Debates of March 11th, 2021

Employment Insurance Act

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the excellent work he has done on this file.

What we have seen in the pandemic is the priorities. In the middle of the pandemic, as small-town businesses were going under across the country, the Prime Minister stood with Amazon and said it was our partner. He was basically privatizing a public service that already existed and giving it to Amazon, one of the crappiest corporations on the planet. It has routinely denied basic fair wages. We are working with Amazon while small businesses are going under and working with the billionaire class that is making more money while workers are not getting basic benefits. This is a failed approach.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member from Timmins—James Bay for his speech. He spoke emotionally about his grandmother and her accomplishments, and about the drinking water problems in first nations communities.

I would like to know what he thinks of Bill C-24, which would extend seasonal workers' EI coverage. Would he care to comment on that?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question and tell her that my grandmother was indeed an extraordinary woman.

I think it is critical and urgent for parliamentarians to support Bill C-24.

However, I would like to point out the current government's lack of vision as to the necessity of implementing a plan that would completely meet workers' needs. That is not what the Liberals are doing right now.

I am prepared to support this bill. However, we must urge the government to fulfill its obligations to working men and women and their families.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my excellent and hard-working colleague from Calgary Midnapore.

Today, we are debating Bill C-24. I have a couple of quick observations about the context of this debate. This is another example where we can clearly see the willingness of the Conservatives to work constructively on areas where we share a perspective on the need to move forward with the government on a particular bill. We saw this earlier this week: As a result of a Conservative motion, we were able to debate quickly and pass Bill C-18. Today, we have worked with the government to create a framework to move forward on Bill C-24.

In the case of both of these bills, there is a relevant deadline the government has ignored up until this point. The leadership of our party has pushed the government to move forward with things that are supposed to be its legislative priorities but have clearly not been. We see how the Prime Minister has been trying to spin a narrative that Parliament is not working, as a way to justify his plans for an election in the middle of a pandemic.

There is no doubt that the Conservatives do not support some aspects of the government's legislative agenda, and some require further study and debate. However, in this Parliament in particular, the 43rd Parliament, the Conservatives have worked constructively to quickly advance legislation when there is a shared sense of essential urgency on matters.

Bill C-24, like Bill C-18 and other legislative measures we have seen in this Parliament, is in the category of measures that we are supporting and have worked with the government to move forward. I hope the government, members of the media and the public will take note of the instances of co-operation that have taken place, often led by the Conservatives, and will point out the flaws in the narrative the Prime Minister is trying to spin to justify his pandemic election plans.

Bill C-24 is an important bill that expands benefit programs in the context of the pandemic, and the Conservatives are supportive of it. At the same time, we have highlighted the need for the government to have a broader vision of where our country is going economically in the midst of the pandemic and what we hope will soon be the economic recovery coming out of it.

While other parties are talking only about spending and the benefits, the Conservatives recognize the need to have strong economic growth as the basis for providing strong benefits. We have legitimately pointed out the issues around the significant debt and deficit we are accruing during this period of time. Other parties in the House want to present a false choice: either we support benefit programs and have dramatic growth in our debt and deficit or we do not have the debt and deficit and leave people out in the cold. We view that as a false choice. We believe it is very possible and indeed important to support a strong social safety net, but that exists on the foundation of a strong economy. If we support the development of a strong economy, with a vision for jobs, growth, opportunity and investment in this country that gives people the opportunity to work, then we also increase our capacity to provide people with support when they find themselves in situations where they are not able to work.

Our vision for an economy of the future is one that involves a strong economy, a strong community and a strong social safety net. We believe those elements need to exist in tandem. A strong economy means repealing some measures the Liberals have put in place, like Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, which impede the development of our natural resource sector. It means working to strengthen our manufacturing sector. It means taking note of some problems, like the slave labour around the world that is producing cheap products that come into the Canadian marketplace. That is obviously terrible from a human rights and justice perspective, but it also impacts Canadian workers. It is an economic issue and a justice issue when human rights violations are linked to unfair trading practices.

We need to stand up for Canada's manufacturing sectors that may be impacted by those kinds of practices. We need to support the development of our natural resource sectors. We need to expand access to markets, especially in like-minded countries. That is why the Conservatives support working to expand trade and partnerships around the world with like-minded partners in the Asia-Pacific region. We are also looking to expand our economic engagement with Africa, building on some of the trade agreements we have signed previously, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Canada-EU free trade deal negotiated under the previous Conservative government.

We need to think about rationalizing regulations and approving projects that make sense so that Canada can once again be seen as an optimal destination for investment and growth. If that plan for investment, growth and jobs includes an appropriate respect for our natural resource and manufacturing sectors, we will be able to create the conditions that allow unemployed Canadians to get back to work.

That is the strong economy piece. Of course, a strong economy helps to generate the revenue for governments that allows governments to provide support to people without creating the kind of unmanageable deficits that we currently face. Having a strong economy is therefore very important.

I talked about a strong economy, strong communities and a strong social safety net. For many people who face challenges, whether they are unemployment challenges, health challenges or personal struggles of various kinds, the first line of support is the communities they are a part of. In recent decades, we have seen a decline in the strength of community ties, a greater social atomization. As a society, we need to think about how we can strengthen the forms of local community that are such a vital form of initial support. We should think of a big society, a strong society and strong community as being the first line of support and defence when people are confronted with various challenges in their lives.

Part of how the national government can be a part of supporting the idea of strengthening the community is to work constructively in partnership with community organizations and look for opportunities to learn from what communities are doing. These could be cultural associations, faith communities or service clubs. We should better partner with local organizations in the delivery of public services.

There are so many ways this applies. One thing that has been a great interest of mine is the model for the private sponsorship of refugees. Through it, the government works collaboratively with private organizations that are sponsoring refugees to come to Canada. We know that those who have community connections through private sponsorship generally have better outcomes than people who are publicly sponsored, because those who are publicly sponsored are not immediately brought into an existing community that knows them and wants to work with them. Across the board, whether it is combatting addictions, supporting families, addressing joblessness or addressing recidivism, the government needs to have a much better vision of the opportunity for partnership as a means of addressing challenges and building strong communities.

As I said, we need a strong economy, a strong community and then a strong social safety net. If we have the strong community and strong economy pieces in place, we will also be in a position collectively to put the full extent of our resources into supporting those who fall through the cracks with a strong social safety net.

The Conservatives are very supportive of that. We believe, though, that if we neglect the strong economy and the strong community pieces, it will become much more difficult to have a strong social safety net while preserving some degree of fiscal sanity. What we see with the government is a desire to push forward spending on the social safety net, but a lack of vision for the strong economy and strong community pieces.

The social safety net needs to be there for those who are not able to benefit from a strong economy or from strong community structures that are in place. However, if we only have the social safety net piece, and not the economy piece or the community piece, then the pressure that falls on that social safety net will be so significant that we will find ourselves in an unsustainable fiscal situation. That is the challenge we need—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I forgot to give notice that time was running out.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for talking about the importance of making sure that Canadians get what they need.

However, I really did not appreciate his comments at the beginning, when he said that Conservatives were demonstrating that they were trying to work to get this legislation through, and that it was through pressuring the government that eventually this all happened. Quite the opposite has been going on. The pressure has been put on the Conservative Party, both publicly and in the House, to get to the table to advance legislation. I moved that we work into the evenings four times last week, and the Conservatives voted against it each time. It is only because Canadians are at the brink of not receiving EI, when they need it so badly, that the Conservatives have finally come to the table.

I respect the member. He does a good job of speaking in the House, but the reality is that his facts are not straight.

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

Madam Speaker, I was very precise in saying that Conservatives had been prepared to work with the government on issues such as Bill C-18 and Bill C-24.

The member raises the issue of the government's desire to expedite legislation that would effectively undermine suicide prevention in this country. The government's new position on Bill C-7, which has been barely debated in the House and never studied in a House of Commons committee, would allow those whose primary health complaint is mental health related, who are dealing with depression or other mental health challenges, to be given suicide facilitation by the government.

That is a deadly serious issue. It is dead wrong, and it is strongly opposed by mental health advocates and disability rights organizations. I know that the member and many other members are receiving phone calls from constituents who have been blindsided by this rush to have state-facilitated suicide for the mentally ill. We will oppose that. That is dead wrong and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We have to go to other questions.

The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member concluded his speech by talking about the social safety net. I would like to pick up on that, since it is very important to the Bloc.

Bill C-24 amends provisions dealing with EI. A Bloc Québécois motion received a majority of votes, but it is not being reflected in Bill C-24.

Does the member not think this would have been a good opportunity to increase the number of days of sickness benefits?

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

Madam Speaker, there are provisions in the bill that we support. However, I know that this bill will go to committee and some of the proposals, such as the one the member mentioned, could be considered at committee.

Further to the timeline issue, if the government had proposed this bill earlier, as had been suggested, there would have been more time and more scope for a committee study of some of these attendant, related issues that the member mentioned. Unfortunately, the government has continually mishandled its legislative calendar, which may make it may more difficult to study all of those issues given the time constraints that the government has created.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member ask a very good question of the previous speaker, a member from the New Democratic Party, about systematic and structural change. I would like to put this question forward to him.

Were he in the position of a minister, or advising a minister within the government as a member of the government, what would he implement and enact to ensure that the situation we are currently in does not happen again, where we are constantly responding and not providing enough time for the House and all members of the House to give input into the legislation for the best outcome?

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

Madam Speaker, I am looking forward to my colleague's speech. The government has to prioritize and it should be working to move forward on these benefit supports. We are in the middle of a pandemic, it is the 10-year anniversary of the signing of the UN's Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the government is trying to rush forward a euthanasia and assisted suicide bill that is opposed by all disability stakeholders in this country. The government is trying to push these kinds of bills through, while not spending the time required on the health and economic challenges our country is facing. The government's priorities are out of whack right now.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be here today speaking to Bill C-24.

I want to recognize the excellent shadow minister in charge of this process: the wonderful member for Kildonan—St. Paul. It is excellent that she is leading the charge on our side for this. She is representative of a generation of young women who are excited about the potential future of our nation. The member and I are young mothers, but I am not as young as the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. My riding is also filled with young soccer moms who are excited about the future of Canada. With this opportunity for vision and clarity, and a strategy for our economy and our workforce going forward, I am very happy to have this opportunity.

I am going to continue the message that the previous speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, spoke about. I would not doubt it if my colleagues from other opposition parties had the same sentiment of the necessity for us to hold the government to account, but also the frustration on two parts, the first being that we have had to return to this chamber to vote several times to fix legislation.

Of course, it was our duty to Canadians. This is what we do as the official opposition. We look for gaps and we attempt to address those gaps for Canadians. With each piece of legislation that is implemented, and as that legislation continues, we see further permutations of the legislation that we could not have possibly accounted for when we first brought the legislation forward.

In my role with the official opposition, and as the former vice-chair of the HUMA committee, certain examples of this come to mind in addition to Bill C-24, which we are here fixing and amending today for the government. These include the wage subsidy, which started at a meagre, paltry 10%. Through our actions, we were able to improve it to 70% and really provide some sustenance to many Canadians and companies that required it. Maternity benefits are another example. I was just talking about the joy of being a mother, and I cannot tell members how many expectant mothers and families contacted my office when these programs were first implemented, to point out that they had been omitted. This includes the Canada emergency business account as well, and the changes that our side made to it.

Indeed, it is frustrating, but of course, that is our obligation. Frankly, it is insulting that this would be used against us to say we are not moving government business along for the benefit of Canadians when, in fact, it is the opposite. We are here to address the gaps for Canadians and to hold the government to account. We will continue to do that, no matter what the government says.

This brings me to our current situation, which is indeed very frustrating. I am sure members have heard the job numbers. We lost 213,000 jobs in January. When I think of those job numbers, I cannot help but think of what types of jobs we are creating in this nation at this time. I think of my incredible upbringing in Calgary Midnapore. Every day, my constituents and their parents were fortunate to go to stable, secure jobs with benefits and pensions.

Even as we see the job numbers slipping, what types of jobs remain? Canadians deserve jobs with benefits, pensions, certainty and stability. This is what we need during this time of the pandemic.

To add to that, Canada's unemployment rate is currently 8.5%, which is among the highest in the G7, despite spending more than any other country in the OECD. As of January 2021, according to Statistics Canada, Canada had 858,000 fewer jobs than it did in February of last year, before COVID-19 began. That number is very close to one million.

Canada has now gone 460 days without a federal budget. I check my bank balance every day, if not every second day, so to go this long without a federal budget is unbelievable. The Prime Minister has indicated that Canadians cannot expect one any time soon. Again, it is certainty and clarity that Canadians are looking for from their government at this time, and the government is not providing it.

As the shadow minister for this portfolio and our shadow finance minister have indicated, there has been no plan for how the government will set this ship straight, how it will get the economy back on track or how it will create a plan for jobs for all Canadians, and in particular, as I stressed within my speech, for 100,000 women. This is a “she-cession”, and we need to address that. The Prime Minister needs to address that, but he is not addressing it for women. He is not addressing it for the entire economy, for all Canadian workers.

Near the beginning of the pandemic, in the summer, I was very proud to complete the Calgary Midnapore Economic Recovery Taskforce report. This was an effort to evaluate the challenges businesses and workers were facing across my riding and how we could evaluate those, and then come up with recommendations for the government to move forward. I would suggest the Prime Minister could use this as a plan for the nation.

I want to thank all the incredible constituents from across my riding who took part in this, small business owners and the workers at small, medium and large enterprises, for their contributions. No doubt their current challenges include liquidity. Is that not always something a business is concerned about? As the proud daughter of small business owners, a business that has now been passed on within the family, we constantly worried about liquidity.

Operations are another worry, of course, and how to keep things functioning. Talent is another challenge, and is very important relative to the bill here today, as is the supply chain: being concerned about what is in the pipe and what we are going to push out. Government regulations are another challenge that have a considerable effect on the work of business. Anticipated challenges include talent, growth and adjusting to the new normal, which a year later we are just starting to do.

To delve into things such as liquidity, businesses overwhelmingly expressed that their credit and cash reserves were nearly or fully depleted, with 47% of businesses worried they would not be able to financially sustain themselves beyond one year. Deferrals were a concern as well. Regarding operations, 37% of businesses in my riding said they had diversified their business models and were adjusting to the new reality.

To summarize, many business owners identified a lack of predictability regarding regulations. I have said over and over that we need clarity at this time. Of course, business owners at that time were worried about the second wave, and we have come to see a third wave approaching. We hope not, but it seems to be on the horizon and is something we must consider.

These were the findings within my riding. I would ask that we look to the future, as I always like to do, with hope and optimism, which is what we are doing on this side of the House, instead of what the other side of the House is doing with ideology, political decisions and no coordinated strategy. I would suggest that the Prime Minister look to his Industry Strategy Council, which did an incredible overview of what will be necessary to do going forward. I would suggest the Prime Minister listen to the Business Council of Canada.

I would provide the Prime Minister with three recommendations. First, he should do a coordinated sector consultation. The government cannot even get a plan out for the sector I have been following so closely, the airline sector, so it should do a national coordinated sector consultation to determine a path forward for the economy. Second, as I have stated previously in the House, he should do a national inventory of our resources to determine what we have a surplus of to trade, as we discuss within the House the new NAFTA and the U.K.-Canada negotiations we moved forward with just yesterday. We need to evaluate mineral and technical resources. Finally, we need to think about our future workforce based on current trends. We need to look forward with hope, optimism and, most importantly, a coordinated strategic approach.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Alberta's intervention in the House today was very interesting and very propositional, and I appreciated its tone. I have a quick question for her. I know that she is looking at how we can support small businesses and continue to make sure they are able to survive this pandemic.

As to the initial program for rent subsidies, which was driven by landlords and insufficient to meet the needs of small businesses, would my colleague agree that it should initially have been driven by tenants and been retroactive to April 1, 2020, when businesses started to realize the impacts that COVID-19 was going to have on them?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona. It should have been tenant-initiated and oriented. I think that would have helped incredibly from the outset.

I have such respect for the member. I know that we share a background in foreign affairs and international development. We have had many lovely conversations about that, in particular on a flight. Of course, we dream about Canadians taking flights again soon in the near future.

As the member so wisely looked for possibilities here, I would also ask that she look within our province at possibilities within the energy sector.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

She talked about the workers in her riding. There are also workers in my riding who have called my constituency office because they are caught up in red tape related to their EI claims. Things do not always go smoothly. The government cannot keep up with the demand, and people are letting us know. We are trying to get things moving.

Does my colleague think the government is doing enough to support these individuals who are already facing difficult situations and must also deal with all the EI red tape?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I think that we are here to help our constituents, whether they work for a big corporation or a small business. People who had a hard time finding work before the pandemic had a hard time during the pandemic and will continue to have a hard time after.

I completely agree that we need to find ways to create new jobs for Canadians. I agree with my colleague. We are all here to ensure that Canadians have jobs, with big corporations or small businesses. This is important for the future.

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

Madam Speaker, I hope the Conservatives understand that pushing forward with concurrence motions and the various other tactics they have used in the House serve to slow down the legislative process to the detriment of Canadians who need the supports. They might be upset with this side of the House for one reason or another, but they are taking it out on Canadians by doing that.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are becoming all too familiar with the member for Kingston and the Islands' questions and their tone. Unfortunately, it is we on this side of the House who must work doubly hard to protect Canadians and advance their interests. As we have seen, the government is incapable. We knew it before the pandemic, but that has been verified throughout this process.

Certainly, the government could not have fixed Bill C-24 before the pandemic hit, but going forward, there is no way that Canadians can have confidence in the government to improve our economy and increase the number of jobs for Canadian workers.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague, the opposition transport critic. That was an excellent speech. I would also like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Chilliwack—Hope, in B.C.

Today we are debating Bill C-24, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, the Canada Recovery Benefits Act and another act in response to COVID-19.

The past year has been an unusual one, so I want to spare a thought for everyone who has suffered because of COVID-19, for all those we have lost. I also want to take this opportunity to extend my condolences to everyone who lost a loved one or family member. I want them to know that they are in my thoughts. They have had to mourn under very unusual circumstances. My thoughts are with them today, but I want to remind everyone that they must remain in our thoughts every day, not just today.

We need Bill C-24 because the Liberal government was too hasty and did not do its job properly in September. Still today, the government continues to improvise. We know that we are in the midst of a pandemic, but we can still do things right even if we have to act quickly. We can do two things at the same time and do them properly and intelligently so that our efforts are successful and ill-conceived bills do not have to be fixed and reworked.

My colleagues and I are ready to work to improve the bill, and we have always been clear about that. Unfortunately, the government wants to make us look like the villains, the bad guys. I find that rather strange since we have been ready for six weeks.

My colleague, the House leader for the opposition and member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, has asked the government House leader countless times to introduce this bill. The Liberal government's political strategy has been to have us play the bad guys. Are they doing that in their own political interest or in the interest of Canadians? To me, the answer is obvious.

On January 2, we condemned the government's decision to extend the Canada recovery sickness benefit, commonly known as the CRSB, to Canadians returning home from holiday travel.

The government told people not to travel, but those who decided to head south for a little sun were given a two-week lockdown and $1,000 upon their return in the form of the CRSB. I am not criticizing those travellers, because they were allowed to travel. It is the government that did not do its job properly.

I will quote my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles who said, “If nothing is done, if the government does not take action, millions of dollars, billions of dollars will be at stake. People who would not normally be entitled to receive [the CRSB] will get it because this is a botched program that was poorly thought out and is being poorly enforced.”

I repeat, the government is improvising. This is more wasteful spending. The Prime Minister ultimately acknowledged the flaw in the bill.

On January 5, 2021, during his first press conference of the year, the Prime Minister said that the intention was never to send a cheque to those who decided to travel despite the public health advisories. He went on to say that those who travelled south would not be entitled to this financial assistance. On January 29, in front of his house on Sussex Drive, he announced he was fixing the situation with travellers who can receive $1,000 in financial assistance after travelling south.

Now on March 11, today, we are finally talking about it in the House of Commons. It is shameful because it was first brought up on January 5 and was clearly announced at a press conference on January 29. It took a long time for this to be brought before the House. It just shows the government's incompetence and inability to react quickly and conscientiously.

As I mentioned, the Conservatives are ready to work to help facilitate the business of Parliament, and yet, clearly, the Liberals' current strategy is to blame us by accusing us of filibustering. That is completely false.

I want to go back to September 28, 2020, when a bill was introduced. Today we are debating Bill C-24, which aims to fix that legislation. A tremendous amount of time has passed between the two.

In September 2020, with the help of the NDP, the Green Party and independent members, the Liberals succeeded in limiting debate in Parliament.

It should be understood that if the Conservatives oppose the bill, hard-working Canadians who need help will accuse us of not wanting to offer them financial assistance. We would then be seen as the bad guys. If, on the other hand, we support the bill, we will be accused of taking the government at their word and wanting to rush through the process.

In times of crisis, we need to be able to compromise and to have faith in the government and its team to provide adequate financial assistance and programs. If adjustments need to be made afterwards, we can do so quickly.

This government has proven to be incapable of responding, by a multitude of metrics. This government is not able to stay ahead of the pack. It has not yet announced a recovery plan, while many countries announced theirs several months ago.

The United States has a new president, and it took him just a few days to announce his economic recovery plan.

Canada's Prime Minister, who was elected in 2015 and who is in his second term, has not managed to present an economic recovery plan. That is not reassuring.

I also want to talk about the commercial rent assistance program. In the spring, this program was originally designed for landlords, which proved to be a monumental failure. It took the government six months to adapt and come up with a new program, which now provides rent assistance to tenants.

Back in the spring the government set some very detailed eligibility criteria, which included arm's length tenants. That criterion has been left out of the renters' assistance program.

In my riding, a young business owner was entitled to assistance through his landlord in the spring, but due to the arm's length relationship criterium, he was not entitled to assistance in the fall.

I asked the minister to remedy that. Is that going to take another six months?

Meanwhile, the business owner, who wants to participate in the economic recovery, is unfortunately not getting the financial help he needs to get through the crisis. He will not be able to share in the prosperity of our country's economic recovery. I find that outrageous.

I would like us to take advantage of the current situation to encourage and invite the government to act quickly to give tools and carefully targeted assistance to those who really need it.

This government's problem, if I may so, is that it is cowardly. It implements universal programs but without the accountability and rigour needed to specifically respond to the needs of Canadians and business owners who want to participate in the economic recovery.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the comments from Conservatives a few times already today about how we are back here trying to fix other programs that were previously created and that if the government had got it right the first time, we would not be in this position. The member was talking about this particular program and how we need to fix it. Then he spoke about rent relief as another program that had to be fixed, but the reality is that federal governments do not have jurisdiction over rent and did not have the quick access that it needed at the time.

The reality is that these programs were developed almost instantaneously over days and weeks to get the supports to Canadians, when they would normally have taken a couple of years to develop.

More importantly, hindsight is 2020 and it is easy to see these things in the rearview mirror. If the member thinks the government should have picked up on these things originally when these problems happened, why did he not bring these forward before he supported the adoption of these programs through unanimous consent?

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

[Technical difficulty--Editor] same resources as the government.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to rise on a point of order before I respond to the point of order raised by my colleague from Kingston and the Islands.

However, it seems as though there is someone else online. Can we make sure that everyone's microphone is on mute?

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier has the floor, but I have another point of order.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan interrupts the House routinely by unmuting his microphone and adding commentary. I know he is a fan of heckling; he brings it up a lot, but he has been called out for this on a number of occasions by different members of the House and the Chairs. I would urge you to do something about this so that it does not continue to be an obstruction to the deliberative process in the House.