Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Chair, I would like to pick up on the last point the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance made in regard to our grandchildren. I am very proud of my grandchildren, and I do think of the future and the direction that we are going. One of the things we can all feel very good about is that during the pandemic, and even pre-pandemic, we have had a government that was very concerned about the future of Canada, so our grandchildren would be in a better environment. I could go back all the way to the first budget, where we saw all forms of support for Canada's middle class, to the challenging times of the pandemic, where we continue to support Canadians in a very real way. Our government has supported, through the middle class, a healthier economy that continues to build and perform quite well in comparison to other jurisdictions. This is because of the investments we have made. I feel very good about the future of Canada because we have had very strong stewardship of our economy through both of our ministers of finance, the strong leadership of our Prime Minister, and a caucus that works day in and day out to ensure that we get things right. When we know we need to improve, we strive to make those improvements. Having said that, I want to provide my comments for 10 minutes, leaving four or five minutes for questions and comments with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance. Let me start by saying that in Manitoba, in reading the Winnipeg Free Press today, there is good reason to have hope. I will read from an article about the first dose being given to 60% of adult Manitobans. It says, “Manitoba is less than two weeks away from vaccinating 70% of its eligible population against the novel coronavirus in a final push to bend the COVID-19 curve of Canada's hot spot.” It has been difficult over the last little while, as this third wave has had a significant impact in the province that I love and care so dearly about. I know that people are genuinely concerned. Upon reflection, one of the things I think about is how the province and the people have come together. We have seen our health care workers in particular, and so many others, recognize the need to serve. They have stepped up to the plate once again. Our ICUs are packed. We have to have people go out of province. We understand how important it is that the population continues to play that supportive role. We see that through physical distancing and respecting the need for restrictions. When I reflect on it, I go all the way back to day one, over a year ago, when the Prime Minister said that we needed to focus our attention on the pandemic, and on fighting and battling this pandemic. He told Canadians back then that we would be there for Canadians, for real people and our businesses. If we review the things that have taken place, there are many indications showing how we have been able to get to the point we are at today. I do not have any problem whatsoever in looking beyond our borders and feeling good in terms of where Canada is today. I attribute our success to date to that team Canada approach. The federal government did not do this on its own. There was very much a coming together of different levels of government. We saw provincial governments, municipal governments, non-profit organizations and private businesses all come together, recognizing that we needed to work together in order to overcome this world pandemic and the damage that it was causing. From the very beginning we saw a government that understood in a very real way that we had to be there. Being there meant a program, coming from nowhere, that we know as CERB, which served over nine million Canadians. Our population is 37.5 million people. Think about what it would have taken and about the fine work of our civil servants and all those involved in making that program a reality. It put disposable income in the pockets of Canadians when Canadians needed it, when they were concerned about how they were going to pay their mortgages and their bills. Bills do not stop coming in even when someone does not have an ability to generate income because of the pandemic. Imagine the number of businesses that would not be here today if the government, working with others as a team, had not developed programs that have become the pillars of the federal government throughout the pandemic. I am thinking of the emergency business account, emergency commercial rent program and lockdown support. I loved the wage subsidy program. That program saved tens of thousands of jobs. It kept people working during the pandemic. Not only was it good for individual Canadians, but it was also good for businesses. There was the business recovery benefit, recovery sickness benefit and recovery caregiver benefit. Those were the pillars that were there to ensure that the federal government had the backs of Canadians. That was so very important. By doing that, we are in a far greater position to be able to build back better. We look at the budget implementation bill and the budget, which we heard about from the Minister of Finance. It is an incredible, progressive budget that supports Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it in a very real and tangible way. We can look at what it is doing for child care. We can look at the budget's potential of getting more people engaged and the contribution that that engagement is going to have on Canada's future growth. We have recognized the value of long-term care and standards. We have learned a great deal from the pandemic and we can take advantage of what we have learned and build upon it. That is what this budget is doing. Canada has hope today because we have a government that recognizes the value of working as a team with other levels of government, with Canadians. We have a government that recognizes the value of bringing forward a budget, which is going to make a difference. That takes me to my first question for the parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance. Reflecting on the budget implementation bill and how it is a continuation of allowing us to build back better, so that we will have a stronger and healthier future for the next generation and today's generation, could he provide his thoughts on why this bill is so critically important at this time to continue to be there in a real, tangible way for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast?

Madam Speaker, with the budget implementation bill, the government has recognized the true value of investing in Canadians throughout very difficult times. Ultimately, what we would like to see is a road to a stronger and healthier economy by having invested in Canadians from coast to coast to coast over the last number of months during the pandemic. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on how important it was for the Government of Canada to work with other levels of government to ensure we could maximize the return of the economy in a better fashion.

Madam Speaker, a couple of members have made reference to the issue of age 75 and what the government committed to. In the 2019 federal election, the leader of the Liberal Party, now Canada's Prime Minister, made a commitment to increase the benefit by 10% for all those who are age 75 and older. We are now fulfilling that commitment. We are fulfilling a promise that was made in the last federal election. Am I now to assume that the NDP not only supports our commitment, but would also like to see that commitment of a 10% increase made to everyone who is over age 65, or possibly even younger than that? In Manitoba, for many years, seniors were recognized as 65-plus. What is the actual position of the NDP? If the member could provide a percentage, that would be helpful.

Madam Speaker, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has called upon all levels of government in Canada to adopt and implement the UN declaration as the framework for reconciliation. I am wondering if the minister could provide his thoughts as to why it is so important in moving forward with reconciliation that the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister continue to push this bill so it ultimately can get passed.

Madam Speaker, if the opposition members are going to continue to vote non-confidence in the government, it is irresponsible for them not to have measures in place to protect Canadians. It is a minority government, which means that we do need to have support from opposition. That is one of the reasons that we were able to get it to the committee stage. My question for the member is about consistency. Last year, the Bloc Québécois members were demanding and brought in a motion of confidence. They wanted a federal election unless the Prime Minister resigned. The Prime Minister did not resign. Have they changed and now does the Bloc fully endorse the current Prime Minister?

Madam Speaker, we have witnessed some unbelievable spin coming from the Conservative Party, which is trying to give false impressions on what has transpired in the last 12 to 14 months. It is absolutely incredible. From day one, the government and the Prime Minister in particular have been talking about the primary focus being on the coronavirus, and all our actions to date clearly demonstrate that. Why does the Conservative Party continue to support votes of non-confidence in the government?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to provide some thoughts on the opposition motion. There has been a great deal of misleading information, if I can put it that way, so let me start by being crystal clear for those following the debate that the Government of Canada, headed by the Prime Minister, has been very, very clear: Our focus since the beginning of the pandemic has been on delivering for Canadians. Canadians expect their Parliament to work to deliver for them through this pandemic, and indeed over the past many months, we have put in extra effort to make that happen. If we go back to the very beginning, we see the creation of programs that have assisted millions of Canadians, programs that have provided a lifeline to many small businesses, preventing bankruptcies and keeping people employed. We have seen support programs for seniors and people with disabilities, and enhancements of youth employment opportunities. We have seen provincial restart money, money being put into our school systems and the speeding up of infrastructure programs. The government has taken a team Canada approach. For the first couple of months, there was a high sense of co-operation coming from the House of Commons, but that changed. For the Conservative Party, it started to change toward the end of June. For others, it took maybe a bit longer. Let there be no doubt that from the very beginning, the Government of Canada's focus has been the pandemic and having the backs of Canadians day in and day out, seven days a week. Let there be absolutely no doubt about that. It is the opposition that continues to want to talk about elections. Further, we have even seen threats of elections coming from some politicians in opposition parties. What is really interesting about the motion today is that we have the Bloc party saying that it does not want to have an election during the pandemic. That is what it is saying today publicly. I challenge Bloc members to share with Canadians what they truly believe. Last year, the leader of the Bloc party made it very clear. He vowed that if the Prime Minister of Canada did not resign, he would force an election during the pandemic. That is what the leader of the Bloc party said. The very same Bloc party today is saying that we should not have an election during the pandemic. When he was asked about it last year, he responded by saying that allowing the government to remain in a position of power would do more damage to the country than forcing Canadians to head out to cast their ballots in the midst of a pandemic. He made it very clear that he would move a motion of non-confidence if the Prime Minister did not resign. In my books, that is pretty clear. We have seen on numerous occasions all opposition parties, or at least the Conservatives and the Bloc, vote non-confidence. We have even seen some individuals from the New Democratic Party support non-confidence measures inside the House, from what I understand. Maybe not collectively as a party, but definitely as individuals. Members should listen to what is being said in the speeches. The member for Kingston and the Islands and I spend a great deal of time in the chamber or in the virtual Parliament, and we listen to what members of the opposition are saying. Contrary to what some members of the Bloc are telling us today, it is completely irresponsible for us to believe that an election could not take place, when we have had threats coming from the leader of an official recognized party of the House, who is vowing to have an election. Am I to believe that the Bloc members, as a group, have had a road to Damascus experience and now do not want an election? Does that mean they fully endorse the Prime Minister and that what they said last year was wrong, that Canadians misunderstood and the Prime Minister is doing a good job, according to the Bloc now? Is that what we are to believe? I will tell members what I believe. I believe in the reality of what I see in terms of votes on the floor of the House and some of the words we hear from members opposite, who talk consistently about elections and challenge the government on an election with the actual votes, not once, twice or three times. I loved the way the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is responsible for the Canada Elections Act, asked how many times opposition members voted no confidence in the government: (a), (b), (c) or (d). Those following the debate should keep in mind that any loss of a confidence vote precipitates an election. People may be surprised at the actual number. The President of the Queen’s Privy Council asked whether it was (a) one to four times; (b) five to nine times; (c) 10 to 14 times; or (d) more than 15 times. I am virtually in the House of Commons, and I know it is well over 14 times. It is not only votes of confidence. Let us look at the destructive force that the official opposition party has played on the floor of the House of Commons and some of the questions that were asked today. Members are talking about Bill C-19, which is a very important piece of legislation. We cannot continue to have confidence votes and not recognize the value of the legislation, but a couple of members said the government brought in time allocation and how mean that was because, after all, it is a minority government and it is forcing election legislation through. We cannot do that. We need the support of an opposition party to do it. Fortunately, the New Democrats stepped up to the plate so we could pass Bill C-19. Then another Conservative member said the government brought in time allocation and there was very little time for members to debate it. On the very same day the time allocation was brought in, what did the Conservatives do? They brought forward a concurrence motion on a report, preventing hours of debate on Bill C-19. Did it prevent the bill from going to committee later that day? No, it did not. Did it prevent members from being able to speak to the legislation? Yes, it did. Then some opposition members said it was a bad bill and asked about consensus and even quoted me on it, in terms of how we should strive to get consensus. Need I remind members how they voted? Liberals know how they voted on it. Every political party voted in favour of Bill C-19 going to committee. What the opposition is attempting to do here just does not make sense. We can talk about the frustration of government in terms of legislation. The Prime Minister says the pandemic is the government's number one concern. We will have the backs of Canadians and we will be there for them. That means we need to pass important legislation that matters to every Canadian. The best example I can come up with offhand is probably Bill C-14. Last fall, Canada's very first female Minister of Finance presented a fall statement, brought in legislation in December, and brought it up on numerous occasions for debate. We had to force it to get through because the opposition was not co-operating. There was no sense of how long opposition members were prepared to keep it in the second reading stage of the process. That legislation provided support programs and many other things for real people and businesses being challenged by the pandemic. The government has a very limited number of days and hours to actually conduct government business. The Conservatives, who are the official opposition, know that. They understand it. One might think, given the pandemic and their talk about the importance of being there for Canadians during the pandemic, that the Conservatives would come to that realization, as opposed to debating Bill C-19. One might think they would allow the debate on Bill C-14 to be conducted in a better, healthier way for all parliamentarians and, indeed, Canadians and that they would be willing to participate. One might think that, but that is not the reality. I have been listening to a number of people speak to the motion we have before us today. I am still trying to learn some of the acronyms in texting, such as OMG, which I believe means “oh my God”. I have probably had three or four of those OMG moments today when I wondered where this was coming from. How could members really say some of the things they are saying? We had a member talking about how terrible the Liberals were. He said that we were an absolute and total failure and that we were so bad. Is the member scared we are going to call an election because we were so bad? Some members were saying how bad Canada was in acquiring vaccines. The last time I looked, we were the third best in the G20 countries. Canada is doing exceptionally well. We will actually have received somewhere between 45 million and 50 million doses of vaccine before the end of June. As of yesterday, in the province of Manitoba, anyone over 18 can book an appointment to get their first shot. Conservatives then had to come up with something to be critical of the government on the vaccine front, so they hit on the double dose issue. Conservatives thought they could say that the government was not doing a good job on the double dose issue. I ask members to remember, back in the December, some of the opposition's criticisms of the government. Criticism is fair game. The Conservatives are in opposition, and I wish them many years in opposition. They are entitled to be critical of the government and the things we are doing. However, it is another one of those OMG moments. They need to get real. They need to understand what Canadians want us to be focused on. To my friends in the Bloc, they should seriously think about what their leader has been saying and the posture the Bloc has taken for the last number of months. When I saw this particular motion appear on the Order Paper, I had to give my head shake and ask myself if it was really coming from the Bloc. The Bloc has been the clearest of all in terms of wanting an election now. I do not believe this. It might be what the Bloc has been thinking in the last 72 hours, but who knows what their thoughts are going to be 24 hours from now. That is the reason we brought in Bill C-19. If there are concerns for Canadians regarding a potential election, given the behaviour we have seen from the opposition, one responsible thing to do would be to actually pass Bill C-19. Let us get it through committee. I think about how much time have we allocated toward Bill C-19. I was prepared to speak to it on a couple of occasions. One day, maybe back in January or February, I was primed and ready to go. It was going to be called up and, lo and behold, the Conservative Party brought in a concurrence motion. That was not the first time. Ironically, once time allocation was put on Bill C-19, Conservative members did it again. They brought in another concurrence motion that prevented people from being able to speak on the legislation, even though it was going to committee. It just does not make sense. We have the vote on it. Conservatives were trying to frustrate the government in terms of not allowing the bill to proceed, so one would think that they were going to oppose it, but that was not the case. Of the entire Conservative caucus, those who voted, voted in favour of it. Now Bill C-19 sits in limbo, although the Liberals would like to see it actually being talked about. There are some good ideas there. The minister has been very clear that he is open to ideas. The member for Elmwood—Transcona has talked about a number of possible amendments. I think that we have been fairly clear in terms of getting the legislation before the committee. It is there. The committee can deal with it at any time now. Is the opposition being sincere about being concerned with the pandemic and what takes place in an election? We know that, no matter what, Elections Canada, while being recognized around the world as a first-class independent agency with the ability to conduct an election, would benefit from this legislation if we can get it passed. I think it is the responsible thing to do. Just look at the number of non-confidence votes we have had: 14 or 15. This would be a responsible thing for us to do. Why not allow that discussion at committee? If we take a look at the principles to be looked at, they are just temporary measures. We do not know how long the pandemic could potentially carry on with variants and so forth. We are very optimistic today, but there are long-term care considerations. Bill C-19 talks about extending the number of polling days and mail-in ballot enhancements. We have seen other governments in three or four provinces that have actually conducted provincial elections. We saw a huge election just south of the border. We saw by-elections conducted by Elections Canada. I would like to see PROC deal with the bill, and the sooner the better. I encourage members to recognize two facts. First and foremost, since day one this Prime Minister and this government have been focused on the pandemic and being there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Second, when it comes to talking about an election, it is the opposition that does a lot more talking about it than the Government of Canada or the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the member raises concerns that would be best addressed and very easily addressed at the committee stage. That is the reason I think members of the House should encourage PROC members of all political stripes to put Bill C-19 first on their agenda, which would be my recommendation. For example, with regard to Monday versus Tuesday, there is a consideration for whether an election is taking place on a long weekend, which might have some consequences for a Tuesday. The detailed answers my friend is looking for could probably be provided to him at the committee stage. As I indicated in my comments, the government is very much open to ideas that would improve the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this is something I would like to emphasize. The Conservative Party will play games on the issue of an election. It has no problem at all moving motions of non-confidence and voting en masse for it. Every time it does that, it is rolling the dice. It cannot guarantee an election would not happen as a result of that. In fact, I suspect that on maybe a dozen occasions we have seen the Conservative Party play that game. I do not know the actual numbers, but I suspect it would be double digits. I think the responsible thing to do is ensure we have some legislation in place that will enhance Elections Canada's abilities. We have already seen elections take place in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I was surprised by the manner in which this particular motion was decided, only because it seems to be completely at odds with, and 180° from, where the Bloc members were not that long ago. It concerns me in terms of where they might be tomorrow, which highlights the fact that at any given time there could be an election based on what we see taking place in the House of Commons. There have been 13, 14, or 15 motions of confidence. Any one of those, if we lose a vote, would precipitate an election, so I would encourage members, as I say, to pass—

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in what takes place in all regions of our country, and I am very proud of the government's Quebec caucus and the advocacy that the members display for the Province of Quebec and all Canadians through the development of the very programs the member just cited. We understand. We are the government that put in place, after listening to and working with Canadians in all regions of our country, programs that were there to support them, and we will continue to be there for seniors, youth, small businesses and those individuals who need us to have their backs through this very difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear on at least one of the points the member raises. If the opposition is going to continue to vote non-confidence in the government, it would be irresponsible for them not to have measures in place to protect Canadians. Bill C-19 is necessary, because of, in good part, the behaviour of opposition members and the potential real threat of an election. It is not this Prime Minister or this government that has been talking about an election. It has been opposition parties doing that. We continue, day in and day out, to ensure that Canadians' backs are being covered and taken care of during this pandemic.

Madam Speaker, I probably could have come up with a few questions for the member, all related to some of the comments Conservatives have raised, time and again, to try to portray the federal government as not responding to the needs of the Prairies, or to a certain degree Atlantic Canada, with respect to this particular industry. This is obviously not the case. The motion before us seeks, in essence, to recognize the importance of Canada's oil and gas sector, while at the same time disputing the feasibility of more sustainable options and ultimately removing tax and regulatory barriers to the sectors that are responsible for expansion. I think what needs to be done, right at the beginning, is to recognize the important role energy workers have played in Canada, both historically and today. The member is right when he says that, from a historic perspective, it is an industry that has contributed immensely to where we are as a nation today. One of the reasons Alberta was able to contribute so much over the years to equalization was its oil and gas revenues. The revenues that provinces like Manitoba received through equalization payments ultimately provided us with opportunities to pave roads or provide health care to our citizens. I recognize the many contributions from past generations of revenue to the central coffers that was redistributed to different provinces so that we were able to provide that type of social programming. Where I really give the credit is to those energy workers. They helped to build this country, and they will be the same people who will help to lower emissions, build additional renewable energy capacity and meet our climate goals. I really do believe that. Canada's energy workers understand the reality of climate change. I find it interesting nowadays, when we talk about the economy and the environment, to try to figure out where the Conservatives fall, particularly on the issue of the environment. It was not that long ago that the Conservative party had its annual general meeting where they, in essence, denied climate change as a reality. Members can imagine Conservatives from across the country coming together and denying it, and saying it is not a reality. A couple of weeks later, after a few somersaults and backflips, the Conservative party now supports a price on pollution. I have found it very interesting to watch, based on many of the comments from Conservatives in the past. I suspect that even with this particular resolution, the motion that we are talking about today, had it not been for the leader of the Conservative party reversing his position on the price on pollution, I am sure we would have heard more Conservatives, as they have in the past, criticize us as a government for the price on pollution. I can appreciate that the Conservative way of thinking seems to be about four or five years behind on certain issues, and I would suggest to members that this is one of those issues. When I think of the oil and gas industry, there is a huge difference between the government of the day, the Liberal party, and the Conservatives, the Bloc, the NDP and, to a certain extent, the Green Party. We have always argued that we need to take into consideration the environment, indigenous issues, consultations and working with other stakeholders to make things work, so we can in fact deal with both the industry and the environment. We saw some fairly encouraging signs of that when we got the Trans Mountain project, which shows that governments can make a difference, just like the B.C. NDP government did on the LNG project. It is the only the NDP in opposition in Ottawa that tends to say no to natural resource development. While in government, both the NDP in Alberta and in B.C. recognized what we did, which is that there is value there. We need to work with industry, stakeholders and indigenous leaders to have that balance. The national government has been very successful. At the same time, it is really important that we understand the issue of climate change and the environment. Canadians are very concerned about it. At the end of the day, we cannot have one without the other. If we compared Canada's energy sector to energy sectors in other countries, we would find that Canada, through technology, development and so forth, is doing exceptionally well. We are very fortunate to have all kinds of options. In my home province of Manitoba, for example, we have Manitoba Hydro, which is renewable, clean energy. There were some negatives we had to get over, such as the flooding that was caused as a direct result of some of the dams that were created, but it is renewable energy. The potential that has for Manitoba is quite significant. Working with provincial jurisdictions and others on how we can continue to build on renewable energy is really important. I think Canadians want us to focus some attention on that, but it does not mean we have to neglect other areas. I always find it interesting when the Conservatives, particularly from Alberta, say that they are the only ones who can truly represent energy workers when, in fact, they did not build or see any pipelines go to tidewaters. There was nothing in the 10 years of Stephen Harper. All they continued to see was the market go south, 99%-plus from when Stephen Harper became prime minister to when he left office. Under the Liberal administration, we are saying that we need to diversify. Not only do we need to diversify, but we also need to have a process in place to protect the environment and ensure proper consultation is done on all projects. If that does not happen, then chances are it will not fly anyway. At the end of the day, we need to continue to work with energy workers. They are part of the solution. The energy sectors in the Prairies and Atlantic Canada have a very important role to play, not only from a national perspective but from an international perspective as well. We could potentially share some of the technologies and the methodology that we use with other jurisdictions, which would make the world—

Madam Speaker, there are many aspects of the member's speech that I would take to task, the primary one being this. The member gives the impression on behalf of the Bloc that it would be irresponsible to have an election during a pandemic. I wonder if she would apply that very same principle to her leader, who last year said that if the Prime Minister did not resign he vowed to call an election, that he would bring a non-confidence motion. He believed it was absolutely essential that Canada have an election. What has changed? Does the Bloc now fully endorse the Prime Minister? What has changed between now and then?

Madam Speaker, Bloc members, themselves, have introduced motions of non-confidence. If any of those motions had passed, that would have precipitated an election. Just last year, the Bloc leader vowed that if the Prime Minister did not resign, he would precipitate and call for a non-confidence vote and cause an election. Today, Bloc members are of a different opinion. Why should the people of Quebec, or Canadians in general, trust what the Bloc is saying? The Government of Canada will continue, as it has done from day one, to focus its attention on the pandemic and being there for Canadians in a very real way. Why the inconsistency on the issue, with the Bloc?

Mr. Speaker, working alongside Canadians, from day one our government has been there to support real people and businesses throughout this pandemic, and we will continue to be there until the coronavirus is behind us. We created programs such as the Canada emergency response program, which financially supported approximately nine million people, and the wage subsidy for small businesses, which kept millions of people working, not to mention the businesses that would have closed permanently or gone bankrupt. We provided support in the form of direct payments to seniors and people with disabilities. We increased support for youth. The government supported non-profit organizations that, in turn, supported Canadians. As a national government we supported other levels government, whether indigenous, provincial, municipal. We supported our school boards. As of today, we have received over 20 million doses of vaccine. We are getting closer to the new normal because, as Canadians, we came together to battle the coronavirus.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill C-265. I would like to draw a comparison. There is no doubt that there are members on all sides of the House who are very concerned about workers and want to do what we can in order to support them, whether they are currently in the workforce or they find themselves in a situation where they are disabled temporarily or even long term. Bill C-265 is an attempt to address an issue. Having said that, there are a couple of concerns. One would be in regard to the scope of the legislation. Is it going beyond the scope of what was intended? Bill C-265 recognizes the scope of the EI programs in terms of their objectives, which are quite simple. It is there to help keep workers connected to the labour force. Members will find that a majority of the workers who end up taking leave beyond 26 weeks do not return to work. In many ways, we need to look at other programs. The government recognizes the need to support Canadian workers who find themselves out of the labour market, either long term or permanently due to disability, and does this through the program that Canadians will be very familiar with, the Canada pension plan disability benefits. The EI program really is not meant to provide that avenue of coverage. There are concerns regarding the bill we have before us. I would ask members to take a look at what is being proposed by the government, particularly through Bill C-30. The minister has done an excellent job in understanding the importance of making changes to benefit workers in Canada. We have seen that through some temporary measures that have taken place because of the pandemic. When the pandemic hit, we made sickness benefits a priority. We introduced a number of temporary changes to the EI program in order to support Canadians during this difficult time over the last number of months. Some of those temporary measures were to facilitate access and increase the generosity of EI benefits, including EI sickness benefits, just to cite a few of them. This allowed Canadians to qualify for EI with only 120 insurable hours. I think that was a very well-received initiative by the government. There was a need, and the government responded by implementing a minimum benefit rate of $500 a week. This particular change had a very positive impact, much like we had through the CERB program with that minimum amount of money. We saw how Canadians benefited in all regions of the country. I thought it was very encouraging when we heard there would be a minimum benefit rate, which was established at $500 per week. There were also temporary measures to provide access to up to 50 weeks of regular benefits and the freezing of the EI premium rate at the 2020 rate for two years. I see those as very strong, positive actions that were necessary. The minister and the civil servants responded quite quickly in terms of making sure that injured and disabled workers were being seriously looked at and supported during the pandemic. Bill C-30 has some things within it that I would recommend the House seriously look at. There are many reasons to support Bill C-30: After all, it is our budget bill and a wide variety of things affect so many Canadians. I would encourage members to support this legislation. There are some specifics about workers. For example, budget 2021 contains commitments to modernize the EI program for the 21st century. It announces consultations on future long-term reforms to EI. Many times, we have seen private members' bills, resolutions and a wide spectrum of other types of debates hit the floor of the House of Commons that talk about EI and how important the program is, and how important it is that we look at ways in which we can make modifications to it that benefit workers. For years in opposition, I wanted to see some changes to it. With the 2015 election results and the change in government, I was very happy that, for the first time, I had some sense that the government was going to be acting on worker-related legislation that would be more favourable to workers. Many of my Liberal colleagues have wanted to see changes to EI. The announcement of extending or allowing for consultations on future long-term reforms will do us and the people of Canada quite well into the future because of the spectrum of issues we face today. They were not necessarily prioritized in previous years. Extending EI sickness benefits to 26 weeks is a component of that reform. Budget 2021 is a more balanced approach than the private member's bill that we have before us today. I would encourage members to look at it. In particular, we are seeing the extension of EI sickness benefits. They are a very important component of any reform. I highlighted some other areas. When we think of sickness benefits, what are they and what do they currently provide? Sickness benefits provide short-term income support and help maintain workers' labour market attachment while they are temporarily unable to work due to a short-term illness, injury or quarantine, which is most appropriate at this time. The EI sickness benefit would provide up to 15 weeks of temporary income support at an amount equal to 55% of an individual's average weekly insurable earnings, up to a maximum weekly amount. The commitment to increase EI sickness benefits in budget 2021 would also increase the maximum number of sickness benefit weeks available, from 15 to 26. If passed, the bill would provide $3 billion over five years starting in 2021-22 and an ongoing $967 million per year to do just that. This extension would take effect in the summer of 2022. I would encourage members to look at the benefits to the workers in the budget that the Minister of Finance has brought forward and support it.

Madam Speaker, I will reinforce something. From my perspective and the government's perspective, at the core this is a human rights issue. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sets a minimum standard for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous people of the world, which includes protecting their rights to self-determination, self-governance, equality and non-discrimination. Would the member agree that there was an opportunity to incorporate this in previous sessions, but because of delays, which are not necessarily attributable to members of the House of Commons, it did not pass previously?

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. Over the last number of months, the Government of Canada has spent a great deal of money, supporting programs such as CERB for nine million people, the wage subsidy program and the rent subsidy program. It has supported seniors and people with disabilities through one-time payments, provided hundreds of millions toward non-profit organizations, and so forth. My understanding is that the Conservative Party of Canada supported the spending of those billions of dollars. Is the Conservative Party now reversing its position on the many worthwhile expenditures we made to support Canadians through the pandemic, and is it now saying that we should not have spent that money?

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the former leader of the Conservative Party has any regrets over Stephen Harper's investments in infrastructure for cleaning up the waterways. This government has done more in five years to invest in infrastructure for cleaner water than Harper did in twice that period of time. Maybe the member could provide some thoughts on that. Also, as the member criticizes the Liberals on the environment, maybe the former leader of the Conservative Party can explain why he campaigned, literally and adamantly, against the price on pollution when today we see the new leader with a new position. Can he provide his thoughts on the new leader of the Conservative Party's position on the price on pollution?

Madam Speaker, of course, these are just my preliminary remarks to try to explain the behaviour. If I were a Conservative MP, I would be embarrassed, too, and would want to get right to the motion on Line 5. We debated Line 5 extensively in an emergency debate. If the member had listened to his colleague who introduced this report, he would have heard his colleague also make reference to the trade agreement. I fully understand the embarrassment of the Conservatives when the truth of the reality, in terms of their destructive force, is being pointed out. Maybe they disagree with the House leadership of the Conservative caucus, and I would encourage them to have that discussion. However, when it comes to Line 5, let me provide some specific quotes. This is how the minister has responded. The Conservative Party of Canada is saying that the government is not doing anything on Line 5 and that it does not appreciate the importance of Line 5. Nothing could be further from the truth. From day one, the government has been following the issue and, more importantly, taking action on the issue. On the day the emergency debate was introduced, a question was put to the minister. I specifically quoted it during the emergency debate. Let me quote the answer that the Minister of Natural Resources gave last Thursday: Mr. Speaker, people will not be left out in the cold. The heating of Canadian homes or the flying of Canadian jets or the operation of Canadian refineries are non-negotiable. Line 5 is not just vital to Canada, it is also vital to the United States. Therefore, it is vital to all of North America. Shutting it down would have profound consequences. There are 5,000 direct jobs in Sarnia, 23,000 indirect jobs in the region, thousands of jobs at refineries in Montreal and Lévis, but also in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, and that is the case we are making. Line 5 is essential for North American energy security. The minister has provided answers on many different occasions, all providing assurances that the government understands the importance of it. The other day, when I was talking about the issue of longevity, at one time I pointed out that it was oil tankers that actually shipped the oil products, and then it went to pipelines. Ever since then, and I believe it was in the 1950s, it has been delivered through the pipeline. I believe it has met the expectations of people on both sides of the border. I understand the economics of it. It is not just about the gasoline that is being shipped, or the final product. It is about all forms of commodities, including gasoline, propane, clothes and all sorts of things. Is there any wonder why the Government of Canada is seized with the issue? We saw the Conservatives throughout that emergency debate and during question period. I do not believe there is going to be anything that comes out of today other than the Conservatives saying, “We did some more filibustering during Government Business.” We will not see anything further come out of this than what we heard last Thursday night. The Conservatives will continue to say that the government is not doing enough and that it should be talking to so and so. Let me give another quote from the Minister of Natural Resources that I quoted last Thursday night. This is in response to my Conservative friends who continue to try to spread misinformation to Canadians and try to give a false impression that the Government of Canada is not active on this file. During the emergency debate last Thursday night, he said: We have been clear from the start. We would leave no stone unturned in defending Canada's energy security. We have been looking at all of our options. We are working at the political level. We are working at the diplomatic level. We are working at the legal level. It is a full-court press. We raised Line 5 directly with the President of the United States and members of his cabinet during the virtual Canada-U.S. summit in February. The Prime Minister also raised the critical importance of North American energy security in conversation with Vice President Harris. I raised the issue with U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm in our very first call. I was frank and unequivocal in expressing how significant this issue was for Canada. The Minister of Transport raised Line 5 with his counterpart, Transport Secretary Buttigieg, whose department oversees the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the U.S. federal regulator for pipelines, which has consistently stated that Line 5 is safe. The Minister of Foreign Affairs raised this issue with his counterpart, Secretary of State Blinken. Ambassador Hillman has been making the case directly to Governor Whitmer. Meanwhile, in Detroit and in Lansing, Consul General Joe Comartin has been making the case to state lawmakers and members of the Whitmer administration. Let me take this opportunity to thank Governor Whitmer, Consul General Joe Comartin in Detroit, the team at the Canadian embassy in Washington and all of our diplomats who have been engaging on this issue in Washington, Detroit and Lansing who defend Canada's interests there every day. It begs the question: What is the Conservative Party talking about? Do the Conservatives just believe they can click their heels and voila, or they can pull something out of a hat and the issue is resolved overnight? Do they believe that three days from now there will not be any gas coming through the pipeline? That is the impression they are trying to give when they portray this issue. It is a very serious issue, and I do not want to do anything to marginalize the importance of it. However, I will criticize the Conservative Party for its attitude and its ongoing desire to give misinformation on what is such an important issue. Some provinces that are likely more affected than other provinces include Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. However, this affects all of us in Canada, if not directly then indirectly. As the minister, the Prime Minister and the government as a whole have recognized the importance of this issue, there have been many discussions taking place. I wonder if the Conservatives' national caucus can share with the House specifically what it has done. Better yet, why do the Conservatives not provide a real, tangible idea, as opposed to being concentrated on trying to promote western alienation or giving misinformation to people of Ontario and outside of that area? The Government of Canada understands the issue. We continue to have dialogue on all fronts at the political and diplomatic levels and are using many other mechanisms to make Canada's case as strong as it is. We all know that is the case. We all know that the emergency debate would have sufficed, and that the real reason the Conservative Party is bringing the report forward on a concurrence motion has nothing to do with the report. It has everything to do with wanting to be a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker, the member raises the importance of this from a human side. It does not matter whether people are directly employed or indirectly employed, there will be a tremendous human cost if Line 5 is not allowed to continue. I choose to believe it will continue and that we have the necessary people in the background. Line 5 has a history of being there for many decades and providing. I am very much concerned, as I know the government is, about the human cost, but I am confident that Line 5 will continue into the future.

Madam Speaker, the Conservative opposition party continues its shameful, destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. It is simply amazing. Canadians are concerned about the pandemic, among other things, and the Conservatives still want to play political partisan games in the House. There was an emergency debate on the issue, yet the Conservatives have not seen fit to put it as one of the opposition days. When will the Conservatives start recognizing what Canadians want, get serious and allow government legislation to move forward. Why the constructive moves coming from the Conservative Party day in and day out?

Madam Speaker, could my colleague comment on why the Conservatives, in the emergency debate last Thursday, did not come up with any tangible ideas outside of criticizing the government by saying we needed to talk more to U.S. officials? Could the member indicate what the Conservative Party would do differently? Could the member also tell the House why the Conservatives have not used an opposition day, but rather choose to do a concurrence motion? On an opposition day, they would be able to ensure there is a vote on the issue.

Madam Speaker, to say whether I am surprised or disappointed, the short answer would be no. I am not surprised that the Conservatives would move a motion of concurrence on a particular report. They have demonstrated in the recent months that they have really lost focus on the pandemic. I am trying to be nice in my criticism here, but I do believe at times that I need to be bold and to say what I believe the Conservatives are actually doing, which is not focusing at all or giving the attention that should be there from the official opposition in dealing with what is a very important issue to all Canadians. The Conservatives continue to want to play partisan politics, and that is why I am not surprised, because they have been doing this for a while now. I am disappointed. I am disappointed again, and ongoing, because as the Conservatives insist on playing games on the floor of the House of Commons, they are filibustering whenever they can in an attempt to encourage a dysfunctional House of Commons and discourage important legislation from being debated so they can ultimately say that the government cannot even get its legislation through. If we look at the behaviour of the Conservative Party, it does not take a genius in a group of 12 to cause a lot of frustration on the floor of the House of Commons, and we get the official opposition choosing to do that. Today is an excellent example. Earlier today, I was on a Zoom call with the Prime Minister, my Manitoba colleagues and a hundred nurses in the province of Manitoba. We were listening to what nurses in Manitoba had to say. That is the priority, and has been the priority, of this government from day one. I contrast that to what we have witnessed day in and day out over the last number of months coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. They should be ashamed of themselves. The member for Chilliwack—Hope tries to give the impression that I do not care about Line 5 or the jobs and the other indirect and direct things related to Line 5 and that is why I do not support having us debate this motion we are debating today, the concurrence on the report. That is balderdash. It is just not true. Like all Liberals in the House of Commons, I am very much concerned about Line 5 and the impact it is having, not only on Canada, but also on the U.S. We understand and appreciate the importance of the issue. The Minister of Natural Resources, whether in question period or other debates, including the emergency debate, has been very clear on the issue. The Conservative Party, surely to goodness, would recognize that we just had an emergency debate on the issue, just last Thursday. Members should listen and read in terms of what was actually said then. It started off with Conservatives just bashing Ottawa and saying how bad we are in regard to Alberta, to try to perpetuate more misinformation, as if this Prime Minister and this government do not care about the province of Alberta. Members can look and see what kind of ideas came from the Conservative Party in the emergency debate. There was not one Liberal who said “no” to having an emergency debate. I had a chance to speak during that debate, and I am going to share some of the comments I made on Thursday night, but even with the emergency debate that took place, the Conservatives came up with this concurrence motion on a report that has absolutely nothing to do with Line 5 or a relationship between Canada and the U.S. For those who are listening or participating, or who care about what is taking place in the House, that is not the real motivation here. The Conservatives can say whatever they want and try to come across as meaningful as they want, but at the end of the day, it has more to do with frustrating the government's legislative agenda, the things we want to accomplish in the House of Commons. They continue to push, saying that the House of Commons is dysfunctional. The Conservatives try to do two things. The first is character assassinations, and I understand I was one of them earlier today in an S.O. 31. The second is the ongoing filibustering taking place in the House of Commons so that important legislation cannot get through. We should look at some of the debates and frustrations that have been sensed on the floor of the House of Commons because of the irresponsible official opposition. Those who might be sympathetic to their terrible behaviour should look at Bill C-3, as an example, and the hours and hours of debate on the education and training of judges in the future on sexual assault and so forth. It was a Conservative bill. It passed everything and is coming back. We introduced it as a government bill so we could put it in place. Everyone agreed to it, even in the Senate. It got royal assent very recently. The Conservatives debated that for hours and hours on the floor of the House of Commons. Was that really necessary? No. What about Bill C-14? The economic statement was released in November, and the legislation was brought forward in December. No matter when we called it up, the Conservatives attempted to filibuster that through concurrence motions, too. In that legislation, there were important things to subsidize and support Canadians, individuals, families and small businesses. One would think the Conservative Party would have cared, but it had no problem filibustering that one, too. We just had to bring in time allocation on Bill C-19. It is a minority government. We have to ensure, as much as possible, that Elections Canada is best prepared, enabling it to do a little more on a temporary basis. However, the political spinners within the Conservative Party do not want to go that way. They say they want to remain focused. Being focused to them is to push for a dysfunctional chamber and character assassination. That is what they are all about. It is—

Madam Speaker, it is true that the government prorogued and we lost two days, but for the first time in 30-plus years, the House of Commons sat during the summer, albeit as a committee. However, for all intents and purposes it was like question period, and literally hundreds if not thousands of questions were asked. This provided opposition parties a great opportunity to hold the government accountable on a wide variety of issues. I make no apologies in this area, as we provided more transparency and accountability than the previous administration. The member can take a look at the number of questions that were put forward. I would have loved, as an opposition member, a five-minute time slot to ask three-second or three-minute questions or to give a five-minute speech. We did that last summer.

Madam Speaker, the member has been a very strong and convincing advocate for her community for years now. I respect the question she poses because she understands how critically important Line 5 is to her community and beyond it. She is right that we should listen to what the minister has been saying. We can read about this for ourselves from last Thursday's emergency debate. We can hear it through the answers that are being provided. Members can rest assured that whether they are politicians in Ottawa and Washington or diplomats, there are a lot of people at play here to ensure that Line 5 continues to serve Canadians and, I would suggest, Americans too.

Madam Speaker, I would like to address this in two ways. One, there is the accountability of Enbridge itself. There is no doubt that, whether it is on this side or the U.S. side of the border, there is an obligation for governments to work with private companies at times. This could be a very good example of that. Then there is the other very important issue and the reason we are debating this motion today: Line 5 itself. We should not be playing any games with Line 5 given its importance to North America. I encourage our American counterparts to set their targets on Enbridge if the case suggested by my colleague from the Green Party is true.

Madam Speaker, I would put it this way: Why would the Conservatives not bring forward an opposition day in which they could highlight a few examples of what the Government of Canada could be doing? Ultimately, that resolution would have been voted on. They could have played a more proactive, constructive role on the issue, as opposed to continuing to play a disruptive role on the floor of the House of Commons by filibustering the government on important legislation and important agenda issues.

Mr. Speaker, my apologies for the interruption to my friend from the Bloc. There is no doubt that foreign direct investment does play an absolutely critical role to Canada as a developing nation, as we want to encourage ongoing economic activities, and in many ways it is because of foreign investment that we get to see them realized. I want to provide a number of thoughts on the concurrence report. First, I would like to be able to pick up where I left off prior to the adjournment, which is kind of a fitting place, with the member from the Bloc who has just finished speaking prior to us going back into this report. My friend and colleague from Kingston and the Islands did a fabulous job of explaining the process and what we are being asked to concur in. It is very interesting. The member for Kingston and the Islands pointed out, for example, on the issue of Bill C-19, what the debate was supposed to be about. There are a lot of similarities between what the member for Kingston and the Islands said and what I said on this report back on April 27. Back on April 27, I expressed my disappointment. I talked about how the Conservative opposition party was playing that destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. That was much like earlier today: When I got the chance to speak or when the member for Kingston and the Islands spoke, we talked about that destructive force in terms of process and what we are ultimately being asked to vote on. The last speaker provided comments about how shameful it is that we are trying to limit debate on Bill C-19 and bringing in time allocation. In the back of our minds, I want members of the House to reflect on those comments, because that is in essence what took place back on April 27, when a concurrence report was brought in because the Conservative Party wanted to debate an issue, as opposed to debating what the government needed to see debated. It is important to recognize this, because if we were to do a concurrence motion on all the different reports coming in, we would not have government days. We would not even have opposition days to the degree we have them today. There are many reports out there. It is easy to pick a report and move concurrence, and there go three hours of debate on the floor of the House. We could argue that it is an important issue. Let us look at the issue of this particular concurrence debate. It is about those valuable resources that we have. We could talk about natural resources or our health sector, and I will get more into that. There is no doubt that is important. However, what we were supposed to be debating on that particular day was the net zero legislation, important legislation that Canadians want and expect their government to act upon. For whatever reasons, the Conservatives moved a motion to ultimately say that we want to debate foreign direct investment as opposed to the net zero legislation. One could say that happened once or maybe twice, but it has happened more than that. The Bloc member just criticized us in the Liberal Party, and to a certain degree even my friends the New Democrats, by asking how we can limit debate on Bill C-19. The member for Kingston and the Islands pointed out that because of the concurrence motion, much like this concurrence motion, instead of debating Bill C-19, we were actually debating another issue, one we just finished having an emergency debate on last Thursday. Members should look at April 27, when the Conservatives were playing political games in the chamber. Because of their dislike for allowing the government to pass legislation, they brought in another motion to prevent debate on yet another piece of legislation so that we can be criticized again for not allowing enough debate, just as the Bloc member criticized us for not allowing enough debate on Bill C-19. What I did not reference was the fact that we had attempted to bring n Bill C-19 before today, and the Conservatives introduced another concurrence motion back then, just like today. Is there any reason the Conservatives are behaving in such a pattern? They adjourn debates. They want to take time off. They bring in concurrence. They look for ways to attempt to frustrate the government when it is trying to do the things it needs to do as government. It is not as though it only happens two or three times; this destructive force has been playing its games for quite a while now. There is a substantial cost to it. I would suggest this to my friends in the Bloc: Maybe they should look at some of the comments that came from my New Democratic friends and maybe not be as quick to take the side of the Conservative Party. Many would suggest to us that either the Conservatives are conning the Bloc into supporting their legislative abuse or that the Bloc does not know any better. Maybe it is that the Bloc wants to participate in this destructive force as much as the Conservative Party wants to play its political games. Is it any wonder, when we see the things that are happening inside the chamber, that the Prime Minister and Liberal members of Parliament are consistently saying some of the same things, such as that we will continue to remain focused on the priority of all Canadians, which is the pandemic? From the very beginning we have been saying that, led by the Prime Minister of Canada. The Conservative official opposition, throughout this last number of months, with what I would suggest is its irresponsible behaviour, has been focused on the two things I referenced earlier today. It has moved another concurrence motion to try to kill the time allotted for government legislation. The first agenda for the Conservative Party is the character assassination of government members, and it will go out of its way to do that. The second thing Conservative members do is cause as much detailed frustration as they can on the floor of the House of Commons so that, as we just heard before we got into this report, the opposition members can say something to the effect that the Liberal government is not being respectful of democracy because of time allocation. Maybe we could have an indication of co-operation, at least to a certain degree. I am not saying that the Conservative Party has to agree with everything we are saying, but there is some onus, especially in a minority government, to be a little more responsible in terms of the legislative agenda. Unlike opposition members, the government does not have timing processed on government bills. For example, the Conservatives had a choice and could have concurred in this report, and no doubt many others. They could say that foreign direct investment is so vitally important to our nation that they were going to bring the topic in on an opposition day, when they can highlight what they believe. After all, if we take a look at the report, I believe we would see that there was a dissenting report that came from the Liberals. However, the Conservatives, as opposed to bringing in a motion to concur in a report, could have highlighted some of their concerns in the form of an opposition day motion and then asked for support from the Bloc and NDP. They could have just as easily have done that, just as they could have done for the report on Line 5 earlier today. Unlike government legislation, at the end of the day—

Mr. Speaker, as I was indicating, the official opposition members had an option and they chose not to use it. For example, with respect to foreign investment, certain areas are of great national interest. I could talk about food and medical supply lines. There are some very good examples that I could cite today. We can think about PPE and how much was being manufactured in Canada prior to the pandemic and contrast that to what is happening today. Let us take a look at the importance of our natural resources and recognize the issue of ownership and how important it is that we ensure the national interest is served. We could talk about media and culture. There are many other areas where there is a national interest. Therefore, foreign investment matters. I would have welcomed a debate on that issue, but, as I indicated prior, the Conservatives' focus does not facilitate that sort of a debate per se. Rather, they would enter into a debate of that nature by a concurrence motion, which then prevents the government from ensuring more hours of debate on important legislation or they will often use their days to look at ministers or staff of ministers through what I have always referred to as character assassination. We see that played out in the House a lot more than we need to. There is no doubt about the fact that there are important issues in these concurrence motions. However, I do not see members in the Conservative Party saying that maybe we should have concurrence in report on an opposition day. As I indicated, on the opposition days, those matters before the House are actually voted on. The net-zero bill was supposed to be debated longer than it was, but because of this report, it was not. It was the same with Bill C-19 earlier today. The Conservatives do that because they are more interested in the partisan politics than they are in seeing a chamber that can be productive and supportive of Canadians through some very challenging times. Yes, we are in a minority government and the government is very much aware of that. I would remind some within the opposition that in a minority government, opposition parties also have a responsibility to live up to, and I am afraid not all are doing that.

Mr. Speaker, I would think the member would have better luck if it were an opposition day, where the Conservatives could be more specific and then ultimately there would be a specific vote. In regard to prorogation, ultimately two or three days were lost. Could the member indicate when the last time the House actually sat, albeit in a committee format, but on the floor of the House of Commons? It was over the summertime, when literally thousands of questions were being answered. That is accountability and transparency, and it more than compensates the prorogation where we lost a couple of days.

Mr. Speaker, I did speak at length in regard to foreign investment. If the House would have given me more time to speak, I probably would have been able to address more of those issues. However, standing committees play a very important role. For example, the other day I stopped by to listen to the agriculture committee. I was quite impressed with the number of things being discussed. I contrast that to the other standing committees, where thousands and thousands of pages are being requested, especially during a pandemic. The purpose is questionable, but sometimes there is a need—

Mr. Speaker, first, I fully support the minority report that was published, and I would encourage the member to read that minority report. When I said “two or three days” for prorogation, that is exactly what it was. I was in opposition for over 20 years, and if he asked me for a trade-off between sitting for days in the summer when opposition members were provided literally thousands of questions versus giving up two or three days for the government to reset, given the pandemic, I would have done exactly what we did.