MadamChair, if I were my colleague, I would be a little embarrassed, because the bill was sent to the Bloc Qubcois several days in advance. They received a technical note several days in advance. We were all available to take questions. When we asked for the support of the Bloc Qubcois and the other parties to debate itwe were not even asking them to vote in favour of the billthey refused.
MadamChair, we never refused to debate it. Actually, we were the ones who asked to debate it. What exactly does debate it mean? We set some conditions. For example, we asked the Liberals to put the money back into the wage subsidy fund and to commit to dip into it no longer. Are we asking too much of our colleagues opposite?
Can my colleague explain to me what the emergency wage subsidy has to do with a bill about justice? This is an absolutely fundamental piece of legislation. We wanted to debate it, but they refused to do so.
MadamChair, I would like nothing better than to explain it to him, but I must remind him that he is the leader of the party in power, the party that is supposed to govern the country. So I do not know why he is asking me that. My party proposed that we debate this today but we did not get an answer. Meanwhile, court time limits are running out and people are losing rights. I am thinking of families, child support, child custody, labour law disputes in Federal Court, marine transportation, interprovincial transportation, aviation, banks, and those with grievances waiting for a Federal Court ruling. The whole system, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, everything is on hold because nobody in the government wants to do their job. We want to discuss BillC-17. When can we talk about it?