour shortage we experienced, although they were not the only factor. I am not saying that Bill C‑2 is perfect and that is why we do not want to split it, but I do think that if the bill goes to committee, it can be discussed and improved. A review of the benefits was warranted, and it still is, which is why it is important for the committee to study not only the wage subsidy and rent subsidy, but also the so-called individual benefits.

We are suggesting that there are still some workers who could be added to the list of benefit recipients. The Bloc Québécois has spoken about this a lot, but I am mentioning it again because it is important. I am thinking, in particular, about workers in the arts and culture sectors. It has been two years since musicians and actors were able to take the stage at any big shows, festivals or events. If we do not support these people, they could end up leaving the sector, taking their talents with them. Our arts and culture sector could lose its stars, its talent, its creative geniuses it they cannot earn a living. At some point, they will decide that half a loaf is better than none. If they have no way to support themselves, they could end up moving on to something else, and we would lose that talent.

The question we should be asking ourselves is: Are we prepared to pay the price of losing these creators?

Technicians, stage riggers, and people who run cables for sound systems told me that more and more of them have been leaving the field to go work in the mines, where the skill set and schedules are similar. These are not 9-to-5 jobs. These are two-week stints, like being on a concert tour. Mine work pays well, so if we do not support these people, they may decide to stay there. If we lose access to their expertise, we will be very sorry once the economy is back up and running again.

That is what is on my mind when I think about how it would be good to let the Standing Committee on Finance to keep talking about individual benefits by not splitting Bill C‑2.

It would also be good to keep working on things that affect businesses. This hare-brained Conservative motion could end up delaying work on the Canada emergency wage subsidy and support for businesses that need it.

The Bloc Québécois would like to share some thoughts with the committee regarding which areas could also benefit from government support through regulation. We are just waiting for the minister to confirm that she will be able to open up areas through regulation.

Two sectors in particular come to mind, one of which is extremely important in Quebec, namely the aerospace and aeronautics sector. This sector is one of the hardest hit by the current crisis, given that there is less travel and aircraft construction. We must support those businesses.

On top of that, so many manufacturers have been indirectly affected by the pandemic. For instance, there is a supply shortage of microprocessors, which has caused many manufacturers of trucks, armoured vans and various automotive products to have to slow down their production lines, not because of a labour shortage, but because of a parts shortage. This is a side effect of the pandemic, and these people also need help.

Ultimately, all I am seeing today is an attempt to slow down the process and delay the passage of Bill C-2 in its entirety or in part. The Conservatives are forgetting that, behind all of this, there are people who need our support, and that is the unfortunate part. I am not saying that we have to fix the mess made by the government, which delayed things with the election. However, we do need to realize that if we create even further delays, people are going to suffer. If we think about it, we are kind of doing what we accused the government of doing.

It is ironic to hear the Conservatives say that the government delayed recalling the House and that the election was pointless when they are doing the same thing by delaying the passage of bills. They are saying two different things, and I do not particularly like it. All that is to say that I do not see any merit in taking a bill that has been passed in principle, that can be improved, that is being improved at committee, and then splitting it, slowing down the process and returning to the House to do the same work over again. That is not helpful. There is already enough duplication of work with two levels of government, the federal government on the one hand and Quebec and the provinces on the other hand. We do not support making more work.

As long as there is a pandemic, it will affect both businesses and individuals. Bill C‑2 addresses both because there is only one pandemic, and therefore there is just one problem with multiple consequences. We must not attempt to separate out the consequences and deal with them individually. Instead we must take a holistic approach to the problem because it is the result of the same situation, and that is the pandemic.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent speech. I completely agree with her. Industries like the cultural industry are being affected.

My colleague brought up some very important points, and I look forward to talking about them at the Standing Committee on Finance. I completely agree with her about the importance of not starting the process over again. Our businesses need help.

Are our Bloc Québécois friends prepared to do that good work with us?

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

Madam Speaker, I let the cat out of the bag at the beginning of my speech, when I said that we did not intend to support the Conservatives in their attempt to split Bill C-2 into two parts.

Also, generally speaking, when we think about bills and how we are going to vote, we think about who the bill is intended for and who it focuses on.

We therefore have no intention of throwing a wrench into the works.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the major problems with Bill C-2 is the lack of support for self-employed workers in the tourism and arts and culture industries. They do not have access to any financial support.

One way to give them this kind of support would be to get the Liberals to amend the bill so that workers in the arts, culture, tourism and hospitality industries have access to the benefits given to workers in case of a lockdown, whether a lockdown has been ordered or not.

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

Madam Speaker, that is kind of what we are proposing.

Lockdown orders are not necessarily the reason arts and culture workers do not have work. Even without lockdown, venues are still not operating at full capacity. Lockdown is not necessarily a criterion, because we are more interested in the types of workers affected.

I think we can all agree on this, because it is part of our basic demands.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my eloquent colleague from Saint-Jean on her speech.

I want to share something with the House. Something very rare is happening. All Canadian premiers agree on something: increased health transfers.

One year ago today, on December 10, 2020, the Prime Minister met with the Premier of Quebec and all the provincial premiers to tell them he would be increasing health transfers. In the year since, nothing has happened.

Can my colleague tell us what is the solution that will enable us to stop waiting for Ottawa to take action and claim that power and that money for ourselves, for our workers, so we can provide health care?

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

Madam Speaker, there are so many great shots I could take here, that I do not even know where to start.

The best solution is definitely independence. There is also no doubt that health transfers are needed. Quebec could have done so much more if it had received its fair share.

If we just look at the federal government's areas of jurisdiction, the bill clearly shows that some important work should have been done a long time ago, namely, EI reforms. If that had been done properly at the time, with an eye to the future, we probably would not have had to deal with so many specific, piecemeal programs here and there. We would have already had a better social safety net in place for workers. This proves why it was a mistake to not do it sooner.

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

Madam Speaker, my esteemed colleague, who is so brilliant, not to mention extremely kind, always sets the bar high, so I am going to seem a little less clever than I usually am.

What are we doing here at 1:30 p.m. on a Friday afternoon? We have work to do, but we are considering a motion that came out of left field and seeks to split a bill in two, meaning that it will take longer to pass. What is more, this motion comes from a political party that spends at least half of its time denouncing the government opposite for being too slow.

I am trying to understand, but I must be missing something. What is the strategy here? We are accustomed to seeing attempts to buy time, score political points and annoy the government, but what is the objective here? I would like my Conservative friends to least tell me that much, because I do not understand what is going on. Is the goal to slow down the work so they can then accuse the government of dragging its feet? Sometimes I wonder.

People are waiting for that support. Well meaning people here who were elected by the public want to do good work on bills and make proposals in committee. However, here we are, in the process of losing an afternoon to entertain the idea of splitting this bill in two, holding two separate votes, doubling the amount of time to do the parliamentary work and doubling how long it will take to get the support to those who need it.

Sometimes it is hard not to throw a fit. I am going to have stay calm. This is not the first time that has happened to me in the House.

My colleague from Saint-Jean did a good job describing our party's perspective, so I will focus on common sense and address my Conservative colleagues. People at home are watching them.

One week they see the Conservatives making grandiose speeches about the urgent need to help our businesses, but the next week they see them actively trying to slow down the passage of a bill.

I am not saying that this bill is perfect, and I am certainly not saying that this government is perfect. However, the bill before us is a good starting point, and we need to pass it quickly.

Earlier, my colleague said that we are not experiencing two different pandemics. We are all going through the same crisis at the same time. Can we take our work seriously for the common good and quickly pass a bill that will help everyone in the meantime?

If we split this bill in two, who are we going to help first and which part are we going to vote on first? What are the Conservatives trying to accomplish? Are they trying to deny help to businesses or do they want to deny help to individuals? Would either option be justified?

I believe that the Conservatives are not against either one. When they put their questions to me, they can tell me if I am mistaken. I would ask them to do that for me.

I hope their questions will do me good, because I do not feel great right now. When I am in this place, I am supposed to be working on behalf of the people, but that is not what I am doing right now. Instead, I am trying to prevent members from slowing down the work that we do for people. That is not what we usually do, and furthermore it is a little appalling. Yes, I am not my usual pleasant self. Could we get down to work for the people, who are watching?

As was mentioned earlier, we are already way behind. I said that the government is not perfect, and a good example of that was that it was in a hurry to call an election in the midst of the Afghanistan crisis and COVID-19, which was not over yet. However, Parliament was working just fine. I cannot speak for the other parliamentary groups, but there is always one that is hard at work in this place, and that is my team.

Even though some people in English Canada might think that we are here to cause problems, for the most part, the Bloc Québécois is here to find solutions. We respectfully make suggestions because we are here to improve the lives of our constituents. We work for everyone. I am not working against the Liberals, Conservatives or New Democrats. I am working for the people of Quebec.

People need these assistance measures to be extended, and the bill we are studying is not perfect. We have mentioned the topics of self-employed workers, in particular ones working in the cultural sector, but I know others who have not been able to get back to work.

Instead of sitting around this afternoon in an attempt to block a stalling tactic, could we not send this bill to committee so that the committee can study it and make suggestions? Fortunately, based on what I understand, three political parties are against the motion, so it will only have cost us half a day. Nevertheless, time is money and the clock is ticking.

We were called back to the House 62 days after the election. It took a very long time for that to happen. In most of their speeches, the members from a certain party say that the government is not doing anything, that the election was useless, that the Liberals took 62 days to recall Parliament and that we should have just kept working. However, that same political party is preventing us from working this afternoon. I censored the last word of my sentence, which proves that I am not getting too carried away.

The Bloc Québécois spoke about shortages of microprocessors and about individuals who need help. I am now going to talk about something that my Conservative colleagues like to bring up a lot, and that is inflation. I think they are right in bringing it up all the time, and I am not criticizing them for that, quite the contrary. Inflation is a real problem and we need to help our fellow citizens, so let us take action.

Individuals, employees and businesses need benefits, and 58% of SMEs say that they are not back to pre-pandemic levels. That means that nearly six out of 10 businesses do not have enough revenue. Is the government going to wait for those businesses to shut down? Is it simply going to advise people to apply for EI in the hopes that they are among the few who are eligible?

What we need is real employment insurance reform, but nobody seems to be able to do that. We might not have to talk about self-employed workers so much if the EI system were a real EI system, not a disguised federal government funding program. We need to get money out to everyone and deal with seasonal gaps. We need to talk about these things because they affect real people.

We also have to talk about improving access to sick days because of COVID‑19, the wage subsidy, the rent subsidy and so on. We have to protect the social fabric and pay attention to it.

I am really looking forward to answering my Conservative colleagues' questions. I have asked for this at least three or four times, and I hope they will ask me at least one question. I would like the Conservatives to explain to me what is going on this afternoon because I do not understand. There are several sectors we need to talk about urgently, and we need to move forward.

It will come as no surprise to anyone that the Bloc Québécois is going to oppose this motion. It was said earlier. We hope that we will be able to move forward as quickly as possible afterward.

If we do end up wasting even more time on this, the government might move time allocation to limit debate, and that motion might get support from its NDP friends. If that happens, I really hope the Conservative Party members will not complain. A certain political party is responsible for wasting our time. It is backing us into a corner and will force us to adopt the bill quickly. I do not need to say which party that is.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect. We often have the opportunity to talk about agriculture, and we will have the chance to talk about it next Thursday.

My colleague really made some good points. For the past few weeks, the official opposition has been playing word games worthy of François Pérusse. I can say that François Pérusse is a lot better at wordplay than the Conservatives.

Today's motion is a waste of time. The Standing Committee on Finance is currently considering Bill C-2.

Why, then, are we debating a routine motion to determine whether it is the workers or employers who will receive their benefits first? Can my colleague tell us how important this issue is to his constituents?