Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Chair, I disagree wholeheartedly with what the member is saying. The Government of Canada will in fact prevail, as we have done in the past on this issue. If we take a look at the origins of the debate, we are not going to do what Stephen Harper did and concede hundreds of millions of dollars to the Americas over this issue. No government in the history of Canada has achieved as many formal free trade agreements as this Liberal government has in the last six years. To say that we do not have that international relationship is bogus. Would the member not recognize that, at the end of the day, the industry needs to be supported, and this Liberal government will continue to support the industry here? We will fight the battle that needs to be fought so that Canadians and Canada will in fact prevail on this very important issue.

Madam Chair, the member made reference to the 2006 deal with Stephen Harper, and I would suggest that getting no deal is better than getting a bad deal. The deal that Harper achieved saw us surrender literally hundreds of millions of dollars to the United States at the cost of the industry here. What is important for us to recognize is that we are on the right side of this. We know that if we continue to proceed through the apparatus that is set up and established, whether through the World Trade Organization or even our trade agreements, and have the negotiations that are so critically important, we will prevail. Would the member agree that it is better for us to push, and push hard, and be patient in order to protect the interests of the tens of thousands of jobs and the hundreds of communities that will directly benefit if we get this right and make sure that Canada does prevail on this important issue?

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of the leader of the official opposition and now those of the member opposite. The concern I have is that I expect the Conservatives will vote against the throne speech, which would not surprise me, and I do not think it would surprise anyone in Canada. When it comes right down to it, there is a very tangible plan for all of us. One of those plans is Bill C-2, which is a continuation of supports for Canadians to get through the pandemic, both for the individual and small businesses, in particular. Anticipating that the member will be voting against the throne speech, could he give an indication of what he will be doing with the tangible plan that is being dealt with in Bill C-2?

Madam Speaker, if we take a look at the throne speech, we will find a very ambitious plan. Part of that plan is the materialization of bills that are so important to all Canadians. I am talking about one that we were debating yesterday, Bill C-2. Canadians understand the sacrifices that have been made over the last 18 months and the importance of government stepping up to the plate to be there for small businesses and individual Canadians, to support health care workers and Canadians in general. This is something I believe Canadians want us to do. Does my colleague across the way see herself recognizing the need to see Bill C-2 advance? The principles of Bill C-2 would continue to provide the support Canadians want, and it is just a part of what we saw in the throne speech.

Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege raised on November 23, 2021 respecting an order of the House made on March 25, 2021 in the previous Parliament. The matter the member is raising emanates from the 43rd Parliament, which was dissolved on August 15, 2021. That terminates all business of the House of that Parliament. House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, in relation to the effects of dissolution: With dissolution, all business of the House is terminated. It goes on: All items on the Order Paper including government and private Members' bills die. The government's obligation to provide answers to written questions, to respond to petitions or to produce papers requested by the House also ends with dissolution. The members opposite have relied on a 500-year-old precedent cited in the 20th edition of Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament that refers to a contempt carrying over from one Parliament to another. It is worth noting that this reference no longer appears in any version of Erskine May's treatise because, I submit, the context of the 16th and 17th centuries no longer applies. This citation refers to a time that predates representative and responsible government and was used for the purposes of imprisoning a privy councillor for crimes committed during a parliament. The sanctions provided in these times generally exceeded the duration of a parliament, which were far shorter in length than our current parliaments, and the new parliaments had to reinstate these sanctions to ensure that the individual in question could be recommitted to the Tower of London for the duration of their initial imprisonment. This context no longer applies, and it would be a travesty to impose such a precedent on a situation that bears no resemblance to the current situation. I submit that any business that died in one Parliament which members would wish to resurrect in a subsequent Parliament would require the adoption of a substantive motion for which notice would be required, and the facts before the previous Parliament would have to be resubstantiated. We no longer live in a world where a sovereign would order the execution of a member of Parliament or of a privy councillor, who is not a parliamentarian, without due process offered by a court of law. As tempting as it might be to hunt for precedents to suit an argument, the context of the precedent is at least as important as, if not more important than the precedent itself. Having said that, I will respond to the substance of the member's arguments. I would like to begin by making it clear that ministers are accountable to the House of Commons for duties carried out within their departments and for the actions of their political staff in their political offices. Page 30 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states the following regarding the fact that ministers are responsible to Parliament: In terms of ministerial responsibility, Ministers have both individual and collective responsibilities to Parliament. It goes on: The principle of individual ministerial responsibility holds that Ministers are accountable not only for their own actions as department heads, but also for the actions of their subordinates; individual ministerial responsibility provides the basis for accountability throughout the system. Virtually all departmental activity is carried out in the name of a Minister who, in turn, is responsible to Parliament for those acts. This is not a new concept. To reinforce this assertion, allow me to quote the former prime minister, who, in the 2006 publication entitled “Accountable government: a guide for ministers”, stated, “Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the exercise of their responsibilities whether they are assigned by statute or otherwise,” and “Ministers are personally responsible for the conduct and operation of their office.” Former Conservative House leader, Jay Hill, strongly made the case on behalf of the former Conservative government on May 25, 2010. Mr. Hill stated: In our system of government, the powers of the Crown are exercised by ministers who are, in turn, answerable to Parliament. Ministers are individually and collectively responsible to the House of Commons for the policies, programs and activities of the government. They are supported in the exercise of their responsibilities by the public servants and by members of their office staffs. It is the responsibility of individual public servants and office staff members to provide advice and information to ministers, to carry out faithfully the directions given by ministers, and in so doing, to serve the people of Canada. He went on: Ours is a system of responsible government because...ministers are responsible to the House for everything that is done under their authority. We ministers are answerable to Parliament and to its committees. It is ministers who decide policy and ministers who must defend it before the House and ultimately before the people of Canada. I could not agree more with the remarks of the former Conservative House leader. Ministerial staff have no authority to make decisions on behalf of ministers. As I have said, they report to and are accountable to ministers. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for their actions. Ministerial staff did not put their names on the ballots. They were not elected. They do not have the same rights and privileges as MPs. The opposition will likely point to the ministerial staffers called before committee in 2010. There is a big difference here. There was clear evidence of staffers breaking the law. The Privacy Commissioner subsequently issued two reports that found that Conservative ministerial staffers had interfered with the release of records under the Access to Information Act. It is critical to point out that there was much debate about the decision by the government to send ministers to committee, rather than staff. Ultimately, this position was accepted by the Liberals, who formed the official opposition at the time. We accepted that, and it was the right thing to do. There was a clear acceptance of the principle of ministerial responsibility. Again, on this very important point, Mr. Hill stated: This is no substitute for ministerial responsibility. When ministers choose to appear before committees to account for their administration, they are the best source of accountability and they must be heard. Public servants and ministerial staff support the responsibility of their ministers. They do not supplant it. They cannot supplant it. By using its majority on committees, the opposition attempted to deflect accountability from the minister to the ministerial staff. That was and continues to be unacceptable. I will end my remarks with some words from the former Conservative government House leader, whom I have quoted extensively today. He stated the following about staff. They bring to us many talents and I expect many of them, when they accepted their jobs, never imagined that one of the skills required was to stand up to the interrogation of a bitterly partisan parliamentary committee. Our government will continue to defend the constitutional principle that ministers are accountable to Parliament. There is no appropriate substitute for ministers to be accountable to Parliament for the activities of their department or for the activities of their political staff.

Mr. Speaker, the member concluded with remarks about a very important issue that I concur with: the issue of trade. Trade and the economic activity it creates are overwhelmingly positive for us as a nation. We have recognized this since 2015. If members check the records, they will find that no government has signed more trade deals than this government. I take a great deal of pride in that fact because we have been out in the world, making sure that Canadian-made products have access to markets. That helps support Canada's middle class. It helps support a stronger, healthier economy. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the bigger picture of trade and how he could incorporate that in the years ahead.

Madam Speaker, I suspect if I ask for unanimous leave to have more time I likely would not get it, so I will not bother asking. The point is that the Conservatives in particular, and all opposition parties, need to realize that the legislation we have before us is there to support Canadians from coast to coast to coast and to be there in a very real and tangible way. Members have a choice to support our small businesses and the people of Canada or vote against this legislation. I hope they vote in favour of it.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on very important legislation that is part of the government's agenda of supporting Canadians, which we have seen on numerous occasions over the last 18 months. Unlike the Conservative Party and at times even my New Democratic friends, we have believed it is important to provide the legislation necessary since the beginning of the pandemic. Today, we see yet another piece of legislation that is vitally important to support Canadians through the pandemic. Contrary to what some might believe, there is still a responsibility for the government to be there for Canadians in dealing with COVID-19. The other day the all-star critic for finance from the Conservative Party stood in this place and said nothing with regard to the legislation or whether the Conservative Party would support it. I thought the member would have given some sort of indication of whether the Conservatives could get behind this legislation. Instead, he focused on the issue of inflation. He spent a great deal of his time, as the opposition has, talking about inflation. We are all concerned about inflation. There is no doubt about that. Having said that, the Conservative Party needs to recognize that inflation is not something that is unique to Canada, much like the pandemic. We are seeing inflation around the world. It is taking place for a number of different reasons that I will not go into detail about today. Rather, I will provide a government perspective on inflation. We have provided the child care program through the co-operation of provinces of all political stripes. We have a program—

Madam Speaker, the point is that the Canada child benefit and child care program are assisting families in a very real and tangible way. Ten-dollar-a-day child care, and the agenda for putting that into place, is quite significant. It is going to assist families from coast to coast to coast. The majority of territories are now onside. All political stripes have recognized its value. I use this as an example for two reasons. First, it is going to substantially decrease the cost of child care. It is also going to ensure more people are eligible for, and able to participate in, the workforce. One only needs to look at Quebec and how well it has done in the introduction of its $10-a-day child care program, or in investing in child care, as well as how the program has changed its workforce deployment. I and members of the Liberal caucus believe that Canadians from coast to coast to coast will benefit by being able to enter the workforce and will see a substantial reduction in child care costs, going into hundreds of dollars every month. That is an example. Bill C-2 would continue to provide the supports Canadians need. I believe we have been there as a government for Canadians from day one. We have demonstrated support for Canada's middle class, those aspiring to be part of it and those who are in high need. Not that long ago, when we were elected into government, our first pieces of legislation saw tax increases for Canada's wealthiest 1%, support in the form of a tax reduction for Canada's middle class, substantial increases and reform of the Canada child benefit program, and substantial increases to the guaranteed income supplement. All of these programs have increased the disposable income of Canadians. We understood then, as we did when the pandemic hit, that people needed to have disposable income in order to move our economy forward. To have healthy communities and a stronger economy, people needed the money to pay their mortgages and utility bills, to go out to restaurants and to purchase necessities. When the pandemic hit and health orders at the local level were shutting down the economy, people had no choice. Two years ago one could drive down some of the busiest streets in Winnipeg and see there was minimal travel. The pandemic took its toll for a number of months, especially going into the second wave. One can only imagine what would have taken place if the government did not step up and provide programs such as CERB. CERB, as a program, supported over nine million Canadians. That is an incredible percentage of the population. Our population is over 37 million, and nine million Canadians were supported by one program that was created out of nothing. The civil service and the different stakeholders involved made sure that the program became a reality, and they did an incredible job. There is no doubt that when a program is created quickly, there is going to be some abuse of that program. I suspect that when I hear from my Conservative friends, they will highlight some of those problems today. We are very much aware of them. Are they trying to say that they do not believe we should have brought in the CERB program? Are they trying to say that those nine million Canadians are not honest people? It is a program that was absolutely essential. It is why I highlighted the importance of disposable income. However, it was more than just people. If we did not provide that kind of support, what would the social cost of that have been? Whether it was mental illness, the loss of employment, suicides or breakups, it would have been significant. We recognized that and we stepped up to the plate. Today, with Bill C-2, we continue to recognize that. The changes being incorporated into Bill C-2 show it is a government that continues to believe that we need to be there for Canadians. Bill C-2 also recognizes the importance of businesses. Prepandemic, the government reduced the small business tax. Ministers listened to what small business owners had to say, and tried to assist in whatever way we could. It is one of the reasons we had record employment numbers. Stephen Harper took 10 years to create one million jobs. We did it in four years, and they are full-time jobs. At the end of the line, we know what it takes to build a healthy economy. We demonstrated that prepandemic and we are seeing it today. We are already at prepandemic employment levels because, in good part, the Government of Canada worked with other levels of government and Canadians to make sure that we were in a good position to recover. How were we able to do that? We came forward with programs that really made a difference, such as the wage subsidy program, so individuals could stay employed and businesses could continue to employ people. The other day, the Bloc made reference to our arts and cultural community, which every member of the Liberal caucus truly cares about. I had the opportunity to talk with the Folk Arts Council of Winnipeg. The members commented about the wage subsidy program. Chances are it would not have survived without it. The Folk Arts Council provides a wide spectrum of heritage and arts events and performances. It is incredible. It has been around for over 50 years in Manitoba. There are dozens of pavilions every summer that participate. Amazing talent is discovered. So many people are engaged in it. It is a program that has supported arts and culture, our private sector and even non-profits. It was there because there was a need to support small businesses and people. That is exactly what the wage subsidy program did. I would argue that it saved hundreds of thousands of jobs in all regions of our country. We also recognized the need to support businesses through things like the rent subsidy program. Imagine those people who had operational businesses getting hit by the pandemic. They did not have consumers coming in or they lost out on contracts. The rent subsidy program allowed thousands of companies throughout Canada the opportunity to receive support from the government, which allowed them to keep their doors open. I would suggest it is one of the reasons why, through the government and the co-operation of many others, we were able to prevent thousands of bankruptcies all over Canada. Small businesses understood they had a government that was prepared to develop the programs that were necessary so they would be able to get themselves through this pandemic, yet the Conservatives were still saying that we were spending too much as a government. The main comment we heard from across the way is that we are wasteful.

Madam Speaker, whether it is in previous budgets or the throne speech of last year, the member will find that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada have talked a great deal about investing in job training. A part of job training means working with different stakeholders, particularly the provinces. There needs to be a coordinated effort that includes post-secondary institutions and immigration, including temporary workers. It is all-encompassing. The government is committed to a holistic approach. We have committed finances and other resources, including a great deal of time working with other stakeholders to ensure, as much as possible, that the federal government is playing a lead role in matching the jobs that are there with the people who want the jobs. I believe our track record clearly demonstrated that, prepandemic, when we had record-high employment levels.

Madam Speaker, I provided comment in regard to the issue of arts and culture. We have been there in the past; I believe we will be in the future. We recognize the importance of that industry and the contribution that arts and culture make to our society as a whole. Whether it is to our social fabric or our economic activity, we appreciate the value. We will continue to be there. The former government House leader, who I know exceptionally well, is on top of that file. I know the member opposite also knows him quite well. I am sure we can have some peace of mind knowing that he will be at the forefront ensuring that our arts and culture sector is well taken care of.

Madam Speaker, the government has always treated seniors with respect and will continue to do so. Whether it was the substantial increase of the GIS that I made reference to, which literally lifted tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty, or the OAS and GIS increases, the one-time payments during the pandemic, or the 10% increase for those seniors aged 75 and over, virtually from day one, the government has been there for seniors and will continue to be there for seniors. Not only do we care, but we demonstrate that care by the actions we have taken. I am very proud of the number of seniors we have lifted out poverty because of good, sound government policy-making.

Madam Speaker, I know my friend and colleague is a powerful advocate for Saint John and that whole region. He has identified a program that would be of great benefit for not only his residents but all Canadians. I would ask those provinces that have not signed on to that agreement to act quickly. This is a program that is tangible. It can make a difference. It will substantially decrease the cost of child care and at the same time enable so many more to participate in Canada's workforce. We hear a lot about the need for more workers in Canada. This is a great program that helps deal with inflation and helps get more people into the workforce.

Madam Speaker, the procedure and House affairs committee needs to be able to convene in order to be able to strike the committees and this all comes in time and it is through negotiations that take place between the House leadership of the different political entities in the chamber. There is a little more to it, but the bottom line is that we all as individual members of Parliament also have a role to play. If the member has some ideas that he would like to share, he could stand up during the throne speech or debates like this, or even write directly to the minister. The Minister of Finance always makes herself available inside the chamber. I often, sitting very close to her, see members from the opposition walk over to express their concerns and thoughts to her. She responds to members on all sides of the House, as ministers as a whole are very much interested not only in what government members have to say, but also opposition members. I would encourage the member opposite, if he has some ideas, to share them. Hopefully we will get the finance committee up and running and it too at some point will play a role in the budgetary measures of the Government of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the member's comments, I am going to draw the conclusion that the NDP will not be supporting Bill C-2. I would find that most unfortunate because it continues to provide Canadians and businesses real, tangible support through the pandemic. We have had a number of members make reference to seniors, who we have fully supported throughout this pandemic, and we will continue to do so. The member and her caucus seem to be of the opinion that under all circumstances, without any exceptions, there should be no clawbacks to any federal program. Is that a fair assessment, or could she provide some examples?

Mr. Speaker, at times, the Conservatives can be very confusing on whether they support the legislation or they do not support it. Depending on the member who speaks, we often get the sense that the Conservatives do not support the monies that the government spent to provide support to Canadians through a wide spectrum of programs. Then there are other members who seem to feel that we should have been spending more money in different areas. This legislation, Bill C-2, is all about the extension and providing supports for Canadians during the pandemic and going forward. Could the member clearly give some indication, if not for the Conservative Party, how he will be voting on the legislation?

Madam Speaker, in the past it was somewhat clear that Conservatives recognized there was a need for the government to step up to the plate. It might not have been unanimous within their caucus, but at least a good number of them felt it was important to bring forward the programs we brought forward. When we create programs, I think it is fair to say that there will be some flaws in them, and we do what we can to fix them, but the principle behind the need for the programs was there. Does the member feel the principle of this legislation, which is to continue to support businesses and people across Canada, is still needed? Does he support that? Would he at least indicate his personal support for seeing this and vote in favour of it?

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to ask a number of Conservative colleagues across the way what their personal intentions might be with respect to Bill C-2. I would be very much interested in the member's insights as to whether he would see fit to personally support the principles of the bill, recognizing the pandemic is not over, that we still need to be there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way. That is what this bill would do, whether it is supports for business or for people. Could we expect to see the member personally voting in favour of the bill in principle going to committee stage, given the comments he has just made?

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions, and I will give my colleague the opportunity to answer either one of them. Ideally, it would be nice for him to answer both of them. The first question is in regard to the bill itself. Will the Conservative opposition support a bill that would continue the support for small businesses and people from coast to coast to coast? It is a yes or no type of thing. Second, can the member tell us how many of his colleagues have not been fully vaccinated?

Mr. Speaker, I always find it somewhat fascinating when the member tries to lecture us all about basic economics. I would convey to the member that Canadians were in a time of need, and this government stepped up and provided programs, whether it was direct support through CERB, or through business and wage loss programs or rent subsidy programs, which, yes, I concede, cost billions of dollars. Some within the Conservative/Reform Party would have liked us not to have supported Canadians and businesses. I wonder if the member would provide his true thoughts in regard to whether or not he believes that we should have supported families in Canada in all regions. Just the other day, we had members of his caucus saying that there are hundreds of millions that we need to spend, and more, in the province of British Columbia, and we will do that to support B.C. What does the member think of that?

Mr. Speaker, I can truly say that I had no intentions of offending anyone or any rule. In the last hybrid session, in order to facilitate ministers who were virtual, I was afforded the opportunity to do exactly what I did earlier today. No offence was made, and I did get the opportunity to at least share what I was going to be doing with the opposition House leader, as I did not want to surprise him. I apologize for not extending the same courtesy to the NDP and the Bloc, but it is no different than what we did during the hybrid sittings last summer.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation brings forward the extension of a great deal of benefits for Canadians and businesses in great need. I understand that Bloc members are open to supporting the legislation, and I applaud them for taking into consideration how beneficial this will be for so many people in Canada and our economy. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the idea that in any piece of legislation, it is difficult at times to be completely encompassing and that there will be some follow-through to come. Are the essence and principle of the bill something that he could personally support?

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona tries to give this false impression, an impression that could not be further from the truth, that the government does not understand or does not care. When the pandemic hit, this government came to the table. We created a program called CERB from nothing. We supported wage subsidy programs and business rent subsidies. We gave direct payments to seniors and people with disabilities. This government understood the need and still understands the need. This legislation in principle extends the benefits for thousands of Canadians. Will the NDP do the right thing and recognize that the principle of this bill continues the supports Canadians need today, and get behind it and vote for it?

Mr. Speaker, I ask where the Conservative Party is going to land on this very important piece of legislation. It will enable the government to continue to provide supports in many different ways to Canadians directly and to businesses, both big and small. It is really important that it pass. My question for the member is quite simple. Is the Conservative Party going to be supporting this? Maybe, if the member does not want to answer that question, he could answer whether he would be voting in favour of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is really important for all of those participating and those who might be following this debate to really have a basic understanding of what we are actually debating. For those individuals who understand and appreciate the impact the pandemic has had on the lives of Canadians in every region of our country, they need to be aware of the fact that there was a time for the government to come to the table and provide the supports that were necessary in order to minimize the potential damage of the coronavirus. Programs that virtually came out of thin air were put into place. Civil servants at different levels came together and put together programs that saved lives and jobs, and put Canada in a position where we could recover, I would suggest, in a manner second to no other country. When we look at vaccination, and the level of vaccination here in Canada, we have done exceptionally well. That is something Canadians can be very proud of. We came together and recognized that the way to defeat the coronavirus was to get vaccinated. Now I understand we have over 86% of our population fully vaccinated. Our country has one of the highest percentages, possibly even the highest percentage, of people vaccinated in the world. This legislation that we are debating talks about how we supported people, businesses and other stakeholders over the last year and a half, two years as we battled through the coronavirus. The battle continues. This legislation is about extending and enabling this House to continue to support Canadians, small businesses and stakeholders, and would continue to enable us to build a better, stronger, healthier Canada. That starts in the community, and with members of Parliament from all across Canada, including within the Liberal caucus, feeding information to the government. The government then has a sense of the things that are important to our constituents and is then successful in bringing forward legislation that is important to all of us. I understand my time is running out and that I will be able to continue on Monday. I would hope that all members of this House would come together in an apolitical fashion, recognize the value in this legislation and vote in favour of it.

Madam Speaker, I have two very quick points. In my home province, the Manitoba legislature has a hybrid system. As it debates over the next 10 days, it will have the option to sit virtually versus in person. It is a Progressive Conservative government. The member for Beauce is not with us. He will not be able to vote on this particular motion. In the days ahead, there may be members who also might not be able to participate. Does the government House leader not feel it is somewhat ironic, but very important, that we advocate for those members who would like the opportunity to be fully engaged in every aspect of debating, voting, attending committees and so forth? That is what this motion does.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to understand why the Conservatives do not support this motion. All they have to do is look within their own ranks to find a member, the member for Beauce, who is not able to be engaged in all the procedures and abilities we have at our fingertips, whether it is debates, votes or possible committees. This is important for all members. Why would the member opposite deny, by voting against this motion, members of Parliament today and going forward having access to do the fine work we do inside the chamber?

Madam Speaker, I do not quite understand the Bloc's logic. The legislature of the Province of Manitoba, my home province, is sitting today. It has a hybrid system, which was non-controversial. Everyone understood the safety and health benefits, the need for strong leadership, and it is not a political controversy at all. We are doing something of a very similar nature. There is a sunset provision, so it ends by the time we get into June. It seems to me that maybe the Bloc was kind of conned into this by its cozy cousin the Conservative Party. I wonder if the member has any regrets not recognizing that there is absolutely nothing wrong with enfranchising and enabling parliamentarians at a time when they could be infected by COVID to be able to participate fully, like the leader of the official opposition in the Province of Manitoba today.

Madam Speaker, I do not quite understand why the Conservatives oppose this motion. They are the ones who have decided to make this political. My daughter gave a virtual speech inside the Manitoba legislature today. In Manitoba, the leader of the official opposition has COVID-19, and because it is virtual he is able to participate as the leader of the official opposition. There is a member of the House today who is not able to come in because of COVID-19. It is a reality that the pandemic is not over. No one is saying that there will be no members inside the House; in fact, it is quite the opposite. Does the member believe that the Progressive Conservative government in Manitoba is wrong by having a hybrid system? Is it assaulting democracy by having a hybrid system? The Conservative opposition really needs to understand that this is about enabling members like the member's own colleague, the member for Beauce.

Mr. Speaker, I should have known better. You are right on the ball. The Conservative Party in Manitoba, the Liberal Party in Manitoba and the NDP in Manitoba are today sitting in a hybrid system. They are having question period. They actually have members of the legislative assembly who have COVID-19, and they are able to continue on. It seems it is just the Conservative Party, and I do not know how they conned the Bloc into it, that has made the decision that somehow this is anti-democratic. However, the hybrid system is something we can all benefit from. The pandemic is not behind us, and my question to the member is: Will he not recognize what the Province of Manitoba and other jurisdictions have? There is nothing wrong with having a hybrid, and this has a sunset. It ends in June.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we can continue using the member for Beauce as an example. He was around other members of the Conservative caucus, which means there are members who no doubt have to potentially self-quarantine. The opposition House leader indicated that he was getting his second test today. We could have a situation where we could have many members of the official opposition, because of the pandemic, being completely disengaged without a motion of this nature passing. Would the member acknowledge that is not a healthy thing for our Parliament?

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, as much as it was to speak virtually from my home. I appreciate both opportunities, because it is such a privilege to add thoughts to important public debates. Today we have yet another very important public debate. I suspect a number of Canadians are tuning in and looking for leadership coming from the House of Commons. I want to spend a bit of time on that, but because this is the first time I have had the opportunity to address the House, I would like to give a very special thanks to the residents of Winnipeg North. This is my fifth time back as a member of Parliament, but a certain part of Winnipeg North has elected me as a parliamentarian 10 times: first in the Manitoba legislature, and now here in Ottawa. I genuinely appreciate and value the support of the community and commit to work the hardest I can to serve them every day. When I think of the issues before us, the potatoes in Prince Edward Island come to my mind right away, as do the drought in the Prairies, health care for the residents and seniors of Winnipeg North and the floods taking place in B.C. There are so many issues. I want to ensure that all members have the opportunity to participate in the debates we are going to have on the issues that are critically important to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That is what this motion is all about. I agree with the NDP House leader that it would have been nice if this motion had passed unanimously on day one. That is the way it should have been. I truly believe that. I listened to the Conservatives and their cozy cousins from the Bloc saying they do not want a hybrid system. I am concerned that they do not really see the true value of it. I hope to talk about the importance of leadership and why members should give consideration to how they will vote on this motion. I believe there is a great deal of room for support of this motion. Let us not forget why we are at this point, as the opposition House leader referred to in his remarks on the motion. Not that long ago, 18 months or so ago, Canada found itself facing a worldwide pandemic. It was so encouraging to see parliamentarians from all sides of the House come together. The former government House leader knows that full well. We saw the merit in closing down the House of Commons. He worked with the opposition members to ensure that it was a priority. For those who were not here back then, we literally closed the House of Commons. That was the consensus from all political entities inside the chamber. However, there was a consensus that we would not let a pandemic prevent us from fulfilling something that Canadians hold dear to their hearts, which is our democracy and freedom. The Parliament of Canada is so valuable that we had to make sure it was able to continue on. It was important to the Prime Minister, to cabinet and to the leader of the official opposition. I believe every member of the House recognized that back then. There was a much higher sense of co-operation because people realized that Canadians were dying, Canadians were getting sick and the pandemic was hitting us hard. We all as parliamentarians, not as partisan parliamentarians, but as parliamentarians, had to take action to protect the interests of our nation. One of those actions is what we are talking about today. Even though some downplay the significance, I ask members to remember the important leadership role we all play here in Canada and the expectations Canadians have of each and every one of us. Hopefully the worst of the pandemic is behind us. I believe it is, but there are still waves out there. There is no reason I have heard that could not be negotiated to enable us to continue on with a hybrid system. I have read the news, followed the media and I have listened to the stories and arguments being presented by some members from the opposition parties. I would suggest that we revisit the attitudes we had 18 months ago. I know I felt good when I was able to go back to my community and say that we were working collectively not only in the House of Commons, but also with stakeholders, science and health experts, provinces, territories and indigenous communities in order to take on the pandemic. However, our democracy, our Parliament and the issue of accountability are so important that we had to come up with a mechanism that would enable us to continue our democracy, and we did that with the hybrid system. This system enabled everyone the opportunity to participate in debate, in votes, at committees and with interjections, whether they were matters of privileges, points of order, members' statements or in question period. It enabled us to continue on. There was even the opportunity for the former House leader to ensure there was a mixture of ministers answering on the floor and virtually. I remember that well. It was a process that worked, and it was very effective. We are asking opposition members to recognize the value of a hybrid system. To say that there is no value to it, or that we do not need it today, goes against the type of leadership Canadians are looking for. Yesterday Manitoba had its throne speech, like Ottawa did. Personally I thought ours was better, but that is a side point. I called my daughter, as she is an MLA, and asked her how her day went. She said she does not get to go into the chamber until next week. I asked if they were still on the hybrid system, and she said they were. She will be in the chamber next week, but they still have a hybrid system. That is a Progressive Conservative government in the province of Manitoba saying that there is a need. Heather Stefanson, the newly elected premier, is right because people are watching. People understand the seriousness of the pandemic. We understand it has changed all of our lives in a significant way, but at the end of the day, what we are trying to do is not far off from that hybrid system. Yes, there are some differences and some unique aspects of ours compared to Manitoba's, but the bottom line is that it appears that all the parties recognize the need to continue with it. I believe that it is not too late for members opposite here to recognize the value of it. We do not have to think very hard on this because we all know the member for Beauce. He is not going to be able to vote on the motion we are debating right now. He was not even allowed to vote for the Speaker. Although, it might have been a bit of a challenge to get the hybrid system passed before we had the Speaker in place, but the point is that the member for Beauce cannot participate. If there were some sort of significant tragedy in his riding or something wonderful that he wanted to report on, he is not allowed in the chamber to do so. It is not possible for him to participate because of COVID and the pandemic. The opposition House leader made reference to the fact that tomorrow he is going for his second test because he is following the rules, which is the way to go, but I trust it is because of the member for Beauce. There are a number of members in the Conservative caucus who, because of their proximity to the member for Beauce, had to get some testing done. I do not know about other members, but I believe that the opposition House leader, if he tests positive tomorrow, should be able to continue here, and he would be able to do that with a hybrid system. I would argue that to believe that none of our colleagues, out of 338 of us, will not have COVID over the next number of months might be considered as being irresponsible. In Manitoba, there were two MLAs infected with COVID, and I believe both had been fully vaccinated. One is the leader of the New Democratic Party and another was just discovered recently. Maybe that is one of the reasons they factored in the benefits of having the hybrid system. Why is it that some members would want to prevent other members from being able to participate in these debates? This is what I do not understand. That is what my colleagues in the Liberal caucus do not understand. This is not some way of escaping accountability. This is all about ensuring that members have the ability to hold the government to account. Whether it is one member or multiple members who are unable to be here for whatever reason, they would still be able to perform their responsibilities. When we talk about accountability and transparency, yesterday and earlier today someone from across the floor heckled something to the effect that the Liberals have one member who is not vaccinated. Well, that is news to me. To my understanding, every member of the Liberal caucus is fully vaccinated. If those members do not believe that to be the case, please let me know which member it is, because I believe that every member of the Liberal caucus is fully vaccinated. I also understand that members of the Bloc and members of the New Democrats are fully vaccinated. Now, I would suggest that there is an issue of transparency. Do Canadians have the right to know which members or how many members of the Conservative caucus are not vaccinated? The government House leader made reference to some statistics regarding the likelihood of someone getting a medical exemption, which is one in 100,000. We honestly do not know if there are 20 Conservatives or two Conservatives. We just know that there are some. We do not know the actual number. The likelihood is one out of 100,000 and there are only 119 Conservative members of Parliament. Statistically, what could that number be? That is hard for us. One of my colleagues came up to me yesterday and he was genuinely concerned about his health. His primary concern was that some members are not fully vaccinated. I indicated that he should share his concerns with the government House leader. There are members in this House who are genuinely concerned for themselves, let alone having concerns about the people who operate this wonderful institution. There are many people who make this Parliament work, whether it is security where we first walk in, or the people who make us our hamburger, fries and much more at the cafeteria. There are the translators, the clerks and the people who work on Hansard and have to listen to the speeches. There are so many people. At the end of the day we need to be thinking about the health and safety of all the people who are inside this building. I would suggest that we, as parliamentarians at a national level, have an important leadership role to play. I know this has affected all of us and how we represent our constituents. Two years ago I did not even know that Zoom existed. Nowadays, I spend a lot of time on Zoom. I used to go to the local restaurant every Saturday for four hours. That is why I would be flying back to Winnipeg every weekend from Ottawa. It was to meet with constituents. Many of the ways we serve our constituents have changed. With those changes we have to do some things differently. That is one of the reasons I now have Zoom town hall meetings. It is another way I can meet with constituents. Until it is safe, I will not return to the weekly meetings, which I had been doing for 30 years. I will wait until it is safe. In the interim, I am going to have my virtual town hall meetings. I had one just the other day. Along with those changes, we need to recognize that our role is about more than just serving our constituents in our ridings. It is our role as parliamentarians to participate in votes and a spectrum of other things, but they do not physically have to be done here. A number of years back I asked the then clerk if there was any chance I could be sworn in as a member of Parliament in my own city of Winnipeg. He said that we could not do that. This time I was able to do that. I thought it was a wonderful thing to be sworn in as a member of Parliament there. Things have changed. We need to accommodate that. I ask all members of the House to go back to the day when there was that high sense of co-operation and a recognition that in Parliament we need to work together to make sure that members of Parliament have the opportunity to be fully engaged. This will not be for forever. We are only talking about having this until June. One of the ways we can ensure that the member for Beauce and other members going forward will be able to fully participate is by passing this motion.

Mr. Speaker, the short answer would be yes. Even if people are fully vaccinated, they still can get the coronavirus. One of the things is that we, as parliamentarians, come from every region of the country. We all fly into Ottawa and then we fly out to our communities. More and more communities are going back to their different types of events. We have to be extra careful. This would provide an option. I love to speak in the chamber. There is no doubt I love the atmosphere of the chamber, but I also enjoy speaking virtually, because I still am able to get my point across. I hope the member would reconsider that if I do end up speaking virtual, he would not turn the TV off.

Mr. Speaker, because of the fine work of so many people, Canada is in a fantastic position; with over 86% of our population now fully vaccinated. I attribute that to everyone from our health care professionals, individuals at different levels of government and that sense of commitment to get Canada in a good space so we can lead the world in getting out of the pandemic. I think we are well positioned. However, I still believe that having the hybrid Parliament today is a good thing. As I said, there is a sunset clause that would end it in June. We can ensure that every member of the House will be allowed to be fully engaged, whether it is voting or participating in debates, by allowing this motion to pass. If I understood him correctly, the member seemed a little sympathetic to ensuring that all members be allowed to participate fully. A good way of doing that is by voting in favour of the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member 100%, and I congratulate her on taking her seat. As she was speaking, I thought of our health care workers and those who have been confronted by fairly hostile people. There is important legislation that we will have to go over in the next few weeks. One of the ways in which we can ensure and enable every member of Parliament to vote on this important legislation is to pass this motion.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it has gone in this direction. It would have been far better if we would have had a non-partisan approach to ensure we would have the hybrid in place. That would have been our preferred route. Let there be no doubt on that. Our first priority was to ensure that all members had the ability to be fully engaged, with the importance of health and safety being at the forefront. Our preference would have been to have the unanimous support of the House to pass it yesterday. That was not possible. Hopefully members of the Conservative Party and the Bloc will reconsider the value of having a hybrid system and come onside, so we can see it passed unanimously. It is the right thing to do. It would be demonstrating strong leadership for the rest of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words from my former boss. It is somewhat ironic that I am standing in my place and actually advocating for the member for Beauce. The member for Beauce, under this system, would be able to fully participate and if anyone, including the opposition House leader, came back with a positive test tomorrow, they would not be able to participate, unless we pass this motion. The motion would enable all parliamentarians on all sides of the House the ability to be fully engaged between now and June. As a parliamentarian, this is the best thing we can do. It also would demonstrate strong leadership to the rest of Canada, that we take this pandemic very seriously. We believe all political entities in the House recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on what the member just made reference to, and that is pulling together. As we look at what is taking place in British Columbia, we recognize that not only the national government but also the provincial government, municipalities and many other stakeholders all have an interest in making sure that B.C. and the people who are so dramatically affected are lifted out of this and that we help build back. Can the member provide her thoughts in regard to just how important it is that the different levels of government continue to show that sympathy and provide the support that is so critically important to help these communities in need?

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to address the House on such an important piece of legislation. To be very clear, in budget 2021 the government has outlined a plan to allow us to finish the fight against COVID-19, heal the wounds left by the COVID-19 recession as much as we can, and ultimately create more jobs and prosperity for Canadians in the days and decades to come. This is critically important legislation, and we would encourage all members of all political stripes to support it. Within it is a continuation of the government's focus on the pandemic. In the last federal election, Canadians wanted Parliament to work well together. They wanted us to come together to do the things that were necessary to facilitate a more positive environment for all Canadians, and being thrown into a pandemic made the priority fighting COVID-19: the coronavirus. From the very beginning, our Prime Minister and this government have made it very clear that fighting the pandemic was our number one priority. We put into place a team Canada approach and brought together all kinds of stakeholders including different levels of government, indigenous leaders, individuals, non-profit organizations and private companies. We brought them all in to hopefully minimize the negative impact of the coronavirus. It is because of those consultations and working with Canadians that Canada is in an excellent position today to maximize a recovery. The statistics will clearly demonstrate that. We have a government that has worked day in and day out, seven days a week, and is led by a Prime Minister who is truly committed to making Canada a better community. I have, over the last number of months, witnessed a great deal of frustration from the opposition, in particular the Conservative opposition. The Conservatives continuously attempt to frustrate the process on the floor of the House of Commons. There was a time when all parties inside the chamber worked together to pass necessary legislation, and worked together to come up with ideas and ways to modify things so we could better support individuals and businesses in Canada. However, that time has long passed. The degree to which we see political partisanship on the floor of the House of Commons today is really quite sad. Yesterday was embarrassing. I know many, if not all, of my colleagues found it embarrassing and humiliating to see one of Canada's most noble civil servants at the bar on the floor of the House of Commons. The New Democrats and the Bloc joined with the Conservatives to humiliate a civil servant who should be applauded for his efforts over the last 12 months. He was publicly humiliated by being addressed in the manner he was, on the floor of the House of Commons, and it was distasteful. I say shame to the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives. There were alternatives. If they did not want to take shots at the civil service, they could have dealt with it in other ways. For example, the Minister of Health provided the unredacted information to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which was made up of parliamentarians from all political parties. Instead of passing the motion they did, they could have passed a motion for that committee to table the documents they wanted from the civil service. After all, the civil service provided the unredacted copies to that committee, not to mention that documents that had been redacted for national interest and security reasons were sent to another standing committee. The political partisanship we are seeing today is making the chamber, for all intents and purposes, dysfunctional. We have seen the official opposition, less than a week ago, come to the floor of the House of Commons and within an hour of debate attempt to shut down Parliament for the day. It actually moved a motion to adjourn the House. The opposition is oozing with hypocrisy. On the one hand, it criticizes the government for not allowing enough time for debate, and on the other hand it tries to shut down the chamber in order to prevent debate. If we were to look up the definitions of the words “hypocrisy” and “irony” in Webster's, which I have not, I wonder if they would describe what we are seeing from the opposition party, which moves concurrence debate, not once or twice but on many occasions, so that the government is not able to move forward on legislation, including Bill C-30, which we are debating today. That legislation is there to support Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Members of the Liberal caucus have fought day in and day out to ensure those voices are heard, brought to Ottawa and ultimately formulating policy that will take Canada to the next level. However, we have an official opposition that I would suggest has gone too far with respect to its resistance and destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. I have stated before that I have been a parliamentarian for approximately 30 years, the vast majority of which were in opposition. I am very much aware of how important it is that we protect the interests of opposition members and their rights. I am very much aware of the tactics opposition parties will use, but at a time when Canadians need us to work together, we have an official opposition that is acting as an obstructive force. When we talk about how Bill C-30 will be there to support small businesses and put money in the pockets of Canadians so they have the disposable income necessary to pay the bills that are absolutely essential, the Conservative Party continues to play that destructive role. It continues to focus on character assassination and on ways to make something out of something that is often not real. The Conservatives are more concerned about political partisanship than getting down to work, which was clearly demonstrated last Thursday. They are more concerned about character assassination, as we saw the official opposition, with the unholy opposition alliance, take personal shots at a national hero, someone we all know as the Minister of National Defence. This is unacceptable behaviour we are witnessing. We have critically important legislation before the House. We can think about the types of things Bill C-30 would do for Canadians. If we want to prevent bankruptcies from taking place, we need to support this legislation, as it supports small businesses through the extension of the wage subsidy program, a program that has helped millions of Canadians, supporting tens of thousands of businesses from coast to coast to coast. This is the type of legislation that we are actually debating today. It is not the only progressive, good, solid legislation that we have brought forward. Yesterday, through a closure motion, we were able to push through Bill C-10. We can imagine that legislation not being updated for 30 years. It is a major overhaul. We can think about what the Internet looked like 30 years ago, compared to today. The Liberal government understands, especially during this pandemic, and we see it in the budget, the importance of our arts community, whether it was with Bill C-10 yesterday, where the government had to push hard to get it through, or the budget implementation bill today, where we are again having to use time allocation. It is not because we want to, but because we have to. If we do not take measures of this nature, the legislation would not pass. The opposition parties, combined, often demonstrate that if the government is not prepared to take the actions it is taking, we would not get legislation through this House. The opposition parties want to focus on electioneering. We have been very clear, as the Prime Minister has stated, that our priority is the pandemic and taking the actions necessary in order to serve Canadians on the issue. It is the opposition parties that continuously talk about elections. In my many years as a parliamentarian, in the month of June we have often seen legislation passing. It happens. It is a part of governance. One would expect to see a higher sense of co-operation from opposition parties, in particular from the official opposition party, not the obstruction that members have witnessed, not the humiliation that we have seen on the floor of the House of Commons at times. Liberal members of the House are prepared to continue to work toward serving Canadians by passing the legislation that is necessary before the summer break. We still have time to address other pieces of legislation. Minutes prior to going into this debate, I was on a conference call in regard to Bill C-19. Again, it is an important piece of legislation. I challenge my colleagues on the opposition benches to come forward and say that we should get that legislation passed so that it could go to the Senate. I mentioned important progressive pieces of legislation, and the one that comes to my mind, first and foremost, is this legislation, Bill C-30. Next to that, we talk a lot about Bill C-6, on conversion therapy. We talk a lot about Bill C-10, dealing with the modernization of broadcasting and the Internet, and going after some of these large Internet companies. We talk about Bill C-12 and net zero, about our environment. We can check with Canadians and see what they have to say about our environment and look at the actions taken by opposition parties in preventing the types of progressive legislation we are attempting to move forward with. We understand that not all legislation is going to be passed. We are not saying the opposition has to pass everything. We realize that in a normal situation not all government legislation is going to pass in the time frame we have set forth, given the very nature of the pandemic, but it is not unrealistic for any government, minority or majority, to anticipate that there would be a higher sense of co-operation in dealing with the passing of specific pieces of legislation. Bill C-30 is definitely one of those pieces of legislation. Unfortunately, some opposition members will have the tenacity to say they are being limited and are unable to speak to and address this particular important piece of legislation. Chances are we are going to hear them say that. To those members, I would suggest they look at the behaviour of the Conservative official opposition and remind them of the Conservative opposition's attempts to delay, whether it is through adjourning debates, calling for votes on those kinds of proceedings, concurrence motions or using questions of privilege and points of order as a way to filibuster, which all happen to be during government business. Bill C-3 was a bill that initially came forward a number of years ago from Rona Ambrose, the then leader of the Conservative Party, about judges. We can look at the amount of debate that occurred on that piece of legislation. It is legislation that could have and should have passed the House with minimal debate. It was hours and hours, days, of debate. Even though the Conservatives supported the legislation, even back then they did not want to have the government passing legislation. Their purpose is to frustrate the government, prevent the government from being able to pass legislation, and then criticize us for not being able to pass legislation. What hypocrisy this is. Sadly, over the last week or so, we have seen the other opposition parties buy into what the Conservative opposition is doing, which has made it even more difficult. As much as the unholy alliance of opposition parties continues to do these things and frustrate the floor of the House, I can assure Canadians that, whether it is this Prime Minister or my fellow members of Parliament within the caucus, we will continue day in, day out to focus our attention on the pandemic and minimizing its negative impacts. We are seeing results. Over 32 million vaccine doses have been administered to Canadians. We are number one in first doses in the world. We have close to 35 million doses already in Canada, and we will have 50 million before the end of the month. Canada is positioning itself well, even with the frustration coming from opposition parties. We will continue to remain focused on serving Canadians, and Bill C-30 is an excellent example of the way in which we are going to ensure that Canadians get out of this in a better position. We are building back better for all Canadians.

Madam Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In the last eight months, we had more emergency debates than I have seen in the previous six or seven years. We have had just as many private members' hours. We have had opposition days, all be it, some of those opposition days were very offensive. It was an opposition day that led to what we saw yesterday, the humiliation of a public civil servant, someone who we should be thanking. The combined unholy alliance of opposition parties wanted to make a public statement by humiliating a public civil servant at the bar on the floor of the House of Commons. Shame on the members of the opposition. That collective group should hang its head in shame.

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of the pandemic, we brought in a suite of different programs to support Canadians and businesses. The programs were not perfect, and we continued to look at ways we could improve those programs. We have never said that everything is perfect. We continue to try hard to ensure that we maximize these benefits for all Canadians. We all have something to learn from it. Yesterday, the members of the Bloc had a choice. They could have mandated the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, for example, to table the unredacted documents, and they chose not to that. Instead, they chose to humiliate a public servant, unjustifiably.

Madam Speaker, Canadians can see through the NDP's continuously scripted lines. At the end of the day, the Government of Canada, with the help of many, came up with a program, which Canadians know as CERB, to support putting disposable income in the pockets of Canadians. It was a hugely successful program, a program that came from nothing, with excellent civil servants making it happen. Over nine million Canadians directly benefited by that program. Yes, it cost billions of dollars, but it was money well spent to support Canadians. This government has had its eyes on supporting Canadians from day one, and we will continue to provide the necessary supports to ensure we can get out of this pandemic as best as we can.

Madam Speaker, I use yesterday as an example. Yesterday, we had a civil servant come to the bar, which is the first time in 100 years, to be publicly humiliated. I felt ashamed. I thought it was disgusting. That would not have happened if it were not for the NDP, Bloc and Conservatives forcing that civil servant to stand before the House to be admonished. I thought it was distasteful. A minority government means exactly what we saw yesterday, that the combined opposition have the majority. Anytime they want to humiliate someone, they can easily do it. They know that and they do not have any reservation in doing it even if it is somewhat historical in its very nature. That is not the only example, unfortunately.